8b
Christopher J. Hopwood
Roche and Ansell (this volume) deliver the latest in a series of papers and chapters that outline Contemporary Integrative Interpersonal Theory (CIIT). They review a number of approaches to and findings from interpersonal research, in the context of the theory’s assumptions as originally proposed by their mentor, Aaron Pincus. As a person who follows this empirical literature closely, their addition of a fifth assumption was the most interesting part of the chapter to me, so I will focus my comments on that.
First, a word about the theory more generally. Like some of its iconoclastic forebears (e.g., Harry Stack Sullivan & Timothy Leary), the interpersonal perspective tends to be misunderstood. One reason may be that, somewhat unlike proponents of other theories, interpersonal theorists and researchers characteristically prioritize synthesis over superiority (see Wiggins, 1991). The focus tends to be more on connection than distinction, and it doesn’t have a particular brand of therapy or a preferred instrument. Perhaps in part for these reasons, CIIT has never been in a position to win a popularity contest outright; it sort of hangs around, and people aren’t always sure what to make of it.
This is where the assumptions come in handy. Following Sullivan, Pincus’ first assumption established a clear boundary in relation to other models by declaring CIIT a theory about how people relate to one another in a world that favors theories about what people are like. But the other assumptions are more agnate. His delineation of the meta-traits agency and communion as its fundamental dimensions in the second assumption is a nod toward potential integration, insofar as most theories about personality and psychopathology that try to identify meta-dimensions end up somewhere close to agency and communion (e.g., Bakan, 1966; Beck, Epstein, & Harrison, 1983; Blatt, 2008; DeYoung, 2006; Digman, 1997; Michaelson & Aaland, 1976; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Integrative possibilities are also enabled by the third assumption, which clarifies that interpersonal relations include both actual relationships and relationships within the mind. This is a core feature of psychodynamic and social-cognitive models of personality and disorder; however, it puzzles some trait advocates, who have argued that (1) someone could have personality disorder on a desert island (with nobody around) and, thus, personality disorder is not “interpersonal,” or (2) traits like conscientiousness or neuroticism are important for understanding personality disorder even though they are “not interpersonal.” What matters, from an interpersonal perspective, is the functional relationship between self and objects, the latter which may or may not be other people. If you believe the person on the island is conscientious or neurotic about something (even a coconut or a soccer ball), and the disorder has to do with how that relationship is somehow dysregulated, you are expressing the interpersonal point of view. In some sense, this point is so mundane it is difficult to dispute, and it makes interpersonal and trait perspectives readily commensurable (Ansell & Pincus, 2004; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996).
The fourth assumption’s focus on process fastens interpersonal theory to the increasing popularity of temporally-dynamic research, an issue that gets significant play by Roche and Ansell. Research on within-person dynamic processes is perhaps the most exciting area of work on personality disorders at the moment. Studies like those that were reviewed in this chapter have significant potential to argument the clinical utility of existing models focused on the structure of personality variables in cross-sectional, between-person data.
To be sure, there are issues with some of the assumptions stated by Pincus. Roche and Ansell mention recent work elaborating the interpersonal situation model to account for motives, affects, behaviors, and perceptions, which requires more dimensions (or at least an embellishment of the meta-dimensions) than agency and communion per se. They could also have mentioned recent studies that suggest that greater levels of dominance complementarity are actually maladaptive, which adds some nuance to the fourth assumption (Dermody, Thomas, Hopwood, Durbin, & Wright, 2017; Hopwood et al., in press).
Roche and Ansell boldly aim to address these issues and expand the theoretical boundaries more generally via a fifth assumption that centers attention on contextual dynamics. In some ways, this new assumption is not as new as it may seem. Context is a core feature of interpersonal theory (by definition), and interpersonal researchers have been at the forefront of research on contextual factors and temporal dynamics, as illustrated by Roche and Ansell’s abridged review. Thus, this assumption both builds on the edifice of CIIT and links nicely to major current trends in the field.
However, there are at least three difficulties with their fifth assumption. Overcoming these challenges could strengthen an already robust model of personality disorder. First, more could be done to incorporate other perspectives on context, such as recent research developing situation taxonomies (Rauthmann et al., 2014), in keeping with the integrative backdrop of CIIT. Second, many of the studies reviewed by Roche and Ansell used cross-sectional measures to define personality disorder, creating a kind of tension with their underlying point about the importance of context and process that goes unaddressed. The recent emphasis in interpersonal theory has been to conceptualize personality disorder as a dynamic signature rather than a list of static characteristics (e.g., Cain & Pincus, 2016; Hopwood, 2018; Hopwood, Zimmermann, Pincus, & Krueger, 2015; Pincus & Hopwood, 2012). Interpersonal researchers should lead the field toward dynamic interpersonal definitions of disorder, just as they have led the field toward dynamic models of assessment and research. Making this point explicit would have added more punch to the fifth assumption than a review of studies organized around DSM-like definitions.
Third, unlike assumptions 1–4 that are logically discrete, assumption 5 folds in on some of the previous assumptions. For instance, context is also addressed in assumption 3, and dynamics are embedded in assumption 4. Capturing the kinds of dynamics referenced by assumption 5 may require elaborating upon the agency and communion meta-traits specified in assumption 2, as is done in the interpersonal situation model. In some ways, assumption 5 corrects potential limitations of these assumptions. However, these commonalities incorporate some level of overlap and redundancy in the overall system, and borders between assumptions are less clear. The implication is that an assumption that explicitly addresses temporally dynamic contextual factors may necessitate reworking assumptions 2–4 somewhat, so that each can offer a discrete, non-redundant piece of information.
Overall, the key contributions of Roche and Ansell’s excellent chapter were highlighting how interpersonal theory continues to lead the way in conceptualizing contextual dynamics and pushing it toward an even more nuanced model of personality and personality disorder. With the outdated model – in which defunct categories are treated by acronymed therapies whose differences are empirically dubious – dying, we seem to be entering a new age for personality disorder research and practice. One hopes this will be a more flexible epoch, in which the boundaries between personality, personality disorders, and other problems in living will be permeable, where rigid ideas are more readily sublated, and where treatments are designed to help people rather than to treat diagnostic categories. This is a world in which contextual dynamics will matter, and where CIIT will feel at home.
References
Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2004). Interpersonal perceptions of the five-factor model of personality: An examination using the structural summary method for circumplex data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 167–201.
Bakan, D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion. Oxford: Rand McNally.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., & Harrison, R. (1983). Cognitions, attitudes and personality dimensions in depression. British Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1(1), 1–16.
Blatt, S. J. (2008). Polarities of Experience: Relatedness and Self-Definition in Personality Development, Psychopathology, and the Therapeutic Process. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cain, N. M. & Pincus, A. L. (2016). Treating maladaptive interpersonal signatures. In W. J. Livesley, G. S. Dimaggio, & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.), Integrated Treatment of Personality Disorder: A Modular Approach (pp. 305–324). New York: Guilford Press.
Dermody, S. S., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Durbin, C. E., & Wright, A. G. (2017). Modeling the complexity of dynamic, momentary interpersonal Thomas, K. M., … Kashy, D. A. (in press). Properties of the Continuous Assessment of Interpersonal Dynamics across sex, level of familiarity, and interpersonal conflict. Assessment. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118798916
Hopwood, C. J., Zimmermann, J., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). Connecting personality structure and dynamics: Towards a more evidence-based and clinically useful diagnostic scheme. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(4), 431–448.
Michaelson, E. J., & Aaland, L. M. (1976). Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny. Ethos, 4(2), 251–270.
Pincus, A. L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). A contemporary interpersonal model of personality pathology and personality disorder. In T.A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Personality Disorders (pp. 372–398). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., … Funder, D. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677–718.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti & W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking Clearly about Psychology: Essays in Honor of Paul E. Meehl, Volume 2: Personality and Psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 88–162). New York: Guilford Press.