Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications

Relational Competence Theory

Luciano L’Abate    Mario Cusinato Eleonora Maino    Walter Colesso Claudia Scilletta ●

●

Relational Competence Theory Research and Mental Health Applications



Luciano L’Abate Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30345-3917 USA [email protected]

Mario Cusinato University of Padua Padua 35010 Italy [email protected]

Eleonora Maino Scientific Institute Eugenio Medea Bosisio Parini 23842 Italy [email protected]

Walter Colesso University of Padua Padua 35010 Italy [email protected]

Claudia Scilletta Milano 20021 Italy [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-4419-5664-4 e-ISBN 978-1-4419-5665-1 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2010928633 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

This volume is dedicated to Bess L. L’Abate for all her direct and indirect support that made this work possible throughout the years since its inception in 1988 during the first visit to Padua by the first author and to Sharon Panulla, Executive Editor at Springer Science+Business Media, for her continuous, decade-long support of the first author of this volume and her belief in the validity of relational competence theory. This volume would not have been published without her support.

Preface

The purpose of this book is to elaborate and update with recent and relevant research a contextual and developmental relational competence theory (RCT) in intimate/nonintimate relationships (L’Abate, 1976, 1994a, 1994b, 1997a, 1997b, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009a, in press, 2009c; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003). RCT focuses on how effectively we deal with each other, with intimates and nonintimates in close/distant, committed/uncommitted, dependent/interdependent/independent, and short/prolonged relationships. Relational means bidirectional rather unidirectional interactions with intimates and nonintimates in a continuous interdependent and reciprocal exchange of resources available to us. Effectiveness is evaluated by how we feel, how we think, how we act, how we are aware, and how we evaluate proximal and distant subjective contexts as perceived by us. Theory means a hierarchical framework akin to the table of organization of any human enterprise with various levels expanding downward from generality to specificity and from abstract to concrete, going from overall general assumptions (Part II), theory-specific assumptions (Part III), normative models proper (Part IV), models clinically relevant to dysfunctional conditions (Part V), to the improvement of competence (Part VI) However, not all models of RCT have been evaluated empirically; hence, this volume represents research in progress, because only a limited number of models have been evaluated, whereas others have been ignored for at least two reasons. First, the literature on “ignored” or “bypassed” models is so extensive that it is questionable whether anything additional can be added empirically. However, that is not an excuse. Second, certain models were selectively evaluated more frequently than others because they were easier to evaluate than others, or they seem to be more relevant than others. Consequently, there are considerable gaps in the theory that have not been plugged but which are in the process of being plugged (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2009). The field of intimate relationships is a vast and exciting one (Brehm et al., 2002; DeGenova & Rise, 2005) that perhaps no single theory or theoretical framework can encompass. The theory updated here is an attempt to develop such an encompassing framework, even though it may fall short of its admittedly grandiose and ambitious goal. The field of relational competence and intimate relationships is so complex that to reduce it to a few models may be an exercise in futility. Nonetheless, vii

viii

Preface

the complexity of intimate relationships is a challenge that cannot be ignored. Will it be possible to reduce such complexity to a given number of theoretical models that are verifiable in the laboratory as well as applicable in the clinic? Not only should such models be verifiable in the laboratory, but they should also be verifiable in their applications to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention approaches. Hence, this theory attempts to fulfill a tall order to make sense of a complex field that, thus far, and to the first author’s knowledge, lacks an adequately integrative, verifiably unifying theory or encompassing theoretical framework.

Plan of the Book Part I covers two chapters necessary for the conceptual and empirical bases of the whole theoretical framework. Chapter 1 includes definitions of conceptual terms necessary for the elaboration of the theory, including (1) relational, (2) competence, and (3) theory, which involve four major requirements necessary for this theory: (1) verifiability in the laboratory, (2) applicability to functionality and dysfunctionality in relational competence and in mental health interventions, (3) redundancy in how different models offer different perspectives to view conceptually similar constructs, and (4) fruitfulness, how a theory generates testable hypotheses and methods to evaluate its models. This is where the hierarchical framework is introduced. Chapter 2 includes research data about established external resources, already validated test instruments, and rating scales used to evaluate new internal measures specifically created to verify the validity of selected models of the theory. Part II includes three metatheoretical assumptions about whatever knowledge has been accumulated that helps us understand relational competence according to Model1 (Chap. 3) about the width of relationships, and which is based on a horizontal circular model involving five components: emotionality, rationality, activity, awareness, and context (ERAAwC), evaluated with the Relational Answers Questionnaire. Chapter 4 (Model2) deals with the depth of relationships based on two major levels composed of (1) description, consisting of two sublevels, the public-presentational façade exhibited outwardly and the private phenotype exhibited in the privacy and secrecy of one’s home, and (2) explanation, consisting by two sublevels, the internal genotype and the historical, intergenerational–generational family of origin, those characteristics that include physical, emotional, and intellectual development. Relational competence occurs within the range of various, objective settings as summarized in Chap. 5 (Model3), such as the home, school/work, and in transit (buses, cars, roads, etc.), and transitory ones (church, grocery store, barber, beauty salon, etc.). Part III includes three theoretical assumptions about basic abilities that determine relational competence, including Model4 (Chap. 6) about the ability to love and Model5 (Chap. 7) about the ability to control or regulate self. The ability to love relies on a dimension of distance defined by extremes in approach–avoidance, with functionality balanced in the middle. The ability to regulate self relies on a temporal

Preface

ix

dimension of control, defined by extremes in discharge/disinhibition and delay, inhibition/constraint, with functionality balanced in the middle. When both abilities are combined into an orthogonal model (Model6, Chap. 8), this combination yields four quadrants with three levels of functionality. Functionality in relationships is an appropriate balance of approach–avoidance and discharge–delay functions that ­varies according to task demands at various stages of the life cycle. A third corollary to both abilities included in Chap. 9 (Model7) involves the contents of relationships, what is exchanged among individuals through the Triangle of Living composed of being, doing, and having. Part IV includes five major developmentally normative models derived from both metatheoretical and theoretical assumptions: In Chap. 10, Model8 deals with developmental self-identity differentiation, according to a curvilinear dimension composed of six degrees. From these six degrees, three relational styles are described in Chap. 11 (Model9) and expanded into intimate interactions in Chap. 12 (Model10). In Chap. 13 (Model11) a selfhood model related to functionality and dysfunctionality is expanded to relate to the DSM-IV psychiatric classification. In Chap. 14 (Model12) priorities include synonymous constructs such as goals, motives, intentions, needs, and attitudes. In Part V, four additional, clinically relevant models are related to mental health interventions, all derived from the previous assumptions and major models, and applied to dysfunctional and clinical relationships. Chapter 15 (Model13) includes three roles of pursuer (approach), distancer (avoidance), and regulator (contradiction in approach–avoidance). Chapter 16 (Model14) includes a pathogenic drama triangle, which includes simultaneous roles of victim, persecutor, and rescuer. In Chap. 17, Model15 is defined as the sharing of joys as well as hurts, including forgiveness of errors and transgressions. In Chap. 18 (Model16), the structure and process of problem solving involves, among others, a multiplicative function of three factors: (1) level of functionality in negotiating parties (ill), which in some way determines (2) the abilities necessary to negotiate (skill), and (3) motivation to negotiate (will). Part VI is dedicated to the improvement of competence though interactive practice exercises or workbooks. In Chap. 19, the promotion of competence, what in the past was called primary prevention, includes positive approaches related to models of the theory through enrichment programs for couples and families, and self-help and low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health, including interactive practice exercises for functional populations, such as children, children and their families, adults, couples, and families. Chapter 20 focuses on prevention of incompetence in targeted, undiagnosed but at-risk populations, such as adult children of alcoholics, through a variety of interactive practice exercises specifically designed for these populations. Chapter 21 includes face-to-face, replicable prescriptions that derive from models of the theory that can be administered verbally as well as in writing in interactive practice exercises from single- and multiplescore tests and dimensions of severe incompetence. In Part VII, the concluding chapter (Chap. 22) discusses the major issue facing research for RCT. Most of the research summarized in this volume was performed

x

Preface

by Italian-speaking experimenters and participants. Nonetheless, the major evaluation instruments derived or related to models of RCT have been published and are available in English. Furthermore, all the interactive practice exercises have been published in English. Consequently, the future of RCT lies in the hands and minds of English-speaking students, researchers, and professional mental health helpers. Nonetheless, from all models of the theory it is possible to conclude that fully functioning relational competence involves loving self and intimates, controlling self, being present and performing in various settings, adopting a creative–conductive style, volunteering, playing, and bestowing importance to self and intimates by keeping one’s priorities straight.

Readership This book is oriented toward graduate courses in personality theories and graduate programs in psychotherapy and couple and family counseling and therapy, and especially toward academic researchers in psychology, relationship science, and sociology and toward practicing professionals in the major mental health disciplines, such as clinical psychology, counseling, psychiatry, social work, and pastoral counseling. Atlanta, GA, USA Padua, Italy

Luciano L’Abate Mario Cusinato

Contents

Part I  Introduction to Relational Competence Theory 1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework.......................

3

Relational..................................................................................................... Socialization for Relational Competence in Intimate Relationships Is Relational...................................................................... Competence.................................................................................................. The Nature of Hierarchy in Theory Construction........................................ The Role of Models in Relational Competence Theory and Practice................................................................................. Requirements for a Hierarchical Theory of Relational Competence........................................................................ Conclusion...................................................................................................

3 4 7 9 12 13 18

2 Internal and External Measures to Evaluate Models of the Theory.................................................................................

19

Internal Laboratory Measures Related to Models of Relational Competence Theory............................................................... Experimental Theory-Free Measures....................................................... Constructive Patterns............................................................................... Destructive Patterns................................................................................. Problems in Relationships Scale.............................................................. Social Information Form.......................................................................... Theory-Related or Theory-Derived Measures......................................... What Applies to Me (That I Agree With)?............................................... Model7: Modalities................................................................................... Model1: ERAAwC.................................................................................... Model3: Settings....................................................................................... Model8: Likeness Continuum Task.......................................................... Model11: Selfhood.................................................................................... Model12: Priorities.................................................................................... Model15: Intimacy....................................................................................

19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 xi

xii

Contents

Theory-Derived Interactive Practice Exercises Related to Models of Relational Competence Theory.......................................... Measures External to Theoretical Models................................................... Conclusion...................................................................................................

23 23 30

Part II  Metatheoretical Assumptions..........................................................

31

3 Model1: The Width of Relationships........................................................

33

Conclusion...................................................................................................

42

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships.........................................................

43

Description................................................................................................... Sublevel of Self-Presentation................................................................... Phenotypical Sublevel.............................................................................. Explanation.................................................................................................. Genotypical Sublevel............................................................................... Intergenerational Sublevel....................................................................... Generational Influences........................................................................... Developmental Influences....................................................................... The Influence of Peer Relationships........................................................ Conclusion...................................................................................................

43 44 57 57 57 58 65 67 67 68

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence....................

69

Differences Among Contexts and Settings.................................................. The Ecological Paradigm............................................................................. The EcoMap To Evaluate Relational Competence...................................... Usefulness of the Instrument................................................................... Description and Administration of the RC-EcoMap................................ Components in the Construction of the RC-EcoMap.............................. The Three Versions of the RC-EcoMap................................................... Phases in the Administration and Scoring of the RC-EcoMap................ Administration and Recording................................................................. Analyses of Answers................................................................................ Interpretation: Mapping of Participant Responses................................... Examples of the RC-EcoMap.................................................................. First Case Study: I-RC-EcoMap.............................................................. Second Case Study: C-RC-EcoMap........................................................ Third Case Study: F-RC-EcoMap............................................................ Discussion.................................................................................................... Research on the Validity and Usefulness of the RC-EcoMap...................... Conclusions..................................................................................................

70 72 75 76 77 78 78 79 80 80 81 81 81 83 84 86 87 93

Contents

xiii

Part III  Theoretical Assumptions   6 Model4: Ability To Love...........................................................................

97

The Measurement of Distance................................................................... 99 A Behavioral View About the Evaluation of Distance............................... 99 Conclusion................................................................................................. 101   7 Model5: Ability To Control and Regulate Self....................................... 103 Dimensions of Control............................................................................... Definition of Discharge.......................................................................... Definition of Delay................................................................................ The Contribution of Philip G. Zimbardo to Model5.................................. Conclusion.................................................................................................

104 104 105 107 108

  8 Model6: Combination of Both Abilities.................................................. 109 Relational Competence Theory and Interpersonal Theories...................... 110 Dependency as a By-Product Model of Model6........................................ 113 Conclusion................................................................................................. 114   9 Model7: The Triangle of Living............................................................... 115 Being or Presence...................................................................................... Doing or Performance................................................................................ Having or Production................................................................................. Resources and Sexual Relationships.......................................................... Normal Sexual Functioning................................................................... Sexual Deviations and Paraphilias......................................................... Resources and Relational Models Theory................................................. Research..................................................................................................... Conclusion.................................................................................................

117 117 118 118 118 119 120 122 123

Part IV  Normative Theoretical Models 10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation...................................................... 127 The Continuum of Likeness....................................................................... The Relational Self................................................................................ The Likeness Continuum........................................................................... Characteristics of the Likeness Continuum............................................... Measures To Evaluate the Likeness Continuum........................................ Likeness Scale........................................................................................ Likeness Grid......................................................................................... Likeness Profile..................................................................................... Problems in Interpersonal Relationships Scale......................................

127 128 133 134 136 136 138 138 138

xiv

Contents

Research to Support Model8 of Identity Differentiation............................ Likeness Grid......................................................................................... Likeness Scale........................................................................................ Cusinato’s Likeness Profile.................................................................... Research To Support a Likeness Model..................................................... Study 1................................................................................................... Study 2................................................................................................... Study 3................................................................................................... Study 4................................................................................................... Conclusion.................................................................................................

139 139 140 141 142 142 144 144 145 145

11 Model9: Styles in Relationships............................................................... 147 Abusive–Apathetic Styles.......................................................................... Reactive–Repetitive Styles........................................................................ Creative–Conductive Styles....................................................................... Progression in Advancement from One Style to Another.......................... Research..................................................................................................... Conclusion.................................................................................................

148 148 149 150 151 152

12 Model10: Interactions in Intimate Relationships................................... 153 A Simple Arithmetical Model for Interactions in Intimate Relationships........................................................................... Arithmetical Interactions........................................................................... Discussion.................................................................................................. Conclusion.................................................................................................

157 159 160 161

13 Model11: Selfhood..................................................................................... 163 Selfhood and Gender Differences.............................................................. Selfhood, Space, and Importance............................................................... Expansion of the Selfhood Model to Psychiatric Conditions: Incompetence............................................................................................. Expansion of the Relational Competence Theory to Addictions............... Research to Evaluate Model11.................................................................... Evaluation of Selfishness....................................................................... Evaluation of Selflessness...................................................................... Evaluation of Overall Model11............................................................... Conclusion.................................................................................................

165 169 171 172 174 174 178 187 188

14 Model12: Priorities.................................................................................... 189 Dimensions of Priorities............................................................................ 190 Background About Priorities...................................................................... 190 A Model of Priorities................................................................................. 193

Contents

Theory-Derived Research on Priorities..................................................... Priorities Inventory................................................................................ Priorities Scale....................................................................................... Priorities: A Hidden Ingredient in Relational Therapy.............................. Vignette of Failed and Rigid Family Priorities...................................... Conclusion.................................................................................................

xv

194 195 195 198 199 201

Part V  Clinically Relevant Models 15 Model13: Distance Regulation.................................................................. 205 A Clinical Example of Approach–Avoidance............................................ Clinical Example of Distance Regulation.................................................. An Incomplete Model: Demand–Withdraw............................................... Conclusion.................................................................................................

205 208 209 211

16 Model14: A Pathogenic Drama Triangle................................................. 213 Fiction........................................................................................................ Religion and Politics.................................................................................. The Justice and Legal Systems.................................................................. Review of the Literature............................................................................ Theory.................................................................................................... Reframings............................................................................................. Therapy.................................................................................................. Implications of the Drama Triangle for Relational Competence Theory................................................................................... Conclusion.................................................................................................

215 215 216 217 218 218 219 220 221

17 Model15: Intimacy..................................................................................... 223 Convergent and Construct Validity for Intimacy (Model15)....................... 225 Conclusion................................................................................................. 230 18 Model16: Negotiation................................................................................ 231 Criterion, Convergent, and Construct Validity for Model16 (Negotiation)........................................................................... 231 Conclusion................................................................................................. 234 Part VI  The Improvement of Relational Competence 19 Promotion of Relational Competence: Approaching Positive Experiences......................................................... 237 Theory-Independent Approaches............................................................... 237 Play........................................................................................................ 238 Volunteering........................................................................................... 238

xvi

Contents

Low-Cost Approaches To Promote Physical and Mental Health........... Self-Help................................................................................................ Social Skills Training Programs: Structured Enrichment Programs............................................................................. Distance Writing in Self-Help, Promotion, Prevention, and Psychotherapy................................................................................. Theory-Related Interactive Practice Exercises.......................................... Interactive Practice Exercises To Promote Mental Health and Lifelong Learning............................................................................ Model1: ERAAwC.................................................................................. Model4: Ability To Love........................................................................ Model5: Ability To Control Self............................................................. Model9: Styles in Intimate Relationships............................................... Model12: Priorities.................................................................................. Model15: Intimacy.................................................................................. Research..................................................................................................... Conclusion.................................................................................................

238 238 239 239 240 241 242 242 243 243 243 243 245 245

20 Prevention of Relational Incompetence: Avoiding Negative Experiences............................................................... 247 Secondary Prevention................................................................................ Training for Relational Competence.......................................................... Critical Comments About Psychoeducational Social Skills Training................................................................................. Future Perspectives................................................................................ Interactive Practice Exercises Targeted to Clinical Conditions............. Conclusion.................................................................................................

247 248 248 249 250 252

21 Treatment of Severe Relational Incompetence: One Approach Is Not Enough................................................................. 253 Interactive Practice Exercises by Single- or Multiple-Score Tests for Severe Incompetence.................................................................. Theory-Derived Therapeutic Prescriptions............................................ Intimacy................................................................................................. Interactive Practice Exercises for Severe Conditions................................ Conclusion.................................................................................................

254 256 257 258 259

Part VII  Conclusion 22 Fully Functional Relational Competence............................................... 263 Conclusion................................................................................................. 264

Contents

xvii

Appendix A....................................................................................................... 265 Relational Answers Questionnaire (RAQ, ed. 2001)................................. 265 Appendix B....................................................................................................... 269 RC-EcoMap .............................................................................................. Answer Sheet......................................................................................... Data Table for Examiners...................................................................... RC-EcoMap Transfer.............................................................................

269 269 272 273

Appendix C....................................................................................................... 275 Task for the Likeness Dimension............................................................... Step 1: Influential People in Your Life...................................................... Step 2: Practice Exercise............................................................................ Step 3: Training Task................................................................................. Step 4: Inquiry............................................................................................

275 276 277 277 278

Appendix D....................................................................................................... 279 Self–Other Profile Chart (© Cusinato & L’Abate, 2006).......................... 279 Appendix E....................................................................................................... 285 Priorities..................................................................................................... 285 General Individual................................................................................. 285 Couple Priorities.................................................................................... 288 References......................................................................................................... 289 Index.................................................................................................................. 321

Part I

Introduction to Relational Competence Theory

Chapter 1

Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

...a critical issue for the relationship field is whether a grand, overarching theory of relationships can be developed. Such a theory would directly address the principal relationship types, delineating the similarities and differences among them with respect to the causal conditions associated with various relationship phenomena (Bersheid, 1995, p. 529) What is needed is a focused attention on the evidence for theories, not on the psychological quirks of theorists (Sober & Wilson, 1998, p. 9) I look forward to the day when we have created a single theory or conceptual framework that provides a lingua franca for researchers from different disciplines interested in the study of personal relationships (Mikulincer, 2007, p. iv)

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce relational competence theory (RCT) by defining these three terms with regard to their conceptual, research, and practical applications and implications, and to present the structure and rationale for its hierarchical, pyramidal structure. This introduction updates and expands on previous publications that will not be referred to again in this volume unless necessary (L’Abate, 1976, 1986, 1994a, 1994b, 1997a, 1997b, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008c, 2009a, 2009c; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003).

Relational “Relational” within this context means that there are prolonged bidirectional and interdependent exchanges between two or more individuals. An example of interdependence among partners and family members is found in couples where the

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_1, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

3

4

1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

woman has breast cancer. Significant partner effects from stress and negative effects in women with breast cancer were related to their partners’ depression. Quality-of-life rates and direction of change over time revealed that quality-of-life trajectories were also along similar paths. As the emotional well-being of women improved or deteriorated, their partners’ well-being also changed (Segrin and Flora, 2005). Whatever happens between two human beings without a bidirectional exchange seems a human impossibility, in spite of past attempts to conceptualize behavior as growing and living in an environment void of human relationships. No matter what one does or says to another human being, even if seemingly completely neutral, such as “Pass the butter,” affects the interaction: “Pass the butter please,” is different from saying “Give me the butter, you moron.” How the request is made, the tone of voice, let alone the words have an impact on the recipient. This bidirectionality implies also that one is dependent on the other, bringing to the fore a third quality of relational competence (RC), reciprocity. What if the recipient of the simple request for passing the butter were to answer with “Get the d..n butter yourself. What do you think I am, your servant?” Even if the request is not honored, the way it is honored, rather than silence, indicates that there was reciprocity even if it was not in kind. By the same token, there is a continuous progression of interactions from internal resources (physiological, physical, intellectual) to external nurturances, even though one could argue that any human and animal development is produced by external sources and that there is no development without a continuous interaction between internal and external resources, two sides of the same coin. For the present purposes, by “development” is understood a process of internal physical growth. By “socialization for RC,” on the other hand, is meant a process of reception, inclusion, and ingestion of tangible elements (food, warmth, shelter, clothes) necessary for survival and of intangible elements, such as emotional, cognitive, actional, and awareness of self and others necessary for enjoyment that are received from nurturing sources, caretakers, parents, siblings, relatives, and friends, i.e., intimates. Unfortunately, not all human beings receive nurturing experiences. There is still a great deal of abuse and neglect that occur every day and that determine the flip side of competence, that is, incompetence (Spitzberg, 1993).

Socialization for Relational Competence in Intimate Relationships Is Relational Nurturing, as alluded to already, occurs through a lifelong process of socialization. Culturally, Bengston (1975) identified two major value dimensions in socialization, defined by the polarities of humanism–materialism and collectivism–individualism. The dimension of collectivism–individualism seems more affected by generational transmission than the other dimension. Within each culture, family structure and intimate relationships defined here as close, committed, interdependent, and prolonged are affected by socioeconomic factors (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979, forth-

Relational

5

coming). Societies based on agriculture or herding, for instance, tend to rank high on responsibility and obedience training in contrast to a complementary pattern of societies ranking high on achievement and independence. By the same token, for instance, Japan is an industrial society that ranks high on responsibility and dependence. Societies that provide for a relatively intense interaction between infant and nurturer show a relatively undifferentiated local jurisdictional hierarchy. Societies which separate infant and nurturer may have a more sophisticated and elaborate set of categories (Welch, 1978a, 1978b). Family structure determines in some ways patterns of attachment and separation in its members. For instance, Lopez, Campbell, and Watkins (1988) found two significant and stable roots representing two dimensions, conflictual overinvolvement, on one hand, and differentiation, on the other. Both dimensions, however, might be associated with different separation patterns across genders. Thus, we need to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate family structures. Appropriate family structure will determine a gradual and positive separation and individuation for both men and women (Wesley & Epstein, 1969). Inappropriate family structures will affect differentially men and women (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Henggeler and Tavormina (1980) found few social class and race effects in wellfunctioning families. Sons’ level of competence might be best predicted by parental involvement and socioeconomic resource classes, whereas measures of conduct might be best predicted by estimates of paternal competence and family cohesion (Kotler, 1975). Parental ideology and family relations are important determinants of a student’s ideology (Kraut & Lewis, 1975). Leftist parental ideology and high family conflict may each lead to leftist student ideology. An interesting possibility lies in the finding that nonpolitical interpersonal relations in the family of origin could be translated into political ideologies in the offspring. RC takes place before the child is born. As results of the Character Research Project showed (Barber, 1979), for instance, sex role stereotyping takes place, wittingly or unwittingly, in families with more than one child of the same sex. Sex role stereotyping is not present in families with one child or with children of both sexes. Thus, if these results are valid, one would extrapolate that the crucial time to avoid such stereotyping may be when the second child of the same sex as the first child is born. Same-sex parents tend to have a greater awareness of their children’s problems than opposite-sex parents (Collins, Cassel, & Harper, 1975). Interestingly enough, assertiveness might be related more to affection than to control factors, suggesting that assertiveness may be a quality of parents who assert their importance and the importance of their children in a clear and firm fashion that communicates love and caring rather than fear and anxiety. Psychological androgyny is associated with high levels of warmth and involvement, particularly with the same-sex parent, and in females, with maternal cognitive/achievement encouragement. Sex typing took place when both parents modeled traditional sex-role attributes, and for females with extreme closeness to the father in the absence of maternal cognitive/intellectual encouragement. An undifferentiated sex-role orientation might be associated with low emotional and cognitive involvement with the father in males and with an undifferentiated but emotionally

6

1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

involved mother in females. Cross-sex typing in both sexes might be associated with parental rejection, low femininity in both parents, and an absence of warmth or cognitive encouragement from either parent (Orlofsky, 1979). Middle-class socioeconomic status, a nuclear family system, and entrepreneurial occupations are associated with high-achievement motivation, whereas upper and lower socioeconomic status, a joint family system, and bureaucratic occupations are associated with low-achievement motivation. The interaction of socioeconomic status with nuclear or joint family systems might be significant, whereas other interactions among variables might not (Ojha & Jha, 1979). Males, 12th graders from rural, economically deprived areas, with high identification with their fathers may have higher levels of aspiration, more selfconfidence, and greater satisfaction with school experiences than males drawn from the same population with low identification with their fathers (Jackson, Meara, & Arora, 1974). Cohen (2004) showed how (1) increases in perceived availability of social support are associated with a further reduction in the association between psychological stress and depressive symptoms in college students; (2) perceived availability of emotional support buffers the association of the number of stressful life events and mortality in initially healthy Swedish men aged 50 years; (3) greater social integration is associated with lower levels of mortality; and (4) a greater number of social roles is associated with decreased susceptibility to the common cold. By the same token, negative interactions and relationships can be a source of stress in intimate relationships (Cicchetti, 2004), whereas Cohen suggests that lack of social support may be a source in the development of psychopathological behavior. Social support buffers stress by eliminating or reducing the effects of stressful experiences by promoting less threatening interpretations of adverse events and effective coping strategies. Social integration, independent of stress, promotes positive psychological states (e.g., identity, purpose, self-worth, and positive affect) that induce health-promoting physiological responses. [It] provides information and is a source of motivation and social pressure to care for oneself. Negative interactions [and] relationships as a source of stress elicit psychological stress and in turn behavior and physiological concomitants that increase risk for disease (Cohen, 2004, p. 677)

There may be gender differences in commitment and autonomy. Men possibly may favor autonomy over commitment, whereas women may favor commitment over autonomy (Buunk, 2005). These possible differences need to be evaluated further in more mature populations than just college students. This brief review suggests that socialization and relationships in one’s family of origin may sculpt and leave indelible effects on our RC. On the other hand, we cannot forget that nowadays the concept of the ideal, intact family constituted by two parents and two children includes only about 25% of all domiciles in the USA. The other 75% are composed of single adults, remarried couples and their families, same-sex couples with or without children, and grandparents and their grandchildren. When we add ethnic and racial factors to this definition, we can only resort to using the term “intimate relationships” as defined above to encompass factors within the construct of “family” that comprise and encompass them (Hofferth & Casper, 2007).

Competence

7

Competence Competence has been defined in so many ways that would be difficult to limit it, except by how effectively we are in dealing with ourselves and others, intimates and nonintimates, during stressful and nonstressful events at various stages in our lives. The concept of competence can be traced historically to White’s (1959) pioneer paper as eventually elaborated by Phillips (1968). In those years, the construct of competence became a rallying point to counter the negative terminology of psychiatry and psychotherapy. It appeared in many psychoeducational, social training programs of the time and in many preventive approaches that developed during the third part of the last century. White’s original suggestion of competence as a motivational concept was followed by Phillips and Zigler’s research with schizophrenics that culminated in Phillips (1968) influential work. This work was followed by Phillips (1978), Wine and Smyte (1981), Marlowe and Weinberg (1985), Sternberg and Kolligian (1990), Settersten and Owens (2002), and Demick and Andreotti (2003). Another source (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989) consisted of an annotated bibliography about “interpersonal competence research.” Three major areas were considered as defining competence, skills, knowledge, and motivation, with three additional themes present in the competence literature, control (to be considered in Chap. 7), collaboration, and adaptability, topics that will be considered in various chapters of this volume, using perhaps completely different but related constructs. Spitzberg and Cupach stressed also the need for theory development because of the “fragmented” nature of research in competence. Among the theories suggested by Spitzberg and Cupach were self-efficacy, social learning, coordinated management of meaning, and impression formation. Because of the paucity of theory aimed at explaining competence, bodies of research lack organization and coherence. The impetus for much of the research is a-theoretical. The choice of variables and research questions is driven more by pragmatics or intuition than by theory…. Most of the research ignores the big picture by creating thematic or contextual models of competence, to the exclusion of investigating the fundamental processes and mechanisms involved in competent social interaction. It would be extremely difficult to find a unified and parsimonious set of theoretical principles (p. 217)…. Part of the difficulty lies in attempting to explain such a broad range of phenomena. Interpersonal competence encompasses myriad of affect, cognition, and conation. It would be extremely difficult to find a unified and parsimonious set of or theoretical principles to cover such a divergent range of human behavior. A grand theory of competence would run the risk of being too general to permit predictive precision. At the same time, situation-specific theories run the risk of lacking explanatory power and generality (p. 218)

Spitzberg and Cupach’s (1989, p. 21) comprehensive, but by now outdated, bibliography of interpersonal competence is only matched and updated by the number of references cited earlier. Furthermore, in their consideration of “priorities for interpersonal competence research,” Spitzberg and Cupach asked for inclusion of “context” in interpersonal research (pp. 227–230), without any mention of the family and intimate relationships as the most relevant, proximal context for RC, not to speak of school, work, and leisure time settings considered in Chap. 5 of this volume, among others.

8

1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

Spitzberg and Cupach did consider the “situation,” including settings as part of context. However, they failed to mention that the most lasting and more influential setting for RC is family and intimate relationships. We do not develop competence in short-lived superficial situations. We develop RC within the context of enduring, involved, committed, and lasting intimate relationships. Chapter 5 illustrates how settings (home, school, work, and leisure time) are specified as being influential in producing positive or negative RC. In addition to stressing theory to drive research, Spitzberg and Cupach stressed the need to consider the importance of context (pp. 227–231) in studying competence. This concern is even more relevant since RCT is imbedded into concrete and specific intimate relationships rather than vague and general terms such as “situation” and “culture.” Even the impersonal attribute of “interpersonal” is another example that denies the importance of family and intimate relationships. Competence does not arise from “interpersonal situations,” which may be short-lived, superficial, and distant. It arises from prolonged, protracted, close, interdependent, and committed relationships, as found in families and in some friendships, that is, intimate relationships. Various chapters about competence have appeared in the past literature as, for instance, in the developmental aspects of competence reviewed by Phillips and Zimmerman (1990). However, that chapter reports on a research project, and does not consider all the various aspects of competence, which, however, were considered fully in other chapters of the same publication. Nonetheless, a great deal of information has been acquired since that book was published, practically a generation ago. Another chapter, by Moretti and Higgins (1990), stressed the other side of competence from the viewpoint of psychopathology. RC as the vehicle for personality development and growth has been reviewed by Settersten and Owens (2002), including specific periods in the life cycle, focusing, however, on adulthood rather than on earlier or later stages of the life cycle. It includes relevant settings, such as families, neighborhoods, communities, friendships, and work settings. Intimate relationships are clearly the most consistent background for RCT. Demick and Andreotti (2003) stressed both the intraindividual and the relational aspects of “development” but not of “RC,” again not including or overlooking an overarching theoretical framework. Most chapters in that treatise were not connected with each other because of the lack of a comprehensive, overarching theory, as is the case with many personality theories (John, Robins, & Pervin, 2008). Recently, a plethora of works (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Keyes & Haldt, 2003; Peterson & Seligman, 2004) in line with the recent movement about “positive psychology” have stressed the importance of positive terms, such as competence, to counter negative terms used in psychiatry, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. However, such a movement ignores completely the other realistic side of the coin that, for lack of a more positive word, is indeed “incompetence,” consisting of inadequately critical, consistently chronic or repetitive clinical conditions requiring external professional help, as covered in Part VI. As we shall see throughout this volume, competence arises from intimate relationships, as defined above. Hence, the term “competence” is still in vogue. It has withstood the test of time, and is relevant to present concerns about stressing the

The Nature of Hierarchy in Theory Construction

9

positive side rather than the negative side of RC. Nonetheless, one cannot consider competence without considering different degrees of incompetence. Whether the rest of this book satisfies the need for specificity, which includes precision and specification, remains for the reader to decide. From this brief historical background grew the notion that competence was the most important observable and measurable behavior that encompasses more evanescent and difficult-to-quantify concepts such as “personality,” “self-concept,” and “self-esteem,” and even more hypothetical intrapsychic concepts, such as ego, id, and superego. None of these concepts can be videotaped and recorded. Competence, on the other hand, can be viewed, videotaped, recorded, reproduced, and analyzed.

The Nature of Hierarchy in Theory Construction This section outlines the pyramidal nature of RCT for intimate and nonintimate relationships. The pyramidal hierarchical framework composing this theory includes metatheoretical and theoretical assumptions, normative models proper, and clinical applications. Specific, concrete, and testable models have been generated from seemingly abstract and general assumptions and constructs. Measures to evaluate selected models were created and their psychometric qualities validated with scientific, that is, replicable, evidence summarized in this volume. As already noted, a theory is a speculative framework about a topic that lends itself to empirical verification and validation in the laboratory and to applications in health promotion, prevention, and clinical settings. There are informal, linearly sequential theories in which each component of the theory follows after another, as in most personality and attachment theories (John et  al., 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). However, the relationships among components are either unclear or missing. Formal theories, on the other hand, are framed according to a hierarchical structure (Harkness, 2007). By “hierarchical” is meant a layered framework, akin to the organization table of any human, industrial, military, political, or religious enterprise, from the top of an organization to the bottom, ranging from generality to specificity and from abstraction to concreteness. This pyramidal structure is found in models of RCT supported by conceptually similar but independent secondary sources (L’Abate, 2009a) and by direct measures included in various chapters of this volume specifically created to validate them. The seemingly abstract nature of RCT has been reduced to a structured interview as well as practice exercises that can be administered verbally or in writing, respectively (L’Abate, 2009a, 2010; Part VI). Harkness (2007) cited as examples of hierarchical conceptualizations Guilford’s (1975) structure of personality and used the meta-analysis of 44 scales by Markon, Krueger, and Watson (2005) as an extensive example of a personality framework. The theory of evolution, of course, is a primary example of a hierarchical structure, The importance of hierarchical frameworks is relatively novel in psychological and relational theory building, considering that most theories in personality

10

1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

p­ sychology and attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) are typically presented in an informal, linear fashion. Each aspect of the theory follows after another, with possible sequential connections among component parts but with apparently no differentiation of functions among them. A formal hierarchical framework, on the other hand, in which levels and models are interconnected, may allow a more nuanced differentiation of functions than is provided in traditionally linear theories. This hierarchical approach is followed in communication theories (Sabourin, 2006) and in the analysis of couples and families in sociology (Sayer & Klute, 2005). Hierarchically, models of RCT (Fig. 1.1) differ along two dimensions of abstraction and generality at the top level to lower metatheoretical, theoretical, and applied models at lower levels. However, an important feature of RCT lies in its reduction of all seemingly abstract components into concrete and specifically verifiable models, regardless of their position and function in the hierarchical structure. By reducing each theoretical model into a verifiable, specific, and concrete format, and creating specific measures to evaluate their psychometric properties, the seemingly abstract and general nature of these models becomes amenable to empirical validation and verification one by one (L’Abate, 2008c, 2009a). The overall validity of the theory, therefore, is measured by the total sum of the provisional validity of each model, positive, questionable, or negative. RC, resulting from prolonged interactions with significant and non-significant others, as noted, is viewed as the totality of an individual’s characteristic effectiveness in intimate and nonintimate relationships, as outlined here (Fig. 1.1), expanded here with research, and expanded elsewhere in previous writings cited earlier. RC is achieved through a continuous process of socialization molded by lifelong intimate and nonintimate relationships, with their associated pleasurable and painful events. Intimate, communal, and expressive relationships are close, committed, interdependent, and prolonged. Nonintimate, instrumental, and exchange relationships are agentic, distant, opportunistic, superficial, autonomous, and short-lived (Bakan, 1968; Brehm, Miller, Perlman, & Campbell, 2002; Clark & Mills, 1979; DeGenova & Rise, 2005). It is impossible to disentangle RC from intimate and nonintimate relationships because RC is circularly and contextually a product and a producer at the heart of those relationships. In hierarchical RCT, intimate and nonintimate relationships vary along dimensions ranging from functional to dysfunctional styles and prototypes in traditional psychiatric classification (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Davis & Millon, 1995; Krueger & Tackett, 2006). Connections to dysfunctional prototypes anchor and link theoretical models to real-life conditions rather than to abstract, hypothetical, inferred, or ideal constructs or relationships (Fig. 1.1). These connections attribute dimensional, relational, and contextual meanings to otherwise static, monadic, and nonrelational psychiatric categories. These categories are contained within the functionality–dysfunctionality dimension of each model, thus integrating two traditionally different views of psychopathology: the dimensional and the categorical, as suggested by Maser et al. (2009). RCT, therefore, has the advantage of providing a pyramidal framework to understand psychiatric classification according to relational dimensions that include and

The Nature of Hierarchy in Theory Construction

Verifiability

Applicability

11

Requirements Redundancy

Fruitfulness

Meta-theoretical Assumptions about Relationships Width1

Depth2 Levels of Interpretation Description Presentation Phenotype Explanation Genotype Generationaldevelopmental

ERAAwC1

Models

Emotionality Rationality Activity Awareness Context

Settings3

Home School/work Transit Transitory

Theoretical Assumptions about Relationships Ability to Love4

Models Dimensions

DSM-IV:

Ability to Negotiate5

Distance Control Approach/ Discharge/Delay Avoidance Axis II, Cluster C Axis II, Cluster B

Models

Self-differentiation8 Dimensions Likeness Continuum

Contents7

Both Abilities6 Functionality High/Middle/ Low GAF* (100 to 0)*

Normative Models of the Theory Relational Interactions10 Selfhood11 Styles9 AA/RR/CC Functionality Importance

Modalities Being/Doing/ Having Sexual deviations Type A personalities

Priorities12 Survival/Enjoyment

a. Symbiosis/ Alienation

Abusive/ Apathetic

Divisive

No-self

Vertical: Self/ intimates

b. Sameness/ Oppositeness

Reactive/ Repetitive

Subtractive/ Static – or +

Selfless/ Selfish

Horizontal: Settings

c. Similarity/ Additive/ Selfull Conductive/ Creative Multiplicative Differentness a. Codependencies/ a. Axis I DSM-IV a. 100 to 70 on GAF b. Axis II, Cluster B b/c. 69 to 40 on GAF addictions c. No diagnosis d. Below 39 on GAF b. Conflict high c. Conflict low Applications of the Theory Models

Distance Regulation13

Dimensions Pursuer/Distancer /Regulator

Drama Triangle14 Victim/ Persecutor/ Rescuer

Intimacy15

Negotiation16

Sharing Joys, Structure/Process Hurts, & Fears of (Ill, Skill, Will) Being hurt

*GAF = Global Assessment of Functioning (DSM-IV). Adapted from L’Abate, 2008-b.

Fig. 1.1  Summary of a theory of relational competence in intimate relationships

12

1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

integrate within each dimension categorical lists of symptoms and syndromes (Beutler & Malik, 2002; Dischion, 1999), as shown in Fig. 1.1 and in previous publications. RCT, therefore, is differentiated from either personality or relationship science theories on the basis of its hierarchical framework and its more specific applications to dyadic and multirelational functioning. The original theory (L’Abate, 1976) was created to understand and help the individual within a verifiable family context rather than to study individuals in a vacuum of relationships or in families without interacting individuals. This monadic vacuum is still present in many conceptualizations of emotions and of personalities (Mesquita & Albert, 2007; Rime, 2009). The theory outlined here includes 16 models (Fig.  1.1) that encompass RC socialization in different contexts, different settings, and in different relationships. Ideally, if at all valid, this theory should apply not only to individuals in communal relationships but also to dyadic and multirelational systems, such as couples, families, parents and children, siblings, and in-laws as well as to nonintimate agentic/ exchange relationships. This is clearly an ambitious if not grandiose undertaking. On the other hand, human relationships are too complex to be encompassed within a single model. A multiplicity of testable models with related measures, viewing human relationships from a variety of redundant vantage points, is necessary to make sense of their complexity.

The Role of Models in Relational Competence Theory and Practice Models are now becoming fashionable (Becvar, 2003; Robbins, Mayorga, & Szapocznik, 2003; Sabourin, 2006). However, there is a great deal of confusion about what models are (L’Abate, 2009c). For instance, Sexton, Weeks, and Robbins (2003) equate models with different theoretical and therapeutic approaches for example: object relations and psychodynamic, family of origin, interactional and solution-focused, among others. Supposedly, a practice model derives from a theoretical framework that determines how therapy is to be conducted. Therapeutic practice, therefore, should ideally be equated with its underlying model or, in other words, the practice is (or should be?) isomorphic with the theory. A therapeutic model assumes, as Sexton et al. do, the validity of the theory behind it and, oftentimes, co-opts the name of the theory itself. However, more often than not, the validity of the underlying model is evaluated verbally, by what therapists say or do within their sessions, which are kept private and are difficult to replicate, except, perhaps, for possibly self-serving psychotherapy notes. The whole burden of proving the validity of a theoretical model in therapy rests on words. Unless a researcher obtains grant money to evaluate the empirical validity of a theoretical model and as long as just words are used in the process of therapy, it will be difficult and expensive to prove its validity (L’Abate, 1999a, 1999b). No wonder that most therapists claim to be “eclectic” in their practices (Norcross, 1996). If there is no one-to-one isomorphism

The Nature of Hierarchy in Theory Construction

13

between theory and practice, how can anyone discover how any particular theory or model is related to practice? Therefore, an important issue in regard to the role of models in RCT relates to how much a theory or a model influences and affects directly therapeutic practice. Supposedly, practice derives from a theory or a model assuming that either the theory or the model have already demonstrated some replicable validity. The issue lies in how valid the claimed link between theory and practice really is and how it can be validated in face-to-face talk-based therapy. L’Abate (1999a, 1999b, 2008a, 2008c), L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007, and L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003), for instance, have argued that as long as therapy of any kind occurs verbally, it might be difficult for most therapists to show a definite link between theory and practice. This link may be found in laborious work by few endowed researchers who transcribe tapes, categorize them, and reach results through research grants in ways that are difficult if not impossible to replicate and, therefore, make them available to therapists on Main Street. This issue will be expanded in Chaps. 19–21. A relationship between theory and practice can be reached first when a theory is first dismantled into its component models, if there are any models, or a theory is just a model L’Abate, 2009c). Second, the validity and relevance of the model could be established in the laboratory, as is the case of research reported in this volume. Third, only when a model’s validity has been established, even provisionally, can it or should it be applied in actual practice. Ultimately, the validity and usefulness of a model, of course, is established in the real world of self-help (Harwood & L’Abate, in press), promotion and prevention (L’Abate, 2007), therapy, and even play (L’Abate, 2010) not just in the laboratory. It is practically or realistically impossible to apply all the models of any theory at any one time in therapy. Among the bewildering plethora of theoretical models available in family communication (Sabourin, 2006), for instance, one model at a time must be chosen to evaluate its relevance to family functioning and to family therapy. Therapists themselves, therefore, might need to prioritize what model if any is relevant, important, and necessary to improve family functioning, including, of course, priorities, as presented in Model12 (Chap. 14).

Requirements for a Hierarchical Theory of Relational Competence Any psychological theory, as a framework amenable to critically evaluate conceptual and empirical evidence, can be evaluated according to four overlapping requirements, such as those necessary for any formal, hierarchical framework, such as RCT. They include the following: (1) verifiability, which has been achieved in the laboratory through paper-and-pencil, self-report tests or tasks specifically created to evaluate each model of the theory (L’Abate & Wagner 1985, 1988); (2) applicability to include health promotional, preventive, psychotherapeutic, and rehabilitative interventions along a continuum of functionality/dysfunctionality

14

1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

(L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003); (3) redundancy, which includes how different constructs are described and explained from the vantage point of models linked with one other; and (4) fruitfulness, the ability of a theory to produce ways to measure models of the theory, as seen in attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Most measures derived from these models, therefore, should be connected and correlate with each other. If a model is not correlated to other models of the theory, then it becomes irrelevant to the theory. It belongs elsewhere. The 16 models of RCT encompass RC in different settings (Model3). To be relevant, the theory must be valid in more than one setting: The laboratory alone is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Models or methods derived from the theory must be replicable also in applied, preventive, and clinical settings, as covered in the three chapters in Part VI. Research to support models of the theory has been conducted from its inception with paper-and-pencil, self-report tests, revised and improved over the years (L’Abate, 1976, 2005; L’Abate & Wagner, 1985, 1988). In addition to the relatively inert nature of these instruments, enrichment programs, produced and reproducible verbatim (L’Abate & Weinstein, 1987; L’Abate & Young, 1987), and interactive, written self-help mental health practice exercises are used to evaluate models dynamically through interventions with individuals, couples, and families (L’Abate, 1986, 2010; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007). Verbatim prescriptions from models of the theory were also administered to intervene therapeutically with couples and families. This information is included in Part VI, relevant to self-help, promotional, preventive, and therapeutic applications of some models (Cusinato & L’Abate, in press; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003). The nature and psychometric properties of paper-and-pencil, self-report instruments, as well as laboratory tasks will be elaborated here within the specific contexts of selected models in this volume. However, not all models have been validated directly. It is impossible to validate RCT in its totality. Validation can occur when models are evaluated one by one. Some models have been dismantled so that their components may be validated one at a time, as in the case of many models. Most models are supported indirectly by their being conceptually similar to but empirically independent from other theories or models (L’Abate, 2009a). Verifiability: Linking Theory with Practice One of the major issues facing any theory, but especially RCT, is whether and how it can be evaluated, i.e., verified or tested. “Evaluation,” “verification,” and “testing” are used here synonymously, meaning any intersubjectively replicable method that allows one to study the empirical or experiential validity of a theoretical statement as assessed by someone else who is extraneous to that statement. For instance, there are many theories of personality and psychotherapy as well as family theories and family therapies that vary in degrees of verifiability, ranging from verifiable and verified to unverifiable and unverified (Gurman & Kniskern, 1981; Hansen & L’Abate, 1982; Mikesell, Lusterman, & McDaniel, 1995). “Verifiability,” therefore,

The Nature of Hierarchy in Theory Construction

15

means the condition of being evaluated, verified, or tested according to views or evidence gathered by observers external to the theory. RCT can be evaluated in four settings: in the laboratory, as reported in selected chapters of this volume, or applied as primary (Chap. 19), secondary (Chap. 20), and tertiary prevention or psychotherapy (Chap. 21). A theory could be verified in the laboratory but could be unverifiable in the clinic. Another theory could be evaluated clinically in terms of results produced, but remain unverifiable in the laboratory. Another theory could be tested in primary prevention settings but not in therapy (tertiary prevention) or laboratory settings. Some theories are very appealing therapeutically but are either unverifiable or have not been verified yet, as in the case of systems theory (Gurman, Kniskern, & Pinsoff, 1986, p. 569). For instance, Satir’s (1975) theory, like many pioneering theories in family therapy, is a prime example of a very influential theory that appears unverifiable. At least, as far these writers know, no one has as yet attempted to verify it. On the other hand, one needs to consider recent theoretical advances that are couched in ways that make them more amenable to verification (Alexander & Barton, 1995). Very appealing and seductive theories, such as systems theory, may be very difficult or impossible to verify because they are metatheories or paradigms that cannot be verified directly (L’Abate, 2009c). Theories that are verifiable may not be very appealing to humanistically or dynamically oriented theorists or to many therapists in general, as would be, for instance, the case with behavioral– cognitive theory and practice. Many therapists seem to abhor empirical evidence to support their practices, creating a gulf between them and empirically oriented, mostly academic, psychologists (L’Abate, 2010; Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2003), as discussed further in Chap. 21. Some verifiable theories can be expanded and applied to clinical applications and some cannot. For instance, Olson’s circumplex model (Gorall & Olson, 1995) has led to the creation of preventive and therapeutic applications. Attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), on the other hand, through its Strange Situation, the Attachment Story Completion Task (ASCT; Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990), structured, semistructured interviews, and rating scales, has been verified in laboratories around the globe. In spite of its indirect therapeutic implications (ByngHall, 1995a, 1995b; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), it has not produced, as far as these writers know, any specifically direct (i.e., theory-derived) clinical application or therapeutic task that is verifiable or that could be verified. The Strange Situation is applicable to early childhood, the ASCT to older children, whereas its structured and semistructured interviews and rating scales are applicable to adults. However, these are all diagnostic tools and not therapeutic tasks. Furthermore, what information from the attachment model would these procedures add to a clinical population? When people ask for professional help, it is assumed that they are “insecure,” because if they were secure, would they ask for help? Does being diagnosed as “insecure–dismissing” lead to therapeutic practices different from those for individuals diagnosed as “insecure–preoccupied”? If this is the case, what and where are these different practices to be found? As far as these writers know, this specificity has not been present in the vast attachment literature

16

1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

in general as well as in the therapeutic literature in particular (L’Abate, De Giacomo, McCarty, De Giacomo, & Verrastro, 2000). To be verifiable, a theory or model has to be worded operationally, in specifically precise and accurate terms, and this precision must be coupled with a specification that qualifies the accuracy of that statement. Beyond the tried and true requirements of reliability and validity for our instruments or evaluations as well as interventions, it is not sufficient to give a simple IQ score, for instance. Once a score or a diagnosis has been proffered, no matter how precise and accurate, one needs to specify the nature of a score or of a diagnosis. Arriving at an IQ score of 100, for instance, even though accurate is not sufficient because we need to indicate and specify the nature of that score. Is it composed by averaging a verbal IQ of 120 with a performance IQ of 80? What about the variability of the profile? High, medium, low? The same argument and the same two criteria could be applied to the measurement of RC or the assignment of a diagnostic label. We could label an individual accurately by concluding that that the individual suffers from “depression.” However, once that label is given we have the responsibility of explaining and specifying the nature, origin, type, and severity of that condition. This precision and specification are necessary to construct homes, build bridges, and produce cars. Why should we not follow the same two criteria to deal with people? Are not people more important that houses, bridges, or cars? Applicability to More Than One Population In addition to verifiability, however, for it to be applied to clinical or preventive settings, a theory of RC in intimate relationships should produce results in clinical practice, in both prevention and therapy, thus fulfilling a criterion of accountability implicit in being verifiable. Accountability and verifiability, however, are criteria independent of each other. We need verifiability in theory building as well as in therapy, but the criterion of accountability is more relevant to preventive and therapeutic outcomes than to theory construction and testing. Producing results, however, is no longer a sufficient criterion both in prevention and in psychotherapy, whether with individuals, couples, or families. If a theory or a technique is useful to a practicing clinician, is that all that is necessary? For instance, as noted earlier, some very appealing theories of therapy may produce impressionistic results in spite of their inherent unverifiability, as was (in part) with psychoanalysis and, more recently, with family therapy. At least in psychotherapy, a theory could conceivably account for a positive outcome but remain unverifiable otherwise. Apparently, many therapists work on the basis of this assumption. Theories be dammed! Results as subjectively viewed by the professional are all it matters. To include these criteria, verifiability, applicability, and accountability, therefore, a theory of RC needs to be verifiable as well as accountable. Accountability may be necessary in therapy but insufficient in theory, just as verifiability may be necessary in theory but insufficient in therapy. Both criteria are necessary and sufficient to verify a theory in the laboratory if that theory is to be

The Nature of Hierarchy in Theory Construction

17

applied also to clinical or preventive settings (Beutler, Williams, Wakefield, & Entwistle, 1995). Indeed, accountability applies to every model of RCT with no exceptions from the top to the bottom. Hence, there are two aspects of RCT that are relevant to its applicability: (1) dialectical, which may be verifiable qualitatively/impressionistically, and (2) demonstrative, which is verifiable quantitatively/empirically. Both aspects, dialectics (rhetoric and qualification) and demonstrability (data, evidence, and quantification), are necessary for scientific and applied enterprises (L’Abate, 1986, 1994b). Dialectics is hypothesis-generating, whereas demonstrability is hypothesis-testing (McGuire, 1997). For instance, Model8 (Chap. 10) is couched as a dialectical continuum above other characteristics, as demonstrated by research reported in that chapter and other chapters of this volume. Redundancy As in any organization, members of that organization need to demonstrate their effectiveness not only in their competence to get their job done but also in getting along well with other members of the same organization and with members of other organizations. This requirement means that models of RCT should back each other up by correlating with each other and expanding in their own ways on whatever has been decided and presented by the metatheoretical and theoretical assumptions of the theory. For instance, in Fig. 1.1, Model4 is defined as the ability to love, by using distance as one dimension of how love is expressed, i.e., we approach who and what we like and love while avoiding those people, objects, and relationships we do not like. That simple definition, however, needs to be backed up and supported by other models. For instance, in Model6, the construct of love is expanded into the construct of community. In Model7, the dimension of love is backed up by the modality of presence, being emotionally and instrumentally available to self and intimates. In Model11, the ability to love is shown attributing and bestowing importance to self and to intimates. In Model12, love is shown by how one fits self and intimates into one’s priorities. In Model15, love is shown as sharing joys as well as hurts and fears of being hurt with intimates and by forgiving transgressions in self and intimates. The same kind of redundancy can be demonstrated in starting with Model5 about self-control in a temporal dimension of discharge-delay, supported by a construct of agency in Model6, two dimensions of doing and having in Model7, combined into power, and, ultimately in the process of negotiation in Model16 (Chap. 18) as well with an additional redundant construct called relational creativity expanded elsewhere (L’Abate, 2009c). Fruitfulness This requirement deals with how a theory has generated different ways to validate its models, as shown directly in the chapters and research presented in this volume.

18

1 Background for a Hierarchical Theoretical Framework

This requirement has been fulfilled superbly by the second, third, fourth, and fifth coauthors, who were responsible for conducting or supervising all the research methods and results presented in the first 18 chapters of this volume. Without their contribution, RCT would have died because the first author, being retired from practice and teaching, lacked a way of finding and recruiting willing participants to evaluate the models of RCT. From this requirement there is a companion one that stems from fruitfulness, that is, longevity. A theory must last a long time, as in the case of evolution and of psychoanalysis. Should RCT theory be so lucky!

Conclusion RCT has been evaluated with an Italian-speaking population of participants from middle school to maturity by developing model-related original test instruments validated with most instruments developed and validated in the USA, as shown in the Appendixes. The challenge lies in whether English-speaking researchers will adopt these instruments to verify whether the models of RCT validated in Italy are valid in English-speaking populations.

Chapter 2

Internal and External Measures to Evaluate Models of the Theory

The purpose of this chapter is to describe external measures that were used specifically to evaluate models of relational competence theory (RCT). They were derived expressly to evaluate each specific model and not any other model. These external measures had already been validated extensively in the English-speaking research community to evaluate the predictive, concurrent, convergent, and construct validities of those internal measures that had been created and developed to evaluate the validity of each model one by one. One cannot really verify a theory such as RCT directly. It can be verified through its models. Models, in turn, are verified though instruments or interventions, task assignments, or written interactive practice exercises derived directly from them. Thus, a theory is as valid as the instruments or interventions developed to test its models. How is the theory just reviewed in the previous chapter linked with evidence? First, we need to see whether the theory or models derived from the theory are valid in the laboratory and, later, also in promotional, preventive, and psychotherapeutic interventions (Part VI).

Internal Laboratory Measures Related to Models of Relational Competence Theory Over the years, the first author, with the help of his students and collaborators (Cusinato, Aceti, & L’Abate, 1998; L’Abate, 1997c, 1998; L’Abate & Wagner, 1985, 1988; Stevens & L’Abate, 1989), developed some paper-and-pencil, selfreport tests derived directly from models of the theory. The purpose of this chapter and the whole volume is to bring up to date and to report in detail research instruments not yet reported heretofore.

Experimental Theory-Free Measures These are measures that were created purely on a pragmatic basis to evaluate behaviors and relationships not covered by other existing test instruments. L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_2, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

19

20

2 Internal and External Measures to Evaluate Models of the Theory

Constructive Patterns This experimental 31-item checklist was created to help discriminate levels of functioning in individuals, couples, and families in ways that were not included in existing objective, paper-and-pencil, self-report tests, oriented toward assessing the type and severity of psychopathological behavior but not including high levels of functionality (L’Abate, 2008d, 2008e).

Destructive Patterns This experimental checklist includes as many negative processes as occur between feuding partners. It can be used diagnostically but also therapeutically by expanding it into an interactive practice exercise (L’Abate, 2008d).

Problems in Relationships Scale This theory-independent 200-item questionnaire is available in L’Abate (1992a,b). It combines 20 dimensions of couple interactions with matched interactive practice exercises. From this scale it is possible to obtain a discrepancy score for couples that related negatively and significantly to the Spanier Adjustment Scale (McMahon, O., & L’Abate, L. 2001).

Social Information Form This 85-item questionnaire L’Abate, (1992a,b) can be administered in writing or as a structured interview. Its major advantage lies in its having objective weights related to functionality–dysfunctionality and divisions into subparts related to self, partner, and family relationships. These weights produce subscores in the three areas just mentioned with a total functionality score. Its relationship to personality and marital adjustment is presently being researched. (In this way, it will be possible to relate historical, developmental factors, which would be “explanatory” as discussed in the nontested model of levels of observation and interpretation summarized in the previous chapter.) This level, historical–developmental, will be linked to genotypical (personality traits) and phenotypical (marital adjustment) factors (see Chap. 4). Presentational-level factors in the particular sample of seminarian couples have already been considered in McMahan, O., & L’Abate, L. (2001).

Internal Laboratory Measures Related to Models of Relational Competence Theory

21

Theory-Related or Theory-Derived Measures Some of these measures are still at an experimental stage. For instance, a theoryderived structured interview for intimate relationships (L’Abate, 2009a) has not been administered and evaluated as yet.

What Applies to Me (That I Agree With)? This 200-item multipurpose test (L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003), still in the experimental stage, covers all of the major dimensions of the theory. Its translation into Italian is being subjected to empirical validation (Cusinato & Colesso, 2008).

Model7: Modalities No tests have been developed as yet to evaluate the modalities of Model7 except with the EcoMap (Chap. 5, Appendix B). Conceivably, this model could be evaluated by summing together the six original paper-and-pencil, self-report tests developed by Foa and Foa (1974) to evaluate resource classes of status, love, information, services, money, and goods combined to make the Triangle of Living described in Chaps. 5 and 9. Those six scales could be combined into three scales to match three modalities of the model; being, doing, and having. One enrichment assignment to evaluate modalities is available together with instructions to couples and families to follow the ERAAwC model in negotiation (L’Abate, 1986) as noted below and as described in greater detail in Chap. 3 of this volume.

Model1: ERAAwC Cusinato and his coworkers developed a five-scale 50-item questionnaire, the Relational Answers Questionnaire (RAQ) to evaluate each component of this model and its statistical properties, validity, and reliability. This questionnaire has been translated into English and its items are available in Table A.1, with standard scores in Table A.2. Its validity is evaluated in Chap. 3.

Model3: Settings This model has been evaluated in its relationships to other, selected models (Model7 and Model12) with the EcoMap, described in detail in Chap. 5 and presented in Appendix B.

22

2 Internal and External Measures to Evaluate Models of the Theory

Model8: Likeness Continuum Task The Likeness Continuum Task was created to evaluate the validity of Model8 as described in Chap. 10. Model8 is the basis of three other related models (Model9, Model10, and Model11) and is presented in Appendix C.

Model11: Selfhood In addition to the Problems in Relationships Scale, this model has been evaluated with the Self–Other Profile Chart (SOPC). Results from various studies to evaluate construct, concurrent, and predictive validity of this model are summarized in Chap. 13 (Table 13.1). Cusinato and Pastore (2001) administered the SOPC to 1,438 respondents from age 14 to 60 years at different stages of the life cycle living in different Italian regions, of which 50% were between 14 and 20 years of age. Using exploratory factor analysis, they identified two factors for self (external, presentational variables, such as physical appearance, and internal, genotypical variables, such as morality and self-esteem). Two factors were identified for others, restricted family members versus friends and acquaintances. These two factors for each scale were validated with confirmatory factor analyses. The Dyadic Relationships Test was developed by Cusinato (1997) to measure the four personality propensities of the selfhood model through 12 comic-type visual–verbal vignettes for seven stages of the life cycle: (1) close to wedding, (2) young married couple without children, (3) couple with small (preschool) children, (4) couple with school-age children, (5) couple with teenagers, (6) couple with adult children, and (7) empty-nest couples. For example, one vignette shows visually and describes verbally a change of plans for a couple that was going to spend the weekend with friends. At the last minute, the parents of one partner report that a long-lost uncle is coming to visit and that the couple is invited to a party to celebrate his return. The four possible answers to this conflict represent the four personality propensities presented in Chap. 13: Selful, “Let’s see how we can combine both parties”; Selfish, “I have no intention of changing my program!”; Selfless, “If you like, we can let go of our friends”; No-self, “We will end up arguing again.” Seventeen studies to refine the statistical properties of this test and establish its concurrent and criterion validities and reliability were conducted. In six different studies with 60 couples each, between the ages of 25 and 45, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of this test ranged from 0.53 to 0.75. Its scores correlated at a significant level of confidence (p < 0.01) with the Italian translation of the Locus of Control Scale, with a measure of couple negotiation, with a measure of couple communication, with Beck’s Depression Inventory, and with a measure of intimacy derived from Cusinato and L’Abate’s (1995) model. Internal correlations

Measures External to Theoretical Models

23

among the various scales measuring the four personality propensities attest to the homogeneity of its items (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2005a, 2005b).

Model12: Priorities Originally, this model was evaluated by the Priorities Grid and the Priorities Scale. Results from evaluative studies were reported by L’Abate and Wagner (1985, 1988). Self-priorities are evaluated with the SOPC as well by rank-ordering selfqualities and important others. Results from one scale (Appendix F) about individual priorities are presented in Chap. 14 (Table  14.1). An experimental list of couple priorities is available in Appendix F but it has not been evaluated yet.

Model15: Intimacy Intimacy, defined as the sharing of joys, hurts, and fears of being hurt, was developed and evaluated with the Sharing of Hurts Scale. Its original psychometric properties (validity and reliability) were evaluated by Stevens and L’Abate (1989). It was revised to fit more closely with a more complex, circular model of intimacy proposed by Cusinato and L’Abate (1995). It was validated further by Cusinato et  al. (1998) to evaluate the effects of asking undergraduate students to share in writing their hurts with their friends or partners. Additional studies are summarized in Chap. 17 (Table 17.1). This model will be expanded further in future work (De Giacomo, L’Abate, Pennebaker, & Rumbaugh, in press).

Theory-Derived Interactive Practice Exercises Related to Models of Relational Competence Theory These exercises will be reviewed in Chaps. 19–21.

Measures External to Theoretical Models Table 2.1 summarizes Cronbach’s reliability coefficients for the various modelderived measures, and Table  2.2 summarizes independent measures used to verify the construct and concurrent validity of those model-derived measures. The values of these coefficients are sufficiently high to indicate their acceptable reliability to evaluate further the validity of models measured with the instruments listed in both tables.

Intimacy Anxiety Scale, revised

Likeness Continuum Profile

Likeness Continuum Task

IASr

LCP

LCT

EM

Dyadic Relationships Test with 7 forms: premarital; married with no children; married with children of elementary school age; married with teenage children; married with young-adult children; empty nest EcoMap

DRT

Model8

Model8

Model15

Model3, Model7, and Model12

Model11

Table 2.1  Reliability testing for various measures of theory-derived models Acronym Title Reference model CESMI Counselors’ Evaluation Scales of Marital Model15 Intimacy

N = 6 ranges: symbiosis, sameness, similarity, differentness, oppositeness, Autism N = 6 ranges: symbiosis, sameness, similarity, differentness, oppositeness, Autism (Y2 = 5,957.39, p < 0.001)

Categorical measures:N = 4 settings: home, work, survival, enjoyment (Y2 = 520.61, p < 0.001) N = 6 resources: money, goods, services, information, importance, intimacy (Y2 = 265.53, p < 0.001) N = 3 modalities: having, doing, being (Y2 = 264.46, p < 0.001) N = 1 scale with 15 items (a = 0.83)

Structure N = 2 scales: couple intimacy with 6 items; partner intimacy with 6 items N = 4 scales: selful (a = 0.69 – 0.87), selfish (a = 0.64 – 0.93), selfless (a = 0.54 – 0.87), no-self (a = 0.57 – 0.80)

Cusinato and Colesso (2008)

Descoutner and Thelen (1991), Doi and Thelen (1993), Salvo (1998) Cusinato and Colesso (2008)

Casellato (2007)

Bidoli (2006), Cusinato and L’Abate (2003), Cusinato and L’Abate (2005a), Cusinato and L’Abate (2005b), Segatto and Chiovatti (2000)

References Rossi (1991)

24 2 Internal and External Measures to Evaluate Models of the Theory

Marital Jealousy Questionnaire, revised

Perceived Parental Relational Style Questionnaire

Parenting Scales revised

Questionnaire of Family Intimacy

Relational Answers Questionnaire

Self-Other Profile Chart

MJQr

PPRSQ

PSr

QFI

RAQ

SOPC

Model11

Model1

Model15

Model9

Model9

Model15

Model15

AA abusive–apathetic, CC creative–conductive, RR reactive–repetitive

Marital Intimacy Questionnaire

MIQ

N = 6 subscales with 10 items each: communicating values (a = 0.45); respect for feelings (a = 0.68); accepting limitations (a = 0.52); affirming potentialities (a = 0.70); sharing hurts (a = 0.62); forgiving errors (a = 0.58) N = 3 scales: sadness/fear (a = 0.95); anger (a = 0.89); closeness pursuit (a = 0.71) N = 3 scales: CC style (a = 0.89); RR style (a = 0.77); AA style (a = 0.81) N = 3 scales: acceptance (a = 0.72), autonomy (a = 0.82), control (a = 0.76) N = 6 subscales with 10 items each: communicating values (a = 0.87); respect for feelings (a = 0.78); accepting limitations (a = 0.82); affirming potentialities (a = 0.85); sharing hurts (a = 0.85); forgiving errors (a = 0.79) N = 5 scales with 10 items each: emotionality (a = 0.83), rationality (a = 0.81), activity (a = 0.72), awareness (a = 0.72), context (a = 0.78) N = 2 scales: self importance (a = 0.83); other importance (a = 0.83) L’Abate (1992a, b 1994a, b)

Corsi (2002), Cusinato and Corsi (2005)

Bertoldi (1994), Borsari (1994), Novelli (1993)

Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, and Darling (1992)

Colesso (2006)

Frison (1998), Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick (1997)

Bertoldi (1994), Borsari (1994), Cusinato (2002), Novelli (1993)

Measures External to Theoretical Models 25

Table 2.2  Summary of Cronbach’s reliability coefficients for external measures Acronym Title Structure AATS Anxiety About Transitions N = 1 scale (6 items, a = 0.76) Scale AAQ Adult Attachment Questionnaire N = 4 scales: secure (15 items, a = 0.51); preoccupied (Italian version) (15 items, a = 0.76); avoidance (15 items, a = 0.75); fearful (5 items, a = 0.74) BFQr Big Five Questionnaire, revised N = 6 scales with 12 items each: dominance (a = 0.74), cooperativeness (a = 0.60), cordiality (a = 0.63), impulse control (a = 0.82), emotion control (a = 0.86), perseverance (a = 0.78) CEDS Chabot Emotional N = 1 scale (17 items, a = 0.81) Differentiation Scale CH Child-Free Attitude Scales N = 4 scales: ChR (items, a = 0.83); ChL (15 items, a = 0.87); ChEN (15 items, a = 0.91); ChS (5 items, a = 0.71) COPEr Coping Strategies, revised N = 14 coping strategies (a = 0.23 – 82) reduced to 4 factors: disengagement strategies (D); support strategies (S); problem-solving strategies (PS), religion (R) CSDS Couple Social Desirability Scale N = 1 scale (7 items, a = 0.78) DES Differential Emotion Scale N = 7 scales: sexual relationship (10 items, a = 0.81); ENRICHr Evaluating and Nurturing children and marriage (8 items, a = 0.57); Relationship Issues, equalitarian roles (8 items, a = 0.61); leisure Communication, Happiness, activities (8 items, a = 0.63); financial management revised (8 items, a = 0.54); relations with relatives (8 items, a = 0.64); family and friends (8 items, a = 0.55) ES Enmeshment Scale N = 1 scale (6 items, a = 0.67) FACESr FACES III, revised N = 2 scales: cohesion (a = 0.83), adaptability (a = 0.83) Bloom (1985) Olson, Fournier, and Druckman (1982)

Maino (1996, 1998) Tiberi and Pedrabissi (1988) Olson, Fournier, and Druckman (1982)

Carver, Scheier, and Weinstraub (1989)

Cusinato and Colesso (2007)

Chabot and Licht (2006)

Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Borgogni (2000)

References(*) Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, and Scabini (2006) Cusinato, Colesso, and Barbon (2006)

26 2 Internal and External Measures to Evaluate Models of the Theory

Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale

Family Differential Emotion Scale Family Environmental Scale, revised

Marital Communication Scale

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

Marital Satisfaction Scale Narcissism Scale

Optimistic Attitude Scale

F-COPES

F-DES

MCS

MMPI

MSS NS

OAS

FESr

Title

Acronym

N = 1 scale (12 items, a = 0.88)

N = 4 scales with 8 items each: redefinition of the problem (a = 0.74), obtaining community support (a = 0.79), advocacy to obtain help from social services (a = 0.86), passive acceptance of problematic issues (a = 0.80) N = 6 scales with 12 items each: joy, empathy, sadness, anger, fear, blame (for all scales a ³ 70) N = 10 scales with 10 items each: cohesion (a = 0.85), easiness (a = 0.84), conflicting (a = 0.86), moral orientation (a = 0.78), fulfillment orientation (a = 0.80), autonomy (a = 0.61), cultural interests (a = 0.78), recreational involvement (a = 0.74), family organization (a = 0.79), family control (a = 0.82) N = 4 scales with 21 items each: efficacy (a = 0.81), avoidance (a = 0.72), dismissal (a = 0.80), manipulation (a = 0.75) N = 10 scales: lie (a = 0.62); frequency; (a = 0.81); correction; (a = 0.65); hypochondriasis; (a = 0.81)depression; (a = 0.80); conversion hysteria; (a = 0.88); psychopathic deviate (a = 0.88); masculinity–femininity (a = 0.64); paranoia (a = 0.75); psychastenia (a = 0.80); schizophrenia (a = 0.83); hypomania (a = 0.56); social introversion (a = 0.83) N = 1 scale (5 items, a = 0.81) N = 1 scale (10 items, a = 0.79)

Structure

(continued)

Olson, Fournier, and Druckman (1982) Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, First, and Benjamin (1997) Maino (1998)

Hathaway and Mc Kinley (1942), Mosticoni and Chiari (1979)

Cusinato and Cristante (1999)

Bertuola (1999), Cusinato, Cristante, and Muraro (1979), Moos, Insel, and Humphrey (1974), Moos and Moos (1976)

Cusinato, Segatto, and Fabrizio (2000)

McCubbin, Olson, and Larsen (1987)

References(*) Measures External to Theoretical Models 27

Posttraumatic Reaction Scale Pessimism Scale, revised Short Form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress

Relationship Awareness Scale

Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Italian version) Stanley’s Commitment Inventory

PRS PsSr QRS

RAS

RSIt.v

SCI

Partner Quality Test Premarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation, revised

Optimism and Pessimism Instrument Optimism Scale, revised Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships

PQT PREPAREr

OSr PAIR

OPI

Table 2.2  (continued) Acronym Title

N = 3 scales: couple commitment (8 items, a = 0.83); emotional detachment (8 items, a = 0.68); possible breakup (12 items, a = 0.79)

N = 2 scales: optimism with 15 items (a = 0.77); pessimism with 17 items (a = 0.86) N = 1 scale (10 items, a = 0.71) N = 5 scales with 6 items each: emotional intimacy., social intimacy, sexual intimacy, mental intimacy, and recreational intimacy (a = 0.75 – 93). N = 1 scale (16 items, a = 0.79) N = 10 scales: personality issues (a = 0.78), communication (a = 0.76), conflict resolution (a = 0.72), family competence (a = 0.58), leisure activity (a = 0.72), affective integration (a = 0.69); parental perspectives (a = 0.74); couple openness (a = 0.75); role flexibility (a = 0.63), couple religiosity (a = 0.87) N = 1 scale (28 items, a = 0.88) N = 1 scale (10 items, a = 0.80) N = 3 scales with 10 items: parental and family problems in relation to the handicapped child (a = 0.98); pessimism in relation to the characteristics of the handicapped child (a = 0.98); characteristics of the handicapped child (a = 0.98) N = 3 scales with 9 items each: relational consciousness (a = 0.81); relational monitoring (a = 0.88); relational anxiety (a = 0.85) N = 1 scale (10 items, a = 0.87)

Structure

Maino and Resta (1999), Stanley and Markman (1992)

Rosenberg (1985)

Snell (1998)

Ajudković, Arambašić, and Ljubotina (2004) Cusinato and Colesso (2007) Friedrich, Greenberg, and Crnic (1983)

Maino and Aceti (1996) Facco (1999)

Dember and Brooks (1989), Maino and Cusinato (2000) Cusinato and Colesso (2007) Schaefer and Olson (1981)

References(*)

28 2 Internal and External Measures to Evaluate Models of the Theory

Satisfaction with Life Scale

Situational Self-Awareness Scale Self-View Questionnaire

Work Satisfaction, revised

SLS

SSAS

WSr

SVQ

Title

Acronym

N = 6 scales: work variety (8 items, a = 0.84); social utility (6 items, a = 0.74); leadership relations (6 items, a = 0.57); career (6 item, a = 0.44); economic satisfaction (6 items, a = 0.40), stress (6 items, a = 0.60)

N = 4 factors: SVQ-F1 (a = 0.74), SVQ-F2 (a = 0.95), SVQ-F3 (a = 0.94), and SVQ-F4 (a = 0.84)

L’Abate and De Giacomo (2003), pp. 195–196, L’Abate, De Giacomo, McCarty, De Giacomo, and Verrastro (2000) Benvenuti (1980)

Diener, Emmous, Larsen, and Griffin (1985), Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, and Scabini (2006) Govern and Marsch (2001)

N = 1 scale (5 items, a = 0.75) N = 3 scales with 3 items each (total scale, a = 0.79)

References(*)

Structure

Measures External to Theoretical Models 29

30

2 Internal and External Measures to Evaluate Models of the Theory

Conclusion The validity of internal measures to evaluate models of RCT is as good as the validity of the external measures used to validate them.

Part II

Metatheoretical Assumptions

The following metatheoretical assumptions go above and beyond relational competence theory itself, encapsulating and relying on reliable knowledge accumulated from the past and representing constructs necessary for any theory of any kind. They serve as the foundations on which the whole theoretical framework is based. These assumptions include width (Model1) in Chap. 3, depth (Model2) in Chap. 4, and settings (Model3) in Chap. 5.

Chapter 3

Model1: The Width of Relationships

Human relationships can be viewed horizontally according to their width in an information-processing dimension or they can be viewed vertically according to their depth. The latter view is considered in Chap. 4. Personal relationships may vary along a horizontal, information-processing dimension of width that includes internal processes fundamental to relational competence. Width involves the range of emotional experience, expanding outward from subjective experience to objective behaviors in a circular model (Fig. 3.1). The five components of this model (Model1) are: emotionality, rationality, activity, awareness, and context, related to one another circularly but not necessarily sequentially. “Emotionality” refers to the receptive, input side of experiencing both painful and pleasurable events, that is, feelings (Kagan, 2007; L’Abate, 1986, pp. 145–171). Feelings are not visible unless they are elicited or inferred from overt behavior (Coan & Allen, 2007). “Rationality” includes processing cognitions and intellectual processes related to future planning and problem solving, including appraisal of feelings and determination of how feelings should be expressed verbally, nonverbally, or in writing, including emotional intelligence. “Activity” represents whatever outward behavior is visible and measurable, including expressed emotions at the output side of internally felt subjective experiences and feelings. “Awareness” represents the ability to reflect about one’s past behavior, serving as corrective feedback, that is, “insight” that may be used to modify activity, rationality, or emotionality. “Context” represents the immediate, proximal, and subjective nature of the relation between the individual and the immediate physical and human surroundings. Context is differentiated from settings (Model3) by its subjective rather than by its objective nature, as discussed also in Chaps. 5 and 9. The three major variables to consider in Model1 (Fig. 3.1) are: 1. Size, how much space is used by one component of the model in relation to the other four components. This variable then determines the order or sequence followed by each component in how it affects the overall functioning among components. 2. Thickness, strength, or permeability of boundaries, varying from extremely thick and strong and, therefore, impermeable to extremely weak and, therefore, permeable (Hartmann, 1991).

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_3, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

33

34

3 Model1: The Width of Relationships

Fig. 3.1  The ERAAwC model (Model1). (From L’Abate 1986, pp. 143, 199)

3. The permeability or impermeability of boundaries determines the amount of overlap among the five components, ranging from no overall overlap to a great deal of overlap. This model has been the subjected to a great deal of research, as presented below. Each component of Model1 is fundamental to past and present schools of thought and of psychotherapy. For example, emotionality as a subjective feeling is historically connected to existentialism, humanism, and phenomenology. Rationality is historically connected to empiricism and rationalism, and, in psychotherapy, to rational emotive and cognitive behavioral therapy. Activity is represented by behaviorism and empiricism. Awareness is historically connected with psychoanalysis with its emphasis on insight and different degrees of consciousness, ranging from completely unconscious and not even available to memory, to semiconscious, perhaps available in episodic memory, to conscious but not spoken or expressed, and, finally, to conscious, spoken, and expressed (Bargh, 2007; De Giacomo, L’Abate, Pennebaker, & Rumbaugh, in press; Hassin, Uleman, & Bargh, 2005). Context is historically connected to contextualism and family therapy (L’Abate, 1986). Model1 has been evaluated and partially validated with the Relational Answers Questionnaire (RAQ), a 50-item, paper-and-pencil, self-report inventory whose psychometric properties (construct and criterion validities) were evaluated with other measures external to the RAQ. Evidence to support the convergent and construct validity of this questionnaire to evaluate Model1 is shown in Table 3.1. In most studies reported in this chapter, in addition to standard statistical analyses, such as correlations, analysis of variance, and effect size, confirmatory factorial analyses were used, described by three descriptive goodness-of-fit measures: (1) goodness-of-fit index (GFI), (2) comparative fit index, and (3) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Both construct and concurrent validities of the RAQ were initially validated by Corsi (2002). She found that the construct validities as measured by GFI and by RMSEA were within acceptable limits. In both male and female participants, the criterion validity for both awareness and context

Zuliani (2004)

N = 226 Croatians:n = 113 nonrefugees (1); n = 113 war refugees (2)

Convergent validity of RAQ and COPEr in (2)

Convergent validity of RAQ and COPEr in (1)

RAQ, PRS, Convergent validity of RAQ and PRS in (1) and COPEr Convergent validity of RAQ and PRS in (2)

Table 3.1  Convergent and construct validity for Model1 (ERAAwC) References Participants Tests Research questions RAQ Construct validity (1) Corsi N = 480 nonclinical people (2002) (1): n = 240 males (2); n = 240 females Construct validity (2) (3); n = 120 aged 14 – 19 and (3) (4); n = 120 aged 20 – 30 Criterion validity in (2) (5); n = 120 aged 31 – 40 and (3) (6); n = 120 aged 41 – 60 (7) Construct validity (4), (5), (6), and (7)

Emotionality: support: r = 0.22, p <0.05; problem solving r = 0.34, p < 0.001 Rationality: disengagement r = −0.36, p < 0.001; problem solving r = 0.55, p < 0.001 Activity: support: r = −0.26, p < 0.001; religion r = 0.47, p < 0.001 Awareness: disengagement r = 0.34, p = 0.001; support strategies r = 0.26, p < 0.001 Emotionality: support r = 0.36, p < 0.001; religion r = 0.36, p < 0.001 Rationality: support r = 0.28, p < 0.001; problem solving r = 0.44, p < 0.001 Activity: problem solving r = 0.30, p < 0.001 Awareness: disengagement r = −0.31, p < 0.001; religion r = −0.21, p < 0.05 Context: disengagement r = 0.34, p < 0.001; support strategies r = 0.26, p < 0.001 (continued)

PRS: emotionality r = 0.43, p < 0.001; activity r = 0.37, p < 0.001; awareness r = −0.57, p < 0.001; context r = 0.57, p < 0.001

Awareness: F(1, 478) = 13.34, p = 0.001 Context: F(1, 478) = 13.81, p = 0.001 (4) c2(1, 120) = 0.02, P = 0.88, GFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00; (5) c2(3, 120) = 5,838.56, NS; (6) c2(1, 120) = 0.71, P = 0.40, GFI = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00; (7) c2(1, 120) = 2.55, P = 0.11, GFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.11 PRS: activity r = 0.37, p < 0.001; awareness r = −0.42, p < 0.001; context r = 0.38, p < 0.001

Results (1) c2(1, 480) = 0.21, P = 0.65, GFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00 (3) c2(1, 240) = 0.54, P = 0.46, GFI = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00

Model1: The Width of Relationships 35

Maino (2005)

Tests

RAQ N = 95 parent couple: n = 15 couples with children aged 1 – 16 years with infantile cerebral palsy (1); n = 40 couples with childr en aged 1–16 years with a diagnosis of malformation syndrome (2); n = 40 couples with healthy children, of whom at least 1 was in the 1–16 age range (3)

Table 3.1  (continued) References Participants

Construct validity in (3)

Construct validity in (2)

Construct validity in (1)

Research questions

Emotionality: no significant predictor Rationality: awareness R2 = 0.39, F(1, 28) = 18.22, b = 0.63, p = 0.001; activity R2 = 0.70, F(1, 28) = 30.91, b = 0.55; p = 0.001 Activity: rationality R2 = 0.23, F(1, 28) = 8.11, b = 0.47, p = 0.008; awareness R2 = 0.50, F(1, 28) = 13.76, b = −0.68, p = 0.001 Awareness: rationality R2 = 0.39, F(1, 28) = 18.22, b = 0.63; p = 0.001; activity R2 = 0.61, F(1, 28) = 21.40, b = −0.53, p = 0.001; context R2 = 0.68, F(1, 28) = 18.21, b = −0.27; p = 0.001 Context: awareness R2 = 0.26, F(1, 28) = 9.98, b = −0.51; p = 0.004; emotionality R2 = 0.37, F(1, 28) = 7.81, b = −0.50, p = 0.002 Emotionality: activity R2 = 0.05, F(1, 78) = 3.99, b = 0.22; p = 0.049 Rationality: awareness R2 = 0.19, F(1, 78) = 18.20, b = 0.44, p = 0.001; emotionality R2 = 0.25, F(1, 78) = 12.89, b = 0.25, p = 0.001 Activity: emotionality R2 = 0.05, F(1, 78) = 3.99; b = 0.22; p = 0.049 Awareness: context R2 = 0.33, F(1, 78) = 37.61, b = −0.57; p = 0.001; rationality R2 = 0.46, F(1, 78) = 32.61, b = 0.37, p = 0.001 Context: awareness R2 = 0.33, F(1, 78) = 37.61, b = −0.57, p = 0.001 Emotionality: context R2 = 0.05, F(1, 78) = 4.25, b = 0.23, p = 0.043; awareness R2 = 0.11, F(1, 78) = 4.99, b = 0.28, p = 0.001 Rationality: activity R2 = 0.24, F(1, 78) = 25.19, b = 0.49, p = 0.001; awareness R2 = 0.34, F(1, 78) = 19.45, b = 0.32, p = 0.001 Activity: rationality R2 = 0.24, F(1, 78) = 25.19, b = 0.49, p = 0.001; awareness R2 = 0.41, F(1, 78) = 26.59, b = −0.41, p = 0.001 Awareness: context: R2 = 0.21, F(1, 78) = 20.35, b = −0.46, p = 0.001; activity R2 = 0.32, F(1, 78) = 18.24, b = −0.34, p = 0.001; rationality R2 = 0.40, F(1, 78) = 17.04, b = 0.33, p = 0.001; emotionality R2 = 0.49, F(1, 78) = 17.77, b = 0.30, p = 0.001 Context: awareness R2 = 0.21, F(1, 78) = 20.35, b = −0.46, p = 0.001; emotionality R2 = 0.29, F(1, 78) = 15.55, b = 0.29, p = 0.001

Results

36 3 Model1: The Width of Relationships

Construct validity in (1)

RAQ and FESr

Sandonà N = 175 nonclinical adolescents (2006) (1): n = 121, age 12–14 (2); n = 54, age 15–18 (3); n = 61 males (4); n = 114 females (5)

Criterion validity in (4) and (5)

Criterion validity in (2) and (3)

Convergent validity of RAQ and FESr in (4) and (5)

Convergent validity of RAQ and FESr in (2) and (3)

Research questions

Tests

References Participants

(continued)

Emotionality: rationality r = −0.21, p = 0.005; awareness r = −0.27, p < 0.001; context: r = 0.46, p < 0.001 Rationality: activity r = 0.28, p < 0.001; awareness r = 0.50, p < 0.001; context r = −0.30; p < 0.001 Activity: awareness r = 0.20, p = 0.009; context r = −0.20, p < 0.01 Awareness: context: r = −0.62, p < 0.001 (2) Awareness: conflict r = 0.18, p = 0.047Activity: realization orientation r = −0.19, p = 0.041 Rationality: cultural orientation r = 0.21, p = 0.021 (3) Emotionality: cohesion r = 0.27, p = 0.045 Awareness: cohesion r = −0.28, p = 0.04; family control r = 0.28, p = 0.038 Context: moral orientation r = 0.29, p = 0.033; realization orientation r = 0.28, p = 0.039; family control r = −0.30, p = 0.029 (4) Emotionality: cohesion r = −0.29, p = 0.025 Rationality: cultural orientation r = 0.30, p = 0.020 Activity: realization orientation r = −0.30, p = 0.019 Awareness: conflict r = 0.29, p = 0.022 (5) Context: expression r = 0.19, p = 0.041; family organization r = 0.19, p = 0.040 Emotionality: F(1, 173) = 6.06, p = 0.015 Activity: F(1, 173) = 7.63, p = 0.006 Awareness: F(1, 173) = 6.80, p = 0.010 Context: F(1, 173) = 4.73, p = 0.031 Emotionality: F(1, 173) = 77.52, p = 0.001 Context: F(1, 173) = 6.27, p = 0.013

Results

Model1: The Width of Relationships 37

N = 301 nonclinical participants (1): n = 117 males (2); n = 184 females (3); n = 77 age 19–24 (4); n = 79 age 25–36 (5); n = 75 age 37–50 (6); n = 70 age 51–70 (7)

Arnaldi (2007)

RAQ, QAA, and DES

Construct validity in (1) and (2)

RAQ and RSIt.v

N = 218 adult participants: n = 109 noninmates (1); n = 109 inmates (2); n = 55 violent (3); n = 54 nonviolent (4)

Zanardini (2006)

(1) c2(10, 109) = 3.84, P = 0.95, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.00; (2) c2(12, 109) = 12.25, P = 0.43, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.01 (3) c2(4, 69) = 0.05, P = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00; (4) c2(4, 54) = 0.11, P = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00 RSIt.v: awareness r = 0.41, p < 0.01; context r = −0.41, p < 0.01

Results

Construct validity in (3) and (4) Convergent validity of RAQ and RSIt.v in (1) Construct validity in (1) Emotionality: activity r = 0.14, p = 0.012; context r = 0.24, p = 0.001; Rationality: activity r = 0.38, p = 0.001; awareness r = 0.37, p = 0.001; Activity: awareness r = 0.17, p = 0.003; emotionality r = 0.14, p = 0.012 Awareness: rationality r = 0.37, p = 0.001; activity r = 17, p = 0.003; context r = −0.60; p = 0.001 Context: emotionality r = 0.24; p = 0.001; awareness r = −0.60; p = 0.001 Convergent validity of Emotionality: secure r = 0.33, p = 0.001; avoidance r = −0.37, RAQ and QAA in (1) p = 0.019; fearful r = −0.14, p = 0.019 Rationality: secure r = 0.13, p = 0.025; avoidance r = 0.19, p = 0.001 Activity: secure r = 0.23, p = 0.001; avoidance r = 0.38, p = 0.001 Awareness: secure r = 0.47; p = 0.001; preoccupied r = −0.57, p = 0.001; fearful r = −0.53, p = 0.001 Context: secure r = −0.33, p = 0.001; preoccupied r = 0.66, p = 0.001; fearful r = 0.47, p = 0.001

Research questions

Tests

Table 3.1  (continued)

References Participants

38 3 Model1: The Width of Relationships

References Participants

Tests

Criterion validity in (4) and (5) and (6) and (7)

(continued)

Emotionality: interest r = 0.21, p = 0.001; joy r = 0.30, p = 0.001; sadness r = 0.14, p = 0.018; surprise r = 0.19, p = 0.001; fear r = 0.15, p = 0.011 Rationality: interest r = 0.15, p = 0.01 Activity: interest r = 0.23; p = 0.001; sadness r = −0.21; p = 0.001; fear r = −0.18; p = 0.001; guilt r = −0.12; p = 0.043; shyness r = −0.28; p = 0.001 Awareness: interest r = 0.30, p = 0.001; joy r = 0.29, p = 0.001; sadness r = −0.44, p = 0.001; anger r = −0.26, p = 0.001; fear r = −0.40, p = 0.001; guilt r = −0.42, p = 0.001; shyness r = −0.42, p = 0.001; disgust r = −0.22, p = 0.001; contempt r = −0.25, p = 0.001 Context: interest r = −0.16, p = 0.006; joy r = −0.14, p = 0.013; sadness r = 0.50, p = 0.001; anger r = 0.20, p = 0.001; surprise r = 0.19, p = 0.001; fear r = 0.44; p = 0.001; guilt r = 0.53; p = 0.001; shyness r = 0.53, p = 0.001; disgust r = 0.22, p = 0.01; contempt r = 0.18, p = 0.022 Emotionality: F(1, 299) = 51.60, p = 0.001 Rationality: F(1, 299) = 4.79, p = 0.029 Activity: F(1, 299) = 5.79, p = 0.017 Context: F(1, 299) = 4.03, p = 0.045 Rationality: F(3, 297) = 9.88, p < 0.001 Activity: F(3, 297) = 25.97, p < 0.001

Convergent validity of RAQ and DES in (1)

Criterion validity in (2) and (3)

Results

Research questions

Model1: The Width of Relationships 39

Tests RAQ and MMPI

Research questions Construct validity

Results Emotionality: rationality r = 0.28; p = 0.007; context r = 0.31, p = 0.003 Rationality: emotionality r = 0.28; p = 0.007; awareness r = 0.39, p = 0.001 Activity: awareness r = −0.28, p = 0.008; context r = 0.28, p = 0.007 Awareness: rationality r = 0.39; p <0.001; activity r = −0.28, p = 0.008; context r = −0.61; p < 0.001 Context: emotionality r = 0.31; p = 0.003; activity r = 0.28; p = 0.007; awareness r = −0.61; p < 0.001 Convergent validity Activity: psychopathic deviate r = 0.26; p = 0.012 of RAQ and MMPI Awareness: correction r = 0.22; p = 0.041; paranoia r = −0.23; p = 0.035; schizophrenia r = −0.23; p = 0.027 Context: lie r = −0.28; p = 0.008; correction r = −0.21; p = 0.045; schizophrenia r = 0.24; p = 0.021; social introversion r = 0.34; p < 0.001 (1) c2(7, 131) = 7.26, P = 0.40, CFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.02 Construct validity Miozzi N = 276 nonclinical participants: RAQ in (1) and (2) (2007) n = 131 with low education (2) c2(6, 145) = 4.99, P = 0.54, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.00 (1); n = 145 with high Construct validity Emotionality: activity r = 0.14, p < 0.05; awareness r = −0.12, p = 0.05; education (2) in (1) and (2) context r = 0.29, p < 0.01 Rationality: activity r = 0.28, p < 0.01; awareness r = 0.43, p < 0.01 Activity: awareness r = 0.25, p < 0.01 Awareness: context r = −0.52, p < 0.01 Criterion validity Rationality: F(1, 274) = 12.61, p < 0.001 in (1) and (2) Activity: F(1, 274) = 12.37, p < 0.001 RAQ Relational Answers Questionnaire; AAQ Adult Attachment Questionnaire; DES Differential Emotion Scale; MMPI Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; FESr Family Environment Scale, revised; Aw-RAQ Awareness Scale from Relational Answers Questionnaire; SSAS Situational Self-Awareness Scale; COPEr Coping Orientation of Problem Experience, revised; RSIt.v Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Italian version), CFI comparative fit index, GFI goodness-of-fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, NS not significant

Table 3.1  (continued) References Participants Conte N = 106 Italian inmates with (2007) low education, age 19–65

40 3 Model1: The Width of Relationships

Model1: The Width of Relationships

41

were statistically significant, p = 0.001 for both subscales. Age was also a significant factor, with acceptable construct validity values for GFI and RMSEA. Corsi’s results in regard to the main effects of age were supported by the results of Sandonà (2006) with three groups of adolescents, supporting the construct and convergent validity of the RAQ through intercorrelations among the five scales, and its convergent validity as measured with the different scales of the Family Environment Scale, revised (Moos & Burnett, 1996). Arnaldi (2007) also produced additional evidence to support a main effect of age as well as the construct and criterion validity of the various scales. The convergent validity of the RAQ was evaluated with the Italian translation of the Questionnaire of Adult Attachment and with the Differential Emotion Scale, all with statistically significant values. Maino (2005) also found additional support for the construct validity of the RAQ with families with healthy children versus families with disabled children. Conte (2007) evaluated the construct and convergent validity of the RAQ with inmates by correlating it with various scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). He found that activity correlated significantly and positively with the Psychopathic Deviate Scale (r = 0.26, p > 0.01) and negatively with Paranoia, Schizophrenia, and Lies. These results show the power of the RAQ to differentiate specific family contexts and, at the same time, identify which resources (among the five components) are mostly relied on. For example, these studies point out a prevailing use of emotionality by parents with a child affected by infantile cerebral palsy and a prevailing use of rationality by parents with a child with a genetic disability (Maino, 2005). Besides, this instrument indicates how different relations between the perception of the family context and the use of the five component parts vary across different stages of the life cycle (Sandonà, 2006), or in individuals with a specific attachment style (Arnaldi, 2007). In inmates, the significant positive correlation between high scores of the MMPI psychopathic scale and high scores of the RAQ activity scale supports their inclination toward impulsive action (Conte, 2007). Zanardini (2006) tested the hypothesis that RAQ profiles of 109 inmates would differ from profiles of a control group (N = 109), expecting that activity would peak and be weakly influenced by the other four components of the model: emotionality, rationality, awareness, and context. A structural equation model analysis found that normal controls supported this hypothesis, but inmates tended to produce a different profile. They tend to act first and think afterwards using awareness and context with emotionality. Their answers on the RAQ are characterized by activity linked to emotionality. Inmates, apparently, tend to bypass rationality, going directly from emotionality to activity answers. Zuliani (2004) explored traumatic effects 9 years since the end of the war in the former Yugoslavia with a group of 113 Croatian refugees and a homogeneous control group of Croatian nonrefugees. Even though there were no differences between the RAQ profiles of the two groups, correlations with other measures of the selfhood model (Model11), discussed in Chap. 13, with the Post-Traumatic Reaction Scale (Ajudković, Arambašić, & Ljubotina, 2004) and the Coping Strategies, revised (Carver, Scheier, & Weinstraub, 1989) confirmed the convergent validity of the RAQ. Miozzi’s (2007) results, on the other hand, support

42

3 Model1: The Width of Relationships

a medium effect size due to education. Participants in elementary and middle school could be characterized by more limited and less articulate relational competences in comparison with participants from high school to college.

Conclusion There results tend to support the construct, criterion, and convergent validities of this model.

Chapter 4

Model2: The Depth of Relationships

In addition to a horizontal model (Model1, Chap. 3) about width in relationships, Model2 is concerned with viewing relational competence (RC) according to a layered perspective composed of levels of observation and interpretation for how RC varies along a vertical dimension of depth. This multilayered model comprises two major levels of description and explanation. Each level has two sublevels. The literature about this vertical model composed of two levels and two sublevels has been reviewed repeatedly and at length in previous publications by the first author and only more recent evidence about each sublevel will be included here. The reader interested in greater detail about this model is referred to previous publications, especially the most recent and detailed one (L’Abate, 2005). Nonetheless, more recent research, not previously reviewed by the first author, will be included here to bring this model up to date. One reason for the difficulty in evaluating the validity of this model in a more direct, theory-derived way lies in its layered and rather complex nature. This model in and of itself cannot be evaluated in toto; it can be evaluated by one of the four sublevels at a time, just as RC theory (RCT) cannot be evaluated altogether, except through a structured interview (L’Abate, 2009a) and a planned parenting interactive practice exercise (L’Abate, 2010; Chap. 19). Therefore, given the plethora of evidence to support each sublevel of this model, it is doubtful whether there will be any way to evaluate its validity in toto: only one sublevel at the time can be validated by existing evidence in the extant literature.

Description Descriptions of behavior range from the public social façade or exteriority in how people present themselves and try to make an impression to how people behave in the privacy of their home or interiority at a phenotypical sublevel.

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_4, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

43

44

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

Sublevel of Self-Presentation This sublevel has been made synonymous with impression management (IM). However, since the literature on IM and impression formation is so vast, we shall limit our references to a representative rather than an exhaustive sample of key articles on IM and self-presentation. This sublevel refers to how we want to appear in public to “make a good impression,” as a superficial, short-lived stance, such as to appear as a “nice person.” On the other hand of presenting oneself positively, there are individuals who tend to make the worst possible impression, attempting to sabotage how they appear and behave in public, “self-handicapping” (Hip-Fabek, 2005). Whereas salespersons, for instance, on one hand, must make a good impression to make a sale, some celebrities, the young ones especially, seem to go out of their way and apparently can afford to make the worst possible impression socially, in the way they dress or the way they behave. The amount of literature on both constructs, self-presentation and IM, since the publication of L’Abate (2005) is so overwhelming that it is impossible to include or review it all here as well as anywhere else. An attempt will be made to use representative studies rather than a systematic review of the extant literature on this sublevel, a topic that has increased by leaps and bounds over the last decade. Nonetheless, the second author has composed a 50-item scale specifically focused on self-presentation, a scale that will be related to other levels of this model and to other models of RCT (Cusinato & L’Abate, in press). “Self-presentation,” a term used somewhat interchangeably in the literature with “socially desirable responding,” “faking good,” and “underreporting,” refers to a heterogeneous area with several identifiable facets. The most readily defined facet refers to claims of extreme virtue. A second facet appears to represent the simple underreporting or denial of psychopathological behavior, and probably claims of superior adjustment, although no literature has studied whether these might be the same facet. A third facet, involving claims of personal superiority, has been termed “self-deceptive positivity.” When these facts are carefully defined, they appear to be relatively independent. Analysis of item content in the psychological inventories most commonly used to assess favorable self-presentation shows that they are heterogeneous in content, but tend to primarily represent one or other of the three facets. Simulation studies have tended to use broad instructions involving socially desirable responding and have thus encompassed all of the facets. It could be expected that larger effect sizes in the assessment of favorable self-presentation (and greater specificity in clinical practice) could be achieved by utilizing carefully constructed measures that represent a single facet within a specific situation context (Lanyon, 2004). Self-presentation ratings may be more positive after affirmation of the intended impression than when self-presentation might be ineffective (Cisek, 2006). Paulhus and Trapnell (2008) presented an interesting, valuable hierarchical framework based on two constructs included in RCT, originally proposed by Bakan (1968): communion (Model4, Chap. 6) and agency (Model5, Chap. 7) as well as a

Description

45

combination of both constructs (Model6, Chap. 8). Below the two sublevels of public and private audiences, these scholars include images at the third level for each of the two audiences, adding an important dimension of self-deception which includes asset exaggeration and deviance denial. Within the private audience, which is equated with self, rather than others, there are egoistic and moralistic biases. Clearly, this model deserved wider and more detailed attention that can be given here. Self-presentation may occur at the institutional level rather than just at the individual or relational levels. Educational institutions in western USA, for instance, may tend to publish more religious references and fewer photographs of women than institutions in other regions, and references to international programs are more prevalent in the Midwest. Overall, few institutions mention racial or ethnic diversity on their campuses, although visual representations of diversity are more frequent in photographs than in textual references (Boyer, Brunner, Charles, & Coleman, 2006).

Parents, Children, and Youths The relative impact of features of protective self-presentation, key sources of socialization, and social anxiety on individual differences in loneliness among Australian adolescents and young adults were assessed by Jackson (2007). In a first study, this researcher found that peer and parenting measures were significant predictors of loneliness, independent of self-presentation, and that social anxiety added to the model after controlling for all other measures. In a second study, he found that protective self-presentation features, peer relations, and social anxiety had unique effects on loneliness. Parental measures, however, did not add to the prediction model for young adults. Social norms and children’s concerns for self-presentation may affect their intergroup attitudes. Two studies showed that children below 10 years old seem to be externally motivated to inhibit their in-group bias under public self-focus. Older children seem internally motivated to suppress their biases as they show implicit and not explicit biases. Perhaps, children with low norm internalization may tend to suppress their out-group prejudice under high public self-focus (Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005). Relations between a tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner and mothers’ reports of their parenting behaviors, and the influence of social desirability on the association among parenting practices and mothers’ and children’s symptoms were evaluated by Johnston, Scoular, and Ohan (2004). Forty-two mothers of 7–12-year-old boys with symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder completed two self-report measures of parenting practices. In general, these reports demonstrated expected correlations with observations of mothers’ behavior, and with the mothers’ reports of their own hostility and hyperactive–impulsive symptoms. Although the mothers’ reports on one of the parenting measures may be related to scores on an IM scale, correlations between parenting reports and maternal child and child symptomatology are essentially unaltered with IM scores controlled.

46

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

These results suggest that reports of parenting in mothers of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms are not unduly influenced by IM, but are related to maternal and child functioning. The family in itself could be used as part of an IM effort, as would be the case of one’s wife or partner, and in some cases, the “trophy wife”: “...the wife has long been a crucial, if unacknowledged, sociological component of a leader’s ‘political self-presentation’ and her role should be included as part of her husband’s IM strategies” (Gillespie, 2006, p. 379). This argument has been expanded by Collett (2005), who mentioned previous research supporting the use of intimate others as props for IM (e.g., presidents’ use of first ladies). However, Collett contended that this research has left many areas unexplored, including the role of nonadults as important associates. Children’s appearances, for instance, may play a heretofore unacknowledged role in the maintenance of identities and IM for their mothers. Through interviews and participant observations with mothers of young children, Collett investigated what mothers think about their children’s clothing, mothers’ concerns about when – and with whom – to manage impressions, and the impressions these women hope they portray through the physical appearance of their children. In addition to providing insight and information about these IM behaviors, Collett also discussed responses surrounding the importance of first impressions, differences in meaning attached to children’s spoiled appearances, and the sacrifices made in motherhood. Apparently, women use well-dressed and well-groomed children to enact and confirm identities as “good mothers” and to protect and enhance their own self-concepts during the course of everyday social interaction. Body Image The importance of overall and exercise-specific feelings of self-determination in dealing with body image concerns and low-self perceptions may be related to the level of self-presentation (Thorgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2007). College students, for instance, may perceive self-degradation of body image in self-presentation as normative (Britton, Martz, Bazzini, Curtin, & Lea Shomb, 2006). This topic is also related to exercise and sport psychology, considered in greater detail later. Gender The strength of self-presentation motives in regard to partners may increase as the subjective and romantic feelings about the relationship’s importance are elicited. The association of the length of the relationship and the strength of self-presentation motives may be negative in opposite-sex friendships and negative in romantic relationships. The exclusivity of a romantic relationship may reduce the strength of self-presentation motives. However, self-presentation motives in long-term relationships might not be necessarily weaker than in short-term relationships (Taniguchi & Daibo, 2005).

Description

47

Gender expectations and expectations of future interaction may affect the frequency and nature of lying. During taped conversations of males and females assigned to same-gender or opposite-gender undergraduates, 78% of participants lied, with females lying significantly more than males. Females, but not males, tended to lie more when expecting future interaction than when expecting no future interaction. The nature of lies may vary as a function of gender, suggesting than women and men may use deception differentially as a self-presentational tactic (Tyler & Feldman, 2004). The goals of self-presentation and maintenance of control over one’s outcomes may influence women’s tendencies to make or to avoid making attributions toward discrimination because failing to view events as discrimination may have negative psychological costs (Sechrist, Swim, & Stangor, 2004). Two studies by Thornton, Audesse, Ryckman, and Burckle (2006) examined opposing self-presentational strategies for IM: “playing dumb” and “knowing it all.” In the first study, 120 men reported greater use of both strategies than did 120 women, but no gender differences were noted among personality correlates. However, both strategies were associated with lower self-esteem, higher public self-consciousness and social anxiety, greater fear of negative evaluation, and more hypercompetitiveness. Those with more equalitarian attitudes toward the roles of women and men tended to be less likely to engage in these strategies. Results from a second study (98 women, 100 men) suggested that the use of either strategy is associated with gender-role-typing rather than simply with gender to the extent that androgynous men and women tended to report using these strategies less often than masculine or feminine gender-typed men and women. Gendered differences in the managerial repertoires of the National Health Service in the UK were evaluated by Greener (2007) through interviews carried out with senior National Health Service supervisors across several geographical areas. From an IM perspective, where they are able to occupy senior management positions, a different management style begins to emerge among women, with a separation between the “front-stage,” “backstage,” and “outside” activities. Women managers appeared to acknowledge that they could not behave front stage in the same way with doctors as they often did in their outside-stage encounters with them, but that the additional strategies they utilized while they were outside stage were key elements in their repertoire for getting things done. This view of management is contrasted with a very different one exhibited by male managers. Personality Personality characteristics of individuals affect the answers they give to questions on controversially sensitive political topics, including question batteries measuring two psychological concepts related to self-presentation. The responses to these questions varied as a function of their self-presentation personality characteristics (Berinsky, 2004). In this regard, cognitive ability and self-reported efficacy of selfpresentation predict faking on self-report personality measures (Pauls & Crost, 2005).

48

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

Upward comparison with others can negatively influence self-evaluation. People may tend to actively employ various protective strategies to mitigate the effect of such comparison. The frequency of deceptions in self-presentation may significantly increase and self-esteem and mood decrease when participants meet threatening comparison information. The relationship between upward comparison situations and the use of untruthful information as a self-presentation strategy may be partially mediated by self-esteem (Tyler & Feldman, 2005). The connection between Machiavellianism, the desire and striving for power, and certain components of perfectionism seem to operate through socially prescribed perfectionism. Machiavellian perfectionists, for instance, may tend to perceive others as demanding, controlling, punitive, and hostile toward them while attempting to promote an image of perfection, capability, and strength to others, while trying to conceal any hint of imperfection, vulnerability, and weakness from others. When Machiavellian individuals’ perfectionistic demands from significant others, perfectionistic self-presentation might be more likely to emerge from a chameleon-like repertoire of self-presentational behaviors (Hewitt, Habke, Lee-Baggley, Sherry, & Flett, 2008; Sherry, Hewitt, Besser, Flett, & Klein, 2006). Perfectionistic selfpresentation is significantly associated with self-esteem and its measurement with the Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale was reliable and valid with Chinese college students (Zhang, Gan, & Zhan, 2007). Procrastination might be significantly related to a self-concept dominated by task performance and to self-presentation strategies that may reflect a person as continually justifying and excusing task delays and being needy of others’ approval. Apparently, both men and women procrastinate to improve their social standing by making their accomplishments seem greater than they really are (Ferrari & DíazMorales, 2007). Individual differences in the relationships between self-determination and self-presentation with less self-determined individuals are linked to engaging in selfpresentation strategies more frequently that more self-determined individuals. Higher autonomy scores should be associated with the use of fewer self-presentation strategies, whereas higher controlled and higher impersonal orientation scores should be associated with the use of more self-presentation strategies but for different reasons. Results indicated that higher autonomy scores might be related to the use of fewer self-presentation tactics. Being more controlled might be associated with engaging in more self-presentation across the board. Higher impersonal scores might be primarily associated with engaging in strategies to gain assistance or prevent high expectations (Lewis & Neighbors, 2005). A model of psychological processes underlying faking on test taking integrating concepts from other models is supported by results that suggest personality factors and perceptions of situational factors contribute to faking behavior (Pauls & Crost, 2004). These findings imply that people differ with regard to how much they fake on a personality test in a simulated employment setting, with some people faking substantially and others faking very little, if at all. The extent to which an individual fakes is partially determined by the person’s attitudes and personality characteristics (Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Thornton, 2006).

Description

49

Pontari and Schlenker (2004) argued that people will strategically control the information they express to others about friends to help those friends make a good impression and they set up three experiments to determine whether romantic partners also engage in this behavior. The results from the first experiment indicated that people who express stronger feelings for their dating partners adjusted the descriptions of these significant others to help them make a desirable impression on a same-sex but not an opposite-sex other. The second and third experiments provided support for the hypotheses that participants helped in the same-sex condition because they were focused on their partners’ IM needs (partner-focused concerns) and failed to help in the opposite-sex condition owing to the their own preference for how their partner should appear (self-focused concerns). In the same vein as in the previous study, self-presentation may require selfregulation, especially when familiar or dispositional tendencies must be overridden in service of the desired impression (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). Four studies showed that self-presentation under challenging conditions or according to counternormative patterns (presenting oneself modestly to strangers, boastfully to friends, contrary to gender norms, to a skeptical audience, or while being a racial token) led to impaired self-regulation later, suggesting that those self-presentations depleted self-regulatory resources. When self-presentation conformed to familiar, normative, or dispositional patterns, self-regulation was less implicated. Four additional studies showed that when resources for self-regulation had been depleted by prior acts of self-control, self-presentation drifted toward less-effective patterns (talking too much, overly or insufficiently intimate disclosures, or egotistical arrogance). Thus, inner processes may serve interpersonal functions, although optimal interpersonal activity may exact a short-term cost. A growing body of literature exists demonstrating behavioral characteristics that discriminate deception from truth-telling. Somewhat less effort has been expended to understand the negative perceptions of deceivers. Conscious strategies employed by deceivers and truth-tellers were investigated in a simulated investigative interview (Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Woods, & Michlik, 2006). This research should be considered as a descriptive undertaking designed to increase our understanding of subjective strategies of IM and deception. One hundred and eight participants either stole or replaced a stolen exam key from a psychology professor’s office. Half of the participants were instructed to respond honestly to help in the investigation, whereas the other half were instructed to distort their statement so that they would not be implicated in any wrongdoing. Also, half of the participants were given a pep talk regarding the importance of deception. Deceivers were motivated by receiving $1 for a convincing story, and they would be eligible to win one of two $20 prizes if their story was among the most convincing/helpful accounts. After completing a scripted derivative of the Cognitive Interview, each participant was asked what he/she thought is important in telling a convincing/helpful story. Fourteen subjective strategies of deception/ truth-telling emerged from answers to this question. Importantly, if the strategies listed are employed as described, they are not likely to generate successful deceptions.

50

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

Situational Importance Situational importance and social interaction goals may influence people’s self-presentational efforts (consisting of untruthful statements), and consequently their use and recall of dissembled information (Tyler & Feldman, 2004a). Cultural self-construal on self-presentation to significant others may be different toward an in-group rather than out-group. However, the tendency to self-deprecate self-images seems to be independent of cultural self-construal. This tendency may be more prevalent in people who have an interdependent-self-construal (Hasegawa, 2005). Criminality and Psychopathological Behavior Depending on their final statements of inmates about to be executed, Schuck and Ward (2008) found accepting or denying guilt produced identifiable key patterns of how inmates tend to attach meaning to their situation and what they choose to express. A histrionic self-presentation style, as measured by an as-if scale might be pervasive within many facets of our western culture (Renner, Enz, Friedel, Merzbacher, & Laux, 2008; Renner, Laux, Schütz, & Tedeschi, 2004). Problem drinkers more than nondrinkers may use learned “scripts” when responding to certain types of questionnaires to safeguard their self-presentation (Davies, McConnochie, Ross, Heim, & Wallace, 2004). Perfectionism is a vulnerability factor for distress that is considered either as a form of personality disorder per se or as an associated feature of a personality disorder. Perceiving perfectionistic demands from others, promoting a perfect image to others, and concealing perceived imperfections from others seem positively correlated with most forms of personality disorder. In contrast, demanding perfection of oneself and demanding perfection from others might be largely, but not entirely, unrelated to personality disorder. The perfectionism dimensions may provide unique information compared with each other and with the Big Five personality model. For some domains of the personality disorder, especially cluster C of DSM-IV, perfectionism dimensions may operate as a central factor that drives core elements of personality disorder. For other domains of personality disorder, for instance, dissocial behavior, cluster B perfectionism may function as a peripheral feature that reinforces aspects of the disorder (Sherry et al., 2006). Offenders are assumed by many to employ socially desirable responding response styles (self-deception and impression formation) when completing self-report measures. Contrary to expectations, prior research has shown that accounting for socially desirable responding in self-report measures of antisocial constructs does not improve the relationship with outcome. Despite this result, many self-report measures reliably predict future criminal outcome criteria. Offenders high on IM tend to report lower antisocial attitudes. However, when IM is statistically separated from antisocial attitudes, the relationship with recidivism tends to diminish, through not to a statistically significant degree. This supposed finding based on empirical verification is contrary to theoretical assumptions that

Description

51

controlling for socially desirable responding should improve the relationship of self-report with outcome (Mills & Kroner, 2006). Eating Disorders A specific model for eating disorder symptoms involving perfectionistic selfpresentation and two different moderators, that is, body image evaluation and body image investment, was found to be valid in the sense that all three dimensions are associated with eating disorder symptoms. Perfectionistic self-presentation seems to predict eating disorder symptoms in women who are dissatisfied with their bodies, but it did not predict eating problems in women who liked their bodies and felt that there was little or no discrepancy between their actual and ideal appearances. Body image investment does not seem to moderate the relationship between perfectionistic self-presentation and eating disorder symptoms, suggesting that ego involvement alone is insufficient to promote eating disturbance in the context of perfectionism. These conclusions emphasize the importance of self-presentation components in perfectionism and specific body image difficulties in predicting eating disorder symptoms (McGee, Hewitt, Sherry, Parkin, & Flett, 2005). Excessive Alcohol Drinking Protective and acquisitive self-presentation expectancies about the effects of alcohol may act as suppressing variables in the relationship between diffidence and alcohol use. The suppression hypothesis, supported by a negative relationship between diffidence and alcohol use, seems present when self-presentation expectancies about the effects of alcohol are controlled statistically. The self-presentation model may provide new theoretical insights into the links between alcohol expectancies and alcohol use (Korn & Maggs, 2004). Physical Exercise and Sport Psychology Self-presentation may be an important antecedent and consequence of physical activity because it may affect people’s exercise cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors (Berry & Howe, 2004; Hausenblas, Brewer, & Van Raalte, 2004; Martin, Kathleen, Lindwall, & Prapavessis, 2007). The public sector uses health as a primary motivator in physical activity campaigns, whereas the private sector often uses appearance as a motivator. However, whether these motivators can be successful in changing physical activity behavior remains to be seen. Indeed, health-based advertising seems to have significant positive effects on social physique anxiety and self-presentation on exercisers, whereas appearance-based advertising may have negative effects on nonexercisers’ attitudes toward exercise. How we are viewed by others in our environment has numerous implications for the way in which we are perceived, evaluated, and treated. Sports represent an

52

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

environment in which self-presentation in a favorable manner can have positive implications for an individual. Various strategies have been employed to create a favorable impression. When people are concerned about the impression others form of them, they may adopt a particular strategy such as self-handicapping to create a favorable impression. Self-handicapping is a self-presentational strategy to appear less strong or powerful than one really feels. The implications for the specific use of this strategy in sport and exercise psychology need further discussion (Maddison & Prapavessis, 2007). The importance of self-presentation in exercise and sport psychology is so pervasive that an entire issue of a journal dedicated to this specialty was devoted to this topic (Prapavessis, 2004). Physical self-presentation in male master divers seems associated with a cognitive anxiety of worry and to a lesser extent with somatic anxiety, factors that together could be described as “competitive anxiety” (Lorimer & Westbury, 2006). Another indication of how self-presentation is important in exercise and sport psychology is the construction and validation of the two factors – “impression motivation”, “impression construction” – included in eight item Self-Presentation in Exercise Questionnaire (SPEQ). However, on further analysis (Gammage, Hall, Prapavessis, et al., 2004) it was felt that SPEQ items may tend to focus too much on physical appearance or both a self-presentational motive and a self-presentational behavior. Several items also confound these two constructs. Consequently, further work must continue to develop a psychometrically sound instrument. High-frequency exercisers tend to report higher levels of efficacy expectancy, outcome value, and exercise imagery than do low-frequency exercisers. These factors may also be partially responsible for significant variance in social physique anxiety, independent of other predictors. Self-presentation efficacy expectancy appears as a potent variable in both exercise behavior and social physique anxiety (Gammage, Hall, & Martin, 2004). Online The Internet provides countless ways to present oneself anonymously, fictively, and deceptively as well as honestly. Self-presentation strategies among online dating couples are used to accomplish the goal of finding a romantic partner. Apparently, participants tend to attend to small cues, mediating the tension between IM pressures and the desire to present an authentic sense of self through tactics such as creating a profile that reflects their “ideal self” and attempting to establish the veracity of their identity claims. “Honesty” online is a very complicated process that cannot be explained through a simple social information processing theory (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006). Narcissism stands on the line between personality characteristics and psychopathological behavior. Using e-mail, Collins and Stukas (2008) investigated intra- and interpersonal variables that may influence the self-presentation behavior of those high on narcissism in college students. When the degree of external self-worth contingency was high, those high in narcissism tended to present themselves in a

Description

53

self-enhancing manner in external domains, even when accountable, whereas those low in narcissism were more modest when accountable. Possibly, those high in narcissism may be chronically vigilant for self-enhancement opportunities, especially in external domains where their self-worth is contingent, but may be insensitive to social constraints and norms in their efforts to construct grandiose identities. Although the anonymous condition of online interaction seems to provide space for the experiment of decentered, fluid, and multiple forms of identity, the disembodied online identity often entails the fallout of accountability of self-presentation. In the cyberspace medium there is a close connection between identity and the obliteration of the public/private boundary. The outcome of this connection suggests that there may be similarities and differences between patterns of online/offline self-presentation (Lee, 2006). Pro-anorexia has emerged as a new and emotionally charged eating disorder phenomenon where self-presentation may differ between pro-anorexics, who defend this condition as a lifestyle, and recovered self-identified anorexics. Across the Internet, in an analysis of text and board messages, pro-anorexics tended to display more positive emotions, less anxiety, a lower degree of cognitive reflection, and lower levels of self-directed attention than did recovering anorexics. Pro-anorexics seem to be more focused on the present than on the past, but are more preoccupied with eating and less with school-related issues and death. Apparently, at least linguistically, pro-anorexics and recovering anorexics seem to engage in distinct and identifiable styles of self-presentation (Lyons, Mehl, & Pennebaker, 2006). The hyperpersonal model of computer-mediated communication (CMC) posits that users exploit the technological aspects of CMC to enhance the messages they construct to manage impressions and facilitate desired relationships. CMC users tend to manage message-composing time, editing behaviors, personal language, sentence complexity, and relational tone in their initial messages to different presumed targets, and the cognitive awareness related to these processes. Effects on several of these processes and outcomes were obtained in response to different targets, partially supporting the hyperpersonal perspective of CMC, with unanticipated gender and status interaction effects suggesting behavioral compensation through CMC, or overcompensation when addressing presumably undesirable partners (Walther, 2007). Self-presentation in online dating relationships provided a model of relational goals, self-disclosure, and perceived success (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006). The authors’ findings tend to provide support for social penetration theory, social information processing, and hyperpersonal perspectives as well as highlight the positive effect of anticipated face-to-face interaction on online self-disclosure. Perceived online dating success seems to be predicted by four dimensions of self-disclosure (honesty, amount, intent, and valence), even though honesty may have a negative effect. Furthermore, online dating experience is a strong predictor of perceived success in online dating. Additionally, Gibbs et al., were able to identify predictors of strategic success versus self-presentation success. This research extends existing theory on CMC, self-disclosure, and relational success to the increasingly important area of mixed-mode relationships, in which participants move from mediate to face-to-face communication.

54

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

A novel cross-validation technique was used to establish the accuracy of self-presentation in online dating profiles (Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008). Eighty online daters rated the accuracy of their online self-presentation, and information about the participants’ physical attributes was also collected (height, weight, and age) and compared with their online profile, revealing that deviation tended to be ubiquitous but small in magnitude. Men lied more about their height, whereas women lied more about their weight, with participants farther from the mean lying more. The participants’ self-ratings of accuracy were significantly correlated with observed accuracy, suggesting that inaccuracies were intentional rather than selfdeceptive. Overall, the participants reported being the least accurate about their photographs and the most accurate about their relationship information. The deception patterns suggest that the participants strategically balanced the deceptive opportunities presented by online self-presentation (e.g., the editability of profiles) with the social constraints of establishing romantic relationships (e.g., the anticipation of future interaction). People may feel more at ease using CMC than other media because of higher self-presentation efficacy. The reason for this effect may be the lack of nonverbal cues in CMC: it can help people present themselves in a preferred way. There is a possibility that when people strongly want to make a good impression on others they may feel that is easier to communicate without verbal cues than with them. On the other hand, when people are unconcerned about the impression they make on others, the number of nonverbal cues does not influence the level of ease that people may feel. Consequently, the lack of nonverbal cues in CMC seems to raise self-presentation efficacy; therefore, people feel more at ease during CMC (Sugitani, 2007). Social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, and StudiVZ are popular means of communicating personality. Recent theoretical and empirical considerations of homepages and Web 2.0 platforms show that IM is a major motive for actively participating in social networking sites. However, the factors that determine the specific form of self-presentation and the extent of self-disclosure on the Internet have not been analyzed. Self-efficacy with regard to IM is strongly related to the number of visual friends, the level of profile detail, and the style of the personal photograph. There may be a slight influence of extraversion, whereas there does not seem to be any significant effect for self-esteem (Krämer & Winter, 2008). Race and Ethnicity Racial and ethnic socialization parental practices among African-American families of 11-year-old adolescents tend to influence their self-presentation, academic expectations, and anticipation through self-pride, racial identity, and self-esteem (Murry, Berkel, Brody, Miller, & Chen, 2009). For instance, hundreds of studies have documented disparities in medical treatment in the USA. Many articles have examined disadvantaged patients’ beliefs and attitudes toward health care, but the investigations were generally limited to how these beliefs and attitudes influence adherence and utilization of health services. This approach may fail to consider whether patients

Description

55

use particular strategies to overcome providers’ potentially negative perceptions of them and/or obtain quality medical care. Positive self-presentation as a strategy may be used by disadvantaged groups to improve their medical treatment. AfricanAmerican and lower socioeconomic status persons are more likely than whites or higher socioeconomic status persons to report that positive self-presentation is important for their getting the best medical care (Malat, van Ryn, & Purcell, 2006). Social Psychology Others (co-actors or other group members) influence how an individual tends to present himself or herself. Relevant to the social psychology of self-presentation are social loafing, self-handicapping, attributions of responsibility, social facilitation, and conformity behavior. The question of whether the presence of participating others helps to alleviate some of the social anxiety that arises from self-presentation concerns is answered in the affirmative (Carron, Burke, & Prapavessis, 2004). Temporal Perspective Temporal construal, how one chooses to present oneself over time, is an important factor that needs to be taken into consideration (Carter & Sanna, 2008). This variable will be discussed at greater length in Chap. 7. Work Settings Although job analysis is a widely used organizational data collection technique, little research has investigated the extent to which job analysis information is affected by self-presentation processes (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007; Weiss & Feldman, 2006). A previous study offered a direct test of this proposition but not definite results. In a replication of that study, Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, Mayfield, Ferrara, and Campion (2004), using an experimental design, examined job incumbent response differences across ability, task, and competency statements. The results indicated that ability statements were more subject to inflation than were task statements across all rating scales. Greater endorsement of nonessential ability statements was responsible for the differences. This effect produced higher endorsement of ability items but lower mean ratings. Finally, frequency and importance ratings of global competency statements were generally higher than decomposed ability and task scales, but required-at-entry judgments demonstrated the opposite relationship. IM in self-report measures typically assume that IM is either a trait or a situational variable, an assumption that may often have led to conflicting results. Henry & Raju (2000, forthcoming) examined the item-level and scale-level responses to six empirically-derived facets of conscientiousness from the California Psychological

56

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

Inventory between high- and low-IM groups. The participants (n = 6,220) were involved in a management assessment conducted by an external consulting firm. They participated for the assessment as part of either a selection or promotional process, or a feedback and development process for two specific occupational groups (sales/marketing and accounting/finance). Item- and scale-level differences for the situational IM and the trailed IM approaches were examined. The results indicated that relatively few differences were found between the two approaches and the four different groups, suggesting that IM effects may not be as large as previously thought. In another study, Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, and Shaw (2007) investigated the effect of an individual’s political skill on the relationship between five different IM tactics – intimidation, exemplification, ingratiation, self-promotion, and supplication – with supervisor evaluations of performance. The authors used a matched sample of 173 supervisor–subordinate dyads who worked full-time in a state agency. THe findings showed that individuals who used high levels of any of the five tactics and who were politically skilled achieved more desirable supervisor ratings than did those who used the same tactics but who were not politically skilled. Opposite results were found when IM usage was low. That is, individuals who were not politically skilled created a more desirable image in their supervisors’ eyes than did their politically skilled counterparts when they did not use those tactics. Although the use of personality tests for personnel selection has gained increasing acceptance, researchers have raised concerns that job applicants may distort their responses to inflate their scores (Lievens & Peeters, 2008). In a meta-analysis of various studies, Li and Bagger (2006) examined the effects of the two dimensions of social desirability, IM and self-deception, on the criterion validity of personality constructs using the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. The results obtained from this meta-analysis indicate that IM and self-deception do not seem to create spurious effects on the relationship between personality measures and performance, nor did they function as performance predictors. Moreover, removing the influence of IM or self-deception from personality measures did not substantially attenuate the criterion validity of personality variables. Structured interview formats, instructions to convey favorable impressions, and applicants’ individual differences may influence the use and effectiveness of verbal and nonverbal IM (Peeters & Lievens, 2006). The results from 190 people who were screened for a training program demonstrated that the interview format affected the kind of tactics used, which in turn positively influenced interviewer evaluation. Behavior description interviews triggered self-focused (and defensive) tactics, whereas situational interviews triggered other-focused tactics. Instructions to convey a desirable impression also enhanced the use of specific tactics (self-focused and other-focused verbal IM tactics) and moderated the effects of individual differences in IM use. IM instructions did not affect nonverbal IM tactics, indicating that nonverbal behavior might be less intentionally controllable in selection situations. This conclusion was followed up by Keating (2006). In conclusion, the wide range of areas covered by self-presentation attests to its theoretical and empirical importance to the point that there may be no need to link

Explanation

57

it to various models of the theory to establish its importance and validity. However, how one behaves at the self-presentational sublevel needs to be considered in relation to its consistency or inconsistency with the other sublevels of this model. One may present oneself as a “nice guy” publicly but behave abominably as a nasty tyrant in the privacy of one’s home or vice versa. One may behave properly and adequately at both sublevels. Whether this discrepancy or consistency between sublevels is aroused from other explanatory factors, such as one’s genotype and historical and developmental antecedents, is discussed below.

Phenotypical Sublevel This is how we behave in the privacy of our homes under the stress and strain of prolonged intimate relationships. Here is where our “true” self, so to speak may become evident after a possibly false superficial facade of impression formation and self-presentation wears off. Over time and under the stress of prolonged closeness and intimacy with intimates, a flimsy social facade may give way to who we really are. Here is where the real self is revealed. This sublevel, however, has been neglected by the fact that it would require observations in the very privacy of one’s home, where reactive abuse and neglect take place (see Chap. 9). Therefore, its inclusion here without relevant references attests to its importance as well as to its not being adequately validated empirically.

Explanation The explanation of RC applies to two sublevels: an internal genotype and intergenerational and generational characteristics transmitted from one’s family of origin, including physical, emotional, attitudinal, and intellectual development, developmental events, such as accidents or sickness, and the extrafamilial relationships, such as peers.

Genotypical Sublevel This sublevel has usually been inferred or conceived as hypothetical, such as ego, superego, self-concept, and, more popularly, self-esteem (Coin et al., 2006; Murry et al., 2009; Tyler & Feldman, 2005; Zhang et al., 2007). This latter construct has been severely criticized by the first author in his previous writings for being essentially monadic and nonrelational in nature. Instead, this sublevel will be expanded into a subconscious but measurably observable identity differentiation (Model8, Chap. 10), from which it is possible to extract three easily observable styles in intimate relationships (Model9, Chap. 11), as well as interactions according to an arithmetical model (Model10, Chap. 12), the selfhood model (Model11, Chap. 13),

58

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

and the priorities model (Model12, Chap. 14). None of these models are hypothetical. Some of them have been evaluated empirically (Model8, Model11, and Model12). Of the remaining two models, Model9 is easily observable under prolonged observation, whereas Model10 can be evaluated ecologically, observationally, psychiatrically, and psychometrically, as discussed in detail in the appropriate chapters of this volume. Self-esteem and self-presentation have been studied by psychologists and other behavioral scientists for many years. As a result, we know a great deal about these constructs, and both have been used to explain a wide array of cognitive, affective, and behavioral phenomena. For both, the fundamental process of interest involves a strong proclivity toward self-enhancement. In the case of self-esteem, people seem strongly motivated to maintain favorable images of and to feel good about themselves. In the case of self-presentation, people are pervasively motivated to make a good impression on other people. Leary (2004), moreover, has argued that underlying superficial differences between private and public self-enhancement, there is a common process that helps individuals monitor and respond to interpersonal events. That process has implications for the degree to which individuals are valued and accepted versus devalued and rejected by other people. Private selfesteem lies at the heart of the system that monitors relational value and public self-presentation serves as a primary means of maintaining and enhancing one’s relational value. These arguments tend to support the first author’s position that emphasizes the use of a relational construct, such as importance (Model11, Chap. 13), rather than a monadic, nonrelational construct, such as self-esteem. The genotypical sublevel is an important aspect of the impostor phenomenon that relates to the differentiation between feelings of inadequacy and feelings of fraudulence. Individuals who feel like being impostors do not believe that others view them more positively than they view themselves. Oftentimes, this aspect raises the question of whether imposterism operates as a more controlled or automatic self-presentation strategy, that is, how one feels does not necessarily predict how one is going to behave (McElwee & Yurak, 2007) because of the influence of rational factors that intervene between how one feels, that is, emotionality, and how one acts, as explained by Model1 (Chap. 3).

Intergenerational Sublevel According to Harper (2005), currently behavioral development has been thought to result from the interplay between genetic inheritance, congenital characteristics, cultural contexts, and parental practices as they directly impact the individual. Evolutionary ecology points to another contributor, which Harper calls epigenetic inheritance, the transmission to offspring of parental phenotypic responses to environmental challenges – even when the young might not experience those challenges themselves. Genetic inheritance might not be altered; however, gene expression might be. Organismic pathways for such transmission exist. Maternal stress during

Explanation

59

the latter half of a daughter’s gestation may affect not only the daughter’s but also the grand-offspring’s physical growth. Temperamental variation may be influenced in the same way. The implications of this hypothesis have been discussed, perhaps with different terms, in previous writings by the first author. Clearly, epigenetic inheritance has been one of the generational antecedents of the individual-relational genotype to be expanded on here and in the chapters in Part IV. More specifically, given three different styles of intimate relationships, discussed in Chap. 11, abusive–apathetic (AA), reactive–repetitive (RR), and creative–conductive (CC) may repeat themselves from one generation to another. For instance, as Ehrensaft et al. (2003) found in an unselected sample of 543 children followed up over 20 years to test the independent effects of parenting, exposure to domestic violence (an AA style) between parents, maltreatment, adolescence disruptive behavior disorders, and emerging adult substance abuse disorders on the risk of violence to and by an adult partner. Ehrensaft et al. (2003) found that conduct disorder was the strongest risk of violence perpetrating by partner for both sexes, followed by domestic violence between parents, and power-assertive punishment. The effect of child abuse was attributable to those three risks. Exposure to domestic violence between parents conferred the greatest risk of being subjected to partner violence. Conduct disorder increased the odds of being subjected to partner violence but did not mediate this effect. Child physical abuse and conduct disorder in adolescence were strong independent risks for injury to a partner. Substance abuse disorder mediated the effect of adolescent conduct disorders on injury to a partner but not on injury by a partner. As emphasized previously, an AA style begets AA, an RR style begets RR, and a CC style begets CC, predictions much more specific than those presented by Harper (2005) and expanded in Chaps. 10–12. Reciprocal influences on maternal depressive symptoms, child adjustment problems, and their antecedent–consequence conditions across three cycles were examined from panel data collected over a 4-year period in the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Elgar et  al., 2003). The results indicated stability in and relations between maternal and child outcomes. Cross-lagged panel correlations showed that maternal depressive symptoms tended to precede child aggression and hyperactivity but tended to follow child emotional problems. Temporal relations were interpreted in the context of mechanisms that transmit risk between mothers and children. Logistic regression analysis showed bidirectional risk between maternal mood and child adjustment after earlier symptoms had been statistically controlled. These findings indicate that maternal depression increases the risk of adjustment problems in children and vice versa, underscoring the intergenerational transmission of psychopathological behavior. Saltzman, Holden, and Holahan (2005) examined the physiological and psychological functioning in a community sample of children exposed to marital violence compared with a clinical comparison group of children without marital violence exposure. The results replicated past findings of elevated levels of trauma symptomatology in this population. Children exposed to marital violence differed significantly from comparison children with respect to sympathetic nervous system functioning and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis functioning. Specifically, elevations were

60

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

seen in heart rate and salivary cortisol levels, but not in orthostatic challenge response or blood pressure. These results indicate that children exposed to marital violence may have developed a different physiological presentation than controls and may be physiologically “traumatized” by virtue of marital violence exposure. Culture Deary et  al. (2005) examined the influences of childhood social background, childhood cognitive ability, and education on intergenerational social mobility and social status attainment at midlife. The participants were men born in 1921 and who participated in the Scottish Mental Survey of 1932 and thereafter in the Midspan Collaborative Study in Scotland between 1970 and 1973. In logistic regression analyses, childhood cognitive ability and height were associated with upward and downward change from the father’s social class to the participant’s social class at midlife. Education significantly influenced upward social mobility. The number of siblings had no significant effect on social mobility. These effects were also examined after adjusting for the other variables. In structural equation modeling analyses, the father’s social class and childhood cognitive ability influenced social status attainment at midlife, with education and occupational status in young adulthood as partially mediating factors. It was noteworthy that childhood cognitive ability related more strongly to the occupation in midlife than to the first occupation. These data add to the relatively few studies that track the process of status attainment in adulthood, they provide information from a new geographical setting, and they contain information from a greater proportion of the life course than do most existing studies. A nationally representative British longitudinal study analyzed exchanges of support between Third Age parents (aged 55–75) and their adult children (Grundy, 2005). The results showed that between two thirds and three quarters of parents in this age group were involved in some sort of exchange relationship with at least one of their children. Generally, more Third Age parents were providers than recipients of help, but there was a strong reciprocal element of intergenerational exchange with, for example, married parents who provided support to at least one child being twice as likely as those who did not to receive support from a child, after allowance for a range of relevant parental and child characteristics. Parental characteristics associated with higher probability of providing help included higher income, home ownership, and being married or widowed rather than divorced. Higher income and home ownership were, however, negatively associated with the odds of receiving help from a child, again after adjustment for other covariates, suggesting socioeconomic differences in the balance of support exchanges. Children seem responsive to parental needs in that receipt of help from a child was positively associated with older parental age and with parental disability. These results show that in Britain, as in the USA, the balance of intergenerational exchanges involving Third Age adults is downward rather than upward, in contravention of depictions of older adults as “burdens” on younger generations. Current demographic and social changes are, it is argued, likely to increase support demands from adult children to Third Age parents in the coming decades.

Explanation

61

Understanding the relationships between middle-aged baby boomers and their parents requires both a broad and a narrow focus on time and history. As life course theory suggests, current relationships between baby boomers and their parents stem from their shared personal past as well as from the cultural and political historical settings in which they have been embedded (Fingerman & Dolbin-MacNab, 2006). The combination of these early experiences and cultural settings contribute to the ties middle-aged baby boomers experience with their parents today. As these authors discussed, many of the period effects observed in relationships between baby boomers and their parents appear to be an extension of changes the parents experienced when they were younger. These experiences may in turn have shaped their subsequent intergenerational ties with their progeny. In many respects, the lives of the parent generation represent a paradigm shift relative to the family patterns of prior cohorts. Many of the parents have lived longer and experienced a greater number of distinct life stages (e.g., childhood, adolescence, young adulthood) as compared with prior cohorts. Of course, the parents also produced a greater number of children than the cohorts immediately before them. This work addressed the ways in which the life patterns of the parents shaped their relationships with their baby-boomer children. To what extent do children’s experiences with different parenting styles and cultural circumstances influence their ultimate parenting practices and attitudes? Across differing cultures, there is a mutual agreement that parents are the most influential means of transmitting values, principles, and behaviors to their children. The nurturing, supportive style of parenting has been associated with positive outcomes in children. However, parenting styles and the degree of imposed parental authority may vary and can be influenced by cultural, social, and economic circumstances. In addition, parents of ethnically different backgrounds in the USA may have to modify their values and practices depending on their level of assimilation or acculturation into their own and the hosting society. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the attitudes and parenting styles of Cape Verdean adults and the levels of authority demonstrated by their mothers and fathers during their childhood. In addition, the role of acculturation was examined as a possible influence on the adult’s beliefs and parenting practices. Crossgenerational differences were assessed. One hundred and nine Cape Verdean parents were asked to participate in this study. The study employed the following measures: Parental Authority Questionnaire, Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-Corporal Punishment Subscale, Survey of Parental Discipline Methods, Ethnicity Scale, and a demographic survey. The results include descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, multiple regression analyses, and tests of within-group differences. The findings confirmed the cross-generational transmission of parental values. Implications for future research and multicultural parent education were discussed (Pinto, 2008). Ethnicity Luks and Elms (2005) explored the importance of generational effects and the changing economic circumstances of blacks to explain variations over time in the

62

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

partisan attachments of African-Americans. More specifically, these investigators explored whether generational differences have caused the cohorts that came of political age following the Civil Rights Movement to be less democratic than generations that lived through the Civil Rights Movement and its aftermath. They found that although life-cycle effects explain a portion of the movement away from the two major parties, generational effects account for the small but significant increase in Republican party identification in the youngest generation. Additionally, living in the South accounts for the steepest gains in political independence. Finally, changing economic influences over time appear to have led poorer blacks to change from the most likely to the least likely to identify with a major party. The purpose of a study by Willgerodt and Thompson (2006) was to explore ethnic and generational influences among Chinese, Filipino, and Euro-American adolescents on emotional distress and risk behaviors. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted on responses of 216 Chinese, 387 Filipino, and 400 Euro-American adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. The purpose of this research was to investigate the influence of ethnicity on depression, somatic symptoms, delinquency, and substance use, and to examine the influence of generation on the outcome variables among Chinese and FilipinoAmerican adolescents. Ethnicity predicted depression and delinquency scores, whereas generation within ethnic groups predicted somatic symptoms and substance use. The findings diverge from theories using acculturation as an explanatory mechanism for distress and risk behaviors and underscore the importance of examining subgroups and generations of Asian-American youth. The impact of ethnic reference group, situational characteristics, generational status, and gender on ethnic identification in relation to adaptation was studied in Indo-Guyanese immigrants living in Ottawa, Canada (Clément, Singh, & Gaudet, 2006). Ninety-eight first-generation (n = 48) and second-generation (n = 50) participants completed a questionnaire in reference to their East Indian ancestral group, their in-group, and the national Canadian group. The results showed that identification was the product of a complex interaction among reference group, situation, generation, and gender. The pattern of adaptation to each reference group was influenced by generational status, and greater identification with the Canadian group relative to the Guyanese group was related to positive relations with the Canadian group. These results could be discussed within the context of current theories of acculturation and intergroup relations. Sekhon (2007) investigated the role of ethnicity and intergenerational influences on the consumption patterns of Asian Indians living in the UK. This research attempted to determines the extent to which ethnicity and intergenerational factors influence consumption and decision making. The empirical evidence suggests that ethnicity, background, and cultural roots impact on consumer decision making and brand choice. This study aimed to develop the research on the role and strength of intergenerational influences in an Asian Indian context, bringing together acculturation, generational and consumption theory.

Explanation

63

United States of America Previous investigators introduced the metaphor “ghosts in the nursery” to describe the ways in which parents, by reenacting with their small children scenes from the parents’ own unremembered early relational experiences of helplessness and fear, transmit child maltreatment from one generation to the next. Lieberman, Padrön, Van Horn, and Harris (2005) proposed that angels in the nursery-care-receiving experiences characterized by an intense shared effect between parent and child in which the child feels nearly perfectly understood, accepted, and loved provide the child with a core sense of security and self-worth that can be drawn upon when the child becomes a parent to interrupt the cycle of maltreatment. These investigators argued that uncovering angels as growth-promoting forces in the lives of traumatized parents is as vital to the work of psychotherapy as is the interpretation and exorcizing of ghosts. Using clinical case material, these authors demonstrated the ways in which early benevolent experiences with caregivers can protect against even overwhelming trauma, and examined the reemergence of these benevolent figures in consciousness as an instrument of therapeutic change. Finally, implications of the concept of “angels in the nursery” for research and clinical intervention were examined. The influence of generational structure on well-being in midlife was examined in a regional representative sample of 807 adults aged 30–64 (McIlvane, Ajrouch, & Antonucci, 2007). The results indicated that those who lacked the personal and social resources of education and marriage, and who had living parents but no children, reported higher levels of well-being than those with a child/children or both a living parent/parents and a child/children. These findings suggest that elders may serve as a key resource to adult children who lack personal and social resources in midlife. Adults increasingly follow less traditional paths in life (e.g., those without children and/or who never married) and, hence, these findings have implications for current and future policies directed toward aging and family well-being. Rumbaut (2005) contributed to our understanding of historical influences on lives and aging, and of generational influences in the incorporation of immigrants in the USA. He addressed first the importance of spelling out historical contexts (influences) for understanding virtually any aspect of the study of immigration and incorporation. By not doing so, we may be left with an elegant but ahistorical positivism. Secondly, he specified the size and composition – and definition – of what is loosely referred to as the immigrant first and second “generations” in the USA, outlining a typology of distinctive generational cohorts (based on differences in nativity and age at arrival), and analyzing their patterns of acculturation as well as educational and occupational attainment. In particular, the author considered the utility and validity of “lumping” versus “splitting” such generational cohorts in the study of adaptation in foreign-born immigrant children and native-born children of immigrants. These distinctions bear directly on the connections between changing historical times in lives and aging, and – in a field where the study of intergenerational relations has been accurately criticized as strikingly ahistorical – underscore the importance of situating and understanding generational processes in specific historical contexts.

64

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

Recent studies have found significant but relatively modest associations in parenting across generations, suggesting additional influences on parenting beyond experiences in the family of origin. A cross-generational study of at-risk men (Oregon Youth Study) focused on fathers’ negative discipline practices with their 2–3-year-old children (Capaldi, Pears, Kerr, & Owen, 2008). The theoretical model was based on a dynamic developmental systems approach to problematic family functioning, which points to the importance of developmental systems, including family risk context and key influential social interactional systems, and emphasizes influence that is directly pertinent to the outcome of interest. Path modeling indicated that the men’s poor and harsh discipline practices were predicted by the partners’ problem behavior (substance abuse and antisocial behavior) and negative discipline practices, as well as by poor discipline experienced in the family of origin; the men’s own problem behavior, ages at which they became fathers, and family socioeconomic status were controlled. The findings indicate the importance of focusing on influence dynamics across parents. Research by Mandrik, Fern, and Bao (2005) added to the growing body of literature on consumer socialization by examining intergenerational influence on brand preferences and consumption orientations in parents and young-adult offspring. Two factors suggested in past research to affect intergenerational influence were investigated: conformity to peers and communication effectiveness. A new rigorous method was introduced to demonstrate intergenerational similarity in mother/ daughter dyads, distinct from an incipient level of similarity that may occur by chance. The results indicate that communication effectiveness is positively related to intergenerational agreement in all six consumption domains studied, whereas the daughter’s conformity motivation is related only to prestige sensitivity. Implications and directions for future research were discussed. The purpose of Bravo, Fraj, and Martínez’s (2007) research was to analyze the different nature and effects of family influences on the dimensions of young customer-based brand equity. Information was gathered from in-depth interviews. The sample was composed of 30 young adults. The results showed different facets of how the family may affect brand awareness, associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. Some of them have already been considered in the previous literature, and some new elements have also emerged. Information was sorted according to its impact on each dimension of customer-based brand equity. Differences regarding age, marital status, and other social variables in the respondents were not considered in the analysis. The nature, process, and effects of intergenerational influences on each dimension of brand equity led to the proposal of different marketing actions. These actions may ease the transfer of customer-based brand equity from parents to children. This study took a holistic perspective in the study of intergenerational influences because no previous works had analyzed the nature and effects on each dimension of customer-based brand equity. In a cross-sectional study, the effects of disease duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) were examined along with parent history of DM on disease-related outcome variables (Perlmuter, Singh, Gabhart, Pungan, & Siedlarz, 2008). Specifically, the moderating role of parent history of DM on outcome variables was

Explanation

65

examined. The participants were 53 male veterans with DM. Chart reviews and self-reports were examined. The results showed that in those with a positive parent history of DM, hopelessness increased with DM duration. In the negative parent history group, glycemic control worsened with DM duration. These findings suggest parent history of DM should be considered in designing interventions to facilitate coping with type 2 DM. Research indicates that family experiences constitute a powerful socializing influence on the values, attitudes, and behaviors people adopt over the course of their lives. Through the incorporation of theoretical research using the theory of planned behavior, the mediating effects of attitudes toward business start-up, perceived family support, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intent were tested using a sample of 308 individuals (Carr & Sequeira, 2007). Consistent with the theory, the results suggested significant direct and indirect effects of prior family business exposure on entrepreneurial intent, through the mediation variables of attitudes toward business ownership, perceived family support, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Many environmental problems are desperately in need of attention (Ballantyne, Connell, & Fien, 2006). Educating both adults and young people is seen as part of the solution to such problems. Given this situation, and the already considerable investment in environmental education in schools, the notion of encouraging students to initiate environmental discussions with adults at home and in the community seems attractive and worthy of investigation. To this end, Ballantyne et al. critically reviewed education and social science literature concerning intergenerational influence. An approach was outlined to guide future efforts in research and program development aimed at encouraging students to act as catalysts of environmental communication and learning beyond school boundaries.

Generational Influences A number of models developed in the adult psychopathological behavior literature have asserted that low levels of positive emotionality are predisposing factors or precursors for depression and represent a form of temperamental risk for depression. Further support for this claim could derive from evidence linking low positive emotionality to known indicators of risk for depression. Durbin, Klein, Hayden, Buckley, and Moerk (2005) examined the association between temperamental emotionality in young children and parental mood disorders. One hundred unselected preschool-aged children completed a battery of emotion-eliciting tasks tapping aspects of positive and negative emotionality and behavioral inhibition. Parental psychopathological behavior was assessed with semistructured diagnostic interviews. Low positive emotionality in children was associated with maternal but not paternal mood disorder. The low positive emotionality–maternal depression link was relatively specific, as there were few associations between low positive emotionality and other forms of parental psychopathological behavior or between negative emotionality and behavioral inhibition and parental mood disorders.

66

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

Expressed emotions, on the other hand, the verbal expression of negative feelings rather than maternal depression, might serve as a predictor of child symptomatology and functional impairment in a sample of about 800 adolescents of mothers with different histories of depression or who were nondepressed. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized association in half of the sample, and all models were cross-validated with the other half of the study sample. The results indicated that expressed criticism and degree of maternal depression both had independent predictive associations with youths’ externalizing symptoms and functional impairment. Additionally, high emotional expression with criticism served as an intervening variable between maternal depression and adolescent functioning, as measured by externalizing symptoms and functional impairment. These results, however, do not indicate that maternal depression caused externalization in the adolescents. Their externalizations may have exacerbated also maternal depression (Nelson, Hammen, Brennan, & Ullman, 2003). A theoretically informed model was estimated with the LISREL-VIII program using panel data from 1,384 mother–adolescent child pairs to examine processes by which mothers’ adolescent school experiences measured in 1971 (time 1) affected the adolescent school experiences of their children measured in the 1990s (time 3) through mediating variables examined when the mothers were young adults in the 1980s (time 2) and when they were parents of adolescents in the 1990s (time 3). The results revealed two statistically significant paths from the mothers’ adolescent school experiences and psychological distress to their children’s adolescent school experiences. This intergenerational effect was mediated by the mothers’ early adoption of adult roles, psychological vulnerability, and low self-expectations, measured at time 2, and by the mothers’ educational involvement, educational expectations, and family socioeconomic level, measured at time 3 (Kaplan, Liu, & Kaplan, 2004). Diagnosis and psychosocial factors may predict suicidal ideation in adolescence (Esposito & Clum, 2003) by examining 73 high school students who exhibited emotional disturbance in that setting. They completed a diagnostic interview and selfreport measures assessing social support, family environment, negative life events, and problem solving. Using hierarchical regression analyses, these investigators found that only the presence of a pure internalizing disorder predicted suicidal ideation in addition to psychosocial variables. Interactions were found between psychiatric disorders and psychosocial variables. These results underscore the importance of including both diagnostic and psychosocial variables in research (as well as in clinical practice) examining risk factors for adolescent suicidal behavior. Furthermore, these results suggest that adolescents presenting with psychiatric problems, high levels of stress, and poor social support networks should be monitored for suicidality. To establish the usefulness of the construct of home chaos, investigate its correlates, and to determine the validity of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS), Dumas et al. (2005) conducted two studies to measure this construct in each study. Study 1 relied on a sample of Euro-American preschoolers and their mothers and study 2 relied on a sample of African-American school-aged children and their caregivers. Home chaos was associated with (1) less effective parental discipline, (2) elevated behavior problems, (3) limited attentional focusing, (4)

Explanation

67

reduced ability to understand and respond to social cues in children, and (5) reduced accuracy and efficiency in a cooperative parent–child interactional task, after controlling for potential confounds. On the basis of these results, Dumas et al., concluded that (1) home chaos is not a proxy for adverse social or psychological circumstances but is a useful construct in its own right, (2) home chaos is associated with multiple detrimental correlates in parents and children, and (3) the CHAOS provides an adequate and economical measure of home confusion and disorganization that should prove useful in clinical research with diverse populations. The influence of ethnic and generational differences on perceptions about parent and family relationships in a nationally representative sample of Chinese and Filipino adolescents living in the USA was studied by Willgerodt and Thompson (2005). This was a cross-sectional descriptive study, utilizing data from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. The sample was weighted to produce a nationally representative sample, based on 216 self-identified Chinese and 387 self-identified Filipino adolescents. The results indicated that generational status plays a role in predicting how adolescents perceive the parent–adolescent relationship. These findings might provide a basis by which community health nurses can begin to understand the uniqueness of Asian subgroups, as well as generations of immigrant youths. Perceived parental criticism, negative emotionality, biological predisposition, and the immediate social environment may be predisposing factors in the development of borderline personality disorder (BPD), Using an analogue sample, (Cheavens et al., 2005) examined whether thought suppression mediated the relationship of negative emotional intensity/reactivity and perceived parental criticism with a composite of BPD features including impulsivity, interpersonal sensitivity, and aggression. The results indicated that thought suppression fully mediated the relationship between negative emotionality intensity/reactivity and BPD features and partially mediated the relationship between BPD features and perceived parental criticism.

Developmental Influences For quite some time, it has been known that there is a definite relationship between recent life change experiences and subsequent changes in health as a function of the length of time between life change and health change reports, such as illness, health problems, and disabilities (Garrety, Marx, & Somes, 1977). This section could be bolstered by including numerous physical, mental, and medical conditions that would overshadow any other sublevel of this model. Consequently, for reasons of space, all these obvious developmental influences cannot be covered here.

The Influence of Peer Relationships Advances in research concerning peer relations and psychopathology reflect the influence of systems thinking, that is: the dynamic interactions of individuals in

68

4 Model2: The Depth of Relationships

context, and the integration of normative and pathological development, by using longitudinal designs with more complex statistical techniques to examine this relationship (Masten, 2005). Bukowsky and Adams (2005) argued that as the study of peer relations has grown and developed, it has gained a prominent position in the understanding of the developmental process and its link to psychopathology. During its development, research in peer relations has moved from a more undifferentiated, global state to a state of increased articulation and complexity. These authors provided examples of five models that reflect the state of the art in peer relation research: (1) markers, peer relation variables that predict psychopathological behavior, (2) moderators, variables that might tend to increase or decrease the level of psychopathological behavior, (3) mediators, variables that are necessary to make predictions about the level of psychopathological behavior, (4) mechanisms, the extent to which an adolescent may hang out with deviant peers, and (5) meanings, what the behavior may mean to the adolescent, such as conceptualizing deviant behavior is “normal” at this stage of development.

Conclusion Even though this model has been presented in previous publications and covered by a great deal of relevant literature, tit has not been evaluated as directly as other models of the theory because it must be dismantled into the four sublevels to be evaluated. The myriad publications related to the various sublevels of this model question whether a direct evaluation of its validity is necessary, desirable, or possible. Even though a great deal has already been written about its various levels and sublevels, Model2, in a way, could be conceived as consisting of four minimodels in their own right. Furthermore, consistencies or inconsistencies between levels and sublevels are crucial to the observation and interpretation of RC in different settings, as discussed in Chap. 5. More specifically, current research about an instrument to evaluate self-presentation developed by a student of the second author could deal with this descriptive sublevel. The still experimental Constructive Patterns Checklist of behavior necessary to discriminate levels of functioning (L’Abate, 2008d, pp. 344–345; L’Abate, 2008e, pp. 13–14) by assessing all the possible activities for individuals, couples, and families could measure the phenotypical sublevel. The laboratory Likeness Continuum Task, developed and validated by Cusinato and Colesso (2008), could measure the genotypical sublevel, as explained in Model7 (Chap. 9), whereas the explanatory sublevel could be assessed by evaluating generational family background, history, and functioning with a structured interview with weights to measure the absence or presence of psychopathological behavior (L’Abate, 1992a,b). Consistencies or inconsistencies among these four sublevels could relate to the validity of Model2 as expanded further in Model10 (Chap. 12). The EcoMap, presented in Chap. 5, will allow an integration of some levels included in Model2.

Chapter 5

Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

What was said in Chap. 4 about Model2 can be also said about this model. A great deal has already been written about how socialization occurs between intimates and nonintimates in various settings (Model3) linked to survival and enjoyment, including leisure time (Csikszentmihaly, 2004). Again, the interested reader may want to consult previous publications and especially L’Abate (2005). However, a great deal of research relevant to the validity of this model has occurred since the last work was published. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to include the latest results relevant to the validity of Model3. In addition to the home, school, or work, Model3 includes transit (airplanes, buses, cars, roads, hotels, etc.) and transitory (church, grocery store, bar, barber, beauty salon, restaurant, etc.) settings. Each setting in an individual’s life is a necessary aspect of the socialization process. How much time and energy is spent in one particular setting indicates what personal and relational characteristics determine the choice of one setting over another, as reflected by what resources are exchanged (Model7, Chap. 9), and how much time and energy are spent in one setting over others. These choices are redundantly described by other models of relational competence theory (RCT), especially Model11 and Model12. These models will be introduced here prematurely to show how powerful the method to evaluate Model3 is in relationship to this and other models of RCT (Cusinato & Colesso, 2009). For purposes of quantitative analysis, settings have been collapsed into four major categories as defined in Fig.  5.1: (1) home, (2) school/work; (3) survival, those necessary to live, such as transit and transitory settings; and (4) enjoyment, those necessary to have fun. Interactions among constructs, modalities, and resources exchanged and settings, as summarized later in this chapter and reviewed in greater detail in Chap. 9, are shown in Fig. 5.1. A specification of settings is necessary to understand and evaluate how an individual relates to others, intimates and nonintimates, in each setting. An individual could be a great success in one setting and be a complete failure in another. A great parent at home may not necessarily be a great employee at work or vice versa, a great success at work does not guarantee successful parenthood. Importance and intimacy may more likely be found in the home than at work. Money is more likely to be found in a bank than under a mattress at home. L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_5, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

69

70

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

Constructs Modalities Resources Model7Chapter 9

Being Presence

Doing

7

Model

Home

Work/School

Survival

Enjoyment

Importance Valuing oneself, (Model11 feelings valued, Chapter 13) recognition’s of one’s goodness and value, feeling as a person who matters

Status related to Job or Profession, Level of education; titles, ranks, & honors

Positive attribution of Importane to self and intimates

Free expression of pleasure to see and welcome friends and intimates

Intimacy Sharing of (Model15 confidences, joys, Chapter 17) hurts, and fears of being hurt, affection, forgiveness of transgressions, emotional closeness

Not included or considered irrelevant or secondary to work/school performance; Avoided as much as possible

Ability to share hurt feelings with self and intimates, forgiving transgressions in self and intimates

Reflecting on one’s own positive behavior, sharing confidences with intimates & friends without Doing or Having

Information Books, internet, magazines, newspaper, radio, telephone, TV

Knowledge relevant to job, occupational, or professional performance

Keeping up with news and with happenings within one’s world & community

Crossword puzzles, brain teasers, virtual pursuit; computer and word games

Services

Blue- or whitecollar jobs or educational or reliable occupational or professional performance

Shopping wisely, keeping within one’s budget; planning for the future;

Volunteering, exercising, competing in marathons, walking, sports, etc.

Goods/ Car(s), food, furnipossessions ture, TV, radio, house, second home &/or land, clothing, jewelry, etc.

Work station, size and style of cubicle or office

Avoiding debts by not buying extravagantly

Hobbies requiring manipulation of objects; play, collecting

Money

Salary plus Savings, con- Used to have bonus, insura- trolled use of fun, movies, nce, perks, credit cards; travel, theater. benefits

Power

Having

Examples of Resources exchanged by Settings (Model 3)

Cooking, taking care of trash, cleaning chores, fixing house, taking care of bills, cars, taxes, school and work, etc.

Bank account, cash at hand, credit card, salary, other income

Fig. 5.1  Interactions of Models10, Model11, and Model15 with four types of settings

Differences Among Contexts and Settings Model3 was presented in detail particularly by L’Abate (2005). However, perhaps not enough attention was given to differentiate contexts from settings. First, the construct of setting allows relational competence (RC) to be assessed and understood, not in the vacuum or in an abstract laboratory situation, but in concrete real-life

Differences Among Contexts and Settings

71

situations. Second, competences and abilities change according to specified requirements of a setting: home, supposedly, asks for free and open expression of oneself and takes into consideration behaviors that differ from those of work places. By the same token, we behave differently in a bank than in a gymnasium or in the waiting room of a dentist or the family doctor. Each setting has requirements for specific classes of resources for exchanging, receiving, giving, doing, and expressing, even if some overlaps may happen. One would not use for exercise a bicycle at home unless it were stationary. Third, a clear distinction must be made between settings and contexts. Settings are objective entities: they can be photocopied and registered; contexts represent the subjective interpretation, the emotional meaning, the attachment to, or dependence on a setting. Settings as objective entities are therefore qualitatively and quantitatively different from contexts. Contexts are perceived in different and subjective ways by several observers inside the same setting. Depending on one’s financial situation, for instance, a bank may be viewed differently by different people. Fourth, it is possible to monitor how much time a person spends in the family routine, how much free time one has and so on. The subjective meaning of these activities and of settings represents the context seen by oneself and/ or by observers. For instance, a parent must take into account the importance of household chores as essential to the welfare and functioning of the family. For the same reason, one cannot spend a lot of time at work without considering how important other activities may be for one’s well-being and for one’s family. Last, the level of RC in different settings determines how one will perceive the context of that setting. Superior RC functioning, for example, means being an excellent and effective partner and parent, who excels at work and enjoys free time after successfully completing home and work responsibilities. Settings, therefore, in interactions with resources exchanged (Fig. 5.1) can be used to distinguish superior from adequate, to mediocre, or inadequate functioning. This point will be elaborated in different, redundant, and more detailed ways in various models of RCT in this volume. Usually, contexts are processed affectively, intellectually, and at various levels of awareness, as discussed in Chap. 3 (Model1). This means how relationships are occurring within a room, a building, an office, a school, the neighborhood, the community, the wider society, and one’s culture, specifically in reference to intimate relationships. These settings are defined by their subjective meanings that cannot be evaluated objectively unless elicited by participants. Transit settings, such as roads, hotels, and airports, do not have the same meaning as transitory settings, such a bicycle, a car, a piece of furniture, or a house, a school, or an office, where one has spent a great deal of time in interactions with intimates and nonintimates, and where there is usually an inevitable emotional attachment. The construct of context implies a certain temporal stability to evaluate how one utilizes one’s resources (Fig. 5.1) to survive and/or to enjoy. Positive and negative experiences lead to an inevitable emotional valence that determines how one feels about a particular setting. Therefore, the meaning of a context is defined by whether it occurs within intimate and nonintimate relationships, which resources are necessary to survive in it, or to enjoy or not to enjoy them, including time. Settings in and of themselves have no meaning. The meaning of a setting is defined by how one perceives it, transforming it into a context.

72

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

However, instead of a generic and vague term such as “environment,” it is important to break that term down into more specific settings, as done in Model3. Nonetheless, we need to specify and differentiate the physical from the human/ social environment. The physical environment is constituted by settings as specified in Model3. The human environment is how settings in interaction with other people and exchanges of resources are viewed by other observers, within their perceptions of those settings, that is, their contexts (Model1, Chap. 3).

The Ecological Paradigm The debate on the relation between individuals and their environments (L’Abate, 2005; Chap. 12) brings us back to Lewin (1935, 1951) and his works. Since that time, conceptions of psychological settings and/or modalities for studying the relationship between behavior and environment have multiplied to constitute the ecological paradigm. This paradigm is a conceptual orientation, a perspective resulting from the synthesis of contributions by many authors. If one were to look back historically to the origins of this paradigm, one should go back to the beginning of last century, when Parsons (1909) asserted that satisfaction can be understood only by knowing characteristics of both the individual and the environment. Consequently, Lewin’s famous equation (behavior = individual × environment) can be predicated by continuous interactions between people and their environments. Traces of this ecological perspective can also be found in Kantor (1924) and Koffka (1935). Psychological theories with an ecological orientation try to explain stimulus patterns, physical and social, current in everyday life in how environments impact on individual experiences and behaviors (Le Compte, 1972). Kelly (1966, 1990), for instance, emphasized four principles of ecological analogy: (1) interdependence in all parts composing a social system; (2) resource distribution and its life cycle; (3) reciprocal adaptation of individuals and environments to changes intervening in the system; and (4) temporal evolution of the system. These principles still remain valid in the present to describe the dynamics of the social environment. If relationships between the individual and the environment are characterized by reciprocal interdependence and temporal continuity, it is crucial that new stimuli be continuously created to produce a ceaseless adaptation between both the individual and the environment to maintain a mutual balance between the individual and the proximal and distal environmental systems, that is, settings. The ecological approach proposes optimizing the adaptation process and, to reach it, locates what factors favor compatibility or incompatibility of the link between individuals and their environments, conceived here as specific settings (Conoley & Haynes, 1992). When an individual is in trouble, for instance, the diagnostic evaluation concerns the interaction between the individual and the environmental settings. According to Kelly (1990), this individual’s problems are explained by the discrepancy range among the characteristics and values of the people in the environment. Nevertheless, the principles generated by Kelly did not produce

The Ecological Paradigm

73

correspondingly specific instruments to analyze and assess observed situations, especially if any proposed evaluation leads helpful planned interventions with strategies particularly directed toward concepts of interdependencies and resources. This point will be revisited again and again throughout the course of this volume. An important research trend in which the context can be traced to perceptions shared by the members of a particular setting is found in the work of Moos (1994). Its starting point is based on Murray’s (1938) theory of individual–environment interaction in which an individual answers to his/her environment both idiosyncratically and normatively. According to Murray, the environment induces normative expectations defined as “environmental pressures.” The shared perceptions of a particular setting are considered one demonstration of environmental pressures (requests) and for that they are conceived as environmental characteristics. According to this model, Moos (Moos, 1994; Moos & Lemke, 1996) developed scales to evaluate the social climate, including the family. Even if these scales vary according to the inquired setting (families, work organizations, social services, barracks), they can lead back to three primary dimensions of the social climate of one’s environment; (1) relationships (cohesion, support, and involvement); (2) individual development (autonomy and growth); and (3) system stability and change (rules, expectations, control strategies of environment on behavior). In parallel with Moos’s work, within industrial and organizations psychology, a series of studies of work climate was developed by Quaglino (1990) to identify in which way different company situations can influence work performance. Another interesting concept of context was introduced by Seidman (1988, 1990). To best understand and explain what succeeds in some settings, he appealed to the concept of “social regularity,” that is, routines inside the social relationships established over time among people in a setting. The focus is not on the individual or on the physical structures of that setting, but on the roles and tacit rules organizing in some way relationships among individuals. Using this developmental perspective, some authors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) believed that the environment can be conceptualized at multiple levels reciprocally influencing each other. The analysis of a particular level contributes to understanding the other levels. Bronfenbrenner’s view, thanks to his articulated and rigorous formulations, generated a series of interesting contributions that are useful for understanding both individual development and mainly contextual roles (Moen, Edler, & Luschen, 1995). The core of his view about “development inside context,” or ecology of human development, embraces a series of concentric structures grouped as “Chinese boxes” defined micro-, meso-, eso-, and macrosystems. The microsystem is the relationship complex in which people have an immediate experience; it includes objects and persons with which the individual interacts inside his/her environment, as the complex series of connections among other persons acting in within the same setting. A mesosystem is defined as the bond among two or more microsystems or settings that an individual frequents or will frequent. Bronfenbrenner created a series of hypotheses concerning the role of the mesosystem, that development in an individual would favor settings in which he/she is involved as being connected with each.

74

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

An esosystem is composed of interconnections among systems with which an individual has a direct experience (micro- and mesosystems) and in which one could not enter in the future; nevertheless they influence what succeeds in one’s immediate setting. A macrosystem is formed by the more extensive ideological model, normative and organizing the social institutions, for example, the membership in a determined social class, or an ethnic or cultural group. Bronfenbrenner recognized the social–cultural influence on people and vice versa to explain the possibility of social exchange. As summarized in Fig. 5.1 and expanded in Chap. 9, it is necessary to introduce Foa and Foa’s (1974) model of resource exchange to categorize and identify underlying contents and processes exchanged between individuals. By “resource,” those authors meant everything that is transmitted from one individual to another individual (Foa, 1976) and went as far as to define the six resource classes included in Fig. 5.1 (Donnenworth & Foa, 1974, p. 786) with reference to two basic dimensions. The first dimension is the particularity that gives “the measure in which the value of a given resource is influenced by individuals involved in the exchange” (Foa & Foa, p. 80). The second is the concreteness showing the “form or type of the expressive characteristic of various resources” (p. 81). Particularity and concreteness of resources such as love and intimacy, for instance, are different from information and services or goods/possessions and money. From these resource classes, three modalities were established (see Chap. 9). By combining importance with intimacy, one obtains a modality of presence, being emotionally available to self and intimates. By combining services with information, one obtains a modality of performance or doing. By combining goods with money, one obtains a modality of production or having. By combining doing with having, one obtains a supermodality of power. Whoever controls doing and having has power over others. Consequently, the two major superdimensions of Model7 are presence and power. As detailed in Fig. 5.1, being present is relevant to intimate relationships. Doing or performance is relevant to educational institutions, whereas having or production is relevant to agricultural, industrial, and financial institutions. Developmentally, these modalities change over the life cycle. Being is more important in the first 5 years of life but once a child enters a school, doing becomes much more relevant than being. After schooling, one needs to work and have a job to produce and receive money to buy things to survive and to enjoy life. In old age, being comes back to reestablish a more important position than doing or having, supposedly after both modalities have been exploited throughout a lifetime and one’s being is crucial to survival and enjoyment. At this point we introduce an additional model of RCT to evaluate the usefulness and validity of a method to measure Model3. Model12 includes priorities (see Chap. 14) concerning the relative importance that individuals and settings may receive on a given day. Priorities are choices that we all make throughout the life cycle according to their importance to us. How important is the self in relationship to other selves? How important is an object, an activity, or a setting in relationship to other comparable objects, activities, or settings? Consequently, priorities include

The EcoMap To Evaluate Relational Competence

75

both contexts within a given setting. Furthermore, people, objects, money, and activities, that is, being, doing, and having as discussed earlier, need to be rankordered usually by their comparative importance, implying a continuous balancing act in determining which modality is more relevant and important at a particular stage of the life cycle. Priorities, therefore, are a motivational construct necessary to negotiate what is important to us, primarily survival and secondarily enjoyment. Vertical priorities refer to how we rank-order ourselves in relationship to our intimates, parents, partners, children, relatives, and friends (Fig. 3.1), the social network that surrounds us (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). Horizontal priorities refer to the settings included in Model3. Is work more important than the home? Are doing and having more important than just being? Can we be comfortable by just being with someone we love and who loves us without any requirement for performance, production, perfection, or problem solving? Model3 could have been evaluated clinically in the past by using the Semantic Differential Test to evaluate how each setting is relevant to a person’s subjective perspective. However, the EcoMap developed by Cusinato and Colesso 2009; Appendix B) has provided an integrative method of relating settings in Model3 to other models of RCT.

The EcoMap To Evaluate Relational Competence For some time, the ecological paradigm suggested the creation of an EcoMap as an ecological assessment tool for individuals, couples, and families. The literature includes several proposals worthy of attention and discussion to point out theoretical and methodological pros and cons. From this review, an innovative proposal has emerged for the ecological evaluation, using models and dimensions derived by RCT and able to analyze data with log-linear models at different levels to obtain parameters supported by statistical significance. The results are then presented in a visual map “concise and intuitive,” useful for reaching any diagnosis and/or planning any intervention. Three forms are proposed and illustrated with one example each: I-RC-EcoMap for individuals, C-RC-EcoMap for couples, and F-RC-EcoMap for families (Tables B.1–B.3, respectively). These examples witness the multiple functions, information, and assessment power of this flexible instrument that includes and integrates so many models of RCT: (1) contexts as perceived by participants (Model1); (2) settings (Model3); (3) resources and modalities (Model7); and (4) priorities (Model12). The ecological paradigm – inside the family assessment area – favors the creation of the family EcoMap (Hartman, 1979, 1995) for the purpose of monitoring elements of human ecology that represent our intimate relationships and the social systems created by individuals desirous of interacting more effectively both with the physical environment and with the social environment where they live and work. This notion implies that people develop those relationships to provide resources,

76

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

include information, allowing consideration of practical assistance and emotional support needed to negotiate the stresses of every day life. The EcoMap is a graphic representation of the existing social network among members of a group and connections of an individual with the wider social system (Wright & Leahey, 2000). It offers to researchers and clinicians an evaluative instrument of considerable width, structure, and function about relevant social networks and in what ways relationships adjust themselves and change over time inside the individual’s perception of his or her reality. Several editions of the EcoMap have been proposed (Calix, 2004; CarpenterAeby, Aeby, & Boyd, 2007; Hodge, 2000; Ray & Street, 2005; Early, Smith, Todd, & Beem, 2000) according to different objectives and observation levels. All these contributions remain within the range of only qualitative evaluations. Authors have competed in the challenge of standardizing the graphic designs representing considerable variables. In spite of these efforts, however, no convergent uniformity has been reached. Above all, the criterion of concurrent validity has not been solved in an adequate manner (Calix). Under these circumstances, the proposed novelty of this instrument stands out. Model3 suggests the creation of a structured format (RC-EcoMap) that offers the possibility to verify the statistical meaningfulness inside nonparametric log-linear analyses, even if it is possible to analyze data by classical analyses of nomothetic research studies, such as analysis.

Usefulness of the Instrument There have been various proposals regarding the construction and utilization of the EcoMap. The EcoMap is a graphic representation of one or more individuals, including couples and families who live within a system of close relationships as perceived by participants. This instrument can reinforce information about close relationships: (1) the strength of the link (e.g., weak, tenuous/uncertain, strong); (2) impact of the relationship (e.g., nobody, depleted resources and energy, adding or multiplying resources and energies); and (3) the quality of links between participants and intimates (e.g., stressful vs. nonstressful). Even though the EcoMap may be utilized in any mental health, educational, and research-oriented academic setting, its major functions should be included as one instrument in a growing list of family-oriented test batteries (Cusinato, 1979; L’Abate, 1994a, b; L’Abate & Bagarozzi, 1993). Nonetheless, there is some resistance to its use, which derives, we believe, from lack of comprehension by researchers and clinicians who seem to have failed in applying this instrument and in appreciating its wide range of applications, especially in family assessment and in possible interventions predicted and prescribed by this instrument. Eventually, possible gaps within this instrument can be confronted by a training program that can highlight its why and its how. Researchers and clinicians need to become aware of how the EcoMap allows a complete, structural, quantitative evaluation to be obtained in comparison with an

The EcoMap To Evaluate Relational Competence

77

equivalent family-oriented instrument, such as the genogram, which focuses instead on the historical, intergenerational aspects of family formation and functioning. Here is where various possibilities can be considered to choose whether we can move above and beyond possible and real resistances. Of course, there are issues of reliability and validity. As Calix (2004) wrote: One of the disadvantages of the EcoMap is the inadequate or inexact terminology that makes it difficult to determine the exact nature of the relationships. For example, strong versus weak relationships can be defined in a variety of ways (Compton & Galaway, 1999). Another disadvantage in the EcoMap lies in the fact that there are no data about its reliability and validity; this fact makes difficult to reach a judgement about its adequacy as a clinical instrument. Numerous researchers recommend the EcoMap for its ease of administration (Hartman & Laird, 1983; Mattaini & Daley, 1997; Sherman & Fredman, 1986; Thomlison, 2002); nonetheless, others, such as Mattaini, emphasize that the EcoMap should not be used until we have established its usefulness. He affirms: “I think that we should use instruments for evaluation that are based on their utility scientifically demonstrated and not just on something that is wished, potential, anecdotal or praised. If we want to present evidence to support social work as a technique to justify our clinical work, then authors within the social field must possess the same scientific rigor of any other non-social field about their instruments of measurement” (Mattaini & Daley, 1997, p. 224). This statement by Mattaini highlights the need to support instruments for evaluation that have demonstrated their usefulness in their usefulness – usefulness based on research design that can demonstrate that an assessment instrument is reliable and valid (Calix, 2004, pp. 29–30).

As noted in previous chapters, L’Abate (2009c) emphasized specificity for evaluations and interventions as an additional requirement for clinical practice that goes above and beyond the old tried and true requirements of reliability and validity. Specificity implies criteria of precision or accuracy and specification or qualification in both evaluations and interventions. This requirement is well fulfilled by the EcoMap. We believe that a reformulation of the EcoMap within the network of correlated models in RCT will represent a notable qualitative step that will go above and beyond possible differences found in this instrument and thus offer a significant step forward in multirelational ecological assessment.

Description and Administration of the RC-EcoMap The EcoMap for RC (RC-EcoMap) is an innovative approach to utilize the graphic representation of relationships within individuals, couples, and families with reallife settings, keeping in the background a general ecological paradigm as well as a more specific reference to specific models of RCT. The RC-EcoMap allows us to define dimensions relevant to the models summarized above. For any setting, participants are asked to indicate (1) which person(s) they are close to with their formal or informal relationship (role, gender, and age); (2) for any person selected, the frequency and quality of contacts, using two similar five Likert scales; (3) contents or resources in these contacts; (4) direction of resource exchanged (bidirectional, or from other to self or from self to other).

78

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

The answers obtained allow us to (1) monitor the prevalence and also, consequently, participants’ priorities from one setting to another, (2) understand the roles of the persons listed in any setting, and (3) define the number of persons in any particular setting. For that information, time does not show the setting relevance, but the number, roles, and characteristics played by the other persons included in a setting are relevant. The passage from settings to contexts is obtained considering the frequency and quality of contacts. Their weight (frequency × quality) permits us o obtain a “context index” for every person (I-CI), but also – if interested, by I-CI sum – for context (C-CI) and/or total (T-CI). Other indexes can be obtained – starting from I-IC – for resources, modalities, and/or constructs of power–presence, as explained in greater detail below.

Components in the Construction of the RC-EcoMap The three major components of the RC-EcoMap are settings, relationships, and contents. Settings: Settings relevant to an evaluation are home, work, survival, and enjoyment. However, if and when relevant, if school and/or work are not included, another classification of settings could be obtained: home, survival, enjoyment, as well as indoors and outdoors. The choice of settings depends on the goals that need to be achieved by the evaluation, whether linked mainly to a simple evaluation without possible intervention or to evaluation for purposes of intervention. Relationships: In each setting participants are asked to indicate with which persons they are in a continuous and important relationship according to two dimensions of frequency and quality of contact. Quantitative analyses can be performed on persons and on contacts. An additional aspect of relationships is the direction of exchanges, whether they are reciprocal or unilateral, given or received. Contents: Contents can be distinguished according to three levels: resources, modalities, and superordinal constructs. Resources are those contained in Fig. 5.1, that is, money, goods, services, information, importance, and intimacy. Resources can be added into the modalities of being (importance + intimacy), doing (information + services), and having (goods + money). At an even higher superordinate level we can also evaluate two additions constructs of power and presence. For the same reasons given for settings, we can elaborate on the answers given to the RC-EcoMap according to resources, modalities, and constructs.

The Three Versions of the RC-EcoMap Again, the choice of whether to administer the EcoMap individually to partners or to family members rather than administer it to partners and family members together

The EcoMap To Evaluate Relational Competence money

goods

services

home

money

father grandmother

goods services

home help

58

mother 56

79 information

importance

intimacy

work colleague colleague 30

money

52 52

goods

boss

81 35

35

information

information

37

30 importance

services

colleague

colleague

brother

importance 28 colleague

intimacy

dance teacher

money

40 goods services

42

hairdresser

beautician

dance teacher 35 32 dance partner

36

25

barman

importance

28 26

intimacy

money goods

38

35 information

intimacy

settings of necessity statistical positive significance statistical negative significance

girlfriend

friend

friend

girlfriend settings of choice

services information

importance intimacy

specific settings: dance school, volunteer association

Fig. 5.2  I-RC-EcoMap

is dependent on how much time is available to participants and examiners. Nonetheless, the graphic elements needed to choose whether to administer the EcoMap to single individuals or in pairs or the whole family unit are contained in Fig. 5.2. The four quadrants distinguish the respective settings according to whether they are home, work, survival, or enjoyment. As far as the two last terms are concerned, in the instructions it might be more useful to use simple terms such as settings of necessity and settings of free choice, with males describe by a square and females by a circle linked to other intimates by arrows that distinguish the direction of the exchange, either reciprocal or unilateral: received or given. At the external sides of each quadrant, the available resources are listed with modalities or constructs altogether or alternatively. In the lower part of the map, specific settings can be listed to continue the evaluation with the participant. The various elements of the EcoMap can be colored in red if the analyses indicate a positive statistical significance or in blue for a negative statistical significance.

Phases in the Administration and Scoring of the RC-EcoMap There are three phases in the administration of the EcoMap: (1) recording of answers; (2) elaboration of answers received; and (3) interpretation and integration of the evaluation and eventual diagnosis.

80

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

Administration and Recording Literal instructions to administer the EcoMap are included in Appendix B, using already-printed answer forms. This administration requires about 20–30  min to record the answers. This type of structured administration might raise a question of whether this instrument should still be considered as an EcoMap. The answer to this question will be given in the third phase considering the integration of answers by participants, because in that phase it is difficult to differentiate what part amounts to just evaluation and what part would seem as an actual intervention. We cannot exclude that with certain participants or in specific situations there may be the introduction of various cartoon figures showing the various elements of the EcoMap. Here is where the graphic construction of the EcoMap progresses according to an interactive process between the examiners and participants. Recording and gathering of answers follows an individual rather as an integrative process with individuals as well as with partners and family members. From answer sheets, data are computerized possibly in an Excel format that allows to obtain right away Context Indices (I-Cs) and to analyze which variables are relevant and thus decide what kind of log-linear processes to follow.

Analyses of Answers Fundamentally, these analyses allow us to cross-index settings × relationships × resources (modalities or superordinated constructs). Settings may be considered separately or can be opportunely combined. Relationships can be monitored in regard to persons who “habitually met with significant contacts” or with persons with more limited quality and quantity of contacts. Resources can be analyzed by considering six distinct dimensions or as the three modalities of being, doing, and having. Furthermore, either resources or modalities can be reduced to constructs of presence and power, as defined earlier, by distinguishing whether these resources, modalities, or constructs are reciprocal or unilateral, either given or received. In the C-RC-EcoMap and F-RC-EcoMap participants can be cross-indexed either as individuals or as units with resources, modalities, or constructs. These analyses indicate the quality of relational contexts as lived by individuals, couples, or families as derived from vertical and horizontal priorities elicited by the relevant instructions. From these priorities, conclusions can be reached about the level and quality of RC. At the operational level, various choices asked of participants are used as categories rather than dimensions following a nominal scale. To evaluate the relevance of each variable and the relationships among the various variables, bivariate (occasionally trivariate) contingency tables are derived. With use of log-linear analyses, marginal and cross-indexed parameters and their relative significance are obtained. Sanchez (2008) developed a very inexpensive Excel program to facilitate these analyses.

The EcoMap To Evaluate Relational Competence

81

From statistically significant parameters it is possible to report the value of each estimate and the relative error of the probability using the  mˆ  symbol for each parameter. In the subscript, the value/values outside parentheses shows/show a single variable and/or cross-indexed variables; the value/values between parentheses are category and/or categories.

Interpretation: Mapping of Participant Responses The logic of the EcoMap summarizes the results from the foregoing analyses in a synthetic figure obtained from the statically based results that are relevant to the priorities and the level of RC, as shown in the Appendixes. The four quadrants in each figure represent the four types of settings: home, work, survival, and enjoyment. The basic scheme of family setting (in bold type participant/ participants) is in the central rectangle. Single squares and circles in each quadrant represent selected persons. Arrows indicate the directionality of the exchanges. External to each quadrant, there are graphs of resources, modalities, and superordinate constructs, in red or in blue according to whether they are positively or negatively statistically significant. If useful, settings particularly significant to participant(s) can be named at the bottom.

Examples of the RC-EcoMap We report three examples of the RC-EcoMap to show the flexibility and usefulness of this instrument in evaluating and codifying significant information that is relevant to models summarized earlier. The first is the I-RC-EcoMap of an individual whose analyses cross-index with settings × persons × resources. The second example focuses on a couple with cross-indexed analyses of participants × settings × relational modalities. The third example deals with a family where the analyses cross-index with settings × constructs of oower and presence exchanged reciprocally or unilaterally.

First Case Study: I-RC-EcoMap This participant is a 23-year-old woman who lives with her family in a small town in northern Italy. She has completed an advanced bachelor degree and at present works in an information business. During her free time she is interested in dancing, music, reading, and participating in a volunteer association. The administration of the I-RC-EcoMap took 26  min. Her answers were analyzed first according to settings × resources exchanged reciprocally or nonreciprocally. Second, the persons × reciprocal and nonreciprocal exchanges were cross-indexed. Figure 5.2 shows her I-RC-EcoMap.

82

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence having

husband wife

doing

home his father her mother

73

41

73

husband wife

work

his mother his brother daughter

having

being

17

daughter 19

her girlfriend

66

his brother his mother 41 his father 73 73

having

rep supplier

73

51

30

their friend

doing

34 colleague

63

doing

her brother 41 her sister-in-low

being

having

32

colleague

54

colleague

43 44

26 barman

colleague

girlfriend

35

being

having

27 girlfriend assistant

doing

45

55 istructor 49

grocer

35 53

barber

friend

doing

friend

58 45

41

being

58 physician

statistical positive significance statistical negative significance

52 hairdresser

41 shopkeeper

settings of necessity

greengrocer

51

44 51

54

girlfriend girlfriendgirlfriendgirlfriend

53

girlfriend

being

friend

settings of choice

Fig. 5.3  C-RC-EcoMap

From Fig.  5.3, it is evident that the persons who are more frequently in contact with this participant relate to her enjoyment settings, whereas the minor ones are relate to survival. Reciprocal relationships with positive statistical significance are included within enjoyment settings: a 26-year-old female friend ( mˆ 21,3(1,15) = 3.614, p = 0.0002), a 28-year-old male friend ( mˆ 21,3(1,16) = 3.614, p = 0.0002  ), another 25-year-old female friend another 32-year-old male friend ( mˆ 21,3(1,17) = 3.176, p = 0.0007), ( mˆ 21,3(1,18) = 3,054, p = 0.0011), and a dancing partner ( mˆ 21,3(1,19) = 1,881, p = 0.003). At home, this participant keeps relationships with a positive statistical significance with her brother ( mˆ 21,3(1,5) = 2.0460, p = 0.0204), and at work with a colleague ( mˆ 21,3(1,6) = 2.0460, p = 0.0204). Statistically significant relationships, that is, less frequent and more negative contacts, were found with her mother ( mˆ 21,3(1,1) = −4.387, p = 0.0001), with her father ( mˆ 21,3(1,2) = −6.872, p = 0.0001), with her grandmother ( mˆ 21,3(1,3) = −2.613, p = 0.0045  ), with a caretaker ( mˆ 21,3(1,4) = −4.673, p = 0.0001), and at work with her boss ( mˆ 21,3(1,7) = −3.450, p = 0.0003), in survival settings with her hairdresser ( mˆ 21,3(1,11) = −7.558, p = 0.0001) and her beauty operator ( mˆ 21,3(1,12) = −8,607, p = 0.0001), and in enjoyment settings with her dance instructor ( mˆ 12(19) = −8,522, p = 0.0001). When the settings were evaluated statistically, positive significance was found for home ( mˆ 1(1) = 6.965, p = 0.0001), work ( mˆ 1(2) = 3.167, p = 0.0001), and enjoyment ( mˆ 1(4) = 13.276, p = 0.0001), but negative significance was found for survival ( mˆ 1(3) = −8.562, p = 0.0001). As far as resources are concerned, services

The EcoMap To Evaluate Relational Competence

83

( mˆ 2(3) = 6.549, p = 0.0001) and information ( mˆ 2(4) = 5.578, p = 0.0001) are prevalent; goods and possessions receive very little attention from this participant ( mˆ 2(2) = −2.751, p = 0.0029 ). Among specific settings, at home reciprocal exchanges focus prevalently on goods ( mˆ 4,6(1,2) = 3.207, p = 0.0007 ) and importance ( mˆ 4,6(1,5) = 1.758, p = 0.0204 ), less on services ( mˆ 4,6(1,3) = −5.673, p = 0.0001) and information (mˆ 4,6(1,4) = −5.846, p = 0.0001); at work goods are significantly prevalent ( mˆ 4,6(2,2) = 4.039, p = 0.0001) as is importance ( mˆ 4,6(2,5) = 2.106, p = 0.0176 ), whereas money seems to be overlooked ( mˆ 4,6(2,1) = −7.411, p = 0.0001); in survival settings of necessity of money is significantly prevalent ( mˆ 4,6(3,1) = 6.623, p = 0.0001) as is that of services ( mˆ 4,6(3,3) = 4.070, p = 0.0001) and information ( mˆ 4,6(3,4) = 4.403, p = 0.0001), but less weight is given to possessions ( mˆ 4,6(3,2) = −3.085, p = 0.001) and importance1 ( mˆ 4,6(3,5) = −2.381, p = 0.0086 ). In enjoyment settings, emphasis is given to importance ( mˆ 4,6(4,5) = 2,188, p = 0.0086 ); less weight is given to money ( mˆ 4,6(4,1) = −3.667, p = 0.0001), services ( mˆ 4,6(4,3) = −3.667, p = 0.0001), and information ( mˆ 4,6(4,4) = −3.667, p = 0.0001). From these results, it is possible to obtain a precise picture of contexts and priorities as experienced by the participant during a specific stage of her life cycle. The family is living an important turn for a more expanded stage of her life where work assumes a more important position than the family and she is now open to social relationships in her free time, divided into volunteer work and enjoyment in dancing. At this point in time, there is an acknowledgement of which settings may be prominent over intimacy that may constitute a promise for the future. Information is restricted to specific areas, whereas attention is given to other resources. Apparently, this young woman is enjoying the pleasures of youth.

Second Case Study: C-RC-EcoMap This couple has been married for 23 years. Both partners come from the same town where they still live. They live in a building where half of it is occupied by them and the other half is occupied by the wife’s parents. The husband is 45 years old, has completed middle school, and works in a family business together with his parents and brothers. He is extraverted and warm, with many friends and social contacts. The wife is 44 years old, has graduated from high school, and is employed part-time in a shoe factory. She appears gentle and spontaneous. Together with her husband, she likes skiing and they meet with friends common to both partners. They have two daughters of 19 and 17 years. The oldest is in the first year of university and lives away during the week and comes home on weekends. The second daughter, in the fourth year of a psychcopedagogical high school, seems rather timid, talks very little, and is somewhat insecure. The overall family climate seems serene. Administration of the C-RC-EcoMap required 21 min for the man and 23 for the women. To compare the answers of the two partners, it was decided to focus on the relationships between settings × exchange modalities, distinguishing between reciprocal and nonreciprocal exchanges (Fig. 5.3). 1

Attribution of importance is one of the resources listed in Fig. 5.1.

84

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

From Fig. 5.3, it appears that both partners keep significant contacts with a great many people. The house is witness to relationships of the expanded family of origin and friends. Both the husband and the wife named practically the same persons. She mentioned his father and added a friend. In the work setting, the relationships are completely different because the wife works outside the home and her husband works in the family business: he also mentioned his family members. In survival settings, both spouses share their physician, whereas he named people within his business. In enjoyment settings both recorded the same friends. She also mentioned the gym instructor. Most of the exchanges occur at home ( mˆ 4(1) = 12.775, p = 0.0001) and in enjoyment settings ( mˆ 4(4) = 8.614, p = 0.0001); negative significance is attributed to survival (mˆ 4(1) = −3.513, p = 0.0002 ) and work settings (mˆ 4(2) = −5.928, p = 0.0001). Keeping in mind the family business, we can conclude that horizontal priorities are working well. Overall, relational exchanges for the husband seem superior, both qualitatively and quantitatively ( mˆ 2(1) = 10.712, p = 0.0001) to the wife’s exchanges, suggesting that the contextual influence is greater for the husband than for the wife. In the top part of the figure there are distinctions in exchange modalities. Being ( mˆ 3(3) = 3.002, p = 0.0013) and doing ( mˆ 3(2) = 1.904, p = 0.0013) are more prevalent than having ( mˆ 3(1) = −4.120, p = 0.0001). Exchange modalities for the wife are different from those for the husband, where being is more prevalent for her than for him ( mˆ 3,2(3,3) = −1.607, p = 0.0540 ), whereas having is more important for him than for her (mˆ 3,2(1,1) = −1.649, p = 0.0495 ). There are no differences in doing and the relationships for both spouses are complementary. Differentiating exchange modalities × settings, we can see in Fig.  5.4 that at home having ( mˆ 43(1,1) = 1.953, p = 0.0254 ) is decisively more prevalent than doing (mˆ 46(14) = −2.678, p = 0.0037 ) and being, particularly for the husband ( mˆ 4,3(11) = 2.685, p = 0.0036 ) but not for the wife. The same appears to be the case for having at work in general ( mˆ 43(2,1) = 1.825, p = 0.0340 ) and for the husband ( mˆ 4,2(2,2) = 5.869, p = 0.0001). Attention should be given to the distinction between survival settings: being first ( mˆ 4,3(3,3) = 2.569, p = 0.0198 ) and then doing (mˆ 4,3(3,2) = 2.037, p = 0.0208) over having (mˆ 4,2(31) = −2.516, p = 0.0059 ), and there is no statistically significant distinction between the two partners. In enjoyment settings there are no significant distinctions among exchange modalities except for the wife’s attention to having ( mˆ 46(14) = 3.926, p = 0.0001), a modality that seems of little interest to the husband. In conclusion, the C-RC-EcoMap of this couple highlights how somewhat traditional this couple is in following gender roles positively integrated and open to various contexts with overlap among various settings that do not show any difficulty in living for both partners.

Third Case Study: F-RC-EcoMap This family is composed of a father,a mother, and two boys with a southern Italian background but who have lived in northern Italy for 20 years. The father is 47 years old and is an Italian army officer, being rather introverted and not very expansive

The EcoMap To Evaluate Relational Competence

85

emotionally, even though he is very curious about people. The mother is 46 years old with a degree from elementary school and is working as a school assistant. She is a simple and extraverted, kind, and curious. The older son is 22 years old and dropped out of high school before obtaining a degree and has worked as a waiter for the last 6 years. Presently, he is unemployed and spends most of his time at home, writing online and watching soccer games on television, except for in the evenings, when he goes out with his friends. He is very expansive with his peers, with whom he does not like to spend too much time, preferring to spend most of his time at home. He resembles his father in some respects, but he is more open. The second son is 17 years old and attends high school, is a member of a local soccer team and this sport is his passion. He resembles in most ways his mother, with whom he shared some kind of collusion. The relationship between the father and the mother seems good but somewhat cold, whereas the relationships between the parents and the sons are positive, especially the relationship between the parents and the second son, whereas the rapport between brothers seems positive with an underlying sense of envy between the first and the second son. We seem to be dealing with a simple, traditional family without any problematic characteristics except for the unemployment and dependency of the older son. There are few contacts with others except for the neighbors in a condominium next door. With the extended family that still lives in southern Italy, relationships are optimal but the frequency of contacts is limited to summer and Christmas holidays, when the whole extended family with parents and children gets together. Administration of the F-RC-EcoMap took 20  min for the younger son and 35 min for the mother. To evaluate their answers, it was decided to highlight the relationship between settings × superordinated constructs (presence and power) as shown in Fig. 5.4. First, we can emphasize that home ( mˆ 4(1) = 1.992, p = 0.0232) and work ( mˆ 4(2) = 1.818, p = 0.0345) settings present the highest number of relational exchanges, whereas survival is present to a lesser degree ( mˆ 4(3) = −4.233, p = 0.0001). Comparing family members, the mother shows the lowest number of contacts ( mˆ 4,6(44) = −3.667, p = 0.0001), whereas the younger son has the highest number ( mˆ 4(4) = 11.701, p = 0.0001). Second, between settings and constructs (sharing of presence and power), in survival settings there is a much significantly higher frequency of power exchanges (mˆ 4,2(1,3) = 1.736, p = 0.041) and a smaller frequency of being ( mˆ 4,2(2,3) = −1.736, p = 0.041) In other settings, there are no statistically significant differences in regard to power. In regard to family members and the constructs of power and presence, at home the older son shows a significantly higher number of exchanges ( mˆ 4,2(3,1) = 3.121, p = 0.0009 ), with a smaller number of mother/younger son exchanges ( mˆ 4,2(1,2) = −2.64, p = 0.0039), ( mˆ 4,2(1,4) = −1.746, p = 0.0404 ). Third, in cross-indexing settings × constructs × family members, the results must be differentiated according to power and to presence. For power, at home the father shows a significantly higher frequency of exchanges (mˆ 4,4(1,1) = 4.982, p = 0.0001) than the mother ( mˆ 4,6(44) = −3.734, p = 0.0001), who, however, shows a higher frequency of exchanges at work ( mˆ 4,4(2,2) = 2.143, p = 0.0161). For presence, the foregoing ratio between husband and wife reverts to the opposite direction between the father ( mˆ 4,4(1,1) = −4.982, p = 0.0001) and the mother ( mˆ 4,4(2,1) = 3.734, p = 0.0001).

86

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence son, 17 son, 22 mother father

work-school

home

colleague colleague teacher colleague leader 19 46 cook 43 colleague 62 19 58 46 49 18

colleague mother’s girlfriend mother’s girlfriend 50

46

colleague

negotiated power

negotiated power

18 colleague

17 friend

17 17

friend

shared presence

friend

17

girlfriend 18

45

47

colleague

22 17

47

barman

girlfriend

47

24 barman

46

negotiated power

52

barmaid

negotiated power

girlfriend

35

18

hairdresser

girlfriend 34

55 physician

shared presence

shared presence

team chief

50 cashier

31 41 19 64 76 30 hairdresser cousin physician physician grandfather newspaper seller

statistical positive significance statistical negative significance

settings of necessity

43

51 brother-in-low

brother-in-low

24 friend

18 friend

22 girlfriend

45 trainer

35 17 sport manager friend

shared presence

settings of choice

Fig. 5.4  F-RC-EcoMap

At work the mother shows a lesser number of exchanges (mˆ 4,4(2,2) = −2.143, p = 0.0161). The father shows a much higher frequency of exchanges in survival ( mˆ 4,4(1,3) = 3.217, p = 0.0006 ) rather than in enjoyment (mˆ 4,4(1,4) = 2.694, p = 0.0035) settings. In summary, this family, as viewed by the mother and the younger son, seems to follow an order of priorities: first exchanges within the family, second work, and enjoyment with survival settings being third. The exuberance of the younger son seems to compensate for the limited number of exchanges with the mother. The father seems to express himself mainly in relation to survival and enjoyment settings, whereas the mother expresses herself mainly at work, and the younger son expresses himself at school and with friends. Power and presence are pretty well balanced, with power significantly and positively relevant to survival and negatively relevant to enjoyment. The oldest son builds relationships mostly based on “power” exchanges rather than “presence”, while the youngest son shows a reverse pattern more similar to the mother’s relational style.

Discussion The RC-EcoMap is a relatively new ecological and multirelational assessment instrument that allows us to define and evaluate variables of at least three models of RCT concerning settings, resources, modalities, constructs, priorities, and relational contexts.

Research on the Validity and Usefulness of the RC-EcoMap

87

Possibly, it could be expanded by inference to link and evaluate various other models, since among resources it is possible to consider the levels of individual and relational importance (Model11, Chap. 13) and the levels of intimacy (Model15, Chap. 17). Furthermore, the direction of exchanges, either reciprocal or unilateral (given or received), might be useful information to link them to the process of negotiation (Model16, Chap. 18). Consequently the RC-EcoMap allows a direct and indirect theory-derived assessment of many dimensions and the possibility of integrating many of them. In the present version, the RC-EcoMap continues to remain mainly an instrument of qualitative character, but the benefits of idiographic analyses obtained through log-linear transformation of nominal scores permits us to achieve statistical significance for the values of the resulting parameters. This individual approach does not exclude a nomothetic research approach, as included below, linking research with practice, especially with clinical or deviant participants at different levels of functionality throughout the life cycle. Of course, research needs to be conducted to identify which modalities are more appropriate for individuals, couples, or families. This aim would allow to continue the research about the concurrent validity already predicted by Calix’s (2004) arguments.

Research on the Validity and Usefulness of the RC-EcoMap Recently, some studies have administered the RC-EcoMap to nonclinical and clinical participants that offered useful and relevant information about the validity of this instrument. The first goal is to verify the validity of (1) objective settings, defined by the number of persons selected with whom the participant keeps continuous and significant contacts, and (2) subjective contexts, as perceived by participants. Given the exploratory nature of these studies, and the nature of the scores developed to measure context, nonparametric statistics were applied in regard to these indices. Specifically, Bidoli (2006) compared 166 I-RC-EcoMap scores of nonclinical participants (aged 26–40  years; 50% male and 50% female; education junior high/ professional school nine, technical school four, high school 79, bachelor 37, master 37; status single 51, engaged 61, living together 31, married 19, divorced four) with the goal of obtaining specific information to verify the operationalized models evaluated by the RC-EcoMap. The results of this study support the possibility that participants include the major number of continuous and significant relationships in the home [M = 3.91; standard deviation (SD) = 1.79] and enjoyment (M = 3.36; SD = 1.61) settings relative to work (M = 3.16; SD = 1.70) and survival (M = 2.37; SD = 1.35) settings. The difference in the number of relationships in the four settings is statistically significant (c2 = 70.84; p < 0.001). Even if the effect size is small (Kendall’s W = 0.14), the data confirm that participants are able to discriminate the number of relationships within the four quadrants of the figure. Differences, however, increase when the subjective impressions about those relationships move on to the respective context indices, that is, the home context (M = 24.72; SD = 15.15)

88

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

is perceived in a consistent manner in regard to the enjoyment context (M = 29.32; SD = 16.27), followed by work (M = 24.72; SD = 15.15) and then survival (M = 10.26; SD = 7.03). The differences in the score for context tend to remain significant (Friedman test: c2 = 189.93; p < 0.001), whereas the effect size is medium (Kendall’s W = 0.38). These results tend to support the capacity of nonclinical participants to discriminate among context indices in the four settings and at the same time confirm what was discussed at the outset of this chapter about differences between contexts and settings. Among the influences of the independent variable, age is significant and, therefore, the life cycle, in influencing context indices for enjoyment, where there are participants between 36 and 40 years old. (M = 38.28; SD = 16.23) who perceive the context in a more consistent manner (Kruskall–Wallis test: c2 = 20.54; p < .001; r = 0.32; effect size medium) in comparison to participants between 31 and 35 years old (M = 26.24; SD = 13.38) and younger ones between 26 and 30  years old (M = 25.49; SD = 15.65). Additional information about settings and contexts with immigrant participants is found in the study of Basso (2008), who administered the I-RC-EcoMap to 50 immigrants in Italy. She selected 34 immigrants coming from eastern European countries (age: M = 29.12; SD = 8.53; 58.82% males; 41.18% females) and from Africa (age: M = 29.47; SD = 8.07; 58.82% males; 41.18% females), comparing their data with those of 17 Italian natives (age: M = 33.82; SD = 4.78; 58.82% males; 41.18% females) (Table 5.1). An analysis of this information shows that these immigrants do not show significant influences in survival settings, probably because this setting is included in the home setting. Comparing mean scores of immigrants with those of Italian natives, the latter show much higher scores in the enjoyment setting, as might be expected by their being more comfortable and enjoying their own country than would be the 2 case for immigrants [F(2, 48) = 7.027; p = 0.002; ηpartial  = 0.226; effect size large]. There are no differences among context indices within the other settings. To evaluate the importance of contextual influences among immigrants, 24 immigrants were selected, from 50, divided according to years of permanence in Italy, more than 10  years (age: M = 36.50; SD = 11.49; 50% males; 50% females) or less (age: M = 30.58; SD = 10.46; 50% males; 50% females) (Table 5.2). The results indicate clearly that immigrants with shorter periods of permanence bestow much greater significance to the survival settings and only after some years of longer permanence learn to feel more comfortable in other settings. These participants describe themselves with scores in the four quadrants of the EcoMap that are similar to those of nonclinical Italian participants. Andrighetti’s (2010) study furnished relevant information about transformations between the setting × context interactions among alcoholic participants. In this research Andrighetti administered the I-RC-EcoMap to 20 alcoholics (age: M = 53.20; SD = 6.96; 50% males; 50% females) in rehabilitation and functional nonalcoholics (age: M = 53.00; SD = 6.88; 50% males; 50% females). From these results, the experimental group showed a much smaller number of significant persons than the mean number of persons 2 selected by controls in survival settings [t(38) = −3.72; p < 0.001; ηpartial  = 0.227; effect size large] and in enjoyment settings [t(38) = −3.036; p = 0.004; η2partial  =0.195;

a Four divorced participants are not considered. SD standard deviation.

Table 5.1  Selected important persons by gender, status, and age of participants (N = 186) Total Home Work M SD M SD M Gender Male 12.98 4.59 3.84 1.73 3.40 Female 13.44 3.87 4.16 1.88 3.19 Statusa Single 12.79 4.03 3.56 1.60 3.25 Engaged 13.66 3.91 4.44 1.72 3.27 Living together 12.12 5.47 3.15 1.84 3.18 Married 14.32 3.54 4.91 1.82 3.55 26–30 12.95 4.98 3.86 1.76 3.34 Age (years) 31–35 12.58 4.13 3.90 2.00 3.34 36–40 14.28 2.47 4.34 1.69 3.18 SD 1.86 1.68 1.54 1.81 2.02 1.92 1.81 1.86 1.65

Survival M 2.22 2.73 2.35 2.46 2.55 2.64 2.43 2.28 2.74

SD 1.38 1.29 1.45 1.33 1.25 1.53 1.40 1.36 1.27

Enjoyment M 3.53 3,35 3.63 3.49 3.24 3.23 3.33 3.06 4.02

SD 1.89 1.60 1.97 1.51 2.00 1.57 1.94 1.54 1.46

Research on the Validity and Usefulness of the RC-EcoMap 89

a

Four divorced participants are not considered.

Table 5.2  Indices of context by gender, status, and age of participants (N = 186) Total Home M SD M SD Gender Male 100.76 42.92 32.52 17.25 Female 105.05 33.39 36.37 17.65 Statusa Single 100.47 36.78 30.37 17.67 Engaged 105.19 36.78 37.43 15.60 Living together 94.06 49.67 27.85 17.60 Married 113.73 27.25 44.00 16.96 26–30 98.85 46.85 32.99 17.72 Age (years) 31–35 98.02 32.46 33.86 17.77 36–40 114.78 22.61 22.16 16.82 Work M 27.92 25.59 26.56 25.66 26.91 29.64 26.45 26.72 27.32 SD 18.97 15.01 15.54 17.47 20.56 15.10 18.75 16.60 14.76

Survival M 9.41 13.58 10.75 12.00 11.09 12.05 11.35 11.08 12.16

SD 7.31 8.59 8.47 8.83 6.39 8.97 8.92 8.73 6.36

Enjoyment M 30.91 29.52 32.79 30.10 28.21 28.05 28.06 26.36 37.78

SD 18.89 15.69 20.59 14.57 19.49 13.78 18.62 13.66 16.28

90 5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

Research on the Validity and Usefulness of the RC-EcoMap

91

Table  5.3  Parameters and error probability from log-linear analyses of context indices of 24 immigrants subdivided by years of permanence in Italy H-CI W-CI S-CI E-CI Years 0–9 >10

mˆ

p

mˆ

p

mˆ

p

mˆ

p

−4.114 4.114

0.001 0.001

−2.033 2.033

0.021 0.021

2.952 −2.952

0.002 0.002

−2.519 2.519

0.006 0.006

Legenda: H-CI = Context index of home setting; W-CI = Context index of work setting; S-CI = Context index of survival setting; E-CI = Context index of enjoyment setting.

effect size large], and also in the total number of relationships [t(38) = −3.699; p < 0.001; η2partial  = 0.265; effect size large], probably produced by the decrease of significant relationships owing to prolonged alcoholism. But the only significant difference between the two groups appears in the total index (T-CI) [t(38) = −2.79; p = 0.008; η2partial  = 0.170; effect size large] and not among the four contexts. Probably, these results indicate that the process of recovery for alcoholic participants needs to rely on a reduced number of significant relationships (Table 5.3). Finally, Bedini, Gianesini, and Mozzato (2009) evaluated the concurrent validity between the number of significant persons in each setting and the T-CI for each setting with the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale (Chabot & Licht, 2006; Cusinato & Colesso, 2008). There were no significant correlations with the number of significant persons selected, whereas significant values are found for the T-CI (r = 0.37; p < 0.05) and for the home context index (r = 0.39; p < 0.05). The level of individual differentiation, therefore, appears a fundamental requirement to construct relational contexts inside and outside the family context. After the validity of interactions between settings and contexts has been verified, the next step is reserved for evaluating the validity of other aspects measured by the RC-EcoMap: resources, modalities, and constructs of power and presence by analyzing indices derived from the context index × the weight attributed by participants to the six resources. Bidoli (2006) found that, in general, significant and continuous relationships in 166 participants are equally distributed (Mann–Whitney test: z = 0.41; p = 0.68; r = 0.02; effect size almost nonexistent) on the construct of both power (M = 278.78; SD = 144.67) and presence (M = 282.42; SD = 129.66). As far as relationships are concerned within single contexts, in the survival context they are mostly based on power (power: M = 47.75; SD = 36.91; presence: M = 15.29; SD = 21.30; Wilcoxon signed ranks test: z = 10.43 ; p < 0.001; r = 0.57; effect size large), whereas most enjoyment contexts are mainly based on presence (presence: M = 95.78; SD = 60.59; power: M = 55.30; SD = 45.62; Wilcoxon signed ranks test: z = −9.56 ; p < 0.001; r = 0.52; effect size large). Within the home context, there are no significant differences between the two constructs (power: M = 104.76; SD = 83.91; presence: M = 113.13; SD = 66.52; Wilcoxon signed ranks test: z = −0.41; p < 0.100; r = −0.02; effect size almost nonexistent), whereas within the work context the predominance of power is diminished in comparison with presence (power: M = 70.97; SD = 52.89; presence: M = 58.22; SD = 55.24; Wilcoxon signed ranks test: z = 3.43; p < 0.001;

92

5 Model3: Socialization Settings for Relational Competence

r = 0.19; effect size small). Consequently, relationships within the home context support both presence (home presence: M = 113.13; SD = 66.52; work presence: M = 58.22; SD = 55.24; survival presence: M = 15.29; SD = 21.30; enjoyment presence: M = 95.78; SD = 60.59; Friedman test: c2 = 246.32 ; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.49; effect size medium) and power (home power: M = 104.76; SD = 83.91; work power: M = 70.97; SD = 52.89; survival power: M = 47.75; SD = 36.91; enjoyment power: M = 55.30; SD = 45.62; Friedman test: c2 = 60.99 ; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.12; effect size small) in single participants. When the answers are processed according to modalities, significant relationships are found to doing (M = 183.98; SD = 95.29) relative to being (M = 141.21; SD = 64.83) and to having (M = 94.80; SD = 68.18) (Friedman test: c2 = 148.33; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.45; effect size medium). This finding is consistent with the description of the population of northeastern Italy, from which most of the participants derived, viewed as hard-working but characteriologically “closed.” When the analysis focuses on single contexts of home, the three modalities do not show any substantial differences (home having: M = 52.01; SD = 50.32; home doing: M = 52.75; SD = 41.10; home being: M = 56.57; SD = 33.26; Friedman test: c2 = 6.49; p = 0.040; Kendall’s W = 0.02; effect size nonexistent). Doing seems to be characterized better than work (work having : M = 20.09; SD = 22.12; work doing: M = 50.88; SD = 37.37; work being: M = 29.11; SD = 27.62; Friedman test: c2 = 127.52; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.38; effect size medium), and also survival (survival having: M = 13.13; SD = 13.92; survival doing: M = 34.61; SD = 28.99; survival being: M = 7.64; SD = 10.65; Friedman test: c2 = 164.44 ; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.50; effect size large), and enjoyment (enjoyment having: M = 9.57; SD = 21.00; enjoyment doing: M = 45.73; SD = 33.02; enjoyment being: M = 47.89; SD = 30.30; Friedman test: c2 = 207.58; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.63; effect size large). Finally, when considering the six resources, most relationships seem to focus prevalently on (Friedman test: c2 = 271.07; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.33; effect size medium) information (M = 93.20; SD = 51.02) and services (M = 90.79; SD = 50.16), and, in descending order, importance (M = 77.55; SD = 34.01), intimacy (M = 63.66; SD = 35.78), money (M = 53.83; SD = 40.77), and goods (M = 40.98; SD = 36.29). Distinguishing among contexts, in the home resources do not show any significant differences (Friedman test: c2 = 16.92 ; p = 0.005; Kendall’s W = 0.02; effect size null); in work they are (Friedman test: c2 = 281.13 ; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.34; effect size medium) in favor of information (M = 28.62; SD = 19.76) and services (M = 22.26; SD = 20.01); in survival a positive prevalence (Friedman test: c2 = 357.90 ; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.43; effect size medium) occurs for services (M = 21.47; SD = 17.99); in enjoyment (Friedman test: c2 = 425.33 ; p < 0.001; Kendall’s W = 0.51; effect size large) importance (M = 25.45; SD = 15.38) and intimacy (M = 22.44; SD = 16.66) prevail. Casellato (2007) compared mean scores from the RC-EcoMap of 20 psychotic participants (age: M = 38.05, SD = 8.18; 50% male and 50% female) with those of 20 nonclinical participants matched by gender and age (age: M = 37.50, SD = 6.82). Applying log-linear analyses to the contexts × groups × resources interactions, the results demonstrate, in comparison with those of controls (1) within the home

Conclusions

93

context, they show lower context indices concerning importance (z = −4.31; p < 0.001), intimacy (z = −4.23; p < 0.001), and information (z = −3.37; p < 0.01) and greater indices for money (z = 3.96; p < 0.001) and goods (z = 3.09; p < 0.05); (2) within the work context, they show lower indices for services (z = −3.38; p < 0.01), importance (z = −3.09; p < 0.01), and information (z = −2.98; p < 0.05), and a greater index for goods (z = 3.28; p < 0.01); (3) within the survival context, psychotics show lower context indices concerning money (z = −3.92; p < 0.001) and goods(z = −3.58; p < 0.001), and a greater index for importance (z = 2.73; p < 0.05). These results suggest that psychotic participants have a greater utilitarian rapport with their own relatives who are caring for them, whereas they look at the medical personnel to receive a sense of importance.

Conclusions These preliminary results and observations support the conceptualization of settings as classified by Model3. Contextual indices (either general, or for constructs, or for modalities, and for resources) obtained by the EcoMap allow the evaluation of a variable that heretofore was difficult if not impossible to quantify operationally and to evaluate statistically. The EcoMap, therefore, appears as an instrument that is theory-related and (1) flexible to accommodate and evaluate quantitatively a variety of relationships, (2) easy to administer and to score using a computer program, and (3) inexpensive considering the amount and type of clinically useful information that can be obtained by this instrument, which might lend itself to direct and specific clinical interventions.

Part III

Theoretical Assumptions

Moving from an abstract to a more concrete level and from general to more specific levels, the chapters in this part belong to relational competence theory proper. No other theory we know of shares the same contents and topics integrated into a whole. The theory proper is based upon two basic relational processes, namely, the ability to love (Model4) and the ability to control and regulate self (Model5). An additional corollary specifies the contents of both abilities that assume prolonged interactions between at least two individuals. Whether positive or negative, functional or dysfunctional, these interactions occur in intimate relationships at home and develop in those ongoing nonintimate settings where prolonged interactions are more likely to occur, such as school or work.

Chapter 6

Model4: Ability To Love

The purpose of this chapter is to expand on a model of distance regulation in intimate relationships based on a spatial dimension of distance defined by extremes in approach and avoidance. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) prototypes in approach can be found in cluster C dependent personality disorders of axis II. Prototypes in avoidance can be found in a continuum of fears, foibles, phobias, anxieties, and avoidant personality disorders found at the other extreme of the same cluster, conceived as proximity in attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Functionality is the result of the balance of approach–avoidance tendencies. Dysfunctionality occurs at the two (unbalanced) extremes of this dimension, or both dimensions could be conceived as two orthogonal dimensions, each with its highs and lows. Approach–avoidance tendencies have been measured by paper-and-pencil, self-report tests (Elliot & Covington, 2001; Feeney, 1999; Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005). In this model, distance is assessed objectively by how frequently, when, and where one approaches or avoids self, a particular person, a setting, an activity, a task, or an object. How strong or weak are these approach or avoidance tendencies? Is approach stronger than avoidance, or vice versa? At what level of observation and interpretation does either tendency occur (Model2)? Does it occur in public or in private? What about conflicts in approach–avoidance tendencies? Are the gradients of these tendencies different? Distance is present in demand/withdrawal communications between parents and adolescents (Caughlin & Malis, 2004; Garrison & Earls, 1987). This is where emotional problems (depression, anxiety, and obsessive compulsive disorders) represent the major dimension of community (Sameroff, Lewis, & Miller, 2000). Between functional relationships and the avoidant personality, there is a whole continuum of social phobias based on avoidance of perceived threatening or painful situations (Alden & Taylor, 2004; Bögels & Mansell, 2004; Bögels & Tarrier, 2004; Rapee & Spence, 2004; Hirsch & Clark, 2004) ranging from normal fearfulness, anxiousness, shyness, self-consciousness, submissiveness, and anger at the extreme of dysfunctionality (Hofmann, Heinrichs, & Moscovitch, 2004). At the other extreme of approach, the prototype would be the leach-like, dependent personality who

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_6, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

97

98

6 Model4: Ability To Love

needs continuous help and nurturance from others because help and nurturance cannot be given by self to self. Personality disorders in cluster C of axis II of DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) include exemplary prototypes defined at one extreme by excessive approach tendencies, visible in someone needing and wanting continual closeness, as observed in helplessly dependent or codependent parasitic personality disorders. The other extreme – avoidance of others – may be seen in an increasingly severe continuum of fears, phobias, social anxieties, and culminating in avoidant personality disorders (L’Abate, 2005, 2006). Hence, these prototypes help to define a dimension of distance fundamental to the ability to love. We approach and usually live with whom and what we love and try to avoid (not always successfully!) individuals, activities, objects, tasks, and settings that we do not like or love. Indirect evidence for the importance of this model has been provided by Hess (2000, 2002, 2003), who found that people use distance to attenuate discomfort created by relationships with disliked partners. He determined 33 distancing behaviors, which he grouped into three basic distancing strategies – avoidance, disengagement, and cognitive dissociation – later operationalized with a Relational Distance Index. Avoidance of self and of others is found in axis I with severe psychiatric disorders. Strong support for distance being the major dimension of love is found in the work of Impett et al. (2005). They proposed different motives for approach and for avoidance in sexual engagements. Approach motives consist of focusing on obtaining positive outcomes for self, as in one’s sexual pleasure, one’s partner’s happiness, pleasing one’s partner, and enhanced intimacy in the relationship. Approach motives are associated with greater life optimism, higher subjective well-being, and lower depression (p. 467). Avoidance motives, on the other hand, focus on evading negative outcomes, as in sexual frustration, loss of interest or avoiding conflict in the relationship, and coping with negative emotions. Avoidance motives are associated with more physical symptom reports. In their research (Impett et  al., 2005) approach sex motives were positively associated with personal and interpersonal well-being. Sexual avoidance motives seemed to be negatively associated with well-being. Engaging in sex for avoidance motives was particularly detrimental to the maintenance of a relationship over time. Perceptions of the partner’s motives for sex were also associated with well-being. These findings were supported by a replication in terms of daily sacrifices (Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005). Partners’ perspectives of receipt and of health-related exchanges of support and control are associated not only with the partner’s behavior but also with their own initiation of health-promoting exchanges on their partner’s behalf (Franks, Wendorf, Gonzales, & Ketterer, 2004, p. 429). Support relates to the expressive, communal side of relationships, that is, closeness, requiring little if any action, except to be present, attuned, and available emotionally to intimates who are hurting and expecting the same presence when one needs it. Control relates to the agentic, instrumental side of relationships requiring money, goods, services, and information for the exchange to take place, as discussed in the Chap. 7.

A Behavioral View About the Evaluation of Distance

99

The Measurement of Distance There are at least five different ways to measure distance in intimate relationships: closeness, closeness–distance, connectedness, distance by itself, and intimacy. These ways support the importance of a dimension of distance fundamental to closeness and love. We approach and live our lives with whom and what we love. We avoid whom and what we do not like. Sometimes, however, both extremes get in the way. 1. Closeness as one dimension (Repinski & Zook, 2005). 2. Closeness as one extreme of distance (Feeney, 1999). 3. Connectedness and individuality (Bengtson & Grotevant, 1999). 4. Distance by itself (Hess, 2003). 5. Intimacy: the definition and measurement of intimacy will be covered in Model15 (Chap. 17).

A Behavioral View About the Evaluation of Distance Rather than measuring distance through paper-and-pencil, self-report questionnaires or checklists, as done in the research reported above, we prefer to use an observational approach to evaluating distance because this is closer to actual behavior and allows us to relate the distance thus measured to a variety of dimensions relevant to relational competence and incompetence as shown by cluster C of axis II of DSM-V. Underlying physical dimensions for both extremes are found in Figs.  6.1–6.4, which are expanded below with self-explanatory lists of similar dimensions. For instance, from the hypothetical etiological dimensions included in Fig. 6.1, we can then move on to possible pathological consequences of extreme deviations in space that derive from pain at one end or from pleasure at the other end (Fig. 6.2).

Media Below awareness Kinesthetic Auditory Visual Tactile

Internal to the body Psychosomatic

Cerebral Physiological Visceral Stomach pains “Butterflies in stomach”

External to the body Proximal

Distal

Mannerisms Tics Hallucinations

Running away

Hallucinations Projections “Bugs crawling on my skin”

Fig. 6.1  Hypothetical etiology of extremes in approach–avoidance: distance from the body

100

6 Model4: Ability To Love Pain (Punishments)

Pleasure (Rewards)

Avoidance (withdrawal)

Approach

Turning within and/or against

Overdependence

Flight into action or fantasy

Turning unto others

Evasion (and deception)

Symbiosis + approach to others

Seclusion from people

Inclusion of people

Isolation (personal)

Sexual deviations (paraphylias)

Mistrust-rejection

Over-acceptance

Isolation (social)

Diffusion (codependency)

Social contact minimal

Social contact maximal

(Denial of dependency)

(Extreme dependency)

Fig.  6.2  Possible pathological consequences of extreme deviations in spatial distance derived from pain or pleasure

Continuum of Distance Approach <---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ® Avoidance Overattached <----------------------(Securely attached)---------------------------> Unattached Ambivalently attached or unattached Overdependency <----------------- Interdependency ---------------- ® Denial of dependency Symbiosis <---------------------------------------------------------------------------> Alienation Model8 , Chapter 10 this volume Pursuer <--------------------------------------- Regulator ----------------------------- ® Distancer Model13, Chapter 15 this volume

Fig. 6.3  Extremes in approach–avoidance and conflict overattachment and dependency

Conclusion

101

===================================================== Approach (Demand) -------------------------------------------- Avoidance (Withdrawal) Separation Disorder ---------------------------------------------- Overanxious Disorders Obsessive Compulsive Disorders ----------------------------- Simple & Social Phobias Depressions ------------------------------------------------- Conduct, Defiance Disorders Depressions ---------------------------------------------- Post-traumatic Stress Disorders ===================================================== =

Fig. 6.4  Incompetent extremes in approach–avoidance1

When extreme approach tendencies become overattachment and dependency, then we have examples at one end of denial of attachment and of dependency at the other end of a distance dimension (Fig.  6.3). The competent middle of the road between both extremes lies in acknowledging and accepting and acting on our basic interdependence. Even more nuanced, we can see how a behavioral/observational approach to distance allows us to include visible extremes of incompetence (Fig. 6.4). Indirect, paper-and-pencil, self-report measures would make these extrapolations very difficult.

Conclusion Even though Model4 has not been evaluated directly, the voluminous literature summarized here and in Figs.  6.1–6.4 makes it almost unnecessary to evaluate it. Nonetheless, as indicated in Chap. 1, love is too complex a construct to rely just on one dimension. Consequently, the simplistic construct of love based on one dimension of distance will be redundantly reconsidered in its various, perhaps more complex expressions in models of relational competence theory in as many ways as possible in Model7, Model12, and Model15. Dysfunctional aspects of distance regulation will be covered by Model13.

Adapted from Hersen & Last (1990).

1 

Chapter 7

Model5: Ability To Control and Regulate Self

“Perhaps the earliest identifiable precursor of childhood disorders is the interaction between the temperamental state of the newborn and the psychosocial adjustment of the parents during and after pregnancy” (Dadds, 1995, p. 48). “Your attitudes toward time have a profound impact on your life and your world, yet you seldom recognize it (p. 6). ...Time is our most valuable possession p. 7)... Our scarcest resource, time, is actually much more valuable than money” (Zimbardo & Boyd, 2008, p. 8).”

The purpose of this chapter is to expand on a model of self-control or self-regulation in intimate relationships based on a dimension of time defined by extremes in discharge (speed/fast) and delay (speed/slow) functions (Strathman & Joireman, 2005). The relational functions of self-control or regulations have been reviewed by Rawn and Vohs (2006). Prototypes of relative discharge can be found in cluster B personality disorders of axis II in DSM-IV. Relative prototypes of delay are found in cluster C of axis II, as well as in chronic procrastinators, who apparently include about 20% of the US population. In cluster B of axis II are included so-called disruptive behavioral disorders that comprise attention-deficit/hyperactivity, aggression, oppositional defiant, and conduct disorders in adolescents (Sameroff, Lewis, & Miller, 2000), and antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic, and psychopathic personality disorders in adults. These disorders are all characterized by a tendency to discharge and externalize, whereas affective disorders, included in the previous chapter, cluster B internalizations, would tend to gravitate toward an extreme of delay. Discharge in this model is synonymous with impulsivity, as shown in cluster B borderline personality and substance abuse disorders, criminality, and externalizing disorders (Bornovalova, Lejuez, Daughters, Rosenthal, & Lynch, 2005; Burt, Krueger, McGue, & Iacono, 2003; Hicks, Krueger, Iacono, McGue, & Patrick, 2004; Krueger, 2002; Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005). Certainly, the notion of control has received a great deal of attention in the literature (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). A complete review of the extant literature would take us

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_7, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

103

104

7 Model5: Ability To Control and Regulate Self

away from theory as involved in research. Although relevant to relational competence theory (RCT; Vohs & Baumeister, 2004; Carver, 2004, Larsen & Prizmic, 2004; Mischel & Ayduk, 2004; Schmeichel & Baumeister, 2004), a review would occupy too much space and distract us from the purposes of this chapter. Suffice to say that this recent, monumental review of the literature (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) equates self-regulation with agency control, bypassing almost completely community, as discussed in Chap. 6. This particular aspect of relationships, that is, community, was ignored, as if people lived only in a realm of agentic controls, negotiating problem solving, and not in a realm of communal relationships, that is, close and loving relationships. As discussed in Chap. 8, we live contemporaneously in both realms, the communal and the agentic. Elsewhere (L’Abate, 2005), the construct of self-regulation has also been extended also over community as a superordinate process overseeing and overarching both community and agency. One needs to regulate approach-avoidance tendencies as much as one needs to regulate discharge-delay tendencies. This overarching construct could be called relational competence (RC).

Dimensions of Control Underlying dimensions for both extremes of discharge–delay are found in Fig. 7.1, which will be expanded by defining the dimensions defined by extremes. Deviations in controls begin in extremes of excitation at one end of discharge and deviations in inhibition at the other end of delay in a dimension of controls. These extremes are seen since birth in a child’s temperament (Garrison & Earls, 1987). “Discharge” means a tendency to express, immediately or close to the immediacy of a triggering stimulus situation, not always external and sometimes internal. This expression can occur sometimes through explosions, verbally and nonverbally through temper tantrums, aggression, and acting out. “Delay” means a tendency to wait and often not respond, at least externally, but most of the time internally, to a stimulus situation. These internal reactions could be somatic, cardiovascular, and physiological, as seen in high blood pressure, obesity, and alimentary disorders. Helgeson, Novak, Lepore, and Eton (2004) distinguished between social control, which means to encourage appropriate health-enhancing, health-restorative behaviors, and discouraging health-compromising behaviors from social support and social conflict. These researchers found that social control, even well-meaning, actually increased distress, a finding supported by other researchers.

Definition of Discharge By “discharge” is meant any reaction, physical, verbal, or even in writing, that is immediate after the appearance of a stimulus, either internal or external. This immediacy is found in impulsivity, where risks are taken without consideration of

Dimensions of Control

105 Excitation

Inhibition

Discharge

Delay

Expression Expulsion

Suppression Retention

Alloplasticity

Autoplasticity

Externalization

Internalization

Extrapunitiveness Extraversion+approach against Impulsivity Foreplanning limited Acting out Internal controls mini Action maximal Fantasy minimal Maximal facilitation of discharge Minimum delay Criminality

Intrapunitiveness Introvertion Compulsivity Foreplanning extreme Acting in or intellectualization Internal controls maximal (daydreaming, ruminations) Action minimal Fantasy maximal Maximal interference of discharge Maximum delay Thought disturbances

Fig. 7.1  Synonymous terms and possible pathological consequences of deviations in self-controls1

possible or realistic consequences, where new experiences are sought for the experience of newness and differentness, often bordering on the oppositional. In its extremes, this characteristic leads to addictions and to criminal acting out as in disorders in cluster B of axis II. Developmentally, extremes in discharge are first found in attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorders (Sonuga-Barke, 2005), which, in many instances, tend to persist well beyond childhood and not only in boys. In adulthood, the need to exercise self-control and more planning is even more acute than in childhood.

Definition of Delay By “delay” is meant any reaction, either physical, verbal, or even in writing, that is postponed after the appearance of a stimulus, either internal or external, as in procrastination as well as in cluster C of axis II personality disorders characterized by anxiety, depression, and fears. However, in some cases this procrastination leads to a level of reflection about the self that is missing in cluster B personality disorders. This is why cluster C disorders seem more amenable to psychological interventions than cluster B disorders.

Adopted in part from Gelfand and Peterson (1985) and Rothbaum and Wetz (1989).

1 

106

7 Model5: Ability To Control and Regulate Self

Figure 7.1 contains all the possibly synonymous terms used in the past literature to emphasize the importance of this dimension as well as the possibly dysfunctionalities in RC. It would take more time and space than is available to expand on each of these synonymous terms and their possible incompetencies. Figure 7.2 includes a developmental perspective on how these two dimensions expand over the initial life cycle from infancy to adulthood. The ability to control self relies on a dimension of self-regulation (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) and is defined by extremes in discharge (disinhibition) at one end and in delay (inhibition or constraint) at the other end, hyperactivation and deactivation, respectively, in attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). This dimension has been measured by paper-and-pencil, self-report tests (Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000; Mansell, 2005; Roloff, Putman, & Anastasiou, 2003). In RCT, control is defined objectively by assessing reaction time, duration, frequency, rate, intensity, direction, and temporal perspective (focus on the past, present, or future) of relationships (L’Abate, 2005, pp. 181–182). For example, how quickly or slowly does one respond to internal or external stimuli or events? Additionally, how quickly or slowly one approaches or avoids another person, task, object, or setting can be observed and measured directly over time without relying solely on selfreports. The locus of control could be internal or external, where self (“I”) or others (“You” or “Them”) are made responsible for one’s behavior. Functionality occurs when discharge and delay tendencies are balanced appropriately throughout the life cycle according to realistic task demands. Dysfunctionality occurs when there are extremes in either discharge or delay. For instance, prototypes in psychiatric classification define both extremes of control for discharge (externalization) in personality disorders in cluster B of axis II of DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), visible in individuals who show consistent and

Discharge Externalization Alloplasticity Negativism Temper tantrums Oppositeness Hostility/aggression Competitive rivalry Rebellion Juvenile delinquency and/or Sexual acting out Marital, family, and/or occupational conflicts

Age in years 2-6 6-13 13-21

>21

Delay Internalization Autoplasticity Phobias and fears Shyness Conformity (sameness) Feelings of inferiority and inadequacy Depression and/or anxiety Early marriage Somatization Postpartum depressions Fears and phobias Single parenthood?

Fig. 7.2  Extremes in discharge–delay tendencies and chronological development2

Adopted in part from Gelfand and Peterson (1985) and Rothbaum and Wetz (1989).

2 

The Contribution of Philip G. Zimbardo to Model5

107

sometimes extreme discharge or inadequate control of discharge, as in impulsive, antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic personality disorders. At the other end of this dimension, medium to extreme delay (internalizations) characterizes most personality disorders of DSM-IV axis II cluster C (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The relevance of self-control to the process of negotiation is elaborated in Model16.

The Contribution of Philip G. Zimbardo to Model5 The model of temporal perspective proposed by Philip G. Zimbardo (Boyd & Zimbardo, 2005; Zimbardo & Boyd, 2008) adds direct evidence to support a dimension of self-control or self-regulation defined by discharge at one end and delay at the other end of a continuum. Through a validated paper-and-pencil, selfreport questionnaire, the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI), he differentiated among past–present-oriented and future-oriented individuals. Even though there may be cultural differences in temporal perspective even within one country, such as Italy, temporal perspective produced a significant typology that distinguishes among individual past-negative, past-positive, present-fatalistic, present-hedonistic, future, and transcendental future orientation. The ZTPI produced high levels of convergent validity with various measures of aggression, Beck depression, conscientiousness, consideration of future consequences, ego control, impulse control, need for consistency, novelty seeking, reward dependence, selfesteem, sensation seeking, and trait anxiety (Boyd & Zimbardo, 2005, p. 93). Furthermore, the ZTPI produced significant correlations with single self-report item correlations with age, GPA, hours of study in a week, creativity, happiness, how often others tell lies, how shy one perceives self to be, and temper (Boyd & Zimbardo, 2005, p. 94). From this perspective, it is possible to characterize an optimal time perspective profile to include (1) high in past positive temporal perspective, (2) moderately high in future temporal perspective, (3) moderately high in present hedonistic temporal perspective, (4) low in past negative temporal perspective; and (5) low in present fatalistic temporal perspective. Less optimal profiles are possible from Zimbardo’s typology in ways that allow further differentiation of individual differences in temporal perspective. A task for the future will be to correlate differences in temporal perspective with other models of RCT. This characterization of individual differences in temporal perspective begs the question about what to do with individuals low in future temporal perspective and high in past temporal perspective, among others. This question is answered in full by Zimbardo and Boyd’s book with the administration of time-appropriate self-help written practice exercises interspersed throughout the book. These selfhelp exercises should help average, fully functional readers become more aware of time and how defective temporal expectations may lead to negative consequences. As discussed in Chaps. 19, 20, and 21 it is possible to help impulsive individuals

108

7 Model5: Ability To Control and Regulate Self

with deficits in future temporal perspective, as found in cluster B externalizations, and individuals with strong past temporal perspective, as found in cluster C internalizations, by having them learn to move toward a more balanced temporal perspective by letting go a negative past, defective present, and unrealistic future temporal perspective through specific interactive written practice exercises.

Conclusion Model5 has not been evaluated as yet. However, the extensive literature reviewed in previous publications by the first author plus the empirical, theoretical, and practical contribution of Zimbardo linked directly to this model attest to the crucial importance of temporal perspective in RC. As in the ability to love, this construct will reappear redundantly under different constructs in other models of RCT in various chapters of this volume.

Chapter 8

Model6: Combination of Both Abilities

The existence of both basic dimensions, distance or the ability to love spatially and control or the ability to regulate oneself temporally, is fundamental to understanding all the other forthcoming models of relational competence theory (RCT). How we approach or avoid another individual, activity, object, or task and how fast or how slowly this process takes place have important implications for the development and growth of intimate relationships. Constructs highly similar to dimensions of love (closeness, intimacy) and selfcontrol (bargaining, problem solving) are present in a variety of two-factor theories, reviewed in previous publications (Fig. 8.1). Control is consistently viewed as an agentic rather than as a communal construct (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). As Ariel (2002) contended in relation to children’s make-believe play, “The notions of ‘proximity’ and ‘control’ are abstract concepts pertaining to various aspects of interpersonal relations.” (p. 37). Images of proximity, for instance, are territorial, whereas images of control are seen in roles played by children while pretending (p. 38). Originally, two dimensions based on affiliation and power were pioneered by Leary (1957) but were rephrased influentially by Bakan (1968), whose distinction between communal/expressive (love) and agentic/instrumental (self-control) exchange relationships is still considered relevant in relationship science (Jung Jung Suh, Moskowitz, Fournier, & Zuroff, 2004; Mills, Clark, Ford, & Johnson, 2004). The same two dimensions appear in monadic, nonrelational models (Fig. 8.1). For instance, appetitive approach and defensive avoidance in distance are orthogonal with discharge/impulsivity and delay/inhibition/constraint in control. Approach–avoidance functions stem from or relate to emotionality. Discharge– delay functions stem from or relate to rationality (Model1). Both tendencies stem from or are connected to either limited or excessive rationality. Impaired rationality tends to produce quick discharge, as in the impulsivity of cluster B (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) personality disorders. Excessive rationality produces delay, as seen in procrastinators, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders of cluster C. Other components of Model1 – activity, awareness, and context – of course, need to be taken into consideration for a satisfactory description and explanation of this model. Furthermore, both dimensions derive from different neurological underpinnings (Depue & Lenzenweger, 2006). L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_8, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

109

110

8 Model6: Combination of Both Abilities Space Distance Affiliation Communion Communal Intimacy Affiliation Cohesion Intimacy Connectedness Nurturance Support Warmth Communion Intimacy Distance Being Presence Love Proximity

Source Leary (1958) Bakan (1967) Clark & Mills (1979) McAdams (1988) Wiggins (1992) Olson (1996) Canary et al., 1997 Harter et al., 1997) Fehr & Broughton (2001) Franks et al., (2004) Grolnick &Gurland (2002) Horowitz (2004) Segrin & Flora (2005) L’Abate (1986, 1994, 1997, 2005, 2009; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003 Mikulincer&Shaver, 2007

Time Self-control Power Agency Exchange Power Control Adaptability Control & Power Autonomy Dominance Control Control Agency Power Control Doing & Having Power Negotiation Activation

Fig. 8.1  Two-factor models of intimate relationships

As noted in Chaps. 6 and 7, cluster B of axis II, for instance, includes extremes of discharge, with acting-out personality disorders at the very end of this dimension. Middle to extremes of delay includes most personality disorders of cluster C (McHugh & Slavney, 1989). Many personality disorders, as traditionally constructed, do not need to be considered as internalized traits, sociopolitical contexts, and cultural contexts need consideration (Jordan, 2004), including intimate relationships (King & Terrance, 2006; Lenzenweger, 2006; Patrick & Bernat, 2006). Both abilities, when combined into an orthogonal model (Model6), yield four quadrants with three levels of functionality in relationships: (1) high abilities to love and to self-control tend to produce the highest level of functionality, above 70 points on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) in DSM-IV; (2) a high level of ability in one paired with a low level of ability in the other tend to produce an intermediate level of functionality, between 50 and 69 points on the GAF; (3) low abilities in both qualities tend to produce the lowest level of functionality, that is, psychopathological behavior below 49 points on the GAF. Competence and functionality in relationships, therefore, is an appropriate balance of approach-avoidance and discharge-delay tendencies that vary developmentally according to realistic task demands at various ages and stages of the life cycle.

Relational Competence Theory and Interpersonal Theories It would be impossible to expand and summarize in detail all the dimensions included in Fig. 8.1. Nonetheless, some comparisons among combined dimensions of love and self-control with other theories of interpersonal relationships are inevitable.

Relational Competence Theory and Interpersonal Theories

111

For instance, it is important to compare RCT with two recent interpersonal theories that have expanded on Bakan’s (1968) original distinction of community and agency as the two fundamental bases for relationships. The first is Horowitz’s (2004) extremely well supported and well reasoned theory proposing that the two fundamental “motives” related to the development of psychopathological behavior in “interpersonal” relationships are Bakan’s community and agency. RCT, on the other hand, starts with similar two constructs, the ability to love (Chap. 6) and the ability to self-control (Chap. 7), but considers them visible and measurable processual abilities, rather than static, monadic motives. Every human relationship has a motive if one spends time to find it or to infer it. Instead of inferring either or both motives, would it not be more direct and perhaps more practical to look at the abilities involved and needed for relationships rather than hidden and hard to infer motives? Since both community and agency are derivative constructs (Fig. 8.1) from both distance and control, it might be important to compare and contrast Horowitz’s motives with what in RCT are called “abilities” to love and to control self. Whereas in Horowitz’s views community and agency are explanatory constructs, they are processual abilities in RCT. Hence, whereas both constructs in Horowitz’s view are motivational, they fulfill strictly descriptive functions in RCT. In interpersonal theory both constructs are “inferred,” that is, made up from other more observable behaviors. On the other hand, both distance and control are visible in RCT. No inference is necessary to observe how partners, parents–children, siblings, and other people are tied together by bonds of affection, intimacy, and love and by successful negotiation and problem solving of relevant relational issues. We can evaluate how long one spends in the family or intimate relationships, we can record, photograph, tape-record or video-record how intimates relate with each other. We can measure communication deviance and expressed emotions from their speech (L’Abate, 2005). We can discriminate which of the three intimate styles, abusive apathetic (neglectful), reactive repetitive, or creative conductive (Chap. 11), are used most frequently. We no longer need to infer how family members negotiate problem solving and how they bargain around relevant intimate and nonintimate issues (Chap. 18). Finally, competence, incompetence, and severe incompetence do not develop from or in “interpersonal” relationships. They develop in intimate relationships as defined previously. There is another fundamental difference, among others, between RCT and interpersonal theory, and that difference lies in considering the importance of intimates tied by emotional, financial, legal, and blood ties versus impersonal “interpersonal” contexts that are left unspecified, even though many of the examples and case studies used by Horowitz did include the relevance of intimates. Another difference between RCT and interpersonal theory lies in the functions ascribed to the two fundamental constructs. The abilities to love and to negotiate are “processes” that develop over time, according to the direct influence of intimate relationships. In interpersonal theory, both community and agency are used as static entities, in the sense that they do not move or change over time, since motives, being inferred entities, cannot be measured according to how much community or how much agency is present in a relationship.

112

8 Model6: Combination of Both Abilities

Furthermore, the use of motives to explain interpersonal psychopathological behavior raises the questions: “Are inferred motives necessary to describe and explain behavior?” Can functional and dysfunctional competence be understood without motives? Surely, motivational constructs might be necessary. This function is fulfilled in RCT by stressing attribution and bestowal of importance to self and intimates as motivational constructs, how importance is attributed, ascribed, expressed, and shared reciprocally (Model11, Chap. 13), and by priorities, who and what is important to anyone (Model12, Chap. 14). Interpersonal theory has to break down motives into a variety of constructs to “explain” relationships. For instance, there is a motive for intimacy (p. 13), a motive for an agentic affirmation of self, and so on. One is reminded of the same function ascribed to “instincts” at the beginning of the last century, where instincts were supposed to “explain” everything and, in trying to explain everything, they explained nothing. One point of overlap between the two theories lies in their stressing two orthogonal dimensions fundamental to human relationships. Interpersonal theory uses a circumplex model, supposedly derived from the two fundamental motives of community and agency, that is, dominance–submission and unfriendly–compassionate, among other dimensions. RCT uses both abilities to compose a more practical and relevant model on visible intimate relationships (Fig. 8.1). Another point of overlap between the two theories lies in their using prototypical disorders and syndromes to illustrate and apply a model. In interpersonal theory, personality disorders are presented capriciously, without any sequence that derives rationally or empirically from the two motives. Competence theory, on the other hand, follows a systematic sequence, where personality disorders and syndromes are extensions of the two dimensions composing the theory, as discussed in Chaps. 6 and 7. The foregoing considerations do not imply that there are no motivational constructs in RCT. As discussed in Chap. 13 (Model11), for instance, the basic construct of “importance” exchanged among intimates and nonintimates has definite motivational aspects. People feel important on the basis of practically individual characteristics: how one wears one’s hair, what clothing is worn, what car is driven, what religious, political, or sport allegiance is prominent, etc. All of these characteristics are visible. No one needs to infer anything from recondite motives. Motives in RCT are visible, not inferred, as is the case also for priorities, who and what is important to one, as visible from observable and measurable behaviors rather than from hypothetical goals, values, attitudes, or needs (Model12, Chap. 14). A second theory relevant to a comparison with RCT is attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), whose basic assumptions of space and time are called proximity and activation (Fig.  8.1). Since a great deal has already been written about the conceptual and empirical bases for this comparison (L’Abate, 1994a, 1994b, 1997a, 1997b, 2005), no space will be wasted to expand on such a comparison here, except to note that attachment theory is stated linearly, whereas RCT is stated hierarchically (L’Abate, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). If one were to believe Harkness (2007) that only hierarchically stated theories qualify as theories, then

Dependency as a By-Product Model of Model6

113

attachment might qualify as a model with various dimensions, but not as a theory thus defined. Another model that is relevant to the two major assumptions of RCT is Olson’s (2000) circumplex model. For years, with a great deal of self-generated evidence to back it up, he has proposed two major dimensions of couple and family functioning: cohesion and adaptability (Fig. 8.1). Cohesion covers concepts such as emotional bonding, internal/external boundaries, coalitions, time and space, friends, and decision making. Adaptability includes concepts such as assertiveness/passivity, control, discipline, negotiation, roles, and rules. Each dimension varies along levels of functionality–dysfunctionality. For instance, cohesion varies from no cohesion or disengagement to separated or low–moderate cohesion, connected or moderate– high cohesion to enmeshed or extreme cohesion. Adaptability varies from extreme as in chaotic, to high as in flexible, to moderate–low as in structured, to no adaptability or rigid. There is little to criticize in this excellent model except to comment that these dimensions are structural rather than processual and abstract rather than concrete and observable. They are abstract because they are derived from paper-and-pencil, self-report tests rather than from direct observations of intimate relationships. Intimacy, in whichever way one wants to define it, seems absent from cohesion, where one is more likely to find it (Model15, Chap. 17)

Dependency as a By-Product Model of Model6 Dependency is a characteristic that pervades relational competence throughout the life cycle. Consequently, it cannot be ignored and must be derived and connected to Model6 to evaluate it developmentally. From the viewpoint of socialization, dependency is present throughout infancy, childhood, and adolescence, when the child depends on intimate relationships for nurturance and satisfaction of physical (clothes, food, and shelter) as well as emotional needs in a one-way street with little if any reciprocity. In adolescence, however, when the child is still in one way or another dependent on caregivers, there may be a tendency to deny such a dependence and clamor for so-called independence, a process that really does not exist in real life. We all, in one way or another, are dependent on others, intimates or otherwise, reciprocally. Becoming adults means acknowledging the fact that we all are interdependent on one another, in one way or another as detailed in Fig. 8.2. A fourth stage of return to dependency is characteristic of old age, when we become dependent on others to take care of us. Additionally, the combination of Model 4 and Model 5 allows us to develop a model for personality disorders, as shown in Fig. 8.3, where within cluster C these disorders are differentiated between those in cluster B that are characterized by approach and delay and those that are characterized by avoidance and discharge

114

8 Model6: Combination of Both Abilities Levels of Dependency Symbiosis versus Alienation

Definition Nature of Intimate Relationships Extreme contradictions in Abrupt reversals, from intensely explosive violence to extreme passivity approach/avoidance and and withdrawals, controls either lacking discharge/delay or extremely rigid, inconsistent, and/or

Denial of dependency versus overdependence

Conflicts in approach/ avoidance and discharge/delay Balance of approach/avoidance and discharge-delay

Interdependence

contradictory; abusive-apathetic style Manipulative, competitive, controls, imbalanced, conflictfully, impulsive and/or delayed; reactive-repetitive style Committed, equal, reciprocal, intimate, controls mutually shared, conductivecreative, cooperative-synergistic style

Fig. 8.2  Approach–avoidance, discharge–delay tendencies, dependency, and intimate relationships

Cluster B

Time / Self-Control Discharge

Cluster C

OC and Avoidant Personality Disorders

Space/ Distance

Love Approach

Avoidance Cluster C

Dependent and Depressed Personality Disorders

Cluster A

Delay

Fig. 8.3  A model for personality disorders from DSM-IV: axis II according to the two assumptions of relational competence theory– space and time (Fig. 1.1) (Author, 1994)

Conclusion Model6 has not been evaluated directly because it is considered to be so preeminent in the relevant literature to make such an evaluation seem almost irrelevant. This is why both abilities to love and to control self are indeed called assumptions, because we could accept them on faith, so to speak, for their inherent existence as basic dimensions related to relational competence without any direct proof or evidence of their existence. Nonetheless, there is no question that eventually this model will need further and more specific and direct empirical evaluation.

Chapter 9

Model7: The Triangle of Living

Model4 and Model5 both represent processes without contents. A corollary to both abilities includes a triangular model, Model7, relating to the contents of relationships, namely, what is exchanged among intimates and nonintimates described in the Triangle of Living derived from Foa and Foa’s (1974) resource exchange theory. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to expand on a model based on Foa and Foa’s (1974) original differentiation of six classes of resources exchanged— status, love, information, services, goods, and money – as already introduced in Chap. 5. These classes can be reduced to three modalities of exchange (“The Triangle of Living”), by including status (changed to importance, Model11, Chap. 13), Love (changed to intimacy, Model15, Chap. 17), information, services, possessions, and money. Combining importance and intimacy produces a modality of presence, i.e., being emotionally (i.e., communally) and instrumentally (agentically) available to self and intimate others. “Being” means the ability to be and become emotionally available and attuned to self and to intimate others, without any need for performance, production, perfection, or problem solving on either side. Combining information and services defines a modality of doing or performance. Combining money and possessions defines a modality of having or production. Combining both doing and having defines a supraordinate modality of power. The latter is democratically negotiated and shared in functional relationships but not in dysfunctional ones, where power is neither shared nor negotiated, or is negotiated ineffectively. Hence, constructs such as presence and power represent a different way to look at and define love and control, respectively. Presence is not negotiable, because one’s feelings cannot be negotiated. They can be shared. Whether power is negotiable depends on who holds it and how it is spread or delegated, that is, controlled. Hence, these two constructs, presence and power, are further redundant explications of the ability to love and distance (Model4, Chap. 6) and the ability to control self in time (Model5, Chap. 7). Being emotionally present is another redundant manifestation of loving and being close. Power represents the ability to control both performance and production. Whether this power is negotiable or not depends on the nature of the relationship, reciprocal versus asymmetrical. In functional relationships, presence and power are kept separate. Issues of love, presence, and being L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_9, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

115

116

9 Model7: The Triangle of Living

together are kept independent of power. Power is delegated according to age, stage of life cycle, gender, and other contextual factors. In dysfunctional relationships, instead, presence and power are intermingled, confused, fused, and diffused inappropriately, without regard to age, stage, or gender. Power is not delegated or is so diffused chaotically among family members in uneven, contradictory, and inconsistent extremes to render it inexistent. Hence, presence and power represent different constructs to define redundantly abilities to love, to control, and to negotiate (Model4, Model5, and Model16). Each modality in this triangle defines relationships with functional and dysfunctional extremes. There are excesses in either direction in each modality. For instance, when this model is applied to a classification of sexual relationships, sex and sexuality are functional when shared, that is, being together with a minimum of demands on performance or production. Extremes in doing are represented by disorders of low sexual desire, on one hand, with extremes in excessive performance, as in hypersexuality, on the other hand. Money enters in the use of prostitutes, whereas possessions include a whole industry of sexual products (L’Abate, 2005, 2006). There are definite prototypes in extremes of each modality. For instance, too much being would result in extreme dependence, as in Indian gurus who sit on a bed of nails and receive gifts from outsiders to survive. Too little being would result in many sexual deviations, where the perpetrator is unable to be emotionally available to self and others. Too much doing would result in workaholism. Too little doing would result in extreme dependency. Extremes in too much having are found in hoarders (Grisham & Barlow, 2005; Patronek & Nathanson, 2009) and tycoons, as well as in compulsive shoppers within the larger context of a consumer-oriented, materialistic culture (Kasser & Kanner, 2004). Too much having, as in consumerism, or materialistic individuals, such as tycoons, pack racks, and hoarders, would result in further accumulation of useless objects or junk, as in addictions (Harwood & L’Abate, in press; Patronek & Nathanson, 2009). Accumulation of wealth, sometimes with philanthropic or tax-advantageous giving, could be an end of itself. The process of accumulation seems more important than the amount of wealth or things accumulated. Extremes in not having are found in individuals of some religious orders who give away their worldly possessions, sacrificing themselves and their lives to help others who are needier. Too little having would also result in some cases in extreme dependency. However, there are different outcomes depending on how much being and doing are allowed to moderate this extreme. For instance, many charitable organizations depend on gifts from others. Charitable individuals who divest themselves of any worldly goods to give services and goods to dependent others have to rely also on gifts from others. Extremes in being in either direction tend to produce extremes also in the other two modalities. Too much emphasis on being would make it difficult to attend to and satisfy realistic needs and demands requiring practical doing and having. Little emphasis on being would increase overreliance on doing and/or having. Extremes in doing, for instance, can be found in type A personalities, whereas extremes in not doing can be found in some degrees in procrastinations and, at the extreme, in severe psychopathological disorders (Massel et al., 1990).

Doing or Performance

117

One part of this model, the relationship between being present and having production, is well supported by extensive research (Kasser & Kanner, 2004). These authors consistently found significantly negative correlations between measures of the orientation of materialistic values and measures of well-being, self-esteem, affiliation, and community. Positive correlations, on the other hand, were found between the orientation of materialistic values and measures of unhappiness, neuroticism, and even depression, among others. Measures of well-being, affiliation, and community represent in some ways the importance of being emotionally available to oneself and intimates, without requirements of production, performance, problem solving, or perfection. Negative correlations between the inability to be available to self/intimates (being) and performance is shown in type A and perfectionistic, obsessive–compulsive personalities (Flett & Hewitt, 2002).

Being or Presence Recently, Riva, Waterworth, and Waterworth (2004) presented a brilliant model of three levels of presence that serves well as a theoretical background for a definition of presence as being emotionally attuned and available to self and intimate others when we, them, or both are hurting. This model consists of dividing presence at three levels of protocol and extended presence at both internal (i.e., the self) and external (i.e., the others). Riva et al., did not mention the presence of intimate others, but included the culture as part of the external dimension of self and of internal presence. Additionally, this model stressed the importance of being present in the here and now rather than being present in general. We cannot expand our emotional attunement and availability to everyone who hurts and spend it on them. It is impossible to do that when reciprocity is not present in the process of sharing hurts and fears of being hurt by the very ones we love and who love us. We can only focus on hurting relationships where the assurance of reciprocity is expected and received. This argument will be expanded in L’Abate (2009c) and in Chap. 17.

Doing or Performance There are at least four prototypes of individuals who represent an emphasis on doing and performance at the expense of being. Type A personalities fit into the first prototype of workaholic individuals whose work is more important than anything else. They prefer to do rather than to be with loved ones, if they still have them. Sexual perpetrators who have no feelings of empathy for their victims represent a second prototype of individuals who are not able to access their own feelings of hurt and who, therefore, cannot empathize with their victims, as expanded in Model15 (Chap. 17). Addicted individuals fit into a third prototype, irrespective of what substance or object they may abuse, and are also examples of being unable to

118

9 Model7: The Triangle of Living

access their feelings of hurt, and, therefore, continue self-destructive behaviors at the expense of loved ones. Psychiatrically incompetent individuals represent a fourth prototype to the extent that they seem unaware of their condition and cannot cry, express, and demonstrate hurt feelings with loved ones or professional helpers. We will consider this further in Model15 (Chap. 17).

Having or Production Having consists of goods or possessions and money. There are people who are so addicted to buying (L’Abate, 1992a,b; van Dusen, 2005) that acquiring objects is more important than anything else, even if one has to go bankrupt to obtain release from internal tensions through buying. “Oniomania” is now the term used to describe individuals who cannot restrain themselves from shopping even for useless objects. This condition, therefore, is no different from other addictions. Wanting a drug and needing a cigarette or a drink of alcohol are addictions that overshadow any other relationships in the addict’s life. Pack rats are another example of individuals who like to collect and conserve a variety of objects, no matter how useless they may be. By the same token, certain individuals like to make money for the sake of making money. Some save for the future, living lives of thrift and economy, hoping some day to use that money. Some collect it as it were another object, without regard to using it to buy anything. In this chapter, more specifically, these three modalities are applied to (1) sex and sexuality, (2) sexual deviations or the paraphilias, and (3) relational models (RMs) theory.

Resources and Sexual Relationships This model was used to classify sex and sexual relationships (Table 9.1). This classification was applied to deviant sexual paraphilias, where the major characteristic is the inability to be in touch with one’s emotionality and, consequently, not being able to be empathetic with one’s partner or with victims in cases of rape or sexual attack (L’Abate, 2009b). Sharing one’s past traumas, painful experiences, anxieties, and fears, as well as inadequate experience with one’s partner would lead toward eventually enjoying sex as a way of being together, not only physically but also emotionally.

Normal Sexual Functioning Functional and pleasurable sexual relationships represent the appropriate combination of being emotionally present and available to a partner as being foremost in the

Resources and Sexual Relationships

119

Table 9.1  Toward a classification of sex and sexuality according to a model (Model7) of modalities and resources exchanged Modalities Resources Methods Outcomes Sex as the presence of Being and the Importance Attribution of importance normal or functional ability to love to self and loved ones sexual pleasure (Model11, Chap. 13) Intimacy Sharing of hurts and joys, forgiveness, seeing the good (Model15, Chap. 17) Information Books, articles, pornography Sex as performance Doing as one magazines, tapes, and films aspect of power Services Early experiences One-night stands Recreational sex Sex as production Goods, Sexual paraphernalia Having as possessions Fetishisms, sadomasochistic another aspect practices using objects of power (whips, chains, etc.) Money Surrogates, prostitutes, mistresses, gigolos Marital arrangements where sex is given in exchange for financial security Adapted and updated from L’Abate and Hewitt (1988)

relationship, with doing and having used secondarily for the purposes of mutual and reciprocal satisfaction and achievement of maximal pleasure. As long as no harm or hurt is caused, practically anything goes between consenting and loving partners. Attribution, assertion of importance to self and partner, as well as intimacy are crucial processes necessary to achieve normal sexual functioning. This point will be elaborated in the next chapter.

Sexual Deviations and Paraphilias Sex and sexuality without sharing feelings would lead toward sex and sexuality as performance or as production, or both. Performance essentially leads toward a driven frenzy or high frequency of sexuality, as found in narcissistic disorders, such as nymphomania in women and the Don Juan syndrome in men. Extremes in sexual production mean relying on goods and money to obtain sex, as in many sexual fetishes or industrially produced objects, or sex for money (Weiner & Rosen, 1999). The important difference between sexual deviations is negotiation, where power relationships are present. In functional sexual relationships power is shared first, whereas performance and production are negotiated later. Most if not all sexual deviations are due to deficits in being that are related and promote and provoke instead overreliance on doing and/or having. For instance, pedophilia, paraphilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, frottage, masochism, sadism,

120

9 Model7: The Triangle of Living

public masturbation, and obscene phone calls are all related to performance, with little if any use of things or money. On the other hand, fetishistic transvestism, fetishism, overuse of sexual objects (dildoes, fake penises, or fake vaginas, among many other commercially available objects) represent the extremes of having. Overuse of pornographic magazines or movies represents the extreme of information. Prostitution is the prototype of sex for money.

Resources and Relational Models Theory Recently, a very interesting, if not exciting, Relational Models Theory (RMs) has proposed four basic, universal forms of exchange that describe and explain social relationships, that is, models. It is included here because it has a bearing on how different conceptions of resources bring about a completely different theory. RMs theory conceives four RMs: (1) communal sharing (CS), when people share common body essences, comestibles, body contact, and sex, as well as pain or body parts, and presumably pleasures and joys, (2) equity matching (EM), when people take turns, reciprocate in kind, work in unison, start a line or align side-by-side in public places, or buy tickets for a lottery, (3) authority ranking (AR), when people consider each other according to rank, size, force, and frequencies, and (4) market pricing (MP), when money, writing, bids and contracts, account books, and digital accounts are considered (Fiske, 2004b). How can these four models be accounted for or included within relational competence theory (RCT) in general and with resources in particular? These models were considered briefly in previous accounts (L’Abate, 1997a, 1997b). More recently, L’Abate (2005) proposed that CS and EM might be related to each other by communal, expressive bonds, requiring presence, the ability to love or, at least, the ability to be present, even if represented by a common bond such as buying a lottery ticket, at one extreme of distance and communion, or hugging, holding, huddling, and cuddling, at the other extreme of the same dimension. On the other hand, AR and MP might be related with each other by power and agentic or instrumental bonds, some of them depending on how rigidly power is held, subject to the ability to negotiate. This proposal was found wanting (Nick Haslam, personal communication, 2003) because the four models are seen as being independent of each other and, therefore, are not included in any overarching binary classification of relationships, such as presence and power. In spite of possible objections from its author (Haslam, 2004), a review of research and Fiske’s (2004a) further elaboration of the four models, however, adds evidence that seems to support the original proposal of CS being related to EM along a dimension of presence and communality, whereas AR is more related to MP along a dimension of agency and power. For instance, Haslam cites Vodosek’s questionnaire research in which CS “was highly correlated with the EM factor, and AR was significantly associated with MP” (Haslam, 2004, p. 30). In repeated factor-analytic studies, two major factors were consistently found, CS and AR (Haslam, 2004, p. 33). In measuring reaction times to the four categories, Haslam

Resources and Relational Models Theory

121

quotes Baldwin’s finding gender differences among the four models, where women participants tended to identify the CS target faster than MP and AR. Men participants, on the other hand, “…demonstrated precisely the opposite pattern of reaction times, and also tended to identify a MP target quicker than women” (Haslam, 2004, p. 36). These gender differences will be elaborated in Chap. 15 in terms of “feminine” versus “masculine” factors corresponding, respectively, to a communal, expressive ability to love and being present, emotionally, stereotypically, and relatively more frequently found in women than in men, and an agentic, instrumental ability to negotiate being found relatively more frequently in men than in women. Furthermore, the two major factors CS and AR seem to be related to different brain regions as well (Haslam, 2004, p. 36). Haslam also summarized findings from Lickel, Hamilton, and Sherman’s research that are relevant to the original proposal. These researchers distinguished among four distinct group types, characterized by intimacy, task, social, or loose associations: “Intimacy groups are associated with CS and to a lesser extent EM relations, task groups with AR and to a lesser extent MP and EM relations, and loose associations with MP relations” (Haslam, p. 40). Haslam also summarizes Ten Houten’s proposal that “…the RMs involve two polarized pairs – CS versus MP and AR versus EM – and that AR is linked to MP in an ‘agonic’ couple, and EM with CS in a ‘hedonic’ couple” (Haslam, 2004, p. 49). Further support for CS and EM being related to each other and for AR being related to MP is found in Fiske’s (2004a) additional clarifications and expansion of his four models (Table 3.1, p. 65). Fiske’s clarification helps to distinguish between CS and EM on the basis of intimacy. Both are related in some ways to each other. However, CS relations are characterized by “kinship” ties, that is, what here have been defined as intimate to mean prolonged, close, committed, and interdependent relationships. EM relations do not share that characteristic. They are at the other end of a continuum of closeness and intimacy in relationships: CS relates to known intimates, whereas EM relates to nonintimate strangers. Yet, both models require bodily or emotional presence, being together physically, and sharing on an equal basis. Even buying a ticket serves as an admittedly tenuous connection of equality among individuals who do not know each other. No negotiation is necessary in any conditions outlined and explained by either Fiske or Haslam, whereas negotiation (Model16) is included in RCT. Even more relevant to the two basic dimensions of RCT, distance (see Chap. 6) and control (see Chap. 7), CS and EM can be seen at two extreme polarities of distance, from close to far, respectively, whereas AR and MP can be seen as two sides of the same coin of control. AR and MP require a bond of negotiable or nonnegotiable power, where importance, money, or goods are exchanged, without emotional or physical bonds, or where equality of people is not required. In fact, inequality in power is the distinguishing characteristic between the two dimensions. Power is shared as communal presence and exchanged among agentic power dimensions. Even Goodnow (2004) concluded in her application of RMs theory to the domain of work in households: “Equality Matching appears, can be combined with a communal orientation, but there are limits to when and how a concern with strict equality is expressed (p. 185).”

122

9 Model7: The Triangle of Living

In an expansion of RMs theory to values, Roccas and McCauley (2004) related Schwartz’s (1994) value theory to the four RMs. According to them, AR is consistent with tradition, conformity, and security (safety and stability) values, CS is consistent with benevolence and universalism, MP is consistent with power and achievement, whereas EM was considered too complex and inconsistent is its manifestations to be identified with any clear set of values. Nonetheless, in regard to the CS model, these authors commented: In sum, the distinction between benevolence values and universalism values as lead us to suggest that CS can be experienced on a continuum of relationships from a small group, to large but limited group, to unlimitedly large group. Future research might usefully inquire whether the CS model is applied or experienced in the same way across this continuum (Roccas & McCauley, 2004, p. 273)

Hence, this critical view of RMs theory and its relationship to RCT are supported by data not only presented by both Fiske and Haslam themselves, but RCT is also enhanced by the contribution from RMs theory itself. Essentially, the face validity of RCT seems to find support from the very sources that Haslam uses to support the universality and ubiquity of RMs theory, including Roccas and McCauley’s suggestions of a continuum of CS relationships. According to this proposal, that continuum would include extremely intimate relationships that include the EM model at one end and extremely distant CS relationships at the other end. On the other hand, AR and MP are at opposite ends of a continuum of what has been called “exchange” or commercial relationships.

Research Model7 could be evaluated using the very same instruments and tasks developed by Foa and Foa (1974) and by Foa, Converse, Tornblom, and Foa (1993), perhaps adapted to fit into the overall Triangle of Living. For instance, Casellato (2007) compared a nonclinical sample (N = 20) with a group of 20 psychotic patients using the EcoMap (Model3, Chap. 5). In the first group, enjoyment settings are emphasized with the modalities of being [t(38) = 6.52, p < 0.001] and doing [t(38) = 6.48, p < 0.001]; in the second group, similar differences appear in exchanged resources [doing: t(38) = 6.08, p < 0.001; being: t(38) = 7.37, p < 0.001]. Furthermore, home is the setting where nonclinical participants exchange mainly being modalities (home–being: z = 2.73, p < 0.05); in survival settings, psychotics activated mainly having exchanges (home–having: z = 3.13, p < 0.01). Correlational values show different specificities in the two groups. Nonclinical participants living in fear of intimacy (Intimacy Anxiety Scale, revised, IASr; Salvo, 1998) exchange information (r = 0.48, p < 0.05), services (r = 0.62, p < 0.01), importance (r = 0.53, p < 0.05), and intimacy (r = 0.56, p < 0.05) resources in a work setting. They show a lack of resources in an enjoyment setting (information: r = −0.60, p < 0.01; importance: r = −0.64, p < 0.01; intimacy: r = −0.59, p < 0.01). Fear of intimacy (IASr) and life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale, SLS;

Conclusion

123

Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, & Scabini, 2006) of psychotic patients correlate negatively with resources in a home setting (IASr: information: r = −0.51, p < 0.05, services: r = −0.46, p < 0.05, importance: r = −0.59, p < 0.01; SLS: services: r = −0.52, p < 0.05; intimacy: r = −0.55, p < 0.05). In short, results show that nonclinical participants develop relationships exchanging modalities and resources in home, work, and enjoyment settings whereas psychotic individuals have difficulties in enjoyment relationships and construct more meaningful relationships in survival settings: in fact, health services build and confirm their identity as “patients.”

Conclusion This chapter has expanded a model of resources and modalities to include functional sex and sexuality expanded to sexual deviations and the paraphilias, integrating the supposedly independent four dimensions of RMs theory. The research reported here tends to support the validity of this model.

Part IV

Normative Theoretical Models

Whereas the models reviewed thus far in this volume are based on existing and known theories, the research, chapters, and models in this part are original to the extent that they do derive from the preceding models but are created anew without links to previous knowledge or research, except for what has been theorized from the inception of relational competence theory (RCT; L’Abate, 1976). Consequently, the purpose of the chapters in this part is to present models of RCT from a progressive differentiation viewpoint that includes a chronological/ developmental and normative perspective. To achieve this purpose for the entire part, it will be necessary to define what is meant by “progressive differentiation,” moving from seemingly abstract and general to more concrete and specific models. Additionally, the chapters in this part will review research related to a progressive differentiation of models underlying individual differences in socialization competence. Not everybody can develop, grow, progress, and differentiate according to chronological and normative schemes or stages of the life cycle. Quite a few individuals remain stuck at lower levels of competence or fail to socialize at higher levels. Some (between 5 and 10%, depending on what criterion is used) are stuck at levels of severe incompetence. Many (between 10 and 30%, depending on what criterion is used) function at levels of borderline/semiadequate incompetence. Most (between 60 and 100%, depending on what criterion is used) are able to progress and differentiate at the three levels of competence, superior, adequate/average, and below average, as described in greater detail in the chapters in this part. What are the intraindividual and relational factors in intimate relationships that determine slow, medium, or fast progressive differentiation in levels of socialization competence? “Differentiation” means the breaking up of a whole into smaller parts. The hand could be an example of what is meant by differentiation of parts. The infant can only start to grasp objects with all four fingers and the thumb. After a few months, with use and nurturance from caregivers, the thumb separates from a grasp and only four fingers are used to grasp an object. As the child grows, the index and center fingers will be used to grasp an object or to learn to write. Now only two fingers are needed to write, which can then in itself progress from words to simple sentences, paragraphs, pages, and, in some cases, books and the like. Therefore, there is a progressive differentiation and a developmental specialization

126

Normative Theoretical Models

of functions encouraged initially by caregivers and later culturally, educationally, emotionally, cognitively, intellectually, and socially. Whereas the chapters in Part III related to general and seemingly abstract aspects of socialization competence, the chapters in this part will also review RCT in its relation to psychiatric classification, with its still acknowledged absence of an underlying theoretical framework (Beutler & Malik, 2002). Consequently, these chapters will cover topics of relevance to that classification, offering a theoretical framework for various psychiatric conditions. More specifically, Chap. 10 will describe a developmental, dialectically curvilinear, continuum of likeness in intimate relationships that will allow us to relate identity formation to dependency and denial of dependency. This continuum will include symbiotic and alienated personalities, disturbances of identity formation, authoritarian and dogmatic personalities with their counterparts of defiant oppositional conduct disorders, as well as fully functioning personalities. In Chap. 11, styles in intimate relationships developed from the likeness continuum differentiate among abusive–apathetic and neglectful, reactive–repetitive, and creative–conductive styles are considered. In Chap. 11, interactions in intimate relationships will be viewed according to levels of progressive differentiation and competence from the least to the most competent. In Chap. 12, a selfhood model will include severe incompetence using disorders from axis I and cluster A of axis II as prototypes. Chapter 13 will include a model of priorities that includes needs, wants, goals, attitudes, and intentions in an integrated whole. The models in this part, therefore, are more detailed and more specifically related to RCT by being more relevant to the progressive differentiation of relational competence. Five major models derive from both metatheoretical and theoretical assumptions to cover normative differentiation processes in human relationships: (1) identity differentiation, (2) styles, (3) interactions, (4) selfhood, and (5) priorities.

Chapter 10

Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

Clearly, humans and animals survive in a world of sameness and differentness (Wasserman, Young, & Cook, 2004, p. 888) ….membership in a category can be a matter of degree rather than an all or none decision. Members who share more attributes with the category will be considered ‘better’ or more typical members than those who share fewer attributes with the category (Kunda, 1999, p. 29)

This chapter reviews evidence to support or confirm levels of competence derived from six conditions or degrees along a curvilinear, developmental, and dialectical continuum of likeness or resemblance. As Kunda (1999) noted, a category, such as identity, “…can be described by a list of features that are typical of it, yet do not define it.” Identity, however, is defined by different degrees of similarity, which increases (p. 28) “with the number of features that the instance and the category have in common, and decreases with the number of features that are unique to each (p. 29),” such as dissimilarity. Hence, in proposing a continuum of likeness in this chapter, the number of features increases and is greater toward two conditions of symbiosis–alienation, toward maximum overlap of features decreasing in number in sameness–oppositeness, and decreasing even more in similarity–differentness, as expanded in this chapter and the following ones in Part IV. Our goal here is to equate self with identity and to view identity from the standpoint of how it emerges and differentiates developmentally and relationally within salience theory (Rumbaugh & Washburn, 2003) and relational competence theory (RCT; Cusinato & L’Abate, in press; L’Abate, 2005; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003). Self-identity, therefore, is an emergent to the extent that it occurs only when it is elicited, as with many constructs that psychologists have produced.

The Continuum of Likeness Relational self-identity is learned from intimate others according to a continuum of likeness or resemblance. This continuum can be differentiated among three degrees of similarity (symbiosis, sameness proper, and similarity) and three degrees of L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_10, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

127

128

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

dissimilarity (differentness, oppositeness, and alienation) utilizing an experimental Likeness Continuum Task (LCT). On the basis of developmental, dialectical, and curvilinear distribution of scores, the LCT was developed to evaluate the validity of this continuum. Results from four prototypical studies support the curvilinearity and convergent validity of the task with functional and dysfunctional populations, allowing extrapolation from this model to models of styles (Chap. 11) and interactions (Chap. 12) and to a third model of importance attribution in intimate relationships (Chap. 13). Resemblance depends on what properties one person views with significant others, whether these properties are physiognomic, attitudinal, intentional, or cognitive, as well as normative and nonnormative behaviors. Therefore, we need to specify not only the degree of resemblance but also along which dimension(s) it occurs. Resemblance could follow a parallel process of comparison, such as how we engage in a lifelong comparison with others concerning money, intelligence, physique, personality, status, and so forth (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). Most of this process occurs at unconscious levels of awareness. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to show how a likeness continuum can account for the emergence of a relational, rather than a monadic, self-identity. This continuum emerges from birth according to a simple discrimination task of same– different in newborns, as also found in pigeons (Wasserman et al. (2004), primates according to salience theory (Rumbaugh & Washburn, 2003), and even insects (Giurfa, Zhang, Jenett, Menzel, & Srinivasan, 2001). Salience theory views behavior as emerging from the interaction of organismic and species characteristics and capacities with caregivers beyond conditioning and reinforcement theories.

The Relational Self Self-identity emerges from characteristics of individuals in continuous interaction with their proximal environment, caretakers, and settings. Both RCT and salience theory (Rumbaugh, 2002) share the view that self-identity emerges from interactions with intimates in close, committed, prolonged, and interdependent relationships. Salience theory is concerned with cognitive problem-solving behavior in primates and humans; RCT is concerned with the importance of feelings and emotions in human beings, among other constructs. As discussed in Chaps. 3 and 17, the experience of feelings plays a role in the emergence and expression of emotions; this can be seen especially in the case of hurt feelings, which, when withheld, unexpressed, and not shared with intimate others, constitute the unconscious (De Giacomo, L’Abate, Pennebaker, & Rumbaugh, in press; L’Abate, 2008a). Consequently, hurt feelings and emotions are important components of self-identity, but are considered in Model15 (Chap. 17) and in greater detail elsewhere (L’Abate, 2009; L’Abate, in press). Hence, we need to consider the elicitation of self-identity as an emergent construct that comes into being relationally. It lies dormant internally, below the level

The Continuum of Likeness

129

of awareness, unless it is elicited by external stimuli. It could be said that self-identity is a salient artifact constructed by psychologists to account for behavior not otherwise accounted for, described, or explained. What Is Relational Self-Identity? The self has been called psychology’s most puzzling puzzle. Questions abound surrounding whether such a concept is necessary to psychology because there is no consensus on what this puzzle comprises (Robins, Tracy, & Trzesniewski, 2008). The puzzle has many pieces, but we do not know how they fit together. For instance, Robins et al. distinguished between an ongoing sense of awareness and a stable set of self-representations. The former comprises “I” as a subject, a perceiver, a sentient being having phenomenological, subjective experience and consciousness. The latter comprises “Me” as an object based on episodic, personal memories, knowledge (semantic memory), language and symbolism, concept, theories, and ideal and possible selves. The most common definition of self includes the following: awareness (Beitman & Nair, 2004; Ferrari & Sternberg, 1998), relationships (Curtis, 1991), self-concept (Lynch, Norem-Hebeisen, & Gergen, 1981), and development (Harter, 1999; Leary, 1985). In addition, other aspects of the self include situations and social behavior (Shaver, 1985), directedness (Rodin, Schooler, & Schaie, 1990), self-handicapping (Higgins et al., 1990), multiple possible selves (Dunkel & Kerpelman, 2006), and criticism and enhancement (Chang, 2008). Recently, Vohs and Finkel (2006a, 2006b) argued that: “For many years, the self and relationships were considered separate domains of social and personality psychology research” (p. 3). On the basis of this argument, these researchers edited an important collection of contributions directed toward the bidirectional effects of self on relationships and of relationships on self, highlighting special social interaction processes. The self, therefore, includes so many diverse constructs that it is difficult if not impossible to arrive at a consensus on what the self is as a monadic construct. Thus, a different conceptual approach is necessary to avoid confusing diversity in meanings and applications for the self as well as to ascertain how to evaluate self-identity empirically. The rock-bottom questions concerning self-identity are “Who am I?” “How do I perceive myself?” “How do others perceived me?” and “How can I reconcile how I perceive myself with how others perceive me?” In response to these questions, self can be conceived as our own “identity.” To achieve a modicum of consensus, we can refer to the APA Dictionary of Psychology definition of “self”: “The totality of the individual, consisting of all characteristic attributes, conscious and unconscious, mental and physical. Apart from its reference to personal identity [italics added], being, and experience, the term’s use in psychology is extremely wideranging and lacks uniformity” (VandenBos, 2007, p. 827). This initial definition is followed by references to pioneers such as William James, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and Gordon Allport.

130

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

The construct of self, therefore, is long in distinguished history but short in uniformity. As noted above, any behavior can be qualified by being attached to the self, raising the question introduced years ago by Allport of whether such a concept is necessary (Robins et al., 2008, p. 422). Yet, the APA dictionary equates the self with identity, consisting of a self-estimate, as a set of personal values, attitudes, and intentions. However, in most of the references cited here, except for Curtis (1991) and Vohs and Finkel (2006a, 2006b), identity continues to be conceived as a monadic rather than as a relational construct. Identity, as already argued by Curtis (1991) and Vohs and Finkel (2006a, 2006b), does not emerge, differentiate, or develop in a vacuum (Bosma, Graafsma, Grotevant, & de Levita, 1994; Kashima, Foddy, & Platow, 2002; Woodward, 1997). It emerges, differentiates progressively, and grows in an interdependent context of intimates within a perceived yet specific physical context, therefore making it relational. The home usually constitutes the setting where intimate relationships occur. Note, however, that this definition says nothing about the level of functionality or dysfunctionality of such relationships, and functionality is one characteristic missing in most of the references cited above. Nonetheless, the level of functionality needs inclusion in a relational view of identity because such inclusion would expand the meaning and applicability of the self-identity construct. We need to consider identity at its various levels of functionality in ways that are reproducible and applicable to clinical and nonclinical settings. Furthermore, identity’s relational foundations should be based on experimental evidence rather than on idealism or a simple similar–dissimilar dichotomy. This dichotomy has dominated and still dominates the relevant literature (most of the vast literature on intimate relationships to date, including Acitelli, Kenny, & Hall, 2001, Holahan et al., 2007, and Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008, has been reviewed in previous publications: L’Abate, 1976, 1994a, 1994b, 1997b, 2005; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003). In a recent meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity, with a complete list of references about this construct, Montoya et al. (2008) raised serious questions about whether similarity leads to attraction in existing relationships. It may be found in the laboratory but not in actual existing relationships. If this conclusion is valid, these researchers recommended that “more potent predictors of attraction” may be found in reciprocation of liking, physical attractiveness, and commitment, among other variables (p. 907). In addition, we would argue that if a continuum of likeness is valid, similarity covers only half of the equation concerning attraction and long-term maintenance of intimate relationships. Complete similarity would lead to a loss of self-identity and symbiosis. Therefore, differences between two parties need to be integrated into the relationship in ways that can be predicted by the continuum of likeness outlined above and expanded below. Nonetheless, such a simple dichotomy can be used as the beginning for a wider, more differentiated, empirically based conceptualization of such a construct. For instance, the evidence supplied by Wasserman et  al. (2004) and by Giurfa et  al. (2001) concerning a simple discrimination of sameness–differentness elicited in animals and even insects represents the basis for considering the self as emerging

The Continuum of Likeness

131

from that simple discrimination (Rumbaugh & Washburn, 2003). The infant, for instance, begins to perceive and discriminate how his or her same (that is, ongoing) caretaker is different from other people by about 6 months of age. The purpose of this conceptualization of relational self-identity is to build on such an experimental basis and expand on its progressive differentiation from a dichotomy to a wider relational dimension, such as a likeness continuum. That basic discrimination of similarity or resemblance represents how intimates are either the same as or different from others (Gregson, 1975; Rodriguez-Pereyra, 2002). The foundation for becoming gradually aware of gender, age, ethnic, educational, an important feature of Resemblance Rodriguez-Pereyra, 2002, (p. 65), repeating the old dictum that if something exists, it exists in some degree and can be measured, such as status differences (Aiken, 1999). Thus, identity can be described according to how many features one shares with parental figures, siblings, friends, and even enemies. Yet, neither Kunda nor other similarity theories (Wasserman et al. 2004) were able to differentiate a continuum of similarity–differentness defined by various degrees of competence, ranging from two dialectical extremes of symbiosis–alienation to lesser extremes of sameness–oppositeness, and more functionally similarity–differentness, as included in this model. Rodriguez-Pereyra (2002) proposed a continuum of resemblance that furnishes the philosophical underpinning for a continuum of likeness in relational differentiation. He argued in the abstract, as Kunda (1999) did empirically, that particular individuals resemble each other to the extent that they share some common characteristics. In our concrete case, intimates share an intergenerational history, a common name, similar physical features, the same address and phone number, some interests, and, even more specifically and concretely, similar DNA. They do not resemble each other to the extent that they do not share some characteristics, such as gender, age, work, or interests. Rodriguez-Pereyra (2002, pp. 64–69) even postulated “degrees of resemblance” which find their application in the continuum of likeness proposed years ago (L’Abate, 1976, p. 79). How can seemingly different but dialectically connected conditions of this continuum pair with each other? Why and how is symbiosis paired with alienation? Or sameness with oppositeness? Or similarity with differentness? As RodriguezPereyra explained (p. 67) what he called a “lattice” (which is here called “continuum”) “…will contain negative, disjunctive, and conjunctive properties.” Consequently, according to this differentiation, symbiosis and alienation are paired according to similar levels of dysfunctionality even though they differ in how symbiotic individuals relate with other intimates, needing them desperately, whereas alienated individuals deny any dependence on others, intimates, and nonintimates. A level of dysfunctionality conjoins both extremes of extreme dependency, with negation of dependency on others serving as a disjunctive characteristic. By the same token, sameness is paired with oppositeness to the extent that the requirement for blind and uncritical conformity may foster and elicit such conformity in some intimates but produce oppositeness and rebelliousness in others. One characteristic of passive conformity is conjunctive in one case and disjunctive in the other case of rebelliousness. Similarity and dissimilarity, on the other hand, are

132

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

conjunctive rather than disjunctive once they are integrated within, between, and among intimates and nonintimates. To evaluate resemblance, we need to differentiate it among its various degrees, including also differences rather than just similarities. Furthermore, we must assess how a process of comparisons with others takes place, beginning with and utilizing Wasserman et  al.’s (2004) discrimination of sameness–differentness (Giurfa et  al., 2001; Rumbaugh & Washburn, 2003). However, along which dimension can such discrimination occur? Clearly, it is how we define ourselves relationally – our identity. This discrimination occurs automatically, like language, below the level of awareness along a curvilinear, developmental, and dialectical continuum of likeness. These three characteristics will be explained after this continuum has been expanded according to three degrees of similarity and three degrees of dissimilarity, which can be identified according to a process (Fig. 10.1) of progressive identity differentiation. Thus far, the relevant literature in relationship science and family psychology still apparently conceptualizes a dimension of likeness or resemblance in a dichotomous fashion, that is, similarity versus dissimilarity (Acitelli et al., 2001; Baxter & West, 2003; Deal, Halverson, & Wampler, 1999; Holahan et  al., 2007; Jenkins, Dunn, o’Connor, Rasbash, & Behnke, 2005; Montoya et al., 2008; Morgan, Carder, & Neal, 1997; Morry, 2005, 2007). The process of differentiation occurs through direct, overt, and covert imitation (Wilson, 2006) as supported also by the research on mirror neurons (Rizzolatti, Fogassi, & Gallese, 2001). An important model of identity negotiation, recognizing the importance of social (rather than intimate) interactions, can be found in the work of Swann and Bosson (2008). The interested reader should refer to this work

Fig. 10.1  A continuum of likeness in intimate relationships

The Likeness Continuum

133

to obtain a more historical view of the identity construct than can be given here. Nonetheless, it is relevant to include a conclusive statement from this model: ...just as identities define people and make them viable as human beings, the identity negotiation process defines relationships and makes them viable as a foundation for organized social activity (p. 466)

The Likeness Continuum This continuum, as conceived from its outset, is composed of a curvilinear developmental, and dialectically related dimensional distribution with degrees of resemblance spanning (Fig. 10.1) (1) at one end symbiosis between related individuals (caretaker–child, partners, siblings), (2) sameness requiring blind or uncritical conformity to an authority figure, parent, or caretaker, (3) similarity to some characteristics of the caretaker, such as attitudes; habits, identity, self, or physiognomy, (4) differentness, that is, how an individual perceives self as being dissimilar in comparison with some attributes of parents, caretakers, or significant figures in one’s life, (5) oppositeness as a negative reaction to demands for conformity resulting in rebellion and rejection of rules and regulations from parents, caretakers, authority figures, or society, and (6) alienation as being completely cut off from intimates and nonintimates (L’Abate, 1976, p. 79). The six degrees are dialectically related to each other to the extent that one degree on the similarity side is related to another degree on the dissimilarity side. For instance, symbiosis and alienation at one extreme of likeness are linked together and sameness is linked with oppositeness and similarity is linked with differentness in the middle of the distribution (Fig. 10.1). The curvilinear, developmental, and dialectical aspects of this continuum have been validated by Cusinato and Colesso (2008). Cusinato and Colesso developed a laboratory task to validate the curvilinear, developmental, and dialectical nature of this continuum with sufficient statistical validity and reliability to support its application to functional and dysfunctional relationships. A copy of this task is available in Appendix B. This validation justifies amplification of this model to three additional models (Model9, Model10, and Model11). To elaborate further, symbiosis, sameness, and similarity are degrees of similarity in identity differentiation. Symbiosis: This degree is so strong that it may become symbiotic to the point that one individual cannot differentiate himself or herself from another self, as in folie à deux evidenced in some extreme parent–child and sibling relationships. Sameness: Here is where conformity to cultural, political, or religious rules and regulations, as found in the basic moral triad of authoritarianism, conservativism, and religiousness, comes into being (Koenig & Bouchard, 2006). Blind and uncritical conformity is demanded, without room for personal choice or deviations, as in dictatorial and totalitarian countries, in extreme political or religious organizations, and, in much greater proximity to one’s identity, in some families or intimate relationships.

134

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

Similarity: This degree permits the freedom to choose and to have beliefs and customs different from those held by people in proximal relationships, that is, the freedom to be oneself without fear of criticism, recrimination, retribution, or punishment as long as one does not go against established normative laws, rules, and regulations. One must also remain within the spoken rather than the instrumental realm, that is, within “freedom of speech” and within limits of decorum and propriety. As Segrin and Flora (2005) commented: “Because similarity is such a powerful force in interpersonal attraction, it is reasonable to assume that the assortative matching effect permeates the formation of most close relationships-even on such undesirable qualities as psychological distress (p. 111).” In this regard then, similarity leads to attraction and most couples meet, mate, and marry on the basis of this characteristic. Degrees of dissimilarity in identity differentiation can be evaluated according to three degrees of differentness, oppositeness, and alienation. Differentness: Here is where the freedom to be diverse or unusual is permissible as long as it does not go against cultural and societal norms or restraints. One can act in ways that are diverse or dissimilar from the norm as long as established laws, rules, and regulations regarding fashions, political and religious beliefs, and values are not threatened. Differentness can be conceived as and even equated with diversity. Nezu (2005) affirms that differences in ethnic, racial, economic, cultural, educational, religious, regional, and occupational background produce individual identity of American people, suggesting that diversity is indeed the background we all carry on our shoulders. Nezu, (2005, p. 12) argued that “… asseverative objectives –ones that ask us to ever, affirm, and embrace human diversity–would be more consistent with a truly egalitarian perspective and our own code of ethics”. Oppositeness: This degree flouts dictatorial and totalitarian rules and regulations, disregarding them as being inconsistent, weak, and defective. Oppositeness can occur at the individual, group, or larger organizational levels as expressed through rebellions ranging from boycotts to societal revolutions in totalitarian countries. Rebelliousness can be peaceful or violent, producing different reactions in those who rule. As seen recently in Myanmar, peaceful protests may not be sufficient to affect the ruling oligarchy. Alienation: Here is where the individual is so different from cultural and political norms that no relationship exists between the individual and other people. A void prohibits the individual from communicating and relating to representatives of larger groups. This degree of differentness includes those who are temporarily or permanently homeless or in hospitals and penitentiaries.

Characteristics of the Likeness Continuum At least three characteristics of this continuum have been identified: curvilinear, developmental, and dialectical.

Characteristics of the Likeness Continuum

135

Curvilinear: This characteristic predicts that there will be fewer instances of symbiosis–alienation and sameness–oppositeness relationships and more frequent instances of similarity–differentness relationships. This prediction was validated by the research of Cusinato and Colesso (2008), who evaluated the curvilinearity of the LCT with functional and dysfunctional samples. A discussion of the reproducible nature of this LCT and its psychotherapeutic implications has been given by Cusinato and L’Abate (2008). The detailed methodology and administration of the LCT to evaluate its curvilinearity with a variety of clinical and nonclinical patients diagnosed with anorexia and psychosis and with men and women undergraduates have been described by Cusinato and Colesso, who used the term “assimilation” instead of “symbiosis.” In a first study, Cusinato and Colesso (2008, pp. 342–344), using 117 high school students and 117 new undergraduates, administered the computerized form of the Likeness Continuum Profile, a precursor of the more refined LCT explained below (Cusinato & L’Abate) The results produced a histogram with a bell-shaped distribution conforming to the formal model with standard z scores of the two groups exceeding p values of 0.05, 01, and 0.001. Briefly, the LCT (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2008, pp. 122–125) consists of four steps:

Step 1. Participants are invited to consider “Influential people in your life” and identify by name real persons; Step 2. The six conditions of the likeness continuum are introduced with their definitions; Step 3. Participants are provided with ten nickels and invited to place them in each of the six cells corresponding to the six conditions; Step 4. Participants are then asked to explain their coin distribution with some examples to ensure that they understood correctly the nature of the task. Of course, all steps are recorded properly in specially prepared forms.

In a second study, Cusinato and Colesso (2008, pp. 344–347) administered the LCT to 222 nonclinical participants drawn from a volunteer sample from the community obtained by undergraduate experimenters who evaluated them individually as part of credit for a course in family psychology. This sample was divided by gender, age, and marital status, producing three different analyses. For gender, males tended to show (p < 0.001) more extreme scores than females, who tended to show more centralized scores in a clearly curvilinear distribution (p. 347). Significant (p < 0.001) age differences were found along a clearly bell shaped distribution. Marital status followed the same bell-shaped distribution, with significant differences in choices of significant figures to whom participants reported being similar. In a third study, Cusinato and Colesso (2008, pp. 347–349) used clinical participants, in contrast with the two previous studies, which used nonclinical, functional participants. In this study, one group was composed of 20 female anorexics subdivided into ten inpatients and ten outpatients drawn from a public medical health service. A second group was composed of 20 psychotic patients, ten males and ten females, drawn equally from a day-hospital service and from a sheltered setting. Control participants were obtained by the staff in the same clinical institutions. All experimental and control participants read or were read and signed an informed consent form. The LCT was administered as part of a routine evaluation program.

136

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

The histograms resulting from the data obtained from the administration of the LCT again produced a curvilinear bell-shaped distribution, with anorexics tending to choose significantly (p < 0.001) assimilation (i.e., symbiosis), whereas psychotics tended to choose significantly more often alienation (p < 0.001) and oppositeness (p < 0.001), supporting also the dialectical relationship between these two extreme conditions in the distribution. Different groups tended to choose different target figures to whom they reported being similar. (Details are in the original work.) Developmental: The progressive differentiation of likeness commences when the infant discriminates the major caretaker from others and continues to utilize this discrimination throughout his or her life. Differentiation of likeness manifests itself as confusion in symbiosis–alienation, as dichotomization in sameness–oppositeness (“You are either friend or foe: You either conform or you are estranged”), and as differentiation in similarity–differentness. That is, the inherent right of the individual to be diverse and different from norms exists, provided those norms are respected and not violently attacked. The results of Cusinato and Colesso (2008) among different age groups reported above tend to support the developmental nature of this continuum. Dialectical: As already argued, symbiotic relationships are dialectically related to alienated ones, as sameness is to oppositeness and similarity to differentness. The major issue with this continuum lies in its verifiability. The differences between anorexic and psychotic patients reported by Cusinato and Colesso (2008) and summarized above tend to support the dialectical nature of the likeness continuum. Predictions from Model8 are elaborated in Fig.  10.2 in a very specific fashion, whereas general predictions from just a simple dichotomy of similar–dissimilar would be difficult if not impossible to make. It would be necessary to find a variety of measures, tasks, and manipulations that would allow empirical evaluation of this continuum within each specific condition outlined in Fig. 10.1. There are quite a few measures available in the literature to evaluate many of the conditions predicted by this continuum, including symbiotic and alienated personalities, disturbances of identity formation, and authoritarian and dogmatic personalities with their counterparts of defiant oppositional personality disorders, character, and oppositional disorders.

Measures To Evaluate the Likeness Continuum Three paper-and-pencil, self-report instruments were originally developed to evaluate this continuum’s original formulation (L’Abate, 1976), as part of an original theory-derived test battery that is by now outdated and has been surpassed by more specific and validated measures (L’Abate & Wagner, 1985, 1988).

Likeness Scale This scale as a global, nonspecific measure that allows one to compare oneself with intimate others is composed of 20 true–false items and is part of a marital question-

Measures To Evaluate the Likeness Continuum

Fig. 10.2  Developmental applications of a likeness continuum

137

138

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

naire designed to evaluate two additional postulates of the theory, priorities and congruence (L’Abate & Wagner, 1985, 1988).

Likeness Grid This measure was developed as a way to evaluate self-differentiation in the format suggested originally by Kelly’s (1955) personal constructs theory. It consists of a list of 24 persons related in some way to the respondent (family members, friends, teachers, etc.). For each person, respondents rate themselves as “completely the same as...,” and “the same as...,” “similar to....,” “ or different from....,” “opposite from,” and “completely opposite from” the particular person being rated. In keeping with the dialectical aspects of the continuum of likeness, ratings of being “completely the same” (symbiosis) and “completely the opposite” (alienation) are considered equivalent from the viewpoint of dysfunctionality and score one point. Ratings of “same” or “opposite” score two points, and ratings of “similar” and “different” score three points. These points are summed to provide a total differentiation score. In the first evaluation of test–retest reliability for both instruments with 138 undergraduate respondents (L’Abate & Wagner, 1988) produced an alpha coefficient of 0.74 for the Likeness Scale and one of 0.79 for the Likeness Grid. Both instruments correlated with each other (Pearson r = 0.27, p < 0.05).

Likeness Profile A more recent revision of the Likeness Profile is another paper-and-pencil, selfreport instrument still at the experimental stage. It is only available in the Italian language. It was administered to 200 undergraduates in a major Italian university and, together with the Self–Other Profile Chart, to be described in Chap. 13 and available in Appendix B, to 150 respondents of various social and educational backgrounds from Malta.

Problems in Interpersonal Relationships Scale This is a 240-item scale developed to measure abusive–apathetic, reactive–repetitive, and conductive–creative styles, as well as the four personality propensities of the selfhood model presented in Chap. 13 (L’Abate, 1992a,b). It was validated by McMahan with seminarian couples (McMahan & L’Abate, 2001). Its total discrepancy score for partners, a measure of marital adjustment, correlated significantly and negatively with the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. In addition to diagnostic functions, this test is prescriptive in the sense that written homework assignments are isomorphic with the very same 20 conflict areas covered by test items.

Research to Support Model8 of Identity Differentiation

139

Research to Support Model8 of Identity Differentiation The construct of differentiation was evaluated in the first author’s laboratory more than 30 years ago in a series of studies that linked the construct of self-differentiation mentioned at the beginning of this chapter with Witkin et al.’s (1974) definition of differentiation as related to complexity of functioning, that is, the greater the degree of psychological complexity, the greater the level of differentiation. According to Witkin, differentiation is a developmental process, grounded first in the infant’s establishment of boundaries between the body-self and the environment. As the child grows, it learns to separate the feelings emanating from within the body from those emanating from external stimuli. Thus, awareness of one’s body as a separate entity and the development of a clearly defined body image are essential to the infant developing a sense of differentiation. The eventual, long-term outcome of this process results in certain individuals being field-dependent or field-independent. The latter are more internally directed, generally self-sufficient, and less responsive to social and nonverbal cues than individuals whose cognitive style is global. The individual with a global cognitive style is unable to separate form and detail from an ambiguous context, has difficulty perceiving discrete items in the field, and possesses a weaker sense of a separate identity. This style is characteristic of the field-dependent individual, who is more aware of social expectations, the needs of others, and might be more nurturing than field-independent individuals. To test these hypotheses, Witkin (1974) developed the Embedded Figures Test (EFT), which requires a respondent to locate a relatively simple geometric form that is hidden in a more complex geometric form. From a variety of studies, Witkin was able to distinguish reliably between field-dependent and field-independent respondents. Whereas Witkin’s model of differentiation was entirely intrapsychic, L’Abate’s model of self-differentiation is completely relational, as seen in the two instruments designed to evaluate this model.

Likeness Grid This instrument was designed to evaluate self-differentiation as described by a bellshaped model ranging from two dialectical extremes of symbiosis–alienation, the most dysfunctional, sameness–oppositeness, semifunctional, and similarity–differentness, mostly functional. Respondents compare and rate themselves according to 24 important people in their lives, according to the six categories given by the model. Ratings in the symbiotic–alienated degree receive one point. Ratings in the same–opposite category receive two points. Ratings in the similar–different category receive three points. Thus, scores on this test can vary from 24 to 72 points. The higher the score, the greater the degree of differentiation should be according to the model (L’Abate & Wagner, 1985, 1988).

140

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

Likeness Scale This instrument is composed of 20 questions with true–false answers with scores given according to the model, with the higher scores representing a higher level of self-differentiation than lower scores. In a first study, Hutton (1974) attempted to relate the concept of self-differentiation with the process of mate selection. She employed two measures of differentiation, the Likeness Scale and the Likeness Grid. She hypothesized that dating and engaged couples would evidence similar degrees of differentiation as evaluated by similar scores on both measures. She found significant correlations between couples on the two measures. However, both measures correlated with each other only with men in her sample, raising a question about these instruments measuring the same construct. However, Hutton also found that self-esteem scores (as measured by the Leary Interpersonal Checklist) were significantly related to their Likeness Scale scores, whereas self-esteem scores of women were significantly related to the Likeness Scale scores of their male partners. Cohen (1975) studied gender differences in level of differentiation by employing the Draw-A-Person Test, the EFT, and a marital questionnaire containing the Likeness Scale using college students. She found that men scored higher than women on the EFT, whereas women scored higher than men on the Likeness Scale. Del Monte (1976) provided some evidence to link L’Abate’s concept of differentiation, as measured by the Likeness Scale and Likeness Grid, with Rotter’s (1966) theory of internal–external control, using his I-E scale, and Harvey (1961) four conceptual systems of personality functioning, assessed by “This I Believe” test. He found significant relationships between L’Abate’s concept of “sameness” and Harvey’s system I, characterized by cognitive simplicity and conventional conforming behavior, between L’Abate’s concept of “oppositeness” and Harvey’s system II, characterized by cognitive simplicity and rebellious behavior, and between L’Abate’s concept of “similarity“ and Harvey’s system IV, characterized by cognitive complexity and autonomy. Less differentiated respondents, according to the two measures of likeness, showed an external locus of control, whereas more differentiated individuals showed a more internal locus of control. Both measures of differentiation also correlated significantly with each other, suggesting they measured a similar construct. Jessee (1978) examined the relationship between identity differentiation and separation of college students from their family of origin. He used the EFT and the Titchner Circle Test (TCT) as well as the Likeness Scale with a student sample. He found that the Likeness Scale and the EFT but not the TCT significantly discriminated between those living at home and those living away from home. However, scores on the Likeness Scale did not correlate with the scores on the EFT and the TCT, apparently measuring different constructs, one verbal, for the Likeness Scale, and the other visual, for the EFT and the TCT. All of the above-mentioned studies give some degree of support for the concurrent validity of the two measures of relational self-differentiation according to L’Abate (1976). Wagner (1980) evaluated the reliability and validity of these two measures using 77 male and 61 female undergraduates between the ages of 17–35 and mostly white

Research to Support Model8 of Identity Differentiation

141

(73%), with 40% being married and 21% married with children. He also used a priorities scale. Test–retest (after 4 weeks) reliability coefficients were for 0.81 for the Likeness Scale and 0.80 for the Likeness Grid. The internal consistency reliability coefficients were 0.60 for the Likeness Scale and 0.85 for the Likeness Grid. The lack of correlation between the Likeness Grid and the Likeness Scale (r = −0.03) indicated that these instruments did not measure the same construct.

Cusinato’s Likeness Profile Cusinato (2003) refined an instrument to measure “degrees of likeness” that distinguishes between three levels of likeness – symbiosis, sameness, and similarity – and three degrees of differentiation – alienation, oppositeness, and differentness. Model8 was originally evaluated (L’Abate, 2005, p. 371) with the Likeness Scale and the Likeness Grid (L’Abate, 1994a, 1994b; L’Abate & Wagner, 1985, 1988). More recently, Cusinato and Colesso (2008), using a new laboratory task (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2008), evaluated and validated this model with functional and dysfunctional participants, supporting the bell-shaped distribution of the continuum of likeness in which the mean scores are higher in the middle of the curve rather than at the sides. They evaluated also whether clinical samples would show mere extremes in differentiation supporting the presence of greater dysfunctionality in extreme cases of psychopathological behavior (Study 4). Derivations from these six conditions in a variety of functional and dysfunctional dimensions are included in L’Abate and Cusinato (2007, p. 321). The administration of the LCT to 222 nonclinical participants confirmed the formal bell-shaped distribution of the continuum of likeness model (Cusinato and Colesso, 2008; Cusinato & L’Abate, 2008). This trend is not evident in two groups: (1) anorexics strengthen the choice of symbiosis (z = 11.52, p < 0.001) and (2) the same is true for psychotics for symbiosis (z = 6.36, p < 0.001) and alienation (z = 6.70, p < 0.001), supported by opposition (z = 3.64, p < 0.001). In two psychotic subgroups, the likeness continua are different: a day hospital subgroup moves toward differentiation, the protected accommodation subgroup toward identity. Analyses of continuum x intimates underline alienation for “father” in both subgroups, symbiosis for “partner” (z = 3.22, p < 0.05) in the first subgroup, and for “friends” (z = 3.30, p < 0.05) and “doctor in attendance” (z = 3.22, p < 0.05) in the second subgroup. The model, therefore, measured by the LCT, tends to demonstrate the process of differentiation in these samples, supporting the original hypothesis of curvilinearity in the continuum of likeness. De Mas (2006) evaluated 100 participants equally subdivided by gender to test likeness continuum proper to gender identity. In fact, males differ mainly for symbiosis (z = 4.71, p < 0.001) and oppositeness (z = 2.52, p < 0.05) and women differ mainly for similarity (z = 5.86, p < 0.001) and differentness (z = 3.19, p < 0.01). Furthermore, concurrent validity was checked among the LCT and the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale (CEDS; r = 0.37, p = 0.01), the Enmeshment Scale (ES; r = 0.36, p = 0.05), and the Anxiety About Transition Scale (AATS; r = 0.30, p = 0.05).

142

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

Research To Support a Likeness Model Most of the research reported in this volume was conducted at the University of Padua under the mentorship of the second author using Italian translations of measures readily available in English included in Chap. 3. Research relevant to Model10 consists of four unpublished doctoral dissertations as prototypical representatives of quite a few doctoral dissertations reported in Table 10.1.

Study 1 Method Participants.  Twenty-four participants volunteered for this research. Twelve female participants were diagnosed as depressed by an evaluation in a clinical medical setting in Padua; 12 control participants were nondepressed women drawn from a university nonclinical setting. All read and signed an informed consent form. Measures.  De Ambrosi (2003) evaluated the concurrent validity of the LCT and the Dyadic Relationships Test (DRT), a visual–verbal test previously validated by Cusinato and L’Abate (2005a, 2005b). The DRT measures four different relational propensities of the selfhood model (Model11, Chap. 13). Briefly, these propensities are based on how a sense of importance is attributed and bestowed on self and intimate others as in (1) selfulness, when importance is bestowed positively on both self and others, (2) selflessness, when importance is bestowed negatively on self and positively on others, (3) selfishness, when importance is bestowed positively on self and negatively on others, or (4) no-self, when importance is bestowed negatively on both self and others, instance, Selflessness can be found most frequently in most internalizing, depressed, or anxious individuals, whereas selfishness would be found most frequently in externalizing, acting-out individuals. No-self would be found more often in those with severe psychopathological disorders (L’Abate, Lambert, & Schenck, 2001). Procedure.  All participants were administered the LCT individually in a noiseproof office. Results De Ambrosi found that the two samples differed in the direction of mean scores on selflessness, with symbiosis–alienation being significantly greater in the clinical sample than in the nonclinical sample, whereas selflessness with sameness–oppositeness produced similarly more significant results in depressed women than in nondepressed women (z = 2.73, p < 0.05; z = 3.17, p < 0.05, respectively).

Research questions LC distribution in (1) and (2)

Results Symbiosis of (1) > (2): z = 4.71, p < 0.001; oppositeness of (1) > (2): z = 2.52, p < 0.05; sameness of (2) > (1): z = 3.95, p < 0.001; similarity of (2) > (1): z = 5.86, p < 0.001; differentness of (2) > (1): z = 3.19, p < 0.01 Similarity and differentness:CEDS: r = 0.37, Convergent validity of LCT, p < 0.01; ES: r = 0.36, p < 0.05; AATS: CEDS, ES, and AATS r = 0.30, p < 0.05 in (1) LC distribution in (1) Symbiosis: z = −22.24, p < 0.001; autism: LCT Cusinato and N = 222 nonclinical participants (1); z = −38.63, p < 0.001; sameness: z = 24.11, Colesso N = 334 nonclinical participants: p < 0.001; oppositeness: z = −3.33, p < 0.05; (2008) n = 117 high school students similarity: z = 41.85, p < 0.001; differentness: (2); n = 117 undergraduates z = 53.64, p < 0.001 (3); N = 40 female participants: n = 20 anorexics (4); n = 20 LC distribution in (2) and (3) Symbiosis of (2) > (3): z = 7.58, p = 0.001; autism nonclinicals (5); N = 40 of (2) > (3): z = 5.88, p < 0.001; sameness of participants: n = 20 psychotics (3) > (2): z < 15.98, p < 0.001; oppositeness (6); and n = 20 nonclinicals (7) of (3) > (2): z = 11.45, p < 0.001; similarity of (2) > (3): z = 11.58, p = 0.001; differentness of (3) > (2): z = 9.72, p < 0.001 LC distribution in (4) and (5) Alienation of (4) > (5): z = 2.39, p < 0.05; differentness of (5) > (4): z = 3.86, p < 0.001 LC distribution in (6) and (7) Symbiosis of (6) > (7): z = 6.36, p < 0.001; autism of (6) > (7): z = 6.70, p < 0.001; oppositeness of (6) > (7): z = 3.64, p < 0.001; sameness of (7) > (6): z = 6.39, p < 0.001; similarity of (7) > (6): z = 10.88, p < 0.001; differentness of (7) > (6): z = 10.95, p < 0.001 LC likeness continuum, LCT Likeness Continuum Task, CEDS Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale, ES Enmeshment Scale, AATS Anxiety About Transition Scale

Table 10.1  Convergent and construct validity for Model8 (likeness) References Participants Tests LCT, De Mas N = 100 nonclinical CEDS, (2006) participants:n = 50 males (1); ES, and n = 50 females (2) AATS

Research To Support a Likeness Model 143

144

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

Study 2 Method Participants.  Fifty-four individuals were recruited from a local psychiatric hospital with the knowledge and consent of the medical staff and a signed an informed consent form in front of a witness. Twenty-seven were patients with a mixture of psychiatric disorders covering the whole spectrum of psychopathological disorders, severe depression, bipolar, and schizophrenia. Twenty-seven control participants were drawn to match for age and gender from a database of individuals evaluated with the same test instruments who did not demonstrate any personality dysfunction. Measures.  Longhin (2003)verified the hypothesized curvilinearity of the LCT by administering the LCT. Procedure.  The LCT was administered individually to all participants in a soundproof office.

Results Longhin found that scores on symbiosis–alienation were significantly greater in clinical patients than in nonclinical participants (z = 8.62, p < 0.001), as were mean scores on sameness–oppositeness (z = 3.12, p < 0.05). Conversely, mean scores on similarity–differentness were significantly greater in nonclinical participants (z = 11.59, p < 0.001). This outcome supports the prediction that functionality tends to be more evident in the middle than at the two extremes of the likeness distribution.

Study 3 Method Participants.  Fifty male and 50 female undergraduates at the University of Padua were recruited in exchange for course credit. Measures.  De Mas (2006)replicated the results of the two previous studies with a much larger cohort of participants. In addition to the LCT, she also administered the following self-report scales scaled with five grades (1 for never, 2 for rarely, 3 for sometimes, 4 for often, 5 for nearly always/always): (1) the CEDS (Chabot & Licht, 2006) –17 items, a = 0.81; (2) the ES (Bloom, 1985) – seven items, a = 0.80; and (3) the AATS (Marteau & Bekker, 1992; Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, & Scabini, 2006) – six items, a = 0.76/0.83. Procedure.  The administration of the scales took place before the LCT and was usually performed in 20 min. Any particular difficulties were not registered.

Conclusion

145

Results De Mas did not find any significant differences in mean scores between genders in most scales except on the LCT. Mean scores on symbiosis and oppositeness were greater in men than in women (z = 4.71, p < 0.001; z = 2.53, p < 0.05, respectively). On the other hand, mean scores on sameness, similarity, and differentness were greater in women than in men (z = 3.95, p < 0.001; z = 5.86, p < 0.001; z = 3.19, p < 0.01, respectively). Convergent validity for the scales of the LCT was found with significant correlations between both similarity and differentness and the CEDS (r = 0.37, p < 0.01), the ES (r = 0.36, p < 0.05), and the AATS (r = 0.30, p < 0.05).

Study 4 Method Participants. Twenty patients diagnosed with psychosis and 20 nonclinical participants. Measures.  The LCT. Procedure.  Casellato (2007) replicated study 2 to evaluate the distribution of LCT scores. Results As predicted, symbiosis was significantly higher in clinical patients than in nonclinical participants (z = 4.66, p < 0.001), as was alienation (z = 4.62, p < 0.001), whereas oppositeness was significantly higher in nonclinical participants than in clinical patients (z = 4.74, p < 0.001), as were similarity (z = 12.00, p < 0.001) and differentness (z = 10.34, p < 0.001). All four studies are consistent in supporting the curvilinearity of the original continuum and its convergent validity with other measures that allow discriminatiion between functional and dysfunctional participants.

Conclusion To evaluate and define a model of developmental identity differentiation, we propose a progressive, dialectically curvilinear continuum of likeness using an experimental laboratory task, the LCT. The convergent and discriminate validity of the LCT tends to support the curvilinear, developmental, and dialectic nature of this continuum. Perhaps the validity of this continuum suggests the need for a more

146

10 Model8: Self-Identity Differentiation

detailed and nuanced understanding of intimate relationships according to a progressively developmental and relational view of self-identity rather than a simple similar/dissimilar dichotomy expounded upon heretofore. From this model, which functions below a level of awareness unless it is elicited, it is possible to expand into at least three additional theoretical models that are visible with prolonged observation: three styles in intimate relationships (Model9 Chap. 11), six interactions according to a simple arithmetical model (Model10 Chap. 12), and four relational propensities (Model11 Chap. 13). Acknowledgements  We are grateful to Duncan Cramer, Associate Editor of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, and three anonymous referees for their helpful and thoughtful comments on a previous draft of this model originally submitted to that journal but later withdrawn to allow publication in this volume.

Chapter 11

Model9: Styles in Relationships

The unconscious and the semiconscious nature of the likeness continuum model (Model8) described in the previous chapter renders it impossible for it to be measured unless it is elicited with relevant instruments, such as the Likeness Continuum Task (Andersen, Reznick, & Glassman, 2005; Bargh, 2007; Hassin, Uleman, & Bargh, 2005). However, it is possible to observe and evaluate how the likeness continuum is exhibited by three styles in intimate relationships by relying on the dialectical nature of that continuum. At a more visible and, therefore, measurable level, Model9 combines dialectically related symbiosis with alienation to yield abusive–apathetic (AA) and neglectful relational styles. Combining sameness with oppositeness yields reactive–repetitive (RR) relational styles. Combining similarity with differentness yields creative–conductive (CC) relational styles (L’Abate, 1983). AA styles are the most dysfunctional styles; RR styles are intermediate along a continuum of functionality; CC styles are the most functional styles. RR styles include cluster C disorders on the internalizing side and cluster B disorders on the externalizing side (Aalsma & Lapsley, 2001; Cunningham, Shamblen, Barbee, & Ault, 2005; Orner & Stolz, 2002). The most dysfunctional AA styles includes axis I disorders, cluster A of axis II, and coexisting disorders, such as addictions, physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, and extreme criminalities overlapping with psychopathological disorders. Derivations from these six conditions lead to a variety of dependencies with various outcomes, as included in Fig. 11.1. The purpose of this brief chapter, therefore, is to review additional evidence to support the three major levels of competence derived from the six conditions along a continuum of likeness (Model8). These levels relate to three different styles in intimate relationships, competent in CC, borderline competent/incompetent in RR, and severely incompetent in AA and relational neglect. AA and RR styles also represent what have been called “comorbid” or “cocurrent” psychiatric conditions. The three styles, therefore, can be conceptualized as relational expressions of unconscious, hypothetical, or inferred enduring personality traits that are instead specified along a verified continuum of likeness in relational competence theory (Cusinato & Colesso, 2008).

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_11, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

147

148

11 Model9: Styles in Relationships

Degrees of Likeness Symbiotic/Alienated

Styles in Intimate Relationships AbusiveApathetic, Neglectful

Levels of Dependency Extreme

Emotional atrophy

Sameness/Oppositeness

ReactiveRepetitive Competitive Manipulative

Denial and conflicts over admission of versus denial of dependency

Similarity/Dissimilarity

ConductiveCreative Cooperative Synergistic

Awareness and acceptance of interdependencies

Outcomes Regression, chaos, and instability in personal, marital, parental, and occupational arenas (psychosis, murder, suicide, homelessness) Intimacy nonexistent Status quo, at risk for conflict and stress in marital, parental, and occupational arenas Intimacy sporadic Progression and resiliency in intimate relationships and occupations Intimacy present

Fig. 11.1  Continuum of likeness, styles in intimate relationships, dependencies, and their outcomes

Abusive–Apathetic Styles Although child abuse by family members has received considerable scientific and professional attention, knowledge of the impact of abuse committed by perpetrators in (nonfamilial) community organizations and institutions is lacking. Wolfe, Jaffe, Jette, and Poisson (2003) presented a conceptual framework derived from child abuse studies. The authors presented this framework as the result of collective clinical experience with adult survivors of nonfamilial abuse, and two independent panels of abuse survivors, practitioners, and researchers familiar with the impact of such abuse. This framework identifies abuse-related factors that contribute to harmful outcomes and to dimensions of harm associated with such acts. This framework might be relevant to professional education and practice guidelines, policy and prevention initiatives, and research needs. However, this framework failed in specifying further differences among AA styles and non-AA styles.

Reactive–Repetitive Styles Both AA and RR styles are usually abruptly immediate and certainly destructive. The major difference between the two types of styles is the presence of physical violence or threats of physical violence against self and others in relationships.

Creative–Conductive Styles

149

AA styles are usually violent physically, verbally, and emotionally, whereas RR styles may be nonviolent but are usually negative in their nature and in their impact, even in their indirection. There is a difference between insulting someone with threats of bodily harm or serious physical consequences and reacting to someone who has insulted us verbally with a response in kind without threats of violence. Hence, the intensity, nature, context, and accompanying concomitants of a behavior distinguish them from being either AA or RR. For instance, the first author produced (L’Abate, 2008a, 2008b) a list of destructive patterns that include both reactive and abusive patterns. AA styles are completely dominated from the past with little if any attention paid to the present and to future consequences, whereas the future may not be as important as the present in RR styles. However, in both AA and RR styles considerations about future consequences of destructive behaviors are either denied or ignored, varying in some degree in RR styles. Another way to distinguish between the two types of styles lies in the absence of intimacy (Model15, Chap. 17) defined as the sharing of joys and of hurts as well as the fear of being hurt. This quality is not present in AA styles, whereas it may be occasionally present in RR styles. In AA styles there is a complete denial or lack of awareness and of control of the destructiveness of certain patterns. For instance, L’Abate, von Eiden A, Goldstein D, Rigamonti S, & Biondi D (research in progress) have developed a checklist containing nonviolent but still RR styles in personalitydisordered women. That checklist, once validated, might allow a more precise differentiation between hysterical, narcissistic, and obsessive–compulsive women from antisocially disordered women who are in trouble with the law for physically violent or clearly abusive behaviors. Nonetheless, more nuanced differentiations about these two styles as well as CC styles will be made in the Chap. 12.

Creative–Conductive Styles CC styles are more focused on the present and the future, with creativity in relationships being based on the ability to receive, accept, and use reciprocally corrective feedback. Abilities to introspect and to be aware of and benefit from external corrective feedback are limited in RR styles and are lacking in AA styles. In CC styles, there is an internal dialogue, as well as dialogues with intimates. This dialogue is defective, deviant, or deceptive in RR styles. If there is a dialogue in AA styles, it consists of either self-defeating, repetitively ruminative internalizations or explosive, acting-out externalizations. Cusinato and Colesso (2007) validated this model using a scale of perceived relational styles with five items for each style answered according to a five-point Likert scale for the occurrence of the styles from never to always. Cronbach’s alpha for the three scales was 0.73 for AA, 0.74 for RR, and 0.79 for CC. Furthermore, multiple regressions for AA correlated negatively with a measure of optimism; RR correlated positively with a measure of pessimism; CC correlated positively with optimism and a measure of narcissism. Hence, this evidence tends to support, at least provisionally, the existence and valid relevance of these three styles.

150

11 Model9: Styles in Relationships

Two still experimental, nonvalidated but partially operational definitions of both AA and RR styles were developed, knowing full well that these definitions approximate some selected aspects of those two styles because these styles are usually based on paper-and-pencil, self-report questionnaires that do not tap unconscious or denied levels of awareness. It will take more than just words to capture the full impact of these two styles on intimate interactions because self-report does not take into full account their nonverbal and physical impact. For the RR and AA styles, a list of verbally destructive patterns in partner relationships was developed, the Destructive Patterns Questionnaire (L’Abate, 2008d). For the CC styles a list of positively constructive, ecological activities for individual, partner, and family relationships was developed, the Constructive Activities Questionnaire (L’Abate, 2008d, 2008e). No other operational definition can be proffered at this time specifically for AA because this style represents an immediate reaction of verbally and physically abusive patterns implicit in destructive relationships difficult to include in a list of verbal items. Individuals usually using physical and nonverbal AA styles are either unaware of or deny the presence of these styles. These three styles, therefore, could be conceived of as relational expressions of hypothetical, unconscious, and inferred, supposedly intrapsychic monadic personality traits defined as “…enduring behavioral dispositions,” viewed as “tendencies to respond in certain ways under certain circumstances (Tellegen, 1988, p. 622).” It is interesting and surprising to find that a major treatise that supports and presents empirical evidence in favor of personality traits (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003, p. 7) concluded “… that there is no generally accepted scientific theory of traits” Perhaps, the four models presented in this chapter as well as in Chaps. 10, 12, and 13 may constitute a “minitheory” as part and parcel of a larger relational competence theory that considers “traits” as styles rather than hypothetical characteristics without any underlying theory or model (L’Abate, 2005, 2008c, 2009c; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003). Additionally, in expanding on the vast literature on hierarchical organizations of traits, Harkness (2007, pp. 266–273) included three relational vignettes to represent traits that resemble and illustrate well the three styles included in Model9. In Harkness’s description of how participants relate with other people, Beth represented the CC styles, Ed represented closely the RR styles, and Tommy would clearly represent the AA styles. Equating styles with traits is not as far-fetched as it may seem at first blush. This equation is supported by Norton’s (1988, p. 311) definition of styles “as a consistently recurring pattern of association.”

Progression in Advancement from One Style to Another Advancement or deterioration from one type to another type of style implies also the possibility of regression, assuming that oftentimes progression to a higher stage may have been temporary/incomplete or superficial. Assuming that the infant starts at a level of complete incompetence, growth means that the child learns how to talk,

Research

151

problem-solve, relate, and progress to higher and higher stages of competence as defined in previous chapters. The more positive the circumstances of this growth, positive and effective intimate relationships, the greater the chances of progression to higher and higher levels of functioning. This progression will be predicated by the kinds of styles the child is subjected to. A child learns automatically the prevalent styles present in intimate relationships. As defined already, an AA style will make it difficult to reach higher levels of competence. The child may remain at the same level, and in some cases regress to an even lower level of incompetence, as in a youth who suddenly show signs of schizophrenia without any visible preceding signs. To progress from one set of styles to another, that is, from AA to RR and from RR to CC, implies and involves being subjected to experiencing over a prolonged period of time models that are prototypical of that set of styles. This is apparently the case of resilient children who were able to go above and beyond prevailing AA or RR styles in their families of origin to reach an apparent level of CC styles (Post, 2007). Therefore, there is the possibility of advancement from one to another set of styles according to a variety of processes available when models representing these styles are available on a prolonged basis, including self-help, promotion, and psychotherapy. Progression may mean a variety of processes: 1. Progression as improvement in functioning from a lower AA or RR to a higher CC. 2. Progression as movement from one stage of socialization to another, as from dependency and denial of dependency to interdependence (Fig. 11.1). 3. Progression as improvement in intellectual functioning from a lower stage to a higher one, as seen in the first members of a family without formal education to obtain a college degree or higher qualification. 4. Progression as movement from one level of emotional functioning to a higher level, as in being able to above beyond basic and negative feelings of anger, disgust, or sadness to more positive feelings, such as joy and surprise, and more differentiated feelings of altruistic love and concern for self and intimates and so-called self-conscious feelings, such as guilt, embarrassment, and shame (L’Abate, in press).

Research Model9 has been evaluated with the 240-item Problems in Relationships Scale (L’Abate, 1992a,b) and partially validated by McMahan and L’Abate (2001). They found a significantly negative correlation between a discrepancy score and Spanier’s Marital Adjustment Scale. Colesso (2006) created the Perceived Parental Relational Styles Questionnaire with AA Scale (AAS), RR Scale (RRS), and CC Scale (CCS). Cusinato and Colesso (2007) verified the convergent/divergent validity of these style scales with the Optimism Scale (CCS: r = 0.19, p < 0.01; AAS: r = −0.12, p < 0.01), with the Pessimistic Scale (CCS: r = −0.23, p < 0.01; RRS:

152

11 Model9: Styles in Relationships

r = 0.27, p < 0.01; AAS: r = 0.21, p < 0.01), with the Narcissism Scale (CCS: r = −0.13, p < 0.01; RRS, r = 0.33, p < 0.01; AAS: r = 0.21, p < 0.01), and with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (CCS: r = 0.29, p < 0.01; RRS: r = −0.23, p < 0.01; AAS: r = −0.24, p < 0.01).

Conclusion These AA, RR, and CC sets of styles are relational expressions of underlying, dialectical combinations of symbiosis with alienation producing a style called abusive–apathetic (AA), sameness with oppositeness producing a style called reactive– repetitive (RR), and similarity with differentness producing a style called creative–conductive (CC). However, these sets of styles are presented as processes without any contents. What will happen when in addition to these processes we include the modalities of being, doing, and having are described in Model7 in Chap. 9. A more detailed answer to this question will be given in Chap. 12 (Model10).

Chapter 12

Model10: Interactions in Intimate Relationships

“Some events repeat themselves whereas others constantly change…discriminating this stability, sameness, and uniformity from change, differentness, and diversity is fundamental to adaptive action” (Wasserman, Young, & Cook, 2004, p. 879).

The third model of this section, Model10 expands on the three content-free, process-connected styles [creative–conductive (CC), reactive–repetitive (RR), and abusive–apathetic (AA)] from Chap. 11 with the addition of content from Model7 (being present, doing performance, having/production), producing an arithmetical classification of interactions describing and linking the three previous sets of styles to more differentiated types of interactions: (1) multiplicative (××), (2) additive (++), (3) static positive (+0), (4) static negative (−0), (5) subtractive (−−), and (6) divisive (//). The literature offers indirect evidence to support the construct validity of Model10. For example, Hirsch and Rapkin (1986) studied 235 married female nurses and demonstrated that positive profiles of marital and job satisfaction were more meaningfully associated with overall life satisfaction measures than were other profiles. Shek (1998) performed a longitudinal research study over 2 years with 378 Chinese married couples; higher levels of marital quality (marital adjustment and satisfaction) were concurrently and longitudinally associated with higher levels of parent–child relational quality and lower levels of parent–child demand. Other studies show that parents with higher levels of social generativity are more effective and responsible in raising children than are those with lower levels of such competence (Lanz & Marta, 2006; Peterson, Smirles, & Wentworth, 1997; Pratt, Danso, Arnold, Norris, & Filyer, 2001). However, these studies do not differentiate various types of interactions as presented in this model. These six types of interaction can be evaluated according to four different but very likely interrelated criteria: Ecological. This criterion involves how individuals, couples, and families function in various settings necessary for survival and enjoyment, namely, (1) home, (2) school/ work, (3) transitory, such as barbershop, beauty salon, grocery store, mall, and so forth,

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_12, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

153

154

12 Model10: Interactions in Intimate Relationships

(4) transit, such as roads, cars, and airplanes, and (5) leisure-time activities. Model3 in relational competence theory (RCT) divides settings accordingly (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tudge, Gray, & Hogan, 1997; Wilson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). Diaries can be used to evaluate this criterion (Janicki, Kamark, Shiffman, & Gwaltney, 2006) as well as the experimental Constructive Activities Questionnaire (CAQ) mentioned in Chap. 11 (L’Abate, 2008d, 2008e). Ecomap introduced in Chap. 5 (Appendix B) is an excellent instrument to evaluate this criterion. Psychiatric. This criterion involves using scores from the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) ranging from 0 to 100 to include diagnoses of the DSM-IV-TR axes I and II disorders (Author, 1994). Observational. This criterion involves evaluating how individuals, couples, and families relate with each other and with nonintimates according to the easily identifiable three styles given in Chap. 11 – AA, RR, and CC – and how and what participants report matches or mismatches different evidence gathered from the other three criteria. Future evidence will be needed that has not yet been obtained from the two experimental self-report paper-and-pencil CAQ and Destructive Patterns Questionnaire (DPQ; 2008c, 2008d). Psychometric. This criterion involves how individuals, couples, or family members perform on standard measures of psychological functioning usually directed toward intellectual level and type of dysfunctionality. This emphasis on negative aspects of functioning, that is, dysfunctionality without evaluating superior functioning, was the reason for creating the experimental CAQ, namely, to determine levels of above-normal functionality rather than of dysfunctionality. Additionally the DPQ was created to evaluate how individuals relate with other intimates and nonintimates in ways that are not usually measured by standard psychometric instruments (L’Abate, 2008d, 2008e). Consequently, on the basis of these criteria, the following arithmetical interactions can be evaluated impressionistically and qualitatively first as well as quantitatively second: Multiplicative interactions are present when functioning on all criteria is superior to outstanding ecologically, psychiatrically (above 95 on the GAF), observationally (in the top 10% of the distribution on the CAQ), and psychometrically (absence of any disorder and presence of creativity, that is, (1) excellent performance at home, in hobbies, sports, recreational activities, and caregiving as an individual partner and as a parent in the family (Vaillant, 2007; Wilson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2008); (2) excellent performance at school/work; (3) excellent performance in leisure-time activities (hobbies, sports, etc.); and (4) leadership in voluntary participation in charitable or social organizations. Observationally, intimates spend a great deal of time being together with an enjoyment of shared activities (Model7). The style is definitely CC, not only within the family but also outside it. Thus, in these interactions individuals are able to show and share love (Model4), control self, and negotiate problem solving (Model5 and Model16) with partners, family members, associates, and nonintimates with a

12 Model10: Interactions in Intimate Relationships

155

minimum of acrimony or conflict. They share joys as well as inevitable hurts with each other at a high level of intimacy (Model15). Two examples of individuals who achieved this level of functioning in spite of extremely low socio-economic family background are available in Vaillant (2007). Examples of these interactions are also available in L’Abate (2005). In these interactions, individuals exhibit CC style not only within intimate but also outside intimate relationships, as demonstrated by active participation and leadership in civil and charitable organizations. These interactions result in superior performance at home, at work, and in leisure-time activities, accompanied by a great deal of intimacy in the sharing of joys, hurts, and fear of being hurt. Individuals exhibiting CC style represent the top 5% of the population. Flexibility and mutual respect are present. Additive interactions are characterized by adequate ecological performance at home and at school/work but mediocre performance in leisure-time activities, with participation in external charitable or social organizations limited to following rather then leading. Nonetheless, the style is still CC, with the ability to love and to negotiate problem solving effectively and efficiently within the realm of intimate relationships but not outside them. Psychiatrically, these relationships would fit within the 94–70 range on the GAF without any diagnosis. Observationally, these interactions would score in the top 20% on the distribution of scores on the CAQ and very low on the DPQ on norms yet to be obtained. Psychometrically, individuals, partners, and family members would score well on most personality or relational tests and would fail to show any signs of dysfunctionality on most tests. There would be intimacy in the privacy of the home but not outside it. In these interactions, the CC style is predominant within and outside intimate relationships, but there is little if any leadership participation beyond self and intimates; participation beyond intimates may be as a follower rather than as a leader, and intimacy is restricted during stressful crises. Individuals in this category include about 20% of the population. Flexibility is shown by the ability to ask for outside help when necessary. Static interactions can be divided into two groups: static positive and static negative. Static means that the interactions remain the same without much change over time. However, positive static interactions may be flexible enough to function at adequate to borderline level in all four criteria with the potential to change upward. There is occasional conflict, problem solving is erratic, intimacy is occasional, and participation in social events is inconsistent. The style is RR but is limited to intimates characterized by short bursts of carping and bickering, as observed in conflict-habituated couples, with appropriate functioning outside intimate relationships. On the GAF, scores would range from 69 to 50. Psychiatrically, the most likely diagnoses would include disorders in cluster C of axis II because internalizing individuals tend to assume responsibility for their actions and to ask for professional help more frequently than do individuals with other diagnoses. Here little room exists for change because of rigidity in roles. The RR style is predominant in prolonged, conflict-habituated relationships. Intimacy is present at weddings and funerals, but there is little time or energy to devote beyond intimate relationships. Axis II cluster C internalizing personality disorders as described in DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) can be recognized in these

156

12 Model10: Interactions in Intimate Relationships

interactions. An internal locus of control gives the possibility to introspect and to take responsibility for one’s actions, giving some representatives of this population an ability to ask for professional help when necessary, suggesting the possibility of an upward spiral. Individuals in this category include approximately 25% of the population and comprise the majority of patients in psychotherapy. Negative static interactions may be questionable and variable in their domicile and occupational history. Psychiatrically, there may have been occasional breakdowns and personality disorders may be frequently found in cluster B of axis II. Psychometrically, intellectual performance may vary between low and high average, with psychological test results supporting the presence of externalizing personality disorders, individuals who usually deny the need for professional help. Negative static interactions may be defined also by poor borderline performance in all four criteria with strong resistance to change, with a downward spiral. The style here is definitively RR, whereas psychiatrically interactions would fall within any of the disorders in cluster B of axis II in DSM-IV-TR. GAF scores would range from 49 to 30. Observationally, it would be relatively easy to observe immediate responses with little if any forethought on how to relate with intimates and nonintimates in a nonreactive fashion. These interactions would score low on hypothetical CAQ and high on DPQ norms. Psychometrically, interactions would show some deviations on most personality or couple relationship tests that would support the existence of axis II cluster B personality disorders, except for borderline disorders, which would fall within cluster A. Intimacy would be limited to weddings and funerals. There may be addictions to food, or smoking, or alcohol, or drugs. The RR style is predominant in these interactions, with a more negative aspect that includes occasional instances of AA style with little if any intimacy. Axis II cluster B externalizing personality disorders are evident, whereby an external locus of control is attributed outside the self. Intimacy is brief; an either/or dichotomy in thinking is present, leaving little room for differentness. Individuals in this category include about 25% of the population and exhibit a great deal of educational, occupational, relational, and residential instability. Subtractive interactions are characterized by a diminution of functioning in the various settings existing at borderline levels according to the four criteria used here. The style here may vary between RR and AA. Psychiatrically, interaction would show deviations in axis I affective and schizophrenic disorders and questionable functionality is based on relevant psychotropic medication being taken regularly. On the GAF, interactions would score between 29 and 6 points. Observationally, in interactions individuals would be quite reticent in speaking out and would be unable to articulate an intelligent conversation. If participants could answer selfreport tests, which is questionable, they would score very high on the DPQ and very low on the CAQ. Psychometrically, interactions would show clear patterns of deviations in most personality or couple relationship tests. Intimacy would be inexistent. In these interactions, the AA style is predominant, and its influence from one’s family of origin is downward rather than outward. What is more, the presence of addictions and axis I and axis II cluster A disorders are more predominant. Individuals in this category include approximately 20% of the population.

A Simple Arithmetical Model for Interactions in Intimate Relationships

157

Divisive interactions are characterized by an inability to function in any of the settings listed above, indicating an inability to live constructively and positively with others, intimates or nonintimates. The style is definitely AA, with the majority of interactions diagnosed in axis I of DSM-IV-TR. GAF scores would be below five points. There is no ability to respond or even complete most psychometric tests. Relationally, interactions would occur with individuals within the same type of dysfunctionality in nursing homes and hospitals. Intimacy under these conditions would be impossible to achieve. These outcomes result generatively from static negative and subtractive interactions, to the point that one is unable to take care of oneself and must rely on external sources. This population is characterized by chronic homelessness and institutionalization in hospitals and penitentiaries. Individuals in this category include approximately 5% of the population.

A Simple Arithmetical Model for Interactions in Intimate Relationships This section1 proposes a simple arithmetical model to evaluate how interactions in intimate relationships follow or match the four criteria already outlined: (1) ecological in the home, at school or work, or leisure-time activities; (2) psychiatric, according to criteria available in DSM-IV-TR; (3) observational, according to what styles are exhibited under prolonged face-to-face observations; and (4) psychometric, according to how individuals, couples, and families function on the basis of standard clinical psychological tests and measures. With these criteria, it is possible to classify intimate interactions arithmetically according to six levels of functionality: (1) multiplicative, (2) additive, (3) static positive, (4) static negative, (5) subtractive, and (6) divisive. Different types of interventions should match these six types of interactions. The four criteria mentioned above could be used to characterize interactions according to four values varying between 4 and 1, with 4 being the highest level of functioning and 1 the lowest level, assigned to each of the four criteria. Therefore, formally, an interaction can be characterized by the four variables v1, v2, v3, and v4, defined as: • v1 represents the value for the ecological characteristic and can assume one of the possible values between 0 and 3. The value 3 will be assigned if the interaction is superior in manner in all the settings included in this model. Values from 2 to 1 will be assigned if interactions occur in either a questionable or a not entirely satisfactory manner in one of the settings outlined above; the value of 0 will be assigned if the interaction is clearly negative in all three settings, home, school/work, and leisure time.  This section was written with the collaboration of Filippo Notarnicola, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto per le Applicazioni del Calcolo “M. Picone” (Bari, Italy); e-mail: f.notarnicola@ ba.iac.cnr.it. 1

158

12 Model10: Interactions in Intimate Relationships

• v2 represents the value for the psychiatric characteristic and can assume one of the possible six points: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. A value of 5 is assigned if the score is above 95 points on the GAF. A value of 4 is assigned to scores between 94 and 70 points. A value of 3 is assigned to scores between 69 and 50. A value of 2 is assigned to scores between 49 and 30. A value of 1 is assigned to scores between 29 and 6. A value of 0 is assigned for scores between 5 and 0. • v3 represents the value for the observational characteristic that can assume one of the possible values between 3 and 0. A value of 3 is assigned if the interaction is characterized by a CC style. A value of 2 is assigned if the interaction is characterized by a “positive” RR style yet to be identified. A value of 1 is assigned if the interaction is characterized by a negative RR style, whereas a value of 0 is assigned to a clearly AA style. • v4 represents the value for the psychometric characteristic and can assume one of four possible values ranging from 3 to 1. A value of 3 is assigned if the interaction is characterized by no deviations from normality on personality tests. A value of 2 is assigned if the interaction is characterized by adequate but nondeviant scores on intellectual and personality tests. A value of 1 is assigned for less than adequate, questionable, or even deviant scores on intellectual and personality tests, low or extremely variable intellectual level, and deviant scores on personality tests. A value of 0 is assigned if the interaction is characterized by very variable, low intellectual level and extreme deviations on personality tests. Then, with reference to the criteria reported in this section, an exemplary interaction could be characterized by the ordered sequence of values (v1, v2, v3, v4). For example, the ordered sequence (3, 5, 3, 1) corresponds to ecological = 3; psychiatric = 5; observational = 3; psychometric = 1. If we consider that each of the variables v1, v3, and v4 can assume one of the four possible values 3, 2, 1, or 0 and that the variable v2 can assume one of the six values 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, then, for any interaction, whether within individuals, couples, or families, the ordered sequence (v1, v2, v3, v4) can assume one of 384 = 4 × 6 × 4 × 4 different permutations varying from the best value (3, 5, 3, 3) to the worst value (0, 0, 0, 0). This model is based upon three interrelated assumptions: • Assumption 1: Functionality and dysfunctionality are distributed in the population according to a curvilinear distribution equal to the distribution given in Table 12.1. This distribution, however, is based on completely different criteria: superior functionality at the left of the figure and dysfunctionality on the right of the distribution, with normative functionality in the middle. • Assumption 2: Given different criteria to evaluate functionality–dysfunctionality, all four criteria influence the outcome equally. At present, we have no way of knowing theoretically or empirically which criterion is more influential than the other criteria. We are assuming that all four criteria influence equally the total outcome. • Assumption 3: Deficiency in one criterion can be counterbalanced by an aboveaverage value for another criterion, producing, however, a lower overall score.

Arithmetical Interactions

159

As a consequence of assumptions 1–3, interactional capacity can be evaluated by the weighted sum of v1, v2, v3, and v4. In detail, we shall consider the following sum: Sum = v1 + (v2 × 3/5) + v3 + v4. We explicitly observe that the value v2 is multiplied by the weighting normalization factor 3/5 since v2, differently from v1, v3, and v4, ranges from 0 to 5. In fact, the value 3/5 is chosen so that, in the global individual interaction evaluation sum, the psychiatric characteristic score v2 assumes the same weight as v1, v3, and v4. In this way, the maximum value of the sum will be 12 and the minimum value will be 0. In the example reported above, we have v1 = 3, v2 = 5, v3 = 3, v4 = 1 and, consequently, Sum = 10.

Arithmetical Interactions Consequently, on the basis of these criteria, the following arithmetical interactions can be evaluated impressionistically as well as quantitatively: Multiplicative interactions are present when functioning on all criteria is superior to outstanding ecologically, psychiatrically (above 95 on the GAF), observationally (in the top 10% of the distribution on the CAQ), and psychometrically (absence of any disorder and presence of creativity), that is, (1) excellent performance at home, in hobbies, sports, recreational activities, and caregiving as an individual partner and as parent in the family (Vaillant, 2007; Wilson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2008); (2) excellent performance at school/work; (3) excellent performance in leisure-time activities (hobbies, sports, etc.); and (4) leadership in voluntary participation in charitable or social organizations. From these qualitative interactions we can derive the following quantitative evaluations (See Table 12.1), based on the variable Sum, defined in the previous section: Multiplicative: The value of the variable Sum is 12 as derived from clearly superior interactions in all four criteria.

Table 12.1  Relationships among arithmetical interactions and percentages of population Sum interval Nature of interactions Percentage of population (%) Sum = 12 Multiplicative 5 11 > Sum ³ 9 Additive 20 8 > Sum ³ 6 Positive static 25 5 > Sum ³ 3 Negative static 25 2 > Sum > 1 Subtractive 20 Sum = 0 Divisive 5

160

12 Model10: Interactions in Intimate Relationships

Additive: Values of Sum may range in the interval [12 > Sum ³ 9], from adequate functionality in family, work, and leisure time without extra time or energy, however, for contributions outside intimate relationships. Positive static: The values of Sum may range in the interval [9 > Sum ³ 6], leading to less than adequate unchanging interactions in the three settings. There may be positive contributions from one partner that might be offset by negative contributions from the other partner. Negative static: The values of Sum may range in the interval [6 > Sum ³ 3]. Subtractive: The values may range in the interval [3 > Sum > 0], characterized by borderline to dysfunctional interactions, where interactions are negative or destructive to self and others, intimates or nonintimates. Divisive: There is no variability here, Sum = 0 with isolation and cutoff from self and from others.

Discussion Reasons to explain reducing human relationships to either arithmetical or even mathematical formulas might satisfy the egos of whoever proposes them, the first author included. What is the usefulness of an arithmetical or mathematical approach, theoretically or practically? Theoretically, an arithmetical model allows one to distinguish among different levels and types of psychological adjustment that encompass great varieties of functionalities and dysfunctionalities. Ultimately, however, this approach would attempt to imitate “science” or make human relationships more “scientific” than they already are. In our particular case, this arithmetical model might allow further validation of the three models underlying it. Above and beyond a theoretical usefulness of quantifying human relationships, this approach might lead toward clearer and more specific ways to distinguish among different levels of functioning above and beyond general and nonspecific notions of average or normal/abnormal. Practically, the criteria included in this proposal might allow clinicians to arrive at clearer criteria for “adjustment scores” that would define human interactions in individuals, couples, and families by a finer grain than done heretofore, including also “superior” or “outstanding” individual, couple, and family interactions (L’Abate, 2005, 2006, 2008c, 2009c; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003). More importantly, criteria employed in this proposal would allow an arithmetical understanding of interactions in intimate relationships to be reached that is within the grasp of most mental health practitioners. A possible contribution of this proposal is to link the foregoing arithmetical interactions to interventions, as outlined in Table 12.2. Interactions characterized by a CC style do not need interventions and, if enrichment is sought voluntarily, it would be limited to self-help activities that are either self-initiated and relatively

Conclusion

161

Table  12.2  Extents and levels of functionality, settings, and interventions: health promotion, prevention, and psychotherapy Performance in settings Possible intervention Extents and levels Sublevels within of functionality each level Home Work Leisure strategies High with CC Multiplicative High High High Voluntary self-help, style enrichment, health Additive High to medium promotion, and Additive to static Medium to low universal primary prevention Medium with RR Occasional conflict: Low Recommended style static positive targeted interactive workbooks, skill Low most of the time Chronic conflict: training, secondary static negative to prevention, and subtractive occasional face-toSubtractive to Low to very low face psychotherapy divisive Low with AA Divisive Indicated/required Extremely low style medication and Severely low skill training and behavior modifications, and technologies CC creative–conductive, RR reactive–repetitive, AA abusive–apathetic

free from professional help (Harwood & L’Abate, in press; L’Abate, 2007) or self-help workbooks or protocols for lifelong learning in nonclinical and clinical individuals, couples, and families. For a more detailed explanation of this connection between evaluation and intervention, interested readers may consult L’Abate (2010).

Conclusion This proposal needs to be validated by prototype interactions in individuals, couples, and families that lend themselves to a complete evaluation using criteria and measures easily available to most mental health practitioners as well as those relevant to RCT included in the Appendixes. The validity of this simple arithmetical model has yet to be ascertained but could be accomplished using both qualitative– clinical–impressionistic and quantitative, empirical measures, such as the CAQ and the DPQ, among other measures, related or unrelated to RCT.

Chapter 13

Model11: Selfhood

The purpose of this chapter is to expand on a model of Selfhood defined by how a sense of importance is attributed, expressed, bestowed, and shared with self and intimate others. This sense of importance is asserted by showing care, concern, compassion, and consideration to self and to intimate others according to four relational propensities: (1) Selfulness, when care, compassion, consideration, and concern are expressed positively toward self while including also needs and wants of intimate others (“We both win.”); (2) Selfishness, when care, compassion, consideration, and concern are expressed positively toward self but negatively toward others and at the cost of others (“I win, you lose.”); (3) Selflessness, when care, compassion, consideration, and concern are expressed positively toward others and negatively toward self (“You win, I lose.”); and (4) No-Self, when care, compassion, consideration, and concern are not expressed in any way, are denied, or are expressed negatively toward self and others, as seen, for instance, in extreme incompetence, where there is a strong denial of being incompetent paired with a strong aversion to receiving and benefiting from professional help and medication (“No one wins, we both lose.”). Selfulness includes creative–conductive styles of various types and degrees, as seen in multiplicative and additive interactions, as discussed in Model9 and Model10 (Chaps. 11, 12). Selfishness, in its extremes, is characterized by an externalizing reactive–repetitive style: acting out, aggression, criminality, and, ultimately, murder (axis II, cluster B disorders in DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Selflessness, in its extremes, is characterized by an internalizing reactive–repetitive style: anxiety, depression, and, ultimately, suicide (axis II, cluster C disorders in DSM-IV). No-Self is characterized by an abusive– apathetic style: severe psychopathological behavior (axis I and axis II, cluster A disorders in DSM-IV; see Fig. 13.1). The four relational propensities of Model11 integrate not only three levels of functionality (superior, intermediate, adequate) of Model6 and Model8 but also levels of dysfunctionality as seen in disorders in axes I and II of DSM-IV. Most psychiatric syndromes are integrated into a whole framework (L’Abate, 2003, p. 152; L’Abate, 2005, p. 262; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007, p. 323) that includes both categorical and dimensional aspects of seemingly disparate disorders. This model helps to L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_13, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

163

164

13 Model11: Selfhood

Fig. 13.1  Summary of Selfhood Model12 integrating levels of superior functioning with psychiatric classification

understand coexisting or comorbid addictions and relational disorders as different aspects of relational competence within a context of importance attributions and bestowals (L’Abate, Lambert, & Schenck, 2001), as shown in Fig. 13.1. Extremes in Selfulness are related to the three levels of competence based on a likeness model (Model8) included in Chap. 10 and expanded with further detail in Chaps. 11 and 12, that is, superior, intermediate, and adequate. Extremes in Selfishness are found in cluster B of axis II relational disorders and various criminalities, including murder as the prototype outcome of this propensity. Extremes in Selflessness are found in affective disorders (anxieties, depressions) of cluster C, with suicides being the prototype outcome of this propensity. Extremes in No-Self are found in cluster A of axis II and severe incompetence in axis I (dissociations, schizophrenias, bipolar disorders, and extreme depressions) as prototypes of this propensity. This discussion will be expanded later in this chapter. Importance of self and of intimate others is supported indirectly by similar models. This model has been validated by research on “perceived mattering” (Mark & Marshall, 2004) defined as “…the psychological tendency to perceive the self as significant

Selfhood and Gender Differences

165

to specific others” (p. 469). Mark and Marshall’s proposed model includes attending to specific others through selective attention and assignment of meaning, comparisons with other objects and norms, reflexive comparisons, role taking, and self-attributions, leading to the tendency to evaluate the self as significant (p. 471). It is relevant that in the questionnaire developed to assess perceived mattering, the first item refers to “importance” (p. 486). The correlation between this questionnaire and the Self–Other Profile Chart (SOPC) explained below and shown in Appendix D to measure importance in self and intimate others should be high and statistically significant. Sprecher and Fehr (2005), for instance, have shown that there is a construct of “compassionate love” separate from empathy and associated with prosocial behavior as directed toward close others and to all of humanity, with provisions for social support of a loved one. Whether compassionate love is synonymous with altruism remains to be seen (Post, 2007). Directly, this model has been validated through triangulation, the process through which a construct is evaluated in its psychometric qualities through three different instruments. In this case, the SOPC (Cusinato & Pastore, 2001; L’Abate, 1997b, 2005, 2008a,c; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003); (2) the Dyadic Relationship Test (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2005a, 2005b); and (3) the Problems in Relationship Scale (L’Abate, 1992b; Reed, McMahan & L’Abate, 2001).

Selfhood and Gender Differences An important feature of this model relates to gender differences. The model predicts equal gender ratios for men and women in Selfulness and No-Self but unequal ratios in Selfishness and Selflessness. For instance, men are still relatively more socialized toward Selfishness than women (with an overall 5:1 ratio in favor of men, depending on the criterion or measure used). Women are still socialized relatively more toward Selflessness than men (with an overall 5:1 ratio in favor of women, depending on the criterion or measure used). These differences are important in terms of a theoretical model that distinguishes between internalization disorders (axis II, cluster C) being more related to women than men, whereas externalization disorders (axis II, cluster B) may be more related to men (Seeman, 1995) than women. By the same token, women tend to experience more compassionate love than men (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). Hyde (2005) reviewed 46 meta-analyses of research concerning gender differences. Her results supported the “similarities hypothesis” rather than the “differences hypothesis.” She did find a significant gender difference in motor performance being greater in males than females and sexuality: males tend to masturbate more than females. She felt that the evidence for a gender difference in physical rather than verbal, relational aggression was “ambiguous.” However, all the meta-analyses included in her study concerned functional rather than dysfunctional populations. These studies did not deal with clinical or diagnosed populations, where gender

166

13 Model11: Selfhood

differences may tend to be greater than in functional ones. For instance, criminals would be a population where males tend to show a greater frequency of acting out and incarceration (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). By the same token, depression may be more prevalent in females than in males (Seeman, 1995). Furthermore, men may tend to express their depressions in ways different from those of women, making it difficult to measure depression in men by using womenrelated criteria. Obvious and not so obvious gender differences are relevant to this model. For instance, two leading medical journals devoted articles to gender differences in whole areas of medicine, not just reproductive medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association stressed the neglected fact that lung cancer, rather than breast cancer, is the number one killer in women and is responsible for as many deaths as breast cancer and all gynecological cancers combined. Most lung cancer is caused by cigarette smoke. Despite all that is known about the devastating effects of cigarettes, one quarter of women in the USA smoke. Women are targeted in tobacco advertising, and teenage girls are often drawn to cigarette smoking under a variety of social pressures. Following the increase in smoking, the death rate from lung cancer in US women rose 600% from 1930 to 1997. Women may be more susceptible than men to the carcinogenic properties of cigarette smoke. In addition, differences in the biological processes of lung cancer exist between the two sexes, with higher levels of DNA adduct formation, increased CYP1A1 expression, decreased DNA repair capacity, and increased incidence of K-ras gene mutations in women. The novel estrogen receptor has also been detected in lung tumors and suggests that estrogen signaling may have a biological role in tumorigenesis. Given these differences and given the enormous toll this disease has on US women, undertaking sex-specific research in lung cancer is crucial. Finally, disseminating information about this epidemic may prevent a similar epidemic in other parts of the world where women are just now becoming addicted to tobacco (Patel, Bach, & Kris, 2004). The American Heart Association and 11 other leading national health organizations came together to develop comprehensive guidelines for heart disease prevention in women. They include “a rating scale to express the strength of recommendations and the quality of research to support specific preventive therapies.” Osteoporosis affects disproportionately more women than men. Recent discoveries suggest that genes, hormones, and lifestyle may be behind many of these differences. For instance, heart attacks in women do not involve chest pain, as in the case of men. Women who do not smoke seem more susceptible to lung cancer than nonsmoking men. Women are more prone to autoimmune diseases, including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis. Some AIDS medications seem to metabolize more quickly in men than in women, who may require gender-specific doses (Mosca, 2004). Women’s symptoms for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease vary considerably each month, requiring frequent medication adjustments (Tanner, 2004). “Women drink less alcohol and have fewer alcohol-related problems than men” (NolenHoecksema, 2004, p. 981). To determine how biological differences develop requires studying how biological and lifestyle patterns affect both genders, and whether these differences are related

Selfhood and Gender Differences

167

to relational propensities. For instance, would certain types of cancer affect women more than men? Specifically, if Selflessness is more frequent in women, would not the inhibition of depression and anxiety and their internalizations, such as rumination, increase the possibility that cancer may be more prevalent in Selflessness than in the other three relational propensities? Up to the present, research on gender differences to support the validity of this model has been derived from selected developmental and psychopathological literature. However, heretofore, the literature on work settings and gender was entirely bypassed (Landy, 1989; Powell, 1999a, 1999b). Here, support for a mainly masculine propensity (i.e., Selfishness) in work settings is illustrated by chapters contained in Powell’s edited work (1999b) and by more recent references to update those chapters. Nonetheless, Powell (1999a) made a powerful case to illustrate the predominance of men-dominated practices in the labor force, supporting a thesis of gender discrimination and segregation against women in work settings still dominated by men: The influence of sex and gender in the workforce is not the same for individuals from different races, ethnic groups, or cultures; similarly, the influence of race, ethnicity, and culture on work experiences is not the same for women and men…gender is also associated with the occupations in which individuals work…the influences of gender may be exhibited at the societal, industry, occupational, organizational, work group, interpersonal, family, and individual levels (1999a, pp. xiii–xix).

Traditional views supporting a masculine, i.e., “selfish” propensity in contrast and opposition to a more feminine, i.e., “selfless” propensity abound in work settings. Traditionally the masculine, i.e., Selfishness, was taken for granted in this culture, as it is still taken for granted in many Islamic and Asian cultures. Man was the hunter outside the home and the woman was the caretaker inside the home. The Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century brought women into the workforce at the lowest levels of pay and the most stressful conditions of the work environment. These work conditions were in addition to attending to caretaking chores at home, traditionally without the help of the man. Korabik (1999) considered the evolution of twentieth century models of gender as being (1) unidimensional, where men and women were situated at extreme polarities of one dimension, (2) bidimensional additive, where masculinity (i.e., Selfishness) and femininity (i.e., Selflessness) were either high or low to produceandrogynous positions, (3) bidimensional additive, where highs and lows of either femininity and masculinity produced undifferentiated, feminine or masculine, and androgynous positions, and (4) multidimensional, differentiated additive androgyny and differentiated gender role. This classification still persists in most considerations of gender differences that do not consider other alternatives, especially in relationship to the functionality or dysfunctionality of gender differences. In this regard, in considering issues for the new millennium, Korabix concluded: Due to the rapid transformation of thinking about gender during the latter part of the 20th century, today’s researchers are faced with a bewildering assortment of theories and methods…most researchers have not articulated their underlying assumptions; consequently,

168

13 Model11: Selfhood

most research on sex and gender has been atheoretical (emphasis added) in nature (p. 13)…No one theory incorporates all that we recently know about gender. More complex and comprehensive theories need to be developed, particularly ones that integrate the various levels and domains across which gender is manifested (p. 14).

Ferdman (1999) considered the role of race, ethnicity, and culture as contexts for considerations of gender in organizations. He went on to enumerate evidence that supports racial, ethnic, and gender discrimination “…by dominant men against both dominant and subordinated women is motivated by the desire to control rather than to weaken or to harm” (p. 22). He called this form of discrimination “gendered racism…the two processes of racism and sexism are inextricably linked” (p. 33). Cooper and Lewis (1999) considered the role of gender and the changing nature of work. They noted the “profound changes” that occurred in the early 1990s in the workplace since the Industrial Revolution. For instance, there are 5 times as many women as men working part-time in Britain, because women are preferred over men for relatively low pay, poor conditions, and few opportunities for advancement (p. 39). In regard to the third condition, Cooper and Lewis noted that “Women have been regarded as less suitable workers and especially managers, precisely because they lack ‘male’ qualities, that is: competitiveness, aggression, and task orientation” (p. 41). Increased job insecurity, longer working hours, and virtual organizations have heighten some of these characteristics, putting women in much greater conflict between home and work than men. Gutek, Cherry, and Groth (1999) considered the role of gender in service delivery. Changes from an agricultural and industrial society have produced much greater demands for services than ever before: “Gender can affect the consumption and delivery of service in several ways” (p. 51). Among professions that are becoming more and more gendered in favor of women, for instance, is clinical psychology. Gutek et al. concluded that: “Service jobs, occupations, and industries seem to be as sex segregated as those in the nonservice sector, and sex-role spillover appears to play a role in the delivery of services” (p. 67). Maier (1999), considered the gendered substructure of organizations, with strong differentiations between masculine and feminine roles that control the nature of organizations. His repeated distinctions between masculine (“corporate masculinity”) and feminine support strongly the position that, as a whole, men are still socialized for Selfishness, whereas women are still socialized for Selflessness in many businesses. He expanded on this conclusion by presenting evidence from a variety of studies that describe “implicit gendered dimensions. For instance, traditionally in the workplace, masculinity is associated with productivity, efficiency, standardization of tasks, control, initiative, task-motivated, and autocracy. Femininity, on the other hand, is associated with attention to people, informal relations, consideration of and concern for people” (p. 72). Maier elaborated on this distinction by enumerating intrapersonal dimensions of gendered organizational substructures. Masculinity is characterized by stress on autonomy, independence, me-first success, advancement, competition, distancing higher from lower people according to a hierarchy, “winning,” technical rationality supported by measurable and quantifiable factors, and objectivity. Femininity, on

Selfhood, Space, and Importance

169

the other hand, is characterized by stress on contextual, reciprocal, and interdependent connectedness, actualization of others, balance in life activities, “…advance of others and the self are more highly valued than those that advance the self at the expense of others,” mentoring and vicarious achievement of others, “situated objectivity grounded on personal experience that is difficult to quantify, rational subjectivity, and connected knowing” (p. 75). Interpersonally, Maier continued to elaborate on a masculine versus feminine distinction that supports the greater prevalence of Selfishness in men and of Selflessness in women in the workplace (p. 76). The implications of gendered organizational substructures for images of leadership and organization in the workplace are also presented on the basis of this dichotomy. These dimensions and implications are too detailed and expanded to be included here. However, Maier’s distinction serves to elaborate on the relevance of the selfish/selfless distinction not only in intimate relationships but also in the workplace. Maier went on to present an integration of a futuristic feminist organizational epistemology in contrast to alternative masculinist substructures and practices (p. 90). To support this distinction in concrete terms, Roos and Gatta (1999) presented evidence to support the gender gap in earnings, whereas Jabobs (1999) presented data to support sex segregation in occupations. Graves (1999) showed how gender bias may still exist under certain conditions in interviewer’s evaluations of applicants. In addition to these extensive reviews, the gender bias in favor of men and in disfavor of women, still exists in performance evaluations (Bartol, 1999), group composition and work group relations (Tolbert, Graham, & Andrews, 1999), social influence and emergent leadership (Carli & Eagly, 1999), managerial behavior (Butterfield & Grinnell, 1999), sexual harassment of women by men (BowesSperry & Tata, 1999), careers (Stroh & Reilly, 1999), mentoring relationships (Ragins, 1999), stresses in working women who must attend to two jobs, one at home and one in the workplace (Davidson & Fielden, 1999). Of course, there have been many corrective trends that indicate some slow changes in favor of a more balanced perspective between masculine and feminine positions, the slow rise to managerial positions by women (Moore, 1999), affirmative action (Konrad & Linnehan, 1999), and more recent societal stress on the importance of diversity in various levels of work and nonwork settings (Lobel, 1999). Nonetheless, all of the above is presented to support predictions from the Selfhood model about gender differences that exist not only in intimate relationships but also, if not especially, in the workplace.

Selfhood, Space, and Importance One critic of this model remarked that his boss was important to him, but she/he did not love him, nor did the boss love him/her. This was a very relevant and wellfounded criticism that needs clarification. In business organization, corporations, and industry, a sense of importance is bestowed on the basis of the Triangle of

170

13 Model11: Selfhood

Living (Model7, Chap. 9), where salary, bonuses, hierarchical ranks, promotions, size of office space, and position in a hierarchical structure are based first on performance, second on production, and third on presence. The higher the responsibility and the authority one has, the greater the amount of money, perks, space, office furnishing, and freedom of personalization, accommodating one’s office to fit one’s wishes and relational allocated to the position. Usually the position rather than the individual is what receives importance (Sundstrom, 1986). Individuals can be replaced. Positions remain because they are necessary for the well-being of the organization. The context of how importance is shown and expressed in a business exchange is completely different from a communal sense of importance found in intimate relationships. This sense of importance in business is bestowed in at least four different ways from how it is bestowed in intimate relationships. In the first place, the allocation of perks, in addition to salary and bonuses, (space, furnishings, anteroom, etc.) is based on the basis of power (money and possessions) for performance and production. The greater the position of power, decision making, and influence, the greater the sense of importance bestowed on the position, not the individual occupying that position. This process is very different from what happens in intimate relationships. Yes, usually authority and responsibilities go together and adults have certain perks that are not shared with children. On the other hand, the important distinguishing feature is intimacy. In functional intimate relationships that resource is shared reciprocally, where all parties share in an equal sense of importance. In dysfunctional intimate relationships, authority and responsibility are either not delegated or delegated capriciously, inconsistently, contradictorily, and arbitrarily. The sense of importance is distributed unevenly and there is little intimacy. In the second place, however, this power may be delegated and even shared in the workplace, it is not reciprocal. It usually goes downward not upward (Fiske, 2004a, 2004b). There is no intimacy. Interactions among superiors and subordinates are impersonal (even though over time they may become personal). Exchanges are task-oriented and negotiated to solve problems not to be together with affection, care, concern, and compassion found in communal intimate relationships. In the third place, as noted, exchanges in the business world are oriented toward performance and production. If an individual’s performance and production, even at the highest levels of power, do not meet or exceed expectations or even contractual agreements, that individual responsible is fired or, at least, allowed to resign (“The taller the trees, the harder they fall.”). Business, agentic exchanges take place on the basis of tangibles not on the basis of the intangibles found in communal, loving relationships. In the fourth place, the sense of importance bestowed in business is temporary. It lasts as long as the individual fulfills her or his responsibilities to the satisfaction of superiors. If and when the individuals fail to live up to those responsibilities, their contract is terminated. This is not the case in intimate relationships. The sense of importance lasts no matter what happens to the individuals’ performance or production.

Expansion of the Selfhood Model to Psychiatric Conditions: Incompetence

171

Hence, the sense of importance found in intimate relationships is contextually different from the sense of importance found in nonintimate exchanges. In the former, there is forgiveness for errors and sharing of hurts produced by errors. In the latter, there is no forgiveness and eventually a ledger of errors will reduce the sense of importance temporarily bestowed. Perhaps another way to look at these differences is in terms of survival. Jobs and work are necessary to survive financially and physically. However, intimate relationships are necessary to survive physically, emotionally, as well as to enjoy life. If enjoyment is found in work, so much the better. However, how many people can claim to “really enjoy” their work? Perhaps some workaholics may make that claim. However, the enjoyment is temporary. What will happen when one retires or loses a job? Who will be present to support and pick up the pieces? The answer to this question lies in an individual’s priorities (see Chap. 14). If work is given primacy over intimate relationships, the latter will suffer, and over time the outcome will feed back to how individuals will spend the rest of their lives. Simply put, it takes time to develop a sense of Self-Importance. Some individuals develop it from day one, since they were born. Some never develop it. Most of us develop it as we grow up, some slowly, some rapidly, some with ups and downs, some smoothly, some abruptly, some with plateaus, some with falls, some adequately, some inadequately, some fast, some slowly.

Expansion of the Selfhood Model to Psychiatric Conditions: Incompetence Expansion of the No-Self relational propensity refers to the inability of individuals with severe psychiatric conditions, i.e., incompetence, to receive proper and appropriate treatment, either medical or psychological. As summarized by Corrigan (2004), Corrigan et al. (2008), only a small percentage of individuals with schizophrenic or psychotic disorders receive proper treatment, and many do not remain in many treatment programs, failing to complete them. This failure supports the position that in extreme incompetence composed of the No-Self relational propensity no one wins. The importance of self and of others is denied. Consequently, severely incompetent people will defeat themselves and whoever desires to help them, including refusing to accept and use medication. Corrigan argued that personal and societal stigma and stigmatization are at the bottom of such a dismal situation. However, Model11 offers a different, seemingly more negative possibility, and that is it is the nature of the condition itself (“Neither you nor I am going to win.”) that is in part responsible for such as dismal outcome. Whether attributed to lack of trust, fear of stigmatization, or whatever other reason may be used to explain such an outcome, this model would argue that the condition itself is conducive to failure and frustration. The issue here is how to minimize its deleterious relational effects and maximize its potentials, as discussed in Chap. 21.

172

13 Model11: Selfhood

Symbiosis AA Divisive/ Subtractive

No-self

Sameness

Similarity/Differentness

RR Static/ Positive

Selfish/Selfless

CC

Multiplicative/ Additive Selful

Oppositeness RR

Static/ Negative Selfish/Selfless

Alienation AA

Divisive/ Subtractive No-self

Fig. 13.2  Hypothetical relationships among four models of identity differentiation according to a continuum of likeness, styles, interactions, and Selfhood propensities

Does that mean that we must give up trying to help severe incompetence? On the contrary, it means that in addition to the possibilities outlined by Corrigan, we must recognize that severe incompetence needs to rely on multiple approaches, because, as argued in Chap. 21, it takes more than one approach to help those in severely incompetent relationships cooperate in their own care. New approaches, however, will have to include mass-oriented, media-relevant interventions that recognize the very nature of this condition. Additionally, all three communication media, talk, writing, and nonverbal exercise, would need to be engaged in this effort (L’Abate, 2002, 2008f). The disorders included in axis I are depressions, dissociations, schizophrenias, bipolarities, and psychoses. They are viewed as extensions and exacerbations in continuity and contiguity with disorders of axis II, as shown in Fig. 13.1. An additional feature of this model relates to the expansion of superior, adequate, and mediocre functionality that is supported also by three previous models (Model8, Model9, and Model10), as shown in Fig. 13.2 integrating, respectively, the likeness continuum with styles and interactions in intimate relationships and the Selfhood model11.

Expansion of the Relational Competence Theory to Addictions The major issue with addictions lies in their comorbidity with other DSM-IV syndromes, the co-occurrence of addictions and psychiatric conditions covering the whole range of incompetence and severe incompetence. For instance, most substance abuse takes place in cluster B relational disorders. However, it is also found in schizophrenics and other axis I disorders. Hence, to attempt an expansion of the theory to addictions is a chancy proposition, fraught with many caveats. One cannot link any addiction to any specific level or type of incompetence, at least at this time.

Expansion of the Relational Competence Theory to Addictions

173

Once the two abilities to love (Chap. 6, Model4) and to control self (Chap. 7, Model5) have been expanded into modalities and resources (Chap. 9, Model7) and linked with skills, it is possible to classify and possibly “explain” addictions, as habitually deviant patterns of relational behavior that tend to persist over time, oftentimes regardless of external interventions. Physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, for instance, may tend to derive from a selfish relational propensity, where the perpetrator “wins” at the expense of the victim. Instead of being present emotionally and practically, presence is shown through abuse. When one is not able to share hurts emotionally with loved ones, attempts could be made to establish multiple, sexual or even romantic relationships that should increase the sense of importance in Selflessness (L’Abate, in press). This is as far as the Selfhood model can go in encompassing addictions. In spite of these caveats, the following classification (Fig. 13.3) based on the two abilities to love and to negotiate, modalities, resources, and skills, is tentatively offered as a hypothesis. Whether this classification will be found useful remains to be seen. Behind most addictions there is a feeling of entitlement

Abilities

Modalities Model7

Resources Model7

Skills Model7

Addictions and Relational Propensities Abuse (Model9) Physical Verbal Sexual Selfishness(Model17)

Presence

Promiscuity Short or Driven "Love-relationships" (Mode 9) Selflessness (Model11) Religious/political fanaticism Television, Internet, Reading (Model8) Excessive work Excessive exercise (Model7) Excessive spending Gambling Relentless, driven pursuit of money (Model7) Food, Substance abuse Alcohol Medications Hoarding (Model7)

Importance Ability to love Model4

Being Intimacy

Information Doing

Performance Services

Ability to Control Self Model5

Money Having

Goods

Production

Fig. 13.3  Developmental competence theory and a classification of addictions

174

13 Model11: Selfhood

that the individual addict uses to justify the addiction, or finding others as being responsible for the addiction: “I have been hurt, and I am entitled to some pleasure, even though it may be temporary, ephemeral, and counterfeit.”

Research to Evaluate Model11 Model11 has been validated extensively also through paper-and-pencil, self-report instruments, as noted already. Two prototypical studies will be reported in their entirety to evaluate (1) Selfishness (Tables  13.1–13.6) and (2) Selflessness (Tables 13.7–13.9), and 19 different studies to evaluate the whole model are summarized in Table 13.10.

Evaluation of Selfishness One important prediction that derives from Model11 relates to the possibility that individuals with cluster B personality disorders, characterized by Selfishness, are very likely to be found in a prison and, therefore, would rate self higher then others. This prediction was collaborated by results obtained from a study (Zanardini, 2006), comparing inmates and external controls (Tables 13.1–13.6). Two hundred and twenty-eight participants were evaluated in two separate groups: group 1 included 109 violent and nonviolent imprisoned inmates and group 2 included 109 control participants recruited from the population in two separate regions of northern Italy. All were males and all were Italian citizens. Evaluation was performed with the permission of the judiciary and with the consent of all participants, since participation for this study was strictly voluntary with noncoercive conditions for nonparticipation and a guarantee of complete anonymity (Bandini, Gatti, Marugo, & Verde, 1991). All participants were administered the SOPC and the Relationship Answers Questionnaire described in L’Abate (2005) to evaluate the validities of Model1 in Chap. 3. Inmates bestow greater importance to self than to others (p < 0.01) There are no significant differences between the two groups – inmate group versus control group – in Self-Importance. In the control group, there are no significant differences between Self-Importance and importance of others. In inmates, on the other

Table 13.1  Age of 109 inmates and of 109 controls

M SD Range

Inmates 34.61 10.06 20–77

Controls 34.21   9.62 19–70

Research to Evaluate Model11 Table 13.2  Relational status of 109 inmates and 109 controls Inmates Relational status Frequency Percentage Single 57 52.29 Engaged 0 0.00 Cohabiting 18 16.51 Married 25 22.94 Divorced/separated 5 4.59 Widow/widower 4 3.67 Total 109 100

Table 13.3  Educational level of 109 inmates and 109 controls Inmates Education Frequency Percentage Elementary    2    1.83 Middle school   57   52.29 Technical high school   17   15.60 High school    5    4.59 College   25   22.94 College graduate    3    2.75 Total 109 100

175

Controls Frequency 49 0 10 48 2 0 109

Controls Frequency    1   50   24    0   31    3 109

Table 13.4  Occupational level of 109 inmates and 109 controls Inmates Controls Profession/job Frequency Percentage Frequency Professional 25 22.94 4 Unidentified 21 19.27 21 Office worker 5 4.59 16 Worker 13 11.93 28 Sales manager 9 8.26 10 Craftsman 25 22.94 21 Student 0 0.00 7 Apprentice 3 2.75 0 Unemployed 8 7.34 2 Total 109 100.00 109

Percentage 44.95 0.00 9.17 44.04 1.83 0.00 100.00

Percentage    0.92   45.87   22.02    0.00   28.44    2.75 100

Percentage 3.67 19.27 14.68 25.69 9.17 19.27 6.42 0.00 1.83 100.00

hand, Self-Importance is significantly greater than the importance of others (p < 0.05). More detailed results are reported in Tables 13.1–13.6. The mean scores for the present in the SOPC in inmates (M = 67.53) are not significantly different from those in controls [M = 67.70; F(1, 216) = 0.01, p = 0.92]. However, what distinguishes one group from the other is the mean scores for others

Table 13.5  Comparison between 109 inmates and 109 controls: means and standard deviations of scaled scores, mean differences, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) Inmates Controls Inmates vs. control ANOVA F Scales M1 SD1 M2 SD2 M1 − M2 (1, 216) Partial h2 E 32.69 6.11 31.29 5.12 1.39 3.33 0.02 R 37.37 5.76 37.27 5.96 0.10 0.02 0.01 A 40.20 5.80 35.92 5.14 4.28 33.35*** 0.13 Aw 35.80 5.00 35.26 4.49 0.54 0.71 0.01 C 23.95 5.17 24.66 4.30 −0.71 1.20 0.01 ISpres 67.53 11.94 67.70 12.12 −0.17 0.01 0.01 IOpres 63.28 12.68 69.94 9.70 −6.67 19.02*** 0.08 ISpast 64.77 11.60 63.00 11.96 1.77 1.23 0.01 IOpast 68.12 11.87 69.67 9.95 −1.55 1.09 0.01 ISfut 71.83 10.26 70.33 9.34 1.50 1.28 0.01 IOfut 66.14 12.25 72.04 9.58 −5.90 15.69*** 0.07 RSE 71.37 14.76 78.45 12.46 −7.08 4.65*** 0.06 E emotionality, R rationality, A action, Aw awareness, C context, ISpres importance of self in the present, IOpres importance of others in the present, ISpast importance of self in the past, IOpres importance of others in the past, ISfut importance of self in the future, IOfut importance of others in the future, RSE Rosemberg Self-Esteem Scale ***p < 0.001

176 13 Model11: Selfhood

–

8

– –

0.66** 0.27** 0.40** 0.30**

0.44**

0.29** 0.72**

10 0.19*

0.34** 0.31**

9

–

0.26** 0.83** 0.21** 0.64** 0.32**

11

–

0.25** −0.30** 0.20*

12

E – 0.31** 0.42** R – 0.51** 0.35** A – 0.20* Aw – −0.52** −0.20* −0.21* 0.41** C – −0.32** −0.36** −0.40** ISpres – 0.74** 0.87** 0.24* IOpres – −0.19** 0.88** 0.93** ISpast – −0.19* 0.56** −0.23* 0.26** IOpast – 0.76** ISfut – IOfut – RSE – E emotionality, R rationality, A action, Aw awareness, C context, ISpres importance of self in the present, IOpres importance of others in the present, ISpast importance of self in the past, IOpres importance of others in the past, ISfut importance of self in the future, IOfut importance of others in the future, RSE Rosemberg Self-Esteem Scale *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Table 13.6  Intercorrelations among scales for inmates (N = 109) and controls (N = 109) Subscales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E – 0.34** 0.28** R – 0.41** 0.21* A – Aw – −0.55** 0.29** C – ISpres – 0.28** IOpres – ISpast IOpast ISfut IOfut RSE

Research to Evaluate Model11 177

178

13 Model11: Selfhood

in the present, which are significantly lower (M = 63.28) with respect to the mean scores for controls [M = 69.94; F(1, 216) = 19.02, p < 0.001; h2 = 0.08]. These results suggest that inmates tend to show a selfish relational propensity determined not by a higher level of Self-Importance that is equal to the levels of Self-Importance in controls, but by a lower perception of the importance of others. The correlation (Table 13.6) between the mean scores for Self-Importance and the importance of others is significant in inmates (r = 0.28, p = 0.003) but not in controls (r = −0.05, p = 0.62), suggesting that such an association between the two dimensions might be more diffuse and stable among inmates than in controls.

Evaluation of Selflessness Another prediction from this model relates to how the attribution of importance is related to depression. The model predicts that in Selflessness, the importance of others is high in comparison with relatively lower Self-Importance. In this sense, depression should correlate negatively with Self-Importance and positively with importance of others, as shown in Tables 13.7–13.9 and 13.11. This prediction was partially verified by Trebo (2008) using German-speaking South Tyrolean lyceum students in northeastern Italy close to Austria, where there is a higher percentage of suicides relative to the rest of Italy (Klammer, Pycha, Seeber, & Zitturi, 2007). There were 121 participants, all students in the last high school grade (13th by Italian standards as the same age as American first-year college students), 40 males (33.10%) and 81 females (66.90%). All were bilingual, but German was used in textbooks and in classes. It might be interesting to note that the majority of the male students attended a scientific lyceum, whereas the majority of females attended a pedagogical (education) lyceum. Evaluation was conducted with two paper-andpencil, self-report instruments: (1) the SOPC and (2) the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) (Table 13.7). The results show that there was a significantly negative correlation between the CES-D mean score and Self-Importance (r = −0.33, p < 0.001), as predicted. However, there was also a significantly negative correlation between the CES-D mean score and the importance of others (r = −0. 31, p < 0.001). This unexpected finding suggests that depression may produce a negative perception not only of self but also of others.

Table  13.7  Self–Other Profile Chart (SOPC) and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) mean scores, standard deviations, and their distribution parameters for 121 South Tyrolenean students Kurtosis Scales M SD Skewness Self-Importance 74.83 12.03 −0.59 0.21 Other Importance 80.43 12.51 −0.63 −0.47 CES-D 40.39 10.88   1.13   2.14

Research to Evaluate Model11 Table 13.8  Scale correlations for 121 South Tyrolean students

179 Scales Self-Importance Other Importance CES-D

1 –

2 0.61** –

3 −0.33** −0.31** –

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 13.9  Subdivision of 121 students into three subgroups by CES-D scores CES-D Scores Subgroup N Males (%) Females (%) 1 27 29.63 70.37 score < M* − 1 DS* 2 68 32.35 67.65 score > M* − 1 DS*; score < M* + 1 DS* 3 26 38.46 61.54 score > M* + 1 DS* M* CES-D mean score of 121 South Tyrolean student, DS* standard deviation of CES-D scores of 121 South Tyrolenean students

On the basis of the scores on the CES-D, the whole sample was subdivided into three groups: (1) students with depression mean scores below the overall mean scores of the whole sample; (2) students with depression mean scores equal to the total mean scores of the whole sample; and (3) students with depression mean scores higher than the mean scores for the whole sample (Table 13.8). Analysis of variance for Self-Importance and importance of others and these three groups produced significant F ratios, [F(2, 118) = 4.25; p = 0.016; h2 = 0.07] [F(2, 118) = 5.95; p = 0.003; h2 = 0.09], respectively, confirming the relationship between the level of depression scores and how importance is bestowed on self and on others (Table 13.9). The ample number of participants and the distribution of scores on the SOPC (Table 13.7) allowed the mean scores of this instrument (Table 13.8) to be considered as an anchor point with which we can subdivide the whole sample into three groups (Tables 13.9). This subdivision also allows us to relate these three groups to their relative relational competencies. Participants with higher depressive symptomatology (group 3), for instance, show lower mean scores, even if not to a significant level, for Self-Importance [t(25) = −0.3.62, p = 0.001] and for importance of others [t(25) = −1.73; p = 0.09]. Students with lower depressive symptomatology (group 1) have significant higher mean scores for Self-Importance [t(25) = 3.62; p = 0.001] and for importance of others [t(25) = 2.66; p = 0.013]. Therefore, these results indicate that participants with higher depressive symptomatology (group 3) may tend to show a relational propensity toward No-Self, whereas participants with lower depressive symptomatology (group 1) may tend toward a more selful relational propensity. Consequently, the prediction between depression and attribution of importance toward self and others is only partially verified, suggesting that further work needs to be done to verify this prediction, as found in a more exhaustive and specific evaluation of this model given below.

N = 95 married couples with children

N = 190 married participants: n = 95 males (1); n = 95 females (2) N = 5 married couples

Gagliostro (1994)

Frattini (1994)

N = 100 married couples with children

N = 102 married participants with adolescent offspring (1): n = 51 males (2) and n = 51 females (3)

Giordano (1996)

Carattoni (1997)

Fontana (1996)

Participants

References

DRT, SOPCa, and PSr

DRT and ENRICHr

DRT

DRT

DRT and MIQ

Test

Construct validity of DRT in (1)

Construct validity through intervention Convergent validity

Criterion validity in (1) and (2)

Convergent validity of DRT and MIQ

Research questions

Table 13.10  Convergent and construct validity for Model11 Selfhood

Selful: selfless r = 0.28, p < 0.01 Selfish: selfless r = 0.40, p < 0.001; No-Self r = 0.63, p < 0.001 Selfless: No-Self r = 0.58, p < 0.001

Selful: children and marriage r = 0.20, p < 0.01; financial management r = 0.14, p < 0.05; relation with relatives r = 0.15, p < 0.05; family and friends r = 0.20, p < 0.01 Selfless: children and marriage r = 0.24, p < 0.01; leisure activities r = 0.15, p < 0.05; family and friends r = 0.14, p < 0.05 Selfish: children and marriage r = −0.24, p < 0.01 No-Self: children and marriage r = −0.17, p < 0.01

Selful test–retest: t(14) = 3.04, p < 0.01

Selful: communicating values r = 0.38, p < 0.001; respect for feelings r = 0.28, p < 0.001; accepting limitations r = 0.21, p < 0.01; affirming potentialities r = 0.33, p < 0.001; sharing of hurts r = 0.22, p < 0.001; forgiveness of errors r = 0.23, p < 0.001 Selfish: communicating values r = −0.20, p < 0.01; respect for feelings r = −0.24, p < 0.001; accepting limitations r = −0.13, p < 0.05; affirming potentialities r = −0.18, p < 0.01; sharing of hurts r = −0.22, p < 0.001; forgiveness of errors r = −0.29, p < 0.001 Selfless: communicating values r = −0.16, p < 0.05; respect for feelings r = −0.18, p < 0.01; accepting limitations r = −0.14, p < 0.05; sharing of hurts r = −0.16, p < 0.05 No-Self: communicating values r = −0.34, p < 0.001; respect for feelings r = −0.25, p < 0.001; accepting limitations r = −0.23, p < 0.001; affirming potentialities r = −0.22, p < 0.001; sharing of hurts r = −0.31, p < 0.001; forgiveness of errors r = −0.28, p < 0.001 Selful: t(188) = 4.14, p < 0.01Selfish: t(188) = 3.58, p < 0.01

Results

Gaiotto (1997)

N = 120 nonclinical participants: n = 60 males (1); n = 60 females (2)

DRT, SOPCa, and AAQ

(2) No-Self: autonomy r = 0.31, p < 0.05 (3) Selfish: autonomy r = 0.40, p < 0.01 No-Self: autonomy r = 0.34, p < 0.05; control r = -0.37, p < 0.05 (2) Other Importance (2nd factor): control r = 0.39, p < 0.05 (3) Self-Importance (1st factor): control r = −0.63, p < 0.05

Convergent validity of DRT and PSr in (2) and (3) Convergent validity of SOPC and PSr in (2) and (3)

Criterion validity in (1) and (2) of DRT Criterion validity in (1) and (2) of SOPC

Convergent validity of SOPC and AAQ

Self-Importance (2nd factor): t(118) = 2.02, p < 0.01

(continued)

Selful: secure r = 0.55, p < 0.001; avoidance r = −0.49, p < 0.001; fearful r = −0.44, p < 0.001 Selfish: secure r = −0.38, p < 0.001; preoccupied r = −0.35, p < 0.001; avoidance r = 0.81, p < 0.001; fearful r = 0.30, p < 0.001 Selfless: preoccupied r = 0.74, p < 0.001; avoidance r = −0.41, p < 0.001; fearful r = 0.20, p < 0.05 No-Self: secure r = −0.67, p < 0.001; preoccupied r = 0.50, p < 0.001; avoidance r = 0.43, p < 0.001; fearful r = 0.71, p < 0.001 Self-Importance (1st factor): secure r = 0.62, p < 0.001; preoccupied r = −0.37, p < 0.001; avoidance r = −0.37, p < 0.001; fearful r = −0.50, p < 0.001 Self-Importance (2nd factor): secure r = 0.27, p < 0.001; preoccupied r = −0.41, p < 0.001; avoidance r = 0.18, p < 0.05; fearful r = −0.25, p < 0.01 Other Importance (1st factor): secure r = 0.53, p < 0.001; avoidance r = −0.56, p < 0.001; fearful r = −0.50, p < 0.001 Other Importance (2nd factor): secure r = 0.38, p < 0.001; preoccupied r = −0.28, p < 0.001; avoidance r = −0.16, p < 0.05; fearful r = −0.45, p < 0.001 Selful: t(118) = −1.24, p < 0.01

Selful: self importance (1st factor): r = 0.39, p < 0.001; Other Importance (1st factor) r = 0.27, p < 0.01 Selfish: self importance (2nd factor) r = 0.24, p < 0.05; Selfless: self importance (1st factor) r = -0.19, p < 0.01 No-Self: self importance (2nd factor) r = 0.22, p < 0.05

Convergent validity of DRT and SOPC in (1)

Convergent validity of DRT-3 and AAQ

Self-Importance (1st factor): Self-Importance (2nd factor) r = 0.48, p < 0.001; Other Importance (1st factor) r = 0.29, p < 0.01; Other Importance (2nd factor) r = 0.26, p < 0.01 Self-Importance (2nd factor): Other Importance (1st factor) r = 0.29, p < 0.01; Other Importance (2nd factor) r = 0.26, p < 0.01 Other Importance (1st factor): Other Importance (2nd factor) r = 0.45, p < 0.001

Construct validity of SOPC in (1)

Participants

N = 261 undergraduates attending the first course

N = 100 couples with children (1) and N = 60 fiancées (21–39 years old) (2)

N = 105 fiancés (1), N = 105 fiancées (2), N = 108 fathers (3), and N = 131 mothers (4)

References

Lindaver (1998)

Salvo (1998)

Amadori (1999)

Table 13.10  (continued)

DRT-1, DRT-6, and AAQ

Construct validity in (1)

DTR and AAQ

Convergent validity of DRT-6 and AAQ in (4)

Convergent validity of DRT-1 and AAQ in (1) Convergent validity of DRT-1 and AAQ in (2) Convergent validity of DRT-6 and AAQ in (3)

Criterion validity in (1) and (2)

Convergent validity of DRT and AAQ in (1) Construct validity in (2) Convergent validity of DRT and AAQ in (2)

Convergent validity of SOFC and FACESr Convergent validity of SOFC and AAQ

Research questions

SOPC, AAQ, and FACESr

Test

Selfish: secure r = −0.31, p < 0.01; avoidance r = 0.30, p < 0.01; fearful r = 0.28, p < 0.01 Selfless: preoccupied r = 0.31, p < 0.01 No-Self: secure r = −0.22, p < 0.05; fearful r = 0.32, p < 0.01 Selful: secure r = 0.27, p < 0.01; avoidance r = −0.19, p < 0.05 Selfless: preoccupied r = 0.30, p < 0.01; fearful r = 0.32, p < 0.01 No-Self: preoccupied r = 0.32, p < 0.01; fearful r = 0.24, p < 0.05 Selful: secure r = 0.33, p < 0.01; avoidance r = −0.20, p < 0.05; fearful r = −0.22, p < 0.05 Selfish: avoidance r = 0.20, p < 0.05, fearful r = 0.20, p < 0.05 Selfless: secure r = 0.21, p < 0.05; preoccupied r = 0.21, p < 0.05 No-Self: fearful r = 0.21, p < 0.05 Selful: secure r = 0.22, p < 0.05 Selfish: avoidance: r = 0.31, p < 0.01 Selfless: fearful r = 0.22, p < 0.05 No-Self: preoccupied r = 0.20, p < 0.05; avoidance r = 0.22, p < 0.05; fearful r = 0.36, p < 0.01

Selful: selfless r = 0.30, p < 0.001 Selfish: selfless r = 0.24, p < 0.05 No-Self: selfish r = 0.29, p < 0.001; selfless: r = 0.39, p < 0.001 Selfless: preoccupied r = 0.12, p < 0.05 Selfish: avoidance r = 0.15, p < 0.05 No-Self: fearful r = 0.27, p < 0.001 Selful: selfless: r = 0.20, p < 0.05 No-Self: selfish r = 0.41, p < 0.001; selfless r = 0.24, p < 0.01 Selful: secure: r = 23, p < 0.01 Selfless: preoccupied r = 0.26, p < 0.01 Selfish: avoidance r = 0.47, p < 0.001 No-Self: fearful r = 0.39, p < 0.001 Selful: t(208) = −2.68, p < 0.01, Selfish: t(208) = 2.65, p < 0.01, selfless: t(208) = 2.66, p < 0.01

Selfhood positions: secure F(3, 129) = 10.73, p < 0.001; avoidance F(3, 129) = 7.17, p < 0.001; fearful F(3, 129) = 4.16, p < 0.001

Selfhood positions: cohesion F(3, 129) = 17.26, p < 0.001; adaptability F(3, 129) = 9.28, p < 0.001

Results

Maino et al. (1999) and Maino and Fara (2000)

N = 1,229 respondents (1): n = 824 respondents in a control group (2) and n = 405 respondents in an experimental group of families with handicapped children (3)

SOPC, OPI, FESr, F-COPES, and QRS (1) Self-profile: optimism r = 0.17, p < 0.001; pessimism r = −0.14, p = 0.001 (1) Other profile: optimism r = 0.19, p < 0.001; pessimism r = −0.10, p = 0.001 (2) Self-profile: optimism r = 0.17, p < 0.001; pessimism r = −0.16, p = 0.001 (2) Other profile: optimism r = 0.17, p < 0.001; pessimism r = −0.11, p = 0.001 (3) Self-profile: optimism r = 0.18, p < 0.001 (3) Other profile: optimism r = 0.23, p < 0.001

(1) Self-profile: cohesion r = 0.14, p < 0.001; expressiveness r = 0.19, p < 0.001; conflict r = −0.12, p < 0.001; independence r = 0.16, p < 0.001; achievement orientation r = 0.17, p < 0.001; control r = −0.10, p < 0.001 (1) Other profile: cohesion r = 0.21, p < 0.001; expressiveness r = 0.23, p < 0.001; conflict r = −0.20, p < 0.001; independence r = 0.17, p < 0.001; achievement orientation r = 0.21, p < 0.001; control r = −0.12, p < 0.001 (2) Self-profile: cohesion r = 0.12, p < 0.001; expressiveness r = 0.17, p < 0.001; conflict r = −0.11, p < 0.001; independence r = 0.17, p < 0.001; achievement orientation r = 0.18, p < 0.001; control r = −0.09, p < 0.05 (2) Other profile: cohesion r = 0.19, p < 0.001; expressiveness r = 0.19, p < 0.001; conflict r = −0.17, p < 0.001; independence r = 0.16, p < 0.001; achievement orientation r = 0.22, p < 0.001; control r = −0.10, p < 0.05 (3) Self-profile: cohesion r = 0.18, p < 0.001; expressiveness r = 0.23, p < 0.001; conflict r = −0.13, p < 0.05; independence r = 0.15, p < 0.005; achievement orientation r = 0.14, p < 0.05 (3) Other profile: cohesion r = 0.26, p < 0.001; expressiveness r = 0.28, p < 0.001; conflict r = −0.24, p < 0.001; independence r = 0.18, p < 0.001; achievement orientation r = 0.18, p < 0.001; control r = −0.15, p < 0.05 (1) Self-profile: redefinition of the problem r = 0.16, p < 0.001; obtaining community support r = 0.08, p < 0.05 (1) Other profile: redefinition of the problem r = 0.17, p < 0.001; obtaining community support r = 0.20, p < 0.001; passive acceptance of problematic issues r = −0.11, p < 0.001 (2): Self-profile: redefinition of the problem r = 0.16, p < 0.001; obtaining community support r = 0.11, p < 0.05 (2) Other profile: redefinition of the problem r = 0.11, p < 0.001; obtaining community support r = 0.19, p < 0.001; passive acceptance of problematic issues r = −0.12, p < 0.001 (3) Self-profile: redefinition of the problem r = 0.17, p < 0.001 (3) Other profile: redefinition of the problem r = 0.29, p < 0.001; obtaining community support r = 0.22, p < 0.001

Convergent validity of SOPC and OPI in (1) and (2) and (3)

Convergent validity of SOPC and FESr in (1) and (2) and (3)

Convergent validity of SOPC and F-COPES in (1) and (2) and (3)

(continued)

(1) Self-profile: other profile r = 0.48, p < 0.001 (2) Self-profile: other profile r = 0.46, p < 0.001 (3) Self-profile: other profile r = 0.50, p < 0.001

Construct validity in (1) and (2) and (3)

Participants

N = 146 fiancées (1), N = 88 fiancée mothers (2), N = 70 fiancée fathers (3)

N = 78 married males (1) and N = 78 married females (2)

N = 384 nonclinical participants (1): n = 76 males, n = 308 females (2); n = 236 high school students (age 15–20) (3); n = 168 undergraduates (age 21–27) (4)

Segatto (2000)

Segatto and Chiovatti (2000)

Scilletta (2002)

Table 13.10  (continued)

References

SOPC and LCP

DRT, F-DES, and PQT

DRT and AAQ

Test

Selful: z = 3.53, p < 0.05 Selfish: z = −2.00, p < 0.05 Selfless: z = −3.13, p < 0.05 No-Self: z = 4.13, p < 0.05 Selful: z = 1.96, p < 0.05 Selfish: z = −3.18, p < 0.05 Selfless: z = −2.88, p < 0.05 No-Self: z = 2.37, p < 0.05

SOPC distribution in (4)

Self-Importance: c2 (1, 236) = 49.51, P = <0.001, GFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.06 Other Importance: c2 (1, 236) = 73.35, P = <0.001, GFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.82, RMSEA = 0.09

SOPC distribution in (3)

Convergent validity of DRT and PQT in (4) and (5) Construct validity of SOPC in (1)

(1) Selful: joy r = 0.45, p < 0.01; empathy r = 0.25, p < 0.05; anger r = −0.23, p < 0.05 (1) Selfless: joy r = 0.34, p < 0.01 (1) No-Self: sadness r = 0.29, p < 0.05; fear r = 0.28, p < 0.05 (2) Selful: joy r = 0.27, p < 0.05; empathy r = 0.30, p < 0.01; fear r = 0.23, p < 0.05 (2) Selfish: anger r = 0.25, p < 0.05; blame r = 0.30, p < 0.01; sadness r = 0.34, p < 0.01; fear r = 0.24, p < 0.05 (2) Selfless: sadness r = 0.27, p < 0.05; fear r = 0. 37, p < 0.01 (2) No-Self: joy r = −0.27, p < 0.05; anger r = 0.45, p < 0.01; blame r = 0.33, p < 0.01; sadness r = 0.56, p < 0.01; fear r = 0.30, p < 0.01 (1) Selful: r = 0.29, p < 0.05 (2) Selfish: r = −0.26, p < 0.05; No-Self: r = −0.44, p < 0.01

Self-profile: parental and family problems in relation to the handicapped child r = −0.17, p < 0.001; pessimism in relation to the characteristics of the handicapped child r = −0.18, p < 0.001; characteristics of the handicapped child r = −0.19, p < 0.05 (1) Selful: avoidance r = −0.20, p < 0.05 (1) Selfish: avoidance r = 0.34, p < 0.01; frightened r = 0.18, p < 0.05 (1) Selfless: preoccupied r = 0.24, p < 0.01 (1) No-Self: preoccupied r = 0.25, p < 0.01; frightened r = 0.29, p < 0.01 (2) Selful: secure r = 0.23, p < 0.05; avoidance r = −0.39, p < 0.01 (2) No-Self: preoccupied r = 0.23, p < 0.05; frightened r = 0.28, p < 0.01 (3) No-Self: secure r = −0.25, p < 0.05; avoidance r = 0.25, p < 0.05

Convergent validity of SOPC and QRS in (3) Convergent validity of DRT and AAQ in (1), (2), and (3)

Convergent validity of DRT and F-DES in (1) and (2)

Results

Research questions

N = 12 depressed women (1), and N = 12 nonclinical women (2) N = 144: n = 61 “normal” group; n = 43 outpatients in a private psychiatric service; n = 20 outpatients in a family therapy facility; n = 20  inpatients in a universityaffiliated state psychiatric clinic

De Ambrosi (2003)

L’Abate and De Giacomo (2003)

Nonclinical: N = 60 married couples without children (1): n = 60 married males (2); n = 60 married females (3)

Fenili (2002)

SOPC, AAQ, SVQ

SOPC

DRT and OAS

R2 = 0.14, F(1, 235) = 10.82, b = −0.16, p < 0.001

Convergent and divergent validity of three models of intimate relationships

Convergent validity of DTR and OAS in (1) Criterion validity in (2) and (3) Criterion validity in (1) and (2)

(continued)

SOPC-Self: secure attachment: r = 0.22, p < 0.01), SVQ-F2: r = 0.27, p < 0.01; SVQ-F3: r = 0.26, p < 0.01; fearful attachment: r = −0.18, p < 0.05. SOPC-Other: dismissing attachment: r = 0.29, p < 0.01; fearful attachment: r = −0.26, p < 0.01; SVQ-F2: r = −0.28, p < 0.01; preoccupied attachment: r = 0.19, p < 0.05

Selful of (1) < (2): z = 8.17, p < 0.001; selfish of (1) > (2): z = 3.89, p < 0.05; selfless of (1) > (2): z = 9.65, p < 0.001; No-Self of (1) > (2): z = 9.76, p < 0.001

Selfless: F(1, 118) = 8.27; p = 0.005

Selful: Selfless R2 = 0.071; F(1, 118) = 8.96; b = 0.27; p = 0.003 Selfless: selful R2 = 0.071; F(1, 118) = 8.96; b = 0.27; p = 0.003; OAS R2 = 0.047; F(1, 118) = 5.76; b = 0.23; p = 0.018 Selfish: No-Self R2 = 0.071; F(1, 118) = 8.98; b = 0.27; p = 0.003 No-Self: selfish R2 = 0.071; F(1, 118) = 8.98; b = 0.27; p = 0.003 Selfless: OAS: r = 0.22; p = 0.018

Criterion validity in (3) Construct validity in (1)

Similarity differentiation: Self-Importance: r = −0.21, p < 0.001; Other Importance: r = −0.15, p < 0.05

Convergent validity of SOPC and LCP (3)

N = 109 prisoners (1) and N = 109 nonprisoners (2)

Zanardini (2006)

Test

SOPC, RS

DTR-5, BFQr

SOPC

Research questions

Criterion validity in (1) and (2) Convergent validity of SOPC and RS

Convergent validity of DTR-5 and BFQr

Construct validity

Criterion validity in (1) and (2)

Results

Self-profile: r = 0.21; p < 0.01

Selful: selfless r = 0.40, p < 0.01 Selfish: selfless r = 0.26, p < 0.05; No-Self r = 0.45, p < 0.05 Selfless: No-Self r = 0.44, p < 0.01 Selful: cooperativeness r = 0.26; p < 0.05 Selfish: cordiality r = −0.38, p < 0.01; impulse control r = −0.36; p < 0.01 Selfless: perseverance r = −0.28, p < 0.05 No-Self: cordiality r = −0.34, p < 0.01; cooperativeness r = −0.31, p < 0.05; impulse control r = −0.28, p < 0.05 Self-profile: F(1, 274) = 19.02; p < 0.001

Selful of (1) < (2): z = 9.53, p < 0.001; selfish of (1) > (2): z = 11.65, p < 0.001; selfless of (1) > (2): z = 6.38, p < 0.01; No-Self of (1) > (2): z = 9.84, p < 0.001

DRT Dyadic Relationship Test, MIQ Marital Intimacy Questionnaire, ENRICHr Evaluating and Nurturing Relationship Issues, Communication, Happiness, revised, SOPC Self–Other Profile Chart, PSr Parenting Scales revised, AAQ Adult Attachment Questionnaire (Italian version), FACESr FACES III, revised, F-COPES Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale, QRS short form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress, F-DES Family Differential Emotion Scale, PQT Partner Quality Test, OAS Optimistic Attitude Scale, BFQr Big Five Questionnaire, revised, RS Rosenberg Self-Esteem, Italian version, FESr Family Environmental Scale, revised, LCP Likeness Continuum Profile, OPI Optimism and Pessimism Instrument, CFI comparative fit index, GFI goodness-of-fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation a Self-profile and other profile items analyzed by the standard error of the mean confirming two factors each

Bidoli (2006)

Participants

N = 27 psychiatric patients (1) and N = 27 nonclinicals (2) N = 60 parents of adolescents

Longhin (2003)

Table 13.10  (continued)

References

Research to Evaluate Model11

187

Evaluation of Overall Model11 Nineteen studies performed during the last 12 years were conducted to validate Model11. Evidence to support the criterion, convergent, and construct validity of measures derived from Model11 is found in Table 13.11. Seven studies (Carattoni, 1997, Gagliostro, 1994; Gaiotto, 1997; Giordano, 1996; Lindaver, 1998, Maino & Fara, 2000; Maino et al., 1999; Salvo, 1998) concern the construct validity of the SOPC. In short, nonclinical individuals show their Selfulness correlated mainly with Selflessness, Selfishness, and Selflessness correlated in between, No-Self correlated with Selfishness, and Self-Importance and importance of others correlated in between and with Selfulness. Five studies (Amadori, 1999; Fenili, 2002; Frattini, 1994; Longhin, 2003; Zanardini, 2006) concern the criterion validity: males appear more selfish, with higher level of Self-Importance and, at times, more selfless as well. Fourteen studies (Amadori, 1999; Bidoli, 2006; Fenili, 2002; Gagliostro, 1994; Gaiotto, 1997; Giordano, 1996; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003; Lindaver, 1998; Maino & Fara, 2000; Maino et al., 1999; Scilletta, 2002; Segatto & Chiovatti 2000; Zanardini, 2006) concern the convergent/divergent validity. Comparisons are made with models/dimensions inside and outside relational competence theory: among the first, the intimacy dimensions are monitored; among the second, there are the dimensions of parenting (relational competence theory), those of family environment (Family Environmental Scale, revised), partner qualities (Partner Quality Test), positive and negative emotions (Family Differential Emotion Scale), resources and stress (short form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress and the Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale), optimism and pessimism (Optimism and Pessimism Instrument), dimensions of big fives (Big Five Questionnaire), and, principally, the four attachment propensities (Adult Attachment Questionnaire; AAQ). In short, convergent validity is positively tested between Selfhood dimensions and those of other similar models/dimensions. Convergence is higher among models using similar languages and verified with homogeneous subject groups. For example, similarities among three different models of relationships, attachment, Selfhood, and the elementary pragmatic model (EPM) were tested by L’Abate and De Giacomo (2003). All three models propose one functional dimension, two borderline functional dimensions, and one clearly dysfunctional dimension. The attachment model has been evaluated with AAQ, Selfhood with SOPC and EPM

Table 13.11  Self-Importance and importance of others scores in subgroups Self-Importance Importance of others Subgroups M SD M SD 1 81.22 9.17 84.78 8.48 2 73.84 10.91 80.75 11.88 3 70.81 14.98 75.08 15.75

188

13 Model11: Selfhood

with SVQ. The results show many similarities: SOPC-Self correlates positivity with secure attachment (r = 0.22, p < 0.01), SVQ-F2 (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), SVQ-F3 (r = 0.26, p < 0.01) and negativity with fearful attachment (r = −0.18, p < 0.05). SOPC-Other correlates negativity with dismissing attachment (r = 0.29, p < 0.01), fearful attachment (r = −0.26, p < 0.01), and SVQ-F2 (r = −0.28, p < 0.01) and positivity with preoccupied attachment (r = 0.19, p < 0.05). Lindaver (1998) applied instead SOPC, AAQ, and FACES III, revised – with reference to the circumplex family model of Olson (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1979) – to 261 undergraduate students attending the beginner course in psychology. The research results clearly attest to similarities: Selfhood with cohesion [F(3, 129) = 17.26, p < 0.001] and adaptability [F(3, 129) = 9.28, p < 0.001]; Selfhood with attachment propensities [secure F(3, 129) = 10.73, p < 0.001; avoidance F(3, 129) = 7.17, p < 0.001; fearful F(3, 129) = 4.16, p < 0.001].

Conclusion These results tend to confirm the convergent, criterion, and construct validities of this model.

Chapter 14

Model12: Priorities

“Money is the salt on the plate of life. Too much makes one careless, too little makes one hungry for more, just right and you can enjoy life without worry. Enough is judged by each individual and therein lies the rub. But family and friends are the true measure of wealth” Maria Costa Your Mature and Worldly Priorities Your second round Exemplifies maturity No shameful games for posterity Playfulness, maybe, You hide it. Intuitiveness reigns, You feign wit, And logic makes you fit. Do not entice charity. Dimes and dollars show prosperity. Blue business suits befit thee Along with funds for taxis. No problem; Your wealth will make you free! All that you wanted to be, Along with your condos in cities, Villas in countries. To circulate with money, A substance that prevails, Economic prosperity, Triumphs over poetry, That which you most love. Laura Sweeney

Priorities have been discussed fully in previous writings but will be discussed further here to elaborate and expand on them in ways that may have been overlooked in the past. Model12 concerns the construct of priorities and its synonymous

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_14, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

189

190

14 Model12: Priorities

motivational constructs, such as goals, motives, intentions, needs, wants, and attitudes. Whatever these similar constructs may be called, they involve a process of prioritization: choosing who and what is more important or urgent than someone or something else. Priorities are whatever attitudes, goals, needs, values, and wants are realistically relevant, important, and urgent for intimate relationships in their own rights and to members of a particular group (family, friends, or relatives). No matter what term one uses, any of those motivational terms listed above are similar to or even synonymous for “priorities”, because any particular attitude, goal, motive, need, value, or want has to be prioritized according to its relevance, importance, and urgency to an individual’s and to intimates’ survival and well-being. We all have to prioritize what is more relevant, important, or urgent for us. To function properly and appropriately in this world, we continuously have to decide what is more relevant, realistic, important, and urgent for us as individuals as well as to us as members of a proximal context of intimate relationships, whether partners, children, parents, siblings, in-laws, or friends. This process oftentimes is automatic and below the level of awareness. That is why professional helpers, as discussed at the end of this chapter, need to bring priorities out in the open. Otherwise, this process might remain hidden underneath the awareness of individuals, couples, and families.

Dimensions of Priorities Priorities affect how intimates relate to each other, with nonintimates, and with the world at large. There are certain dimensions of priorities that need qualification. First, priorities are hidden to the extent that individuals and intimates may not be aware of them at various levels of awareness along a continuum ranging from being openly spoken all the way to being unconsciously hidden and unspoken. A second dimension of clarity ranges from priorities being very clear at one end to being unclear, mixed, and confused at the other end. More often than not, as noted, priorities are automatic and completely hidden from awareness of self and intimates. Consequently, “hidden” also means that, since priorities oftentimes exist below levels of awareness and are often unclear and confused, professional helpers need not to take them for granted but need to introduce and evaluate how they affect functioning. A third dimension is priorities as ingredients that need to be considered throughout the course of professional interventions to obtain a positive outcome. Synonymous terms for “ingredient” are “determinant,” “construct,” “variable,” “process,” and “factor.”

Background About Priorities The list of references for constructs conceptually similar to if not synonymous with priorities, such as attitudes, goals, motives, needs, values, and wants, is so large that it would be impossible to review them all in this chapter. Reviews of the literature

Background About Priorities

191

about these similar constructs can be found in L’Abate (2005), Carver, Scheier, and Fulford, (2008), Ryan and Deci (2008), and Schultheiss (2008). Furthermore, priorities need to be differentiated from one family member to another: what might be relevant, important, and urgent for one member may not be so for another member. Indeed, the inevitable process of differentiation within the family follows a developmental trajectory that allows members to individuate themselves according to this and at least two other important models of relational competence theory (RCT) already considered separately: resemblance or likeness (Model8, Chap. 12) and selfhood (Model11, Chap. 13). Hence, no matter what construct one chooses theoretically or therapeutically, one needs to rate and to rank-order, that is, prioritize what is more realistic, clearer, more important, relevant, and more urgent than other attitudes, goals, needs, values, or wants. No matter what they are called, these constructs eventually must be converted into priorities. This is why priorities are important as a motivational construct that needs inclusion and consideration in any type of intervention, self-help, promotional, preventive, therapeutic, or rehabilitative approach, regardless of its theoretical orientation. Previous writings by the first author, however, have failed to link systematically the construct of priorities to the other models of the theory. Priorities, however, can be linked to how one expresses one’s sense of importance, as discussed in Chap. 13. Hence, to measure priorities we must use the same items used to evaluate selfimportance and the importance of others as measured by the Self–Other Profile Scale (Table D.1) rather than abstract terms taken from various descriptions of goals by theorists to be reviewed. Priorities include immediate and long-term plans or expectations based on their reality orientation, importance, and urgency. The two major priorities in life are survival and enjoyment (Csikszentmihaly, 2004) as discussed and evaluated in Model5 (Chap. 7). The notion of priorities was chosen as being more appropriate than the more widely used pall-mail notion of “goals” (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Carver, 2004; Higgins & Spiegel, 2004; Sheldon, 2004).The reason for this usage is due to the process necessary to rank goals. Some goals are more important than others. Some goals are more urgent than others. Yet, most “goal” theorists cited here and elsewhere have written at length and researched them in general, without distinguishing among goals according to various criteria of importance, urgency, reality, time orientation, stages in the life cycle, and context. Hence, the notion of priorities allows one to relate a variety of conscious and unconscious, i.e., automatic, goals according to a hierarchy that gives some kind of framework to include many, oftentimes disparate, goals. Therefore, the purpose of this background is to bring together selectively what has been written and found empirically about goals that relates to the framework set by a notion of priorities. Collins, Guichard, Ford, and Feeney (2004), for instance, have argued about the relationship between goals (in general) and needs, suggesting the importance of individual differences in “the structure of goals.” According to the attachment model, “…the goal structures of secure and insecure individuals should differ considerably (p. 204).” These authors cited a variety of

192

14 Model12: Priorities

research studies that support the importance of individual differences in goal and priority setting. The major distinction among goals relates to approach–avoidance tendencies that change from one individual to another. In the same vein, Phillips et al. (1991) suggested that, “goal commitment is primarily a function of the degree to which participants perceive that goal attainment is instrumental in satisfying salient task-oriented needs (p. 59).” Type A personalities, for instance, should differ in their goal setting from type B personalities. Hence, individual differences need to be considered in how priorities are set. Goal difficulty was one dimension that entered in Collins et al.’s model of goal setting for type A individuals. Sheldon (2004) equated personal goals with intentions, distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic goals. The former would include emotional intimacy, community feelings, and personal growth. The latter would include financial success, physical attraction, and popularity. Sheldon linked personal goals to the optimal human being by selecting goals that are consistent with each other, realistically supported by relevant skills, including also one’s enduring interests, core values, and deepest beliefs, and selecting approach rather than avoidance goals (p. 113). Temporal orientation is an important variable to consider in goal setting according to intrinsic and extrinsic goals (Model3, Chap. 5). The former include emotional intimacy, community feeling, and personal growth, whereas the latter include financial success, social popularity, and physical attractiveness. Apparently, reliance on extrinsic rather than intrinsic goals may lower the level of well-being (Sheldon, 2004). Jones and Brown (2005) have discussed the cultural differences that make for different kinds of priorities. Being on time, for instance, is valued in the North American culture, whereas having a good time may be more valued in some Caribbean cultures. Perhaps a list may summarize the various types of goals that have been suggested in the extant literature (Fig. 14.1). Carver (2004) finally understood the importance of priority management through ranking, rather than just discussing goals in general, as a core issue in selfregulation: “Humans usually pursue many goals simultaneously, and only one can have top priority at any given moment (p. 23).” Additionally, Carver credited Simon (1967) for pointing out that: ___________________________________ abstract vs. concrete ad hoc vs. theory-derived automatic unknown vs. available known immediate vs. delayed intrinsic vs. extrinsic minimal vs. maximal practical vs. impractical proximal vs. distal realistic vs. unrealistic self vs. other oriented short-term vs. long-term ___________________________________

Fig.  14.1  Dimensions of how priorities have been discussed in the extant literature

A Model of Priorities

193

“…any entity that has many goals needs a way of ranking them for pursuit and a mechanism to change the rankings is necessary. Most of the goals we are pursuing are largely outside awareness at any given moment. Only one with the highest priority has full access to consciousness (p. 24).”

Simon (1967), as cited by Carver, argued that emotions are necessary to start a process of “reprioritization,” whereby emotions lead to a greater awareness of what goals are involved in that process. Unfortunately, Carver fell into using a misleading negative–positive valence for feelings by lumping together a variety of feelings that need to be distinguished on the basis of at least two basic dimensions of emotions: pleasure–pain and strong–weak, rather than negativity–positivity. Is anger similar to hurt and should both be considered as “negative”? (L’Abate, in press). Nonetheless, Carver is unique among many “goal” theorists in validating the concept of priority as an overarching construct over goals, as argued repeatedly by the first author in previous writings. This criticism would in no way diminish Carver’s contribution. However, one could find previous work on priorities that is misleading and incomplete because it fails to focus on relevant and concrete priorities that are theory-derived rather than goals void of theoretical links to an overarching framework, as in goals in search of a theory. Furthermore, most theorists reviewed here failed to specify the content of goals: To what do they pertain? What do they specify? Consequently, priorities can be divided according to self–other orientation and concrete versus abstract ones (Fig. 14.1). Furthermore, rather than talk about goals without a theoretical context, the rest of this chapter will be devoted to priorities within the context of RCT.

A Model of Priorities There are two types of priorities: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal priorities include how much time and energy are spent in each of these four settings (1) home; (2) school/work; (3) transit (airplanes, buses, cars, trains, etc.); and (4) transitory (barber, beauty saloon, church, grocery stores, movie theaters, etc.) (Model3 Chap. 5). These priorities can be evaluated informally and relatively quickly during an initial interview: how much time is spent in each of these settings by self and intimates. Vertical priorities, on the other hand, are more complex in their major manifestations (1) self, (2) intimate others, (3) couple relationships, and (4) individuals, as available in Tables D.1 and D.2. These instruments, therefore, represent the operational definitions of priorities in their four manifestations (1) self, (2) intimate others, (3) general individual, and (4) couples. General individual priorities (Table D.1) are much more specific and deal with all the possible desires and wishes we all have and dream about. By their very nature, they are more personal than couple relationships. This questionnaire, however, is strictly experimental. It has not been yet validated and, therefore, needs further empirical validation. From all the measures of couple priorities that resulted in ten major dimensions, participants can define what each dimension means to them, rating

194

14 Model12: Priorities

each dimension according to how it affects the couple relationship in the present, rank-ordering them according to their personal importance to each partner. Both general individual and couple priorities (Table D.2), however, have the potential to be expanded further by asking for participants to define, even with the help of a dictionary, what is meant by each item and give two examples, before asking the ranking to be completed according to how important each item is to the individual or to the couple. This rank-order could become part of further, extended systematic detailed discussions or even written homework assignments about what each highly ranked item (one at a time please) means to individual participants in their implications for self and for family functioning (L’Abate, 2010). It would be difficult but not impossible to evaluate couple, family, or individual priorities informally during a face-to-face interview. It would be more feasible to evaluate them formally with the administration of Tables D.1 and D.2 to each family member, either in the professional helpers’ waiting room, while the professional helper is waiting to see them, or as written assignments or practice exercises inbetween-sessions homework from the outset of therapy (Kazantzis & L’Abate, 2007; L’Abate, 2009b), as discussed at greater length in Chaps. 19–21.

Theory-Derived Research on Priorities The research to evaluate relational priorities goes back to approximately 30 years ago. The model of priorities that has remained constant since then proposes that the most important priories pertain to self, marriage, children, relatives, work, and friends. Even more specifically, priorities can be set for self, as defined by the items in the Self–Other Profile Chart (SOPC), for significant others, as defined by the list of others in the same chart, and by abstract items that change from one stage of development in the life cycle to another. Hence, various forms of the SOPC for different life-cycle stages can be used to measure priorities. Originally, two instruments were developed to evaluate vertical and horizontal priorities in the laboratory, an inventory and a scale (L’Abate & Wagner, 1985, 1988). Both were found to satisfy initial statistical requirements of validity and reliability. However, they did not seem to be sufficiently relational to merit application in family therapy. Consequently, the three operational definitions related to the importance of self and others (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2008b), the couple (Table 13.1), and self alone (Tables D.1, D.2) were constructed. The SOPC derived from RCT and is perhaps one of the most validated measures to evaluate selfhood and priorities models (L’Abate, 2005), as discussed in Chap. 13. The dimensions of couple relationships contained in Appendix D are the outcome of validation from multiple research sources (Moore et al., 2007). The validity has been established repeatedly with functional couples. This measure, therefore, does not need any more research validation. It does, however, need validation with clinical or distressed couples. The contents of Table D.2have not been subjected yet to empirical validation because the first author is retired from teaching or practice, whereas evaluation in another country with a different culture and language in the

Theory-Derived Research on Priorities

195

case of the second author would introduce questionable factors in translation from one culture to another. Therefore, professional helpers need to exercise a great deal of caution in administering these measures as in-office or as homework practice exercises unless they are convinced about the face validity and clinical usefulness of both instruments. An informed consent form might be needed before administration of these and other paper-and-pencil, self-report assignments (L’Abate, 2009b).

Priorities Inventory This instrument was developed to assess a professional helper’s functionality in ordering priorities inside and outside the family. It is composed of all 56 possible permutations of the categories of self, spouse, children, parents and/or in-laws, siblings, work, leisure, and friends. For each triad, professional helpers rate items from 1 to 3 in order of importance to them. Professional helpers rate items in a given triad in terms of their relative importance to themselves, For each rated triad, one point is awarded if the rating is in line with the theoretical hypothesis of functional priorities, as listed above. Consequently, the higher the total score received on this inventory, the greater will be the level of functionality. To assess the test–retest reliability of the instruments used in his study, as already described in Chap. 9,Wagner (1980) evaluated 77 male and 61 female undergraduates between the ages of 17 and 35 and mostly (73%) white, with 40 participants being married and 30 having children. They were retested with the same instruments after 4 weeks. Wagner’s test–retest reliability coefficient, Priorities Scale 0.77, Priorities Inventory r = 0.88. Internal Consistency Priorities Scale 0.60; Priorities Inventory 0.85; correlation between the two instruments 0.33, p < 0.01. Wagner also performed a factor analysis of all the instruments he used with principal components with varimax rotation. He found one factor related to priorities with the Priorities Scale and Priorities Grid loading at 0.33 and 0.34, respectively. A second factor was related to “computing,” a measure of rationality provided by Satir’s four stances. A third factor was related to blaming, and a fourth factor to distracting. A fifth factor was related to placating.

Priorities Scale This instrument was composed of 20 questions answered with true–false responses. Owen-Smith’s (1985) research failed to find relationships between a child’s selfconcept, as measured by the Thomas Self-Concept Test and parental priorities, as measured by the Priorities Scale. Wagner (1980) found that priorities, as measured by the Priorities Inventory, suggested possible differences between singles and married professional helpers. Casellato (2007) compared 20 nonclinical participants with 20 psychotics using three different measures (Table 14.1). The research hypotheses predicted differences

Having: mˆ = −6.98, p < 0.001; doing: mˆ = 4.65, p < 0.001; being: mˆ = 4.85, p < 0.001 Money: mˆ = −3.67, p < 0.001; goods: mˆ = −4.26, p < 0.001; information: mˆ = 4.26, p < 0.001 (1) Survival: mˆ = 8.72, p < 0.001; (2): work: mˆ = 2.00, p < 0.05; enjoyment: mˆ = 12.74, p < 0.001 (1) Home × having: mˆ = 3.13, p < 0.01; (2): Home × being: mˆ = 2.73, p < 0.05; (1) > (2): Survival: doing: t(38) = 6.08, p < 0.001; being: t(38) = 7.37, p < 0.001 (2) > (1): Enjoyment: doing: t(38) = 6.48, p < 0.001; being: t(38) = 6.52, p < 0.001

Construct validity of modalities (Model7) in (2)

Construct validity of resources (Model7) in (2)

Criterion validity of settings and priorities (Model3 and Model12) in (1) and (2)

Criterion validity of settings and priorities, and modalities (Model3, Model7 and Model12) in (1) and (2)

Table 14.1  Criterion and construct validities for settings (Model3), modalities (Model7), resources (Model7), and priorities (Model12) References Participants Test Research questions Results Construct validity of settings (home, work, EM, Casellato Home: N = 20 psychotics survival, and enjoyment) and priorities (Model3 mˆ = 19.39, p < 0.001; work: IASr, (2007) (1) and N = 20 SLS and Model12) in (2) nonclinicals (2) mˆ = 1.43,ns ; survival: mˆ = −9.36, p < 0.001; enjoyment: mˆ = 7.38, p < 0.001

196 14 Model12: Priorities

Being: r = −0.53, p < 0.01

Home : services r = −0.52, p < 0.05; intimacy r = −0.55, p < 0.05

Home : doing r = −0.50, p < 0.05

(1) > (2): Survival: information: t(38) = 6.18, p < 0.001; services: t(38) = 5.23, p < 0.001; importance: t(38) = 7.65, p < 0.001; intimacy: t(38) = 6.55, p < 0.001(2) > (1): Enjoyment: money: t(38) = 2.04, p < 0.05; information: t(38) = 6.52, p < 0.001; services: t(38) = 5.25, p < 0.001; importance: t(38) = 6.57, p < 0.001; intimacy: t(38) = 6.42, p < 0.001 Work: information r = 0.48, p < 0.05; services r = 0.62, p < 0.01; importance r = 0.53, p < 0.05; intimacy r = 0.56, p < 0.05 Enjoyment: information r = −0.60, p < 0.01; importance r = −0.64, p < 0.01; intimacy r = −0.59, p < 0.01 Work: doing r = 0.55, p < 0.05; being r = 0.56, p < 0.01 Enjoyment: doing r = −0.53, p < 0.05; being r = −0.62, p < 0.01 IASr: work, r = 0.50, p < 0.05; enjoyment: r = −0.48, p < 0.05 Home: information r = −0.51, p < 0.05; services r = −0.46, p < 0.05; importance r = −0.59, p < 0.01

EM EcoMap, IASr Intimacy Anxiety Scale revised, SLS Satisfaction with Life Scale, NS not significant

Convergent validity of EM (settings and priorities, and modalities; Model3, Model7 and Model12) and IASr, in (2) Convergent validity of EM (settings and priorities; Model3 and Model12) and IASr, in (2) Convergent validity of EM (settings and priorities, and resources; Model3, Model7, and Model12) and IASr, in (1) Convergent validity of EM (settings and priorities, and modalities Model3, Model12, and Model7) and IASr, in (1) Convergent validity of EM (settings and priorities, and resources; Model3, Model12, and Model7) and SLS, in (1) Convergent validity of EM (modalities; Model7) and SLS, in (1)

Convergent validity of EM (settings and priorities, resources Model3, Model7, Model12, and Model15) and IASr, in (2)

Criterion validity of settings, priorities, and resources (Model3, Model7, Model12, and Model15) in (1) and (2)

Theory-Derived Research on Priorities 197

198

14 Model12: Priorities

in leisure-time preferences – i.e., enjoyment settings – and of services necessary for one’s health. Because of their condition, psychotics would limit their resources to domestic settings and to psychiatric services that are involved with their condition and that provide support to them and to their families. The results show the different settings and modalities of two groups: in the nonclinical group, enjoyment settings are emphasized with the modalities of being [t(38) = 6.52, p < 0.001] and doing [t(38) = 6.48, p < 0.001], whereas the clinical group stresses survival settings with similar modalities: doing [t(38) = 6.08, p < 0.001] and being [t(38) = 7.37, p < 0.001]. Dislocation differences of resources are also found: in the enjoyment setting. Nonclinical professional helpers exchange money [t(38) = 2.04, p < 0.05], information [t(38) = 6.52, p < 0.001], services [t(38) = 5.25, p < 0.001], importance [t(38) = 6.57, p < 0.001], and intimacy [t(38) = 6.42, p < 0.001]. Psychotics exchange similar resources – information [t(38) = 6.18, p < 0.001], services [t(38) = 5.23, p < 0.001], importance [t(38) = 7.65, p < 0.001], and intimacy [t(38) = 6.55, p < 0.001] – in survival settings. Particularly, nonclinical participants exchange being modalities ( mˆ = 2.73; p < 0.001 ) at home, whereas psychotics use having ( mˆ = 3.13; p < 0.001 ) most of all. Correlation analyses of Intimacy Anxiety Scale, revised, Satisfaction with Life Scale, and EcoMap data yield similar results. Nonclinical participants differ in fear of intimacy with enjoyment (r = −0.48, p < 0.05) and at work (r = 0.50, p < 0.05), whereas fear of intimacy correlates positively with the modalities of doing and being (information: r = 0.48, p < 0.05; services: r = 0.62, p < 0.01; importance: r = 0.53, p < 0.05; intimacy: r = 0.56, p < 0.05); in enjoyment settings, the correlations are reversed (information: r = −0.60, p < 0.01; importance: r = −0.64, p < 0.01; intimacy: r = −0.59, p < 0.01). Psychotic individuals give results totally different: at home, fear of intimacy correlates negatively with exchanged resources (information: r = −0.51, p < 0.05; services: r = −0.46, p < 0.05; importance: r = −0.59, p < 0.01); life satisfaction gives similar results (services: r = −0.52, p < 0.05; intimacy: r = −0.55, p < 0.05). In short, nonclinical participants expand their relationships also outside home and work settings, and expansion psychotic individuals are not able to perform. However, psychotic individuals and/or their families give great importance to survival settings – psychiatric and/or social assistance, nursing services, etc. – crucial to their existence in which their unique diversities and difficulties, with their identities too, are recognized and treated.

Priorities: A Hidden Ingredient in Relational Therapy Relational therapy is not a new type of therapy. The name just supports the notion that we all live in relationships and whether professional helpers see individuals, couples, groups, or families, any helpful intervention would focus on how individuals relate to each other. The same could be said about most validated models of RCT that are relevant to psychological interventions.

Priorities: A Hidden Ingredient in Relational Therapy

199

This section illustrates how after a theoretical model has been evaluated in the laboratory and its validity established, the same model can be applied to the process of relational therapy. The model of priorities considered here is realistic, relevant, important, and urgent for participants as individuals in their own right and as family members. Introduction of this model allows us to evaluate how priorities work or fail to work formally in the laboratory and informally in therapy with couples and with families. A vignette shows how rigid and restricted priorities affected the dysfunctionality of a family and how those priorities sabotaged acceptance of family therapy. It is possible to advance from a theoretical model and its objective evaluation in the laboratory to its applications in relational therapy. The motivational model of relevance to therapy is priorities. Here, therefore, we will discuss how priorities are evaluated formally and informally and how this evaluation allows us to consider them in their various manifestations and their ramifications in systemic functioning. From Theory and Research to Therapy: Evaluation of priorities during treatment evaluation of family priorities can be informal (subjective) and formal (objective). They can be evaluated at the beginning of treatment formally by administering selfadministered paper-and-pencil, self-report instruments, such as those in any of the Appendixes and also a theory-derived structured interview that can be administered verbally in face-to-face interventions (L’Abate, 2009a) or in a written format for group administration (L’Abate, 2010). Participants can be evaluated informally through a typical verbal, face-to-face interview either at the beginning or at any time during the initial evaluation that might occur during the first three sessions (L’Abate, L’Abate, & Maino, 2005). The reason for administration of a practice exercise at the beginning of therapy lies in how the professional helper structures therapy. One cannot suddenly and unexpectedly “out of the blue” administer a practice exercise to participants without prior notice, proper explanation, and with their signed informed written consent. It would be more appropriate and professional to administer more than one objective practice exercise from the outset of any intervention to evaluate also the outcome of any specific intervention with a posttreatment administration of the same practice exercise. Discussion of how participants answer in writing any practice exercise can occur among family members either at home by appointment in a family conference as a homework assignment, or in the therapist’s waiting room before seeing the therapist. After practice exercises have been completed, individual priorities of family members can be considered, compared, and discussed in terms of their implications and ramifications for other aspects of family functioning with each other and with others, intimates and nonintimates.

Vignette of Failed and Rigid Family Priorities This vignette is constructed from the first author’s past clinical experience when he introduced vertical priorities in therapy to a particular family, after a discussion of horizontal priorities. Some features of this family have been changed to ensure

200

14 Model12: Priorities

anonymity: two middle-aged parents with two teenage children, a boy and a girl. The reason for referral was the acting out of both children, who were openly rebellious and oppositional to both parents. This family came to the first author’s office from a distant southern town. The parents were very deeply religious, whereas the children openly refused to attend church, calling their parents “hypocrites.” The entire family was seen for three “evaluation” sessions and not for therapy. When asked from the outset about what was important to them, the father answered: “My family and my work.” In reality, he was a workaholic and a rigid tyrant requiring that all responsibilities and chores in the house be carried out verbatim by his wife and children without any discussion. He had the absolute authority but no responsibilities in the home except to provide a good income for the family. The wife answered: “My husband and my children.” In reality, she was extremely submissive to her husband’s “orders” and required of the children the same level of uncritical submissive conformity to her that she had adopted toward her husband. She had been raised in a southern missionary family and believed, like her husband, that according to the Bible, the wife should be submissive to her husband. The boy answered: “My friends and getting out of this family as soon as possible.” In reality, he had no friends. The girl answered: “I agree with my brother. The only pleasure I get is from my friends but my parents disapprove of them and do not allow me to hang out with them”. In reality, she associated with a nonconformist group of rebellious teenagers. These answers as well as the realities behind them made it clear that priorities were open and spoken but they were dysfunctional to the extent that the authority to make decisions was left solely in the hands of the father, without any other responsibilities. He felt that making a good living and giving orders were his only responsibilities and the wife had the responsibility of carrying out those orders. She obeyed them by completing her assigned chores (shopping and cooking) and overseeing that the children carried out their own assigned chores: house cleaning for the girl, and yard cleaning for the boy. At this point the therapist raised a question about the American Revolution and how it was a reaction to unfair taxation without representation. Given the rigidity of this system, how can one change it except to discuss and question its functionality without antagonizing the father and the mother? The parental couple was rigidly invested in the status quo, leaving responsibility to change entirely on their children’s shoulders. The children were the problem. If they obeyed their father’s orders, there would not be any problems. Very likely, the question asked above, about the American Revolution, might have antagonized both parents, as shown by the outcome of this evaluation. Consequently, at the end of the first session, family members were handed sheets of paper (“practice exercises” or “worksheets”) and asked to answer in writing the following questions during the coming week before seeing the therapist: For everybody “Does the way family members relate with each other only through work?” and “What have the existing priorities produced in the family?” “Is there a room for compromise?” “Is the hard work of father and the income he produces sufficient justification for the way family members relate to each other? For the

Conclusion

201

father: “What is the origin of this stance, authority without responsibility?” For the mother: “Where did you learn to accept your husband’s hard work and his authority without question, accepting responsibility without any authority?” For each child: “What could you do to improve the situation in your family?” After these questions had been asked, the family was instructed to answer these questions in writing as individual homework and to bring their answers back to the second session. Otherwise, the family was advised to continue doing what they were doing without changing how they had been relating to each other up to the present. Writing was attempted to objectify the charged emotional climate and situate family priorities within a rational rather than an emotional realm. A discussion of their answers would lengthen this chapter unnecessarily. Suffice to say that their answers to the questions asked during the first session provided sufficient grist for the family evaluation mill. However, during the third initial evaluation session, without a therapeutic contract, the father remained rigidly invested in the status quo of his authority without responsibility as did the wife’s in her uncritical acceptance of her husband’s authority, accepting her responsibilities without any authority except over the children. The bond between father and mother was strong and remained strong, in spite of this and other efforts. Consequently, as the acting out of the children increased rather than decreased between sessions, considering the distance from the therapist and the difficulty to address the parental alliance, the parents were advised to send the boy to military school. The daughter was referred to an individually oriented therapist in their hometown, especially once they learned of her association with teenagers with diverse sexual orientation.

Conclusion The results of research studies included in this chapter tend to support the criterion and construct validities of Model12. Therefore, as in the case of many validated models of RCT, it is possible to progress from a theoretical model to a subjective (informal) and objective (formal) evaluation of individual and relational priorities, and from evaluation progress to applications in (relational) therapy. If this model is valid in relational therapy, there is no reason why it should not also be applied in prevention and therapy in general. However, as the vignette illustrates, one cannot always guarantee a positive outcome when priorities are so dysfunctionally rigid in and of themselves.

Part V

Clinically Relevant Models

This part includes models that are relevant to clinical practice to the extent that they include incompetent, dysfunctional, and clinical relationships (abusive–apathetic and reactive–repetitive styles) rather than functional ones (creative–conductive styles). Incompetent relationships are included in Chaps. 15 and 16, competent and incompetent ones in Chap. 17, and mainly competent ones in Chap. 18, because to negotiate successfully we need a modicum of competence.

Chapter 15

Model13: Distance Regulation

Model13 has been discussed at length in previous publications by the first author. Consequently there is no need to waste precious space to expand on it. Briefly, Model13 derives from the previous assumptions and models of relational competence theory to the point that it could not exist unless one were to include all those models as part and parcel of this model. The three roles played in this model are Pursuer, Distancer, and Regulator. The Pursuer exhibits approach, as in extreme dependence, wanting and needing somebody or something; the Distancer displays avoidance, as in denial of dependence and avoidance of someone or something; and the Regulator involves contradictions in approach–avoidance tendencies (“Come here, I need your help”; “Go away! You didn’t help me!”). This model has not yet been subjected to laboratory evaluation because rather than using one dimension alone, that is, approach–avoidance, with one party approaching while the other is avoiding, this third possibility of distance Regulator suggests a more clinically relevant model where in addition to two roles, the Pursuer, for instance, may approach the other partner for sex while avoiding emotional closeness, whereas the other partner, the Distancer, may want emotional closeness but avoid sexual interaction, as illustrated in the first clinical case presented below. An illustration of the third role in this model is shown in the second clinical case. The rest of this chapter includes selected research about the demand– withdraw sequence that, according to this model, is incomplete because it does not contain the third role of distance Regulator.

A Clinical Example of Approach–Avoidance A partial example of this model is found in a couple married for 20 years who requested a consultation after the wife confessed to the husband about having had a brief extramarital affair. The spouses were John, a highly esteemed and wellknown director of an important local business, 47 years old, and Kate, 43 years old, with three children: Nicolas, 18, Alex 12, and Marie, 9. Both spouses asked for a L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_15, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

205

206

15 Model13: Distance Regulation

consultation to make sense of the dynamics in their relationship that led to the affair and to see whether there was the possibility of rebuilding their marriage with a wider awareness of themselves and of the choices they had made in the past. When the couple’s history was reviewed, some temperamental difference emerged from the outset, that is, the strong dominance, directiveness, and drive of John coupled with a deficit in regulating his feelings as well as understanding the feelings of others, including his wife. His dominance was matched by Kate’s relative lack of assertiveness, who, in order to feel accepted, usually left it to others, especially her husband, to make certain choices and decisions for her. Consequently, Kate learned to rely completely on John for his ability to be available instrumentally, to solve problems, and to take responsibility for practical and organizational issues, including finances. This ability was complementary to Kate’s fragile temperament and nonassertive personality, relying a great deal on her husband’s acknowledged professional skills. These latter qualities, dependence on him, and relative passivity in external areas of functioning appealed to John as complementing a view of his wife as the “angel of the home-front.” After they had married, both partners found themselves inside already traditional built-in roles: husband outside, wife inside the home. By taking these roles for granted, uncritically and never clearly defining them, both partners kept rigid boundaries between themselves, with clearly separate and nonoverlapping responsibilities that fit into each other’s expectations. Both colluded in accepting uncritically each other’s roles by accepting implicitly defined duties and responsibilities. John could dedicate himself completely to this profession, providing an extremely high level of financial security, whereas the wife could dedicate herself completely to the role of being the perfect social wife and attentive mother. The rigidity in boundaries for both partners derived in part from Kate’s upbringing as an adopted daughter, always in doubt about her own self-importance and questioning whether she could be loved unless she performed and produced continuously in how she took care of and performed her domestic and parental duties and responsibilities. This collusive agreement between partners to do and have came at the cost of not satisfying personal wishes and desires. The seemingly harmonious arrangement came at the cost of not being able to be themselves as human beings but rather to act strictly as role-players in assigned roles. Both gave in reciprocally to the other’s assumed role and both discounted their personal priorities for the uncritical maintenance of a false and rigid but seemingly peaceful arrangement. Peace within and between themselves came at a high price of not really being themselves: external duties and responsibilities were more important than internal satisfaction of being emotionally and physically close and intimate. The recent betrayal by Kate broke completely the external social façade of peace and harmony and forced both partners to question and to review those very roles that they had assumed implicitly and uncritically at the cost of closeness and intimacy. As the children were becoming older and relatively more autonomous of her, Kate had begun to feel a great deal of dissatisfaction with a marital relationship oriented strictly toward concrete and practical aspects of life: doing and having. John, on the other hand, was so excited about his continuously growing professional and

A Clinical Example of Approach–Avoidance

207

financial successes that he had remained completely unaware of and oblivious and impervious to his wife’s unhappiness. He was accepting with eagerness new and more challenging professional responsibilities that meant a much more augmented income, thus sacrificing and not assuming fully internal conjugal and parental duties and pleasures for external (and ephemeral) sources of pleasure: doing and having over being. Consequently, Kate’s betrayal had been a jolt out of the blue sky, a slap on the face to John’s sense of accomplishment and importance as a perfect breadwinner and excellent provider because of the external façade of social and financial success achieved by providing a luxurious level of living. Therefore, once this superficial and ephemeral façade had broken up, he was unable to cope with the new situation and accept that the old, rigid patterns were no longer workable, that his way of doing and having money and things was essentially a failure. As a result, John became extremely reactive and controlling of Kate by using blackmail that vacillated between aggressive behavior toward his wife and children and self-destructive attempts. He was fearful of losing Kate’s precise demands for a new relationship based on being together rather that just on doing and having, but at the same time he was unable to express directly how he felt about her and her importance to his well-being and life. He was so set on performance and production to the point of obliterating and canceling what happened with Kate’s affair by an absolute and magical discounting and forgetting the whole affair, keeping her as a chattel and property rather than as another human being with feelings and emotions. Sex, therefore, remained the only area of reassurance for him that Kate still belonged to him, accepting and wanting him as he was, without any change on his part. Kate, on the other hand, did not want the status quo, accepting things as they were. She wanted a new relationship based on their being together rather than blindly continuing to behave as they did in the past. She wanted the emotional closeness and intimacy that John seemed constitutionally and characterologically unable to give her while he was insisting on continuing to have physical and sexual contacts as substitutes for emotional closeness, as if nothing had ever happened. He was unable to see the affair as an indication of a necessary change in how they had been relating to and how they had being living with each other and their children. Kate wanted to be heard and to share with John the burdens of daily domestic and parental duties that until that time had been relegated strictly to her, by her own doing. She wanted to share what it meant to be attuned to each other and to the children’s inevitable struggles in growing up, especially as teenagers in today’s society. She wanted from him the daily closeness and intimacy they had never for the 20 years of their marriage because John was unable to give it to her as much as she was unable to ask for it. John saw these demands as attempts to control and to manipulate him and as a way to avoid being sexually active and instrumentally autonomous as a man. Within this background emerged the conflict of distance regulation, with Kate being the Pursuer by approaching John and requiring him to change emotionally, while John avoided her demands and continued to pursue her sexually as a reassurance of his worth as a man and as a husband. She wanted emotional closeness and

208

15 Model13: Distance Regulation

refused to have sex strictly as performance, whereas he wanted sex as a substitute for the very closeness he was unable to express verbally. They were both Pursuers and Distancers at the same time. The Pursuer role approached the partner for sex while avoiding emotional closeness. The Distancer role wanted emotional closeness but avoided sexual performance. These two roles do not cover the reality of another, third role: the individual who regulates and controls the relationship by asking for closeness, yet when the partner does approach, this move is negated by setting up distance, i.e., the distance Regulator (“I need your help now…go away, you did not help me.”).

Clinical Example of Distance Regulation This particular clinical case exemplifies this third role well. Paula, a 36-year-old wife and mother of a 4-year-old girl, asked for professional help for a distinct and severe work obsession and compulsion coupled with atopic dermatitis that, during periods of extreme stress, covered her face, especially her eyes and the mouth. She had been married for 10 years after a 9-year-long engagement. She works as an elementary school teacher and is held in high esteem among her colleagues and by her students as well as the parents of her students. Paula introduced her difficulties by referring to the inordinate amount of time she spends at work with exact daily and punctilious programming of her duties as a teacher. Weekends do not exist, and she is awake many nights to work and prepare her lessons for the following day. Her family life rotates around her work investments. She is extremely meticulous in taking care of the house but complains about all the chores she has to perform in the house, not allowing anybody else to help her. Her 38-year-old husband, Robert, works in the family business but has become increasingly unhappy about the lack of free time and all the difficulties that ensue from his wife’s overinvolvement in her job. He prefers not to spend any free time because of her continuous anxiety about her work, her care of the house, and of their daughter that she cannot relegate to anybody else because no one can perform as well as she does. Paula frequently asked Robert to come home as soon as possible after work to give her a hand with supper and or in taking care of their daughter. Every time Robert tried to help, he found his wife in a bad mood, ready to criticize him in everything he did in the house or in the kitchen, rendering him feeling inadequate as a husband and as a father, let alone in bed. He found it very difficult to make sense of his wife’s mood changes, who, on the one hand, pleaded with him for help, but, on the other hand, found faults in his performance without any specific reason. Here, the distance Regulator role came to the fore forcefully and specifically. It would take a great amount of time and room to enter into other details of their relationship, including their conflicts as both Pursuers and Distancers at the same time. However, the bottom line was: “I need your help now…go away, you did not help me.”

An Incomplete Model: Demand–Withdraw

209

In spite of these two cases, we do not have enough evidence to support this third role of distance Regulator except for clinical impressionistic evidence, such as the case presented above. That case is not sufficient to support the validity of this model. Consequently, at present, we will rely solely on the demand–withdraw dimension that has been validated repeatedly in the literature, as the base from which to expand to a third, missing role, the distance Regulator.

An Incomplete Model: Demand–Withdraw There is ample evidence that marital dissatisfaction is associated concurrently with demand–withdraw, the marital pattern of communication in which one spouse nags or criticizes while the other avoids (Caughlin, 2002). However, the connection between demand–withdraw and changes in satisfaction is less clear. Some studies suggest that demand–withdraw is associated with low but steady marital satisfaction; other studies imply that demand–withdraw predicts declines in satisfaction; and still others indicate that demand–withdraw foreshadows increases in marital satisfaction. A longitudinal study of married couples (N = 46) examined the connection between demand–withdraw and changes in satisfaction. The results suggest that the correlation between demand–withdraw and dissatisfaction endures to some extent, but also that demand–withdraw predicts increases in wives’ satisfaction. Comparisons of the current study to previous studies of demand–withdraw imply that the association between demand–withdraw and marital satisfaction may be more complex than heretofore assumed, suggesting that future research ought to consider whether different ways of enacting demand–withdraw vary in their impact on marriage (Caughlin). Verhofstadt, Buysse, De Clercq, and Goodwin (2005) reported two studies that examined how spouses’ emotional arousal and negative affect in response to marital conflict are shaped by gender, conflict structure, and demand–withdraw communication. In study 1, 86 couples participated in a video analogue presentation procedure, and in study 2, 32 couples participated in an observational method. In both studies, spouses’ evaluative reports of their emotional arousal and negative affect were collected within two experimental conditions in which either the husband’s or the wife’s issue was discussed. In both studies, husbands – but not wives – reported lower levels of postinteraction arousal and negative affect in the wife’s issue condition than in the husband’s issue condition. In both studies, husbands’ as well as wives’ level of emotional arousal was positively associated with their level of negative affect. In study 2, husbands who were less demanding and more withdrawing during marital conflict were less aroused after the discussion. In contrast, wives reported more emotional arousal and negative affect as they were more withdrawing and less demanding, respectively. Twenty married, 20 unmarried heterosexual, 20 lesbian, and 15 gay male couples participated in this study investigating the demand–withdraw interaction pattern (Walczynski, 1998, forthcoming). In this pattern, one partner (the demander)

210

15 Model13: Distance Regulation

attempts to engage in discussions of relationship issues and pressures, nags, demands, or criticizes the other, whereas the partner (the withdrawer) attempts to avoid such discussions through silence, defensiveness, or withdrawal. Couple members completed a series of questionnaires measuring gender-linked personality traits and power-linked variables. Couples also engaged in two videotaped problem-solving discussions, one in which each partner had an investment in seeking change in the other. Self-report and observer ratings about demand–withdraw behavior during these discussions were obtained. The results are presented in two studies. Study 1 attempted to replicate previous findings about demand–withdraw from research with married couples to couples in nonmarital relationships. The results indicate that demand–withdraw interaction is not specific to male–female interactions – couples in same-sex relationships demonstrated as much demand–withdraw communication as did cross-sex couples, and the amount of demand–withdraw interaction in same-sex couples was significantly associated with relationship dissatisfaction as has been demonstrated in previous research. The results of study 1 also revealed that gender differences in demand–withdraw behavior are apparent in the relationships of unmarried heterosexual couples, as has been previously found in married couples. In study 2, demand–withdraw behavior was examined during problem-solving interactions with particular emphasis on how behavior is affected by one’s investment in seeking change. The results revealed that, although gender differences in conflict behavior existed, factors distinct from biological sex were predictive of demand–withdraw roles. That is, partners who possessed more feminine traits and more power than their counterparts, measured in terms of say and influence over decision making in the relationship, were more likely to be demanding while their partners were withdrawing across conflict discussions. However, this effect was modified by the structure of conflict, such that greater polarization in demand– withdraw roles occurred during discussion of issues raised by the demander than during discussions of issues raised by the withdrawer. The findings concerning the linkage of power to demand–withdraw roles are contrary to present theories, and possible reasons for these findings are discussed. In a study by Heavey, Christensen, and Malamuth (1995), 48 couples completed a measure of relationship satisfaction and participated in two videotaped problemsolving interactions, one videotape focused on an issue identified by the woman and the other videotape focused on an issue identified by the man. Thirty-six men and 36 women completed the satisfaction measure again 2.5 years later. Demandingness, and to a lesser extent withdrawal, during the interactions showed many significant associations with both time 1 and time 2 satisfaction. The relationship of demandingness and withdrawal to change in satisfaction was also examined using both change scores and partial correlations. Withdrawal by men and woman demand man withdraw during discussions of issues identified by the women reliably predicted change (decline) in wives’ relationship satisfaction. Studies consistently show sex differences in married couples’ use of demand and withdraw behavior (Vogel, Murphy, Werner-Wilson, Cutrona, & Seeman, 2007). The social structure hypothesis proposes that these differences are the result of

Conclusion

211

power differentials between spouses. This study examined the link between three aspects of marital power and demanding and withdrawal behavior. Contrary to social structure predictions, the results showed that wives did not possess less decision-making ability or access to resources and appeared to exhibit greater situational power (i.e., domineering and dominant behaviors) than did their husbands during problem-solving discussions. Furthermore, the spouse who exhibited the most demands also exhibited the most domineering and dominant behaviors, whereas the spouse who exhibited the most withdrawal exhibited the least domineering and dominant behaviors during problem solving. One goal of counseling from a Christian viewpoint is to help partners get out of the cycle of negative interactions (Worthington, Lerner, & Sharp, 2005). Metacommunication (talking about their communication) can sometimes help. However, when the meta-communication is whining, irritated, resentful, or accusatory, it can increase the spouse’s negative feelings. Those negative emotions can in turn poison behaviors. So meta-communication is not the mechanism of marital happiness. Clinicians see many unhappy couples who exhibit an emotional distance-Pursuer pattern. The wife complains or demands change, the husband withdraws, and the wife becomes hostile. Less dissatisfaction occurs when one spouse raises issues, the other withdraws, then the one who raised the issue also withdraws. In reviewing marriage research since 1997, these authors find a paradox. Culturally, the emotional bond in marriage is being weakened. They say this weakening is from increasing cohabitation, and shifting views away from marriage as a lifetime commitment. Yet, the last 7 years of research on marital processes has suggested that it is not simple positive interactions but a strong emotional bond that holds marriages together. That positive bond tends to override many negative events. In summary, Worthington et al. drew attention to promoting hope in couples, encouraging them to love each other, using counseling techniques that promote better communication and conflict resolution, teach forgiveness and reconciliation, and build a committed Christ-centered marriage. This position begs the question of whether there are differences in demand–withdraw as a function of religious beliefs and practices.

Conclusion These representative studies indicate the presence of a pattern that viewed from the structure of Model13 is incomplete because it does not take into account an important, third role of distance Regulator. Therefore, much more information about Model13 will need to be gathered to support its validity.

Chapter 16

Model14: A Pathogenic Drama Triangle*

The deadly Drama Triangle – introduced in 1968 by S.B. Karpman – is composed of three reactively and repetitively manipulative roles played contemporaneously and simultaneously by the same individuals involved in an intimate relationship, namely, those of victim, persecutor, and rescuer. All three roles are extension of Model5 (Chap. 7) about the ability or, in this case, the inability to control and regulate oneself according instead to a reactively repetitive and often revengefully abusive style, as reviewed in Model9 (Chap. 11). Here is where the requirement of redundancy presented in Chap. 1 is fully operational. We need at least two other models (Model5 and Model9) to “explain” this model. This deadly, pathogenic triangle has not received the attention and interest it deserves from the family theory and therapy profession. This neglect has occurred in spite of its pervasive presence in fiction (movies and novels), religion and politics, and in the justice and legal systems. In real life this triangle is evident where emotional, sexual, and physical abuse is present. This model, however, has received prominence in relational competence theory (RCT). Its clinical applications should yield ample dividends by conceptualizing dysfunctional relational processes in ways that could not be perhaps achieved through other known relational models, including attachment. Implications of this triangle for clinical practice are illustrated by the case of a family where this triangle was present. This attempt to resurrect a neglected pathogenic model from transactional analysis literature seems ill-advised and unlikely to be of interest to current journal editors and readers. Nonetheless, conviction about its soundness and relevance to RCT makes this chancy endeavor worthwhile and open to the critical opinion and skeptical scrutiny of peers: journal editors, referees, and, hopefully, readers. The literature of family therapy theory and practice is full of past (Gurman & Kniskern, 1981; Gurman, Kniskern, & Pinsoff, 1986) and present (Sexton, Weeks, & Robbins, 2003) theories and models. Strangely enough, two relational models

*  This chapter is reprinted with revisions and some changes from an article by the first author published in the American Journal of Family Therapy 37:1–11, 2009, and published here with the permission of the publisher of that journal, Taylor & Francis, Inc.

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_16, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

213

214

16 Model14: A Pathogenic Drama Triangle

have not been included in that literature: attachment and Karpman’s (1968) the Drama Triangle. Although attachment has received a great deal of attention in the research literature around the world but not yet in family therapy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), the second model has not received the attention of theorists and therapists that, in the first author’s humble opinion, it deserves. Both models are included in RCT in ways that can be applied in prevention and therapy. Attachment has been linked from the outset of RCT as part of Model4 and Model5 and of the selfhood model (Model11) described in this volume. However, this deadly triangle has not yet produced relevant conceptual connections or empirical evidence in communication, psychological, relationship, and sociological sciences. A bibliography of secondary sources, i.e., chapters to support linkages between the models of RCT and external sources failed to find any linkages to the Drama Triangle (L’Abate, 2009a); hence, the need to evaluate at least the face validity of this triangle before submitting it to therapeutic practice. We should validate models before applying them to dysfunctional relationships. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to update and expand on Karpman’s (1968) original Drama Triangle composed of victim, persecutor, and rescuer roles or scripts. Karpman drew his examples from the Grimm Brothers’ fables and fairy tales that are replete with examples of this triangle. In addition to Karpman’s original examples, examples from fiction, movies, religion and politics, and the judicial/ legal systems illustrate the face validity of this triangle. In spite of its pervasiveness and its face validity in real life, there is not yet empirical and clinical evidence to support its validity to justify is application in family therapy practice. Consequently, one needs to rely on whatever has been published responsibly about this triangle to support empirical validation first and subsequent clinical applications in family therapy later. This pathogenic triangle is constituted by three intrinsically and simultaneously connected but very fluid, if not evanescent, roles found in most if not all individuals involved in family dysfunctions. In such relationships, all three roles are enacted by self and other parties at the same time, without an awareness of or control over their damaging consequences. Each participant in an intimate (close, committed, interdependent, and prolonged) relationship plays the victim, and can be perceived as a persecutor or rescuer all the same time, depending on who does or says what. For instance, one partner may perceive herself as the victim of the partner while being perceived as a persecutor by the other partner, who might have been seen originally as a rescuer. If one partner perceives herself or himself as the victim of her or his parents as persecutors, she or he may perceive originally her or his partner as the rescuer. However, when the original perception still remains in the first partner’s perception without resolution, the triangle may be repeated from one generation to another. The reactive quality of this triangle leads to its repetition from one relationship to another. This pathogenic model is based on immediate discharge and inadequate selfcontrol tendencies (Model5). Inadequate tendencies, present in most reactive– repetitive and abusive–apathetic styles, include the roles of victim, persecutor, and rescuer (L’Abate, 2009d, 2009f, 2010). Even though this pathogenic triangle is

Religion and Politics

215

found all around us in mythology, fiction, and religious, legal, and political systems, it is rarely found in the formal professional and scientific literature, perhaps because of its evanescently fluid nature, where continuous role switching is the norm. The closest equivalent is visible in the literature on bullying (Horne, Raczynski, & Orpinas, 2008), which has shown that most bullies were themselves victims, with significant associations reported between the tendency to bully others and poor family psychosocial health (Rigby, 1993). Unfortunately, the fluid and seemingly evanescent nature of roles in the Drama Triangle presents serious difficulties for any kind of empirical research (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997). These difficulties and publications about this triangle in a nonmainstream journal made it impossible to expand its influence outside a limited circle of theorists and professionals. Even more unfortunately, the neglect of this model by the relevant family therapy literature has rendered it impossible at this time to find empirical evidence to support its validity even though its pervasive existence is all around us. To make up for lack of direct empirical evidence, this chapter reviews the extant literature and includes examples of this triangle in (1) fiction, movies, and novels, (2) religion and politics, and (3) the justice/legal systems as indirect (face validity) evidence to support the relevance of this triangle in family theory and therapy.

Fiction Movies are so imbued with this triangle that we cannot conceive of fiction without the ever-present repetition of these three roles in different customs, sexes, plots, and themes. The Harry Potter books and movies, as a recent example, are essentially based on this triangle. Any murder, spy, or mystery story makes the detective or spy/agent the rescuer who helps the victim escape from a persecutor. The latter, when caught, becomes the victim of the legal system. Dickens, among numberless other writers, introduced the hero as a poor, defense victim of a cruel and vicious persecutor to be eventually saved from a fate worse than death by a (rich) rescuer. Should one go on? Indeed, it would be relatively easy but time-consuming to connect all the possible variations from the roles derived from this triangle in Table 16.1 to a variety of movies and novels. Variations on these roles are played out every day in front of our eyes on television and in movie theaters, let alone in books.

Religion and Politics When both religious and political systems collide and collude, destructive issues of power emerge. When religious beliefs have not been kept separate from politics, the combination has evolved in power struggles with deleterious consequences throughout history. Furthermore, most religious systems, including Christianity, are based on a negative attribution about the incompleteness, sinfulness, and wickedness

216

16 Model14: A Pathogenic Drama Triangle Table 16.1  Pathogenic roles: expansion on Karpman’s Drama Triangle Persecutor Rescuer Victim Judge Therapist Criminal Parent Know-it-all or “I know better” Defendant Juror Expert Invalid Policeman “Big Daddy” Child Patriot Tycoon Drug addict Detective Peacemaker Servant Preacher Red Cross nurse or paramedic Martyr Executioner Saint Sinner Inquisitor Superman Culprit Oppressor Superwomen Poor-little-me Inspector General Wholesaler Innocent Interrogator Angel Oppressed Adapted from L’Abate (1986). Note that these roles should not be considered as related horizontally. For instance, a persecutor/oppressor should be related to a rescuer/tycoon, or victim/culprit on a different line but not to a role on the same line.

of humanity, i.e., victims in dire need of being rescued from the evil influence of a persecuting demon or Satan with an attribution of miraculous forces attributed to a powerful rescuer or savior. Throughout history, in the name of religion combined with politics, the most nefarious deeds have been perpetrated and perpetuated. Whether there are Catholics versus Protestants in Northern Ireland, Taliban in Afghanistan, or Sunnies versus Shiites in Iraq, each side has assumed the role of victim and persecutor in trying to rescue and save the importance of its own version of how religion should be practiced against the perceived or real threats from the other side. The recent war in Iraq illustrates vividly the presence of this triangle at the international level. A supposedly imminent and real danger from weapons of mass destructions to the USA was perceived as being real, with the USA playing the role of the victim after the events of September 11, 2001. Saddam Hussain became the persecutor, turning the USA into a rescuer of Iraq. Hanging him did not contribute one iota to a resolution of this triangle or other triangles. In that country, Americans apparently are now considered either as persecutors by some factions or as rescuers by others. Our armed forces are now embroiled in a variety of triangles, all deadly, from which is difficult to extricate ourselves.

The Justice and Legal Systems The justice and legal systems are fundamentally based on this triangle. A real or perceived victim engages a lawyer as the rescuer to be saved from a real or perceived persecutor, who in turn has to hire a lawyer to be defended. The courts then are given the role of being the ultimate rescuers, where losing parties perceive

Review of the Literature

217

themselves as victims of the system. Many inmates in prisons, for instance, perceive themselves as the victims of what they see as an unfair system, without any regard to the victims of their behavior.

Review of the Literature A survey of major family therapy treatises (Gottman et  al., 1997; Gurman & Kniskern, 1981; Gurman, Kriskern, & Pinsoff, 1986; Lubin, Lubin, Whiteford, & Whitlock, 1988; Sexton et al., 2003) failed to find any reference to this triangle by name or by its three pathogenic roles. A survey of major treatises in communication and relationship sciences also failed to find any reference to either this triangle or its roles (Boss, Doherty, La Rossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993; Duck, 1988; Knapp & Miller, 1994), except for references to abuse, aggression, and violence, as if these processes took place without any victims or perpetrators. There were exceptions. There were references to victims but not to perpetrators in generic violence (Greene & Burleson, 2003; Fletcher & Clark, 2003), and victims and perpetrators in family violence (Pinsof & Lebow, 2005). None of these references, however, included the roles of rescuers and methods to rescue victims of aggression and violence. The vast literature on emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, let alone criminality, attests to the presence of victims and persecutors/predators/perpetrators. However, no rescuers appear in this literature except for mental health professionals. They oftentimes assume the role of rescuers, thus perpetuating the repetition of the same triangle from one setting to another. In other words, researchers and scholars have reviewed parts of the triangle but considered only one or at most two roles without considering the whole triangle. It is assumed, of course, that religion, mental health, or the judicial/legal systems become the rescuers of victims. Apparently, according to the sources cited above, relationships, in general, and in families, in particular, do not contain connections and links among victims, persecutors, or rescuers. How could that happen? One is at a loss to explain such neglect, except that the original article was not published in a mainstream journal. The expansion of this triangle in Table 16.1 (L’Abate, 1986) appeared as a model in past publications until the present (L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007). However, this expansion failed to attract sufficient attention or interest in the family therapy community to warrant research to evaluate the validity of this triangle. Apparently, this triangle is so much in front of our eyes that we take it for granted and fail to include it in our conceptualizations of reactively repetitive family dysfunctions. How can we intervene with dysfunctional processes if we do not have a clear conceptualization of their structure? A search of Internet Galileo (PsycARTICLES and PsycINFO in EBSCO Host) yielded 30 entries that referred to Karpman’s original paper. Most if not all of them were published in the Transactional Analysis Journal. This limitation may explain the failure to expand this model outside that journal. Of course, in many instances this triangle is connected to Berne’s (1972) then popular original distinction of

218

16 Model14: A Pathogenic Drama Triangle

adult, child, and parent roles as an ancillary but outdated model of relationships. Both triangles have been expanded and applied to cultural and historical events (Thompson, 1977). From those online entries, only selected references are grouped into three parts: (1) theory; (2) positive reframings of the triangle; and (3) family therapy practice.

Theory In theory, Allen and Allen (1998) used the bombing of Oklahoma City as an example of how the triangle occurred on that sad occasion by adding one fourth role of bystander to the three roles of the triangle. By revisiting Oklahoma City 10 years later, Allen (2006) was able to detect (subjectively) how time had allowed a transcendence of the original trauma, producing posttraumatic growth as people were able to grieve from a lost sense of personhood by constructing a new one. McDowell (1975) applied the Drama Triangle to characterize police–citizen encounters in terms of the three manipulative roles played by both police and citizens. Developmentally, Jacobs (1990) traced early childhood distortions to a symbiotic process with nationalistic obsessions, unstable loyalties, and indifferent to reality. Jacobs (1996) expanded the Drama Triangle to larger social institutions, particularly penitentiaries as well as to individuals, i.e., stalkers, terrorists, and dictators. Kruse and Kruse (1994) illustrated how the Suzuki method of violin teaching may become embroiled in a possibly dangerous triangle of the student, teacher, and parent. This triangle, of course, is repeated daily in most classrooms when a teacher calls on students to answer questions regarding homework assignments or general knowledge. This process puts the teacher in the persecutor role and the student in the victim role (Stapleton, 1978). However, underneath the outward expression of bravado and arrogance in antisocial personalities lies a negative self-image (Sigmund, 1999). The victim role can be differentiated into two types (English, 1976). Type 1 receives attention as a constant complainer and patient long sufferer. Type 2’s selfsufficient appearance may cause less concern but under stress this type may assume the first role. The basic theoretical issue here is whether these three roles are states or traits. Are they part of an individual or are they intrinsic to interactions between two or more similarly defective or endowed individuals?

Reframings Positive or different reframings of the Drama Triangle have occurred. Carr (1989) added an elaboration of the three roles by equating them to underlying feelings. Helplessness underlies the victim. Aggressiveness (should it be hostility?) underlies the persecutor. Helpfulness underlies the rescuer. From this triangle arise five

Review of the Literature

219

possibilities, rescuing the child, parents, mother and child, father, and family. By the same token, Weeks (1978) equated protectiveness with the rescuer, persecution with the persecutor, and powerlessness with the victim. Choy (1990) offered a more positive alternative to the Drama Triangle by eliminating the discounts that derive from it by suggesting assertiveness, autonomy, and caring as another triangle. Nonetheless, the suicide victim (Douglas, 1986) becomes a persecutor to whoever is left behind to grieve and feel guilty for possibly having provoked the suicide, thus completing the triangle. Le Guernic (2004) suggested that fairy tales provide children with different relationship models but a more positive triangle should be considered instead of the Drama Triangle.

Therapy In therapy practice, among other connections to marital (Zerin, 1988) and family (Weeks, 1978; Zerin, 1988) therapy, Fulkerson (2003) connected the triangle with choice theory and reality therapy. Analyzing script roles in the triangle allows therapists to avoid becoming involved by assuming the adult cognitive role rather then the punitive parent (or persecutor) or the helpless child (or victim) role (Jaoui, 1991). This possibility is emphasized by Justice and Justice (1993). In the judicial or legal systems, the therapist may end up assuming one of the three roles in the triangle. Allen and Allen’s (1998) suggestion about the bystander role was expanded by Clarkson (1993). He gave 12 examples of the bystander role to avoid becoming involved in the triangle, a position that should be taken by most therapists. Hawker (2000) discussed how useful this triangle is in working with domestic violence. This triangle serves as a cognitive structure to work with clients, volunteers, staff, as well as in education and cultural organizations. Respect for the woman’s own perceptions, coupled with a plan for her safety if she returns home, helps to keep counselors from participating in the triangle. Nonparticipation also sends the strong message that the woman is capable of making her own decisions. This triangle is also useful in helping social service workers to understand how their interactions with victims of domestic violence may inadvertently embroil them in it. Finally, an ingeniously simple empirical test of this triangle was reported by Pasternack and Fain (1984). They enlisted 90 undergraduates to participate in a task in a laboratory setting. After completion, participants were asked whether they would like to volunteer for a second experiment. Here the experimenter switched between two different roles: victim and persecutor. Predictably, more students responded favorably to the first rather than to the second role by assuming the role of rescuer, i.e., helping the experimenter. In spite of this simple attempt to find an empirical basis for this triangle, its validity remains an open question. It needs to be resolved one way or another before applying it to families in crisis. A more stringent and controlled replication of this test seems crucial to establishing the validity of this triangle.

220

16 Model14: A Pathogenic Drama Triangle

Implications of the Drama Triangle for Relational Competence Theory L’Abate’s (1986, pp. 90–96) expansion on many variations of these three roles is replicated in Table 16.1. This table also became the basis for the first practice exercise in a written workbook for relational depression. It can be included as one application in the therapy office and as a homework assignment in systematic family therapy (L’Abate, 2010). Once the pervasiveness of this triangle is observed in a family where abuse in its many forms, be it blame, externalizations, physical punishment, incest, or other types of abuse, is present, it is easy to discover who victims and persecutors are. What is more difficult to find is the rescuer, because oftentimes there is no apparent rescuer. However, in any dyad, each party is playing all three roles at different times and in different situations. If and when a rescuer is present, his or her efforts are half-hearted, ineffective, discounted, or futile. For instance, consider an intact family composed traditionally of two parents and two children of different gender. The son was a very conforming, obedient, and sociable child who produced no educational or social problems. The sister, on the other hand, was extremely rebellious, never cleaning up her room, not helping in family chores, and purposely making friends below the educational and socioeconomic status of the parents. The daughter’s oppositional ad rebellious behavior was accepted by the mother almost unconditionally. When the father, however, attempted to correct or criticize the daughter’s behavior, the mother intervened on her behalf, finding excuses and rationalizations for her behavior. However, these roles were sometimes reversed. If and when the mother tried to correct and criticize the daughter’s behavior, complaining to the father, he would intervene on behalf of the daughter. When one felt victimized by the daughter, the other came to her rescue. The daughter saw herself as the victim of both parents, whom she criticized for what she perceived as their abusive ways, their materialistic values, and their conformist and traditional attitudes. She typified Wellman’s (1976) injunction against angry feelings as a result of feeling persecuted by one parent and rescued by the other. She could not tolerate anger expressions in any form. When the parents attempted to enter into family therapy on her return from not completing college, she refused to attend, accusing the father of being the one who needed help the most. One could argue that each member of this triangle, except the bystander brother, was playing all three roles by how they fluctuated in relation to each other, providing an unstable and ultimately destructive atmosphere for the whole family. The long-term outcome of this conflict eventually produced a dependent daughter who denied her dependency but who relied completely on her parents’ financial support as a full-time single mother devoting all her energy to caring for her own daughter conceived out of wedlock. She lived in a completely borderline, almost chaotic lifestyle that made it impossible for her to be and become employable and employed. Repeated requests from her parents to get help were rejected. Consequently, the parents sought therapy as individuals and as a couple. Both parents,

Conclusion

221

however, continued to support the daughter financially for the sake of the granddaughter, who became their pride and joy. The father eventually gave up being one part of the triangle by relinquishing the role of victim and being perceived as the persecutor. He gave up the whole triangle to accept the status quo. By relinquishing his participation in the triangle, the father was able to perform his role as husband, father, and grandfather in a more effective fashion than theretofore, thus vastly reducing the level of conflict in the family.

Conclusion In spite of the pervasiveness of this triangle, the family therapy literature has neglected to acknowledge its influence in family dysfunctionalities. If intimate relationships are analyzed and researched as contents rather than processes, of course, it will be impossible to find and observe this triangle. If, however, family therapists observe the interactions among members of dysfunctional families as processes with this triangle in mind as a blueprint, it will be relatively easy to discover it, observe its pernicious influence, and perhaps intervene more effectively.

Chapter 17

Model15: Intimacy

The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate and expand on a model of intimacy defined as the sharing of joys and of hurt feelings and fears of being hurt. These feelings are the essence of our existence, as shown operationally by a list of related hurtful feelings in Fig.  17.1, as well as visually by a vertical, multilayered, and funnel-like model in Fig. 17.2 (L’Abate, 2009b in press). Being emotionally attuned and available means sharing concern, care, and compassion when hurts are present in oneself and in intimate others, that is, showing empathy in the “here and now” rather than in the past or the future (Feeney, 2004; Young, 2004). This process is found in functional relationships and is inadequate if not absent in dysfunctional ones. It takes a certain degree of functionality to share hurt feelings reciprocally with loved ones. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to share hurt feelings in severe incompetence. It takes functionality to admit to hurts and weaknesses, that is, one needs to feel “strong” enough to admit to being “weak.” In incompetence and severely incompetent relationships, individuals are not able to feel and to admit to feeling vulnerable to hurts and to share this vulnerability with loved ones, who in themselves are also unable and sometimes unwilling to share their vulnerability (L’Abate, 2009b, 2009c). The scientific and professional literature seems to avoid dealing directly and specifically with hurt feelings by using indirect constructs such as “distress,” “negative feelings,” “social pain,” and “emotional disturbances” – often without defining or even including these terms in subject indices. If and when such constructs are defined operationally, they are either measured inconsistently, with different measures, or described by models that cannot be directly verified. Hurt feelings exist at the narrow bottom of the funnel-like model (Fig.  17.2) where activation–deactivation, pleasantness–unpleasantness, and powerfulness– powerlessness serve as gatekeepers, either allowing or not allowing hurt feelings to enter awareness and influence basic feelings of anger, sadness, disgust, fear, joy, and surprise. From this primary level emerge more complex levels of feelings. This model has been evaluated also with one list of written practice exercises deriving from a list of hurt feelings (Fig. 17.2; Maino & L’Abate, research in progress) and could be evaluated also from another list about the antecedent sources of hurt feelings (L’Abate, 2009a, 2009b, or 2010). L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_17, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

223

224

17 Model15: Intimacy

Fig. 17.1  PsycINFO search for terms denoting painful feelings

Feeling Anguish Bereavement Desperation Devastation Distress Grief Hurts Sorrow Suffering Trauma Upset

Frequency 595 4,241 193 201 25,719 9,617 50 588 19,132 26,450 1,238

More Complex Feelings Non-relational:contentment, satisfaction, etc.

Level 5

Altruistic Feelings: Love Care, concern, compassion, empathy, sympathy

Level 4

Self-oriented Feelings Anxiety, embarrassment, guilt, pride/hubris,

?

Level 3 Level 2

Level 1

E X P E R I E N C E

Basic Feelings Anger, disgust, fear, sadness, and - ? Activation/Arousal Pleasant

unpleasant

? H U R T S

E X P R E S S I O N

J O Y S

Fig. 17.2  A funnel model for intimacy defined by sharing joys as well as hurt feelings and fears of being hurt

Subjectively experienced feelings are emerging as separate from observably expressed emotions. Through semantic phenomenological analysis, at least four conceptual errors are present in the literature on feelings and emotions: (1) equating feelings with emotions; (2) considering feelings as appraisal rather than as physical and visceral sensations in their own rights; (3) feelings being attributed unjustified judgments of positive versus negative hedonic valence, and (4) overreliance on undefined or inconsistent use of “distress” as a feeling underlying core feelings.

Convergent and Construct Validity for Intimacy (Model15)

225

The last error leads to an operational definition of that term as consisting of unexpressed hurt feelings in dysfunctional relationships, constituting the unconscious. These feelings emerge when elicited, producing novel reactions and more complex feelings and emotions. Feelings are related to emotions nonlinearly through equipotentiality, equifinality, and multicausality. Both proximal (message intensity and hurtfulness) and distal (relationship satisfaction and closeness) seem to influence recipients’ appraisals of hurtful statements (Young, 2004). Feeney (2004) proposed a model for the outcome of hurtful events in couple relationships: active dissociation, passive dissociation, criticism, infidelity, and deception

Convergent and Construct Validity for Intimacy (Model15) Here “intimacy” is defined behaviorally as the sharing of joys, hurts, and the fear of being hurt (Feeney, 2005; L’Abate, in press; Vangelisti, in press; Vangelisti & Beck, 2007). This definition implies that sharing of hurts and of the fears of being hurt are the conditio sine qua non necessary for forgiveness of errors and of transgressions (Fincham, 2000; Fincham & Beach, 2002; Friesen, Fletcher, & Overall, 2005; L’Abate, 2009a, in press 2009c). This model involves all five components of Model1 in a circular process, starting with the feeling of hurt (emotionality) and progressing to the other components of the model (rationality, activity, awareness, and context). Additionally, this model derives even more directly from developmental identity differentiation (Model9), to the extent that feelings of hurt and joy are usually expressed and shared in creative–conductive styles but not in reactive–repetitive or abusive–apathetic styles. Table 17.1 summarizes eight research studies to evaluate and validate Model15. The most frequently used instrument is the Marital Intimacy Questionnaire (MIQ) created as an expansion of the Sharing of Hurt Scale (SHS; Stevens & L’Abate, 1989) and as an operationalization of seven hypothetical factors (Cusinato & L’Abate, 1994) forming a circular model containing (1) relational realism, which deals with how real both partners are presenting themselves, (2) communication of personal values, (3) respect for personal feelings, (4) acceptance of personal limitations, (5) promotion of potentialities, (6) sharing of hurts, and (7) forgiveness of errors, then going back to a revised communication of personal values. Two studies (Raveani, 1991; Rossi, 1991) concerned the construct validity of the MIQ and one concerned that of the SHS: correlation values corroborate research hypotheses. Two other studies of validity were realized with interventions. Cusinato, Aceti, & L’Abate (1997) administered instructions for hurt sharing (L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007, Table 5, p. 44) to 36 married couples with 5–18 years of marriage (M = 6.42). Pre- and posttest applications of six scales of the MIQ showed a significant improvement for the scale “respect of feelings” (pretest < posttest, p < 0.02) and for the scale “sharing hurts” (pretest < posttest, p < 0.05). Maino (2004) compared six experimental couples and six control couples before

MIQ N = 41 nonclinical married couples: n = 41 husbands (1); n = 41 wives (2) N = 164 nonclinical MIQ married couples: n = 164 husbands (1); n = 164 wives (2)

Raveani, 1991

Rossi, 1991

N = 79 undergraduates

Stevens & L’Abate, 1989

SHS, PAIR, IRS, WIQ

Construct validity

Construct validity

Construct and convergent validity

Table 17.1  Convergent and construct validities for Model15 (intimacy) References Participants Tests Research questions Parmigiani, PAIR and WSS Convergent N = 81 males, and 1983 validity N = 81 females between PAIR and WSS

(1) Communicating personal values:Accepting personal limitations r = 0.38, p = 0.001; affirming respective potentialities r = 0.30, p = 0.01; sharing of hurts r = 0.37, p = 0.001; forgiving errors r = 0.31, p = 0.001 Accepting personal limitations: Affirming respective potentialities r = 0.48, p = 0.001; sharing of hurts r = 0.31, p = 0.01; forgiving errors r = 0.28, p = 0.01 Sharing of hurts: forgiving errors r = 0.56, p = 0.001 (2) Communicating personal values: Accepting personal limitations r = 0.27, p = 0.01; sharing of hurts r = 0.34, p = 0.001; forgiving errors r = 0.33, p = 0.001 Accepting personal limitations: affirming respective potentialities r = 0.44, p = 0.001 Sharing of hurts: forgiving errors: r = 0.51, p = 0.001

Results Emotional intimacy: social utility t(160) = 2.37, p = 0.01; stress t(160) = 3.79, p = 0.001 Sexual intimacy: stress t(160) = 4.10, p = 0.001 Mental intimacy: work variety t(160) = 2.30, p = 0.05; stress t(160) = 3.65, p = 0.001 Recreational intimacy: social utility t(160) = 2.28, p = 0.05; economic satisfaction t(160) = 3.17, p = 0.001 SHS constructs: N = 42 items for five factors satisfactory with alpha values and correlations all significant at p < 0.001: private values (a = 0.68, r = −0.68); vulnerability (a = 0.75, r = 0.69), social desirability (a = 0.82, r = 0.66); imperfection (a = 0.66; r = 0.49), sharing of hurts (a = 0.81, r = 0.68); conflict resolution (a = 0.48, r = −0.63). Concurrent validities among SHS, PAIR, and IRS were also significant (p<0.05 or better), Among the WIQ scales only affection reached significant (p<0.0001) correlations with the order three tests (1) Affirming respective potentialities: sharing of hurts r = 0.52, p = 0.001(2) Affirming respective potentialities: respecting each other’s feelings r = 0.36, p = 0.01; sharing of hurts r = 0.45, p = 0.001

MIQ

MIQ, SCI, and OAS

N = 36 married couples

N = 12 married couples: n = 6 experimental married couples (1); n = 6 control married couples (2)

Cusinato, Aceti, & L’Abate, 1997 Maino, 2004 Construct validity through intervention comparing (1) and (2)

Convergent validity of IASr and AAQ in (2) Construct validity through intervention

Convergent validity of MJQr and AAQ in (1)

MJQr, AAQ, and IASr

N = 126 fiancés (males and females) (1); N = 236 nonclinical husbands and wives (2)

Salvo, 1998

Research questions

Tests

Participants

References

(continued)

Pretest: Possible Break-up Scale F(1, 20) = 4.71, p = 0.042; Communicating personal values F(1, 20) = 6.62, p = 0.018; respect each other’s feelings F(1, 20) = 4.86, p = 0.039; accepting personal limitations F(1, 20) = 4.43, p = 0.036; affirming respective potentialities F(1, 20) = 8.05, p = 0.010 Posttest: Possible Break-up Scale F(1, 20) = 13.23, p = 0.002; communicating personal values F(1, 20) = 8.35, p = 0.009

Respect each other’s feelings: pretest < posttest, p < 0.02 Sharing of hurts: pretest < posttest, p < 0.05 Forgiving errors: pretest < posttest, p < 0.09

Sadness/fear: preoccupied b = 0.49, t(125) = 5.63, p = 0.001, R2 = 0.41; avoidance b = −0.22, t(125) = −3.11, p = 0.01, R2 = 0.41; fearful b = 0.22, t(125) = 2.46, p = 0.05, R2 = 0.41 Anger: fearful R2 = 0.06, b = 0.29, t(126) = 2.73, p = 0.01 Closeness pursuit: preoccupied R2 = 0.13, b = 0.36, t(126) = 4.25, p = 0.001 Intimacy anxiety: secure r = −0.29, p < 0.001; preoccupied r = 0.32, p < 0.001; avoidance r = 0.22, p < 0.001; fearful r = 0.33, p < 0.001

Results

N = 95 married couples: n = 15 couples with children – age 1–16 – affected by infantile cerebral palsy (1); n = 40 couples with children – age 1–16 – affected by malformation syndrome (2); n = 40 couples of healthy children (at least one aged 1–16) (3)

Convergent validity of MIQ and SCI in (1)

MIQ, SCI, and OAS

Convergent validity of MIQ and OAS in (1) Convergent validity of MIQ and SCI in (2)

Research questions

Tests

SCI: affirming respective potentialities R2 = 0.40, F(1, 78) = 52.98, b = 0.64, p = 0.001 Emotional Detachment Scale: affirming respective potentialities R2 = 0.27, F(1, 78) = 23.82, b = −0.52, p = 0.001 Possible Break-up Scale: affirming respective potentialities R2 = 0.12, F(1, 78) = 10.31, b = −0.34, p = 0.002 OAS: Accepting personal limitations R2 = 0.56, F(1, 78) = 99.08, b = 0.75, p = 0.001; respecting personal feelings R2 = 0.64, F(1, 78) = 68.88, b = 0.40, p = 0.001; sharing of hurts R2 = 0.68, F(1, 78) = 53.25, b = 0.28, p = 0.001

SCI: Couple Commitment Scale: communicating personal values R2 = 0.48, F(1, 28) = 25.30, b = 0.69, p = 0.001 Emotional Detachment Scale: sharing of hurts R2 = 0.25, F(1, 28) = 9.55, b = −0.50, p = 0.004 Possible Break-up Scale: communicating personal values R2 = 0.14, F(1, 28) = 4.54, b = −0.38, p = 0.042 OAS: forgiving errors R2 = 0.71, F(1, 28) = 69.09, b = 0.84, p = 0.001; sharing of hurts R2 = 0.76, F(1, 28) = 41.56, b = 0.37, p = 0.001

Results

Convergent validity of MIQ and OAS in (2) SCI: communicating personal values R2 = 0.14, F(1, 78) = 12.43, b = 0.37, p = 0.001 Convergent Emotional Detachment Scale: forgiving errors R2 = 0.13, F(1, 78) = 12.01, b = −0.37, validity of MIQ and SCI p = 0.001 in (3) Convergent OAS: communicating personal values R2 = 0.12, F(1, 78) = 10.18, b = 0.34, validity of p = 0.002; sharing of hurts R2 = 0.17, F(1, 78) = 7.66, b = −0.30, p = 0.001; MIQ and OAS accepting personal limitations R2 = 0.23, F(1, 78) = 7.35, b = 0.37, p = 0.001 in (3) SCI Stanley’s Commitment Inventory, OAS Optimistic Attitude Scale, MIQ Marital Intimacy Questionnaire, PAIR Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships, WSS Work Satisfaction Scales, AAQ Adult Attachment Questionnaire, IASr Intimacy Anxiety Scale, revised, MJQr Marital Jealousy Questionnaire, revised, SHS Sharing of Hurt Scale, IRS Interpersonal Relationship Scale, WIQ Waring Intimacy Questionnaire

Maino, 2005

Table 17.1  (continued) References Participants

Convergent and Construct Validity for Intimacy (Model15)

229

and after a structured intimacy program ascertaining filled gaps in three dimensions [respect each other’s feelings: F(1, 20) = 4.86, p = 0.039; accepting personal limitations: F(1, 20) = 4.43, p = 0.036; affirming respective potentialities: F(1, 20) = 8.05, p = 0.010], whereas two differences continued [(Possible Break-up Scale: F(1, 20) = 13.23, p = 0.002; communicating personal values: F(1, 20) = 8.35, p = 0.009]. Four studies were oriented to convergent validity. Parmigiani (1983) compared dimensions of Personal Assessment of Intimacy in a Relationship (PAIR; Schaefer & Olson, 1981) with work satisfaction dimensions (Work Satisfaction, revised; Benvenuti, 1980), checking some convergences. Stevens and L’Abate (1989) found the SHS to have satisfactory concurrent validity with PAIR, the Interpersonal Relationship Scale (Guerney, 1977), and the Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (Waring, 1983). Salvo (1998) ascertained congruences among intimacy anxiety (Intimacy Anxiety Scale, revised; Doi & Thelen, 1993), jealousy dimensions (Marital Jealousy Questionnaire, revised; Frison, 1998) and adult attachment dimensions (Adult Attachment Questionnaire; Cusinato, Colesso, & Barbon, 2006). The ability to share hurts appears to be the core element for couple intimacy and the main protective factor for relational stability. Maino (2005) verified that this ability is more present in families with handicapped children than in families with healthy children. Three groups – the first of 40 couples with children, 1–16 years old, diagnosed with malformation syndrome and mental retardation, the second of 15 couples with a child, 1–16 years old mentally retarded, and the third control sample composed of 40 couples with healthy children – were administered the MIQ, Stanley’s Commitment Inventory (Stanley & Markman, 1992), and the Optimistic Attitude Scale (Maino, 1998). Regression analyses showed that in the control group the most important factor in predicting the stability of the relationship was the capacity to communicate with the partner one’s own values, thoughts, and feelings. Such a predictor is present positively in couple commitment [Couple Commitment Scale: communicating personal values R2 = 0.14, F(1, 78) = 12.43, b = 0.37, p = 0.001] and in the importance given to one’s relationship [(Optimistic Attitude Scale: communicating personal values R2 = 0.12, F(1, 78) = 10.18, b = 0.34, p = 0.002; accepting personal limitations R2 = 0.23, F(1, 78) = 7.35, b = 0.37, p = 0.001]. In the same way, the capacity to tolerate and to forgive reciprocal errors seems to be a protective factor in contrast to emotional detachment from the relationship [Emotional Detachment Scale: forgiving errors R2 = 0.13; F(1, 78) = 12.01, b = −0.37, p = 0.001]. On the other hand, the capacity to share one’s hurts seems to influence negatively the importance given to the relationship [(Optimistic Attitude Scale: sharing of hurts R2 = 0.17, F(1, 78) = 7.66, b = −0. 30, p = 0.001]. Such a seemingly contradictory result could be explained by the sharing of personal hurts being such a profound aspect of intimacy that it is rather difficult to achieve. This difficulty could be linked to deterrent elements that bring into light the vulnerability of each partner and the potential to hurt and to be hurt by both, especially when there is no crisis and the couple relationship is reported accordingly in positively global terms.

230

17 Model15: Intimacy

The capacity to share hurtful feelings becomes a more important protective factor for couple stability in the relationship between parents with a cerebral palsy child. Indeed, the capacity to share one’s hurt feelings affects positively the importance of the relationship [(Optimistic Attitude Scale: forgiving errors R2 = 0.71, F(1, 28) = 69.09, b = 0.84, p = 0.001; sharing of hurts R2 = 0.76, F(1, 28) = 41.56, b = 0.37, p = 0.001], the investment implicit inside the relationship [Couple Commitment Scale: communicating personal values R2 = 0.48, F(1, 28) = 23.50, b = 0.69, p = 0.001] in comparison with the tendency to disinvest in the relationship from its affective viewpoint [Emotional Detachment Scale: sharing of hurts R2 = 0.25, F(1, 28) = 9.55, b = −0.50, p = 0.004]. Lastly, in the group of parents with a child with malformation syndrome, the most important factor for the stability of the couple relationship seems to lie in the capacity to attribute importance to one’s partner. Such a factor seems to be in opposition to a possible break-up [Possible Break-up Scale: affirming potentialities R2 = 0.12, F(1, 78) = 10.31, b = −0.34, p = 0.002] as well as an affective disinvestment in the relationship [Emotional Detachment Scale: affirming potentialities R2 = 0.27, F(1, 78) = 23.82, b = −0.52, p = 0.001] and at the same time favors investment involved inside the relationship [Couple Commitment Scale: affirming potentialities R2 = 0.40, F(1, 78) = 52.98, b = 0.64, p = 0.001]. The capacity to share hurt feelings, together with the uniqueness of the partner and the capacity to accept one’s and the other’s limits, seems to influence positively the importance bestowed on the relationship itself [(Optimistic Attitude Scale: accepting personal limitations R2 = 0.56, F(1, 78) = 99.08, b = 0.75, p = 0.001; respect for feelings R2 = 0.64, F(1, 78) = 68.88, b = 0.40, p = 0.001; sharing of hurts R2 = 0.68, F(1, 78) = 53.25, b = 0.28, p = 0.001].

Conclusion These results tend to support the convergent and construct validities of a model of intimacy as evaluated by the various research studies reported here. This model serves also to include the vast literature on social support not only as a one-way street but also as a reciprocal process in times of stress, when the bottom line of our existence is found in hurt feelings and our fears of being hurt.

Chapter 18

Model16: Negotiation

The process of negotiation (bargaining, problem solving) implies an amount of self-control and functionality necessary to dispassionately confront emotionally laden issues (Roloff, Putman, & Anastasiou, 2003). The structure of negotiation and problem solving includes most of the previous assumptions and models and is more likely to be seen in creative–conductive than in reactive–repetitive or abusive– apathetic styles. For instance, to evaluate the structure and process of negotiation, one must consider a multiplicative function of four basic factors: (1) level of functionality between negotiating parties; (2) the abilities necessary to negotiate, as in creative–conductive styles (Model9, Chap. 11), including also multiplicative/additive interactions (Model10, Chap. 12), and selful relational propensities (Model11, Chap. 13); (3) motivation to negotiate fairly, related to priorities in Model12 (Chap. 14); and (4) the nature of the decision to be made – large ones (orchestrational) such as buying a house or moving to another city versus small, routine (instrumentational) decisions such as where to go out to eat or what toothpaste to buy.

Criterion, Convergent, and Construct Validity for Model16 (Negotiation) Not all four basic factors were included in the studies summarized in Table 18.1. However, the results reported below constitute a beginning step toward a more comprehensive evaluation of this model. Matterazzo (1994) found significant correlations between the Marital Negotiation Scales – adapted from the Enriching and Nurturing Relationship Issues, Communication, and Happiness (ENRICH) questionnaire (Olson, Fournier, & Druckman, 1982) – and the Efficacy in Communication Scale (Cusinato & Cristante, 1999) (sexual relationship r = 0.64, p < 0.001; children and marriage r = 0.61, p < 0.001; equalitarian roles r = 0.66, p < 0.001; leisure activities r = 0.66, p < 0.001; financial management r = 0.50, p < 0.001; relations with relatives r = 0.52, p < 0.001; family and friends r = 0.37, p < 0.001), and with the satisfaction scale (Olson et al., 1982) (sexual relationship r = 0.67, p < 0.001; children and marriage L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_18, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

231

Convergent validity of ENRICHr and MSS

Convergent validity of ENRICHr and MCSEfficacy

Table 18.1  Criterion, convergent, and construct validity for Model16 (negotiation) References Participants Tests Research questions Construct validity of ENRICHr, Matterazzo, N = 120 ENRICHr MCS1994 nonclinical Efficacy, married and MSS couples

Results Sexual relationship: children and marriage r = 0.53, p < 0.01; equalitarian roles r = 0.55, p < 0.01; leisure activities r = 0.60, p < 0.01; financial management r = 0.52, p < 0.01; relations with relatives r = 0.57, p < 0.01; family and friends r = 0.39, p < 0.39 Children and marriage: equalitarian roles r = 0.73, p < 0.01; leisure activities r = 0.57, p < 0.01; financial management r = 0.65, p < 0.01; relations with relatives r = 0.52, p < 0.01; family and friends r = 0.46, p < 0.01 Equalitarian roles: leisure activities r = 0.58, p < 0.01; financial management r = 0.67, p < 0.01; relations with relatives r = 0.50, p < 0.01; family and friends r = 0.37, p < 0.01 Leisure activities: financial management r = 0.57, p < 0.01; relations with relatives r = 0.45, p < 0.01; family and friends r = 0.44, p < 0.01 Financial management: relations with relatives r = 0.57, p < 0.01; family and friends r = 0.42, p < 0.01 Relations with relatives: family and friends r = 0.54, p < 0.01 Efficacy: sexual relationship r = 0.64, p < 0.001; children and marriage r = 0.61, p < 0.001; equalitarian roles r = 0.66, p < 0.001; leisure activities r = 0.66, p < 0.001; financial management r = 0.50, p < 0.001; relations with relatives r = 0.52, p < 0.001; family and friends r = 0.37, p < 0.001 Marital satisfaction: sexual relationship r = 0.67, p < 0.001; children and marriage r = 0.71, p < 0.001; equalitarian roles r = 0.60, p < 0.001; leisure activities r = 0.65, p < 0.001; financial management r = 0.55, p < 0.001; relations with relatives r = 0.56, p < 0.001; family and friends r = 0.41, p < 0.001

Participants

Research questions Convergent validity of ENRICHr and DRT

Tests

ENRICHr, DRT

Results

Giordano, 1996

N = 100 married couples with children: n = 100 husbands (1); n = 100 wives (2)

Children and marriage: selful: r = 0.20, p < 0.01; selfless r = 0.24, p < 0.01; selfish r = −0.24, p < 0.01; no-self r = −0.17, p < 0.01 Leisure activities: selfless r = 0.15, p < 0.05 Financial management: selful r = 0.14, p < 0.05 Relations with relatives: selful r = 0.15, p < 0.05 Family and friends: selful r = 0.20, p < 0.01; selfless r = 0.14, p < 0.05 Criterion validity of DRT and (1) Sexual relationship: selfish F(1, 98) = 6.07, p < 0.05 ENRICHr in (1) & (2) Children and marriage: no-self F(1, 98) = 26.88, p < 0.001 Leisure activities: no-self F(1, 98) = 13.85, p < 0.001 Financial management: no-self F(1, 98) = 5.39, p < 0.05 Relations with relatives: no-self F(1, 98) = 7.44, p < 0.01 Family and friends: no-self F(1, 98) = 11.93, p < 0.001 (2) Children and marriage: selful F(1, 98) = 4.64, p < 0.05 PREPAREr, 5-year follow-up Cusinato, 2000 Partner quality: personality issues r = 26, p < 0.05; role N = 373 couples PQT, MSS flexibility r = 30, p < 0.01 before and Marital satisfaction: conflict resolution r = 28, p < 0.05; role after marriage flexibility r = 30, p < 0.01 DRT Dyadic Relationship Test, ENRICHr Enriching and Nurturing Relationship Issues, Communication, and Happiness, revised, MCS-Efficacy Marital Communication Scales–Efficacy Scale, MSS Marital Satisfaction Scale, PREPAREr Premarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation, revised, PQT Partner Quality Test

References

234

18 Model16: Negotiation

r = 0.71, p < 0.001; equalitarian roles r = 0.60, p < 0.001; leisure activities r = 0.65, p < 0.001; financial management r = 0.55, p < 0.001; relations with relatives r = 0.56, p < 0.001; family and friends r = 0.41, p < 0.001) (Matterazzo, 1994). In Giordano’s (1996) study about the convergent validity of ENRICH, revised and the Dyadic Relationship Test, couples distinguished by high level of selfulness show high negotiation abilities in several relational dimensions (children and marriage r = 0.20, p < 0.01; financial management r = 0.14, p < 0.05; relation with relatives r = 0.15, p < 0.05; and family and friends r = 0.20, p < 0.01), whereas criterion analyses point out no-self husbands with high no-self scoring differentiate from wives in these same dimensions, except in financial management: children and marriage: F(1, 98) = 26.88, p < 0.001; leisure activities: F(1, 98) = 13.85, p < 0.001; financial management: F(1, 98) = 5.39, p < 0.05; relations with relatives F(1, 98) = 7.44, p < 0.01; family and friends: F(1, 98) = 11.93, p < 0.05. A 5-year follow-up study (Cusinato, 2000) concerning the efficacy test of a premarital program showed high scoring of negotiation dimensions monitored in time 1 support high relationship quality and marital satisfaction in time 2: partner quality correlates with personality issues (r = 26, p < 0.05) and with role flexibility (r = 30, p < 0.01); marital satisfaction correlates with conflict resolution (r = 28, p < 0.05) and with role flexibility (r = 30, p < 0.01).

Conclusion The results from the studies summarized in this chapter tend to support the construct, convergent, and criterion validities of this model.

Part VI

The Improvement of Relational Competence

Improvement of relational competence can occur through self-help (Harwood & L’Abate, in press) and through low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health (L’Abate, 2007). Both sets of approaches can be administered at a distance, as homework assignments (Kazantzis & L’Abate, 2007), without ever seeing participants, with interactive, programmed distance writing through the Internet (L’Abate, 1986, 1992a,b 2001, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2008a, 2009). Self-help and promotion of mental health (Chap. 19), however, are different from prevention (Chap. 20) and from talk-based, face-to-face treatment (Chap. 21) because self-help and promotion means going toward positive experiences for oneself and others, whereas prevention means avoiding negative experiences for oneself and others (Higgins, 1997). Treatment means that to deal with severe dysfunctionality we need a combination of all four approaches (self-help, promotion, prevention, and treatment) as well as medical regulation obtained through psychotropic and antidepression medication.

Chapter 19

Promotion of Relational Competence: Approaching Positive Experiences

In the last generation, the field of mental health has grown in a number of variegated approaches to the point that seems meaningful to relate these approaches to the improvement of relational competence in physical and mental health. Higgins (1997) suggested an important distinction that is very relevant to an improvement of relational competence in general and the treatment of incompetence in particular. Starting with the distinction made in Chap. 4 between approach and avoidance, Higgins suggested that we approach pleasure (i.e.,promotion), and we avoid pain (i.e.,prevention). If that is the case, then we want to approach health and avoid sickness. Approach deals with promotion of physical and mental health. Avoidance deals with the prevention of physical and mental sickness. How do we approach health and avoid sickness? In this and the next two chapters, we shall attempt to answer that question. We will first review approaches that are directed toward approach of physical and mental health. In Chap. 20, we shall review preventive approaches that help people avoid incompetence. In Chap. 21, we shall review treatment approaches that to improve competence and decrease incompetence rely on more than one approach. One single approach is not sufficient to change from incompetence to competence. What in the past was considered primary prevention (L’Abate, 1990) can be differentiated into at least three categories: (1) theory-independent, (2) theory-related, and (3) theory-derived approaches.

Theory-Independent Approaches There are at least four cost-effective theory-independent approaches to promote physical and mental health: (1) play; (2) volunteering; (3) low-cost approaches; and (4) self-help.

L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_19, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

237

238

19 Promotion of Relational Competence: Approaching Positive Experiences

Play In a review of play across the life cycle, it becomes evident that play and exercise at various stages of the life cycle produces or is produced by healthy attitudes and positive physical and mental health outcomes (L’Abate, 2009e).

Volunteering From the various research studies reviewed in various chapters of an edited volume dedicated to altruism and health, there is no question that volunteering has healthengendering outcomes (Post, 2007). Of course, whether healthier individuals choose to volunteer and, therefore, show a positive outcome is an issue that still remains open to discussion and further research. Nonetheless, the relationship between volunteering and health remains clear and valid. This approach is theoretically related to Model9, Model10, Model11, and Model 12 where respectively, a creative– conductive style, multiplicative interactions, selfulness, and priorities are relevant to volunteering.

Low-Cost Approaches To Promote Physical and Mental Health There are a plethora of low-cost approaches that include nutrition, primary nonverbal positive activities, distance writing in its various forms, that is, journaling, autobiography, expressive and structured writing, and computers can be used, secondary relational, and tertiary multipersonal approaches (L’Abate, 2007).

Self-Help The self-help movement in the USA is very strong but needs to be evaluated critically to divide the hype from the reality. Harwood and L’Abate (2010) reviewed the literature on self-support methods as those initiated, administered, guided, maintained, and monitored by mental health professionals. Within this category there are distance writing, bibliotherapy, online support groups and therapy, and manuals. Those approaches are distinct from self-help and self-change approaches for specific conditions initiated, administered, guided, maintained, and monitored by professionals, such as anxieties, depressions, eating disorders, addictive behaviors, personality disorders, severe psychopathological disorders or incompetence, and medical conditions.

Theory-Independent Approaches

239

Social Skills Training Programs: Structured Enrichment Programs This approach consists of written-down exercises to be administered by semiprofessional trainers under the supervision of a professional (L’Abate & Weinstein, 1987; L’Abate & Young, 1987). These replicable exercises are administered from the text to couples and families (L’Abate, 1990; L’Abate, 2010). Enrichment programs are written for couples and families and can be administered verbatim if they are functional and nonclinical, making these programs completely replicable from one setting to another (Giblin, 1986). Model2, Model3, Model4, Model5, and Model6 can be evaluated through various assignments. Model7 can be evaluated through an enrichment assignment as can Model8, Model9, Model10, Model11, Model12, Model14, and Model15.

Distance Writing in Self-Help, Promotion, Prevention, and Psychotherapy The pervasive and growing influence of the Internet indicates that distance writing will be to the twenty-first century what talk was for the last century (L’Abate, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c; Marks & Cavanagh, 2009). This conclusion and prediction indicates that we must understand and differentiate among various types of distance writing (Fig. 19.1) because all these types can be used in health promotion (this chapter), prevention (Chap. 20), and psychotherapy (Chap. 21). The classification of different distance-writing approaches should be self-explanatory. However, if the reader is interested in further information, this can be found in previous writings (L’Abate, 1992a,b, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b; L’Abate & Goldstein, 2007). An additional, self-explanatory classification of interactive practice exercises for functional populations and for lifelong learning is contained in Fig. 19.2. In Fig. 19.3 there is a classification of interactive practice exercises in mental health

Fig. 19.1  Toward a classification of distance-writing dimensions1

Adapted from l’Abate (2004a).

1 

240

19 Promotion of Relational Competence: Approaching Positive Experiences

Fig. 19.2  A classification of distance writing 2

Fig. 19.3  A classification of interactive practice exercises in mental health 3

Theory-Related Interactive Practice Exercises Whreas the previous part of this chapter included theory-independent approaches, this part will include theory-related and theory-derived interactive practice exercises.

Adapted from L’Abate, 2004b. Adapted from L’Abate, 2004b.

2 3

Theory-Related Interactive Practice Exercises

241

Interactive Practice Exercises To Promote Mental Health and Lifelong Learning Self-help, mental health interactive practice exercises or interactive practice exercises are becoming an important part of the whole delivery systems in primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. They indicate also an increasing reliance on distance writing rather than on face-to-face, spoken medium in prevention, therapy, and rehabilitation (L’Abate, 2002, 2004a, 2004b; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003; L’Abate & Goldstein, 2007). Interactive practice exercises can be classified as (1) completely independent from models of the theory, such as interactive practice exercises based on clinical experience or from models not related to the theory; (2) indirectly linked to the theory (selfish externalization versus selfless internalization); and (3) directly and completely derived from models of the theory, such as interactive practice exercises derived from Model9 (“Who am I?”), Model11 (selfhood), Model16 (negotiation), and planned parenting. The last two interactive practice exercises include most models of the theory (L’Abate, 2007). Studies performed almost 30 years ago in the first author’s laboratory and their newly recalculated effect sizes are reviewed in L’Abate (2004b). A meta-analysis of mental and physical health interactive practice exercises (Smyth & L’Abate, 2001) yielded an effect size of 0.44 for mental health and an effect size of 0.25 for physical health, attesting to the cost-effectiveness, mass-orientation, and versatility of written interactive practice exercises. Interactive practice exercises, of course, are used primarily to help people, and only secondarily to test competing theories or models. In regard to both uses, the criterion becomes: “Which workbook representing which theory (or model) will produce the best results for the shortest number of assignments?” This is a new rephrasing of the old psychotherapy dictum: “Who will be helped by which intervention and by which helper (at what price)?” For instance, given two different interactive practice exercises to deal with the two dimensions of the selfhood model (Fig. 13.3), self and other, is it possible to compare each workbook with interactive practice exercises designed to deal with the same two dimensions based on different theoretical viewpoints? For instance, both interactive practice exercises could be compared with the two interactive practice exercises about self–other concerns developed on the basis of Blatt et al.’s two-factor model of depression, self-criticism, and overdependency. How well does the selfhood model compare with interactive practice exercises derived from other models about the same two dimensions of self and other? If no competing interactive practice exercises are available, it is possible to compare either the negotiation or intimacy interactive practice exercises (both derived from the theory) with interactive practice exercises on the same topic, as listed in Fig. 13.4. In another instance, two assignments idiographic with two subsidiary models of depression (L’Abate, 1986), the Drama Triangle and the Distance Triangle, are found in two respective assignment found in the workbook with the same name (Fig. 13.1). Through interactive practice exercises a wide range of nonclinical, semiclinical, and clinical populations can be helped, at the same time evaluating different theoretical models from which interactive practice exercises were derived.

242

19 Promotion of Relational Competence: Approaching Positive Experiences

Here is where theory and theory testing become relevant in linking with both applied and clinical practice. The same three-level criteria to evaluate a theory, presented in Chap. 1, can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of distance writing through interactive practice exercises (L’Abate, 2009c). For instance, independent evidence about the overall use of distance writing, and especially focused distance writing, is represented by the research summarized by Esterling, L’Abate, Murray, and Pennebaker (1999) and Smyth (1998). Indirect evidence about the use of interactive practice exercises and homework assignments in general is represented by meta-analyses presented by Kazantzis (2000), Kazantzis, Deane, and Ronan (2000), and Smyth and L’Abate (2001). Direct evidence about the clinical usefulness of interactive practice exercises as an adjunct to prevention and psychotherapy specifically developed by this author has been summarized in L’Abate (2004b). Preliminary direct evidence is also available in L’Abate (1992a,b), McMahan and L’Abate (2001) and Reed, McMahan, and L’Abate (2001). Of course, more evidence will be necessary to evaluate the latter. The term “preliminary” is used in the sense that any evidence presented by the proponent of any method is suspect at best. Consequently, no matter how much evidence this author and his collaborators were to accumulate, it would never be enough. It is much more important for such evidence to be developed by researchers independent of this approach. Most models of the theory in general can be evaluated with a negotiation (L’Abate, 1986), a structured interview, or planned parenting interactive practice exercises. Specific models from RCT can be evaluated by comparing them to models from competing theories independent from RCT (L’Abate, 2010). For instance, a theory-derived model of depression (L’Abate, 1986) could be evaluated in a comparison with a practice exercise derived from another model (Beck or Hamilton).

Model1: ERAAwC This model can be evaluated by administering an enrichment program isomorphic with this model (L’Abate & Weinstein, 1987, pp. 376–383). L’Abate and Young (1987) presented seven different case studies where this program was successfully administered. Conceivably, the structural nature of this program allows us to reduce it to computer-assisted interventions.

Model4: Ability To Love As discussed in Chap. 4 as well as in other chapters in this book, using a requirement of redundancy, the construct of love as an approach can be backed up also by other models of the theory, such as being present (Model7), bestowing importance (Model11), priorities (Model12), and intimacy (Model15). There are quite a few interactive practice exercises related to distance and the ability to love (L’Abate, 1996), such

Theory-Related Interactive Practice Exercises

243

as intimacy, couple relationships, problems in relationships, planned parenting, and relationship qualities.

Model5: Ability To Control Self There are quite a few interactive practice exercises related to the area of discharge, i.e., externalization (L’Abate, 1996, 2009a, 2009c, 2009f), including anger, temper, and personality disorders in general. In the area of delay there is at least one workbook dedicated to procrastination, as well interactive practice exercises covering the whole realm of normalization that can be applied after either discharge or delay tendencies have been lowered toward a balance of both, in the middle of discharge–delay.

Model9: Styles in Intimate Relationships The ARC model (Model9) can be evaluated by a series of questions isomorphic with the model (L’Abate & Weinstein, 1987, pp. 317–375).

Model12: Priorities This model can be evaluated through the administration of an enrichment program by the same title (L’Abate & Weinstein, 1987, pp. 384–391).

Model15: Intimacy An early version of an intimacy enrichment program was published verbatim (L’Abate & McHenry, 1983, pp. 357–362). In another collection with hundreds of exercises and questions on a variety of topics (L’Abate & Weinstein, 1987), one exercise addresses avoidance of intimacy (p. 162) and a complete program (no. 29) on helpfulness (pp. 300–309) contains lessons on (1) establishing levels of caring, hurts, and strengths, (2) seeing the good, (3) caring, (4) sharing of hurt feelings, (5) forgiveness, (6) protectiveness, (7) responsibility, and (8) enjoyment. Two case studies (L’Abate & Young, 1987), illustrating specific applications of this program to issues of parentification (pp. 134– 153) and to a psychosomatic family (pp. 163–179), describe how this program was applied with pre- and postenrichment test batteries. These exercises and programs are now being transformed for computer administration. A complete list of practice exercises for lifelong training for individuals, couples, and families is included for inspection in Fig. 19.4.

244

19 Promotion of Relational Competence: Approaching Positive Experiences

Fig. 19.4  Self-help interactive practice exercises for individual, couple, and family lifelong learning 4 Adapted from L’Abate, 2010.

4

Conclusion

245

Research Various research studies about the clinical outcome of practice exercises performed in the 1970s were reevaluated using effect size analyses not available at an earlier date and the findings were published in L’Abate (2004b). The most relevant research was a meta-analysis of physical and mental health interactive practice exercises performed by Smyth and L’Abate (2001). This analysis showed that these interactive practice exercises, administered at a distance from experimenters, produced effect sizes of 0.25 for physical health and of 0.44 for mental health interactive practice exercises. These results plus clinical case studies with prepost evaluations indicate that we can indeed change competence for the better without ever seeing functional or dysfunctional participants face-to-face or talking with them (L’Abate, 2010).

Conclusion Written interactive practice exercises can be used by themselves or as supplementary adjuncts to talk-based interventions in play, self-help, health promotion, prevention of sickness, and treatment of sickness as reviewed, respectively, in Chaps. 20 and 21.

Chapter 20

Prevention of Relational Incompetence: Avoiding Negative Experiences

Preventive and therapeutic interventions need to be differentiated according to the level and type of functionality. For instance, even though most types of functionality may not need improvement, they could benefit from low-cost interventions, such as dancing, exercise, massage, and volunteering, as discussed in Chap. 19. In preventive and therapeutic approaches, cluster C personality disorders or internalizations need to be differentiated from cluster B externalizing disorders. The former, with their proclivity to delay and introspect, can be helped by face-to-face talk-based psychotherapy as well as by additional homework assignments, using various types of writing or nonverbal tasks (Kazantzis & L’Abate, 2007). The latter can be helped to deal with their impulsivity and inadequate inability to introspect using written homework assignments, once they decompensate in a crisis or when they are in danger of going to jail, or if they are already in jail. Interactive practice exercises developed to increase reflection, introspection, and greater controls could decrease discharge and impulsivity (L’Abate, 2010). Disorders in cluster A of axis II and disorders of axis I can be helped through various therapeutic approaches, including impersonal instruments and a whole relatively new technology in psychology, psychiatry, and neurology (L’Abate & Kaiser, in press), such as computers, medication, socioeducational training skills, and group therapies, as discussed further in Chap. 21.

Secondary Prevention The last three decades have seen the development of new, structured interventions for relational competence (RC) that has mushroomed into what has been called the psycho-educational social skills training movement. These approaches consist of prepackaged, time-limited, topic-specific programs administered universally to functioning, i.e., “normal,” and semifunctional participants (clients, consumers, patients, individuals, couples, and families) designed to improve their personal and interpersonal functioning or RC, as in the case of the earliest, pioneer program, the mother of all RC programs, and that is assertiveness training. Assertiveness, L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_20, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

247

248

20 Prevention of Relational Incompetence: Avoiding Negative Experiences

the ability to make oneself heard and, therefore, transact successfully difficult interpersonal situations, was the forerunner of RC programs that developed after the evident success and popularity of assertiveness training (L’Abate, 2008; Merrell & Gimpel, 1997; Sternberg & Kolligian, 1990). RC is defined specifically by skills needed for interpersonal success, consisting of general interpersonal skills, assertiveness, prevocational skills, activities of daily living, microinterpersonal skills, dating, effective management (anger, sadness, anxiety), and cognitive skills (decision making, problem solving brainstorming, bargaining, positive thinking, interpersonal awareness, and issues of intimacy and sexuality). A more generic definition, which is open to evaluation, views RC as a repertoire of verbal and nonverbal behaviors by which participants affect, positively or negatively, the behavior of intimates and nonintimates (peers, parents, siblings, teachers, partners, and coworkers). These acts influence the immediate and long-term environment by obtaining desirable and removing or avoiding undesirable outcomes, either within the family or within other settings (school, work, leisure settings). The extent to which participants are successful in obtaining desirable outcomes and avoiding or escaping from undesirable ones, without inflicting pain or suffering on others, defines RC. To this extent, most psychoeducational social training programs are designed to correct specific areas where the level of competence needs to be raised.

Training for Relational Competence RC theorypractice and training look at maladjustment and deviant behavior as straightforward skill deficits rather than amplifications of inferred conscious and unconscious motivations or internal states or traits. Hence, people with RC deficits need training or coaching rather than “therapy.” This training consists of a specific presentation of concepts through verbal and written instruction, i.e., lectures, modeling experiences, using rehearsals, manuals, corrective verbal/written feedback, homework assignments, relaxation training, self-reinforcement, and printed course materials to guide verbal presentations. Rehearsals consist of (1) repeated practice of newly acquired skills, (2) open discussion and direct, active participation, i.e., repetition of skills, of all participants, and (3) trying to increase generalization from the practice setting to other settings, such as home, workplace, or leisure-time activities. “Generalization” means the ability to use newly learned skills acquired in one setting in another setting, either with similar effects or usually with greater implied usefulness outside the training setting.

Critical Comments About Psychoeducational Social Skills Training At its outset, more than 30 years ago, the psychoeducational, social skills training movement claimed to be preventive of mental health deficits and deviations. However, with its inability to demonstrate long-terms effects, claims of preventive

Critical Comments About Psychoeducational Social Skills Training

249

powers were eventually dropped. Nonetheless, the term is still alive in the exhortatory writings of prevention’s most ardent advocates, in spite of no long-term evidence to support it. Consequently, even without the preventive label, this movement, in various forms, is an important addition along the mental health continuum of self-care and prevention (Harwood & L’Abate, 2010; L’Abate, 2007). There is still no clear consensus on what constitutes RC in children as well as in adolescents, and single or married adults, couples, or families, a shortcoming that, hopefully, will become more clearly defined in the future. This topic needs further delineation directed toward finding a definite number of skills clusters that are correlated with overall RC. For instance, how much of RC includes intimacy in committed, close, and prolonged relationships? Is intimacy necessary for successful RC? Can one be relationally competent without being intimate? Intimacy may be necessary in the home setting. However, this skill may be counterproductive in a work setting or in leisure activities. Are there intimate personalities versus personalities who avoid being intimate? If this is the case, what are their implications for RC and personality socialization? (L’Abate, 1997b, 2005). Furthermore, the introduction of the use of the Internet in mental health practices may have made some psychoeducational training programs obsolete and too inefficient unless they have been transformed for programs offered online (L’Abate & Weinstein, 1987; L’Abate & Young, 1987).

Future Perspectives The Surgeon General of the USA report on mental health needs (Satcher, 1999) indicated very clearly and very forcefully that the mental health needs of the USA and, by extrapolation, of other countries outside the USA have not been met and will not to be met by traditional, face-to-face, talk-based, personal contact paradigms, such as psychotherapy. The mental health professions will need to use available, structured technologies to reach relationally incompetent populations (shut-ins, handicapped, military and missionary families) that have been heretofore neglected by that paradigm. In addition, mental health professionals will need to rely more on distance writing, as a cost-effective, mass-oriented alternative or addition to talk. These professionals will need to adopt writing rather than talk to help, at a distance, more relationally defective participants per unit of their time than can be reached through talk and personal contact (Esterling, L’Abate, Murray, & Pennebaker, 1999). With television, computers, and the Internet, the field of RC training has the potential to reach and help interactively through writing at a distance a much greater number of functional (at risk), semifunctional (in need), and dysfunctional (in crisis) participants than was possible heretofore (L’Abate, 1990). Traditional, psychoeducational skills training programs requiring face-to-face, verbal contact with a trainer will need to give way to distance structured and programmed technologies (L’Abate & Kaiser, in press). Hence, programs directed toward improving and imparting RC will have a future to the extent

250

20 Prevention of Relational Incompetence: Avoiding Negative Experiences

that they will employ existing technologies to reach and help more relationally defective participants than was possible in the past. The foregoing introduction is primary prevention and skill training programs, including enrichment, is completely independent conceptually and practically from RCT. However, it was introduced here as a historical note that preceded distance writing and, more specifically, programmed writing, as in interactive practice exercises or workbooks. The administration of workbooks, then, can be guided by theory and not by a random, hit-or-miss process (L’Abate, 2010).

Interactive Practice Exercises Targeted to Clinical Conditions For borderline or clinical conditions, written interactive practice exercises or workbooks (L’Abate, 2010) are based on the reason for referral, that is, axis II, clusters C personality disorders and scores on single- or multiple-score tests, such as the Beck Anxiety Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, or lists of behaviors, signs, or symptoms derived from factor analyses. Complete analyses of research and applications regarding the clinical validity of workbooks are available in L’Abate (2004b) and do not need to be replicated here. Table  20.1 provides a self-explanatory list of these exercises available for preventive and therapeutic approaches. Table 20.1  Self-help interactive practice exercises for individuals with psychiatric classification Disorders of internalization Children and youths Anxiety: This interactive practice exercise is based on the scale by the same name developed by Newcomer, Barenbaum, and Bryant (1994) Anxiety, depression, and fears: This interactive practice exercise is based on the work by Chorpita, Albano, and Barlow (1998) Asperger disorder: The list of symptoms used for this interactive practice exercise was taken from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition American Psychiatric Association 1994 Depression: This interactive practice exercise is based on the Scale by the same name developed by Newcomer et al. (1994) Posttraumatic stress: This interactive practice exercise is based on the work of Anthony, Lonigan, and Hecht (1999) Separation anxiety: This interactive practice exercise is based on the list of symptoms found in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (American Psychiatric Association 1994) Adults Anxiety: The list of symptoms used for this interactive practice exercise was taken from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (American Psychiatric Association 1994) Depressive personality: This interactive practice exercise is based on the research by Hartlage, Arduino, and Alloy (1998) about depressive characteristics (continued)

Critical Comments About Psychoeducational Social Skills Training

251

Table 20.1  (continued) Loneliness: Although loneliness is not a psychiatric dimension or category, this condition affects a great many people who suffer also from other conditions. One could say that loneliness is a concomitant of many psychiatric and nonpsychiatric conditions, especially in youth. These are the reasons for including this interactive practice exercise in this section. This interactive practice exercise was developed from the work of Hurtug, Audy, and Cohen (1998) and Peplau and Perlman (1982). A questionnaire found in Peplau and Perlman could be administered before and after completion of this interactive practice exercise Phobias: This interactive practice exercise was developed from the combined work of Levinson (1986) and Henley (1987) Posttraumatic stress disorder: This interactive practice exercise is based on the factor analysis of research performed by King, Leskin, King, and Weathers (1998) as well as by Taylor, Kuch, Koch, Crockett, and Passey (1998) Procrastination: This interactive practice exercise was derived from the work of Ferrari, Johnson, and McCown (1995) Signs of depression: This interactive practice exercise was based on a variety of clinical and research sources Disruptive developmental disorders Anger: This interactive practice exercise is based on the factor analysis of Lahey, Frick, Loeber, Tannenbaum et al. (1990) and the work of Feindler (1995) Conduct disorder: The list of symptoms used for this interactive practice exercise was taken from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition(American Psychiatric Association 1994) Hyperactivity/attention deficit: The list of symptoms used for this interactive practice exercise was taken from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition(American Psychiatric Association 1994) Juvenile troublemaking: This interactive practice exercise is based on the Child Troublemaking Scale developed by Lynam (1997) Oppositional defiant: The list of symptoms used for this interactive practice exercise was taken from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,4th edition(American Psychiatric Association 1994) Disorders of externalization in adults Addendum to relational training: This interactive practice exercise is an elaboration of the original interactive practice exercise on social training (L’Abate, 1992b) Anger, hostility, aggression: This interactive practice exercise is based on the work by Eckhardt and Deffenbacher (1995) and Spielberger, Reheiser, and Sydeman (1995) Troublemaking: This interactive practice exercise is based on the research by Kosson, Steuerwald, Forth, and Kirkhart (1997) Interactive practice exercises for conflicting couples and families Children and families Bing eating: This interactive practice exercise was developed in collaboration with Monique Gray and is published with her kind permission (L’Abate, 2002, p. 130) Divorce adjustment in children: This interactive practice exercise was developed by Karin B. Jordan and is published here with her kind permission Domestic violence: This interactive practice exercise was developed in collaboration with Fran Greenfield and is published here with her kind permission Lying: This interactive practice exercise was developed in collaboration with Maureen O’Toole and is published here with her kind permission Shyness: This interactive practice exercise was developed in collaboration with Sue Matthews and is published here with her kind permission (continued)

252

20 Prevention of Relational Incompetence: Avoiding Negative Experiences

Table 20.1  (continued) Stealing: This interactive practice exercise was developed in collaboration with Ernestine Williams and is published here with her kind permission Temper tantrums: This interactive practice exercise is a substantial revision of a previously published interactive practice exercise (L’Abate, 1992a,b) Time out: This interactive practice exercise is based on the first author’s clinical experience and one of the first interactive practice exercises developed for children and their families Verbal abuse: This interactive practice exercise was developed from the first author’s clinical experiences and considered as part of the abusive–apathetic style in relational competence theory Couples A theory-derived interactive practice exercise for intimate couples: This interactive practice exercise is derived from a structured interview covering the 16 models of relational competence theory Arguing or fighting: This interactive practice exercise was developed from clinical experience and is based on a model of paradoxical psychotherapy presented by Weeks and L’Abate (L’Abate, 1992b, 2002, pp. 124–125) Complaints: This interactive practice exercise is based on the research by Coyne, Thompson, and Palmer (2003) Depression: This interactive practice exercise is based on a relational model of depression developed by L’Abate (1986) Difficulties: This interactive practice exercise was developed jointly by Keith Stanford and Luciano L’Abate from Sanford, K. (2003) research Intimacy: This interactive practice exercise is based on a relational model (Model15) of intimacy developed by Cusinato (1992) Sexuality: The contents of this interactive practice exercise were taken from the vast literature on sexuality, with no primary source being more relevant than others Violence: This interactive practice exercise is based on the research by Eckhardt, Barbour, and Davison (1998) Families Hurt feelings: This interactive practice exercise is based on a model developed 30 years after this construct was developed (L’Abate, 1977), evaluated (Frey, Holly, & L’Abate 1979), and resurrected by the research of Vangelisti and her students (Vangelisti, in press; Vangelisti and Beck, 2007) and a chapter in her handbook (L’Abate, 2007, 2009) Intimacy: This interactive practice exercise is based on a relational model (Model15) of intimacy developed by L’Abate (1986, 1997, 2005) Negotiation: This interactive practice exercise is based on a relational model of negotiation developed by L’Abate (1986, 1997, 2005) When parents argue: from the child’s eyes: This interactive practice exercise was developed from the research by Weston, Boxer, and Heatherington (1998)  When parents and child argue: from the child’s eyes: This interactive practice exercise was developed from the research by Weston et al. (1998) Adapted from L’Abate (2009c)

Conclusion These interactive practice exercises offer more options to professional mental health workers than would be available simply through talking.

Chapter 21

Treatment of Severe Relational Incompetence: One Approach Is Not Enough

Through face-to-face interviews and direct observation of individuals, couples, and families, especially in clinical, critical, or criminal relationships, it is possible to discern relatively easily whether their styles are abusive–apathetic or reactive– repetitive (RR). It is doubtful whether conductive–creative (CC) styles, as in the ARC model (Model9), are present in clinical relationships, unless they are used to present a false, positive façade. However, usually this façade crumbles after a few interviews. Once they are observed, these styles can be prescribed paradoxically, to see whether they can be changed (Weeks & L’Abate, 1982). Many other tasks, such as time-out and sibling rivalry, were derived from clinical practice, where repetition of the same instructions was found to be more useful if they were administered in writing. In initial as well as in subsequent interviews with clinical participants, it is possible to ascertain directly the validity of the theory by evaluating the assumptions of distance and regulation, the ability to love and to negotiate, to see whether presence is mixed with power, how differentiated individuals are according to a continuum of likeness, what interpersonal style they are using, what personality propensities are prevalent, what priorities are present and influential, and whether there is any sharing of hurts and of fears of being hurt. In talk-based, face-to-face psychotherapy, after a through history and the administration of objective tests, it has been found useful to administer the following tasks in the first author’s office, and, in many cases, prescribe them as homework assignments (Kazantzis & L’Abate, 2007). However, these styles can be applied also to psychotherapists. We must consider that there are differences in self-control among psychotherapists that range between two extremes, a “reactive–repetitive” (RR) versus a “creative–conductive” (CC) style. These putative differences among psychotherapists indicate the presence of at least one major dimension relating to control, that is, responding to a participant through immediate discharge (RR) or through the delay that is characteristic of the CC style. The RR style is essentially typical of psychotherapists who base their interventions on their personal intuitions and sometimes idiosyncratic sensitivities. At the other end of the spectrum are psychotherapists who base their interventions on systematic CC plans, thought out beforehand. Both styles are visible within humanistic (Witty, 2007) and psychoanalytic (Stricker, 2007) orientations for RR L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_21, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

253

254

21 Treatment of Severe Relational Incompetence: One Approach Is Not Enough

therapists and cognitive-behavioral orientations for CC therapists (Beck & Tomkins, 2007; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999; Ledley & Huppert, 2007). We are aware of dichotomizing what amounts to a single dimension rather than various degrees and forms of RR and CC styles. Nonetheless, we are relying on this dichotomy to highlight differences that pit psychologists practicing as artists versus psychologists practicing as professionals and scientists. This self-control dimension, therefore, is, on one hand (RR), reacting without thinking or without a specific plan for how to deal with each particular individual or specific issue, concern, or problem, without any preliminary plan for each single session as well as for future sessions. No objective evaluation is necessary, and a subjective interview is deemed all that is necessary to arrive at a diagnosis and supposedly to guide treatment. This RR style is in contrast with a specific and systematic CC plan for how to deal with each individual case, be it a child, an adult, a couple, or a family in present and in future sessions. Practitioners using RR approaches usually tend to avoid objective evaluations and homework assignments (Stricker, 2007; Witty, 2007), whereas those using CC approaches tend to evaluate participants and administer homework assignments. These styles may represent, respectively, a passive versus an active orientation in psychotherapy (Beck & Tomkins, 2007; Ledley & Huppert, 2007). Essentially, this difference means, on the one hand, relying on the same, uniform pell-mell RR approach for everybody, one size fits all, that is, “Come in and tell me what concerns you, and I will listen and talk with you,” without any objective examination about the referring problem. On the other hand is one specific, tailor-made, targeted CC approach for each specific condition. This difference amounts essentially to repetitious RR uniformity versus differentiated, CC-targeted treatments. This difference represents responding to participants without any organized plan by relying instead mostly on the individual subjective psychotherapist’s RR “artistic” intuitions and sensitivities versus the presence of an objective, organizing CC professional using a science-based structure. That structure would permit one to tailor-make and target one specific approach for each specific condition, as seen, for instance, in psychoeducational skill-training programs, a quality of structuring stressed more than 30 years ago (L’Abate, 1976, pp. 206–207) and eventually applied to systematic family therapy (L’Abate, 1986) and to primary and secondary prevention with individuals and multirelational groups, such as couples and families (L’Abate, 1990). The rest of this chapter will illustrate how psychotherapists can follow a CC rather than a RR style by targeting their interventions and matching existing conditions with specific treatments.

Interactive Practice Exercises by Single- or Multiple-Score Tests for Severe Incompetence These interactive practice exercises can be administered after participants have been evaluated objectively with any of the test instruments listed in Table 21.1. For instance, if one were to be evaluated with the Hamilton Depression Scale on a

Interactive Practice Exercises by Single- or Multiple-Score Tests for Severe Incompetence

255

Table 21.1  Interactive practice exercises from research and from single- and multiple-score tests Children: mixed internalizing and externalizing disorders   School conduct problems: This protocol was developed from the work of Brown and Hammill (1978), Kelly (1990), Kelly and Vitali (1992), and more general sources such as Hersen and Last (1990) and Mash and Barkley (1996)   School social skills: This protocol was developed from the work of Brown, Black, and Downs (1984)   Unusual or troublesome behavior: This protocol was developed from Aman and Singh’s (undated) Checklist for Aberrant Behavior Adults   Butcher treatment planning: This protocol was developed from the scale developed by Butcher (Butcher 1998; Perry & Butcher, 1999) to evaluate individuals who are resistant to psychotherapeutic interventions Single-score tests Axis II. Cluster C internalizing personality disorders   Beck anxiety: This protocol was developed from research by Joiner et al. (1999)   Beck depression: This protocol was developed from research by Dozois, Dobson, and Ahnberg (1998) and the review by Katz, Katz, and Shaw (1999)   Hamilton anxiety: This protocol was developed from research by Moras, Di Nardo, and Barlow (1992)   Hamilton depression: This protocol was developed from research by Moras, Di Nardo, and Barlow (1992)   Help-seeking (dependent): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Self-suffering (masochistic): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Serious (depressed): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   What are my concerns?: This protocol was developed from Blatt et al.’s (1982) two-factor model of depression, dependency, and self-criticism Axis II. Cluster B selected externalizing personality disorders   Anger expression: This protocol was developed from the work of Forgays, Forgays, and Spielberger (1997)   Compelling (compulsive): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Distinct (schizoid): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Exciting (histrionic): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Nonconformist (negativistic): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Private (avoidant): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Self-interested (narcissistic): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Unpopular (antisocial): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517)   Unusual (sadistic): This protocol is based on lists of attributes for personality disorders developed by Davis and Millon (1999, p. 517) Mixed internalizing and externalizing disorders   Personality disorders, form 1989: This protocol was developed from research by Livesley, Jackson, and Schroeder (1989) (continued)

256

21 Treatment of Severe Relational Incompetence: One Approach Is Not Enough

Table 21.1  (continued)   Personality disorders, form 1990: This protocol is derived from research by Clark (1990)   Personality disorders, form 1992: This protocol was developed from a factor analysis by Schroeder, Wormsworth, and Livesley (1992) Multiple-score tests   Personality dimensions from the MMPI: This protocol was developed from the 15 content scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (Greene & Anderson, 1999)   Personality dimensions from Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Inventory: This protocol was developed from the work of McCrae (1994) and Costa and Widiger (1994)   Personality dimensions from Personality Assessment Inventory: This protocol was developed from the work of Morey (1999) and Morey and Henry (1994) Severe disorders Individuals   Mood swings: The list of symptoms used for this interactive practice exercise was taken from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (American Psychiatric Association 1994)   Overdependency: This interactive practice exercise is based on a model of codependency developed by L’Abate and Harrison (1992), which is part of a theory of relational competence and psychopathology in intimate relationships   Severe concerns: The list of symptoms used for this interactive practice exercise was taken from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (American Psychiatric Association 1994)   Sexual abuse: The contents of this interactive practice exercise were taken from the vast literature on sexual abuse, with no single source being primary over others Couples   Improving relationships: This protocol was developed by Brenda Whaley (L’Abate, 2002, pp. 121–122) and is published with her kind permission   Relationship conflict: This protocol was developed from Bodin’s (1996) Relationship Conflict Inventory and is published with the kind permission of Bodin   Couple satisfaction: This protocol was developed from Snyder’s Inventory (L’Abate, 2002, pp. 122–123; Snyder, 1981; Snyder & Aikman, 1999) and is reprinted with the kind permission of Western Psychological Service Families   Profile form: This protocol was developed from an instrument developed by L’Abate and Weinstein (1987) and validated by Kochalka and L’Abate (1997)   Functioning: This protocol was developed from the factor analysis of self-report measures by Bloom (1985) Adapted from L’Abate (2010)

pretreatment–posttreatment basis, then the interactive practice exercise from the Beck Depression Inventory could be administered, or vice versa.

Theory-Derived Therapeutic Prescriptions Therapeutic tasks, or prescriptions derived from models, can be administered through instructions published verbatim (L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007): (1) hugging, holding, huddling, and cuddling from Model7 and (2) sharing of hurts from Model15.

Interactive Practice Exercises by Single- or Multiple-Score Tests for Severe Incompetence

257

Drawing lines is a task administered in therapy as well as homework assignment in the codependency workbook. This task is drawn from the selfhood model and is to be administered solely to so-called codependent individuals (addicted to the addict) or couples involved in symbiotic relationships (Jordan & L’Abate, 1995; L’Abate & Harrison, 1992).

Intimacy This model is evaluated in therapy with two tasks: sharing of hurts and hugging, holding, huddling, and cuddling. Sharing of hurts: Often, even though they may have been cognizant of the inflicted hurts, partners were not ready to share them in an affective fashion. Hence, when couples brought their lists of hurts to the therapist, this homework assignment was very informative from the outset of therapy. However, most couples were not ready to share their mutually inflicted hurts in a cathartic fashion, at least not in front of the therapist and not at the beginning of therapy. This area of sharing hurts through writing is still open to clinical and preventive applications (Esterling, L’Abate, Murray, & Pennebaker, 1999; L’Abate, 1997a; Riordan, 1996). The sharing of hurts exercise (L’Abate, 1986, p. 235, 1997b, pp. 320–321, 1999a, 1999c) requires partners to face each other on a sofa or two chairs, to close their eyes, and hold each other’s hands. They are asked to concentrate on their physical sensations first, such as those elicited and expressed by holding each other’s hands, before concentrating on their hurts. Once the request to concentrate on their hurt has been given, the professional waits for the outcome. One may repeat the request, but no more than twice altogether. Once they are in touch with hurts that are dwelling inside their bodies, partners are asked to acknowledge and, if possible, share them (“I hurt, I am hurting”). This task has also a diagnostic function to evaluate whether partners can share their hurts or are defending against disclosing them (the leaves of the artichoke!). This exercise finds its indirect empirical support in the research of Feeney (2005), Fincham (Fincham 2000; Fincham and Beach, 2002), and Vangelisti (Vangelisti, in press; Vangelisti & Beck, 2007) to the point that there cannot be forgiveness unless there is a reciprocal sharing of hurts (L’Abate, 2009a, 2009b, in press, 2009c). Hugging, holding, huddling, and cuddling: The second task consists of partners or families hugging, holding, huddling, and cuddling each other for a predetermined length of time, without any erotic moves (L’Abate, 2001; L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003). This prescription is especially useful with verbally inexpressive families with children who cannot express themselves. It involves progressive stages of being physically together without talking: couples or family members lie on a carpet, a sofa, or a bed in the dark in an

258

21 Treatment of Severe Relational Incompetence: One Approach Is Not Enough

exchange of reciprocal reassurance of being cared for through prolonged, nonerotic physical contact rather than through talking (L’Abate, 2003; L’Abate & De Giacomo, 2003). Verbatim instructions for this prescription are found in L’Abate (2001) and in L’Abate and Cusinato (2007). This prescription requires nothing more that being together without any demands for perfection, production, performance, or problem solving. Traditional treatment approaches, whether behavioral or otherwise, are directed usually toward “doing something” or “performing,” requiring problem-solving ability and activity on the part of the therapist, the identified patient, a couple, a child’s caretaker’s, or the entire family. Why not teach participants how to enjoy “doing nothing together” as the Italians call dolce far niente (“sweet doing nothing”)? Instead of action or activities that are part of the American culture, why not use a task that requires no solution or activity, but that instead allows family members to learn to be available to each other nonverbally without doing anything? Such a therapeutic prescription, hugging, holding, huddling, and cuddling, systemic and systematic in nature, derives directly from the modality of “being” or “presence” of Model7 (Chap. 9). Loving someone means being physically together in a way that allows direct, frequent, and consistent nonerotic physical contact. This contact is necessary to feel emotionally available to and close to another intimate in a nonverbal fashion. The close physical presence of all family members without demands for performance, production, perfection, or problem solving, i.e., “unconditional love,” defines “presence” as being the major glue that holds families together and makes them function well. The inadequacy of presence brings about mixed priorities, with emphasis on performance and production. Under these circumstances it is possible to see an increase in symptomatic behavior in any one member of the family. Doing and having seem to characterize some aspects of the American culture, whereas presence and being seem to characterize some Mediterranean and Latin cultures (Spiegel, 1971). Only recently did the first author become aware of a substantial body of past research reviewing gender differences in the wish to be held (Stein & Sanfilipo, 1985). However, this research focused strictly on the wish to be held, without any suggestions or recommendations on how this wish could be fulfilled. The prescription given above seems quite appropriate to satisfy this wish, including also the wish to touch and to be touched (Jones & Mize, 2007).

Interactive Practice Exercises for Severe Conditions Table 21.1 includes as many interactive practice exercises as have been published thus far (L’Abate, 2010), produced from factor analyses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (American Psychiatric Association 1994), and single-and multiple-score tests. The titles of these exercises speak for themselves and no additional comments need to be added.

Conclusion

259

Conclusion There are many ways to deal with severe incompetence. One way consists of compliance with medications specifically prescribed by a physician for a specific type of incompetence. Once participants have been stabilized medically, one can use a combination of face-to-face talk coupled with written homework assignments and interactive practice exercises as part of an initial contract and a signed informed consent form on the part of participants. Once the severity of the referral question has decreased, one can proceed to offer practice exercises listed in Chaps. 19 and 20.

Part VII

Conclusion

The results summarized in previous chapters indicate that model-derived measures tend to support the reliability and validity of selected models of relational competence theory (RCT), fulfilling the first requirement of verifiability. The second requirement of applicability in preventive and clinical settings was considered in Chaps. 19–21. As already noted in Chap. 1, the third requirement of redundancy can be illustrated by different views of the same construct from a variety of models (L’Abate & Cusinato, 2007). For instance, in RCT love can be conceived as (1) a consistent, prolonged, caring, concerned, and compassionate approach toward someone (Model4) with (2) a balanced discharge of duties and responsibilities (Model5), (3) being present and available communally and agentically to that someone (Model7), (4) asserting self–other importance positively (Model11), (5) putting self, a partner, or children at the top of one’s priorities after the self (Model12), and (6) sharing pleasures and joys as well as hurts and fears of being hurt with intimates (Model15). The fourth requirement of fruitfulness is supported by research studies summarized here, but needs to be implemented by English-speaking researchers and scholars as well as clinicians.

Limitations of Evidence Most of the evidence summarized in this volume was gathered by Italian-speaking experimenters from Italian participants from unpublished dissertations, making this evidence suspect or at best questionable. The only solution to this limitation would consist in using translations of selected instruments in English (Appendixes A–E). At least one replication about the relationship between the selfhood model (Model11) and the attachment model (De Giacomo et  al., 2008) supports results from a previous study (De Giacomo et al., 2000) even though the participants were also Italian. Consequently, the validity of selected models of RCT rests in the hands and minds of English-speaking researchers, who must question the validity of the evidence reported here. In spite of the evidence obtained from another language and country, the results reported in this volume tend to support the validity of measures derived directly

262

Part VII Conclusion

from models of RCT. These results do indicate the value of testing models of RCT one by one. If RCT is relevant for an understanding of human relationships, then it should be valid in more than one language or country. Even provisionally and concretely, RCT and some of its measures can be evaluated informally through a structured talk-based, face-to-face interview in English for individuals, couples, and families (L’Abate, 2009) and in written form for group administration, or a planned parenting workbook (L’Abate, 2009b). Furthermore, RCT is applicable to laboratory evaluations using original instruments available in English and through reproducible enrichment programs for couples and families, as well as written protocols for lifelong learning, health promotion, prevention, psychotherapy, and rehabilitation, all in English. Consequently, the validity of RCT goes above and beyond the laboratory. It applies to relationships of any kind, functional and dysfunctional. It is left to English-speaking researchers and clinicians to evaluate RCT more thoroughly than has been done thus far in Italy, to evaluate whether RCT could represent a lingua franca for relationships as asked by Mikulincer (2007). Further advances in applications of RCT especially in regard to alexitymia are in progress (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2009).

Chapter 22

Fully Functional Relational Competence

It is doubtful whether fully functional competence can possibly exist in reality. There may be many approximations, but as discussed in many chapters in this volume, full functionality can vary in its degrees and types of relational competence. The requirement of redundancy (Chap. 1) and the abilities to love and to control self, presence, differentiation, style, interactions, selfulness, priorities, and intimacy are many ways among a myriad to assess fully functional competence. One way to assess among at least three levels of competence relies on how one functions in at least three different settings; (1) home, (2) work, and (3) leisure-time activities (Chap. 5, Model3). As discussed in Chaps. 11 and 12 (Model10 and Model11), a superior level of competence is present when one functions as an excellent spouse, parent or worker or excellently in leisure-type activities, as can be found in individuals who are able to balance tasks and demands from the three settings, by assuming leaderships roles and setting standards of excellence with their families and coworkers and in their leisure-time activities, including volunteering. A moderate level of competence can be found in individuals who may perform well in one or more settings without, however, assuming positions of leadership outside the home. An adequate level of competence can be found in individuals who perform well in one setting but do not perform in the other two settings. Many other models of relational competence theory can be added redundantly to support what it takes to make fully functioning relational competence (L’Abate, 2008c). As far as these authors know, no objective test has been devised to differentiate among superior, moderate, and adequate levels of competence. An attempt to do so in the past relied on intrapsychic, monadic constructs to define the “optimal human being” as “…empirically documented features that tend to characterize high-quality human functioning” (Sheldon, 2004, pp. 4–5). Sheldon’s attempt considered various levels of functioning, ranging from atoms, molecules, organ tissues, brain/nervous system, cognition, personality, social interaction, and culture. At the personality level, Sheldon reviewed the pros and cons of Carver and Scheier’s (1998) control theory of action, McAdams’s (1988) hierarchical model, and McCrae and Costa’s (1995) Big Five Model of personality traits in connection to his conception of optimal human being. Within this monadic view, Sheldon gave an example in terms of “…a child grown in an insecure or depriving environment may develop a personality L. L’Abate et al., Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1_22, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

263

264

22 Fully Functional Relational Competence

higher on agreeableness or higher in neuroticism…(p. 87)”. However possible this example may be, no evidence to support it was presented. At the superordinate level of personality, Sheldon reviewed social and group interaction within the perspective of game and role theory and optimal human being. At an even higher level, Sheldon considered cultural individualism and collectivism and their relationship to optimal human being. At no time throughout his otherwise scholarly review did Sheldon consider the family and intimate relationships are the nexus between personality and culture. He repeated the term “environment” as if personality grew in an interpersonal vacuum. In this fashion, Sheldon represented in its extreme form the fallacy of considering behavior as being completely uninfluenced by close, committed, interdependent, and prolonged intimate relationships. If one were to believe this viewpoint, all of us grew up in a laboratory à la Skinner, free from any other kind of intimate relationships. This monadic viewpoint led Sheldon to give a list of prescriptions toward optimal human being that are completely void of intimate contacts. We all need to follow them on our own. No external help is needed.

Conclusion Relational competence theory does not claim to be a “grand” theory. It has indeed claimed to be a theory about relational competence in intimate relationships. The trouble with past personality theories lies in their being the very same ones repeated from one textbook to another. A new theory, like this one, has had and will have a hard time trying to fill a small niche in that field, if at all. Nonetheless, the chapters in this volume have attempted to expand on relational competence theory within the context of research and parallel promotional, preventive, and therapeutic applications.

Appendix A

Relational Answers Questionnaire (RAQ, ed. 2001) This questionnaire deals with the ways we usually relate with others. There are no right or wrong answers. Evaluate each sentence listed below – without bypassing any – by using the following letters: N for Never; R for Rarely; S for Sometimes; O for Often; and A for Always. 1 I express myself especially when I act___ 2 I let myself be easily convinced by others___ 3 I find it difficult to hide my emotions from others___ 4 I deal with situations in a rational way___ 5 I prefer concrete actions to ideal projects___ 6 I feel excluded by others___ 7 I carefully plan every situation to avoid difficulties___ 8 My main need is to be rational___ 9 Past experiences are important to avoid mistakes___ 10 Others say I am like an open book___ 11 I avoid people who are always undecided about what to do___ 12 I feel uncomfortable if I can’t act___ 13 I seek the approval from  those close to me___ 14 I am much more comfortable with concrete actions than with subtle reasoning___ 15 I am easily moved to tears___ 16 When I make decisions I carefully consider the consequences___ 17 I ruminate a  great deal on the difficulties I have met___ 18 I believe deeds are worth more than words___ 19 I have no time to think on what I am experiencing___ 20 I find it difficult to deal with new situations___ 21 In complicated situations I find it important to think things through carefully___ 22 I find myself in unpleasant situations even though I don’t want to___ 23 I express myself especially through my emotions___

265

266

Appendix A

24 My intentions are misunderstood___ 25 I feel at ease with people who love reasoning above all___ 26 I deal calmly even with unexpected situations___ 27 I am influenced by people who live close to where I live___ 28 I am spontaneous with others___ 29 Signs of affection move me___ 30 When things don’t work, my impulse is to act___ 31 I feel I own to others___ 32 I tend to express my love openly to those close to me___ 33 People say I am someone who reasons a great deal over things___ 34 I carefully examine the reasons why things do go wrong___ 35 People’s suffering makes me cry___ 36 I hate highfaluting discussions not leading to action___ 37 In relationships with others I tend to repeat the same mistakes___ 38 I feel conditioned by the environment I live in___ 39 In new situations I feel uncertain___ 40 I find it difficult to match my personal needs with those of others___ 41 If I get contradicted I freeze and withdraw___ 42 Even for no reason, I get tired of people around me___ 43 I think others are better than I am___ 44 Others acknowledge that I am exacting and meticulous___ 45 I express my pain openly when I get hurt by others___ 46 Just seeing painful things without acting is painful to me___ 47 I feel guilty toward people in my own situation___ 48 I am interested in proposals leading to concrete actions___ 49 Before I make a choice I carefully weigh pros and cons___ 50 I get carried away by my emotions___ Scoring: 1 (one) point for Never; 2 (two) points for Rarely, 3 (three) points for Sometimes; 4 (four) points for Often; and 5 (five) points for Always.

Table A1.  Relational Answers Questionnaire (RAQ): Scale Items and Scoring Direction Emotionality Rationality Activity Awareness Context Items Direct. Items Direct. Items Direct. Items Direct. Items Direct. 03 + 04 + 01 + 09 + 02 + 10 + 07 + 05 + 16 + 06 + 15 + 08 + 11 + 19 13 + 23 + 17 + 12 + 20 24 + 28 + 21 + 14 + 22 27 + 29 + 25 + 18 + 26 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 30 + 37 38 + 35 + 34 + 36 + 39 41 + 45 + 44 + 46 + 40 43 + 50 + 49 + 48 + 42 47 +

Relational Answers Questionnaire (RAQ, ed. 2001)

267

Table A2  Trasformation Table from Row Scores to Standard T Scores for the Relational Answers Questionnaire (N = 480); age from 14 to 60; half males, half females Tot-gr E R A Aw C 10 — — — — 18 11 17 — — — 20 12 18 — — — 22 13 20 — — — 24 14 22 19 — — 26 15 23 20 — — 28 16 25 21 — — 30 17 26 22 11 12 32 18 28 24 13 14 33 19 29 25 15 16 35 20 31 27 17 18 37 21 32 28 19 20 40 22 34 30 21 23 41 23 35 32 23 25 43 24 27 33 25 27 45 25 38 35 27 29 47 26 40 36 29 31 48 27 41 38 31 34 50 28 43 39 33 36 52 29 45 41 35 38 54 30 46 42 37 40 56 31 48 44 39 43 58 32 49 45 41 45 60 33 51 47 43 47 62 34 52 49 45 50 63 35 54 50 47 52 65 36 55 52 48 54 67 37 57 53 50 56 69 38 58 55 52 59 71 39 60 56 54 61 73 40 61 58 56 63 75 41 63 59 58 65 77 42 64 61 60 68 78 43 66 62 62 70 80 44 67 64 64 72 82 45 69 66 66 74 84 46 70 67 68 77 86 47 72 69 70 79 — 48 73 70 72 81 — 49 74 72 74 83 — 50 76 73 76 85 —

Appendix B

RC-EcoMap The fulfillment equipment of RC-EcoMap (Cusinato & Colesso, 2009)includes (1) answer sheets, (2) a data table, and (3) a map.

Answer Sheet Introduction The information we are collecting will allow us to trace a map of your relationships and commitments in various contexts of your everyday life: work, family, settings to satisfy your basic needs, and settings for your well-being. For each setting, we will ask you to: A. Identify and indicate those individuals with whom you entertain meaningful interactions. You will be asked to specify all significant others, both in positive and negative terms. If more than seven, you may request a second sheet. (Note: “Meaningful” means: continuous in time, related to practical and emotional exchanges, and in line with your orientations and choices) B. Specify how frequently you interact with each person; C. Describe the quality of the interaction with each person; D. Indicate the contents of each interaction, marking given choices; E. Determine the direction of exchange for each interaction. One answer table is provided for each setting. Instructions apply to all four parts of the RC-EcoMap, with the exception of point (C) which is specific to each setting. Please read the examples very carefully.

269

Table B.1  Examples of what is available to you in each place you choose. Ask for help if these examples are too hard to understand Examples of resources exchanged by places Constructs Modalities Resources Home Work/school Necessary for living Pleasure Free expression of Positive attribution Status related to job or Presence Being Importance Valuing oneself, feelings pleasure to see and of important to profession, level of valued, recognition of welcome friends and self and intimates education; titles, one’s goodness and intimates ranks, and honors value, feeling as a person who matters Ability to share hurt Reflecting on one’s own Not included or Intimacy Sharing of confidences, positive behavior, feelings with self considered irrelevant joys, hurts, and sharing confidences and intimates, or secondary to work/ fears of being hurt, with intimates and forgiving school performance; affection, forgiveness friends without doing transgressions in avoided as much as of transgressions, or having self and intimates possible emotional closeness Crossword puzzles, brain Keeping up with Doing Information Books, Internet, magazines, Knowledge relevant to Power teasers, virtual pursuit, news and with job, occupational, newspaper, radio, computer and word happenings or professional telephone, TV games within one’s performance world and community Volunteering, exercising, Shopping wisely, Blue- or white-collar Services Cooking, taking care of competing in keeping within jobs or educational or trash, cleaning chores, marathons, playing, one’s budget; reliable occupational fixing house, taking walking, sports, etc. planning for the or professional care of bills, cars, taxes, future performance school and work, etc. Hobbies requiring Avoiding debts Goods/ Car(s), food, furniture, TV, Workstation, size and Having manipulation of by not buying style of cubicle or possessions radio, house, second objects; play, extravagantly office home and/or land, collecting clothing, jewelry, etc. Used to having fun, Savings, controlled Money Bank account, cash at hand, Salary plus bonus, movies, travel, theater use of credit insurance, perks, credit card, salary, other cards benefits income

270 Appendix B

RC-EcoMap

271

Instructions A. Who are the individuals you interact with meaningfully? Please specify role, gender [M/F] and age. (Example: uncle, M, 35). Write each person inside the line Person of the answer tables. B. How frequently do you interact with each person listed above? Please mark the right choice in the line Frequency using the scale: 1 = irregularly; 2 = at periods; 3 = frequently enough; 4 = very frequently; 5 = continuously. C. Describe how these interactions are. Please mark the proper number in the line Quality using the scale: 1 = awful; 2 = difficult; 3 = reasonable; 4 = good; 5 = excellent. D. What do you exchange during these interactions? Check the resources provided for the panel and in column D, for each individual reported, mark the one that best applies specifying: no, little, yes. E. What is the direction of the exchange for each contact? For each resource exchanged, please specify if it is equally exchanged both ways, mostly given or mostly received by marking in column E: “a” = two-way-street, for example: said, done, asked or given equally One way street, either Table B.2  Standard answer sheet for home, work/school, places necessary for living, and pleasure places 1st persona (role, sex, age) A. Persons: 1 2 3 4 5 B. Frequency: 1 2 3 4 5 C. Quality: D–E: What concerns contacts? D“quantity” E“direction” no little yes a b c Money no little yes a b c Goods no little yes a b c Services no little yes a b c Information no little yes a b c Importance no little yes Intimacy a b c Answer sheets include four answer tables, one for each place: Table 1: “Home” where your family life is experienced Table 2: “Work” where your profession/occupation is performed (or school for students) Table 3: “Survival” where you attend to need (shopping, doctor, bills, haircut… and also relatives or neighbors if that is the case) Table 4: “Enjoyment” where you spend your free time (community, associations, sports, entertainment … and also relatives or neighbors if that is the case) a  This column is repeated seven times for each answer sheet

272

Appendix B

“b” = from you to the person, for example: said, done, asked or given mostly by you or “c” = from the person to you, for example: said, asked, done or given mostly by the other person

Data Table for Examiners Table B.3  Obtained answers are transcribed in this data table that allows indices and tables for log-linear analyses or other analyses to be derived RC-ECOMAP N. Person Interaction Resources (direction a↔)a Context Money Goods Serv. Inf. Imp. Int. Settings Role Gender Age Freq. Qual. index n. m/i n. g/i n. s/i n. i/i n. im/i n. in/i Home Home Home Home Home TOT H CI Work Work Work Work Work TOT W CI Necessary pl. Necessary pl. Necessary pl. Necessary pl. Necessary pl. TOT S CI Pleasure pl. Pleasure pl. Pleasure pl. Pleasure pl. Pleasure pl. TOT E CI TOT T CI a This part is repeated for direction (b) and (c)

RC-EcoMap Transfer

273

RC-EcoMap Transfer

construct column modality column resource column

Legend:

home

money

Reciprocal exchanges Unidirectional exchanges

statistical positive significance

work/school

having

goods power services doing

information importance presence

being

intimacy

places necessary for living

pleasure places

Fig. B.1  Analysis results can be transferred to a map – useful for evaluation and/or intervention – using these components of the model

Appendix C

Task for the Likeness Dimension Instructions: The aim of this task is to evaluate similarities and differences existing between participants and their loved and intimate ones. This task consists of four distinct steps. Step 1. Participants are invited to consider items in the classification of “Influential People in Your Life” (9–12) and identify by name a real person for each item. The nature or role of the relationship (father, mother, sibling, etc.) must be specified. After writing names for each item, participants must describe these persons with at least three adjectives. After this description, participants must rank-order all individuals according to how influential they have been in their lives. Step 2. The six conditions in the Dimension of Likeness are introduced with their definitions. The comprehension of these six conditions by participants is evaluated with the use of examples proposed by the examiner and/or by the participant. Step 3. Participants are then provided with ten 5-cent coins and invited to place them (one at a time) on a sheet of paper with six cells corresponding to the six conditions of the dimension. This step involves actual doing rather than talking about persons who have already been rank-ordered according to their influence on participants. Step 4. Participants are asked to explain their coin distribution and produce some real examples to check whether they used this step correctly (with particular attention to extremes). Participants may modify the distribution or distinguish the present from the past (everything said and done by participants is obviously recorded).

275

276

Appendix C

Step 1: Influential People in Your Life

Table C.1    How would you describe your relationship with this person? Use up to 3 adjectives to describe this person

Rank Consider these persons in Specify the ordera(from your life: person’s name 1 to 12)   1. Partner   2. Mother or acting mother   3. Father or acting father   4. Siblings/cousins (all or one in particular)   5. Children/grandchildren (all or one in particular)   6. Friends (all or one in particular)   7. Schoolmates (all or one in particular)   8. Coworkers (all or one in particular)   9. Other important person (above-mentioned excepted) 10. Other important personb (above-mentioned excepted) 11. Other important personb (above-mentioned excepted) 12. Other important personb (above-mentioned excepted) a Rank-order (1, 2, 3, etc.) according to their importance to you: 1 the most important, 12 the least important b Optional item Explain why you rank-ordered these persons in the way you did

Step 3: Training Task

277

Step 2: Practice Exercise Table C.2     Here are three pairs of similarity–difference (a level and its opposite in each pair) for persons that have been important in your life

a b

I am the same as … I am completely separate from…

c d

I am similar to… I am the opposite of…

e f

I am somewhat like … I am somewhat different from…

Table C.3     Here is a definition of the three similarity and difference levels Similarity a I am the same as… I wish to put myself in his/her shoes… I’d like to keep his/her place, to be him/her! c I am similar to … I conform to his/her behavior, experience, wishes, practice, or order e I am somewhat like … I imitate a behavior, attitude, or practice of him/her b I am completely separate from… Difference I’m not interested in his/her life, attitude, or practice… I don’t compare to him/her d I am the opposite of… I opposite to him/her in this behavior, attitude, practice, or order f I am somewhat different from … I differ from him/her in this behavior, attitude, or practice Note: Obviously, your degree of similarity–difference with the same person (as well as persistence of the same level over time) may vary according to times/situations You may feel different/opposed levels toward the same person at the same time

 For each degree of likeness, think of an example concerning yourself or related to others. You can ask the examiner for examples if needed. This practice exercise is to understand the accurate meaning of all the various degrees of similarity–difference.

Step 3: Training Task In relationship to this person… (the first: partner), do you recognize yourself in ‘a’ (i.e., “I am the same as …”)? If Yes, please place a coin on that cell; if No, please go on to ‘b’ and consider that statement (“I don’t care about this individual at all”). Continue until you have reviewed the six degrees of similarity and difference. You still have at least four coins left. Which degree do you think you should strengthen? Place a coin, one at a time, on the proper statement. And so on up to the last coin. Then record your evaluation in the Table on the answer sheet on the line for that person.

278

Appendix C

Before long, consider your relationship with the second person, then with the third, and so on up to the last. Table C.4    Persons in your life:

Degrees of similarity and difference a b c d

e

f

  1. Partner   2. Mother   3. Father   4. Siblings   5. Children   6. Friends   7. Schoolmates   8. Coworkers   9. Other important person 10. Other important person 11. Other important person 12. Other important person Note: If useful, you may separate the present from the past

Step 4: Inquiry Table C.5  Please explain your choices by giving some examples and answer the examiner’s questions on some specific choices a b c d e f   1. Partner   2. Mother   3. Father   4. Siblings   5. Children   6. Friends   7. Schoolmates   8. Coworkers   9. Other person 10. Other person 11. Other person 12. Other person Authors’ ≠note. Address correspondence either to Mario Cusinato, Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Via Venezia 8, 35131 Padua, Italy (e-mail: mario.cusinato@ unipd.it) or to Walter Colesso, Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Via Venezia 8, 35131 Padua, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])

Appendix D

Self–Other Profile Chart This test focuses on your sense of importance, usually connected both with your qualities and experiences and with the people that matter most to you. For this reason it includes two parts: “self-profile” and “other profile.” In this test there are no right or wrong answers; only what you feel matters.

279

A. Please specify your meaning: 1. School achievement (basic education … refresher course) For you it means: 2. Work achievement (job, occupation, or profession) For you it means: 3. Physical attractiveness (body care, sexual attraction) For you it means: 4. Athletic activity (light physical exercise, amateur sportsperson, professional sportsperson) For you it means: 5. Intelligence (understand things and life, think logically, memory…) For you it means: 6. Creativity (Ability to find solutions and alternatives, fantasy, cleverness) For you it means: 7. Sense of humor (humor, ability to minimize, positive thinking) For you it means: 8. Morality (politeness, honesty, coherence, sound reference values) For you it means:

Table D.1  Part 1: Self-profile

very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

B. Rank ordera(from 1 to 12) C. How much do these qualities add to your sense of importance?

280 Appendix D

very much 10 very much 10 very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − a Rank-order qualities according to how much they matter to you from 1 (matters most) to 12 (matters least). Please rank-order all of them b Optional item

12. Other quality that mattersbPlease specify:

11. Other quality that mattersbPlease specify:

very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

  9. Self-esteem (self-satisfaction, ability to meet your obligations, feeling useful) For you it means: 10. Other quality that mattersbPlease specify:

A. Please specify your meaning:

B. Rank ordera(from 1 to 12) C. How much do these qualities add to your sense of importance? Self–Other Profile Chart 281

Table D.2  Part 2: Other profile A. Please specify the names of these persons that matter to you:   1. Partner (husband/wife, mate, boyfriend/girlfriend) For you it means:   2. Mother or acting mother For you it means:   2. Father or acting father For you it means:   4. Siblings or cousins (all or one in particular) For you it means:   5. Children/grandchildren (all or one in particular) For you it means:   6. Friends (all or one in particular) For you it means:   7. Schoolmates (all or one in particular) For you it means:   8. Coworkers (all or one in particular) For you it means:   9. Other person who matters (above-mentioned excepted) For you it means: 10. Other person who matters (above-mentioned excepted)b Please specify:

B. Rank ordera (from 1 to 12) very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10 very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

C. How much does each person add to your sense of self-importance?

282 Appendix D

B. Rank ordera (from 1 to 12) very much 10 very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

C. How much does each person add to your sense of self-importance?

b

a

Rank-order these persons according to how much they matter to you from 1 (matters most) to 12 (matters least). Please rank-order all of them Optional item ID #: _____ Sex: M F Age: ____ Education: _____________ Occupation: _____________ Date: _________

11. Other person who matters (above-mentioned excepted)b Please specify: 12. Other person who matters (above-mentioned excepted)b Please specify:

A. Please specify the names of these persons that matter to you: Self–Other Profile Chart 283

Appendix E

Priorities General Individual Name: _______________________________________ Sex: M F Date: _______ Age: ___ Education: ________________ Occupation: __________________________ Instructions: Please rank-order priorities listed below according to how much they matter to you. Start with the priority that matters to you the most as no. 1, then the one that matters second as no. 2, then to the one matters as no. 3, and so on until you have ranked all the priorities in this list according to how much they matter to you. General individual priorities Rank-order a. Being sociable…………………………… _______ b. Being smart……………………………… _______ c. Sharing with others……………………… _______ d. Being close to others…………………… _______ e. Being physically strong………………… _______ f. Being clean……………………………… _______ g. Being in good health…………………… _______ h. Being attractive………………………… _______ i. Having lots of things…………………… _______ j. Being happy……………………………… _______ k. Being honest…………………….……… _______ l. Being independent……………………… _______ m. Having lots of money…………………… _______ n. Being popular…………………………… _______ o. Feeling important………………………… _______ p. Having many friends…………………… _______ q. Becoming a champion in sports………… _______ r . Becoming a great scientist……………… _______ s. Make up your own priority. What is it? _______ (……………………….)……… _______ t. Make up your own priority. What is it? (…………………….…)……… Now, if you can, explain why you have rank-ordered individual priorities listed above in the way you just did

285

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

  5. Emotional intimacy: For you it means:

very much 10 very much 10 very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

11. Other quality that matters to youb: Please specify:

12. Other quality that matters to youb: Please specify:

very much 10 very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

10. Duration of relationship: For you it means:

  9. Commitment to the couple: For you it means:

  8. Fidelity: For you it means:

  7. Violence or abuse: For you it means:

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

  4. Commitment to children: For you it means:

  6. Conflict resolutionb: For you it means:

very much 10

not at all 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − −

  3. Times spent together: For you it means:

very much 10 very much 10 very much 10

very much 10 very much 10

A. Please specify your meaning and rate it using the scale nearby:“How much does this quality matter to you?”   1. Satisfaction: For you it not at all means: 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − not at all   2. Communication: For you it 1 − − −2− − −3− − −4− − −5− − −6− − −7− − −8− − −9− − − means:

B. Rank ordera(from 1 to 10)

286 Appendix E

a Rank-order (B) these qualities according to how they are present or absent in your relationship right now. Rank-order them from 1 (very much absent) to 10 (very much present). Please rank-order all of them if you canbOptional item Name: ________ Sex: M F Age: ___ Education: __________ Occupation: __________ Date: _____ Which of the six types of couple relationships fits your relationship best? Cross or circle the number that fits your relationship best: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Types of couple relationships: 1. Married or cohabiting couple living with piological parents 2. Residential married or cohabiting couple with any stepchildren 3. Married or cohabiting couple without children 4. Institutionalized couple with one partner in the military or in prison 5. Nonresidential visiting couple planning to marry with or without children 6. Couple who became estranged with or without children If none of these types fit your relationship, please say what kind of relationship yours is:

Priorities 287

288

Appendix E

Couple Priorities This questionnaire was adopted from Moore et al. (2007), asking you to rate and rank qualities that matter the most in couples relationships. After completing this part of the questionnaire, please rank-order those qualities according to how much that quality is present in your relationship with your partner now. After you will be asked to rank-order them according to how they are present in your relationship now. There are no right or wrong answers; only what you feel matters.

References

Aalsma, M., & Lapsley, D. (2001). A typology of adolescent delinquency: Sex differences and implications for treatment. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 11(3), 173–191. Acitelli, L. K., Kenny, D. A., & Hall, P. (2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of partners’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 8, 167–185. Aiken, L. R. (1999). Human differences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ajudković, D., Arambašić, L., & Ljubotina, D. (2004). PTSR-0. In D. Zuliani (Ed.), Competenza relazionale ed esperienze traumatiche della guerra (ricerca con profughi Croati) [Relational competence and traumatic war experiences of Croatian refugees]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Alden, L., & Taylor, C. (2004). Interpersonal processes in social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 857–882. Alexander, J., & Barton, C. (1995). Family therapy research. In R. H. Mikesell, D. D. Lusterman, & S. H. McDaniel (Eds.), Integrating family therapy: Handbook of family psychology and systems theory (pp. 199–215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Allen, J. R. (2006). Oklahoma City ten years later: Positive psychology, transactional analysis, and the transformation of trauma from a terrorist attack. Transactional Analysis Journal, 36, 120–133. Allen, J. R., & Allen, B. A. (1998). Transactional analysis notes from Oklahoma City: After the bombing. Transactional Analysis Journal, 28, 202–209. Amadori, S. (1999). Modalità di attaccamento e posizioni selfhood nei genitori e nei figli adultigiovani [Attachment modalities and selfhood positions of parents and their young-adult children]. Unpublished degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Andersen, S. M., Reznick, I., & Glassman, N. S. (2005). The unconscious relational self. In R. R. Hassin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 421–481). New York: Oxford University Press. Andrighetti, I. (2010). Ecomappa di Competenza relazionale di “alcolisti in trattamento” [RC-Ecomap of Relational competence: Resources of treated alcoholics]. Unpublished master thesis. University of Padua. Padua. Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., & Hecht, S. A. (1999). Dimensionality of posttraumatic stress disorder concerns in children exposed to disaster: Results from confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 326–336. Ariel, S. (2002). Children’s imaginative play. Westport, CT: Praeger. Arnaldi, S. (2007). Attaccamento, emozioni e risposta relazionale nell’età adulta [Attachment, emotions and relational answers in adult age]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

289

290

References

Author (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Averill, J. R. (1997). The emotions: An integrative approach. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Sourcebook of personality psychology (pp. 513–541). San Diego, CA: Academic. Bakan, D. (1968). Disease, pain, and sacrifice: Toward a psychology of suffering. Boston: Beacon. Ballantyne, R., Connell, S., & Fien, J. (2006). Students as catalysts of environmental change: A framework for researching intergenerational influence through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12, 413–427. Bandini, T., Gatti, U., Marugo, M. I., & Verde, A. (1991). Criminologia. Il contributo della ricerca alla conoscenza del crimine e della reazione sociale [Criminology. The contribution of research to knowledge of crime and social reaction]. Milan: Giuffrè. Barber, L. (1979). Sex-role stereotyping in select families: When and where does it appear? Character Potential: A Record of Research, 9(2), 101–104. Bargh, J. A. (Ed.). (2007). Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes. New York: Psychology Press. Bartol, K. M. (1999). Gender influences on performance evaluation. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 165–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Basso, F. (2008). Contesti relazionali. Ecomappa di immigrati [Relational contexts. Ecomap of immigrants]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford. Baxter, L. A., & West, L. (2003). Couple perceptions of their similarities and differences: A dialectical perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 491–514. Beck, J. S., & Tomkins, M. A. (2007). Cognitive therapy. In N. Kazantzis & L. L’Abate (Eds.), Handbook of homework assignments in psychotherapy: Research, practice, and prevention (pp. 51–63). New York: Springer. Becvar, D. S. (2003). Eras of epistemology: A survey of family therapy thinking and theorizing. In T. L. Sexton, G. R. Weeks, & M. S. Robbins (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 3–20). New York: Brunner/Routledge. Bedini, E, Gianesini, G., & Mozzato, O. (2009) Relational Competence Ecomap (RC-Ecomap): Comparing different levels of analyses. Poster presented at the 1st International Conference of Italian and Italian-American Psychologists, Astoria Palace Hotel, Palermo, Italy, June 3–4. Beitman, B., & Nair, J. (2004). Self-awareness deficits in psychiatric patients: Neurobiology, assessment, and treatment. New York: Norton. Bengston, V. L. (1975). Generation and family effects on value socialization. American Sociological Review, 40, 358–371. Bengtson, P. L., & Grotevant, H. D. (1999). The individuality and connectedness Q-sort: A measure for assessing individuality and connectedness in dyadic relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 213–225. Benvenuti, F. (1980). Soddisfazione nel lavoro e intimità di coppia [Work satisfaction and couple intimacy]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Berinsky, A. J. (2004). Can we talk? Self-presentation and the survey response. Political Psychology, 25, 643–659. Berne, E. (1972). What do you say after you say hello? New York: Grove Press. Berry, T. R., & Howe, B. L. (2004). Effects of health-based and appearance-based exercise advertising on exercise attitudes, social physique anxiety and self-presentation in an exercise setting. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 1–12. Berscheid, E. (1995). Help Wanted: A grand theorist of interpersonal relationships, sociologist or anthropologist preferred. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 529–533. Bertoldi, C. (1994). Scale di intimità familiare. Messa a punto delle subscale: comunicazione, valorizzazione delle potenzialità, condivisione dei dolori [Family Intimacy Scales. Subscale testing: Communicating values, affirming potentialities, sharing hurts]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.

References

291

Bertuola, L. (1999). Contributo per la revisione dell’adattamento italiano delle scale di Ambiente Familiare [Contribution for the revision of Italian version of Family Environment Scales]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 4, 107–124. Beutler, L. E., & Malik, M. L. (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking the DSM: A psychological perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Beutler, L., Williams, R., Wakefield, P., & Entwistle, S. (1995). Bridging scientist and practitioner perspectives in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 984–994. Bidoli, G. (2006). Contributo alla validità concorrente del TRD5. Applicazione a 30 coppie sposate con figli adolescenti [Application to 30 married couples with adolescents]. Unpublished master thesis. University of Padua. Padua. Blatt, S. J., Quinlan, D. M., Chevron, E. S., McDonald, C., & Zuroff, D. (1982). Dependency and criticism: Psychological dimensions of depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 113–124. Block, A.H. (1961). Some relations between stimulus discrimination and response differentiation. (Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, 1961). Dissertation Abstracts 21, 2376 Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family Process, 24, 225–239. Bodin, A. M. (1996). Relationship conflict—Verbal and physical conceptualizing an inventory for assessing process and content. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Handbook of relational diagnosis and dysfunctional family patterns (pp. 371–392). New York: Wiley. Bodine, R. J., & Crawford, D. K. (1999). Developing emotional intelligence: A guide to behavior management and conflict resolution in schools. Champlain, IL: Research Press. Bögels, S., & Mansell, W. (2004). Attention processes in the maintenance and treatment of social phobia: Hypervigilance, avoidance and self-focused attention. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(7), 827–856. Bögels, S., & Tarrier, N. (2004). Unexplored issues and future directions in social phobia research. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 731–736. Bonanno, G. A., & Keltner, D. (1997). Facial expression of emotion and the course of conjugal bereavement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 126–137. Bornovalova, M. A., Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S. B., Rosenthal, M. Z., & Lynch, T. R. (2005). Impulsivity as a common process across borderline and substance abuse disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 790–812. Borsari, R. (1994). Scale di intimità familiare. Messa a punto delle subscale: realismo relazionale, rispetto dei sentimenti, accettazione dei limiti [Family Intimacy Scales. Subscales testing: Relational realism, respect for feelings, accepting limitations]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Bosma, H., Graafsma, T., Grotevant, H., & de Levita, D. (1994). Identity and development: An interdisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boss, P. G., Doherty, W. J., La Rossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.). (1993). Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum. Bowes-Sperry, L., & Tata, J. (1999). A multiperspective framework of sexual harassment. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 263–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boyd, J. N., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). Time perspective, health, and risk taking. In A. Strathman & J. Joireman (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application (pp. 85–107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Boyer, L., Brunner, B. R., Charles, T., & Coleman, P. (2006). Managing impressions in a virtual environment: Is ethnic diversity a self-presentation strategy for colleges and universities? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 136–154. Bradley, R.H. & Caldwell, B.M. (1979). Home observation for measurement of the environment: A revision of the preschool scale. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84(3), 235–244. Bradley, S. J. (2000). Affect regulation and the development of psychopathology. New York: Guilford. Bravo, R., Fraj, E., & Martínez, E. (2007). Intergenerational influences on the dimensions of young customer-based brand equity. Young Consumers, 8, 58–64.

292

References

Brehm, S. S., Miller, R. S., Perlman, D., & Campbell, S. M. (2002). Intimate relationships. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummigs (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 273–308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Britton, L. E., Martz, D. M., Bazzini, D. G., Curtin, L. A., & Lea Shomb, A. (2006). Fat talk and self-presentation of body image: Is there a social norm for women to self-degrade? Body Image, 3, 247–254. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The environmental ecology of human relationships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, L., Black, D., & Downs, J. (1984). School social skills (S3). East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications. Brown, L., & Hammill, D. D. (1978). Behavior rating profile (BRP-2). East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications. Bukowsky, W. M., & Adams, R. (2005). Peer relationships and psychopathology: Markers, moderators, mediators, mechanisms, and meanings. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 3–10. Burt, S. A., Krueger, R. F., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. (2003). Parent–child conflict and the comorbidity among childhood externalizing disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 505–513. Butcher, J. (1998). Psychological Treatment Planning Inventory: Test manual and interpretative guide. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Butterfield, D. A., & Grinnell, J. P. (1999). ‘Re-viewing’ gender, leadership, and managerial behavior: Do three decades of research tell us anything? Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 223–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Buunk, A. (2005). How do people respond to others with high commitment or autonomy in their relationships? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 653–672. Byng-Hall, J. (1995a). Creating a secure family base: Some implications of attachment theory for family therapy. Family Process, 34(1), 45–58. Byng-Hall, J. (1995b). Rewriting family scripts: Improvisation and systems change. New York: Guilford. Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 191–214. Calix, A. R. (2004). Is the ecomap a valid and reliable social work tool to measure social support? Master thesis in social work, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Canary, D. J., Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Faulkner, D. (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal relationships. New York: Guilford. Capaldi, D., Pears, K., Kerr, D., & Owen, L. (2008). Intergenerational and partner influences on fathers’ negative discipline. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 347–358. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (2000). Big Five Questionnaire. Manuale. Seconda edizione [Big Five Questionnaire. Manual, 2nd ed.]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali. Carattoni, S. (1997). L’importanza di sé e relazioni familiari: indagine su adolescenti e genitori [Self-importance and family relationships: Inquiring adolescents and their parents]. Unpublished degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua. Carli, L., & Eagly, A. (1999). Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Carpenter-Aeby, T., Aeby, V., & Boyd, J. (2007). Ecomaps as visual tools for deconstructing reciprocal influences. Triangle with disruptive students at an alternative school. The School Community Journal, 17(2), 45–72. Carr, A. (1989). Countertransference to families where child abuse has occurred. Journal of Family Therapy, 11, 87–97. Carr, J., & Sequeira, J. (2007). Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial intent: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1090–1098.

References

293

Carron, A. V., Burke, S. M., & Prapavessis, H. (2004). Self-presentation and group influence. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 41–58. Carter, S. E., & Sanna, L. J. (2008). It’not just what you say but when you say it: Self-presentation and temporal construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1339–1345. Carver, C. S. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 13–39). New York: Guilford. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Fulford, M. (2008). Self-regulatory processes, stress, and coping. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 725–742). New York: Guilford. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weinstraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality, 56, 267–283. Casellato, V. (2007). Competenza relazionale di pazienti psicotici [Relational competence in psychotic patients]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford. Caughlin, J. (2002). The demand/withdraw pattern of communication as a predictor of marital satisfaction over time. Human Communication Research, 28, 49–85. Caughlin, J. P., & Malis, R. S. (2004). Demand/withdraw communication between parents and adolescents: Connections with self-esteem and substance abuse. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 125–148. Chabot, D., & Licht, C. (2006). The Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale: A theoretical and psychometrically sound instrument for measuring Bowen’s intrapsychic aspect of differentiation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 167–180. Chang, E. (2008). Self-criticism and self-enhancement: Theory, research, and clinical implications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cheavens, J. S., Rosenthal, M.Z., Daughters, S. D., Novak, J., Kosson, D., Lynch, T. R., & Lejeuz, C. (2005). An analogue investigation of the relationships among perceived parental criticism, negative affect, and borderline personality disorder features: the role of thought suppression. Behavior Research and Therapy, 43, 257–268. Chorpita, B. F., Albano, A. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The structure of negative emotions in a clinical sample of children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 74–85. Choy, A. (1990). The winner’s triangle. Transactional Analysis Journal, 20, 40–46. Cicchetti, D. (2004). An odyssey of discovery: Lessons learned through three decades of research on child maltreatment. American Psychologist, 59, 731–740. Cisek, S. (2006). Feedback does matter-perceived effectiveness of self-presentation and the degree of changes in self-concept. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 37, 145–153. Clark, L. A. (1990). Toward a consensual set of concern clusters for assessment of personality disorders. In J. H. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 243–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24. Clarkson, P. (1993). Bystander games. Transactional Analysis Journal, 23, 158–172. Clément, R., Singh, S., & Gaudet, S. (2006). Identity and adaptation among minority IndoGuyanese: Influence of generational status, gender, reference group and situation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(2), 289–304. Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. Cohen, J. L. (1975). Sex differences in differentiation. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59, 676–684. Coin et al. (2006). Colesso, W. (2006). Questionario dello Stile Genitoriale Percepito (QSRPG) [Perceived Parental Style Questionnaire, QSRPG]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 11, 159–171.

294

References

Collett, J. L. (2005). What kind of mother am I? Impression management and the social construction of motherhood. Symbolic Interaction, 28, 327–347. Collins, J., Cassel, A., & Harper, J. (1975). The perception of adolescent problems by their parents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(1), 77–79. Collins, N. L., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment: New developments and emerging themes. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Sompson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 196–239). New York: Guilford. Collins, D. R., & Stukas, A. A. (2008). Narcissism and self-presentation: The moderating effects of accountability and contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1629–1634. Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Woods, D., & Michlik, P. M. (2006). Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth-tellers: How liars attempt to convince. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 24, 31–38. Compton, B. R., & Galaway, B. (1999). Social work processes. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Conoley, J. C., & Haynes, G. (1992). An ecological approach to intervention. In R. C. D’Amato & B. A. Rothlisberg (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on intervention: A case study approach to prescriptions for change. New York: Longman. Conte, N. K. (2007). Tratti di personalità e competenza relazionale in persone carcerate: una ricerca empirica [Relational competence and relational competence in prisoners: An empirical research]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Cooper, C. L., & Lewis, S. (1999). Gender and the changing nature of work. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 37–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Corrigan, P. W. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59, 614–625. Corrigan, P. W., Wassel, A. K., & Rafacz, J. D. (2008). An evidence-based approach to psychiatric classification. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Toward a science of clinical psychology: Laboratory evaluations and interventions (pp. 283–305). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Corsi, M. (2002). La risposta relazionale dall’adolescenza all’età adulta [Relational answers from adolescence to adulthood]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Costa, P. T., Jr., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Coyne, J. C., Thompson, R., & Palmer, S. C. (2003). Marital characteristic quality, coping with conflict, marital complaints, and affection in couples with a depressed wife. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 26–37. Csikszentmihaly, M. (2004). Materialism and the evolution of consciousness. In T. Kasser & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world (pp. 91–106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cunningham, M. R., Shamblen, S. R., Barbee, A. P., & Ault, L. K. (2005). Social allergies in romantic relationships: Behavioral repetition, emotional sensitization, and dissatisfaction in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 273–295. Curtis, R. C. (Ed.). (1991). The relational self: Theoretical convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology. New York: Guilford. Cusinato, M. (1979). Psicologia delle relazioni familiari [Psychology of Family Relations]. Bologna: il Mulino. Cusinato, M. (1997). TRD. Test di relazione diadica [DRT. Dyadic Relationship Test]. Treviso: Edizioni Centro della Famiglia. Cusinato, M., Aceti, G., & L’Abate, L. (1998). Condivisione del dolore e intimita’di coppia. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarita’, Ricerca: Rivista di Studi Familiari, 2, 31–49. Cusinato, M. (2000). Cambiamenti relazionali nella formazione prematrimoniale. Valutazione immediata e di follow-up [Relational changes of premarital training participants: Immediate evaluation and follow-up]. Età Evolutiva, 66, 50–61. Cusinato, M. (2002). Questionario di Intimità Coniugale [Marital Intimacy Questionnaire]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 3, 203–236.

References

295

Cusianto, M. (2003). A task of relational competence. Instruction manual. Treviso, Italy: Centro della Famiglia. Cusinato, M., Aceti, G., & L’Abate, L. (1997). Condivisione del dolore e di intimità di coppia [Sharing hurts in intimate couples]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 2, 131–150. Cusinato, M., & Colesso, W. (2007). Creazione e validazione di un modello di atteggiamenti childfree [Creation and validation of a childfree attitude model]. Rivista di Studi Familiari, 12, 82–96. Cusinato, M., & Colesso, W. (2008). Validation of the continuum of likeness in intimate relationships. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Toward a science of clinical psychology: Laboratory evaluations and interventions (pp. 337–352). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Cusinato, M., Colesso, W. (2009). Ecomappa di competenza relazionale (RC-Ecomap). Uno strumento per l’assessment delle relazioni significative [Ecomap or relational competence (RC-Ecomap. Assessment instrument of intimate relationships]. Counseling, 2(3), 321–345. Cusinato, M., Colesso, W., & Barbon, M. (2006). Questionario di Attaccamento fra Adulti (QAA) [Adult Attachment Questionnaire, AAQ]. Famiglia, Interdiscipliarità, Ricerca, 3, 267–288. Cusinato, M., & Corsi, M. (2005). Questionario di Risposta Relazionale (QRR) [Relational Answers Questionnaire (RAQ)]. Famiglia, Interdiscipliarità, Ricerca, 10, 49–75. Cusinato, M., & Cristante, F. (1999). Proposta di operazionalizzazione degli stili comunicativi in coniugi e famiglie [Communication styles: An operazionalized proposal in couples and families]. In M. Cusinato, F. Cristante, & F. Morino-Abele (Eds.), Dentro la complessità della famiglia: Crisi, risorse e cambiamenti [Inside family complexity: Crises, resources and changes] (pp. 86–108). Florence, Italy: Giunti. Cusinato, M., Cristante, F., & Muraro, P. (1979). FES: Illustrazione dello strumento e piano di lavoro per l’adattamento italiano e la ricerca [FES: Tool presentation and work plan for Italian version and research]. Padua, Italy: Instituto di Psicologia, University of Padua. Cusinato, M., & L’Abate, L. (1994). A spiral model of intimacy. In S. M. Johnson & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), The heart of the matter: Perspectives on emotion in marital therapy (pp. 108–123). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Cusinato, M., & L’Abate, L. (2005a). The Dyadic Relationships Test: Creation and validation of a model-derived, visual-verbal instrument to evaluate couple relationships. Part I. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 195–206. Cusinato, M., & L’Abate, L. (2005b). The Dyadic Relationships Test: Creation and validation of a model-derived, visual-verbal instrument to evaluate couple relationships. Part II. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 379–394. Cusinato, M., & L’Abate, L. (2008). Likeness: A hidden ingredient in family therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 116–125. Cusinato, M., & L’Abate, L. (Eds.). (in press). Advances in relational competence theory: With special attention to alexitimya. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Cusinato, M., & Pastore, M. (2001). Uno strumento di valutazione dell’importanza di sé e di altri: Analisi delle strutture tassonomiche in prospettiva evolutiva [An instrument to evaluate selfimportance: Taxonomic structure analyses at developmental perspective]. Età Evolutiva: Rivista di Scienze dello Sviluppo, 69, 5–18. Cusinato, M., Segatto, B., & Fabrizio, C. (2000). Family-Differential Emotion Scale. In B. Segatto (Ed.), La relazione di coppia attraverso il ciclo di vita familiare [Couple relationship along the family life cycle]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Dadds, M. R. (1995). Families, children, and the development of dysfunction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davidson, M. J., & Fielden, S. (1999). Stress and the working woman. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 413–426). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davies, J. B., McConnochie, F., Ross, A., Heim, D., & Wallace, B. (2004). Evidence for social learning in the self-presentation of alcohol problems. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 39, 346–350. Davis, R. D., & Millon, T. (1995). On the importance of theory to a taxonomy of personality disorders. In J. W. Livesley (Ed.), The DSM-IV personality disorders (pp. 377–396). New York: Guilford.

296

References

Davis, R. D., & Millon, T. (1999). Models of personality and its disorders. In T. Millon, P. H. Blaney, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (pp. 485–522). New York: Oxford University Press. De Ambrosi, F. (2003). Prova di competenza relazionale in donne con reazione depressiva di breve durata [Relational competence test of women with short-lived depression]. Degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. De Giacomo, P., L’Abate, L., Margari, F., Santamato, W., De Giacomo, A., Masellis, R., & D’Agostino. V. (2009). A program to select sentences with strong psychological impact. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 39, 165–169. De Mas, A. (2006). Contributo alla validazione del Likeness Task: Somministrazione a un campione non clinico di cinquanta soggetti di sesso maschile e confronto con un omogeneo campione di sesso femminile [Contribution to a validation of the Likeness Task: 50 male and 50 female participants]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Deal, J. E., Halverson, C. F., Jr., & Wampler, K. S. (1999). Parental similarity on child-rearing orientations: Effects of stereotype similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 87–102. Deary, I., Taylor, M., Hart, C., Smith, G., Starr, J., Blane, D., et al. (2005). Intergenerational social mobility and mid-life status attainment: Influences of childhood intelligence, childhood social factors, and education. Intelligence, 33, 455–472. DeGenova, M. K., & Rise, F. P. (2005). Intimate relationships, marriages and families. New York: McGraw-Hill. Del Monte, R. (1976). Locus of control and conceptual systems in personality differentiation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Georgia state University, Atlanta, GA. Dember, W. N., & Brooks, J. (1989). A new instrument for measuring optimism and pessimism: Test–retest, reliability and relations with happiness and religious commitment. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 365–376. Demick, J., & Adreotti, C. (Eds.). ( 2003). Handbook of adult development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Depue, R. A., & Lenzenweger, M. F. (2006). A multidimensional neurobehavioral model of personality disturbance. In R. F. Krueger & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 210–261). New York: Guilford. Descoutner, C. J., & Thelen, M. H. (1991). Development and validation of a fear-of-intimacy scale. Psychological Assessment, 3, 218–225. Diener, E., Emmous, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 1–5. Dischion, T. J. (1999). Model building in developmental psychopathology: A pragmatic approach to understanding and intervention. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 502–512. Doi, S., & Thelen, M. (1993). The Fear of Intimacy Scale: Replication and extension. Psychological Assessment, 5, 1–7. Donnenworth, G. V., & Foa, G. F. (1974). Effects of resource class on retaliation to injustice in interpersonal exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(6), 785–793. Douglas, L. (1986). Is adolescent suicide a third degree game and how is the real victim? Transactional Analysis Journal, 16, 165–169. Dozois, D. J. A., Dobson, K. S., & Ahnberg, J. L. (1998). A psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Assessment, 10, 83–89. Duck, S. (Ed.). (1988). Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions. New York: Wiley. Dumas, J.E., Nissley, J., Nordstrom, A., Smith, E.P., Prinz, R.J, Levine, D.W. (2005). Home chaos: Sociodemographic, parenting, interactional and child correlates. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 93–104. Dunkel, C., & Kerpelman, J. (2006). Possible selves: Theory, research and applications. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Durbin, C.E., Klein, D.N., Hayden, E.P., Buckley, M.E., Moerk, K.C. (2005). Temperamental emotionality in preschoolers and parental mood disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(1), 28–37.

References

297

Early, B. P., Smith, E. D., Todd, L., & Beem, T. (2000). The needs and supportive networks of the dying: An assessment instrument and mapping procedure for hospice patients. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, 17, 87–96. Eckhardt, C., Barbour, K., & Davison, G. (1998). Articulated thoughts of maritally violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 259–269. Eckhardt, C. I., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1995). Diagnosis of anger disorders. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 27–47). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Ehrensaft, M.K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., Johnson, J.G. (2003) Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741–753. Elgar, F. J., Curtis, L., J., McGrath, P. J., Waschbusch, D. A., & Stewart, S. H. (2003). Antecedentconsequence conditions in maternal mood and child adjustment: A four-year cross-lagged study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32(3), 362–374. Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology, 13, 73–92. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 415–441. English, F. (1976). Differentiating victims in the drama triangle. Transactional Analysis Journal, 6, 384–386. Esposito, C. L., & Clum, G. A. (2003). The relative contribution of diagnostic and psychosocial factors in the prediction of adolescent suicidal ideation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 386–395. Esterling, B. A., L’Abate, L., Murray, E., & Pennebaker, J. M. (1999). Empirical foundations for writing in prevention and psychotherapy: Mental and physical outcomes. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 79–96. Facco, G. (1999). Revisione delle scale FPR.10: contributo per la messa a punto delle categorie relazionali considerate [Revision of FPR.10 scales: Testing contribution]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 4, 25–48. Feeney, J. A. (1999). Issues of closeness and distance in dating relationships: Effects of sex and attachment style. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 571–590. Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Toward integrative models of the negative effects of hurtful events. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487–508. Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12, 3–27. Fehr, B., & Broughton, R. (2001). Gender and personality differences in conceptions of love: An interpersonal theory analysis. Personal Relationships, 8, 115–136. Feindler, E. L. (1995). Ideal treatment package for children and adolescents with anger disorders. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 173–195). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Fenili, S. (2002). Competenza relazionale e credito relazionale: Ricerca con 60 coppie di coniugi giovani senza figli [Relational competence and optimistic attitude. Research study with 60 married couples without children]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and culture of gender in organizations. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 17–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferrari, J. R., & Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2007). Perceptions of self-concept and self-presentation by procrastinators: Further evidence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 91–96. Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum. Ferrari, M., & Stemberg, R.J., (Eds.) (1998). Self-Awareness. Its Nature and development. New York: Guilford. Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7, 1–23.

298

References

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239–251. Fingerman, K., & Dolbin-MacNab, M. (2006). The baby boomers and their parents: Cohort influences and intergenerational ties. S. Krauss-Whitbourne & S. L. Willis (Eds.), The baby boomers grow up: Contemporary perspectives on midlife (pp. 237–259). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fiske, A. P. (2004a). Four models of constituting relationships: Consubstantial assumptions; space, magnitude, time, and force; concrete procedures; abstract symbolisms. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 61–146). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Fiske, A. P. (2004b). Relational models theory 2.0. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 3–25). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Fletcher, G. J. O., & Clark, M. S. (Eds.). (2003). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism. Perfectionism. Theory, research and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Foa, U. G. (1976). Resource theory of social exchanges. In J. S. Thiabut, J. Spence, & R. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Foa, U. G., Converse, J., Jr., Tornblom, K. J., & Foa, E. B. (Eds.). (1993). Resource exchange theory: Explorations and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Fogarty, R., & Bellanca, J. (1998). Multiple intelligences: A collection. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fontana, A. (1996). Tempo di prevenzione. Applicazioni del programma strutturato di intimità coniugale [Prevention time: Structural program application of marital intimacy]. Degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Forgays, D. G., Forgays, D. K., & Spielberger, C. D. (1997). Factor structure of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 497–507. Franks, M. M., Wendorf, C. A., Gonzales, R., & Ketterer, M. (2004). Aid and influence: Health promoting exchanges of older married partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 431–445. Frattini, C. (1994). Test di relazione diadica. Contributo alla costruzione e validazione [Dyadic Relationship Test. Contribution to creation and validation]. Unpublished degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua. Frey, J., Holly, J., & L’Abate, L. (1979). Intimacy is sharing hurt feelings: Comparison of three conflict resolution methods. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 5, 35–41. Frick, P.J., Lahey, B.B., Loeber, R., Tannenbaum, L., Van Horn, Y., Christ, M.A.G., Hart, B.A., and Hanson, K. (1993). Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A meta-analytic review of factor analyses and cross-validation in a clinic sample. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 319–340. Friedrich, W. N., Greenberg, M. T., & Crnic, K. (1983). A short form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 8, 41–48. Friesen, M. D., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Overall, N. C. (2005). A dyadic assessment of forgiveness in intimate relationships. Personal Relationships, 12, 61–77. Frison, F. (1998). Gelosia romantica e attaccamento adulto [Romantic jealousy and adult attachment]. Unpublished degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua. Fulkerson, M. (2003). Integrating the Karpman drama triangle with choice theory and reality therapy. Transactional Analysis Journal, 23, 12–14. Gable, S. L., Reis, S. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1135–1149. Gagliostro, M. (1994). Contributo alla costruzione e validazione del test di relazione diadica. Uno strumento per la valutazione della relazione coniugale [Contribution for creating and validating the Dyadic Relationship Test, an evaluation instrument of marital relationship]. Unpublished degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua. Gaiotto, C. (1997). Modello di sé e Importanza di sé: due modelli a confronto [Self-model and selfimportance: Comparing two models]. Unpublished degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua. Gammage, K. L., Hall, C. R., & Martin, G. K. A. (2004). Self-presentation in exercise contexts: Differences between high and low frequency exercisers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1638–1651.

References

299

Gammage, K. L., Hall, C. R., Prapavessis, H., Maddison, R., Haase, A., & Martin, K. (2004). Re-examination of the factor structure and composition of the self-presentation in exercise questionnaire (SPEQ) (Special issue: Self-presentation in exercise and sport). Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 82–91. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Garrety, T. F., Marx, M. B., & Somes, G. W. (1977). The influence of illness severity and time of life change on the size of the life change-health change relationship. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 21, 377–382. Garrison, W. T., & Earls, F. J. (1987). Temperament and psychopathology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gelfand, D. M., & Peterson, L. (1985). Child development and psychopathology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., First, M. B., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997). User’s guide for the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis II personality disorders: SCID-II. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 152–177. Giblin, P. (1986). Research and assessment in marriage and family enrichment: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Psychotherapy and The Family, 2, 79–96. Gillespie, J. B. (2006). The phenomenon of the public wife: An exercise in Goffman’s impression management. In D. Brissett & C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 379–397). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Giordano, C. (1996). Stili relazionali e negoziazione: Studio sulla relazione diadica [Relational styles and negotiation: Study of dyadic relationships]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Giurfa, M., Zhang, S., Jenett, A., Menzel, R., & Srinivasan, M. (2001). The concepts of ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ in an insect. Nature, 410(6831), 930–933. Goldberg, L. E. (1999). The curious experiences survey: A revised version of the Dissociative Experiences Scale: Factor structure, reliability, and relation to demographic and personality variables. Psychological Assessment, 11, 134–145. Goodnow, J. J. (2004). The domain of work in households: A relational models approach. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 167–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gorall, D., & Olson, D. (1995). Circumplex model of family systems: Integrating ethnic diversity and other social systems. In R. H. Mikesell, D. D. Lusterman, & S. H. McDaniel (Eds.), Integrating family therapy: Handbook of family psychology and systems theory (pp. 217–233). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion and how families communicate emotionally. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Govern, J. M., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Development and validation of the Situational SelfAwareness Scale. Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 366–378. Graves, L. M. (1999). Gender bias in interviewers’ evaluations of applicants. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greene, R. L., & Anderson, E. R. (1999). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). In M. M. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (pp. 1023–1050). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Greene, J. O., & Burleson, B. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Greener, I. (2007). The politics of gender in the NHS: Impression management and ‘getting things done’. Gender, Work and Organization, 14, 281–299. Gregson, R. A. M. (1975). Psychometrics of similarity. New York: Academic. Grisham, J., & Barlow, D. (2005). Compulsive hoarding: Current research and theory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(1), 45–52.

300

References

Grolnick, W. S., & Gurland, S. T. (2002). Mothering: Retrospect and prospect. In J. P. McHale & W. S. Grolnick (Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of families (pp. 5–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Grundy, E. (2005). Reciprocity in relationships: Socio-economic and health influences on intergenerational exchanges between Third Age parents and their adult children in Great Britain. British Journal of Sociology, 56, 233–255. Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in impression management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles, 56, 483–494. Guerney, B. (1977). Relationship enhancement: Skill training programs for therapy problem prevention and enrichment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guilford, J. P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 929–938. Gurman, A. S., & Kniskern, D. P. (Eds.). (1981). Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Gurman, A. S., & Kniskern, D. P. (1991). Handbook of family therapy Vol. II. New York: Brunner/ Mazel. Gurman, A. S., Kniskern, D. P., & Pinsoff, W. (1986). Research on the process and outcome of marital and family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy, II (pp. 565–624). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Gutek, B. A., Cherry, B., & Groth, M. (1999). Gender and service delivery. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 47–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hansen, J. C., & L’Abate, L. (Eds.). (1982). Values, ethics, legalities and the family therapist. Rockville, MD: Aspen System Corporation. Harkness, A. R. (2007). Personality traits are essential for a complete clinical science. In S. O. Lilienfeld & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), The great ideas of clinical science: 17 principles that every mental health professional should understand (pp. 263–290). New York: Routledge. Harper, L. (2005). Epigenetic inheritance and the intergenerational transfer of experience. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 340–360. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278–285. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford. Harter, S., Waters, P. I., Pettitt, L. M., Whitesell, J. K., & Jordan, J. (1997). Autonomy and connectedness as dimensions of relationship styles in men and women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 147–164. Hartlage, S., Arduino, K., & Alloy, L. B. (1998). Depressive personality characteristics: State dependent concomitants of depressive disorder and traits independent of current depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 349–354. Hartman, A. (1979). Finding families: An ecological approach to family assessment in adoption. Beverly Hills: Sage. Hartman, A. (1995). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 1, 111–122. Hartman, A., & Laird, J. (1983). Family-centered social work practice. New York: Free Press. Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries of the mind: A new psychology of personality. New York: Basic Books. Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D.E., Schroder, H.M. (1961). Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Harwood, T. M., & L’Abate, L. (2010). Self-help in mental health: A critical evaluation. New York: Springer-Science. Hasegawa, N. (2005). Influences of cultural-self-construal on self-presentation. The Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 44–52. Haslam, N. (2004). Research on relational models: An overview. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 27–57). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Hassebrauck, M., & Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship characteristic quality. Personal Relationships, 9, 253–270.

References

301

Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press. Hathaway, S. R., & Mc Kinley, J. C. (1942). The Minnesota multiphasic personality schedule. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hausenblas, H. A., Brewer, B. W., & Van Raalte, J. L. (2004). Self-presentation and exercise (Special issue: Self-presentation in exercise and sport). Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 3–18. Hawker, L. (2000). The drama triangle in the treatment of domestic violence. Transactional Analysis Journal, 30, 139–144. Hayes, S., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford. Heavey, C., Christensen, A., & Malamuth, N. (1995). The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 797–801. Helgeson, V. S., Novak, S. A., Lepore, S. J., & Eton, D. T. (2004). Spouse social control efforts: Relations to health behavior and well-being among men with prostate cancer. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 53–68. Henggeler, S. W., & Tavormina, J. B. (1980). Social class and race differences in family interaction: Pathological, normative, or confounding methodological factors? Journal of Genetic Psychology, 137, 211–222. Henley, A. R. (1987). Phobias: The crippling fears. New York: Avon Books. Henry, M.S. & Raju, N.S. (2006). The effects of trailed and situational impression management on a personality test: An empirical analysis. Psychology Science, 48(3), 247–267. Hersen, M., & Last, C. G. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of child and adult psychopathology: A longitudinal perspective. New York: Pergamon. Hess, J. A. (2000). Maintaining nonvoluntary relationships with disliked partners: An investigation into the use of distancing behaviors. Human Communication Research, 3, 458–488. Hess, J. A. (2002). Distance regulation in personal relationships: The development of a conceptual model and a test of representational validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 663–683. Hess, J. A. (2003). Measuring distance in personal relationships: The Relational Distance Index. Personal Relationships, 10, 197–215. Hewitt, P. L., Habke, A. M., Lee-Baggley, D. L., Sherry, S. B., & Flett, G. L. (2008). The impact of perfectionistic self-presentation on the cognitive, affective, and physiological experience of a clinical interview. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 71, 93–122. Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., Iacono, W. G., McGue, M., & Patrick, C. J. (2004). Family transmission and heritability of externalizing disorders: A twin-family study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 922–928. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. Higgins, R. L., Snyder, C. R., & Berglas, S. (1990). Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn’t. New York: Plenum. Higgins, E. T., & Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 171–187). New York: Guilford. Hip-Fabek, I. (2005). The impact of self-handicapping strategies use on the impression formation. Review of Psychology, 12, 125–132. Hirsch, C., & Clark, D. (2004). Information-processing bias in social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(7), 799–825. Hirsch, B. J., & Rapkin, B. D. (1986). Multiple roles, social networks, and women’s well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1237–1247. Hodge, D. R. (2000). Spiritual ecomaps: A new diagrammatic tool for assessing marital and family spirituality. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 217–228. Hofferth, S. L., & Casper, L. M. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of measurement issues in family research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hofmann, S., Heinrichs, N., & Moscovitch, D. (2004). The nature and expression of social phobia: Toward a new classification. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(7), 769–797.

302

References

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Moerkbak, M. L., Cronkite, R. C., Holahan, C. K., & Kenney, B. A. (2007). Spousal similarity in coping and depressive symptoms over 10 years. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 551–559. Horne, A. M., Raczynski, K., & Orpinas, P. (2008). A clinical laboratory approach to reducing bullying and aggression in schools. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Toward a science of clinical psychology: Laboratory evaluations and interventions (pp. 117–131). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hurtug, J., Audy, J. R., & Cohen, Y. A. (1998). The anatomy of loneliness. New York: International University Press. Hutton, S. P. (1974). Self-esteem, values, and self-differentiation in pre-marital dyads. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. Impett, E. A., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2005). Approach and avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and interpersonal well being. Personal Relationships, 12, 465–482. Jackson, T. (2007). Protective self-presentation, sources of socialization, and loneliness among Australian adolescents and young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1552–1562. Jackson, R., Meara, N., & Arora, M. (1974). Father identification, achievement, and occupational behavior of rural youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4(1), 85–96. Jacobs, A. (1990). Nationalism. Transactional Analysis Journal, 20, 221–228. Jacobs, A. (1996). Strength without justice. Transactional Analysis Journal, 26, 206–213. Jacobs, J. A. (1999). The sex segregation of occupations. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 125–141). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Janicki, D. L., Kamark, T. W., Shiffman, S., & Gwaltney, C. J. (2006). Application of ecological momentary assessment to the study of marital adjustment and social interaction during daily life. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 168–172. Jaoui, G. (1991). Transference process and transactional process. Transactional Analysis Journal, 21, 108–111. Jenkins, J. M., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., Rasbash, J., & Behnke, P. (2005). Change in maternal perception of sibling negativity: Within- and between-family influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 533–541. Jessee, E. H. (1978). Separation and differentiation in the college individual. MA thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (2008). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford. Johnston, C., Scoular, D. J., & Ohan, J. L. (2004). Mothers’ reports of parenting in families of children with symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder: Relations to impression management. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 26, 45–61. Joiner, T. E., Jr., Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., Schmidt, N. D., Rudd, M. D., & Catanzaro, S. J. (1999). Physiological hyperarounsal: Construct validity of a central aspect of the tripartite model of depression and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 290–298. Jones, J. M., & Brown, W. T. (2005). Any time is Trinidad time! Cultural variations in the value and functions of time. In A. Strathman & J. Joireman (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application (pp. 305–323). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Jones, N. A., & Mize, K. D. (2007). Touch interventions positively affect development. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 353–369). New York: Springer. Jordan, J. (2004). Personality disorder or relational disconnection? In: J. J. Magnavita (Ed.), Handbook of personality disorders: Theory and practice (pp. 120–134). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Jordan, K., & L’Abate, L. (1995). Programmed writing and therapy with symbiotically enmeshed patients. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 49, 225–236.

References

303

Jung Suh, E., Moskowitz, D. S., Fournier, M. A., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Gender and relationships: Influences on agentic and communal behaviors. Personal Relationships, 11, 41–59. Justice, R., & Justice, B. (1993). Child abuse and the law: How to avoid being the abused and the abuser. Transactional Analysis Journal, 23, 139–145. Kagan, J. (2007). What is emotion? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kantor, J. R. (1924). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Bloomington, MI: Principia Press. Kaplan, D., Liu, R., & Kaplan, H. (2004). Explaining intergenerational parallelism in adverse school experiences: Mediating influence of young and middle adulthood experiences. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 117–159. Karpman, S. B. (1968). Fairy tales and script drama analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 7, 39–43. Kashima, Y., Foddy, M., & Platow, M. (2002). Self and identity: Personal, social, and symbolic. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kasser, T., & Kanner, A. D. (2004). Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world (pp. 91–106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Katz, R., Katz, J., & Shaw, B. F. (1999). Beck Depression Inventory and Helplessness Scale. In M. M. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (pp. 831–870). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kazantzis, N. (2000). Power to detect homework effects in psychotherapy outcome research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 166–170. Kazantzis, N., Deane, F. P., & Ronan, K. R. (2000). Assessing compliance with homework assignments: Review and recommendations for clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 627–641. Kazantzis, N., & L’Abate, L. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of homework assignments in psychotherapy: Theory, research, and prevention. New York: Springer. Keating, C. F. (2006). Why and how the silent self speaks volumes: Functional approaches to nonverbal impression management. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 321–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs: 2 volumes. New York: Norton. Kelly, J. G. (1966). Ecological constraints on mental health services. American Psychologist, 21, 535–539. Kelly, E. J. (1990). Differential test of conduct and emotional problems. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications. Kelly, E. J., & Vitali, G. J. (1992). Conduct problem/emotional problem interventions. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications. Kennedy-Moore, E., & Watson, J. C. (1999). Expressing emotion: Myths, realities, and therapeutic strategies. New York: Guilford. Keyes, C. L. M., & Haldt, J. (Eds.). (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life welllived. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. King, D. W., Leskin, G. A., King, L. A., & Weathers, F. W. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the clinician-administered PTSD scale: Evidence for the dimentionality of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Assessment, 10, 90–96. King, A., & Terrance, C. (2006). Relationships between personality disorder attributes and friendship qualities among college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 5–20. Knapp, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kochalka, J., & L’Abate, L. (1997). Linking evaluation with structured enrichment: The Family Profile Form. American Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 361–374. Koenig, L. B., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on the traditional moral values triad–Authoritarianism, conservativism, and religiousness—As assessed by quantitative behavior genetic methods. In P. McNamara (Ed.), Where God and science meet: How brain and evolutionary studies alter out understanding of religion (Vol 1) (47-76). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan.

304

References

Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1999). Affermative action: History, effects, and attitudes. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 429–452). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Korabik, K. (1999). Sex and gender in the new millennium. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Korn, M. E., & Maggs, J. L. (2004). Why drink less? Diffidence, self-presentation styles, and alcohol use among university students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 201–211. Kosson, D. S., Steuerwald, B. L., Forth, A. E., & Kirkhart, K. J. (1997). A new method for assessing the interpersonal behavior of psychopathic individuals: Preliminary validation studies. Psychological Assessment, 9, 89–101. Kotler, T. (1975). Characteristics and correlates of parent–son interactions. Provincetown, MA: The Journal Press. Krämer, N., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20(3), 106–116. Kraut, R., & Lewis, S. (1975). Alternate models of family influence on student political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(5), 791–800. Krueger, R. F. (2002). Personality from a realist’s perspective: Personality traits, criminal behaviors, and the externalizing spectrum. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 564–572. Krueger, R. F., & Tackett, J. L. (Eds.). (2006). Personality and psychopathology. New York: Guilford. Kruse, T. L., & Kruse, J. L. (1994). Suzuki and the drama triangle. Transactional Analysis Journal, 24, 214–215. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. L’Abate, L., & Kaiser, D. A. (Eds.). (in press). The handbook of technology in psychology, psychiatry, and neurology: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Nova Science Publishers. L’Abate, L. (1976). Understanding and helping the individual in the family. New York: Grune & Stratton. L’Abate, L. (1977). Intimacy is sharing hurt feelings: A reply to David Mace. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 3, 13–16. L’Abate, L. (1983). Styles in intimate relationships: The A-R-C model. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 63, 227–283. L’Abate, L., & McHenry, S. (1983). Handbook of marital interventions. New York: Grune & Stratton. L’Abate, L. (1986). Systematic family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. L’Abate, L., & Wagner, V. 1988. Testing a theory of developmental competence in the family. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 23–35. L’Abate, L. (1990). Building family competence: Primary and secondary prevention strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. L’Abate, L. (1992a). Excessive spending. In L. L’Abate, J. E. Farrar, & D. A. Serritella (Eds.), Handbook of differential treatments for addictions (pp. 253–270). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. L’Abate, L. (1992b). Programmed writing: A self-administered approach with individuals, couples, and families. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. L’Abate, L. (1994a). A theory of personality development. New York: Wiley. L’Abate, L. (1994b). What is developmental family psychology? In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Handbook of developmental family psychology and psychopathology (pp. 3–23). New York: Wiley. L’Abate, L. (1996). Theory building, theory testing, and training in family psychology. In M. Cusinato (Ed.), Research on family resources and needs across the world (pp. 57–72). Milan: LED. L’Abate, L. (1997a). Distance writing and computer-assisted training. In R. S. Sauber (Ed.), Managed mental health care: Major diagnostic and treatment approaches (pp. 133–163). Bristol, PA: Brunner/Mazel. L’Abate, L. (1997b). The self in the family: Toward a classification of personality, criminality, and psychopathology. New York: Wiley.

References

305

L’Abate, L. (Ed.). (1998). Family psychopathology: The relational roots of dysfunctional behavior. New York: Guilford. L’Abate, L. (1999a). Decisions we family psychologists need to make now for the near and distant future: Whether we like them of not. The Family Psychologist, 23, 17–21. L’Abate, L. (1999b). Programmed distance writing in therapy with acting-out adolescents. In C. Schaefer (Ed.), Innovative psychotherapy techniques in child and adolescent therapy (pp. 108–157). New York: Wiley. L’Abate, L. (1999c). Taking the bull by the horns: Beyond talk in psychological interventions. The Family Journal: Therapy and Counseling for Couples and Families, 7, 206–220. L’Abate, L. (Ed.). (2001). Distance writing and computer-assisted interventions in psychiatry and mental health. Westport, CT: Ablex. L’Abate, L. (2002). Beyond psychotherapy: Programmed writing and structured computerassisted interventions. Westport, CT: Ablex. L’Abate, L. (2003). Family psychology III: Theory-building, theory-testing, and psychological interventions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. L’Abate, L. (2004a). A guide to self-help workbooks for clinicians and researchers. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. L’Abate, L. (Ed.). (2004b). Using workbooks in mental health: Resources in prevention, psychotherapy, and rehabilitation for clinicians and researchers. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. L’Abate, L. (2005). Personality in intimate relationships: Socialization and psychopathology. New York: Springer. L’Abate, L. (2006). Toward a relational theory for psychiatric classification. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34, 1–15. L’Abate, L. (Ed.). (2007). Low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health. New York: Springer. L’Abate, L., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Workbooks to promote mental health and life-long learning. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 285–303). New York: Springer-Science. L’Abate, L. (2008a). A hierarchical framework for relational competence theory. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 13, 9–19. L’Abate, L. (2008b). Appendix. A proposed curriculum for a diploma or graduate degree in structured online mental health interventions. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Toward a science of clinical psychology: Laboratory evaluations and interventions (pp. 385–392). New York: Nova Science Publishers. L’Abate, L. (2008c). Applications of relational competence theory to prevention and psychotherapy. In K. Jordan (Ed.), The quick theory reference guide: A resource for expert and novice mental health professionals (pp. 475–492). New York: Nova Science Publishers. L’Abate, L. (2008d). Proposal for including distance writing in couple therapy. Journal of Relationship & Couple Therapy, 7, 337–362. L’Abate, L. (2008e). What is the laboratory method in clinical psychology? In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Toward a science of clinical psychology: Laboratory evaluations and interventions (pp. 1–34). New York: Nova Science Publishers. L’Abate, L. (2008f). Working at a distance from participants: Writing and nonverbal media. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Toward a science of clinical psychology: Laboratory evaluations and interventions (pp. 355–383). New York: Nova Science Publishers. L’Abate, L. (2009a). A theory-derived structured interview for intimate relationships. The Family Psychologist, 25, 12–14. L’Abate, L. (2009b). Hurt feelings: The last taboo for researchers and clinicians? In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of hurt feelings in close relationships (pp. 479–498). New York: Cambridge University Press. L’Abate, L. (2009c). Paradigms, theories, and models: Two hierarchical frameworks. In L. L’Abate, M. Capitelli, P. De Giacomo, & S. Longo (Eds.), Science, mind, and creativity: The Bari Symposium (pp. 105–153). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

306

References

L’Abate, L. (2009d). The drama triangle: An attempt to resurrect a neglected pathogenic model in family therapy theory and practice. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 1–11. L’Abate, L. (2009e). The Praeger handbook of play across the life cycle: Fun from infancy to old age. Westport, CT: Praeger. L’Abate, L. (2009f). Working at a distance from participants: Writing and nonmedia. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Toward a science of clinical psychology: Laboratory evaluations and interventions (pp. 355–383). New York: Nova Science Publishers. L’Abate, L. (2009a). A bibliography of secondary sources related to models of relational competence theory. In M. Capitelli, P. De Giacomo, L. L’Abate, & S. Longo (Eds.), Science, mind, and creativity (pp. 175–196). New York: Nova Science Publishers. L’Abate, L. (2010). Sourcebook of interactive exercises in mental health. New York: Springer. L’Abate, L. (in press). Hurt feelings: Theory, research, and applications in intimate relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press. L’Abate, L., & Bagarozzi, D. A. (1993). Sourcebook of marriage and family evaluation. New York: Brunner/Mazel. L’Abate, L., & Cusinato, M. (2007). Linking theory with practice: Theory-derived interventions in prevention and psychotherapy. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15, 318–327. L’Abate, L., & De Giacomo, P. (2003). Intimate relationships and how to improve them: Integrating theoretical models with preventive and psychotherapeutic applications. Newport, CT: Praeger. L’Abate, L., De Giacomo, P., McCarty, F. A., De Giacomo, A., & Verrastro, G. (2000). Testing three models of intimate relationships. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 22, 103–122. L’Abate, L., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Workbooks to promote mental health and life-long learning. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 285–303). New York: Springer-Science L’Abate, L., Farrar, J. E., & Serritella, D. A. (Eds.). (1992). Handbook of differential treatments for addictions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. L’Abate, L., & Harrison, M. G. (1992). Treating codependency. In L. L’Abate, J. E. Farrar, & D. A. Serritella (Eds.), Sourcebook of differential treatments for addictions (pp. 286–306). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. L’Abate, L., & Hewitt, D. (1988). Toward a classification of sex and sexual behavior. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 14, 29–39. L’Abate, L., L’Abate, B. L., & Maino, E. (2005). A review of 25 years of part-time professional practice: Written homework assignments and length of psychotherapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 19–31. L’Abate, L., Lambert, R. G., & Schenck, P. (2001). Testing a relational model of psychopathology with the MMPI-2. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 221–238. L’Abate, L., & Wagner, V. (1985). Theory-derived, family-oriented test batteries. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Handbook of family psychology and therapy (pp. 1006–1032). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. L’Abate, L., & Wagner, V. (1988). Testing a theory of developmental competence in the family. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 23–35. L’Abate, L., & Weinstein, S. E. (1987). Structured enrichment programs for couples and families. New York: Brunner/Mazel. L’Abate, L., & Young, L. (1987). Structured enrichment programs for couples and families: A casebook. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Lahey, B. B., Frick, P. J., Loeber, R., Tannenbaum, D. A., et  al. (1990). Oppositional conduct disorder: A meta-analysis review. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia, Athens. Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Powell. Lanyon, R. I. (2004). Favorable self-presentation on psychological inventories: An analysis. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22, 53–65. Lanz, M., & Marta, E. (2006). Cura della generatività sociale [Taking care of social generativity]. In E. Scabini & G. Rossi (Eds.), Le parole della famiglia [Family words] (pp. 129–140). Milan: Vita e Pensiero.

References

307

Larsen, R. J., & Prizmic, Z. (2004). Affect regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 40–61). New York: Guilford. Le Compte, W. A. (1972). When the donkey speaks: The perspective of ecological psychology. Bulletin of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4, 153–161. Le Guernic, A. (2004). Fairy tales and psychological life plans. Transactional Analysis Journal, 34, 216–222. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald. Leary, M. (1985). Men and women: What are the differences and does it matter? Management Education and Development, 16(2), 140–154. Leary, M. R. (2004). The self we know and the self we show: Self-esteem, self-presentation, and the maintenance of interpersonal relationships. In M. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Emotion and motivation (pp. 204–224). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ledley, D., & Huppert, J. (2007). Behavior therapy. In N. Kazantzis & L. L’Abate (Eds.), Handbook of homework assignments in psychotherapy: Research, practice, prevention (pp. 19–34). New York: Springer. Lee, H. (2006). Privacy, publicity, and accountability of self-presentation in an online discussion group. Sociological Inquiry, 76, 1–22. Lenzenweger, M. F. (2006). The longitudinal study of personality disorders: History, design, and initial findings [Special essay]. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 645–670. Levinson, H. N. (1986). Phobia free. New York: Evans. Lewin, K. (1935). Dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2005). Self-determination and the use of self-presentation strategies. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 469–489. Li, A., & Bagger, J. (2006). Using the BIDR to distinguish the effects of impression management and self-deception on the criterion validity of personality measures: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 131–141. Lieberman, A., Padrön, E., Van Horn, P., & Harris, W. (2005). Angels in the nursery: The intergenerational transmission of benevolent parental influences. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26, 504–520. Lievens, F., & Peeters, H. (2008). Interviewers’ sensitivity to impression management tactics in structured interviews. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 174–180. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. New York: Guilford. Lindaver, P. (1998). Le persone in relazione: Tre modelli a confronto [People in relationships: Comparing three models]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 3, 101–114. Livesley, W. J., Jackson, D. N., & Schroeder, M. L. (1989). A study of the factorial structure of personality pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3, 292–306. Lobel, S. A. (1999). Impact of diversity and work-life initiatives in organizations. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 453–474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Longhin, L. (2003). Competenza relazionale di psicotici [Relational competence of psychotics]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Lopez, F., Campbell, V., & Watkins, C. (1988). Family structure, psychological separation, and college adjustment: A canonical analysis and cross-validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(4), 402–409. Lorimer, R., & Westbury, T. (2006). Physical self-presentation and competitive anxiety in male master divers. Psychological Reports, 99, 773–780. Lorr, M., Youniss, R. P., & Stefic, E. C. (1991). An inventory of social skills. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 506–520. Lubin, B., Lubin, A. W., Whiteford, M. G., & Whitlock, R. V. (1988). Family therapy: Bibliography 1937–1986. New York: Greenwood. Luks, S., & Elms, L. (2005). African-American partisanship and the legacy of the civil rights movement: Generational, regional, and economic influences on democratic identification, 1973–1994. Political Psychology, 26, 735–754.

308

References

Lynam, D. R. (1997). Pursuing the psychopath: Capturing the fledging psychopath in a nomological net. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 425–438. Lynch, M. D., Norem-Hebeisen, A. A., & Gergen, K. J. (1981). Self-concept, advances in theory and research. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Lyons, E. J., Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Pro-anorexics and recovering anorexics differ in their linguistic internet self-presentation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 253–256. Maddison, R. & Prapavessis, H. (2007). Self-handicapping in sport: A self-presentation strategy. In Jowette, S. & Lavallee, D. (Eds), Social Psychology in Sport (209–220). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Maino, E. (1996). Desiderabilità sociale in ambito coniugale: definizioni e strumenti [Social desirability in the marital context: Definitions and instruments]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 1, 179–193. Maino, E. (1998). Desiderabilità sociale e atteggiamento ottimista: Contributo alla costruzione di due scale in ambito coniugale [Social desirability and optimistic attitude: Contribution to the construction of two scales for couples]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 227(228), 65–76. Maino, E. (2004). Intimacy in couples: Evaluating a workbook. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Using workbooks in mental health (pp. 265–280). Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Maino, E. (2005). La condivisione del dolore in coppie con un figlio disabile [Hurt sharing between parents with a handicapped child]. Saggi: Child Development and Disabilities, 31, 51–74. Maino, E., & Aceti, G. (1996). Partner Quality Test: messa a punto di una nuova forma [Partner Quality Test: A new form]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 1–3, 125–134. Maino, E., & Cusinato, M. (2000). Optimism and pessimism: Construct analyses and cross-cultural validation of Dember’s Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua. Maino, E., & Fara, D. (2000). Personal communication. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Beyond psychotherapy: Programmed writing and structured computer-assisted interventions (pp. 198–201). Westport, CT: Ablex. Maino, E., & Resta, B. (1999). Operazionalizzazione del costrutto di impegno nella relazione di coppia: Validazione dello Stanley’s Commitment Inventory [Operationalization of the construct of commitment in couple relationship: Validation of Stanley’s Commitment Inventory]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 4, 5–23. Maino, E., Talpone, U., Basile, E., Fara, D., Seassaro, U., & Molteni, M. (1999). La valutazione di variabili relazionali in famiglie con portatori di handicap [Relational variables of families with handicapped children]. Paper presented at the VII International Conference of Family Education, Abano Terme (Italy), 14–17 April, 1999. Mak, L., & Marshall, S. K. (2004). Perceived mattering in your adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 469–486. Malat, J. R., van Ryn, M., & Purcell, D. (2006). Race, socioeconomic status, and the perceived importance of positive self-presentation in health care. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2479–2488. Mandrik, C., Fern, E., & Bao, Y. (2005). Intergenerational influence: Roles of conformity to peers and communication effectiveness. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 813–832. Mansell, W. (2005). Control theory and psychopathology: An integrative approach. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 78, 141–178. Manzi, C., Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., & Scabini, E. (2006). Cohesion and enmeshment revisited: Differentiation, identity and well-being in two European cultures. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 673–689. Markon, K., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157. Marks, I., & Cavanagh, K. (2009). Computer-aided psychological treatments: Evolving issues. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology., 5, 121–141. Marlowe, H. A., Jr., & Weinberg, R. B. (Eds.). (1985). Competence development: Theory and practice in special populations. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

References

309

Marteau, T., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 301–306. Martin, G., Kathleen, A., Lindwall, M., & Prapavessis, H. (2007). Who cares what other people think? Self-presentation in exercise and sport. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 136–157). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Mascolo, M. F., & Griffin, S. (Eds.). (1998). What develops in emotional development? New York: Plenum. Maser, J. D., Norman, S. B., Zisook, S., Everall, I. P., Stein, M. B., Schettler, P. J., et al. (2009). Psychiatric nosology is ready for a paradigm shift in DCM-V. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 16, 24–40. Mash, L. J., & Barkley, R. A. (1996). Child psychopathology. New York: Guilford. Massel, H. K., Liberman, R. P., Mintz, J., Jacobs, H. E., Rush, T. V., Giannini, C. A., et al. (1990). Evaluating the capacity to work of the mentally ill. Psychiatry, 53, 31–43. Masten, A. S. (2005). Peer relationships and psychopathology in developmental perspective: Reflections on progress and promise. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 87–92. Mattaini, M. A., & Daley, J. G. (1997). Should social workers rely on genograms and ecomaps? In B. A. Thyer (Ed.), Controversial issues in social work practice (pp. 217–231). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Matterazzo, R. (1994). Le scale di negoziazione coniugale: Contributo allo studio della validità concorrente e di costrutto [Marital Negotiation Scales: Contribution to construct and concurrent validity]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4, 197–208. McAdams, D. (1988). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into identity. New York: Guilford. McCrae, R. R. (1994). A reformulation of Axis II: Personality and personality-related problems. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 303–309). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 9, 231–252. McCubbin, H. I., Olson, D. H., & Larsen, A. S. (1987). F-COPES: Family Crisis Orientated Personal Evaluation Scale. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 159–160). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. McDowell, C. (1975). Victims, persecutors and rescuers: A challenge to police performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3, 33–37. McElwee, R. O., & Yurak, T. J. (2007). Feeling versus acting like an impostor: Real feelings of fraudulence or self-presentation? Individual Differences Research, 5, 201–220. McGee, B. J., Hewitt, P. L., Sherry, S. B., Parkin, M., & Flett, G. L. (2005). Perfectionistic selfpresentation, body image, and eating disorder symptoms. Body Image, 2, 29–40. McGuire, W. J. (1997). Creative hypotheses generating in psychology: Some useful heuristics. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 1–30. McHugh, P. R., & Slavney, P. R. (1989). The perspectives of psychiatry. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. McIlvane, J., Ajrouch, K., & Antonucci, T. (2007). Generational structure and social resources in mid-life: Influences on health and well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 759–773. McMahan, O., & L’Abate, L. (2001). Programmed distance writing with seminarian couples. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Distance writing and computer-assisted interventions in psychiatry and mental health (pp. 137–156). Westport, CT: Ablex.

310

References

Merrell, K. W., & Gimpel, G. A. (1997). Social skills of children and adolescents: Conceptualization, assessment, treatment. Mahawah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mesquita, B., & Albert, D. (2007). The cultural regulation of emotions. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 486–503). New York: Guilford. Mikesell, R., Lusterman, D., & McDaniel, S. (1995). Integrating family therapy: Handbook of family psychology and systems theory. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mikulincer, M. (2007). Building personal relationships theory. Personal Relationships, 14, i–iv. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford. Mills, J., Clark, M. S., Ford, T. E., & Johnson, M. (2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213–230. Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (2006). Impression management and self-report among violent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 178–192. Minolli, M., & Coin, R. (2006). Per una psicoanalisi della relazione [For a relationship psychoanalyse]. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 40, 665–676. Miozzi, E. (2007). Risorse personali di competenza relazionale. Applicazione del QRR a 276 soggetti [Individual resources of relational competence: RRQ applied to 276 participants]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 99–129). New York: Guilford. Moen, P., Edler, G. H., & Luscher, K. (1995). Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. New York: Cambridge University Press. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. Moore, D. P. (1999). Women entrepreneurs: Approaching a new millennium. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 371–389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moore, K. A., Bronte-Tinkew, J., Jekielek, S., Guzman, L., Ryan, S., Redd, Z., et al. (2007). Developing measures of healthy marriages and relationships. In S. L. Hoffman & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 101–121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Moos, R. H. (1994). The social climate scales: A user’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Moos, R. H., Insel, P. M., & Humphrey, B. (1974). Family, work and group environmental scales: Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Moos, R. H., & Lemke, S. (1996). Evaluating residential facilities: The multiphasic environmental assessment procedure. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moos, R.H & Burnett, E.B. (1996). Social context and psychological adaptation. Therapeutic Communities, 17 (3), 167–172. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typology of family social environment. Family Process, 15, 357–372. Moras, K., Di Nardo, P. A., & Barlow, D. H. (1992). Distinguishing anxiety and depression: Reexamination of the reconstructed Hamilton scales. Psychological Assessment, 4, 224–227. Moretti, M. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1990). The development of self-system vulnerabilities: Social and cognitive factors in developmental psychopathology. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 286–314). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Morey, L. C. (1999). Personality Assessment Inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 1083–1122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

References

311

Morey, L. C., & Henry, W. (1994). Personality Assessment Inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 185–216). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Morgan, D., Carder, P., & Neal, M. (1997). Are some relationships more useful than others? The value of similar others in the networks of recent widows. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 745–759. Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., Mayfield, M. S., Ferrara, P., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Self-presentation processes in job analysis: A field experiment investigating inflation in abilities, tasks, and competencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 674–686. Morry, M. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: A test of the similarity-attraction hypodissertation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 561–584. Morry, M. M. (2007). The attraction-similarity hypothesis among cross-sex friends: Relationship satisfaction, perceived similarities, and self-serving perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 117–138. Mosca, L. (2004). Cardiology patient page. Heart disease prevention in women. American Heart Association. Circulation, 109, 158–160. Mosticoni, R., & Chiari, G. (1979). Una descrizione obiettiva della personalità: il Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) [An unbiased relational competence description: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali. Mueller-Hanson, R. A., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, C. (2006). Individual differences in impression management: An exploration of the psychological processes underlying faking [Special issue: Considering response distortion in personality measurement for industrial, work and organizational psychology research and practice]. Psychology Science, 48, 288–312. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Murry, V. M., Berkel, C., Brody, G. H., Miller, S. J., & Chen, Y.-F. (2009). Linking parental socialization to interpersonal protective processes, academic self-presentation, and expectations among rural African American youth. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 1–10. Nelson, D. R., Hammen, C., Brennan, P. A., & Ullman, J. B. (2003). The impact of maternal depression on adolescent adjustment: The role of expressed emotions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 7, 935–944. Newcomer, P. L., Barenbaum, E. M., & Bryant, B. R. (1994). Depression and Anxiety in Youth Scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Nezu, A. (2005). Beyond cultural competence: Human diversity and the appositeness of asseverative goals. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 19–24. Nolen-Hoecksema, S. (2004). Gender differences in risk factors and consequences for alcohol use and problems. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 981–1010. Norcross, J. C. (1996). The lifetime lessons of six psychologists: An introduction. Psychotherapy, 33, 129–130. Norton, R. W. (1988). Communicator style theory in marital interaction: Persistent challenges. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 307–324). New York: Wiley. p. 311. Novelli, B. (1993). L’intimità familiare: Costruzione di un questionario secondo un modello a spirale [Family intimacy: Questionnaire creation according a spiral model]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Ojha, H., & Jha, P. (1979). A study of achievement motivation as a function of social class, family system and family occupation. Psychology: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 22, 57–63. Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 21, 3–28. Olson, D. H. (1996). Clinical assessment and treatment interventions using the family circumplex model. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Handbook of relational diagnosis and dysfunctional family patterns (pp. 59–77). New York: Wiley.

312

References

Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 144–167. Olson, D., Fournier, D., & Druckman, J. (1982). Prepare/Enrich counselor’s manual. Minneapolis, MN: Prepare/Enrich. Orlofsky, J. (1979). Parental antecedents of sex-role orientation in college men and women. Sex Roles, 5(4), 495–512. Orner, R. J., & Stolz, P. (2002). Making sense of repetition phenomena by integrating psychotraumatology and psychodynamic psychotherapy. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 465–471. Owen-Smith, P. L. (1985). Family process and self-concept in early childhood. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Parmigiani, G. (1983). Intimatà di coppia e soddisfazione nel lavoro [Couple intimacy and work satisfaction]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Parsons, F. D. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Pasternack, T. C., & Fain, J. L. (1984). An empirical test of the drama triangle. Transactional Analysis Journal, 14, 145–148. Patel, J. D., Bach, P. B., & Kris, M. G. (2004). Lung cancer in US women: A contemporary epidemic. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association., 291, 1763–1768. Patrick, C. J., & Bernat, E. M. (2006). The construct of emotions as a bridge between personality and psychopathology. In R. F. Krueger & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 174–209). New York: Guilford. Patronek, G. J., & Nathanson, J. N. (2009). A theoretical perspective to inform assessment and treatment strategies for animal hoaders. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 274–281. Paulhus, D. L., & Trapnell, P. D. (2008). Self presentation on personality scales: An agency communion framework. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 492–517). New York: Guilford. Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2004). Effects of faking on self-deception and impression management scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1137–1151. Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2005). Cognitive ability and self-reported efficacy of self-presentation predict faking on personality measures. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 194–206. Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression management tactics in behavior description and situational interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 206–222. Peplau, I. A., & Perlman, D. (Eds.). (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy. New York: Wiley. Perlmuter, L., Singh, S., Gabhart, J., Pungan, R., & Siedlarz, M. (2008). Parents matter: Intergenerational influences of diabetes mellitus on glycemic control and morbidity in older type 2 diabetic males. Experimental Aging Research, 34, 138–151. Perry, J. N., & Butcher, J. N. (1999). Butcher Treatment Planning Inventory (BTPI): An objective guide to treatment planning. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (pp. 115–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association/Oxford University Press. Peterson, B. E., Smirles, K. E., & Wentworth, P. A. (1997). Generativity and authoritarianism: Implications for personality, political involvement, and parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1202–1216. Phillips, L. (1968). Human adaptation and its failures. New York: Academic. Phillips, E. L. (1978). The social skills basis of psychopathology: Alternatives to abnormal psychology and psychiatry. Oxford England: Grune & Stratton. Phillips, D., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived competence and incompetence among competent children. In R. J. Stenberg & J. Kolligian Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 41–66). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Pinsof, W. M., & Lebow, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Family psychology: The art of the science. New York: Oxford University Press.

References

313

Pinto, S. (2008). The cross-generational influence of parental authority and acculturation on parenting of Cape Verdean immigrants. Pinto, Silas Otniel Rodrigues; Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(8-A), 3283. Pontari, B., & Schlenker, B. (2004). Providing and withholding impression management support for romantic partners: Gender of the audience matters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 41–51. Post, S. G. (Ed.). (2007). Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical research. New York: Oxford University Press. Powell, G. N. (1999a). Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. ix–xx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Powell, G. N. (Ed.). (1999b). Handbook of gender & work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Prapavessis, H. (2004). Introduction to self-presentation in exercise and sport (Special issue). Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 1–2. Pratt, M. W., Danso, H. A., Arnold, J. E., Norris, J. E., & Filyer, R. (2001). Adult generativity and the socialization of adolescents: Relations to mothers’ and fathers’ parenting beliefs, styles, and practices. Journal of Personality, 69, 89–120. Quaglino, G. P. (1990). Appunti sul comportamento organizzativo [Notes on organizing behavior]. Turin: Tirrena Stampatori. Ragins, B. R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and research agenda for the next decade. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 347–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rapee, R., & Spence, S. (2004). The etiology of social phobia: Empirical evidence and an initial model. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(7), 737–767. Raveani, R. (1991). Intimità coniugale nella percezione dei genitori (self-report) e dei figli giovaniadulti (observer-report) [Conjugal intimacy perceived by parents (self-reports) and their youngadult children (observer-reports)]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The importance of self-regulation for interpersonal functioning. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 15–45). New York: Guildord. Ray, R. A., & Street, A. F. (2005). Who’s there and who cares: Age as an indicator of social support networks for caregivers among people living with motor neurone disease. Health and Social Care in the Community, 13, 542–552. Reed, R., McMahan, O., & L’Abate, L. (2001). Workbooks and psychotherapy with incarcerated felons. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Distance writing and computer-assisted interventions in psychiatry and mental health (pp. 157–167). Westport, CT: Ablex. Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–245). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Renner, K.-H., Enz, S., Friedel, H., Merzbacher, G., & Laux, L. (2008). Doing as if: The histrionic self-presentation style. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1303–1322. Renner, K.-H., Laux, L., Schütz, A., & Tedeschi, J. T. (2004). The relationship between self-presentation styles and coping with social stress. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 17, 1–22. Repinski, D. J., & Zook, J. M. (2005). The measures of closeness in adolescents’ relationships with parents and friends: Variations and developmental significance. Personal Relationships, 12, 79–102. Rigby, K. (1993). Schoolchildren’s perceptions of their families and parents as a function of peer relations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 501–513. Rime, B. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotions: Theory and empirical evidence. Emotion Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 1, 60–85. Riordan, R. J. (1996). Scriptotherapy: Therapeutic writing as a counseling adjunct. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 263–269.

314

References

Riva, G., Waterworth, J. A., & Waterworth, E. L. (2004). The layers of presence. A biocultural approach to understanding presence in natural and mediated environments. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 402–416. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanism underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661–670. Robbins, M. S., Mayorga, C., & Szapocznik, J. (2003). The ecosystemic lens to understanding family functioning. In T. L. Sexton, G. Weeks, & M. S. Robbins (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 21–36). New York: Routledge. Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2008). Naturalizing the self. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 421– 447). New York: Guilford. Roccas, S., & McCauley, C. (2004). Values and emotions in the relational models. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 263–285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rodin, J., Schooler, C., & Schaie, K. (1990). Self-directedness: Cause and effects throughout the life course. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (2002). Resemblance nominalism: A solution to the problem of universals. New York: Oxford University Press. Roloff, M. E., Putman, L. L., & Anastasiou, L. (2003). Negotiation skills. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 801–833). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Roos, P. A., & Gatta, M. L. (1999). The gender gap in earnings: Trends, explanations, and prospects. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 95–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rosenberg, M. (1985). Self-concept and psychological well-being in adolescence. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 205–246). New York: Academic. Rossi, A. E. (1991). Intimità coniugale: Definizioni, modelli teorici, operazionalità [Conjugal intimacy: Definitions, models, operationality]. Unpublished thesis, University of Padua, Padua. Rothbaum, F., & Wetz, J. R. (1989). Child psychotherapy and the quest for control. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80(1), 1–28. Rumbaugh, D. (2002). Emergents and rational behaviorism. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 2(2), 163–171. Rumbaugh, D., & Washburn, D. (2003). Intelligence of apes and other rational beings. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rumbaut, R. (2005). Immigration, incorporation, and generational cohorts in historical contexts. In K. W. Schaie & Elder, G. (Eds.), Historical Influences on Lives & Aging (pp. 43–88). New York: Springer. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self-presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451–466. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. In O. P. John, E. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 654–678). New York: Guilford. Sabourin, T. C. (2006). Theories and metatheories to explain family communication: An overview. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication source-book (pp. 43–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saltzman, K. M., Holden, G. W., & Holahan, C. J. (2005). The psychobiology of children exposed to marital violence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 129–139. Salvo, R. (1998). La teoria dell’attaccamento nello studio delle relazioni di coppia [Attachment theory for studying couple relationships]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.

References

315

Sameroff, A. J., Lewis, M., & Miller, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of developmental psychopathology. New York: Kluwer. Sanchez, R. (2008). Analisi log-lineare bivariata e trivariata. Programma di calcolo con Excel [Log-linear bivariated and trivariated analyses. Calculus in Excel]. Padua: Libreria Progetto. Sandonà, C. (2006). L’influenza del contesto familiare sullo sviluppo e la personalità dell’adolescente [Influence of family context on adolescent development and relational competence]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Sanford, K. (2003). Problem-solving conversations in marriage: Does it matter what topics couples discuss? Personal Relationships, 10, 97–112. Satcher, D. (1999). Surgeon General of the United States: Mental Health Report. Washington, DC: Office of Public Health and Science. Satir, V., Stakowiak, J., & Taschman, H. A. (1975). Helping families to change. New York: Jason Aronson. Sayer, A.G. & Klute, M.M. (2005). Analyzing Couples and Families: Multilevel Methods. In V.L. Bengston, A.C. Acock, K.R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson & D.M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research (289-313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sayer, A. G., & Klute, M. M. (2006). Analyzing couples and families: Multilevel methods. In V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 289–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment dimensions and sexual motives. Personal Relationships, 11, 179–195. Schaefer, M., & Olson, D. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The P.A.I.R. Inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 47–60. Schmeichel, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Self-regulatory strength. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 84–98). New York: Guilford. Schroeder, M., Wormworth, J., & Livesley, W. (1992). Dimensions of personality disorder and their relationships to the Big Five dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 47–53. Schuck, A. R. T., & Ward, J. (2008). Dealing with the inevitable: Strategies of self-presentation and meaning construction in the final statements of inmates on Texas death row. Discourse & Society, 19, 43–62. Schultheiss, O. C. (2008). Implicit motives. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 603–633). New York: Guilford. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45. Scilletta, C. (2002). Versione computerizzata della prova di competenza relazionale: esplorazione delle opportunità teoriche e pratiche [Computerized version of relational competence: Exploration of the theoretical and practical opportunities]. Degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Sechrist, G. B., Swim, J. K., & Stangor, C. (2004). When do the stigmatized make attributions to discrimination occurring to the self and others? The roles of self-presentation and need for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 111–122. Seeman, M. V. (Ed.). (1995). Gender and psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychologial Association. Segatto, B., & Chiovatti, B. (2000). Modelli di attaccamento e stili relazionali di coppia: Indagine empirica su un campione di giovani coppie e dei loro genitori [Attachment models and couple relational styles]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 5, 185–199. Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2005). Family communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of social intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 3–24. Seidman, E. (1990). Pursuing the meaning and utility of social regularities for community psychology. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Certok, & L. Janson (Eds.), Researching community psychology (pp. 91–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

316

References

Sekhon, Y. (2007). ‘From saris to sarongs’ ethnicity and intergenerational influences on consumption among Asian Indians in the UK. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 160–167. Settersten, R. A., Jr., & Owens, T. J. (2002). New frontiers in socialization. New York: Elsevier. Sexton, T. L., Weeks, G. R., & Robbins, M. S. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner/Routledge. Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627–640. Shaver, P. (Ed.). (1985). Emotions, relationships, and health. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Shek, D. T. L. (1998). Linkage between marital quality and parent–child relationship: A longitudinal study in the Chinese culture. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 687–704. Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Optimal human being: An integrated multi-level perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sherman, R., & Fredman, N. (1986). Handbook of structured techniques in marriage and family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Klein, C. (2006). Machiavellianism, trait perfectionism, and perfectionistic self-presentation (Special issue: Chat-up lines as male sexual displays). Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 829–839. Sigmund, E. W. (1999). The pervasive victim self-image in clients with antisocial personality disorders. Transactional Analysis Journal, 29, 109–114. Simon, H. A. (1967). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review, 74(24), 29–39. Smyth, J. M. (1998). Written emotional expression: Effect size, outcome types, and moderating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 174–184. Smyth, J. M., & L’Abate, L. (2001). A meta-analytic evaluation of workbook effectiveness in physical and mental health. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Distance writing and computer-assisted interventions in psychiatry and mental health (pp. 77–90). Westport, CT: Ablex. Snell, W. E., Jr. (1998). The Relationship Awareness Scale: Measuring relational-consciousness, relational-monitoring, and relational-anxiety. Contemporary Social Psychology, 18, 23–49. Snyder, D. K. (1981). Manual for the Marital Satisfaction Inventory. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Snyder, D. K., & Aikman, G. G. (1999). Marital satisfaction inventory – Revised. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (pp. 1173–1210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sonuga-Barke, E. J. (2005). Causal models of attention-deficit /hyperactivity disorder: From common simple deficits to multiple developmental pathways. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1231–1238. Spiegel, J. (1971). Transactions: The interplay between individual, family, and society. New York: Science House. Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. R., & Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Measuring the experience, expression, and control of anger. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 49–67). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of incompetence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 137–159. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New York: Springer. Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–651. Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595–608. Stapleton, R. J. (1978). The classroom de-gamer. (ERIC document no. ED155581) Stein, N., & Sanfilipo, M. (1985). Depression and the wish to be held. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 3–9.

References

317

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school environment, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 479–502. Sternberg, R. J., & Kolligian, J., Jr. (Eds.). (1990). Competence considered. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stevens, F. E., & L’Abate, L. (1989). Validity and reliability of a theory-derived measure of intimacy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 17, 359–368. Strathman, A., & Joireman, J. (Eds.). (2005). Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stricker, G. (2007). Psychodynamic therapy. In N. Kazantzis & L. L’Abate (Eds.), Handbook of homework assignments in psychotherapy: Research, practice, and prevention (pp. 101–112). New York: Springer. Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1999). Gender and careers: Present experiences and emerging trends. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 307–324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sugitani, Y. (2007). Why is it easier to communicate by e-mail? CMC contributes to the selfpresentation efficacy. The Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 234–244. Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press. Swann, W. B., Jr., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Identity negotiation: A theory of self and social interaction. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 448–471). New York: Guilford. Taniguchi, J. & Daibo, I. (2005). Examination of self-presentation motives in close relationships with opposite-sex partners. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 13–24. Tanner, L. (2004, September 26). Male–female health differences go deeper than once thought. American Journal and Constitution, 2. Taylor, S., Kuch, K., Koch, W. J., Crockett, D. J., & Passey, G. (1998). The structure of posttraumatic stress concerns. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 154–160. Tellegen, A. (1988). The analysis of consistency in personality assessment. Journal of Personality, 56, 621–663. Thomlison, B. (2002). Family assessment handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Cole/Brooks. Thompson, H. O. (1977). Drama triangle applied to history. Transactional Analysis Journal, 7, 147–148. Thorgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). A self-determination theory approach to the study of body image concerns, self-presentation and self-perceptions in a sample of aerobic instructors. Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 301–315. Thornton, B., Audesse, R. J., Ryckman, R. M., & Burckle, M. J. (2006). Playing dumb and knowing it all: Two sides of an impression management coin. Individual Differences Research, 4, 37–45. Tiberi, E., & Pedrabissi, L. (1988). Caratteristiche emozionali degli italiani. Ricerca empirica sulla frequenza delle emozioni di base nella popolazione italiana [Italian emotional characteristics inquiry on base emotions frequency in Italian people]. Milan: Giuffrè. Tolbert, P., Graham, M., & Andrews, A. (1999). Group gender composition and work group relations: Theories, evidence, and issues. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 179–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023–1036.

318

References

Trebo, V. (2008). La resilienza in studenti altoatesini: riflessione scritta per potenziare le risorse del sé [Resilience in South Tyrolean students: written reflections to improve self resources]. Degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua. Tudge, J., Gray, J. T., & Hogan, D. M. (1997). Ecological perspectives in human development: A comparison of Gibson and Bronfenbrenner. In J. Tudge, M. J. Shanahan, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Comparisons in human development: Understanding time and context (pp. 72–105). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R. S. (2004). Truth, lies, and self-presentation: How gender and anticipated future interaction relate to deceptive behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2602–2615. Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R. S. (2004a). Cognitive demand and self-presentation efforts: The influence of situational importance and interaction goal. Self and Identity, 3, 364–377. Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R. S. (2005). Deflecting threat to one’s image: Dissembling personal information as a self-presentation strategy. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 371–378. Vaillant, G. E. (2007). Generativity: A form of unconditional love. In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical research (pp. 219–229). New York: Oxford University Press. Van Dusen, C. (2005, February 27). Hooked on shopping. Atlanta Journal & Constitution, 1F–10F. VandenBos, G. R. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology (p. 827). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of hurt feelings in close relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press. Vangelisti, A., & Beck, G. (2007). Intimacy and fear of intimacy. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Handbook of low-cost interventions to promote physical and mental health: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 395–414). New York: Springer. Verhofstadt, L., Buysse, A., De Clercq, A., & Goodwin, R. (2005). Emotional arousal and negative affect in marital conflict: The influence of gender, conflict structure and demandwithdrawal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 449–467. Vogel, D., Murphy, M., Werner-Wilson, R., Cutrona, C., & Seeman, J. (2007). Sex differences in the use of demand and withdraw behavior in marriage: Examining the social structure hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 165–177. Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1–9). New York: Guilford. Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 632–657. Wagner, V. (1980). An evaluation study of a theory-based marital assessment battery. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538–2557. Waring, E. M. (1983). Scoring manual for WIQ. Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. Wasserman, E., Young, M., & Cook, R. (2004). Variability discrimination in humans and animals: Implications for adaptive action. American Psychologist, 59(9), 879–890. Weeks, G. R., & L’Abate, L. (1982). Paradoxical psychotherapy: Theory and practice with individuals, couples, and families. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Weiner, D. N., & Rosen, R. C. (1999). Sexual dysfunctions and disorders. In T. Millon, P. H. Blaney, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (pp. 410–443). New York: Oxford University Press. Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do it: Deception as an impression management strategy in job interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1070–1086.

Priorities

319

Welch, M. (1978a). Childhood socialization differences in African and non-African societies. Journal of Social Psychology, 106, 11–15. Welch, M. (1978b). Socialization anxiety and patterns of economic subsistence. Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 33–36. Wesley, W., & Epstein, N. (1969). The silent majority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weston, H. E., Boxer, P., & Heatherington, L. (1998). Children’s attributions about family arguments: Implications for family therapy. Family Process, 17, 35–49. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. Wiggins, J. S. (1992). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 183–221). New York: Wiley. Willgerodt, M., & Thompson, E. (2005). The influence of ethnicity and generational status on parent and family relations among Chinese and Filipino adolescents. Public Health Nursing, 22, 460–471. Willgerodt, M., & Thompson, E. (2006). Ethnic and generational influences on emotional distress and risk behaviors among Chinese and Filipino American adolescents. Research in Nursing & Health, 29, 311–324. Wilson, M. (2006). Covert imitation: How the body schema acts as a prediction device. In G. Knoblich, I. M. Thornton, M. Grosjean, & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), Human body perception from the inside out (pp. 211–228). New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, D. S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Health and the ecology of altruism. In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical research (pp. 314–331). New York: Oxford University Press. Wine, J. D., & Smyte, M. D. (Eds.). (1981). Social competence. New York: Guilford. Witkin, H. (1974). Social conformity and psychological differentiation. International Journal of Psychology, 9, 11–29. Witkin, H.A., Dyke, R. B., Peterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., Karp, S. A. (1974). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Witty, M. C. (2007). Client-centered therapy. In N. Kazantzis & L. L’Abate (Eds.), Handbook of homework assignments in psychotherapy: Research, practice, and prevention (pp. 35–50). New York: Springer. Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P. G., Jette, J. L., & Poisson, S. E. (2003). The impact of child abuse in community institutions and organizations: Advancing professional and scientific understanding. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 179–191. Woodward, K. (1997). Identity and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Worthington, E., Lerner, A., & Sharp, C. (2005). Repairing the emotional bond: Marriage research from 1997 through early 2005. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 259–262. Wright, L. M., & Leahey, M. (2000). Nurses and families: A guide to family assessment and intervention. Philadelphia: Davis. Young, S. L. (2004). Factors that influence recipients’ appraisals of hurtful communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 291–303. Zanardini, C. (2006). Prova di competenza relazionale di popolazione criminale [Relational competence of the criminal population]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua. Zerin, M. (1988). An application of the drama triangle to family therapy. Transactional Analysis Journal, 18, 94–101. Zhang, Y.-W., Gan, Y.-Q., & Zhan, X.-N. (2007). Perfectionistic self-presentation in Chinese college students and its relations with self-esteem. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 21, 94–115. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. (2008). The time paradox: The new psychology of time that will change your life. New York: Free Press. Zuliani, D. (2004). Competenza relazionale ed esperienze traumatiche della guerra. Ricerca con profughi croati [Relational competence and traumatic war experiences. Research study with Croatian refugees]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.