Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems.

This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 05 February 2015, At: 09:43 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Construction of Circumplex Scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Lynn E. Alden , Jerry S. Wiggins & Aaron L. Pincus Published online: 22 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Lynn E. Alden , Jerry S. Wiggins & Aaron L. Pincus (1990) Construction of Circumplex Scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, Journal of Personality Assessment, 55:3-4, 521-536, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674088 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674088

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 55(3&4), 521-536 Copyright o 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Construction of Circumplex Scales for the Inventory of ~nterpersonal Problems Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins, and Aaron L. Pincus Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:43 05 February 2015

University of British Columbia

We constructed a set of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP;Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988).Initial scale construction used all 127 items from this instrument in two samples of university undergraduates (n = 197; n = 273). Cross-sample stability of item locations plotted against the first two principal components was high. A final set of eight 8-item circumplex scales was derived from the combined sample (n = 470) and cross-validated in a third university sample (n = 974). Finally, we examined the structural convergence of the IIP circumplex scales with an established measure of interpersonal dispositions, the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R; Wiggins, Trapnell, &Phillips, 1988). Although both circumplex instruments were derived independently, they shared a common circular space. Implications of these results are discussed with reference to current research methods for the study of interpersonal behavior.

Many presenting problems of clients seeking treatment are interpersonal in nature (Horowitz, 1979; Horowitz & Vitkus, 1986), and interpersonal forms of psychotherapy are increasingly used in the treatment of such concerns (Anchin & Kiesler, 1982; Klerman, Rounsaville, Chevron, & Weissman, 1984; Strupp Ch Binder, 1984). Although interpersonal behavior in general has received much attention, research concerning interpersonal problems has lagged behind our recognition of t h e clinical significance of such concerns and their value for the study of personality. A number of factors have made it difficult to develop a systematic understanding of the domain of interpersonal problems, chief of which is the lack of adequate assessment instruments. Few attempts have been made t o develop an inclusive overview of interpersonal problems or t o devise a comprehensive measure of such concerns.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:43 05 February 2015

522

ALDEN, WIGGINS, PINCUS

To deal with these issues, Horowitz (1979) began a program of research concerning the assessment of interpersonal problems. To identify such problems, intake interviews of patients seeking outpatient psychotherapy were videotaped. Two observers recorded statements of problems made by these individuals which began with the phrases "I can't," "I have to," or acceptable synonyms. A total of 192 problems that were agreed upon by both observers as having been expressed in the interviews were generated, but not all of these were interpersonal (e.g., "I can't seem to fall asleep at night"). Fourteen judges then rated each problem as interpersonal or not interpersonal. Items identified as interpersonal by 13 or more judges were retained. When redundant statements were removed, a total of 127 statements reflecting a wide range of interpersonal difficulties remained. These items constitute the IIP (Horowitz, 1979). Multidimensional scaling procedures identified three major dimensions of the IIP item domain which Horowitz (1979) labeled: (a) "degree of psychological involvement," (b)"nature of involvement" (friendly to hostile), and (c) "intention to influence, change, or control other" (dominance to submissiveness). More recently, factor-analytically derived scales were developed in a sample of individuals beginning outpatient psychotherapy who rated the IIP items on two occasions separated by 2 months (Horowitz et al., 1988). A principal components analysis of the correlations among items from the first assessment yielded a first unrotated factor with an eigenvalue of 28.8, accounting for 23% of the variance. Because every item had a positive loading on this factor, a general complaint factor was postulated (Horowitz et al., 1988), Principal components analyses conducted independently on data from each assessment period identified six replicable factors followingvarimax rotation: Hard to be Assertive, Hard to be Social, Yard to be Intimate, Hard to be Submissive, Too Controlling, and Too Responsible. The substantial correlations found among the subscales was ascribed to a complaint factor, patient's general tendency to report distress. This general tendency is seen as varying across patients, systematically raising or lowering a person's score on all subscales. I~satizedscores, expressing an individual's response as a deviation from his or her mean response across all items, significantly reduced intercorrelations among the subscales. Thus, when a general complaint factor was removed by ipsatizing the scores, the various subscales seemed to be relatively independent of one another (Horowitz et al., 1988, p. 888). The intercorrelations among ipsatized subscales were subjected to a principal components analysis, which yielded two factors accounting for 73% of the variance. The first factor was identified as a dimension ranging from hostility to friendliness. The second factor was identified as a dimension ranging from submissiveness to dominance (Horowitz et al., 1988). Earlier, Horowitz (1979) noted that the multidimensional scaling dimensions of nature of involvement and intention to influence, change, or control other were similar to the

CIRCUMPLEX SCALES

523

dimensions of Leary's (1957) circumplex model of interpersonal dispositions. Horowitz et al. (1988) concluded that the two higher order factors of the IIP "matched the two interpersonal dimensions postulated by interpersonal theorists like Wiggins (1979) and Kiesler (1983)" (p. 888).


CIRCUMPLEX MODELS OF INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR The writings of interpersonal theorists, whose conceptions have been influenced by Carson (1969), Leary (1957), and Sullivan (1953), are in agreement that personality is best viewed in terms of recurrent interpersonal dispositions or tendencies to display certain characteristic patterns of interpersonal behavior Moreover, there is general agreement that the appropriate structural model for representing interpersonal dispositions is a two-dimensional circumplex in which variables are ordered in a circular arrangement around the orthogonal dimensions of dominance versus submission and nurturance versus hostility (e.g., Benjamin, 1974; Kiesler, 1983; Leary, 1957; Lorr & McNair, 1963; Wiggins, 1979). Because the interpersonal dimensions of dominance and nurturance appear to underlie the structure of the IIP, this itemrset might be interpretable, within the context of interpersonal theory, as a "problems" version of the interpersonal circumplex. However, circumplex structure is not guaranteed to underlie interpersonal measures, even if the dimensions of dominance and nurturance can bje identified. Thus, for example, Paddock and Nowicki (1986) demonstrated that LaForge and Suczek's (1955) Interpersonal Check List (ICL) summary scores for dominance and nurturance showed evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity; however, the ICL scales themselves had poor circumplex properties, indicated by significant measurement gaps in two of the four quadxants of the circumplex. Such gaps preclude using the ICL for circumplex measurement and diagnosis (e.g., Wiggins, Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989). It is also possible that the interpersonal problems originally identified in Horowitz' sample of 28 outpatients do not sample the entire range of interpersonal problems. We examined whether thematically meaningful and precise circumplex scalcs could be developed from the interpersonal problems identified by Horowitz and his colleagues. Circumplex scales for the assessment of interpersonal problerr~s might move the study of such concerns squarely into the central research paradigm of interpersonal theory and assessment (e.g., Bluhm, Widiger, C i Miele, 1990; Kiesler, 1986; Wiggins et al., 1989; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989). One difficulty with studying the structure of the IIP in clinical populations is that some individuals with certain types of interpersonal problems are more likely to seek treatment than are others (Horowitz et al., 1988; Kiesler, 1983).

524



Also, clinical populations may experience psychopathology that interferes with self-report. Unlike psychopathological symptoms, interpersonal problems are likely to exist with varying severity and breadth in both clinical and normal populations. In our study, interpersonal problems were assessed in two normal university samples and circumplex analyses were conducted on these data. These analyses were empirical and were not conducted in relation to any other interpersonal assessment instrument. A third university sample was used to further examine the stability of the derived circumplex scales. Finally, we examined the structural convergence of the IIP circumplex scales with an established measure of interpersonal dispositions.

METHOD Subjects Two samples of university students (n = 207, n = 297) were involved in the first phase of the research. All subjects were students enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses at the University of British Columbia (UBC); they volunteered to participate in the study? Ten subjects from the first sample and 24 subjects from the second sample were discluded due to incomplete protocols, resulting in final samples of 197 and 273 subjects (46% men, 54% women). A battery of questionnaires (including the IIP) was distributed in class for subjects to take home and complete. The third sample consisted of 974 UBC undergraduate psychology students (44% men, 56% women) who received course credit for their voluntary participation. Subjects completed a battery of questionnaires in small groups in our laboratory during two l-hr sessions separated by approximately 1 week. The I P circumplex scales were completed by 321 subjects, and the complete IIP was completed by an additional 653 subjects.

Measures

The IF. The IIP (Horowitz et al., 1988) is a 127-item inventory reflecting a wide range of interpersonal problems. Two types of items are included: interpersonal behaviors that are "hard for you to do" (e.g., "It is hard for me to join in on groups") and interpersonal behaviors that Uyoudo too much" (e.g., "I fight with other people too much"). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all (0) to extremely (4). Horowitz and Vitkus (1986) showed that behavioral ratings of assertiveness (e.g., states opinion) in a group task were congruent with individuals' Q-sort self-ratings of interpersonal problems. The IIP has been shown to have acceptable test-retest reliability and to be meaning-

CIRCUMPLEX SCALES

525


fully correlated with other interpersonal measures and with clinician's ratings of client's behavior (Horowitz et al., 1988). The UP has also been shown to be responsive to client changes that occur in psychotherapy (Horowitz et al., 1988).

The IAS-R. The IAS-R (Wiggins et al., 1988) consists of 64 adjectives, 8 reflecting each octant of the interpersonal circumplex. Each adjective is rated on an 8-point Likert scale in terms of how characteristic it is of the rater. The scale ranges from characteristic (1) to uncharacteristic (8). Research indicates that the IAS-R has acceptable reliability and meaningful correlates with other self-report measures (Wiggins & Broughton, 1985) and with ratings of nonverbal interpersonal behavior (Gifford & O'Connor, 1987). When the IAS-R scales are subjected to a principal components analysis and the scales are plotted on thje two extracted components, a clear circumplex structure emerges (Wiggins et al., 1988). Overview of Analyses The data analyses took place in four phases. The first phase consisted of a circumplex analysis of the TIP within each of the first two university samples ( n = 197, n = 273). A cross-sample comparison was conducted to determine thle stability of the two-factor circumplex solution and the stability of item locations in this two-dimensional space. In the second phase, a combination of empirical and thematic criteria were used to refine the IIP circumplex scales. In the third phase, the circumplex structure of the final IIP circumplex scales was replicated in a large sample (n = 974). Finally, the structural convergence of the IKP circumplex and the IAS-R circumplex was examined.

RESULTS Circumplex Analysis of the IIP The large general factor extracted in a principal components analysis led Horowitz et al. (1988) to conclude that subjects have differential tendencies to endorse complaints. Whether or not this factor is viewed as a "complaint factor," an "acquiesence factor,'' or an "intensity factor," such a component is thought to reflect individual differences in the use of response format, rather than differences in the perception of self or others (Wiggins, Steiger, & Gaelick, 1981, p. 283). Therefore, it must be treated separately from the circumplex components in interpreting a given solution. One way to control for this individual difference is to ipsatize the individual item scores by expressing each score as a deviation from the subject's mean score across all items (Cronbach, 1949; Horowitz et al., 1988; Strack, 1987; Wiggins &


526


Pincus, 1989). This procedure has been shown to improve circumplex properties of interpersonal measures when the transformed data are subjected to principal components analyses (Paddock & Nowicki, 1986; Rinn, 1965; Wiggins et al., 1981). In our study, a subject's transformed score on a given item reflects the extent to which the behavior is considered a problem by that subject, relative to the other IIP items. Within each of the first two university samples, the ipsatized item scores were intercorrelated and subjected to a principal components analysis in which two components were extracted. Within each sample, the factor loadings of the individual IlP items on the two rotated components suggested that these components were the familiar interpersonal dimensions of dominance and nurturance. These loadings were converted to angular locations in twodimensional space by trigonometric procedures (Wiggins et al., 1989). A Pearson correlation coefficient was then computed between the angular locations of the 127 items in the two samples. This coefficient was highly significant (r = .95, p < .001). A second correlation coefficient was then computed on only those items whose distance from the center of the circle (communality) was greater than .l. Across the 85 items that met this criterion, Pearson's r = .99. Both analyses indicate substantial between sample agreement on item location in circumplex space. Preliminary IIP circumplex scales were derived from the combined sample (n = 470) using a purely statistical item selection procedure, independent of any other interpersonal measure. First, the space defined by the two principal components was divided into eight sectors with theoretical midpoints of 90°, 135", 180°, 225O, 270°, 315", 360°, and 45'. The individual item loadings on this two-dimensional space were examined. Within each sector, the eight items that exhibited the highest multiple correlations with the two principal components were retained.' The eight scales formed by these items were intercorrelated and factored, and a clear circumplex structure emerged which accounted for 64.14% of the variance. A n examination of these scales reveals that each reflected a common interpersonal theme. For example, the first scale, labeled Domineering (PA), consisted of items reflecting interpersonal problems caused by overly dominant behavior ('1 want to change other people too much" and "I try to control others too much"). Items on the Vindicative scale (BC) concerned interpersonal problems related to spitefulness and distrust ("I want to get revenge against people too much" and "It is hard for me to trust other people''). The eighth scale, Intrusive (NO), included interpersonal problems related to attention seeking 'In~tiall~, the empirically derived scales consisted of 12 items each. The results for 12- and &item verslons of the circumplex scales were h~ghlysimilar, and only the results of the 8-item scales are reported here. These scales were selected in order to construct an instrument that could be administered in a short period of time.

CIRCUMPLEX SCALES

527

and self-disclosure ('7 clown around too much" and "I open up to people too much"). Thus, the empirical scale derivation procedure yielded a thematically meaningful set of scales that fell into a circumplex ordering around the dimensions of dominance (vs. submissiveness) and nurturance (vs. coldness).


IIP Circumplex Scale Revisions To refine the empirically selected scales, the circular arrangement of the entire 127 item set was reexamined in the combined sample of 470 university students. Item communalities, item-total scale correlations, and thematic content were used to select the best items. Fifty of the 64 items (78%)in the final scales were identified in the initial empirical selection procedure. The other 14 items were selected because they had higher communalities, increased item-total scale correlations, or more clearly expressed the thematic content of the scale than the item discarded. For example, the item, '?t is hard for me to become sexually aroused toward a person I really care about," was discarded because it displayed low communality (.06) relative to the other items falling within the same octant. Some of these decisions involved deciding whether an item that fell between two octants better matched the thematic content of one of two adjoining scales. Pi more detailed description of the final IIP circumplex scales, along with Cronbach's alpha for each scale, can be seen in Table 1. The loadings of these eight-item scales on the two principal components revealed a clear circumplex structure, accounting for 65.05% of the variance. The scale revisions just described were made on the basis of data from the samples in which the original scales were derived and thus required evidence of structural stability in an independent sample. This evidence is provided in the next section.

Structural Stability of the Circumplex Scales The responses to the final eight IIP circum~lexscales in a third university sample (n = 974) were intercorrelated and subjected to a principal components analysis. The scale intercorrelations can be seen in Table 2. A clear two-factor solution emerged, accounting for 64.81% of the variance. This solution was rotated to a criterion that minimized the least-squares differences between the theoretical location of all octants (e.g., Overly-Nurturant [LM] = 0°, NO = 45O, PA == 90°, etc.) and their empirical location. The interpersonal problems circumplex can be seen in Figure 1. Horowitzissix IIP subscales were projected onto the circumplex space of Figure 1 by trigonometric procedures to examine the location and distribution of the subscales within interpersonal space. All six subscales had moderate to high communalities. Although at least one IIP subscale fell in each of the four quadrants of the circumplex, significant measurement gaps were evident and

TABLE 1

IIP Circumplex Scales and Reliability Dataa


Scale

Sample IIP ltems

Domineering (PA). High scorers report problems related to controlling, manipulating, aggressing toward, and trying to change others.

I am too aggressive toward other people. I try to control other people too much.

Vindictive (BC). High scorers report problems related to distrust and suspicion of others and an inability to care about others' needs and happiness.

It is hard for me to trust other people. I want to get revenge against people too much.

Cold (DE). High scorers report an inability to express affection toward and to feel love for another person, difficulty making long-term commitments to others. and an inability to be generous to, get along with, and forgive others.

It is hard for me to feel close to other people. It is hard for me to get along with people.

Socially Avoidant (FG). High scorers feel anxious and embarrassed in the presence of others and have difficulty initiating social interactions, expressing feelings and socializing with others.

It is hard for me to ask other people to get together socially with me. I feel embarrassed in front of other people too much.

Nonassertive (HI). High scorers report difficulty making their needs known to others, discomfort in authoritative roles, and an inability to be firm with and assertive toward others.

It is hard for me to tell a person to stop bothering me. It is hard for me to be assertive with another person.

Exploitable UK). High scorers find it difficult to feel anger and to express anger for fear of offending others. They describe themselves as gullible and readdy taken advantage of by others.

I am too easily persuaded by other people. I let other people take advantage of me too much.

Overly Nurturant (LM). High scorers report thar they try too hard to please others and are too generous, trusting, caring, and permissive in dealing with others.

I try to please other people

Intrusive (NO). High scorers are inappropriately se~f~disclosing, attention seeking, and find it difficult to spend time alone.

too much. I put other people's needs before mv own too much. I want to be noticed too much. It is hard for me to stay out of other people's business.

Alpha

TABLE 2 Intercorrelations Among the IIP Circumplex Scales 2.

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

- -

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Domineering (PA) Vindictive (BC) Cold (DE) Socially avoidant (FG) Nonassertive (HI) Exploitable OK) Overly nurturant (LM) Intrusive (NO)


Note. n = 974. Correlations greater than .08, p

< .01.

Domineering 90"

PA Vindictive

Intrusive 0

135"

.5

BC

45"

NO

Overly180" -1.0

DE

FG

225"

Socially Avoidant

.

LM

-.5

0

JK 315"

-1.O

HI 270"

Nonassertive

Exploitable

FIGURE 1 Circumplex structure of Ill' circumplex scales (n = 974). Solutionrotatedtominimizetheleastsquares differences between empirical and theoretical angular locations.

these scales lack the eight-octant precision of the circumplex scales. Thle subscales "Too Responsible (3.4") and Too Controlling (70.6O) fell in Quadrant I. Hard to be Submissive (112.2") and Hard to be Intimate (149.7") fell in Quadrant 11. Hard to be Social (211.8') fell in Quadrant 111, and Hard to be Assertive (294.%O)fell in Quadrant IV.

Structural Convergence of the Interpersonal Problems Circumplex and the Interpersonal Dispositions Circumplex The relation between interpersonal problems and interpersonal dispositions may be seen in Table 3, in which the intercorrelations among IIP circump1e.x scales and IAS-R scales are presented. The diagonal of the correlation matrix


TABLE 3 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the IIP Circumplex Scales and the IAS-R IIP

IAS-R Assured-Dominant (PA) Arrogant-Calculating (BC) Cold-hearted (DE) Aloof-Introverted (FG) Unassured-Submissive (HI) Unassummg-Ingenuous OK) Warm-Agreeable (LM) Gregarious-Extraverted (NO)

Domineering (PA)

Vindictive (BC)

Cold (DE)

Socially Avoidant FG)

Nonassertive

Exploitable

(HI)

.58 .38 .28 -.I3 - .53 - .47 - .26 .13

.37 .39 .44 .06 - .34 - .43 - .43 - .09

.13 .19 .43 .30 - .07 - .20 - .46 - .27

- .34 - .08 .ll .50 .43 .09 -.I3 - .49

- .57 - .35 - .27 .13 .53 .40 .26 -.12

Note. n = 974. Correlations greater than .08, p

(JK)

Overly Nurturant (LW

Intrusive (NO)

- .35 - .35 -.37 -.17 .28 .42 .40 .I7

- .01 - .23 -.41 - .34 - .01 .24 .45 .34

.32 .16 - .07 - .38 - .38 -.I4 .09 .36

< .01. Correlations along the diagonal are for corresponding IIP and IAS-R octant scales.


C I R C W L E X SCALES

531

contains the correlations of IIP circum~lexscales with their IAS-R counterparts. Correlations along the diagonal range from .36 to .58; in all but one instance, the highest positive correlation for an IIP circum~lexscale is with the theoretically appropriate IAS-R counterpart. The Vindictive 1J.P scale, BC, correlates highest with the Cold-Hearted IAS-R scale, DE, (r = .44), and next highest: with the Arrogant-Calculating IAS-R scale, BC (r = .39). The circumplex model also requires that a given octant scale correlate highly negatively with the octant scale directly opposite on the circle (Wiggins et al., 1981). Thus, for example, problems of social avoidance (IIP Socially Avoidant [FG]) would be expected to be substantially negatively correlated with dispositions to be gregarious and extraverted (IAS-R NO). The highest negative correlations of five IIP circum~lexscales are with their circular opposite IAS-EL scale. The Vindictive 1J.P scale, BC, correlates with both the Unassuming-Ingenuous and Warm-Agreeable IAS-R scales OK and LM, respectively; r = -.43). The Intrusive IIP scale, NO, correlates with both the Aloof-Introverted and Unassured-Submissive IAS-R scale (FG and HI, respectively; r = - .38). Finally, only the Exploitable IIP scale, JK, does not at least share its highest negative correlation with its LAS-R opposite. The Exploitable IIP scale has its highest negative correlation with the Cold-Hearted IAS-R scale (DE; r = -.37) and its next highest negative correlation with the opposite Arrogant-Calculating IAS-R scale (BC; r = - .35). The pattern of intercorrelations among interpersonal problems scales and interpersonal disposition scales is in accord with expectations regarding the correspondence of two circular structures. A visual representation of this structural convergence was obtained by subjecting the intercorrelations among the 16 scales making up the IIP circumplex and the IAS-R to a principal components analysis. The scales were then plotted on the two extracted components, which accounted for approximately 57% of the variance. Tk~e component plot in Figure 2 shows that these two independently derived scale sets, one assessing interpersonal problems derived from videotaped intake interviews and one assessing interpersonal dispositions derived from lexical investigations, have a common circumplex structure. Each corresponding scale pair from the two instruments plotted as a doublet around the perimeter of the common circular space. The coordinates of the scale pairs on the component plot can be seen in Table 4.

DISCUSSION When the domain of interpersonal ~roblemswas subjected to a circumplex analysis, the first two dimensions to emerge were problem versions of the two dimensions usually found to underlie interpersonal behavior. The first dimension, corresponding to dominance (vs. submissiveness),was marked by problems


532


FIGURE 2 Component plot of L4S-R and IIP circumplex scales combined (n = 974).

u 0 IAS-R

with domineering interpersonal behavior at one pole and by problems with nonassertiveness at the other. The second dimension, corresponding to nurturance (vs. coldness),was marked by problems such as excessive concern for others at one pole and by an inability to feel love and concern for others at the other pole. Eight interpersonal problem scales were developed independently of any other interpersonal measure, one to mark each octant of the interpersonal problems circumplex. If we begin with the dominant pole of the circumplex and move in a counterclockwise direction, the scales assess the following types of problems: (a) overcontrolling, overassertive behavior (Domineering; PA); (b) suspiciousness and anger (Vindictive; BC); (c) difficulties experiencing and expressing affection toward others (Cold; DE); (d) social anxiety and social withdrawal (Socially Avoidant; FG); (e) nonassertiveness (Nonassertive; HI); It) difficulties expressing anger and being taken advantage of (Exploitable; JK); (g) trying too hard to help and support others, perhaps at one's own expense (Overly-Nurturant; LM); and (h) difficulties associated with being too intrusive and attention seeking (Intrusive; NO). The data indicated that the IIP circumplex scales displayed adequate internal consistency and were stable in content and structure across three university samples. We examined the structural convergence between the interpersonal problems circumplex and the interpersonal dispositions circumplex to determine the similarity of the two circular spaces. Two circular measures need not map on to

CIRCUMPLEX SCALES

533

TABLE 4 Rotated Factor Loadings and Communality Values for Component Plot of IAS-R and IF Cirmmplex Scales Combined


Factor P

IAS-R IIP

(PA) (PA)

Assured-Dominant Domineering

IAS-R IIP

(BC) (BC)

Arrogant-Calculating Vindictive

US-R IIP

(DE) (DE)

Cold-hearted Cold

IAS-R IIF

(FG) (FG)

Aloof-Introverted Socially avoidant

IAS-R

(HI)

Unassured-Submissive Nonassertive

(HI)

.073 - .085

Factor II' .SO5

.779

hZ .653 .614

Unassuming-Ingenuous Exploitable Warm-Agreeable Overly nurturant IAS-R IIP

(NO) (NO)

Gregarious-Extraverted Intrusive

Note. n = 974. h2 = Communality.

each other and, in fact, will do so only when they share common axes. The strong structural convergence within a common factorial space indicates that interpersonal problems can be interpreted within the same conceptual framlework that has guided the assessment of interpersonal dispositions. We emphasize that this correspondence is based on two inventories that were independently derived, developed in different types of populations, and had significantly different formats. The IAS-R consists of a set of adjectives marking interpersonal dispositions and was empirically derived to provide precise markers of the octants of the interpersonal circle. The IIP items were derivjed from complaints made by patients seeking psychotherapy and consist of statements of problematic behavior. The LIP circumplex scales may provide a useful research and diagnostic instrument for understanding interpersonal behavior. Most existing instruments that focus on dysfunctional interpersonal behavior measure a single problem area, such as social avoidance (Watson & Friend, 1969) or loneliness (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). These single interpersonal measures gen(erally display moderate intercorrelations, which suggests that they assess con-


534


structs that overlap, assess problems that share common elements (e.g., the presence of negative affect), or describe problems that coexist in some individuals. The I P circumplex scales offer a nonredundant way to measure a broad range of interpersonal problems. Existing measures of dysfunctional behavior also tend t o focus mainly on one of two problem categories: anxious avoidant behavior (e.g., shyness, loneliness, and unassertiveness) or interpersonal aggression, perhaps because these are the most frequently encountered problems in clinical settings (Horowitz, 1979; Horowitz et al., 1988). Other types of interpersonal problems, such as overdependence, overinvolvement, or intrusive behavior, have received less research attention, but are of concern for psychotherapy and for the study of personality and psychopathology. The IIP circumplex scales allow one to assess these and other previously neglected interpersonal problems. Finally, the IIP circumplex scales may provide a useful structural framework within which the meaning of existing problem measures and the relations among such measures can be clarified. Single measures can be projected onto the interpersonal problems circumplex and compared in terms of angular location, a procedure that may clarify the relative interpersonal connotations of various measures. A n especially useful feature of circumplex conceptualizations is that a single individual's eight-octant profile of interpersonal problem scales can, by geometric procedures, be reduced to a single point in two-dimensional circumplex space (Wiggins et al., 1989). This provides an overall summary of an individual's problematic interpersonal behavioir. By determining where an individual falls on the interpersonal circumplex information about the primary types of interpersonal conflicts experienced by that person can be provided. For example, using the octant assignment procedure for the IIP circumplex scales, Alden and Phillips (in press) found that depressed individuals who were also socially anxious were characterized by fearful, nonassertive behavior QPHI), whereas depressed individuals who were not socially anxious were not characterized by a distinct interpersonal problem profile. Future directions for research may include studies of psychopathology and psychotherapy. Wiggins and Pincus (1989) demonstrated that a taxonomy of interpersonal dispositions was related to the personality disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). It is reasonable to expect that the personality disorders may also display systematic patterns of interpersonal problems. Horowitz et al. (1988) showed that the IIP was sensitive to client change during psychotherapy. A circumplex model of interpersonal problems could help systematize the study of treatment reslponse through octant assignment procedures.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grants 410-84-0415 and 310-87-1322, awarded to Lynn E. Alden and Jerry S. Wiggins, respectively.

CIRCUMPLEX SCALES

5351

We thank Leonard Horowitz for his cooperation and support during the: course of this research. We acknowledge the help of Michael Teschuck in data collection and the help of Norman Phillips in statistical analyses. We also thank Paul Trapnell for help with statistical analyses and insightful comments on an earlier version of this article.


REFERENCES Alden, L. E., &Phillips, N. (in press). An interpersonal analysis of social anxiety and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anchin, J. C., & Kiesler, D. J. (Eds.). (1982). Handbook of interpersonal psychotherapy. New York.: Pergamon. Benjamin, L. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Keview, 81, 392-425. Bluhm, C., Widiger, T. A,, & Miele, G. M. (1990). Interpersonal complementarity and individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 464-471. Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Adeline. Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Statistical methods applied to Rorschach scores: A review. Psychologiad Bulletin, 46, 393-429. Gifford, R. & O'Connor, B. (1987). The interpersonal circumplex as a behavioral map. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1019-1026. Horowitz, L. M. (1979). O n the cognitive structure of interpersonal problems treated in psychotherapy. Journai of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,47, 5-15. Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureno, G., & Villasenor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems; Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885-892. Horowitz, L. M., & Vitkus, J. (1986). The interpersonal basis of psychiatric symptoms. Cliniazl Psychology Review, 6,443-469. Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185-214. Kiesler, D. J. (1986). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: An analysis of DSM-111 personality disorders. 1.n T. Millon & G. L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM-IV (pp. 571-597). New York: Guilford. Klerman, G. L., Rounsaville, B., Chevron, E., & Weissman, M. (1984). Interpersonal psychotherapy for depression. New York: Basic Books. LaForge, R., & Suczek, R. F. (1955). The interpersonal dimension of personality 111: An interpersonal checklist. Journal of Personality, 24, 94-1 12. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis ofpersonality. New York: Ronald. Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1963). An interpersonal behavior circle. Journal of Abnmal and Social Psychology, 67, 68-75. Paddock, J. R., & Nowicki, S. (1986). An examination of the Leary circumplex through the Interpersonal Check List. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 107-144. Rinn, J. L. (1965). Structure of phenomenal domains. Psychological Review, 72,445-466. Russell, D., Peplau, L., & Cutrona, C. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472-480. Strack, S. (1987). Development and validation of an adjective checklist to assess the Millon personality types in a normal population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 572-587. Strupp, H., &Binder, J. (1984). Psychotherapy in a new key: Time-limited dynamic psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.


536


Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychlatry. New York: Norton. Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clzntcal Psychology, 33,448-457. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Sonal Psychology, 37, 395-412. Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1985). The interpersonal circle: A structural model for the integration of personality research. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personabty: A research annual (Vol. 1, pp. 1-47). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Wiggins, J. S., Phillips, N., & Trapnell, P. (1989). Circular reasoning about interpersonal behavior: Evidence concerning some untested assumptions underlying diagnostic classification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 296-305. Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and dimensions of personality. Psycholo~calAssessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 305-316. Wiggins, J. S., Steiger, J. H., & Gaelick, L. (1981). Evaluating circumplexity in personality data. Multivariate Behioral Research, 16, 263-289. Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., &Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristicsof the revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multwariate Behavzoral Research, 23, 517-530.

Lynn E. Alden Department of Psychology University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC V6T 1Y7 Canada Received September 28,1989 Revised January 26, 1990

A Chinese translation of the inventory of interpersonal problems-short circumplex.

Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: a circumplex analysis.

Circumplex Scales of Intergroup Goals: an interpersonal circle model of goals for interactions between groups.

Assessment of social traits in married couples: Self-reports versus spouse ratings around the interpersonal circumplex.

Construction of equal-hue discriminability scales for the pigeon.

New narcissism scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI.

Correlates of Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire Scales with selected Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Scales.

Borderline personality pathology and the stability of interpersonal problems.

The Personality Inventory Scales: a self-rating clinical instrument for diagnosis of personality disorder.

Data Build-up for the Construction of Korean Specific Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory in Livestock Categories.

Personality disorder models and their coverage of interpersonal problems.

Relationship between response style on the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory and Occupational Scales (for men).

Elucidating the Construct Validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory Triarchic Scales.

Development and validation of Triarchic construct scales from the psychopathic personality inventory.

Substantive dimensions of psychopathology derived from MMPI content scales and the Differential Personality Inventory.

Development of covert and overt hostility scales from the Buss-Durkee Inventory.

The Bem Sex-role Inventory as an index of response tendencies to scales in Likert format.

Viral niche construction alters hosts and ecosystems at multiple scales.

Interpersonal problems among psychiatric outpatients and non-clinical samples.

Interpersonal problems, dependency, and self-criticism in major depressive disorder.

Assessing problems of cancer patients: psychometric properties of the cancer inventory of problem situations.

Genetic and environmental variation on the California Psychological Inventory vector scales.

The construction and selection of predictive scales, with special reference to parasuicide.

Validity and responsiveness of the pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 generic core scales in the pediatric inpatient setting.