A MEASURE O F K O H U T ' S NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY TYPES
bY 7'erencc David Fktrin
H A . , 'l'he University of British Columbia, 1987
'I'HESIS SUHMI'T'I'EL) I N I'AR'I'IAL
FUI,E'II,LMEN'I- O F
T H E KEQUIREMEN'I'S F O R T H E DEGREE O F MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department of
Psychology
O 'I'erence David Estrin, 1994 S I M O N FRASER UNIVERSITY
All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author.
Approval
Name:
Terence David Estrin
Degree:
Master of Arts
Titlc of thesis:
A Measure of Kohut's Narcissistic Personality Types
Examining Committce:
S
Chair:
Dr. Charles Crawfor / Professor Ikpartmcnt of I'sych'olo r Simon ~ S e Clnidersirfl /
-
*'
/
-
Dr. James Iddrcia Senior Supervisor ! Department of Psychblogy Simoy+raser University
*L-e---
P r . Stephen t Assistant Professor Department of I'sychology ~ir@~e$'Upiuersit~ /
/
-
L7
4
-\
7
Dr. Andrea Kowaz Assistant I'rofessor Department of Psychology Simon Fraser University
,' %r.
v
Jery Zaslove External Examiner I'rofessor Department of English Simon Fraser University
-
-
-
PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE
I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the titIe of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. Tt is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Title of Thesis/Project/Extended Essay
A Measure of Kohut's Narcissistic Personality
Author:
..
-.
-cC
I
(signature)
Terence David Estri n (name)
Types
Abstract
'l'he purpose of this research was to develop a sentence completion test designcd to measure the Mirror-hungry, Idcal-hungry, and 'l'winship-hungry personalities in a sti~dent sanlplc (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). 'l'wo measures were developed: the test itself and an accompanying scoring manual, as well as a set of brief narrative-based rating scales. I'sychometric analysis found the greatest degree of homogeneity for 'l'winship and Mirror. Exploratory factor analysis yielded a 'l'winship and Mirror factor, whereas Idealizing was scattered. Correlations between the test and rating scales emerged as predicted, as did most comparisons to external criteria. Inter-rater reliability was very satisfactory. Overall, results indicate much promise for the Mirror and 'l'winship subscales, whereas the Idealizing subscale requires further refinement.
Acknowledgments When I began this project, I had very little in thc form of a blueprint from which to work. What it has become is the result of consultation with people to whom I owe a great deal of thanks. First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. James Marcia for his guidance throughout the project. I t is rare to find a supervisor who supports the creative aspects of his student's work as much as he does, and I valued that greatly. Even when the test was just a tentative idea, he seemed to have a sense that I was following a worthwhile path, and helped guide my plans in a thoughtful and theoretically-informed manner. In short, the test would not be in its current form were it not for his input.
I would also like to thank Dr. Stephen Hart for his good humoured advice in matters statistical and methodological, and for giving me the oportunity to present my ideas in his assessment and research design classes. His input helped immeasurably to provide structure for this rather large project. For their expert statistical advice my thanks go to Drs. Chris Koney, Kay Koopman and Michael Maraun. I would also like to thank Dr. Andrea Kowaz for her excellent suggestions regarding stem form. Abundant thanks go to Penny Simpson, my Self-Psychology-Literate colleague who provided a note of salvation by doing the first manipulation check, typed in the responses and vital statistics data (among other things), acted as the official computer consultant, and had the unenviable job of being my co-rater for scoring. Warm thanks to Joan Foster and Elizabeth Michno for the hours of statistical and technical support, and to Joan Wolf who designed the randomization tables for scoring.
I would also like to thank the student volunteers who gave up a considerable amount of their time to take part in this study. l'hc person who really belongs at thc top of this letter of patirude is my wife and best friend, Felicity, and I dedicate this work to her.
Table o f Contents ...
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 111 A c k n o ~ l c d ~ m c n............................................................................................................... ts iv
..
...
I.ist of I'ablcs ...................................................................................................................V I I I list of Appendices .............................................................................................................. ix Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
O h jectives ............................................................................................................................ 2 Literature Review
I.
Narcissism, Self Psychology and the Emergence of the Self .......................3
I1.
Kohut's Classification of Self-Disorders ................................................... 12
III.
Measuring Narcissism ................................................................................ 15
.
.
Measures Based on the "Grandiose" Narcissism Construct .................................... 17
A . Self-Keport Measures ............................................................................ 17 R . Projective Measures ................................................................................ 20 Measures Rased on Self Psychology 'Theory: Grandiosity and Idealization ..........22 Methodology
I.
'The Research Question Restated ................................................................ 33
I1 .
Derivation ot the 1 est Crlterla .................................................................. 33
I1 I .
'I'heoritical Bases of the 'I'est Criteria ....................................................... 35
IV .
'l'he Mirror-Hungry I'ersonality Criteria ................................................... 3 5
V.
'The Ideal-Hungry Personality Criteria ...................................................... 41
VI .
'The Twinship-Hungry Personality Criteria ............................................... 45
. . .
. . .
I'cst Coustri~ctiorl
I.
Stcm ( h i t e n t and 1)esign ........................................................................... 5.3
I I.
Stcm Selection and Reduction ................................................................... 54
111.
Scor~ngManual (:onstruction ..................................................................... 64
IV .
'l'he Self-Rating Scales ............................................................................... 66
v.
Construct Validity: Convergent and Discriminant Validity .....................66
.
.
A . 'l'he Personality Research Form .............................................................66 13. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Hypotheses .............................. 67 VI .
Content Validity: Principal Components Analysis ...................................71
VI I .
Methods Summary..................................................................................... 72
I.
Descriptive Stat~s tlcs ................................................................................. 7 5
11.
Keliability: Inter-1 tem Correlations .......................................................... 78
Ill .
Keliablity: I tern-to-Subscale Correlations ................................................ 87
IV .
Content Validity: Principal Components Analysis liesults ..................... 107
v.
Convergent and 1)iscriminant Validity: Sentence Completion and P.R.F. Subscales ................................................................................. 112
Vl .
Differential Validity: Correlation with the 1)esireability Subscale ........ 115
VI 1 .
Differential Validity: Correlation Retween Items and Relevant1 Irrelevant P.R.F. Subscales ....................................................................... 115
Results
. .
V11I . Convergent and Discriminant Validity: Sentence Completion Subscales and Self-Kating Scales ............................................................. 116 IX .
Convergent and Lliscrirninant Validity: Self-Kating Scales and P.K.F. Subscales ............................................................................... 1 19
X.
Exploration: Correlation Between the Sentence Completion Subscales and Remaining P.R.F. Subscales .............................................. 120
XI .
Inter-Rater Keliability: T h e Scoring Manual ........................................... 126
List of Tables and Appendices
. . . Mirror-Hungry Orttcr~aand Stems ........................................................................ 57 .
.
Idcal-Hungry Lr~tcrraand Stenls.......................................................................... 59 7
.I.winship-Hungry
Criteria and Stcms ....................................................................61
I'redicted Correlations for Convergent and Lliscriminant Validity Estimates .....71
. . . . .
Ikscrtpt~veStattstics .............................................................................................7 6 Correlations Between all Sentence Completion Subscales ..................................... 88 All Iterations: Mean Inter-Item Correlations ........................................................ 90 Reliability Analysis: Final Iteration ...................................................................... 92 I'rincipal Components Analysis Final Statistics .................................................. 108 Factor Loadings for Four-Factor Oblique Solution ............................................. 110 Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results: Sentence Completion and P.R.F. Subscales ............................................................................................. 114 Ilifferential Validity: Correlation with the Ilesireability Subscale .................... 116 Differential Validity: Mean Correlations Between Items and Kelevant/Irrelevant P.K.F. Subscales.................................................................... 117 Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results: Sentence Completion Subscales and Self-Rating Scales ......................................................................... 119 Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results: Self-Rating Scales and P.K.F. Subscales ............................................................................................. 121 Correlations Between the M Subscale and Kemaining !'.Kt;. Subscales .............. 123 Correlations Between the I Subscale and Remaining P.K.F. Subscales ................124
Correlations Between the 'I' Subscale and Remaining P.K.F. Subscales ............... 125 Inter-Kater Agreement: Mirror-Hungry Subscale ................................................. 127 Inter-Kater Agreement: Ideal-Hungry Subscale ................................................... 128
21 :
11ltcr-Rater Agrecrnent: 'l'winship-Hungry Subscale ............................................. 129
22:
Inter-Rater Agreement: Scale 1 orals ...................................................................1.30
..
t;i!ritres 1:
Factor plot. test items .......................................................................................... 111
Auocndices 'I'he 'I'est ...............................................................................................................146 The Scoring Manual ............................................................................................. 158 .
.
Self-Rat~ngScales................................................................................................ 242
. . . Frequency D~stribut~orl Histograms ..................................................................... 246
. . .
Intcr-Item Correlation 1 able ..............................................................................252 First Iteration ....................................................................................................... 257 Second Iteration ................................................................................................... 262 'I'hird Iteration ..................................................................................................... 267 Fourth Iteration .................................................................................................... 272 Permission to Keproduce Copyrighted Material ................................................. 277
'l'he purpose of this research is to develop a sentence completion test desiencd to measure Kohut's three narcissistic persorlality types
it1
a student samplc. 'l'he mirror-hungry,
ideal-hungry, and twinship-hungry personalities each represent a distinct style of
externally-depetldenc, "subclinical" narcissistic self-esteem regulatio~~, and as such form a nonpathological subgroup included within a greater classification of narcissistic selfdisorders (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). I'revious studies have attempted to measure Kohut's bipolar self-constructs as reflected in healthy or pathological/defensive grandiosity and idealization, but none have yet measured the complete tripartite self (grandiosity, ideals, and twinship) as reflected in these normal personality types. Moreover, the majority of prior works do not follow a self-psychology model, and assess subclinical narcissism based on the DSM-111 narcissistic personality disorder model - that is, roughly corresponding to the grandiose, or mirror-hungry type only. 'l'he significance of the present study is twofold: 'l'he measure derives its structure from three subclinical narcissistic personalities, and examines a facet of the tripartite self that has not previously been researched. 'l'hus, the focal problem addressed here is the construction of a measure of normal narcissism as expressed through Kohut's three narcissistic personality types, which will be measured in two ways: the sentence completion test, and a set of three brief narratives based on the personality types.
1.
'l'hc first objective is to opcrationalize the three narcissistic personality type
cowsrructs h y employing a theory-drivcn, systematic method to derive sets of scoring criteria from each of Kohut and W o l f s ( 1 978) brief personality profiles. 'l'his will provide a governing rule to organize the scoring criteria into three relatively uniform constellations, as well as identify the key aspects of the three content domains that will be measured by the sentence stems.
2.
7'0 generate a large ( 1 50-200) pool of sentence stems, each of which will be written
to pull for a given criterion domain. 'l'his item pool was subjected to a series of pilot studies which resulted in the current 46-item test (See Methodology section).
3.
A second measure was developed in which subjects were asked to rate the extent to
which they resemble each of the three personality profiles. This measure will be referred to as the "Self-Rating Scales." 4.
Five pilot studies were run to select the stenis and as a means of developing the
initial scoring manual. A sample of exemplars was culled from these responses and assembled as the initial scoring manual.
5.
2-0 assess the psychometric adequacy of the sentence completion instrument, the
convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs by comparison with Personality Research Form subscales, and evaluate the manual via inter-rater agreement. Content validity will be assessed through a principal components analysis, and constitute the first step toward construct validation.
I.itcratt~rcIlcvicw
I . Narcissisni, Sclf I'sycholovy, and the t;.mer!~ence of the Sclf
Kohut's self-psychology follows the general theme that individuals develop in relation to other peoplc, or more specifically, that the self/personaliry develops through the introjectioa of relationships (Hamilton, 1989). How this process occurs requircs some theoretical explication, and the most appropriate place to begin is with self psychology's most ubiquitous construct: narcissism. ,
What zinarcissism? In the self psychology literature i t tends to be a circuitouslydefined concept at best. Even in the broader forum, narcissism remains something of an elusive construct
-
the meaning of which depends on one's theoretical orientation - and
although there are numerous perspectives to consider (e.g., Freud, Kernberg, and others), the self psychology definition is most relevant for our purposes. , i
l
Freud's definition of narcissism was essentially of a libidinal energy that could
,
either be invested in some aspect of the self, or in external objects (i.e., people) (Freud, 1959). He viewed primary narcissism (a feeling of omnipotence, grandiosity, and almost no sense of the selflbody as being distinct from the caregiver) as the infant's natural, yet
immature, egocentric state that must eventually be abandoned for mature object love. Secondary narcissism emerges in adulthood under certain stressful conditions and constitutes a regressive redirection of libido from the object world to the self
-
hence the
negative connotation. Even his conception of "normal narcissism," referred to the outward expressions of instinctual energy, such as being in love (Slycer, 1989). If narcissism is self love wherein the greater balance of libido may sometimes be invested in the self rather than other people, then for Freud, the notion of healthy adult narcissism cannot exist (I,oewensrein, 1977).
Kernberg's couccption of naricissism represents thc current opposing rhcory
to
rhc
sclf psychology modcl, and csscntially follows Freud's lead. Kcrnbcrg views pathological narcissisnl and object love as mutually exclusive, whereas hcalthy narcissisnl is see11to promote objcct Iovc. In this scnsc he appears to allow for the cxisrcncc of hcalthy adult narcissism, but as we will scc, i t is really just in the service of object lovc, much
ill
the
manner of Frcud's model, which maintains the interdependence of sclf lovc and objcct lovc (I.ocwcnstcin, 1977). Kcrnbcrg's model describes two forms of hcalthy narcissism, mature and
immature. Mature narcissism is defined as normal self esteem, which offers some resiliency when injured, the result being transient self-criticism. Immature narcissism is most commonly associated with neurotic states or characterological problems, and responds to injury with mood swings (I,oewenstein, 1977). However, healthy narcissism is viewed as a completely different entity from pathological narcissism. From an etiological standpoint, healthy and pathological narcissism result from good arid bad early objects which have been internalized as good and bad internal representations. Healthy narcissism and the resultant involvement in object love are the results of hcalthy inner object representations acquired in infancy, whereas pathological
-
narcissism results from some form of unhealthy inner object relatedness. In order to develop pathological narcissism, one must over-invest in a pathological self that emerges
i
as a defensive barrier against a world devoid of emotional or physical sustenance, resulting in grandiosity and devaluation of others, exploitive relationships, the inability to enjoy much except positive feedback from others and fantasies, the tendency to idealize people who provide narcissistic supplies and devalue all others, and denial of dependency needs *
(Johnson, 1991). For Kernberg, pathological narcissism and its attendant aggression are the result of infantile rage and frustration, which leads to pathological defenses such as splitting (in which grandiosity, shyness, and feelings of inferiority may coexist without
affecting each other)which is employed to buffer the intense ragc which develops i n response to early parental deprivatio~i(l~oewc~~~tei~~, 1977). in many ways, Kernberg's model of narcissism simply rcfranics Freud's ideas
ill
object relations terms. Unlikc Freud, Kernberg can conccivc of healthy adult narcissism, hut again, the focus is primarily on its role in encouraging object love, whereas, as wc will see in Kohut's scheme, healthy adult narcissis~nand self love are interdependent. 'l'hus, Kernberg disagrees with Kohut on four points: He feels that normal immature narcissism does not occupy the same continuum as pathological narcissism, that self-love and object love follow the same line of development, that aggression is primary to narcissisni because pathological narcissism is enmeshed with infantile ragc and frustration, and that the natural state of the infant is not one of primary narcissism(I.oewenstein, 1977). Kohut (1 971) concurs with Freud that theiinfant's narcissism consists of omnipotent grandiosity accotnpanied by the need to merge with an onlnipotent object.\I'he similarity ,-
ends there, as Kohut views narcissism/self-love and object love as following conipletely separate developnierital lines. In his theoretical framework, healthy adult narcissism does exist, in that i t represents the transformation of the infant's "libidinal investment of the self' (primary narcissism) into healthy self-esteem, goalslambitions and the development of mature ideals (Ornstein, 1978a, p. 627). In the broadest sense, Kohut's definition of unhealthy narcissism describes not narcissism itself, but the strategy necessary to maintain an adult fixation at the archaic stage (owing to a dearth of adequate environmental responsiveness to that-person's healthy narcissism in infancy), and therefore bears only a superficial resemblance to Freud's version (Loewenstein, 1977, Ornstein, 1978b). /
Self psychology's positive narcissism represents the motive force behind L.
-.
personality development. When Kohut referred to narcissism as "an integral, self-contained set of psychic functions" (Ornstein, 1978b, p. (;la), he meant that constellation of needs that sustain the infant's emotional life. Narcissistic needs, then, represent's the infant's expression and need for confirmation of self-esteem in all of its manifestations; the basic
rcquircrncnt that the infant exists in an cnvirunmcnt that accomodatcs hislhcr fc.clings of omnipotence and grandiosity (that is, the caregiver's ability to mirror back thesc qualities), coupled with the infant's wish to 'borrow' a sensc of calm, when necessary, through merger with a parent who is perceived as a source of strength and omnipotence. Kohut rnaintaincd that thesc two forms of infantile riarcissisrn eventually beconie the two main constituents of mature self-esteem as both expressed and sustained by mature ambitions and ideals. 'l'hus, to say that an infant has a narcissistic need simply means that helshc requires an environment that allows them to experience the sense of hislher own greatness, joyful self-expression, calm, and perhaps most importantly, to dwell in the presence of others who can reflect and confirm those positive experiences (Kohut, 1985) Narcissistic needs are so central to Kohut's developmental scheme that he views them as no less important than the physiological ones, for they define us all as living creative beings. Another way to define narcissism is to frame it in its cultural context, which requires that we simply focus on the term's emotional valence. T o the layperson, the phrase "normal narcissisnl" must appear as something of an oxymoron. Self psychology sidesteps that pejorative connotation by defining narcissism as the healthy propensity to experience the full range of one's own vitality and emotions, and expend creative energy (Kohut and Wolf, 1978). In fact, it is implicit to self psychology theory that what we observe as "narcissistic" in the negative sensc of the word, is nothing more than the expression of an i
incomplete self that has, in infancy, been chronically starved of genuine narcissistic support., T o carry this point a step further, Kohut (Ornstein, 197813) asserts that our cultural values often negate healthy narcissistic needs, not just in terms of the derogatory label (which does appear to point to an as-yet diagnostically-undifferentiated personality configuration) but also as an ambient ethos that discourages true self-nurturance. For example, because it reveres altruism, Christianity discourages expression of the grandiose self in that it derogates any hint of egotism or self-directed concerns, although i t does promote a submissive idealizationlmerger. Conversely, secular views can encourage self-
cnhanccmcnt, but disdain institutionalized idcalizarion (at least when Kohur wrote thih).
130th of these ci~lturalinflucnccs have positive rationales for denying what is pcrccivccl in the former case as the denial of selfishness and in the latter, the avoidance of irrational reliance o n noncxistcnt deities, yet the cumulative effect is to deny the cultural fulfillment of healthy narcissistic needs (Ornstein, 197Xb) In short, self psychology views narcissism as a positive force, whereas unfi~lfillednarcissistic needs expressed on a cultural scale such as war - can be otherwise.
I11
order to explain how healthy narcissism leads to self-
formation, wc must next exanline the formative dynamic behind Kohut's tripartite model of the self: the sclf-selfobject relationship. T h e self-selfobject relationship represents self psychology's central dynamir construct. T h e term selfobject
-
or narcissistically-invested object, refers to an
internalized representation of a significant other who is experienced as part of the self, and as such provides the functions that sustain one's sense of vitality, cohesiveness, and overall psychological equilibrium, such as the regulation of healthy self-esteem (Kohut, 1978). In infancy our empathic bond with those selfobjects (i.e., our parents) represents our very lifelirie to the world of other people; these relationships are our life, and without them our cmotio~ialworld would be 'formless and void.' As Kohut's schematic suggests, it is these relationships that provide the mechanism by which the self (self psychology's central psychic construct) becomes an integrated whole. Selfobjects also play an important and complex role in the continuity of our sense of self and self-esteem throughout adulthood.(When we meet with the usual frustrations and successes as we strive to realize our ambitions, certain people/selfobjects with whom we share our experiences can provide the type of responses that mirror our feelings of inner worth. O u r ambitions can also carry mature (and not so mature) ideals to which we aspire, and when we recognize one of those particular qualities in others, they can come to One could argue that what our culture really encourages is self-gratification, the great bandaid that the narcissistically-crippled culture as a whole seeks. Lasch (1978) has much to say about this, but that is another paper.
rcprcscnt living ideals to which we can mold those aspirations.
111
that intcrnicdiarc rc;i11ii
driven by both our ambitions and ideals, the role of alterego and twinship relationships may constitute the most ubiquitous of the self-selfobject rclatio~~ships hccawsc they rcprcscnr the nccd to participate as a human being among other human beings (Kohut, 1984). 'I'hc thrcc typcs of self-selfobject relationships therefore provide the vehicle through which healthy narcissistic needs are met throughout the lifespan. Thus, the self-sclfobjcct relationship represents the central self-formation dynamic, in that the existence and continuity of the self depends on the varieties of selfobject experiences particular to each p a s o n . Having presented something of a general overview, let 11s take a developmental step backward and consider the origins of the core psychic structure, the self. T h e self emerges as the product of a continuous interplay between psychic structure and the affectivelempathic environment into which the infant is born. The newborn infant possesses a Nuclear Self - a pre-self state of pure awareness, potential and needs (Ornstein, 1991). How this Nuclear Self develops into the mature self depends entirely on the empathic tone of the relationship maintained between caregiverlselfobject and the infant. Just as Mahler describes the mother's (or father's) manner of relatedness to the infant as the prime determinant of "psychological birth," so Kohut portrays the empathic resonance between parent and infant as the primary determinant of self structure (Greenberg 1)(
Mitchell, 1983, ~ . 2 7 6 )T. h e crucial factor here (one might say the binding energy)
consists of the caregiver's ability to respond to the infant's narcissistic needs. 'Thus, in Kohut's model, the manner in which the neonate's self-functions/narcissisticneeds are fulfilled through the caregiver (selfobject) constitutes both the initial, archaic selfselfobject relationship from which the beginnings of the tripartite self structure emerge (Kohut, 1984). 'The firmly-established, mature self (the result of years of interaction between the child and hislher selfobjects) is made up of three components. Two of these comprise Kohut's original bipolar self. O n e pole emerges as the result of the selfobject's
"mirroring" rcsporw to the child's exhibitionistic and grandiose nccds, which reprewilts tllc basic striving for and c n j o y n i c ~ of ~ t power and succcss. Hcre the signs of approval oncc rcccivcd from the selfobject become internalized as self-esteem, vitality, sclfasscrtivc~less,and ambitions. The selfs other pole represents the child's nwlcar idcals (idealizing nccds). Where the child once had a need for a seemingly o n ~ r ~ i p o t c nsclft object perceived as a source of imperturbable soothing and calming responses, the sclf has now internalized all of these qualities so that the child develops hislhcr own sense of secure strength, self-regard, a self-soothing capacity, and mature ideals (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). In his earliest writings, Kohut posited two types of selfobjects: T h e "Mirroring Selfobject" who confirms and responds to the infant's innate sense of energy, greatness and perfection, and the "Idealized Parent Imago" - someone the child can look up to, and with whom helshe can merge as an image of calm, assuredness and omnipotence (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). In his last work (Kohut,1984), he recognized the alteregoltwinship selfobject relationship as distinct aspect of the selfs needs because it continued to emerge in the therapeutic context in the form of transference. This aspect of the self emerges as a function of the "tension between the dual poles of ambitions and ideals" (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), representing the repertoire of activities, both physical and psychological, that drive the individual to attain hislher goals. Its origins arise from a child's need to learn basic talents and skills by working with and emulating suitable selfobjects (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), which becomes a means of self-differentiation through relatedness, similarity and belonging (Kohut, 1984). Kohut refers to the process by which the self acquires psychological structure (initially provided by the selfobject) as a combination of "optimal frustration" and "transmuting internalization." T h e prerequisite here is a satisfying empathic resonance between the infant and caregiver wherein the infant's narcissistic needs are adequately met. Optimal frustration refers to brief, non-traumatic interruptions in the empathic attention given to the child, such that the child must learn to satisfy those needs on hislher own. This
means that the child intcrnalizcs the functions that wcrc formerly cxpcricnccd via the carcgivcr(s)/selfobjccr(s). 'l'ransmuting internalization refers to the nlcans by which the
psychic assimilation occurs (Ornstcin, 1991). 'Ihis process occurs nor only in childhood but throughout development siich
that any person will show a distiilct pattern of self-selfobjcct rclatiotiships over the lifespan, that can, at the very least, enhance the ability to take enjoyment in life, and under certain circumstances, transform us (hence Kohut's therapeutic method). 'l'hc earliest archaic setting provides the prototype, the series of early relationships from which the self progresses through to the mature self-sc1fc)bject relationships. Not only is the intinlacy that accompanies the self-selfobject relationship important in childhood, but as was stated earlier, in adult life we tend to seek out
-
to varying degrees
-
empathic responses
similar to those experienced in infancy. In times of mental well-being, positive relationships can evoke a resonance with all of the positive self-selfobjcct relationships that have occurred throughout our lives. In times of disequilibrium, we may seek out the same kinds of empathic responses that provided us with a sense of self-esteem, calming, etc. T h e cohesive self is therefore not a fixed entity (Kohut, 1984). Its continued integrity depends on two functions: internalized self-support/esteem, and the ongoing need for satisfying self-selfobject relationships (Muslin, 1985). However, self-development rarely, if ever, proceeds in such a picture-perfect manner. '1.0 take the other extreme, such as when the archaic self-selfobject relationship is markedly deficient, the child is unable to internalize those crucial functions (such as those involving a sense of self esteem and cohesiveness) because they are simply not available. Kohut likens this situation to that of an organism that is deprived of its very sustenance: the essential warmth and empathic responsiveness that characterizes healthy human relations. 'I'he self, however, does not expire, it simply adapts and distorts to the situation at hand. Kohut and Wolf (1978) state:
Once the self has crystallized in the interplay of inherited and cnvironmcutal factors, i t aims toward the realization of its own specific programme of action - a programme that is determined by the specific intrinsic pattern of its constirucnt ambitions, goals, skills and talents, and by the tensions that arise bctwccn these consritucnts (p. 41 4). Not unlikc ( i r l Rogers' notion that even the most abnormal behaviors arc simply a distorted version of the natural urge to express oneself, this view maintains that thc deprivation of healthy narcissistic satisfactions in infancy will result in any numbcr of variations on the "enfeebled self' theme. Kcgardless of the specific behavioral constellation that emerges, two key characteristics will be present: 1 .) Chronic attempts to locate selfobjects who can momentarily fill archaic rifts in psychic structure. Rather than seeking others for the purpose of non-exploitive relations, such a person acquires their sense of selfcohesion by associating with others who they believe can somehow "remedy" their impoverished sense of self esteem, feelings of anxiety and emptiness, ctc. 2.) Acconlpanying this basic dynamic will be any number of defensive and compensatory structures - maladaptive coping strategies which are also employed to fill missing gaps in self structure (Eagle, 1984, Kohut, 1977). Although severe self-pathology can present as a number of identifiable behavior patterns(Kohut and Wolf, 1978), it is not central to our discussion and need only be mentioned to illustrate the greater continuum that comprises self-development. T h e research outlined in this proposal will not focus on either extreme. I t is likely that optimal development as portrayed in Kohut's basic scheme and the conlplete archaic selfobject failure instance appear with relatively infrequently in the general population. Instead, it is assumed that most adequately functioning people in our society behave in a manner that reflects an admixture of healthy selfobject relations and some central personality features which qualify as subclinical yet maladaptive narcissistic strategies. As Miller ( 1 981) suggests, infants who receive even mildly inappropriate reponses to their emotional expression ("who are not allowed to experience their feelings as belonging to their own selves") will search for those missing narcissistic supplies for the
rest of their adult lives. According to this model, even a relatively "~iornial"i ~ p h r i ~ i g i n g can yield a person with mild but influential defects in thcir self-structure which handicaps thcir ability to maintain self-esteem, self-soothe or maintain any of the other self-functions (depending on the nature of the empathic rift) without recourse to cxtcrrial sources. It is, as Kvhut (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), suggested, not so much what parents do that helps or hinders thcir children's development as much as what they are. He believed that even within the range of "normal" personality development, children can suffer emotional trauma simply because they are in the care of people whose own self-structuralization is incomplete (whose own narcissistic needs were never adequately met and unconsciously look to the child to fulfil those needs), and are therefore incapable of meeting the child on an emotional/empathic level that is uncluttered by competing sets of needs. In summary, even in noriclinical populations, if infantile narcissistic needs remain unfulfilled, one tends to see an adult who seeks to satisfy those needs through other people in a less-than-adaptive manner (hence the presumed prevalence of the normal narcissistic personality types that form the basis of this proposed study). A brief introduction to the classification of selfdisorders will serve to conclude this general introduction and provide an explanatory context for the development of the test criteria.
11. Kohut's Classification of Self-Disorders
Self-psychology divides narcissistic (as opposed to neurotic) psychopathology into primary and secondary disorders of the self. Primary self-disorders reflect a profoundly damaged self-structure and consist of a group of pathological and unanalyzable states including the psychoses and borderline states. Also included in this category are the narcissistic behavior disorders and the narcissistic personality disorders (not the I X M variety), wherein one may observe severe symptomatology, but the self is sufficiently intact to benefit from analysis. In contrast, secondary self-disturbances are those
conlplaints that fall within the range of normal selfobject relations and represent a hcalrhy sclfs reactions to everyday strcssors (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). Although self psychology theory has evolved considerably, this basic distinction see~nsto have endured. In his final work, Kohut ( 1 984) recapitulated the notion of secondary vs. primary self-disturbances by marking the distinction between persons whose chronic emotional disequilibrium co~npels them to continl~allyseek out analogues of archaic selfobjects - from those whose narcissistic needs are enhanced by, but not dependent upon, the significant people in their lives. T h e narcissistic personality types fall under the heading of secondary selfdisturbances, and it is inlplicit to this proposal, as well as to Kohut's thinking, that they represent some of the common personality variants seen in normally-functioning adults (1984). Although the tripartite typology represented by the mirror-, ideal-, and twinshiphungry personalities purportedly represents the normal personality range (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), if one contrasts it with Kohut's descriptions of healthy, mature selfobject relations, these personality types - as we will see below - could each be viewed as a less-thanoptimal interpersonal stance. This does not mean that the narcissistic personality types are in any way pathological, it simply means that even within the normal range of interpersonal
behaviors one can observe an adaptive vs. maladaptive continuum. Kohut's descriptions of the developmental process that leads to healthy narcissism simply.represents a schematic description of the most adaptive end of that c o n t i n u ~ ~ m In. comparison, the narcissistic personality types do appear to fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum. Another consideration is that if the behaviors described by these personality types were extreme enough (represented by what Kohut and Wolf refer to as the "contact shunning" versus "merger hungry" dimension), they could be classified within the secondary self-disturbance domain. Although the conceptual underpinnings of this research can certainly accommodate a blurred distinction between the primary and secondary self-disorders, the proposed
mcasurc will maintain a deliberately narrow focus, and assess only that continuutn represented by the relatively healthy manifestations of the personality types. I3eforc we proceed to a description of the steps necessary to develop the mcasurc itself, an important issue must be addressed: Is i t appropriate to use Kohut's typology as the basis for research? Hecause Kohut himself may have balked at the idea, i t is a question that, if left unanswered, could lead the astute reader to conclude that the very basis of the proposed measure rests on theoretical quicksand. When Kohut and Wolf (I 978) publishcd their outline of the self-disorders, they did so reluctantly. It was never meant to be a canonical work, but rather, a snapshot of a theory in progress. In it, Kohut and Wolf repeatedly caution against the use of reductive typologies and emphasize that Kohut's
?.
classifications may be open to improven~ent.1 his presents a serious problem for a proposal that advocates designing an entire measure based on a subgroup of these particular classifications. Even in his final work Kohut (I984), dismisses classifications as mere artifacts: "...they are temporary, changeable, improvable
-
in short, they will cease to he
useful if we are unwilling to alter them in order to accommodate new insights or thoughts" (pp.202-203). If only for the sake of Kohut's protests, one might say that there is no easy justification for basing a measure of narcissistic types on a typology that the theorist himself insists is in all probability a temporary construction. Yet if Kohut sees his classifications (i.e., the personality types) as nothing more than a kind of heuristic, then perhaps therein lies an affirmative answer to our original question. O n e can a s u m e that Kohut's concern lay with his audience's literal reading of, and rigid adherence to the surface features of his personality descriptions. 'To justify using the narcissistic personality types as the basis for the measure, requires that one represent these personality profiles in terms of their zrndedying dynamics rather than focusing on specific characterological details, thus avoiding the very real problem of trying to account for the almost infinite permutations that each of the personality types could take
-
which in and
of itself would reflect a slavish attention to phenotypic details. Recause the scoring criteria
arc based upon each personality type's key dynamics, the measure rcmains true to thC essence of the theory, while accounting for Kohur's concern that his ideas would become fossili~cdor rcduccd to a set of trait-descriptors. 'I'he sentence completion format is ideal for this purposc in that it allows one to accommodate and classify a wide variety of responses without straying from the focal principles. 'I'hus, thc proposcd measure will be organized around the key concepts underlying Kohut's classifications, thereby providing a logically acceptable basis for its construction. Just how this will be accon~plishedwill be taken up in methodology section, following the literature review. Having provided a general introduction to self psychology theory, as well as a justification as to how these constructs are to be validated without losing sight of their innate complexity, the next section reviews prior attempts to measure narcissism constructs both within the context of self psychology theory, and in the broader forum.
I1 I . Measuring Narcissism
T h e purpose of a literature review is to provide a conceptual and historical frame for the study at hand. O u r task then, is to determine the significance of this research endeavor within that greater context. In order to do this, we must be aware of several key factors: a.) that the purpose of this study is to operationalize and measure three narcissistic personality types as described by Kohut and Wolf (1978); b.)that although these personality types have been discussed extensively, they have never been operationalized in this form; c.) that although the mirror and ideal constructs -- in the most general sense -have been operationalized and tested, none of the studies described below provide any usefill basis for comparison with the three personality types; d.) another related point is that of those studies described below that profess to measure "normal" narcissism, none actually attain that goal, and therefore cannot be utilized; e.) lastly, although mirror and idealizing constructs have been operationalized, the twinship construct never has.
Another major issue has to do with narcissism research as a wholc. As 13r;1dlcc Luc I;,mnions ( 1 992) state: (:onsidering the amount of theoretical interest that the construct of narcissism has it may yet realize its potential as an explanatory device and in this way realize its heuristic promise. At present, however; narcissism is an unnianageably diverse and aniorphous construct and, therefore, a highly probleniatic empirical entity. 'I'he process of unconstrained evolution which has characterized this construct for several decades has led to the unfortunate situation in which theoretical development is somewhat inversely related to the process of clarification and subsequent construct validation (Rradlee & Emmons, 1992, pp 821 -822). T h e first question we must ask is: Where d o we locate self psychology-based narcissism studies in the midst of all this confusion? T h e short answer is that most of the narcissism literature is not based on self psychology constructs. Unfortunately, the confusion endemic to narcissism research also applies to those studies based on Kohutian constructs. Refore embarking on the review itself, let i t be said that the above quote is meant to illustrate why none of the measures discussed below will be utilized for the purpose of validating Kohut's three narcissistic personality constructs. Hradlee and Emmons' (1992) reference to the state of confusion endemic to narcissism research may sound hyperbolic, when in fact they could not have stated it more clearly. A general overview of the literature presents a chaotic jumble of definitions and terminology, ail put forth in a desperate bid to arrive at some common "truth." This review will be selective in its scope: Only the most relevant instruments that measure the general narcissism construct (i.e., grandiosity) will be described here, whereas studies that specifically set out to validate the Kohutian bipolar self receive full representation. Narcissism research covers a broad theoretical spectrum, but has for the most part focussed on that heterogeneous grouping of thoughts, feelings and behaviors clustered around what Kohut would refer to as the pole of Ambitions: Grandiosity, self-esteem, exhibitionism, egocentricity, etc. Measures derived from self psychology theory have, without exception, examined both grandiosity and idealization. This overview will begin
with those instrumcnts that assess grandiose narcissism psychology theory
-
-
none of which arc hasccl on sclf
followed by a discussion of attempts to validate Kohut's grandiosity
ancl idealization constructs. '[.he review concludes with a discussion of recent attempts to locate Kohut's self-constructs within existing narcissism studies.
Measures Rased on the "(;randioseMNarcissism Construct
A.
S e l f - R c ~ o rMeasures t With the exception of Raskin and Hall's (1 979) Narcissistic Personality Inventory,
not one of the 'grandiose' narcissism measures have viewed narcissism as a normal individual differences variable. For example, Ashby, Lee and Duke (1 979) developed the Narcissistic Personality Disorder Subscale, based on a selection of 19 MMPI items that successfully discriminated between psychotherapy clients who met the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder from those who did not. Further evidence for construct validity was attained via comparison with three concepts: T h e NPDS's ability to differentiate between healthy versus pathological self-esteem, the presence of a healthy love relationship (a lack thereof indicating pathological narcissism), and the frequency of nightmares (Solomon, 1982). The psychometric adequacy of this scale has not been established (Slyter, 1989). Phares and Erskine (1 984) developed a 28-item scale designed to measure "selfism," in an attem-pt to reinterpret the motivational/psychoanalytic narcissism construct as a cognitive/social-learningvariable (Emmons, 1787). However, as Slyter (1 989) indicates, although the Selfism scale displays adequate reliability and validity, the construct i t measures is essentially unidiniensional in that it appears to assess egocentristn/selfishlless rather than the broader narcissism construct. Yet another instrument
that arises from a social learning context is the narcissistic personality subscale for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (Millon, 1982). 'The MCMI Narcissism Subscale
was initially validated on a clinical population, and in further construct validity studies i t was found to correlate significantly with the Narcissistic I'crsonality Inventory (Aucrbach, 1984, I'rifitcra 1S( Ryan, 1984), which is not surprising considering that even though the NI'I mcasures "normal" narcissism, both instruments view the construct in roughly the same way as consisting of grandiosity, egocentrism, and high self-estecni. 'I'he extensively-validated Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979, Raskin & 'Terry, 1988) to date represents the only objective instrument to measure individual differences in "grandiose" narcissism as a normative personality trait. T h e NI'I began as an 80-item forced-choice questionnaire based on the [ISM-Ill narcissistic personality disorder diagnostic criteria: Grandiosity, fantasies of unlinlited success, exhibitionism, sense of entitlement, and interpersonal exploitiveness (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). Raskin and Hall (198 1) employed internal consistency procedures to reduce the 80-item measure to 54 items, yielding an alpha coefficient ranging from .80 -.86 across several unpublished studies (Raskin & 'Terry, 1988). Numerous studies have sought to establish the NPI's construct validity through comparison with several domains. Having noted some behavioral and attitudinal similarities between narcissistic and creative people, Raskin and Hall (1981) found the NPI to be significantly and positively correlated with two measures of creativity. Kaskin and Hall (1981) also found the NPI to be positively correlated with the F,xtraversion and Psychoticism scales of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Emmons (198 1) noted significant correlations between the NPI and sensation-seeking (disinhibition, experienceseeking, and boredom susceptibility). Watson, Grisham, Trotter, and Hiderman (1984) not surprisingly, found the NI'I to correlate negatively with measures of empathy and social desirability. Hy comparing the NPI with measures such as the Eysenck Personality Inventory, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and the 16PF, Emmons (1984) found positive correlations with dominancc, exhibitionism, extroversion, self-esteem, and selfmonitoring, and negative correlations with abasement, deference, and social anxiety,
demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity, respectively. 'l'hc same studv yielded a strong correlation between the NPI and peer ratings of narcissism, p h a p s the closest any study came to providing eviderice for concurrent validity. T h e NI'I also discriminates between narcissistic and non-narcissistic psychotherapy patients (I'rifitera & Ryan, 1984). Overall, these studies offer cousiderable support for the validity of the heterogeneous narcissism construct measured by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. 'I'he first attempt to establish the N1'Ifs factoriallcontcnt validity was Emmons' ( 1 984) factor-analytic study of the 54-item measure, which yielded four factors: ExploitivenessIEntitlement, LeadershipIAuthority, SuperiorityIArrogance, and Self-
AbsorptionISelf-Admiration. Emmons (1 987) replicated the four-factor structure and found those factors to account for 70'Yo of the variance. In this same study the NI'I displayed significant positive correlations with the Narcissistic Personality Uisorder Subscale of the MCMI (Millon, 1982), the MMPI Narcissistic I'ersonality Disorder Subscale (Ashby, Lee, & Duke, 1979, Solomon, 1982), and the Selfism Scale (I'hares & Erskine, 1984), suggesting the presence of some sort of common "narcissism factor." Kaskin and 'Terry (1988) appear to have uncovered that "factor" when they performed a principalcomponents analysis with 1,018 NPI protocols, which yielded a general narcissism component as well as the seven other first-order components/subscales: Authority, SelfSufficiency, Superiority, Exhibitionism, E ~ ~ l o i t i v e n e sVanity, s, and Entitlement. 'This study produced the current 40-item NPI, which shows a total scale correlation of .98 with the older 54-item scale. Construct validity has been further established that what the NPI measures is indeed narcissism by correlation with observational and self-report data and an observer trait-ranking for narcissism (Raskin & 'Terry, 1988). Although the NPI continues to be used extensively in research, it presents some problems as to its status as a measure of subclinical narcissism. First, in self-psychological terms, the complex of behaviors and attitudes measured by the NPI is a defensive, pathological strategy designed to maintain a false sense of self esteem to conceal actual
low self csteeni. '['here is however, no way to completely differentiate hctwccn healthy and pathological narcissism of this type outside of a clinical setting. Second, Emmons' ( 1 984) discovery that the NI'I correlates highly with illdices of sensation-seeking does not bode well cither, because it echoes Kohut's notion that sensation-seeking strategies are often employed to compensate for a feeling of inner deadness (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), thus supporting the notion that this type of narcissism conceals a negative state. 'l'hird, Slyter (1989) rightly points out that the correlation between the NPI and the MCMI narcissism subscale is highly problematic, because i t suggests that the so-called subclinical narcissistic behaviors are decidedly abnormal. As for its utility for comparison with the mirrorhungry personality type represented in the sentence completion test being proposed here, it is not suitable for several reasons: a) In addition to those mentioned above, it is based on the DSM-111 model, which, as Goldstein (1985) indicates, is a conglomerate of Kohutian and Kernbergian criteria; b) the arrogantlsuperior narcissist in no way resembles the insecure narcissist embodied by the mirror-hungry personality type; and c) if they were the same entity, because it is a projective measure, the sentence completion test would be a more sensitive measure of defensive narcissism than the NPI which makes no such distinction.
B.
Proiective Measures
Projective techniques have displayed some utility in assessing grandiose narcissism as an individual differences variable. Some of these studies include use of the 'I'hcmatic Apperception Test (Harder, 1979), Rorschach responses (Exner, 1969, Urist, 1977), Exner's (1973) sentence completion test designed to measure egocentricity, and the NarcissismI'rojective (Shulman and McCarthy, 1988) which employs a combination of 'TAT cards and early childhood memories. With the exception of Exner (1973) none of the above studies rely on one measure alone as an index of narcissism.
'['he most recent projective-based narcissism study is Shultnan and t;crguso~i's (1988) attempt to test specific premises of Kohut's and Kernberg's theories. Here the authors took a snlall group of subjects (n= 14) selected for their high scores on the 54-item version of the Narcissistic I'crsonality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979, Kaskin & 'l'crry, 1988), and subjected them to tachistoscopically-pres{:l~tedphrases chosen to represent the Kernbergian emphasis on the narcissist's defenses against intense dependency needs and their aggression (phrase: "I'm needy and hateful."), and the Kohutian assumption that the narcissistically injured person possesses an incomplete or fragmented self (phrase: "I'm not a complete person."). T h e dependent variables were subjects' responses on the NarcissismProjective, and Exner's Self-Focus Sentence Completion (both described above). Only the Kernbergian stirnulus was found to have a significant effect on the subjects' narcissism and egocentricity. Although the authors claim much confidence in the N-P as a means of testing divergent theories of narcissism (Shulman & Ferguson, 1988, Shuln~an& McCarthy, 1988), their experiment displays a fundamental flaw that renders the results meaningless: Despite the fact that O t t o Kernberg and Ernest Wolf (for the Kohut stimulus) were consulted regarding appropriate phrase content, the authors failed to realize that the Kernberg stimulus would generate a powerful latency effect purely on the basis of its 'hot' cnlotional tone a.opposed to the relatively neutral "Kohut" phrase. O n e also has to wonder whether the validity of a theory as a whole can be determined by a single stimulus presentation. Shulman and Ferguson's (1988) study represents the only attempt to date to assess the validity of any specific aspect of Kohut's theory of narcissism with a projective measure, and it appears that their findings have no bearing on the research set out in this proposal.
Mcasiircs Rased on Self-I'sycholog Theory: Grandiosity and Idcali~ation
Self-report instruments based on Kohutian narcissism havc as a rule focussed on both aspects of thc bipolar self model. A grandiositylambitiotls scale by i t s c l f s i ~ n p ldoes ~ not exist. 'I'hc one aspect of the Kohutian self that has yct to be examined as a tcstablc construct is the 'intermediate area of talents and skills' represented by altercgo and twinship needs. Despite the popularity of Kohut's theories, there have been few efforts to design measures of ambitions and idealization, and those that have emerged have been the products of a small nunlber of investigators, each of whom appears to havc approached the model with a different purpose. In general, these measures utilize a broader reading of ambitions and ideals than is encompassed by the mirror- and ideal-hungry types outlined in this proposal, and for that reason alone, cannot be utilized for construct validation purposes in future research involving the proposed sentence completion test. Patton and Kobbins (1982), employed self psychology as a rnodel for structured assessments of clients in a college counseling center. Their study assessed indices of mirror- and ideal-related self-disturbances in otherwise high-functioning students, and focussed
011
the (ma1)adaptive strategies that clients employed to defend against their
narcissistic vulnerabilities. Although not a self-report instrument, Patton and Robbins' work did highlight the prevalence of 'narcissistically-injured' clients in the college population, and provided an important foundation for later work (cf. I'atton, <:onnor & Scott, 1982, I'atton & Kobbins, 1985). Patton, Connor, and Scott (1982) derived the Client Cohesion of Self-Schemata scales from three of Kohut's (1971, 1977) constructs: The Grandiose Self, the Idealized I'arent Image, and Self-Functions. They created 10, 8-point observer rating scales, each of which was designed to assess the client's self-cohesion (as an index of counseling process and success) on a continuum ranging from dis-cohesion to optimal self cohesion. T h e first three scales were designed to represent thc three pivotal constructs of the grandiose self -
exhibitionism, assertiveness, and ambitions - each of which was divided into the eightpoint range. For cxamplc, F,xhibitiotiism could be expressed as crude exhibitionism at the "fragmented" cnd or as a more restrained form of self-expression at the positive end
(p.274).'l'hc next three scales represented faccts of the developmental line formed from that aspect of the bipolar self that emerges from the idealized parent irnage: Idealization/desire for merger, healthy admiration of others, and establishment of mature goals. The remaining four scales were based on four self-functions: Empathy, locus of selfesteem regulation, tension tolerance, and use of abilities. Scale construction procedures used to derive the Client Cohesion of Self-schemata scales were fairly rigorous. As the first step in constructing the interval rating scales, the authors wrote 16 sample "anchors" representing optimal self-cohesion through severe discohesion continuum for each scale. 178 judges were asked to rank-order sets of 16 example anchors. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W) and the average Spearman rank correlation between participants were used to determine the consistency with which the sets of anchors were rank-ordered in a coherent continuum, and item (anchor) selection was determined by the standard deviation for each anchor. Based on Kendall's W, results indicated a high and significant level of agreement anlong judge's ranking efforts, with the exception of the fifth scale (admiration of others). T h e average Spearman rank correlation between pairs of judges indicated a high level of scale stability, again with the exception of scale five. These results indicate that with the exception of the fifth scale, the ten scales represent a stable, coherent continuum. The psychometric adequacy of the scales was next determined by examination of the data produced by three trained raters who listened to taped sessions with eighteen clients. Results here are mixed, and clearly indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the scales: Reliability estimates for individual raters ranged from low to moderate, while the composite rater estimates were high, indicating that if the scales were to be used for further research, the results would be suspect unless multiple
ratcrs wcrc cmploycd (I'atton ct al. 1982). Fur both single and miiltiplc raters, the fifth scale presented significant problems. No validity data were provided by the authors. Apart from the obvious problems with reliability and lack of validity, not to mention the cumbersome process of using multiple raters to code tapes (as opposed to a self-report measure), this study represents a careful attempt to address some of the key issues in self psychology at that time. For example, the authors include a cautionary note with which Kohut would have been in full agreement: " No amotint of history taking or the cataloging of client conlplaints and symptoms will suffice to establish the presence of a disorder of the self' (p. 272). By employing principles rather than behavioral details in their rating scales, and by rating actual client interactions, the authors remain true to their roles as self-psychology-oriented therapists (rather than becoming the bean-counting, traitpsychologists that Kohut disdained). Another important feature of these scales is that they represent a comprehensive attempt to employ complex self psychology theories by accounting for the full spectrum of self-functioning in each of the domains selected. Robbins and Patton's (1985) Superiority and Goal Instability scales represent the first attempt to construct a self-report measure based on the mirrorlgrandiosity and idealization constructs. They created two broad scale definitions that assessed grandiosity and idealization as expressed through college-level students' involvement in career planning and decisiveness, respectively. Mature grandiosity was defined as stable self esteem and the ability to enjoy oneself, enhanced by satisfaction gained through various educational or vocational pursuits. Immature/malfunctioning grandiosity was defined as inflated selfesteem, exhibitionism, fantasies of unlimited power or greatness, or marked inhibition of grandiose expression. Mature idealization was defined as stable self-esteem accompanied by the ability to choose and implement one's goals. Immature/malfiinctioning idealization was defined as a desire for merger with powerful others, lack of goals, fatigue, or fear of commitment to goals. Items were written so that endorsement would reflect "mild-to-moderate forms of immature self-expression "(p.223).
'l.cst-retest reliability over a two-week interval was adequate for lwth scales. Grandiosity displayed a reliability coefficient of .80 and idealization was .76. Internal stability was demonstrated by tests of internal consistency which yielded alpha coefficients of .76 and .81 for grandiosity and idealization, respectively. 'l'wo significant factors were found to account for 86% of the variance. Recause of the nature of the content of the items that remained after the item-selection procedures, the scales were renamed Superiority and Goal Instability. For example, a typical Superiority scale item is: "I know that I have more natural talents than most," whereas a typical Goal Instability item reads: "After a while, I lose sight of my goals" (p. 225). Concurrent validity estimates were obtained by correlating the scales with eight measures: Age, self-esteem, introversion/extraversion,a career decision scale, an Interest Pattern Maturity Index, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, social desirability, and a Personal Con~petenciesInventory. Not surprisingly, Superiority displayed a moderate correlation (.54) with the NPI, and a negative correlation with introversion (-.40), which suggested a generally gregarious social style which the authors deemed to be an immature form of grandiosity. O n e surprise relationship was the insignificant correlation between Superiority and self-esteem (.09). 'This presents something of a paradox given that the NI'I tends to correlate highly with inflated self esteem (and this scale certainly does reflect a superior, arrogant attitude), all of which suggests that what the Superiority scale may actually measure is an aggressive variation of the mirror-hungry type (an overtly exhibitionistic, and possibly superior manner accompanied by labile self-esteem). As predicted, Goal Instability correlated negatively with self-esteem (-.64) and personal competencies (-.48). The authors interpret this pattern as reflecting the predicted fatigueldepletion and lack of goals. Overall, endorsement of Goal Instability items was associated with isolate-type activities, a lack of career decisiveness, and an overall instability andlor lack of goals.
'l'hc main problcnl with thcsc two scales has to d o with conceptual breadth ancl reprcsentativcncss. Roth scales are based on a small sample of an extremely diverse rangc of behaviors associated with deficits with the grandiose and idealizing sectors of the self, a point with which the authors agree. 'l'he Superiority scale does appear to cover the broadest spectrum of the two scales, but the Goal Instability scale presents some real problems. 'l'hc Goal Instability scale represents a somewhat tangential reading of what could be loosely called the ideal-hungry construct, expressed as a continuum ranging from healthy goalsetting ideals to a complete lack of direction. Although the ideal-related rationale is conceptually correct, it represents but one of several possible continua within the construct, and not by any means the most central. A subsequent validation study by Kobbins(1989) suggested that the Superiority scale is closely related to Kohut's mirror-hungry personality (this is true only in the broadest sense), in that it reflects a pattern of gregariousness, interpersonal exploitiveness, and impulsivity. 'I'he Goal Instability scale was found to be related to social withdrawal, depression, and a lack of ambitions and goals, a pattern commensurate with the interpersonal stance described by Kohut and Wolfs "contactshunning" personality, which reflects not the type of personality - mirror, ideal or twinship -
but rather the extent or intensity of the need-state (Robbins, 1989, Kohut & Wolf, 1978).
As Slyter ( 1 989) indicates, these drawbacks should not obscure the utility these scales present for assessing adjustment to college life, especially in terms of the appearance of mild narcissistic disturbances in response to stress. Another attempt to operationalize Kohut's theories is Lapan and Patton's (1986) Pseudoautonomy and Peer-Group Dependence scales, which were developed to assess narcissistic disturbances in the grandiosity and idealization sectors in an adolescent sample. T h e authors developed two forced-choice, self report scales that displayed high scale reliability and factorial independence. The Pseudoautonomy scale was deemed to represent "the adolescent's defensive independence and nonconformity" whereas the I'eerGroup Dependence scale was inferred to assess "the adolescent's defensive reliance on, and
need for assurance from, friends" (p. 141) . 130th scales were presumed to rcprescnt unliealthy narcissistic behavior patterns employed by adolesce~itsto maintain thc-ir sense of sclf during this turbulent developnlental phase (1.apan & I'atton, 1986). f3ccause these scales seem to represent very specific behaviors and attitudes that resemble some of the indices of self-fragmentation outlined in Kohut and Wolfs (1978) self-disorder typology, they may not actually measure pathological responses as the authors suggest, but rather, a contextually "appropriate" means of maintaining self-cohesion for the normal yet narcissisticallyvulnerable person whose self fragments and reintegrates in the process of adolescent psychic growth. Thus, this scale may misinterpret certain adolescent behaviors as being pathological. A related argument has been put forth as to why the MM1'1 should never be administered to adolescents, as their age-appropriate responses may appear pathological in an adult context (Graham, 1990). T h e Inventory of Self I'sychology (Slyter, 1989) constitutes the most recent and theoretically-congruent attempt to measure Kohut's theory of the bipolar self and its functions with a self-report measure. T h e author set out to extend the measurement of Kohutian narcissism beyond previous attempts to operationalize the bipolar self construct by constructing scales that capture both healthy and defensive narcissism in the bipolar self. Healthy narcissism is defined as the self's healthy capacities and adaptive functions, whereas defensive narcissism is defined as the patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviors that attempt to cover up weaknesses in the self (p.43). This strategy led to the construction of four scale dimensions: T h e Healthy Grandiose Self, the Defensive Grandiose Self, the Healthy Idealized Parent Image, and the Defensive Idealized Parent Image. 'The study's main goal is to design an instrument that comes as close as possible to capturing "the multidimensional nature of the self and the comprehensiveness of Kohut's psychology of the self paradigm" (Slyter, 1989, p.43). N o small task.
A somewhat abbreviated description of the scales is as follows: T h e Healthy Grandiose Self is "that aspect of the self that refers to the attainment of realistic and stable
positive self-esteem" (p.55), generally characterized by the capacity to ell joy oneself;
express healthy assertiveness; engage in activities that reflect realistic ambitions and goals; have abundant energy; and display resiliency in the face of disappointnlcnt. 'l'he lkfensive (irandiosc Sclf refers to "that aspect of the self which is expressed through frequent ups and downs in self-esteem" (p. 56), the belief that one is perfect, superior, or unique; the ~leedfor attention and approval; fantasies of perfection and domination; reactive arrogance, the use of manipulative tactics to get needs met; vulnerable self-esteem; and difficulty in accepting praise. 'l'he Healthy Idealized Parent Inlace is "that aspect of the self which is expressed through a capacity for enthusiasm and healthy admiration for the realistic qualities of others" (p.57) characterized by the ability to regulate inner tension states and effectively self-soothe oneself when necessary; displays empathy, humor; accepts one's own limitations; and possesses a system of idealized goals values and ambitions. 'The Defensive Idealized Parent Image describes "that aspect of the self which refers to a need to look up to important others, live through them, and feel attached to their greatness/power/perfection" (p.57). This also includes reactive criticism, sarcasm, or
depression either when disappointed by the the idealized one, or because of envy for other's accomplishments, reliance on others for a sense of confidence, strength, direction and calm; and the tendency to react with depression or withdrawal in response to separations from others, (Slyter, 1989, p.57-58). Subscale items were derived from the features listed above, all based on books, articles and case studies by Kohut and other self psychology sources. 'The final version of the inventory has fifteen items per dimension, and scoring is based on a six-point forcedchoice scale.Test reliability was established with a moderate to high level of internal consistency (alphas range from .79-.89), and test-retest reliability ranged from r.84- r.87. Convergent and discriminant validity was assessed by correlating the four subscales with a) SAT scores (with the expectation of a positive relationship with the healthy subscales), b) the NPI, c) the Superiority and Goal Instability scales, and d) the Marlowe-Crown Social
1)csirahility scale. A criterion validity study compared therapist ratings with clicrit scores o n the four dimensions. In general this last study did not show support for criterion-related
validity. What follows is a brief synopsis of the most salicnt results of the convergent and discriminant validity study. Recause the Superiority scale is purported to reflect a lessmature form of grandiose narcissism, i t was expected to show a high correlation with the Ikfcnsive Grandiose Self subscale. Instcad, the Superiority scale displayed a modest positive correlation (.20) with the Healthy Grandiose self subscale and a low yet significant correlation (. 12) with the Defensive Grandiose Self subscale. All other correlations were in the expected directions, for example, the Goal Instability scale correlated .68 with both Defensive subscales, and -.55 and -.44 with the Healthy subscales, respectively. Given these data, the question remains: if the HGS subscale is supposed to measure healthy rather than defensive grandiosity, then why does it show a positive correlation with the Superiority scale? T h e short answer is most likely that defensive and healthy narcissism d o share some common features, in particular, high self-esteem, and if the HGS subscale does not adequately discriminate between healthy and defensive selfesteem, that would explain the weak positive correlation. It is not surprising then, that although it was expected that the DGS subscale would show a modest positive correlation with the NPI, a negative correlation emerged(-.21). T h e NPI also showed a modest positive correlation with the HGS subscale (-.39),further supporting the notion that the H G S subscale either shared common features with defensive self-esteem, or, like the Superiority scale, it really does assess an immature, arrogant grandiose stance (given that in a self psychology context, the NPI measures defensive rather than healthy self esteem). In her critique of the MCMI narcissism subscale, Slyter cites Auerbach (1984) as stating that one of the potential problems with many narcissism scales is that they may only tap the defensive layers of self-esteem, and it may very well be true for the H G S scale also.
Overall, Slyter's ( 1 989) Inventory of Self I'sychology does show adequate reliability, but insufficient validity to be of use for this proposed study, which is unfortunate considering the obvious similarity between the 1)efensive Grandiose Self subscale and the mirror-hungry personality, or betwecn the 1)efensive Idealized I'arcnt Image and the ideal-hungry type. Slyter outlines some of the scale's drawbacks, in particular, that the I)GS subscale probably docs not measure grandiosity, and because its items reflect a "wanting confirmation from others" theme, it more likely reflects a 1)efensive Idealized Parent subscale theme, a repression of grandiose needs, low selfesteem (Slyter, 1989), or a contact-shunning stance. This is noteworthy, because Robbins (1989) suggested that the Goal Instability scale probably reflects the contact-shunning stance, and Slyter found a correlation of .68 between the I)GS subscale and the Goal Instability scale. Having read Slyter's conclusions, i t is apparent that, given the time to redo the experiment, the scales could be reconstructed to measure what they are purported to measure. However, this scale, like the ones that precede it, poses too many conceptual inconsistencies to be useful as a basis for validation of Kohut's narcissistic personality types. As a kind of coda to this review, there is one other area of research that bears mentioning. Recently, there have been attempts to locate Kohut's bipolar self within existing experimental contexts. An important current issue in narcissism research is the differentiation between what are referred to as overt/phallic and covert/hypersensitive narcissistic styles (Wink, 1992), neither of which are ever mentioned in the literature without making some sweeping reference to Kernberg and Kohut's formulations in the same breath. Overt/phallic narcissism is captured by those instruments based on the DSM-111 narcissistic personality disorder model, such as the NPI or MCMI NI'D subscale, and is generally described by that group of attributes featuring: Grandiosity, high selfconfidence, energy and self-esteem, and extreme egocentrism (Kaskin & Novacek, 1989, Wink, 1992). Covert/hypersensitive narcissism is characterized by the inhibition of, and
therefore concealed sense of grandiosity, exhibitionism and egoccntrici ty, accornpanicd hy a
introverted, fatigued stance (Wink, 1992), and has received thc most support
for its existence from the clinical literature of Kohut and Kernberg, although Wink(l992) contends that the Narcissistic I'ersonality Ilisorder Scale created by Ashby, Ixe And I h k e ( 1 979), docs also measure it. In both instances, whether overt or covert, i t is assumed that some sort of defensivelpathological process is at work. Raskin, Novacek, and Hogan (1 991 a) make a similar claim by arguing for the existence of two defensive self-esteem maintenance styles, which they label "warriors" and "worriers." (p.915). The warrior represents the defensive narcissist for whom self-esteem is maintained by the aggressive pursuit of victory in a life viewed as a series of competitions, and seeks to affiliate himlherself with people who serve to enhance hislher sense of power and dominance. 'The worrier however, constantly searches for acceptance and social approval, and strives to be liked. T h e worrier therefore represents the defensive narcissist for whom the exhibitionistic grandiose strategy has failed, leading to self-doubt and extensive reliance on external supports for self-esteem maintenance (Kaskin, Novacek i k Hogan, 1991). It does not require much of a conceptual leap to link the warrior with the overtlphallic narcissist, and the worrier with the covertlhypersensitive type. 'These two constructs appear in a slightly different guise in yet another study by Raskin, Novacek and Hogan (1991 b), which claims to differentiate between Kohut's grandiose and idealizing aspects of the self by examining the relationship between narcissism, self-esteem and defensive self-enhancement. Their results show that defensive self-enhancement (a means of regulating self-esteem) consists of two orthogonal components: grandiose self-enhancement (found to be related to narcissism) and social desirability (not related to narcissism). 'They suggest that people pursue self-esteem in two ways, one of which reflects a classic 'narcissist' personality style (which the authors equate with a mirror-hungry, grandiose-exhibitionistic profile), and the other being a need for
approval and social acceptance (which they equate with the idealizing stance o f thc idcalhungry personality type). 'I'he parallels between this line of thinking and the warrior-overtlphallic narcissist, and the worrier-covcrt/hypersensitivenarcissist are obvious. Raskin et ul. ( 1 99 1 b) also claim that these two factors represent the two lines of personality development described by Kohut as Ambitions and Ideals. Convincing as their arguments may sound, conceptual dissimilarities prevent this matchmaking attempt. First, their measure of "mirroring narcissisrn"is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
- it
and the other scales used are
based o n the DSM-111 narcissistic personality disorder diagnostic entity - which is a heterogeneous and not purely Kohutian construct. Second, the social desirability dimension does to a certain extent represent the essence of the ideal-hungry type, but it represents a stance that is not specific as to whom one desires social acceptance from, a key aspect of the ideal-hungry personality. T h e defensive strategy represented by the desire to gain social acceptance is too indiscriminate to truly represent the ideal type, one which emphasizes a narcissistic dependence on particular individuals or conceptslentities. What they
appear to represent are 1) the arrogant, dominating narcissist (the warrior clearly
does not actually depend on other people so much as the ability to dominate them), and 2) the contact-shunning mirror-hungry type wherein mirror-needs are suppressed for fear that they will not be fulfilled. O n e clue to this misunderstanding may be that the aforementioned researcher's references to Kohut's work inevitably refers back to 1971 and 1977, a stage at which Kohut's thinking was still in its early stages. What this suggests is that their knowledge of self psychology may not be very sophisticated, and that a simple reading of Kohut and Wolfs (1 978) typology of self disorders or later case studies (Elson, 1985) would probably clarify the issues. T h e reader is asked to recall Rradlee and Emmons' (1992) cautionary statement, which essentially urges us to see that although the current generation of non-Kohutian
narcissism researchers may actually be discussing similar constructs, the connection between measures such as the NI'I and Kohut's theory is a tenuous one. LTnfortunately, thosc instruments that were designed to validate bipolar self constructs either lack sufficient validity or measure slightly different constructs than the narcissistic personality types to be used for construct validation purposes. O n e also gets the impression that although many tried, no one actually "hit the mark" to the extent that they would have wished.
Methodolwy-
I . The Kesearch 0-uestion Kestated '1-his proposal outlines the construction of a sentence completion test and scoring manual designed to measure three nonpathological narcissistic personality types and thereby demonstrate that these three personality types may be detected in the student population. 'The psychometric properties of the test will be assessed through measures of reliability, and the three personality constructs will be assessed through measures of convergent and discriminant validity, as well as an analysis of factor structure. T h e scoring manual will be assessed with a measure of inter-rater reliability. A parallel measure referred to as the "Self-Rating Scales" was devised, which asks the subjects to rate the extent to which they resemble the protagonist in three brief narratives, each of which corresponds to a personality type.
11. Derivation of the Test Criteria
This section outlines the derivation of the measure's scoring criteria from Kohut and W o l f s (1 978) brief characterological descriptions of the mirror-, ideal-, and twinshiphungry narcissistic personality types. T o accomplish this, the general descriptions must be disassembled into their component partslcriteria in a systematic manner, which requires some sort of governing rule or template. This led to a criterion-selection rationale that
represents an attempt to maintain theoretical fidelity by employing the core clcmcnts of
,I
specific syndrome that Kohut observed in clinical practice as a criterion-selectio~idevice. It
was this syndrome that originally led Kohut to develop his psychology of the self. Kohut
and Wolf (1978) describe i t as follows: I t was clear from the outset that these patients arc c h a r a c t e r i d by a labile and, in particular, they are specific vulnerability: their self-esteem is ~~nusnally extremely sensitive to failures, disappointments and slights. I t was, however, not the scrutiny of the symptomatology but the process of treatment that illuminated the nature of the disturbance of these patients ... These patients reactivated certain speczfic narcissistic needs in the psychoanalytic situation, i .e. that they established ' narcissistic transferences', made effective psychoanalytic treatment possible. T h e psychopathological syndrome from which these patients suffer was designated as narcissistic personality disorder (p.413) [italics mine).
T h e foregoing excerpt describes Kohut's prototypical example of the narcissistic disorder syndrome as it appears in the analytic setting. For the purpose of this study two assumptions were made regarding this description: 1 ) That it represents self-psychology's definition of the "narcissistic personality" in the most general sense (i.e., applying to all interpersonal situations, not just the analytic setting), and as such it describes the central dynamic that underlies all expressions of narcissistic pathology, from the most benign to the most extreme; 2) More specifically, Kohut observes that this personality manifests as two key features: for such people, narcissistic needs become highly salient in significant interpersonal relationships, and that they display labile self esteem that is contingent on some aspect of need-fulfilment. T h e criteria selection method involves taking the latter two aspects of the narcissistic personality disorders (the behavioral expression of a particular narcissistic need and labile self esteem), and using them as a screening template to select the key criteria from the descriptions of the narcissistic personality types. Thus, if one looks only for these two features when deciding how to derive the criteria, it effectively reduces each characterological description to its most essential components, which for our purposes will constitute the key scoring criteria for the measure. Hence, the basic dynamic underlying pathological narcissism will be applied to the nonpathological personality types; that
which Kohut chscrved in the analytical situation will now be employed to assess a normal intcrpcrsonal stancc. '1'0 conclude, the criterion-selection methodology treats each charactcrological description as a source text from which three key interpersonal principles (the basic scoring criteria) can be derived.
I I I . 'l'heoretical Rases of the Test Criteria
What follows is a description of the means by which the test criteria were derived from the three personality types. For every personality type, the source text, three criteria abstracted from that text, as well as the rationale for the internal /hierarchical structure of each criterion-cluster are provided. Each will be introduced by a broader definition of the personality-type based on relevant ideas scattered throughout Kohut's writings as well as case material provided by some other self-psychology writers.
IV. T h e Mirror-Hungry Personality Criteria
'The mirror-hungry personality is best introduced in terms of the mirrortransference phcnomenon. Initially, Kohut (1971) described three types of mirror transference, the first being an attempt at archaic merger where the selfobject -- one's therapist, for example -- is experienced as an extension of the grandiose self, not unlike a kind of primary narcissism. T h e less-archaic alterego or twinship transference (at the time viewed as a type of mirror transference) involves experiencing another person as just like oneself. This transference type has since been recognized as distinct from the mirror transference (see Kohut, 1984). T h e third and least archaic form is the 'true' mirror transference wherein the other is seen as distinct from the self, and valued primarily for the appreciative responses they provide (admiration, etc.) (Elson, 1985). A 'true' mirror transference refers to a reactivation
-
in the therapeutic setting
-
of that phase in a child's
development when the parent's response to the infant's need for enthusiastic acknowledgment of all aspects of grandiose self-expression, as well as their ability to sharc in the child's enjoy~nentfulfills the infant's necd for acccptancc and confirmation of healthy wlf-csteem (Kohut, 1978). O f all the mirror transferences, the latter version most resembles the mirror-hungry personality. Thus, if we observe a person who expresses this need in a persistent Fashion through other people or, as in some cases, through one's children (Miller, 198 I ) , we can say that some sort of persistent attempt at need-fulfillment is at work. I t follows thcn, that we can conceptualize the mirror-transference in terms of behaviors in the broader interpersonal realm, wherein a person forever in search of appreciative responses may display an entire lifetime characterized by the search for selfobjects who can provide the necessary narcissistic supplies (Kohut, 1984). Conversely, such a person may carefully avoid seeking such responses, the need being so great that helshe recoils at the thought that one might not get the desired response (although not included in Kohut's description, it makes intuitive sense to include this nonpathological version of the "contact-shunning" dimension). Thus, when the 'true' mirror transference is generalized from the therapeutic to the interpersonal realm, it comes very close to accounting for the mirror-hungry personality type. Having provided something of a general introduction to the mirror-hungry type, we now turn to the specific task of explaining the derivation of the test criteria from the original text. Kohut and Wolfs (1978) brief description of the mirror-hungry personality follows: Mirror-hungry personalities thirst for selfobjects whose confirming and admiring responses will nourish the famished self. They are impelled to display themselves and to evoke the attention of others, trying to counteract, however fleetingly, their inner sense of worthlessness and lack of self-esteem. Some of them are able to establish relationships with reliably mirroring others that will sustain them for long periods. But most of them will not be nourished for long, even by genuinely accepting responses. Thus, despite their discomfort about their need to display themselves and despite their sometimes severe stage fright and shame they must go on trying to find new selfobjects whose attention and recognition they seek to induce. (p. 421)
'l'hc mirror-hungry personality type can be condensed into three principal features which form the basic scoring criteria. Ry employing the prescribed criteria-selection method, thc following criteria were derived from the Inore general characterological description:
1 .) lkhavioral nunifestation of the need:
Llisplays self to attract the attention of others.
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need:
Seeks out confirming and admiring responses.
3 .) Labile self-esteem:
a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
We now have a simple, explanatory set of criteria which retains the essential mirror-hungry dynamic: Kohut (1971) describes the mirror-hungry type as an attempt to maintain, albeit temporarily, the notion that "I am perfect" (p.27 ), an attempt to confer perfection upon the self that is apparent in the cause-and-effect sequence schematized by the criteria. In effect, the first criterion (displays self) represents the behavior one engages in to effect the second criterion (to receive confirming and admiring responses). If successful, the consequence of criteria one and two, is criterion three (temporary elevation of self-esteem), the only hitch being that criterion three contains the disappointment clause (the elevation of self-esteem always being temporary) that leads back to criterion one. Conversely, a person may display criteria one and two but not receive the desired response, in which case a state of low self-esteem would be the obvious result. If chronic, the latter case could lead to the contact-shunning version of the mirror-hungry personality type.
T h e mirror-hungry criteria form a hierarchical structure that arises from each criterion's relative prototypicality. Criteria one and two, because they both capture the essence of the classic narcissist stance, each independently represent the mirror-hungry
?.
prototype more completely than the third criterion. I he third criterion, although necessary
to the overall personality configuration, cannot on its own account for the character type; i t simply does not provide enough descriptive data, and on its own i t could conceivably apply to the other two personality-types. T h e mirror-hungry criteria-cluster therefore displays a hierarchical structure, as do the other two personality types. Although the third criterion carries relatively less significance in terms of its descriptive power, its presence or absence actually defines the nature of the personality profile as a whole. Hecause it constitutes the "disappointment clause" upon which the mirror-hungry type's perception of their self-esteem depends, endorsement of third criterion sentence stems represents the deciding factor as to whether a given scoring profile can be interpreted as truly mirror-hungry. This raises an important question: What does it mean if a test subject endorses the first two criteria (exhibitionism and the search for admiring responses), but not the third criterion (labile self-esteem)? O n e way to answer this is to say that the mirror-hungry type depicts a personality constellation that may or may not be completely observable in all of its aspects, and it is quite possible for it to be operating to a substantial degree in a particular person, and yet have one or more of the criteria-behaviors obscured. An example already mentioned is the contact-shunning version, in which case the behaviors described by the first two criteria may not be in evidence even though the need for mirroring is just as great. However, regarding the presence or absence of the third "disappointment clause", there appear to be three possibilities. First, if a subject endorses all three criteria, then it can be assumed that their response to the measure matches the profile described by Kohut's mirror-hungry type. Second, if a subject were to endorse the first two criteria, but not the third, one could assume that this profile depicts a person for whom mirror-relations are important, but their sense of well being does not overly depend on the fulfillment of that need. 'The third possibility is in some ways the most problematic: Here the first two criteria receive strong endorsement, while the third criterion stems are completed in such a
way as to indicate sustained, high self-esteem. 'l'his possibility is mo\t certainly not Kohut's mirror-hungry profile, although what i t does suggest is that there arc two types of mirror-hungry narcissists: one who displays labile self-esteem (the true mirror-hungry type) and another who employs the exhibitionistic strategy but displays high self-esteem. 'l'hc empirical basis for such a distinction will be discussed in the concluding portion of this section.
Concludinp Kemarks
To be mirror-hungry suggests a persistent attempt to convince oneself of one's own grandiosity via exhibitionistic strategies. Thus the essence of the mirror hungry type seems to be best captured by the traits of exhibitionism and grandiosity. Kohut's discussion of the mirror transference dynamic, exemplified by the egocentric phrase "I am ..." concurs with this point (Elson, 1985). There is however, a catch, betrayed by the word "convince." As mentioned above, the third criterionldisappointment clause ensures that what we observe in the mirror-hungry type is really an insecure narcissist; if a subject responds in a way that endorses the third criterion, then we can say that this person appears to match the mirrorhungry profile to the extent that their self-esteemlnarcissistic equilibrium fluctuates, and that their "resting state" (in the absence of external input) is dysphoric. If the subject does not endorse the third criterion, then perhaps their defensive exhibitionistic strategy really does work and they d o experience high self esteem. There is some empirical evidence to support this, much of it gathered in conjunction with the extensively-validated measure of DSM-111-based "normal" narcissism, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979, Raskin & Terry, 1988). In a study of narcissistic self-esteem management, Raskin, et al. (1 991) found that the variance common to hostility, grandiosity, dominance (all features common to the arrogant narcissist style) and narcissism is strongly related to subject's reported self-esteem, which suggests that the
deknsivc strategies do occasionally work quite well, or, as Kohut suggests, labile self esteem may be well concealed by a grandiose exterior that is sufficiently convincing both to the self and others. It is after all, a strategy to maintain defensive self-esteem. Such a defensive strategy does not pose a problem for our self-report measure, mainly because those arrogant narcissists who somehow manage t o function among other people are in the minority. However, just as the NPI detects this type of subject, i t is presumed that this proposed measure will also, and as with the NI'I, there is no way to detect whether the strategy employed is defensive or healthy. For example, if the first two mirror-hungry criteria were employed as a kind of defensivelcompensatory strategy to prevent or disguise the presence of low self-esteem (the way Kohut describes it), one would never be able to access the underlying sense of worthlessness via self-report because i t would be masked by a loud, aggressive, domineering sort of self-esteem. If this is true - and Kohut's interpretation of the underlying dynamic of the arrogant narcissist as a defense against narcissistic vulnerability certainly suggests that it is - then this latter version of the mirror-hungry type appears to have profoundly misled an entire generation of researchers who have only begun to untangle the subclinical narcissistic personality. Bradlee and Emmons' (1992) remark regarding the chaotic state of narcissism research indirectly supports this notion, as does Auerbach's (1984) warning that narcissism inventories probably only access the defensive aspects of the self (cited in Slyter, 1989). It is important to demarcate a boundary between this proposed research endeavor
and the greater body of narcissism research which appears to be for the most part based on heterogenous definitions of "narcissism." Unlike the ideal- and twinship-hungry types, the mirror-hungry personality does at least superficially resemble the personality profile measured by the N.P.I., and i t is of critical importance that the insecure style described by the mirror-hungry personality be distinguished from the more aggressive narcissistic stance assessed by measures based on subclinical versions of the DSM-111 narcissistic personality disorder. Just how the mirror-hungry type will appear on the actual measure
rcmains speculative at this point, although a well-constructed sentence conlplcrion test w o d d seem to offer an advantage over other types of self-report measures in terms of minimizing self-report bias that would otherwise conceal a subject's attempts to convince the researcher of hidher grandiosity. 'l'wo forms of the mirror-hungry type will be utilized here: the "true" mirrorhungry type -- that is, a respondent who displays high scores on all three aspects of the personality, and those respondents who resemble the true (insecure) mirror-hungry type, bur d o not endorse stems based on the third/disappointment criterion. In the latter case i t is assumed that these profiles would fall into two groups: Those who simply have strong mirror needs, and those who have strong mirror needs yet maintain a facade of high self esteem as a defensive strategy.
V. T h e Ideal-Hungry Personality Criteria
In Culture of Narcissism, Christopher 1,asch (1 978) cites Susan Stern, whose memoirs of political life in the 1960's provide a vivid example of the ideal-hungry personality: When she tried to evoke her state of mind during the 1968 demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, she wrote instead about the state of her health. " I felt good, I could feel my body supple and strong and slim, and ready to run miles, and my legs moving sure and swift under me ... I felt real." Kepeatedly she explains that association with important people made her feel important ... When the leaders she idealized disappointed her, as they always did, she looked for new heroes to take their place, hoping to warm herself in their "brilliance" and to overcome her feeling of insignificance. In their presence, she occasionally felt strong and solid - only to find herself repelled, when disenchantment set in again .... (pp. 7-81 Here we have an example of someone who is sustained by potent idealizable selfobjects in the form of not only individual people, but an entire political movement. This is precisely the dynamic that Kohut (1 971) captures in the phrase "you are perfect and I am part of you"
(p. 27); that is to say, one who gains a sense of completeness by merger-through-associatim with a source of strength and calm. Such a person may not cxpcrience a massive depletion of self-esteem in response to minor selfobject-related disappointments, yet the very prcscncc of an idcalizable entity does provide an exhilarating feeling of vitality. I t is the adult analogue to the infant's postulated experience: "Since all bliss and power reside in the idealized object, the child feels empty and powerless when he is separated from i t and he attempts, therefore, to maintain a continuous union with it" (Kohut, 1978, p. 479). As adults, "our ideals are our internal leaders; we love them and are longing to reach them" (Ibid. p.437), or in more clinical terms, as Kohut describes in the case of Mr. B.: "... the analyst's presence increased and solidified ... self-esteem and thus, secondarily, improved
... ego functioning and efficiency "(Ibid. p. 485). As with the mirror-hungry type, ideal-based selfobject relations are familiar - we all experience such feelings to varying degrees. But like the mirror-hungry type, the idealhungry personality suggests a flaw: both Kohut's (as we will see below) and Lasch's examples fall within the compass of a "normal" narcissism, yet they both express the notion that such a person lacks a certain life-enhancing element - it is all in the search
-
the
object one finally grasps can only wither in the light of that which was initially hoped for. Although not a portrait of crippling pathology, it does represent a certain frustrating slant on how one finds fulfillment in the world. Kohut and Wolfs ( 1 978) description of the ideal-hungry personality is strikingly similar to Lasch's evocative example: Ideal-hungry personalities are forever in search of others whom they can admire for their prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, or moral stature. They can experience themselves as worthwhile only so long as they can relate to selfobjects to whom they can look up to. Again, in some instances, such relationships last a long time and are genuinely sustaining to both individuals involved. In most cases, however, the inner void cannot be forever filled by these means. The ideal-hungry feels the persistence of the structural defect and, as a consequence of this awareness, he begins to look for - and of course he inevitably finds - some realistic deficits in his God. T h e search for new idealizable selfobjects is then continued, always in the hope that the next great figure to whom the ideal-hungry attaches himself will not disappoint him. (p. 461)
'l'he ideal-hungry criteria were derived in the same manner as the mirror-hungry criteria, with two need-manifestations and one indication of labile self-esteem:
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need:
Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, or views.
2.) Rehavioral manifestation of the need:
Tends to find fault in, and is therefore easily disappointed by idealized1 " p e d e s t a l i d " ' other. Judgemental stance leads to end of the "relationship." (Disappointment clause)
3.) 1,abile Self-esteem:
Experiences self as worthwhile only so long as helshe can relate to the admired one.
T h e hierarchical structure of the ideal-hungry type differs markedly from the mirrorhungry criteria. T h e most important difference has to do with the labelling of the criteria. If organized the same way as the mirror criteria, it would be necessary to group the second and third ideal-hungry criteria together into a two-faceted disappointment clause (as with the mirror type), in effect, creating a two-component profile. However, the second and third ideal-hungry criteria are conceptually separate aspects of the overall dynamic (whereas the dual facets of the third mirror-criterion are interrelated). l'he third ideal criterion captures the labile self-esteem component, but the second criterion, although
labelled a behavioral manifestation of the need, is only an indirect expression of the need, and more an expression of the way the need is met. This second criterion would be more accurately labelled "behavioral expression of the dynamic," but because this dynamic describes part of the need-fulfillment strategy, a d because it is is necessary to complete the ideal-hungry profile, I have have chosen to retain the same labelling pattern as for the other two personality types. 2'0 reframe the above argument, the reason that the second criterion ('Easily disappointed by...') is more an expression of the overall dynamic than a direct
manifestation of the need for an idcalizablc selfobject bccomes apparent when we examine the factor that contributes to thc chronicity of this personality profile, which, as in the mirror-hungry type, depends on the presence of the disappointment clause. '1-he critical
difference here is that the disappointment clause lies not in the area of labile self-estcem but rather in the perception of the expected idealizahility of the selfobject, which is explained by criterion two. T h e dynamic represented by the second criterion suggests that the need for an idealizable presence is so great that the ideal-hungry person carries in thcir psyche a kind of amorphous ideal. Once an idealizable other is located, helshe becomes prematurely "enhanced" and so becomes that ideal in the observer's mind, such that helshe is installed as the perfect selfobject to meet the ideal-hungry person's needs. The only problem is that the real person can never compare to the newly-installed selfobjectlenhanced replica, so disapointment is inevitable. Although for both the mirror and ideal types the narcissistic supplies are externally-supplied (to the extent that the designated selfobject is viewed as a sustaining presence), with the ideal-hungry, the perception of the disappointment lies with the external object, whereas for the mirror-type the inability to maintain any sense of self satisfaction seems to come from an inner dissatisfaction (the inability to properly assimilate the admiring responses), rather than a perceived devaluation of the anticipated perfection of the selfobject. In either case they both display the same ephemeral needsatisfaction. T o use perhaps a stronger metaphor than is necessary, it is as if one were in the position of having to bail out a sinking boat with a slow leak: O n e may get most of the water out for a short time, but the boat will always begin sinking again, and so the task continues.
Kohut suggested that to be ideal-hungry (as described by the idealizing transference) expresses the feeling that "I am nothing, but at least there is something great and perfect outside myself ... [and] ... even though I am nothing, 1 will become as great as it is" (Elson, 1985, p.79). It is easy to see then, that the mirror- and ideal-hungry types
yearn for the same lost sense of grandiose perfection, but the ideal hungry simply tries to find it in someone else, hence Kohut's phrase "you are perfect and I am part of you."
VI. T h e T w i n s h b - H u n ~ r yI'ersonality Criteria
For much of self-psychology's evolution, the alter-egoltwinship construct maintained a subordinate status to the "twin poles of ambitions and ideals" that comprise the bipolar self. It was only late in Kohut's writings that he recognized twinship not as a subcategory of the mirror transference, as it was originally conceived, but as a completely independent selfobject need domain (Kohut, 1984). However, he never made a semantic distinction between the terms "alterego" and "twinship," and so tended to use the terms interchangeably, when in fact they now refer to different concepts. Detrick (1986) later split the construct, insisting that although both alterego and twinship transferences manifest as a focus on selfobjects who provide a sustaining alikeness-experience, the alterego dimension suggests a group dynamiclidentification, whereas twinship refers to a sameness or alikeness in a dyadic relationship. Given that Detrick's distinction makes both logical and intuitive sense, what Kohut originally named the alterego hungry personality should, in light of this theoretical development, be properly referred to as a twinship-hungry personality. Following Kohut's lead, Detrick (1 985) accounts for the alterego dynamic with the phrase: "We are..." (p. 242)(as compared with the mirror-hungry "I am perfect" or the ideal-hungry "you are perfect and I am part of you").(Kohut, 1971, p.27), although one
could sce how this phrase could describe both an alterego or twinship relationship. 13ecause alterego and twinship experiences are parallel entities, they share enough common features to justify introducing the twinship-hungry personality with a discussion of the alterego experience, i t being a more generalized example of twinship. Arguably, many of the following alterego examples will also contain a strong twinship component. Alter-ego relations constitute the most basic of human experiences: the knowledge that permeates the very grain of our being, that one is "a human being among other human beings "(Kohut, 1984, p. 200). Kohut conceived of two alterego experiences, one pathological(discussed below as an type of transference), and the other, normal. 'I'he healthy version emerges from the infant's experience of a sense of security that comes from belonging to, and participating in, the the world of human sounds and smells and goingson. Both the alterego and twinship experiences depend very much on available support and stimulation in the mirror and ideal sectors, and as such represent the repertoire of skills and experiences we develop in conjunction with other people (Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984). In his last work, Kohut (1984) wrote with some feeling on this topic, providing such examples as the image of a little girl kneading bread alongside her mother in the kitchen, or the boy who works next to his father in the basement workshop. Perhaps the most profound example Kohut offered was of the patient who, for a time required only the analyst's silent presence, a subtlc example of a need we all share: to have experiences that provide a kind of
unspoken emotional support through shared activities (1984).
Neither the alterego nor twinship experiences require a parent-child type of relationship, as is the case with the foregoing examples. Certainly, if an adult craves such relationships on a chronic basis, then the need is probably archaic, but in general, alcerego needs are an integral part of every stage of our lives. For example, our parents or teachers teach us to tie our shoelaces, but our friends probably learn that skill at about the same time, which makes it a collective experience (in kindergarten the whole class fumbles together to get their shoes on before leaving school at the end of the day). As we get older
we may enjoy shared identifications through team sports or any number of group affiliations, and as adults we can gain a sense of satisfactiol~through membership in our chosen profession. Healthy alterego experiences are therefore best represented by
relationships characterized by equality rather than a parent-child dynamic. 'l'he most universal and perhaps the most profound alterego satisfaction a person can experience is to share a common spoken and written language with other people. For all of us, learning a language in infancy must have a parent-child relationship component, but only at the outset. Once we have acquired even a rudimentary grasp, we use it in all our interactions for the rest of our lives. Kecently, the evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith (1992) suggested that the shared ability to use language to work toward common goals is the one factor that makes the human race a colony animal, thereby providing an example of the alterego experience in the broadest possible sense. Alterego experiences therefore d o support that repertoire of skills, both psychological and concrete, that we develop in conjunction with others. An introduction to the twinship-hungry personality type requires brief mention of the twinship transference phenomenon: the expression of twinship needs in the context of a highly significant therapeutic relationship "in which the damaged intermediate area of talents and skills seeks a selfobject that will make itself available for the reassuring experience of essential alikeness" (Kohut, 1984, p. 193). T h e form a twinship transference takes depends on when the damage to the self occurred, that is, whether the expressed need is archaic or mature. The archaic-type transferences manifest as a need for a merger with, and complete control over, the selfobject (like an adult manifestation of primary narcissism), whereas the more mature versions center on a need for twinship alikeness (Detrick, 1986, Lothstein & Zimet, 1988, Wahba, 1991). Kohut's twinship-hungry (formerly alterego-hungry) personality type most resembles the mature twinship transference with a minor element of the inflexibility characteristic of a more archaic need:
Alter-ego personalities need a relationship with a selfobject that by conforming to the self s appearance, opinions, values confirms the existence, the reality of the self. At times the alter-ego personalities,too, may be able to form lasting friendships - relationships in which each of the partners experiences the feelings of the other as if it had been experienced by himself ... Rut again, in most instances, the inner void cannot be filled permanently by the twinship. 2'he alterego-hungry discovers that the other is not himself and, as a consequence of this discovery, begins to feel estranged from him. It is thus characteristic for most of these relationships to be short-lived. Like the mirror- and ideal-hungry, the alterego-hungry is prone to look restlessly for one replacement after another ( p. 46 1462). Despite Kohut's insistence that these personality types represent variants of normal personality (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), this profile, although not pathological, does read like a description of someone who would benefit from at least some psvchotherapy. As with the mirror and ideal personality types, the dynamic displayed by the character profile probably falls in the midrange of normal functioning, with the one qualification that the disappointment clause ("the inner void cannot be filled permanently by the twinship") ensures its chronicity. Speculation aside, it is not really possible to state with any certainty whether any of these personality types really do represent an average expectable level of narcissistic maintenance, or whether they fall into that grey area between pathology and normal functioning. A general hypothesis regarding the nature of the twinship-hungry personality will be offered in the concluding section As a general illustration, one can say that twinship and alter-ego experiences constitute a continuum. At the healthy end we have the child learning to knead bread alongside hislher parent. This is someone who as an adult might find much happiness and emotional fulfillment in friendships with people with whom they share common interests and activities. As an example of a less adaptive manifestation of the need (more like the twinship-hungry personality), Wahba (1991) tells of a client who feels happy and relaxed when she notices similarities between her analyst and herself, but when she perceives some real differences, becomes bitterly sarcastic. T h e twinship dynamic is surely at work here,
and if we are to locate i t in the greater cot~tinuum,Wahba's clinical cxdmplc may come close, although Kohut's description does not convey as much brittleness (and hcncc archaic tone) as does Wahba's portrait of the twinship transferencc. For the sake of further illustration and a truly pathological example of the need for a twin, Iletrick (1985) suggests that at the far end of the continuum, one might find a quasi-schizoid adult whose incomplete self-structure dictates an almost autistic need for sameness in his or her designated selfobject, who in this case would be more accurately deemed a dehumanized object. As a kind of parallel case, another important example of a twinship is the creative alliance, a generative twinship based on the interaction of similar and complenlentary features. Kelationships such as these are easily identified when the creative output of two people working in tandem represents a true example of the "whole being greater than the sum of the parts." Kohut (1984) evokes the creative friendship between Wordsworth and Coleridge as just such an alliance where two dissimilar personalities linked by a common bond (their unparalleled poetic sensiblities and artistic energy) had a profound effect on each other's artistic output. In more recent times, anyone who has been a fan of rock 'n roll music in the last twenty five years (in particular, since the "British invasion") will note that in many cases, creative partnerships tend to offer the best music , and when band members depart for solo careers, the creative well dries up.
I have provided these examples as a means of locating what may at first glance appear to be a somewhat experience-distant personality type in an experience-near context. T h e twinship-hungry category can present as the least intuitively accessible, and the most unusual of the personality types, when it is probably the most ubiquitous. However, even if one can easily bring to mind people that fit the twinship-hungry mold, in comparison to the ideal or mirror types, this personality type in the pure sense (in Kohut's abstracted description) just does not strike one as being all that common. There may be a good explanation for this. Twinship needs most likely appear in this form only when a person
experiences some sort of narcissistic disequilibrium (Elson 1 C)t37),and even then rhc
expression of the need could be very subtle. Case studies of non-detrimental twinship alliances in psychotherapy (1,othstein & Zitnet, 1988) support both Kohut's (1984) suggcqtion that this need is often expressed silently, as well as the hypothesis that twinships tend to occur at specitic developmental junctures wherein one feels a need to shore up one's sense of self/narcissistic equilibrium through identification with another (von Broernbsen, 1988, Lothstein & Zimet, 1988). A fairly common, and far more transient exanlple of the twinship(or alterego) need can occur when we are in unfamiliar circumstances while on a trip to a foreign country, and we find ourselves feeling more than a little lost and wanting familiar "landmarks", not of the geographical but social variety. How we express this need may be not nearly as overt as the expression of mirroring or idealizing needs, and it may be for this very reason that it has been infrequently discussed as a clinical phenomenon outside of Kohut's writings. Although there is no shortage of discussion of it in theory (Detrick, 1985, 1986, Shane & Shane, 1989, Ulnlan & Paul, 1989, Kainer, 1990), clinical case studies are sparse (Wolf, 1988, Lothstein &
%inlet, 1988, Wahba, 1991, Brothers, 1993, and Martinez, 1993, being some of the exceptions). Similarly, the few attempts to validate Kohut's constructs experimentally have ignored both the alter-ego and twinship phenomena altogether (Patton, Connor, & Scott, 1982, Patton & Robbins, 1982, Shulman & Ferguson, 1988, Slyter, 1989). Although this might suggest that investigation of the alterego type would be less than fruitful, it is preferable to take to heart Kohut's (1984) suggestion that this need-domain bears examination. T h e following scoring criteria were derived according to the same method applied to the mirror and ideal personality types:
Ikhavioral manifestation of the need:
Sccks rclationshipsl fricndships/aftiliarioii with others who conform to hislhcr own appearance, opinions or values.
l~ehavioralmanifestation of the need:
'l'ends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which hc/shc experiences the other's feelings as hislhcr own.
1,abilc self-esteem:
Recomes disillusioned (or displays anger, or a conlplete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when hclshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought.(C)isappointment clause)
'The twinship criteria follow a pattern similar to the ideal-hungry type. As with the ideal-type the perception of the disappointment clause lies with a perceived flaw in the sclfs internal (selfobject) representation of the person upon whom narcissistic stability depends (an unacceptable incompatibility between the self and selfobject). Although the second criterion describes alter-ego relationships as somewhat emotionally symbiotic, suggesting that one's moods would be dependent on one's partner, this is certainly not the same as saying that one's self-esteem depends on the partner's emotional state. Therefore the labile self-esteem factor must reside in the "disappointment clause" which is in effect the personality characteristic that would cause such a person to frequently end relationships, in turn affecting affectlself-esteem. For the twinship-hungry personality, self esteem as well as what some suggest is a need for a sense of security-through-sameness (Iktrick,
1986, lathstein & Zimet, 1988, Kohut, 1984) appears to depend on the very existence of the relationship which the narcissistically-needy person orchestrates. As with the mirrorand ideal-hungry types, the twinship-hungry person is faced with a cyclical dynamic characterized by the ultimately futile task of trying to maintain a sense of self-cohesion through others.
All of the above factors suggest a hierarchical structure that supports a scoring rationale. Recause the first criterion refers to the search for the specific relationship, it is prototypical of the twinship profile. Criterion three is also prototypical because it
explicitly describes the person's strong response to the absence of that typc of relationship. 'l'hc second criterion describes a state of affairs that exists in many rcla:ionships and rhercforc cannot be considered prototypical.
(:oncludinq Remarks
'I'he twinship-hungry personality typc represents a slightly different and, as stated above, subtle sort of narcissistic need fulfillment. Rather than searching for an external narcissistic supply source, the very nature of the twinship seems to imply that what one wants is a replica or affirmation of what one already possesses. Lothstein and %inlet (1 388) in their article on alterego and twinship needs among the elderly, suggest that the
twinship dynamic tends to emerge in response to profound alterations in a person's established life pattern, as a means of maintaining previous narcissistic equilibrium. Kohut might assert that whether a twinship is pathological depends on the context, and the "increased dependency needs" that Lothstein and Zimet ( 1 988, p. 3 1 5) men tion, act as an inevitable destabilizing context in which a twinship alliance is a normal and healthy reaction (as Sullivan would contend, in our youth, twinships/"chumships" are a most important developmental stage, just as it is highly adaptive to maintain both twinship and alterego relationships in adolescence). What makes a twinship less healthy is the need for the "static sameness" that Detrick (1986) observes in some twinship relationships. Hc considers these to be more pathological because chronic interpersonal rigidity negates "the healthy joyful need to learn and grow together" (p. 300). O n e could view these two types of twinships a5 being opposing responses to change: one person allies himlherself with another with whom helshe can understand and navigate the potentially destabilizing experience, while the other displays a kind of rigid panic and clings to a mirror-image of the self. I t seems intuitively correct that the former (healthy) version is the more transient form, and that the twinship hungry personality type should
niost rcsernblc this version wcrc i t not for the prublcm of that "inner void" nlcntioncd
ill
Kohut and Wolfs (1978, pp. 461 -462) description that ensures the cyclical rcpctition of the pattcrn. It seems reasonable to assume that the twinship-hungry person docs not crave pathological sameness, but rather, carries with them a gap in their self-structure that generates a specific type of chronic destabilizing i ~ i f l i ~ e n that c e triggers the need for a twinship relationship.
Test Construction
I . Stem Content and I > e s i p ~
Stems were designed with the following characteristics in mind: 1 .) That each stem be criterion-specific, meaning that it was written to exert maximum pull for the criterion on which it is based, and therefore encourage those responses that reflect the content of a given criterion. 2.) Although designed to provide the optimal context for the targetted response, each stem must be sufficiently open-ended to allow for responses from all three (or other) personality-type domains. In this sense, the real goal in writing effective stems was to find the right balance between stems that are too leading and those that are too vague. T h e most successful stems will be the ones for which the target response will have the greatest likelihood of being expressed if the subject's feelings, cognitions and interpersonal behavior most resembles that personality type, while still allowing for the possibility of other responses. 3.) Each stem's expressed interpersonal context depends on the personality type for which i t is written. For example, the mirror-hungry dynamic can be indiscriminate as to who provides the narcissistic supplies. Mirror stenis can therefore refer to a single person or many people ("the audience"). However, the ideal and twirlship stems must reflect a narrower interpersonal focus, in which a particular significant person (or people) becomes the valued other. Since the ideal type tends to 'pedestalize' significant others, terms that reflect equal status like "friend" were avoided in favor of "person" or
"people", whereas the twinship's dyadic focus demanded terms like "hiend" or "partner."
4.) None of the criteria upon which each stem-cluster is based represent:; a pure construct, to the extent that i t can have multiple manifestations. A good example is the first mirrorhungry criterion, exhibitionism. Exhibitionism can take many forms, so sterns must be able to pull for physical exhibitionism (physical attributes, clothing, tattoos, ctc.), achievement-related exhibitionism (good grades, job prestige etc), or any other imaginable form. 'I'his demands sufficient variability in stem type, even within a criterion, so that in the final version of the test, stems d o not just paraphrase each other.
11. Stem Selection and Reduction
T h e item selection procedure follows two stages, the first being subjective, and the second, statistically-based. In anticipation of item reduction procedures, four times as many stems were written as would be required for the final 46-item version of the test. As i t turned out, what followed was much more than a matter of selecting the stems that
"worked" and discarding the ones that did not. Not only were a substantial number of the initial items discarded and new ones written, but it soon became apparent that the only way to construct a test that asked the right questions was by executing a series of pilot studies in which subject responses guided further stem design, which is really the only way one can approach test construction of this type (Loevinger, 1994). The steps involved in the first stage of stem selection are outlined below.
A. Starre One: Stem and 'l'est Coustructi~tl
1.
-1'hc initial item pool was randomized and submitted to fifteen sclf-psychology-
literate colleagues who were asked to match each stem to the criterion for which i t appeared to be written. This process alone facilitated significant stem restructuring and rewriting, and reduced the item pool from I95 to 9 0 items.
2.
Five pilot studies (n=10-30, 5-90 sterns per group of first year psychology
students), were undertaken to provide an opportunity to assess the basic utility of the stems. Responses were sorted into personality categories as to whether the respondent was replying in a mirror-, ideal-, or twinship-hungry nianner (a category designated "other" was included.). Based on the impression created by these groups of responses, each sentence stem was evaluated according to the basic selection criteria: Does the stem: 1. "Ask the question?" 2. Differentiate between groups? 3. Encourage breadth of response? 4. Trigger a defensive response set? 5 . Encourage cliched or stereotypical responses (var . of #4)? By reworking the stems in this way, not only was the item pool reduced further from 90 to 46 items, but the stems were significantly redesigned in a manner that was directly informed by subject response.
3.
Upon completion of the five pilot studies, the item pool was submitted to a
manipulation check via re-sorting by an informed rater. The results of this manipulation check were encouraging. Within each cluster of fifteen stems (sixteen in the case of twinship), the rater successfully matched thirteen out of fifteen stems to their source criteria in each personality domain. Those stems that were not matched were not misniatched to another category, but were simply designated "tloaters" by the rater -- stems
that could pull for any of the three personalitics. (;ivcn the success of the n~anipulation check, it was decided that all of the stems would be retained, as well as the floaters, which might provide interesting scoring possibilities. This resulted in the final 46-stem item pool (scc 'I'ahlcs 1-3 below). l'his marked the end of the subjective aspect of the stem sclcction procedure.
Mirror-hun!;ry Criteria and Stems --
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
Mla
If I tell a joke at a social gathering, and several people turn to listen ...
Mlb
If I were asked to take part in a play ...
Mlc
For me, the idea of playing a starring role ...
M 1d
A person stands in the spotlight, while another stands off to one side. If this scene, 1would be ...
( ruere
in
(After completing the sentence, please explain your response) Mle.
Some people like to be noticed, whereas for others, it's just not important. As,fir
myself:.. 2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks o u t confirming and admiring responses.
If I have a new hairstyle (or am wearing new clothes), and I bump into someone I haven't seen for a while ... When I get excited about something I've done, I expect my friends to ...
I have daydreamed that I ... When I share my successes with other people, my secret wish is that they ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
I need people-to tell me that I ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
3.) Labile self-esteem:
a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses. (Disappointment clause: T h e dynamic that keeps the cycle going)
If I had to work in a demanding job in which I would receive little or n o feedback from my boss or co-workers as to whether I was doing i t well ... Everyone's feelings are affected by what others neglect to say to us as much as what they do say. In my experience, my feelings are sensitive to the absence of comments such as ... Some people feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get, whereas others find that the good feeling they get from a compliment seems to evaporate almost as soon as it started. In my case ... My sense of self-worth can be affected by ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response) If I were to say whether I gain kstingsatisfaction from positive feedback or admiration ...
Iksignated "Floater" Stems
M2c 1 have daydreamed that I ... M3d My sense of self-worth can be affected by ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
Ideal-Hungry Criteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable
qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
11a.
I1 b.
I lc.
I t is very important to me that
I get to know people who are ...
(the following incomplete sentence refers to a non-romantic situation.) T h e kind of person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ... (After completing the sentence, please dcscribe how i t is that you are drawn to this person) (the following incomplete sentence refers to a non-romantic situation.) T h e kind of person who holds a real fascination for me ... (After completing the sentence, please describe why you are fascinated with this person)
I am always searching for a person who .. (After completing the sentence, please describe the person)
I1 d.
I t sometimes seems a5 though
I le.
A person outside of my family whose presence has enhanced my life .. (After completing the sentence, please describe that person)
-
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealizedJpedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
12a
Try to bring to mind someone you held in very high esteem, but who you did not know all that well. Over time, as you got to know himiher better ...
I2b
It is often the case that when we first encounter someone who really impresses us, we tend to see only the prominent aspects of their personality, yet after we learn more about them, their entire personality becomes visible to us. You can probably recall such an instance in your own life (it could be someone you know, or a famous face, such as an inspiring political leader or media personage, someone who possesses exceptional ability, wealth, power, beauty, moral stature, intelligence, etc. ). Speaking from my own experience, when [got to know someone you admired, my reaction was ...
'l'hcrc have becn times in my adult life when I have adnlircd sonlconc, or even come to the conclusion that a certain person reprcsents one of my ideals. 7 h length of' time that I jaw thij perron as being rzdmirable ...
Whcn someone I look up to displays a character flaw - that is, show that they are not as faultless as I initially imagined ...
Some people arc very discriminating when it comes to the people they admire they have high standards, even for those they view as above all others. If these standards are not met, they would find i t impossible to continue to look up to a person. Some people however, could care less, and are inclined to overlook other people's faults, even those of the people they admire. In my case ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile onlv so lone as helshe can maintain a connection t o the admired one.
If a person I admire rejects me ... If a person I admire acts in a cold or unfriendly manner towards me, I feel .. There are times my life (in everyone's life for that matter) when my self-esteem takes a dip. When this happens, I can feel quite out of sorts. However, if I associate with a certain type of person my sense of vitality is restored. For me that type of person would be ... (please avoid nondescript phrases such as ... "a happy person.") My sense of self-esteem gets a real boost when I associate with a person who ... We all have people in our lives who we look up to, people who represent the ideals and goals we dream of attaining ourselves. Often, our association with such people is a personal one, and their very presence is important to us. f i r some reason, I had to part company with such a person, I wouldfeel ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
I k s i m a t e d "Floater" Stems I l a I t is very important to me that I get to know people who are ... I3c 'l'here are times my life (in everyone's life for that matter) when my self-esteem takes a dip. When this happens, I can feel quite out of sorts. However, if I associate with a certain type of person my sense of vitality is restored. For me that type of perron would be ... (please avoid nondescript phrases such as ... "a happy person.")
' l . w i n s h i p - H u n y (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationships/friendships/affiliation
with others w h o conform to histher own appearance, opinions o r values.
'1'1 a
Having a partner who is very much like myself ...
n b
Sonlc of the people I know are very sitnilar to me, whereas others arc very different from me. I feel the most comfortable with ...
'1.1 c
'I'hink of your best friend. Is i t the similarities or differences in your personalities that makes you friends? For me, what really makes the friendship "click" ...
'I- 1d
In some friendships, similarity is what makes i t work, whereas for others, opposites attract. In order that a friendship be a satisfying one, it is important that the other person be ...
Tle
Having a partner who is very different from myself ...
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which hetshe experiences the other's feelings as histher own.
T2a
If I spend the day with my closest friend, and hislher mood changes suddenly, my own mood ...
'1'2b
When I am with my partnerlbest friend, how I feel depends on what they ...
7'2c
T h e things that I am most affected by when it comes to my partner ...
T2d
If a friend experiences intense sadness, we usually make an effort to console them, because that is what we are supposed to d o in that situation: 'Therefore if someone cries, the "script" we follow is to offer some sort of consolation. However, what we d o may or may not reflect how we actually feel (i.e., real empathy for their feelings, or just plain awkward). The last time a close friend expressed deep sorrow, my feelings were . . .
T2e
For some people, their own emotions are quite unaffected by their friends' feelings, whereas for others, they experience their closest friend's feelings as if they were their own. l n my rase ...
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger o r a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when he/she discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought. (Disappointment clause)
If I arrive at the realization that someone who 1 consider to be a close friend is very different from me in some respect ... If I discover that a friend and I arc very dissimilar ... In my close friendships, a difference in outlook or lifestyle ... ?
1 here are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a 7
friendship. Often it has a lot to d o with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my life, /felt this way because .. . Sometimes, when we have a lot in common with someone, we feel a sense of kinship. Such a friendship (one based on similarity between people) can create a special bond. If I discovered in the course of knowing that person, that we were not as much 'twins'as I thought we were... Consider these two scenes: In the first one, two friends stand side by side. I t is obvious that they are quite different from one another. In the second scene, two other friends stand together, but unlike the first two, they arc alike in many ways. I f I were in the first scene, I would feel ... (f I were in the second scene I would feel ... (After completing these two sentences, please explain your responses)
D e s i ~ n a t e d"Floater" Stems
'I'2c T h e things that 1am most affected by when it comes to my partner ..
'13d There are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to do with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my life, IIfelt this way because ...
4.
'1-he test itself was forn~attcdas follows: So as to provide a general frame for thc
sttbjccts' responses, the test is prcfaced by some general instructions that encourage subjects to draw from their own experiences and to avoid overly-brief sentence completions. 'l'hc actual wording of the instructions was refined during the pilot studies, when verbal introductions were provided to the students. As with the sentence stems, the instructions take subject response as proof of efficacy. T h e test was structured so that within a criterioncluster, stems were ordered from the most general to the most specific. Stems were distributed so that personality types alternated as much as possible.
B. Stage Two: Stem Selection and Reliability
Three statistical measures of reliability were employed to selectively reduce the item pool: Item-total and inter-item correlation, and internal consistency (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1988, Rust & Golombok, 1789). 'The item-subscale correlation evaluates the relative potency or pull of each item, and the extent to which each item draws the same sort of response as the rest of the items in its subscale. Items with low item-subscale correlations will either be rewritten or discarded. Because each of the three subscales consists of three dissimilar criteria, these correlations will be performed both as item to three subscale correlations for the general constructs, and item to nine sub-subscale correlations for the individual criteria, with the emphasis on the latter. 'l'he inter-item correlation yields the item correlation matrix which displays both item-subscale and item-to-other subscale correlations T h e main purpose of this procedure is to retain those items that correlate highly with their own subscale and redistribute or discard items that display stronger correlations with subscales other than ther own. T h e internal consistency- method represents the final step in assessing reliability because it reveals the extent to which each subscale item measures the same domain as the
rest of the subscale. 'l.his reliability index (as expressed by cocfficicnt alpha, the nicall reliability coefticicnt), is based on the number of observations made and the extent to which each item in a subscale represents an observation of the same value observed by other rest items in that subscale (Murphy and I)avidshofer, 1988). Items that do not meet this criterion will be discarded. Unless specific precautions are taken, open-ended ( i x . sentence completion) tests will usually yield significantly lower estimates of reliability than objective sclf-rcport tests. Smith's (1 992) recommendations as to how to optimize the reliability of projective tests ate useful here. First, i t is important to make every effort to reduce the error of measurement. Smith (1992) suggests the following: 1) Reduce coding errors through maximization of inter-rater agreement. Suedfeld, Tetlock,and Streufert (1992) suggest at least two week's extensive training to ensure inter-rater reliability of .85 or better. In this regard, the co-rater was trained extensively. 2) Items must be sampled as broadly as possible over a given domain. This issue was addressed with respect to maintaining stern diversity even within a criterion cluster. 3) Testing conditions must be kept stable and Smith (1 992) also recommends that score variability be maximized by use of a heterogenous sample (see description of sample below), and to select stimuli that yield the greatest score dispersion. (Smith, 1992, p. 137-138). This requires that item selection procedures not be taken to their logical extreme, otherwise the test would consist of a collection of stems that encourage a narrow spectrum of responses.
I1 I . Scoring: Manual Construction
T h e manual employs a categorically-based scoring system. A sample of exemplars was culled from the pilot study responses and assembled as the initial scoring manual. In constructing the manual, the goal was to provide clear and simple examples t o maximize inter-rater agreement, as well as avoid the steep learning curve usually associated with using
manuals of this type. I t is considered categorical as opposed to purely c x c m p l ; i r - b a d (such as the Itotter ISK), because each set of exemplars (meant to illustrate examples of a one, two, or three scoring value) were grouped under a g e ~ ~ e rdescriptive al heading which cxprcsscd the central conceptual theme (I,oevinger, 1970). I3ecause the stems must be scored in such a way as to yield sufficient variability to perform the necessary psychometric analyses, a scoring system with a 1-3 range of rater response that also mininlizcs ambiguity that could lead to low inter-rater agreement was employed. This system at least superficially resembles Loevinger's (1970) format and, as with that sentence completion test, eliminates zero-value responses. it was decided that because each stem is designed to pull for its particular criterion, it will be scored for that criterion-response only. Although it would be preferable to interpret all stem-responses so that each stern could be given a score for each of the three subscale domains (mirror, ideal, or twinship), such a system would prove to be unmanageably complcx at this stage of the research. This strategy will inevitably suppress responses in those particular instances where a subject who displays a preponderance of one particular response type (i.c., mirror-hungry) would somehow manages to complete most of the stems in that particular style. Otherwise, assuming that the item-selection procedures reduce the number of stems to those that pull most effectively for their particular target response, this scoring procedure should not pose a problem. If, at a later date it is decided that it would be useful to reinterpret the protocols so that each stem-response could be coded for each personality type, the data will be -available for that purpose. In general, a given test profile will be considered as a whole, but because each criterion carries its own qualitative weight, each total criterion-score will be treated as a kind of subscale within the three major subscales (yielding a total of nine, five-item subscales) which can provide a more sensitive reading of a total test score. Apart from these basic parameters, no other assumptions can be made regarding scoring at this point. T h e manual's reliability will be assessed via measures of inter-rater reliability.
1V. .l'hc Sclf-Katinc Scales
'l'hc Self-Rating scales arc brief, face valid, narrative style personality descriptions that allow thc subjccts to rate the extent to which they rcscmble one or more of the personality types. Each is written to closely match the content of personality descriptions, and comes in two versions, one with a male protagonist, and one with a female protagonist 'I'he pcrsonality descriptions were also worded in such a way as t o minimize inhibiting responses (so that the respondent would not perceive any pejorative connations) and allowed subjects to respond on a 1-7 Likert scale format, as well as write any additional comments deemed necessary. (See Appendix one)
V. Construct Validity: Convergent and Discriminant Validity
A. T h c Personality Research Form
? 7
1 he Personality Research Form-E (Jackson, 1987) is a nleticulously constructed,
352-item inventory consisting of twenty subscales based on the manifest needs outlined by Murray et a/. (1938). Its utility for the purpose of this research endeavor is obvious: T h e PKF is designed to measure those dimensions of normal personality judged t o be the most important to a broad range of personal living and functioning domains (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1988), which also appear to display substantial overlap with some of the personality characteristics measured by the sentence completion test outlined in this proposal. T h e I'RF-E consists of 22, 16-item content scales, of which a subset of 10 will be utilized here: Abasement, Aggression, Autonomy, Change, Exhibitionism, Lkfendence, Ihireability, [hminance, Succorance, and Social Recognition.
14. C o n v c r ~ c n and t L)iscrimina~ltValidity Hyvothcscs
'l'hc construct explication task has been accomplished to the extent that the behaviors related to the three constructs being measured have been described via the criteria-clustcrs for each personality type. In order to establish convergent and discriminant validity it is necessary to hypothesize which other constructs will be related or unrelated to the three central personality constructs. 'I'his will constitute at least the beginnings of what Cronbach and Meehl (1955) refer to as the nomological network, which in this case will be based upon hypothesized correlations between the measure's three subscales and several PKF subscales.
T h e Mirror-Hungry Personality
T h e mirror-hungry construct must be expressed in a form that allows comparisons with other measures. T h e simplest way to acheive this goal is to compare the three criteria in the mirror-hungry cluster (consisting of descriptions of behavior and self-esteem) with similar behavior patterns measured by another test. T h e broad range of normal personality features represented by the twenty-two P.K.F. subscales serve this purpose quite adequately. T h e first criterion (displays self) clearly indicates an exhibitionistic stance. T h e second criterion (seeks out confirming and admiring responses) would be best equated with the "Desireability," "Social Recognition," and "Uefendence" (inability to accept criticism, ctc.) subscales. The "Llefendence" subscale also serves to detect the general sensitivity to criticism that Kohut observed in all of his patients who displayed a narcissistic vulnerability. Although it is not included in the personality type descriptions, defensiveness is purported to be an inevitable aspect of any narcissistic vulnerability, and will therefore be included for comparison with all three personality types. T h e third criterion indicates fluctuating self-esteem, although self-esteem will not be assessed at this
stage. .l.o sum this up then, the most central features of the mirror-hungry type Jre exhibitionism, a need for social dcsireability, social recognition, and a sensitivity to
criticism, in the absence of a sustained sense of grandiosity or high self-esteem.
'I'hese are the hypotheses regarding the mirror-hungry type: 1 .) .l'he mirror-hungry type can be reliably detected in a studcnt sample. 2.) The mirror-hungry subscale should show a positive correlation with P.K.F. "Aggression"
and "Dominance," and a negative correlation with "Abasement," only for those subjects who endorse the first two mirror criteria but d o not endorse the third criterion.
3.) 'I'he mirror-hungry subscale should show positive correlations with the following I'RF subscales: a.) "Exhibitionism," b.) "Desireability, " c.) "Social Recognition, " d.) " Defendence," and e.) "Succorance."
T h e Ideal-Hungry Personality
'The three ideal-hungry criteria suggest general attitudinal and behavior patterns. 'The first criterion (seeks others to admire) suggests an interpersonal stance in which one may devalue oneself in deference to perceived greater other. T h e PRF."Succorance" subscale appears to best capture this dimension in that it indicates a tendency to turn towards significant others for reassurance. Because the first criterion describes a person who seeks to acquire admirable qualities -- albeit by proxy -- this should be reflected in the I'KF "Social Recognition" subscale. As compensation for this transient sense of self worth, such a person also ought to display an attitude similar to the "Defcndence" subscale. Other authors (i.e., Raskin et al. 1991) have equated general, indiscriminate humility with the ideal-hungry type, in which case the "Abasement" subscale would be an appropriate analogy. This reflects theoretical error, which does not acknowledge the specific foci of the ideal-hungry person's attention. However, an extreme endorsement of the ideal-hungry
subscalc ought to represent a person who although they do focus on particular pcoplc
a\
idols, should display a certain degree of 'surplus humility' which will be evident in their interactions with others in general as a kind of low-level abascnlcnt attitude. 'l'he second criterion (incvitablc disappointment in idealized other) suggests a tendency to be somewhat judgenlental or dichotonlous in one's thinking, but mostly reflects an extension of the first criterion, and as such does not need elaboration. 'l'he third criterion (experiences self as worthwhile as long as connection to admired one is maintained) suggests labile or low self esteem. All of these features support specific hypotheses:
I .) 'The ideal-hungry type can be reliably detected in a student sample. 2.) T h e ideal-hungry subscale should show positive correlations with the a.)"Succorance,"
b.) "Social Recognition," and c.) "l)efendencensubscales
3.) T h e ideal-hungry subscale should show negative correlations with a.) "Dominance," and b.) "Autonomy" subscales, in addition to a positive correlation with "Abasement."
T h e Twinship-Hungry I'ersonality
Deciding which I'KF subscales would best describe this personality type is less clear-cut than with the first two personalities. T h e first criterion (seeks relationships with others who conform ...) suggests an affiliative need, although like the ideal-hungry personality, that need appears to have a specific rather than an indescriminate focus. What it does suggest is a moderate expression of the stance captured by the "Succorance"subscale, which reflects a need for support from others. T h e expressed need for sameness may also reflect a conservative attitude best exemplified by the inverse of PKF "Change" and "Autonomy." T h e second criterion (emotional symbiosis) does not resemble any particular PRF subscale. T h e third criterion (disappointment) certainly suggests a tendency to dichotomize like the ideal-hungry, as well as the ensuing labile or low self-esteem. T h e twinship-hungry construct hypotheses are:
1 . ) 'l'his personality type can be reliably detected in a student sample, but will a p p c u lcss
frequently than the other two pcrsoriality types. 2 . ) 'l'he twinship subscale should show a positive correlation with the I'KF "Succorancc" and " l )efendenccH subscales.
3.) Siniilarily, the twinship subscale should display a negative correlation with "(:hangc" and "Autonomy." Tabled below are the hypothesized relationships between the narcissistic personality dimensions and P.K.F. subscales. Any predictions regarding correlations between the sentence completion test and the self-rating scales will be identical to those made for the sentence conlpletion subscales and the P.R.F. subscales.
'l'ablc 4 I'rcdictcd Correlations for Convcrpmt and 1)iscriminant Validity t;,stimates
S(:'l' Subscale -
-
I'KF Subscale
Mirror
Abasement
ncg.
(-)
Aggression
pos.
(-)
Autonomy
------------
Ideal
'l'winship
Change F,xhibitionism
pos.
Ilefendence
pos.
Desireabili ty
pos.
Dominance
pos.
Succorance Social Kecog.
pos.
neg.
------------
pos.
pos.
pos.
pos.
pos.
------------
(-1
Note. 'I'he minus sign in parentheses (-) indicates those instances in which the third criterion is not endorsed in a given mirror-hungry protle.
V I . Content Validity: l'rinciyal C o m ~ o n c n t sAnalysis
It
is hopcd that a clear match between the structure of the three subscales and the
contcnt domain will be observed. Three overlapping factors as well as a possible fourth for general dysphoria are predicted. I t is also predicted that much of the overlap will rcsult from the "labile self-esteem" clause in each personality.
VI I . Methods Summary
Content validity: Operationalize the three personality types and construct a test using a theory-driven, systematic method to derive the scoring criteria. Have an expert rater resort the stems to their source criteria. 'This at least accomplishes the first two steps in assessing content validity: a)To describe the content domain, and b) to specify the area of the content domains measured by each test item (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1988). 'The third stage in assessing content validity, which is to compare the structure of the test with the structure of the content domain, will be accomplished via a principal component analysis. Reliability: T h e effectiveness of the manual will be assessed determined by Cohen's kappa (1 960), a measure of inter-rater agreement that corrects for chance agreement. For the purpose of item analysis I will utilize internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), item-tosubscale and item-total correlations, as well as the principal components analysis results. Converqent and Discriminant Validity Acconlplished via observed correlations with Personality Research Form subscales. In order to decide which correlation coefficient will be used, I will first exanline the raw data (scatterplots), in order to determine whether the data are linear or nonlinear. If the data display linear relationships, I will employ Pearson's r, but if the data are nonlinear, I will employ 'eta.' A measure of differential validity will be used to assess the extent to which the items in a given subscale measure the same domain. Two sets of correlations will be observed: T h e relationship between the
three personality types and the ten P.K.F. subscales, as well as between the personality types and the self-rating scales, the self-rating scales and the P.K.F. subscales, and finally, subjects will be selected who not only displayed a high score on a particular personality subscale, but also its corresponding self-rating scales (i.e., high on "mirror" on both), and those subject's scores on the P.R.F. subscales will be observed. It is assumed that the hypothesized relationships as described in the correlation table will most likely be supported by those subjects.
Procedure
1. S a m ~ l e Subjects : consisted of 107 (52 men, 55 women) Simon Fraser University
undergraduates between the ages of 18 and 30. T h e sample was drawn from a variety of sources: 'I'he psychology subject pool, the volunteer subject pool, a wide variety of campus clubs, and direct solicitation of subjects from classes in psychology, English, biology, engineering, and communications courses. Pilot study data came solely from first year psychology tutorials. 2. I'rocedure: For those subjects who were recruited through the volunteer subject pool, course credit was given in return for participation, whereas for all other subjects, incentive came in the form of a brief report on their P.R.F. profile. All subjects gave their informed consent and all test procedures were approved by the S.F.U. ethics board. Test administration was standardized in that all subjects completed the test package in the same order (sentence completion test, self-rating scales, P.R.F.), and the sentence conlpletion test instructions were read aloud to each subject. Testing took place in the same designated site in the psychology department. After testing, each subject was fully debriefed as to the purpose of the study.
3. S
u
: Responses to a given stem were treated as a discrete entity. All 107 responses
to each stem were typed out and randomized in separate batches. Two raters employed the
scoring manual and followed the same procedure for each rating: Both raters first read thc scoring criteria for a given stem, followed by a discussion in which each rater made every effort to "think out loud" and thus express any implicit criteria
--
that is, the assumptions
onc has about statements in the manual -- which may or may not be the understanding held
by the other rater. l'his procedure was repeated for each stem so as to lend some prccisioll to the undertaking, as well as minimize conceptual drift during scoring. Each response was then matched to the level of the criterion which i t most closely resembled. As for interpretation of the responses, it became an axiom of sorts that raters were to avoid overinterpretation; given that the measure employs the 'just ask' approach to sten1 construction, it was assumed that the responses would be equally straightforward.
I.
l>escrit~tiveStatistics
'I ahlc 5 lim the mean, standard deviation, variance, and minimum and maximum scores for each subscale, major scale (made up of the three sub~calcs),the three Self-Rating scales, and the I'KF subscales. 'l'hese figures are based upon the 27-item final version of the scale, described below in the item-subscale correlation procedure. 1)iscussion will be limited to the SCT subscale frequency data as well as the frequency distribution histograms which can be found in Appendix L). For the sake of clarity, subscales M-1 to '1'-
3 will simply be referred to as the subscales, whereas M, I, and '1- will be referred to as the conlposite subscales. Over half of the subscale distributions are non-symmetrical. M-1 , 1-2, 1'-1, T-2, and T - 3 are negatively skewed. As for the composite subscales, the M-distribution is very symn~etrical,the I-distribution is negatively skewed, and the T-distribution is very negatively skewed. If we observe the distribution of scores with respect to the midpoint, we see that for the M-distribution, the range is 9 - 26, and 57 subjects fall below the midpoint (17.5), and 50 occur above - a fairly even distribution. The I-distribution range is 11 -24, and 86 subjects fall below the midpoint (17.5), and only 21 above, meaning that
80% of the scores fall below the midpoint. T h e T-distribution is even more striking: T h e range is 9 - 26, and 100 subjects fall below the midpoint (17.5), and only 7 above, so that
93?40 of the scores fall below the midpoint. These findings may have a bearing on statements already made about the narcissistic personalities. Earlier i t was suggested that although the three personalities would be detectable in a s t u d e ~ population, t the 'l'winshiphungry personality would occur less frequently. Given the distribution of scores for the Twinship-items, the findings d o seem to support this hypothesis: Very few subjects scored in the high end. What was unexpected is that the findings also seem to suggest that the Ideal-hungry personality also seems to occur less frequently -- at least in its extreme form.
I'ablc 5 1)cscrivtive Statistics
Scntcncc <:omplction
Variable
Mean
Std 1)ev
Variance
Minimum
Maximum
1 .OO 1.OO 1 .00
7.00 7.00 7.00
Self-Rating Scales
SUM SKI S K'r
5.16 3.78 4.25
1.49 1.62 1.83
2.23 2.63 3.36
Note: SKM = Self-Rating 1 Mirror-Hungry, SRI Self-Rating I 'l'winship.
=
Self-Rating / Ideal-Hungry, SRT
=
I'crsonality liescarch Form
Variable
Mean
Std 1)cv
Variance
Minimum
Maximum
Note: Ab=Abasement, Ac=Acheivernent, Af=Affiliation, Ag=Aggression, Au=Autonomy, Ch=Change, CsXognitive Structure, De=Defendence, Do=L)ominance, En=Endurance, Ex=Exhibitionism, Ha=Harmavoidance, Irn=Irnpulsivity, Nu=Nurturance, Od=Order, I'l=l'lay, Se=Sentience, Sr=Social Recognition, Su=Succorance, Un=Understanding, In=Infrequency, Dy= Iksireability.
I I.
Itcliabili ty: lntcr-1 tern C o r r c l a t i ~ t f i
'I'he inter-item correlation matrix represents thc first and most 'molecular' level of interpretation. What follows is an analysis of the 46 x46 inter-item correlation table (scc Appendix F:). Lkcause of the number of correlations generated (and the increased probability of attaining statistical significance by chance alone) i t was decided for the sake of interpretation that any absolute value greater than .20 would be considered "significant." 'I'he results will be discussed by subscale rather than by item.
T h e M-1 subscale ("displays self to attract the attention of others") appears to be quite cohesive, with low to moderate (.22-.46) positive intercorrelations throughout. When correlated with the M-2 subscale ("seeks out confirming and admiring responses"), nothing of any magnitude appears, although all of the M-1 items do display a low (< .20) correlation with the M-2 items. When compared to the M-3 subscale ("low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses"), items M l c , M I d , and M 1e all display correlations greater than .20 with item M3b. However, items M l a , M l b, and M I c display low negative correlations (-.O1 to -.05) with M3a and M3e. Although M3e may be ruled out because respondents tended to misunderstand its wording, in terms of pure stimulus value, i t may or may not be noteworthy that all of the aforementioned stems with the exception
of M l c begin with the word "if." Overall, the M-1 subscalc appears to have a d i f f k positive interrelationship with the M-2 and M-3 subscales. M-1 does not appear to correlate to any noteworthy degree with the I subscalcs. When compared to the 1-1 subscalc ("seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities"), M-1 shows some degree of correlation with the item I - l a (M 1a - 11a, .23, M 1e -
I- 1a, .24) but no significant negative correlations with the 1-2 subscale ("easily
disappointed by flaws in idealized other"). 'l'he M- 1 subscalc displays n o significant correlations, positivc or negative, with the 1-3 subscale ("experiences self as happy only so long as connection with admired one is maintained"). When correlated with the 7'-1 subscale ("seeks relationships with those who conform to self'), no significant correlations, positive or negative, appear. 'l'he M- 1 subscale does show some relation to T - 2 ("forms emotionally symbiotic relationships") in a low positive correlation (.22) between M l b and T2c. However, items M la, M l d , and M l e all display low negative correlations with T2c (-.I 7, -.12, -.I 9). T h e M-1 subscale displays some significant correlations with the T - 3 ("rejects partner upon discovery of dissimilarity") subscale ( M l c with T 3 b .22, M l d with T 3 b and T3e, .20, and M l e with T3a, .21), and no negative correlations of note. Summary: T h e M-1 subscale correlates most strongly with its own items, then the other M subscales, to a certain degree with the T-3 subscale, and in an unclear manner with the remainder.
Most of the M-2 subscalc ("seeks out confirming and admiring responses") items intercorrelated positivcly, although none exceeded .20, but many did occur in the .I 6 -.I9 range. T h e M-2 subscale did display some positive correlations with the M-3 ("low selfesteem in the absence of desired responses") subscale (M2d with M3b, .30, and M2e with M3b, M3e, .23, .20), although low negative correlations predominate. T h e M-2 subscale does show some degree of relationship with the other M subscales, in a diffuse positive manner with M-1, but only with certain "anchor items" (M2d and M2e with M3b and M3e) in the M-3 subscale.
No significant positive or negative correlations appeared when the M-2 subscale was correlated with the 1-1 ("seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities") and I -
2 ("cxpcricnccs self as happy only so long as connection with admired one is maititaincd") subscales. Sonic negative correlations of note were M2c with 13a (-.I 9), and M2b with 13c (-.23). T h e interrelationship of M-2 and 1-3 items s e e m to indicate n o real relationship. M-2 shows some degree of association with the 'I'-1 ("seeks relationships with those who conforni to self') subscale: M2a with 'I'lb (.24) and M2d with '1'1 h (.24), and n o noteworthy negative correlations. When compared to the 'I'-2 subscale, a pattern of combination of low positive and negative correlations emerged, with two marked positive correlations: M2b with T 2 a (.20), '1'2e (.20). When compared to the '1'-3 subscale ("rejects partner upon discovery of dissimilarity"), many positive correlations appeared: M2b with T 3 b (.21), M2d with 'I'3e (.21) and M2e with T3c, T 3 e (.21, .23). Some low negative correlations appeared. Sun~mary:Overall, the M-2 subscale has a diffuse positive relationship with the 3' subscales and may have a more marked positive relationship to the T-3 subscale, than to itself. Apart from two negative correlations with 1-3 items, there appears to be no relationship between the M-2 and I subscales.
Most of the items in the M-3 subscale ("low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses") intercorrelate positively, although all below .20, with the exception of M3bM3a (.23). Two negative correlations occur: M3e with M3c (-.07),M3d (-.18), which suggests a kind of conceptual partition that may or may not reflect a difference in item content. Overall, the M-1 subscale displays low to moderate cohesion, with a predominance of low positive intercorrelations. 'I'he M-3 subscale displays some relationship to the 1-1 subscale ("seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities") in two pairings: M3d with I l a (.24), and M3c with
I l c (.21). However, all of the M-3 items correlate negatively with item I I b ("'The kind of
person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ...."). When conlparcd to the 1-2 subsc;llc ("cxpericnccs sclf as happy only so long as connection with admired one is maintained"), a mixturc of low negative and low positive correlations predominate, the highest being M3e with 12a ( 3 1 ) . 12b (.21), which limits the relationship between the scales to three items. 'l'he situation is much the same when the M-3 subscalc is conlparcd to the 1-3 ("cxycricnccs sclf as happy only so long as conncction with admired one is maintained") subscale, with a balance of low positive and negative correlations, the highest being M3d with 13d (.23), and M3c with I3c (.27). Overall, the M-3 subscale does not correlate to any noteworthy degree with the I subscales apart from specific items in 1-1 and 1-3. 'I'he M-3 subscale displays little relationship with any of the Twinship subscales. Some low positive correlations arise with the T-1 subscale ("seeks relationships with those who conform to self') the highest being M3b with 'I'lb (.22). A combination of low positive and low negative correlations links the M-3 with the '1'-2 ("forms emotionally syn~bioticrelationships") subscale, the highest being M3d with T 2 e (.26). T h e same conditions occur when the M-3 and T - 3 ("rejects partner upon discovery of dissimilarity") subscales are correlated, although low positive correlations do predominate, the highest being M3b with T 3 e (.24). ,
Summary: I he M-3 subscale displays moderate intercorrelations with itself, a mixed T
picture when compared to M-1, and a predominantly negative relationship to the M-2 subscale. Any relationship between the M-3 and I subscales is limited to two itcms per subscale, and signiticant correlations with the 'I' subscales are limited to one positive correlation per subscale.
'rhe 1-1 ("seeks others to admire for their idealizablc qualities") subscale does display some cohesion. When correlated with itself, nonsignificant positive correlations
predominate, but a distinct pattern of negative correlations also appears: I ten1 I 1 tl correlates ncgativcly with I l a (-.15), I l b (-.01), and I l c (-.03). I t would seem then, that item I Id is thc odd one out. When compared to the 1-2 and 1-3 subscalcs, nonsignificant negative correlations predominate, indicating very little relationship between the three Ideal-hungry subscales. Nothing of any significance appeared when the 1-1 subscale was correlated with the '[--I ("seeks relationships with those who conform to self') subscale. When compared to the '1'-2 ("forms emotionally symbiotic relationships") subscale, two positive correlations emerged: I l d with 'I'2a (.22), and I l e with 'I'2b (.20), otherwise, low negative correlations predominate. When compared to the 'r-3 subscale ("rejects partner upon discovery of dissimilarity") , item I l c correlated positively with items T 3 a (.22), and 'T'3c (.23), otherwise, low positive correlations predominate. Summary: Overall, the 1-1 subscale appears to stand apart from the other I subscales. In relation to the other subscales, items I1 d items I l e correlate positively with T 2 a and T2b, whereas item I l c correlates positively with items T 3 a and T3c, all of which suggests a positive relationship with the 'I' subscales that is limited to specific items rather than the scales as a whole. With respect to the M subscales, I l a bears some relation to certain M-1 and M-3 items (although as noted above, all of thc M-3 items correlate negatively with the 1-1 items), and there appears to be no relationship between the 1-1 and M-2 subscales.
T h e 1-2 subscale ("experiences self as happy only so long as connection with admired one is maintained") appcars to be moderately intercorrelated: 12a correlates .35 with 12b, 3 2 with I2d, and .28 with I2c, whereas 12d correlates .34 with I2e, which suggests two merged clusters of items within the subscale. T h e remainder are low positive correlations and no negativc correlations occur, which suggests two clusters: a-b-d, and d-c.
'l'he picture changes when 1-2 is correlated with 1-3. Here we see a combiuatio~lof very low (nonsignificant) positive and low negative correlations, a diffuse relationship betwc.cn subscalcs. Subscale 1-2 displays some strong connections to subscale 'I'-1 ("seeks relationships with those who conform to self'). 12d correlates .25 with 'I'lc, .23 with 'I'ld, and .25 with 'Tle. 12e also correlates .25 with T l d . 12c correlates .24 with 'I'lc, and I2e correlates .22 with '1'1 b, such that items l2c,d,e appear to form anchor points. Only four negative correlations occur, and they are extremely low. T h e 1-2 subscale displays almost no relationship with the T-2 subscale ("forms emotionally syn~bioticrelationships"), although there are some salient negativc correlations: 12d with 'T2b (-.27), and 12e with T2b, T2d (-.20,
-. 18). 'The 1-2 subscale displays a marked
positive relationship with the '1'-3
subscale: I2d with '1'3a (.20), 'T3e (.39), I2e with T 3 b (.23), 1'3f (.20), T 3 d (.21). Again, 12d and e appear to be anchors, otherwise low positive correlations (below .20) predominate. Summary: When the 1-2 subscale is intercorrelated with the T subscale items, we see a pronounced clustering effect: 12d correlates positively with I2e, but also with TI b, 'l'lc, and T l d . 12d also correlates positively with T 3 a and T3e, whereas 12e correlates ~ o s i t i v ewith l ~ T3b, T3d, and T3f. In effect, what we see are three clusters anchored around I2d and 12e. T h e 1-2 subscale displaycs a diffuse, nonsignificant relationship to the
M subscales.
When corrclated with itself, the 1-3 subscale ("experiences self as happy only so long as connection with admired one is maintained") is somewhat split: 13b correlates .22 with 13a, and I3e correlates .25 with I3b. However, the remainder of the scale is
irltcrrelatcd by a scrics of nonsignificant rlcgative intcrcorrclations (<-.OX).
'l'hcrcforc,
within the scale itself, items 13a, 13b and Ibe form a cluster with 13b as the anchor. 'l'hc 1-3 subscale displays one positive correlation with the
suhscalc: 13d with
.l'lc (.20), otherwise, the relationship is characterized by a balance of low positive and negativc correlations. 'l'hcrc appears to be some degree of relationship between two sets of items in the 1-3 and 'r-2 subscales: 13b with T 2 c (.24), 13e with '1'2c (.21), '1'2e ( 2 0 ) . Otherwise i t is characterized by primarily zero-relationship values or weak negative correlations. When correlated with the 7'-3 subscale, some positive relationships appear: 13b with 'l'3c (.20), as well as several mixed positive and negative correlations. Again, an indefinite picture characterized by a single focused feature, further clouded by the many almost-significant correlations Summary: A mixed, generally nonsignificant relationship with the M subscales, other I subscales, and the first two T subscales, with some relationship to the 'I'-3 subscale.
Intercorrelations among the T-1 subscale ("seeks relationships with those who conform to self') reveals a very cohesive collection of items. T l a displays a positive intercorrelation with T l b (.25), 1 ' 1 c (.25), and ' r l e (.29). T l b correlates positively with T l c (.25) and T l d (.55), and T l c with T l d (.28). N o negativc correlations occur. T h e relationship betwcen T-1 and subscale T - 2 is characterized by a series of nonsignificant negative correlations. However, the relationship betwcen T-1 and 'I'-3 is much stronger: 'I'la with '1'3e (.20), 'I'3f ( . 3 l ) . T l b with T 3 b (.22), T 3 e (.33), and T 3 f (.38). T l d with T3a (.43), T 3 b (.34), T3e (.37), and T 3 f (.56). T l e with T 3 b (.20), T 3 c (.22), and T 3 f (.27). However, 'I'3d does correlates negatively with T l a , T l b, 'I'lc, and ' r l e . Summary-: T-1 correlates very strongly with itself and T-3 (with the exception of 'I'3d), but has a negative relationship to the 'r-2 subscale. With respect to the M subscale, some
itcms in thc .['-I subscalc show low positive correlations with itcms in thc M-2 si~bscalc, othcrwisc nothing of any magnitude was observed. As for the I scale, '1'- 1 shows a strong positive relationship to the 1-2 subscalc but as for the othcr two subscalcs, the picture is rnixcd.
'I'-2 is not a very cohesive subscale, although there is one positive correlation of note between 1'2d with T 2 e (.26), otherwise i t is characterized by low positive correlations. When compared to '1'-3, almost all of the correlations are negative. For example, 'I'3a correlates negatively with all of the '1'-2 stems. Summary: A mixed relationship with the M subscales characterized by a diffuse pattern marked by a few positive correlations. Virtually no relationship to the 1-1 and 1-2 subscales, but a strong positive connection to the 1-3 subscale. T-2 correlates negatively with 'I'-1 and 'r-3.
'I'hc intercorrelations among the T - 3 items are quite strong: T 3 b with T3a (.27), 7'3d (.23), T 3 e (.23), and T 3 f i.32); T 3 c with T 3 b (.34), T 3 e (.30), T3f i.20); T3f with T3a (.20), and T3c (.32). T - 3 displays a strong positive relationship to the M-1 subscale but a mixed picture with respect to the othcr M subscales. T - 3 also displys a strong positive relationship to the 1-2 subscale, but a mixed rip to the other I subscales. It
correlates negatively with T-2, and positively to the T - 1 and T - 3 subscales except for
1'3d.
S u t n m a r ~Overall, : the '1'-3 subscale displays some positive relationship to the M - l , ~ n d M-2 subscales, and a mixed but generally positive interrelationship with the M-3 subscale.
'1'-3 has a strong positive relationship tp the 1-2 and '['-I subscales.
Conclusions
Given the size and complexity of this set of correlations, i t is difficult to make definite statements. Apart from the correlations between items that achieve noticeable magnitude, it appears that much of the interconnections between the collection of items that make up the subscales appears to be carried by large patterns of low positive and negative correlations rather than a set of clear-cut patterns. Having said this, some features do stand out. Clearly, the most strongly internally correlated subscales are M-1, 1-2, I'-1 and T - 3 , whereas the marginal scales are M-2, M-3, T-2, 1-1 and 1-3. T h e most strongly related scales appear to fall into three groupings: a.) T-3 with M- 1, M-2, and 1-2, b.) '1'-1 with 1-2 and T-3, and c.) T - 2 with 1-3. It is important to note that these correlations were calculated using the original 46 sentence stems, whereas the remainder of the analyses will be performed using the reduced, 27-item version of the test. As a means of providing something of an overview of the difference between the two item pools in terms of subscale-to-subscale correlation, Table 6 lists the correlations between all of the subscales for the reduced version of the test. Correlations were calculated such that each result must display a critical p. of .001 to attain significance at the .05 level. Previously, it was observed that 1'-3 forms a cluster with M-1, M-2, and 1-2. In the reduced scale version, T - 3 does correlate positively with M-1 (.14), M-2 (.l l ) , and 1-2 (.26), but not to any significant degree, although one could say that in terms of absolute value, the correlation between T - 3 and 1-2 is noteworthy. Secondly, in the full scale version, T-1 was observed to form a cluster with 1-2 and T-3. In thc reduced scale, T-1
docs correlate positively ( but not to a significant degree) with 1-2 (.21), and corrc1;trcj to a significant degree with T - 3 (.54) and M-2 ( . 3 0 ) .Lastly, '1.-2 does still corrclatc positively with 1-2 (.21) in the reduced version. Hcrc now is a summary of the subscale clusters that appear in 'l'ablt. 6: M-I, M-2, and M-3 form an intercorrelated cluster. '1'-1 and .I'-3 form another cluster, and the 'I'cluster and M-cluster are linked insofar as 7'-1 correlates positivcly with M-2. 7.-2seems to be an entity unto itself, although i t does display weak positive correlations with thc M subscales. 'I'he I-scales do not form a cluster. 1-1 and 1-3 correlate negatively (-.08). I t is noteworthy that 1-2 correlates negatively with T - 2 (-.21), but positively with '1'-1 (.21) and 'T-3(.26). In summary, we have several clusters: 1.) M-1/M-2/M-3, and 2.) '1'-11'1'-3 (with I-2), 3.) '1.-2 by itself, as well as a fragmentation of the I-scale. As we will see below, the factor analysis essentially replicates these findings.
I I I.
Keliabili ty: Item-to-Subscale Correlations
T h e item pool was put through five iterations of the SPSS Reliability program in order to produce nine relatively homogeneous item clusters, one for each subscale (SI'SS, 1990). A complete represcntation of the first four iterations can be found in Appendix F. It was initially hoped that the nine subscales could be reduced from five to four items each, although this was not always possible, and so for ease of comparison, each subscale was reduced to three stems. Table 7 illustrates the steps leading to the final stage as indicated by changes in the mean inter-item correlation for each subscale, and Table 8 presents the fifth and final iteration of the item pool. Discussion of 'Table 8 will focus o n two indices: a.) T h e mean inter-item correlation (the mean correlation between all possible pairs of items within a subscale), which is the index of a given subscale's homogeneity, and b.) the corrected item-total correlation (the correlation between a given
'l'ahlc 6 (:orrclations Hetwcctl all S C T Subscales
M1
M2
M3
11
I2
I3
'I' 1
'1'2
'1'3
'l'ablc 7 I
Ttcrations
M- 1 M-2 M-3 1-1
1-2 1-3 -1.- 1
'1.-2 T-3 M I
'I'
'I'ablc X l~cliahilityAnalysis: Final Iteration
Subscale I tems
Mlc
Mld Mlc
Scale h4can If Itcm l)elctcd
3.7477 3.8692 3.5421
Mean Inter-Item Correlation:
Scale Variance If Item Delctcd
I .6999 1.5676 1.8543
.40
Alpha: .66
Mean Inter-Item Correlation:
.19
Alpha: .41
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: Alpha: .39
.18
(:orrcctcd I tern'I'otal
Correlation
Squarcd Multiple Correlation
.4593 .4864 .4746
.2110 ,2378 .2259
Alpha
If Itcm 1)elcted
.5807 .5458 .5654
'l'ablc 8 cont.
Sl~bscalc 1terns
Ilb Ilc I le
Scale hlcan If Item I>cletcd
3.6916 3.4299 3.6822
Mean Inter-Item Correlation:
Scale Variance If Item l>elctcd
1.2530 1.285 1 1.0113 .I I
Alpha: .28
Mean Inter-Item Correlation:
.32
Alpha: .57
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: Alpha: .41
.19
Corrcctcd ItemTotal Correlation
Squared Multiplc (:orrelation
.I376 .I094 .2237
.032 1 .0198 .0508
Alpha If I ten1 1)clctcd
.2457 .3027 .0422
Subscalc I terns
Tla
'rlb '1.1 d
Scale hl can If I ten1 1)clcted
Scalc Variance If ltctn 1)cleted
2.9346 2.8598 3.1776
1.0240 1.O65 1 1.1663
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: Alpha:
.57
Mcan Inter-Item Correlation: Alpha:
.17
.36
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: Alpha:
.33
.55
.29
Corrected I tcm'I'otal Correlation
.2533 .4854 .4418
Squared Multiple Correlation
Alpha If i tcnl 1)clctcd
.0672 .3287 .3108
.7126 .3119 .390 1
Subscale 1tcms
Scale Mean If Item 1)cleted
M 1c Mld Mle M2a M2d M 2c M3a M3b M3d Mean Inter-Item Correlation Alpha: .63
Ilb Ilc I1 e 12a I2d I2e 13a 13b I3e Mean Inter-Item Correlation Alpha: .37
Scale Variance If Item l)clcted
Corrected I tern'I'otal Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Alpha 1f I tern Ilclcted
Subscalc l tcms
Scale Mean If Item Ikleted
Mean Inter-Item Correlation:
Scale Variance If Item 1)clcted
Corrected Item'1'0 tal Correlation
Squared Multiple Correlation
Alpha
If [ tern I)clctcd
.15
Alpha: .60
iten1 arid the sum of the remaining items in the subscale), which provides an index of an item's correlation with the remainder of the items in its subscale. With respect to the mean inter-item correlation, a coefficient of .20 and above indicates a reasonably honlogeneous item cluster, whereas figures below .20 suggest that the subscale is probably made up of more than one underlying factor. As for the corrected item-total correlation, any coefficient above .20 is generally considered an acceptable degree of relationship between an item and the remainder of its subscale. Discussion will proceed by subscale and exclude the three major composite subscales, M, I, T. 'Two questions must be answered here: Is the scale adequately homogeneous, and if so, does the cluster of stems that are retained still assess the root criterion?
M - l is a wry cohesive subscale, with a mean inter-item correlation of .40 and corrected itc~n-totalcorrelations of .46 ( M l c ) , .49 ( M l d ) , and .47 (M lc). 'I'hesc rcsults, along with the conclusions drawn from the inter-item correlation matrix indicate that the M-1 subscale constitutes a homogeneous entity. 'I'he M-1 root criterion - "displays self to attract the attention of others" - can be reduced to a basic exhibitionism construct. 'l'he retained items are: M 1 c.
For me, the idea of playing a starring role ...
M l d. A person stands in the spotlight, while another stands off to one side. If I were in this scene, I would be ... Mle.
Some pcople like to be noticed, whereas for others, it's just not important. Asfor myse6..
T h e discardcd items are:
Mla.
If I tell a joke at a social gathering, and several people turn to listen ...
Mlb.
If I were asked to take part in a play ...
'I'he retained stems are very direct and prime the respondent with specific words related to exhibitionism, such as "starring," "spotlight,", or "noticed," whereas the rejected stems do not, and seem to suggest situations with some sort of buildup; where one has to make a decision about a situation. This led to various forms of hesitancy in the subject's responses to the rejected stems. For example, with M l a , subjects often said things like: "Well, I'm not very good at telling jokes, but if it was a good joke ...etc." As for M l b , one of the most common responses was: " I t would depend on what part I was offered." I t may be that another difference between the retained and discarded stems is
whether the situation is perceived as threatening and non-threatening. The discarded stems have a formal and context-specific quality, whereas the retained stems refer specifically to
exhibitionism.
111 M i a ,
the subject must dccidc what to do whcn the audicncc turn, to
listen, and in M l b , one is askcd what one would d o if invited to take part in a public event. However, with the retained stems, one entertainj the idea ( M l c ) of playing a starring role, or one is already doing something ( M l d ) , and is simply askcd "where were you" in this sccnc. 'l'hc last stem ( M l e ) is sinlply a request to state a generality about oneself. In conclusion it can be said that the retained items in this subscale both reflect a unitary underlying dimensionlfactor, and assess the root criterion of exhibitionism.
M-2 Subscale
M-2 is not nearly as homogeneous as M-1, with a mean inter-item correlation of .19, and corrected item-total correlations of .24 (M2a), .25 (M2d), and .24 (M2e). These results agree with the inter-item correlation results reported earlier, which found that most of the M-2 items did intercorrelate positively, but only to the .16 - .19 level. Although M2 probably represents a unitary factor, its homogeneity is maintained by a rather weak inter-item bond. T h e M-2 root criterion - "seeks out confirming and admiring responses"
-
is
related, but not identical to, exhibitionism, as it refers to how one gets their narcissistic supplies (in this case, actively). T h e retained stems are: M2a.
If I have a new hairstyle (or am wearing new clothes), and I bump into someone I haven't seen for a while ...
M2d. When I share my successes with other people, my secret wish is that they ... M2e.
I need people to tell me that I ...
'The discarded items are:
M2b
When I get excited about something I've done, I expect my friends to ...
M2c
I have daydreamed that I. ..
M2a and M2d reflect the same idea: Given the context of some sort of selfenhancing situation, what is the response one desires from others? One of the discarded stems (M2b) asks a similar question, but the word "expect" may have put too fine a point o n it. Although M2c certainly pulled for the full range of targetted responses, i t is
ultinlately too open-ended. Given that the retained stems do provide a context in which respondents can say whether they do or do not desire confirming and admiring responses, i t seems that the retained stems d o assess the root criterion.
M-3 Subscale
M-3 has a similar structure to M-2, with a mean inter-item correlation of .18, and corrected item-total correlations of .26 (M3a, .23 (M3b), and .20 (M3d). The inter-item correlation matrix results displayed a pattern of weak positive intercorrelations (<.20), a relatively strong correlation between M3a and M3b (.23), and a partitioning off of item M3e by virtue of its negative correlation with item M3d (-.18). Both lines of evidence suggest a weakly intercorrelated cluster, which may with some further refinement, attain sufficient homogeneity. T h e M-3 subscale has two root criteria: the "A" criterion (low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses), and the "B" criterion (self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses). Here is the one instance where the initial stem-writing strategy was at odds with psychometric analysis because the items had to fall into two conceptual groupings. This undoubtably affected scale homogeneity, as did the wording of item M3e, which caused it to be repeatedly misunderstood (it shouldread: "If I were to say whether I gain lasting satisfaction from positive feedbackladmiration ..." rather than "positive feedback or admiration"). T h e retained stems are:
M3a.
If I had to work in a demanding job in which I would receive little o r no fccdback from my boss or co-workers as to whether I was doing i t well ...
M3b.
Everyone's feelings arc affected by what others neglect to say to us as nluch as what they rlo say. In my experience, my feelings arc sensitive to the rtbsencr of comments such as ...
M3d. My sense of self-worth can be affected by ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
T h e discarded stems are:
3c. Some people feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get, whereas others find that the good feeling they get from a compliment seems to evaporate almost as soon as i t started. fn my rase ... M3e.
If 1 were to say whether I gain hstingsatisfaction from positive feedback or adnliration ... What occured is that the "A" stems and the "floater" stem(M3d) formed a semi-
homogeneous cluster. O n e of the reasons this may have occurred is that it is virtually impossible to get subjects to state whether the positive effect brought about by a compliment lasts very long. Some subjects were very explicit in their responses and did say whether the positive effect lasted or not, but those subjects also seemed to have some real insight into the question. In conclusion, with such a clear conceptual division, i t is obvious that the retained stems do reflect the root criterion. The issue that remains is whether the "A" criterion is sufficient to fulfill the third component of the construct.
1-1 Subscale 1-1 presents the lowest inter-item correlation (.11) of all the subscales as well as low corrected item-total correlations: I1 b (. 14), I l c (. 1 l ) , and I l d (.22). Results from the inter-item correlation matrix depict a subscale partitioned into two negatively correlated clusters of items. T h e items that make up the three-item subscale seen here arc interrelated by nonsignificant positive correlations. Overall, 1-1 is not a very homogeneous subscale,
arid requires furthcr dcvclopmctit. 'l'hc 1 - 1 root criterion is "seeks others to adrnirc for their idcalizablc qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intclligcncc, or views." 'l'hc rctairlcd sterns arc: 1 1 b.
'l'hc kind of person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ...
I lc.
'l'he kind of person who holds a real fascination for me ...
Ilc.
A person outside of my family whose presence has enhanced my life ...
'I'he discarded stems are:
Ila.
I t is very important to me that I get to know people who are
I 1 d.
It somethirnes seems as though
...
I am always searching for a person who ...
What is unusual about the entire set of 1-1 stems is that two of the retained stems (I 1b and I l c ) seem very similar to two of the two discarded stems. O n closer examination the difference between the two retained versus two discarded stems is that the retained stems ask for descriptions of people. One of the reasons why the retained stem cluster has such low scale homogeneity is that I1 b and I1 c are quite different from I1 e. I1 b and I1 c offer more room for those extreme responses, whereas I l e tended to evoke moving descriptions of people who served an ideal-function in the respondent's life. In a sense, I l e does not so much ask if one seeks o u t people to idealize, so much as ask if one has ever had an ideal-type influence (and the affective manner in which the stem is completed determines the score); Nevertheless, this item cluster has the lowest mean inter-item correlation. It clearly needs work, to the extent that it makes little difference to talk about items that were retained or discarded. In conclusion, the 1-1 subscale does not seem to represent one underlying factor, although it does assess the root criterion.
1-2 is a very cohesive subscale, with a mean inter-item correlation of 3 2 , and
. corrected item-total correlations of .37 (I2a), .41 (I2d), and .3H ( 1 2 ~ )Inter-item corrclation matrix results suggest that there are two merged clusters of positively correlated items, and the final three-item version is nladc up of aspects of both clusters, resulting in a homogeneous subscale. T h e 1-2 root criterion is: "Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealized/pedestalized other, which ends the relationship," which is of course, the disappointment clause.The retained stems are: Try to bring to mind someone you held in very high esteem, but who you did not know all that well. Over time, as you got to know himlher better ... When someone I look up to displays a character flaw - that is, show that they are not as faultless as I initially imagined ... Some people are very discriminating when it comes to the people they admire they have high standards, even for those they view as above all others. If these standards are not met, they would find it impossible to continue to look up to a person. Some people however, could care less, and are inclined to overlook other people's faults, even those of the people they admire. In my rase ...
T h e discarded stems are:
I t is often the case that when we first encounter someone who really impresses us, we tend to see only the prominent aspects of their personality, yet after we learn more about them, their entire personality becomes visible to us. You can probably recall such an instance in your own life (it could be someone you know, or a famous face, such as an inspiring political leader or media personage, someone who possesses exceptional ability, wealth, power, beauty, moral stature, intelligence, etc. ). Speaking from my own experienre, when Igot to know someone you admired, my reaction was . ..
There have been times in my adult life when I have admired someone, or even come to the conclusion that a certain person represents one of my ideals. The length of time that I saw this person as being admirable ...
I3ccause this scale coi~ldhave been retained at four items rather than thrcc, i t makc5 little sense to talk abour whether the retained items arc better. However, even at the five item level, 12c did not have as high an item-total correlation as the others. .l'he reason for this is that i t is simply a confilsing item, as were all the prototypes with similar wording that came before it. With a homogeneity index of .32, the only comment one car1 make about this scale is why it works so well. O n e reason seems to be that test subjects seemed to find it easier to speak of the loss or rejection of an idealized person than to describe how one idolizes. This subscale clearly measures the root criterion, because each stem describes the rejection dynamic.
1-3 Subscale
1-3 is "borderline" in terms of subscale homogeneity, with a mean inter-item correlation of .l9, and corrected item-total correlations of .20 (I3a), .32 (I3b), and .22 (I3e). T h e earlier inter-item correlation results clearly evoke this pattern with a withinscale cluster of positively-correlated items (I3a, I3b, I3e) set against a background of nonsignificant negative correlations. Subscale 1-3 clearly requires some but not much refinement to improve its homogeneity. T h e 1-3 subscale root criterion is: "Experiences self as happylworthwhile only so long as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one. T h e retained stems are: 13a.
If a person I admire rejects me ...
I3b.
If a person I admire acts in a cold or unfriendly manner towards me, I feel ...
13e.
We all have people in our lives who we look u p to, people who represent the ideals and goals we dream of attaining ourselves. Often, our association with such people is a personal one, and their very presence is important to us. lffor some reason, I had
to part company with such a person, I would.feel. ..
'1-he discarded stems arc:
13c.
'I'here are times my life (in everyone's life for that matter) when my self-esteem takes a dip. When this happens, I can feel quite out of sorts. However, if I associate with a certain type of person my sense of vitality is restored. f i r me that type of' person z~~ould be ...
13d.
My sense of self-esteem gets a real boost when I associate with a pcrson who ... Both of the rejected stems contained the term "self-esteem," which caused many a
defensive reaction. This is particularly frustrating because in some ways, the discarded stems "ask the question" more directly. T h e fact that I3c correlated negatively (-.07) with the other stems in this subscale tends to suggest that it was one of those stems affected by the "stem-writer's paradox."l As for the retained stem's thematic content, the first two follow the same theme and elicited direct responses, whereas the third stem - which is slightly different - evoked some of the most heartfelt reactions. 'The retained stems d o assess the root criterion, with the qualification that in order to score the responses so that their meaning was relevant to this personality dynamic, the scoring rationale had to give low scores to the "average expectable response" to this sort of rejection scenario.
'1'- 1 Subscale
T-1 is one the subscales that is homogeneous enough to have been maintained at five items, but was reduced to three for the purpose of comparison. I t has a mean inter-item correlation of .33, and its corrected item-total correlations are .25 ( T l a ) , .49 ( T l b ) , and
.44 ('I'ld). These strong intercorrelations were also observed in the inter-item correlation matrix. 'The T-1 subscale root criterion is: "Seeks relationships1 friendshipslaffiliation with others who conform to hislher own appearance, opinions or values." The retained stems are: -
-
Being that the best stems - that is, the ones that ask the question most directly, will in a sense be the worst stems because they evoke a defensive response.
.l.l a.
Having a partner who is very much like myself ...
'1'1 h.
Some of the people I know are very similar to me, whereas others are very different from me. I feel the most comfortable with ...
1
I11 some friendships, similarity is what makes it work, whereas for others, opposites attract. In order that a friendship be a satisfying one, it is important that the other person be ...
T h e discarded stems are:
1
Think of your best friend. Is it the similarities or differences in your personalities that makes you friends? For me, what really makes the friendship "click" ...
'I'le. Having a partner who is very different from myself ... These stems are all very straightforward, so there is little point discussing whether one or more factors underly this subscale. T h e stems do assess the root criterion. 'r-2 Subscale
T-2 is far less cohesive than T-1, with a mean inter-item correlation o f . 17, and corrected item-total correlations of .16 (T2b), .28 (T2d), and .22 (T2e). Given that the inter-item correlation matrix showed that the strongest correlation occurred between items T 2 d and T2e, this is as homogeneous that this subscale can be without further refinement. 'Ihe 'T-2 root criterion is: "Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which helshe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own. The retained stems are: T2h.
When I am with my partnerlbest friend, how I feel depends on what they ...
'172d. If a friend experiences intense sadness, we usually make an effort to console them, because that is what we are supposed to d o in that situation: Therefore if someone cries, the "script" we follow is to offer some sort of consolation. However, what we do may or may not reflect how we actually feel (i.e., real empathy for their feelings, or just plain awkward). The last time a close friend expressed deep mrrotu, my feelings were ...
' 1 . 2 ~ . For some people, their own emotions arc quite unaffected by their friends' feclinp, whereas for others, they experience their closest friend's feelings as if they wcrc their own. /n my CUSP . ..
'l'he discarded stems arc:
'1'2a.
If I spend the day with my closest friend, and hislher mood changes suddenly, my own mood ...
'1'2c.
The things that I am most affected by when it comes to my partner ...
O f the stems that were retained, 'I'2d and 'I'2e are very similar in that they both describe the same situation, and i t is no surprise that T 2 b is the odd one out with an itern-total correlation o f . 16. This scale could be improved by the addition of stems similar to the retained ones. I t is also unclear as to whether the retained stems do evoke the root criterion. In this regard, the stem that seems to assess the criterion most clearly is T2e, simply
because it describes the situation.
'1.-3 Subscale
T - 3 is a very homogeneous subscale which could have been retained at five items. It has a mean inter-item correlation of .29, and corrected item-total correlations of .43 ('Iq3b), 3 4 ('173c),and 3 2 ( T 3 0 , a pattern which is also supported by results from the inter-item correlation matrix. T h e T - 3 root criterion is: "Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought." This is of course the disappointment clause. The retained stems are: T3b.
If I discover that a friend and I are very dissimilar ...
7'3c.
In my close friendships, a difference in outlook or lifestyle ...
'1'3f.
Consider these two scenes: In the first one, two friends stand side hy side. It is obvious that they are quite different from one another. I11 the second scene, two other friends stand together, but unlike the first two, they are alike in many ways. /f'/ ruere in the first scene, / zuordd fie/ . . . if'/ruere in the second scene I would feel . ..
'I'hc discarded stems are:
'I'3a.
If l arrive at the realization that sonleone who 1 consider to be a close friend is very different from me in some respect ...
T3d.
There are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to d o with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my life, I felt this way because ...
T3e.
Sometimes, when we have a lot in common with someone, we feel a sense of kinship. Such a friendship (one based on similarity between people) can create a special bond. If I discovered in the course of knowing that person, that zue were not as much 'twins'as I thought we were...
This subscale is the only one that began with six items, and the one iten1 that was dropped to make it a five-item subscale was T3d. From the standpoint of pure content, 7'3d is the only stem that does not actually describe the similarity/dissimilarity issue. Instead, i t employs a more open-ended approach that allows for a "twinship" response to the betrayal theme, if indeed that is how subjects exhibiting "twinship-behaviors" respond. 'This is again one of those instances where the retained and discarded stems not only form a reasonably honlogeneous entity, but they also pull for the targetted criterion very well.
Summary
O f the three Mirror-Hungry subscales, M-1 is adequately homogeneous, whereas M 2 and M-3 require further refinement. 1-2 is a very homogeneous subscale, 1-3 is much like
M-2 and M-3 in that it is "borderline," and 1-1 clearly needs work with a mean inter-item
correlation of . l I . '1'-l and
'['-?I
arc very homogeneous, whereas '1'-2 is suboptimal. 'l'hcsc
conclusions essentially replicate the findings from the inter-item correlation matrix.
IV.
Corirent Validity: Principal Components Analysis
I'reliminary tests were employed to determine whether this type of analysis would be suitable. Results from Hartlett's test of sphericity prodilced a large test statistic value and snlall significance level (591.70, p= .000), which suggested that i t is unlikely that the population correlation matrix is an identity matrix (wherein all the diagonals are 1 and all the off diagonals are 0), and that a factor model is appropriate (Norusis, 1990). Secondly, examination of the anti-image correlation matrix did not reveal a high proportion of largc correlations, which suggested that partial correlations between unique factors would be close to zero, again recommending the factor model (Norusis, 1990). Lastly, the KaiserMeyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was employed to compare the observcd with the partial correlation coefficients. If the KMO index is small, it indicates that correlations between pairs of variables cannot be explained by other variables, and a factor analysis would not be advisable. T h e figure produced by this test was .55. Kaiser (1974) suggests that correlations in the .50 range are very poor. However, given the evidence from the first two indices, I decided to proceed. 'I'he SI'SS Factor program (SPSS, 1990) was performed using the reduced 27item scale, specifying 3, 4, and 5 factors. Scree test results suggested that either a two or five factor model would be appropriate (given that it portrayed the first two factors as very distinct, followed by a tight cluster of three factors, followed by the "scree.") Examination of the factor pattern matrices revealed that the factor model that provided the best depiction of the data was the four-factor solution with oblique rotation (See Table 10). Factors 1 and 3 were plotted to provide the most interpretable picture (See Figure 1 ) . 'I'hc four-factor solution with oblique rotation produced two clear factors (which
account for 13.1%0and 8.5'Vo of the variance, respectively) and two mixed factor, (each o f which account for approximately 8% of the variance). See l'able 9 below for these sratisrics
I'rincipal Componenrs Analysis Final Statistics --
Factor
Eigenvalue
(Yo Var.
Cum.
'Yo
T h e first factor consists mainly of ?'-scale items: T l a , '1.1 b, T l d , T 3 b , T3c, '1'3f, and to a minor degree, 12d and I2e. T h e second factor is primarily composed of M-scale items: M l c , M l d , M l e , M2a, M2d, M2e, M3b, I 3 2 d ,and to a lesser extent, M3d. M3a loads negatively on factor one. T h e third and fourth factors appear to consist of mainly I scale items. Factor three is made up of the I2a, I2d, I2e, I l c , as well as T3b. It should be noted that the entire T-2 subscale loads negatively and to a substantial degree, on the third factor. Factor four consists of Ile, I3a, I3b, I3e, M3a, T2b, T2e, and T3c. T h e structure -of the plotted factors (see Figure One) was somewhat different (horizontal axidfactor one, vertical axis/ factor three), with factors one and two forming a central cluster, and the 1-2 and T - 2 subscales forming two separate 'polar' clusters. Within the central clusters, three sub-groupings formed: a.) T 3 b with T3c, b.) T l a , TI b, T l d , and T3f, and c.) and the largest portion, which consists of M l d , M l e , M2a, M2d, M2e, M3a, M3b, M3d, I1 b, I l c , I l e , I3a, I3c, and I3e.
.l'he factor loadings depict two coherent factors, the first being
;l 'l'winship
factor
(without the '1'-2 subscale which appears to he split between the second and fourth Factors), and the second a Mirror factor. 'I'he third factor is primarily reprcsentcd by the 1-2 scale, whereas the fourth is split between the 1-3 scale and a mix of other items (1-1 seems to be associated with factor two). These results essentially follow the same structure that was first encountered i n the subscale-by-subscale correlation discussion: '1'- 1 and '1-3 and 1-2 display some interrelationship (factor one), as do M-1 with M-2 (factor two), 1-3 with 'I*-2(factor four), and 1-2, which was found to be one of the most homogeneous subscales, forms its own factor (factor three) Because 7'-2 and 1-2 are negatively correlated, they maintain an antipodal relationship. Although these patterns of correlations do form a rough sketch of the factor structure just discussed, the four factors do only account for a third of the total variance, and because the factor structure is only partially analogous to the content structure of the theory, many questions remain as to the reasons for the patterns that emerged in this analysis. As a footnote to this discussion, and something of an illustration of the crossover between the I and 'I' subscales, it is worth mentioning that a multidimensional scaling analysis was performed using the subscales rather than the items as variables. 'The results clearly showed how the M-scales formed a complete cluster, as did the I and T subscales. However, the 1-2 subscale, rather than displaying proximity to the other I-scales, was transposed amidst theT-scales between T-1 and T-3. In a sense, what occurred was that the Ideal-hungry disappointment clause had located itself next to the Twinship-hungry disappointment clause. This matter will be taken up in the discussion section.
'l'ablc 1 0 Factor I.oadinqs for Four-Factor Obliauc Solution Variable
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
'1'3f
'I' I d
'I. 1b '1'1 a '1'3 b 'I'3c M3b Mld Mlc M lc M2d M2a M2e M3d
Ile
-.00
.29
.02
.60
13b
-.09
.ll
.2 1
.57
13a
.14
-.I3
-.I4
.50
I3e
-.03
.18
.13
.50
M3a
-.23
.20
.O 1
.37
Ilb
-.I9
.20
.12
-.25
I I T
1
I 1
I
I2dI2e
1251 ! 1 ?
I Ilc 13b I I3e1 Ilb M3a
- - - - Mle
M2d I l e M2a +
----
-
,
Mld M3b !M2e ! 13a M3d 1T2e 1
T2b1 I T2d
I ?
I 1
I ! ! I
Figure One: Factor plot, test items. Horizontal factor 1, vertical factor 3.
V.
(:onvcrrynt and I>iscrirninanr Validity Kcsults: Scnte~ice(:oni~letiona n d Personality Research Form Subscales
Mirror-Hunpry Subscale
As described earlier, the Mirror-Hungry type is regarded as having two manifestations - those subjects who endorse all three criteria ( M + ) , and those who endorse only the first two (M-). For the purpose of assembling that group of subjects in the latter category, it was necessary to define "endorse," and so it was decided that a total subscale score that exceeded one standard deviation above the sample mean would be considered sufficiently elevated for this purpose. Therefore, the group of subjects who would comprise that group that "endorsed" the first two criteria would have to score in cxcess of 7.4 on the M-1 and M-2 subscales and have a score of 3 on the M-3 subscale (in effect indicating no endorsement at all). Unfortunately, only two subjects out of a total of 107 met these criteria - hardly enough upon which to base an analysis. T o conclude, although i t was planned to d o two levels of analysis with the Mirror-Hungry subscale, there were not sufficient subjects to form the M(-) category. Correlations were calculated at the .05 level, one-tailed, with column-wise protection of alpha such that critical p levels must be less than or equal to .0062 (refer to Table 1 1 for specific values). I t was predicted that the Mirror-Hungry subscale would correlate positively with the following P.R.F. subscales: Exhibitionism, Defendencc, I>esireability, Social Recognition, and Succorance. T h e results are as follows: T h e MirrorHungry subscale did correlate positively and significantly with the Exhibitionism (.42), Ikfendence (.28), and Social Recognition subscales (.36). It also correlated positively with the Ilesireability and Succorance subscales, but not to a significant degree.
2.
Ideal-Hungry Subscale
Correlations were calculated at the .05 level, one-tailed, with column-wise protection of alpha such that critical p levels must be less than or equal to .0083 (refer to 'l'able 1 1 for specific values). I t was predicted that the Ideal-Hungry subscale would correlate positively with the following P.K.F. subscales: Abasement, I>efendeticc, Succorance, and Social Recognition. It was also predicted that the Ideal-Hungry subscale would correlate negatively with the P.K.F. I)uminance and Autonomy subscales. 'l'he rcsults are as follows: T h e Ideal-Hungry subscale correlated positively and significantly with the Lkfendence subscale (.33) but no others. No significant negative correlatiorls appeared.
3.
T w i n s h i ~ - H u n ~ rSubscale y
Correlations were calculated at the .05 level, one-tailed, with column-wise protection of alpha such that critical p levels must be less than or equal to .0125 (refer to l'able 1 1 for specific values). It was predicted that the Twinship-Hungry subscale would correlate positively with Defendence and Succorance, and negatively with Autonomy and Change. T h e results are as follows: T h e Twinship-Hungry subscale did correlate positively and significantly with the Succorance subscale (r
=
.37). Although it did correlate
positively with the Defendence subscale, it was not to a significant degree. T h e TwinshipHungry subscale did correlate negatively and significantly with the Autonomy (-.28) and Change (- .29) subscales.
Corlvcrgent and 1)iscriminant Validity liesults: Sentence Com~lctionand I'ersonalitr Research Form Subscales
P.K.F. Subscale
s.<::r. Subscale EX
M
.4243 p= .000
lk
I)Y
Su
Sr
.2783
.0277
.I749
.3633
p= 3 8 9
p= .036
p= .000
.33 19
.O 139
.0403
-.0126
.I747
p= .000
p= .444
p= .340
p= .449
p= .036
p= .002
p crit. I .0063, 1-tailed
I
-.I125 p= .I24
p crit 5 .0083, 1-tailed
'I-
-.2806
-.29 17
.I367
.3729
p= .002
p= .001
p= .080
p= .000
p crit. 1.0 125, 1-tailed
Note: M = Mirror-Hungry, I = Ideal-Hungry, T = Twinship-Hungry, Ex = PRF Exhibitionism, L>e = I'KF Ikfendence, Dy = PRF Desireability, Su = PRF Succorance, Sr = PKF Social Kecognition, Ab = I'KF Abasement, Au = PRF Autonomy, Do = PRF Dominance, Ch = I'RF Change.
VI.
Iliffcrential Validity: (:orrelation with the 1)csirability Subscalc
As a means of screening for items that elicit socially desireable responses during the pilot study phase, great care was taken to modify certain stems that did elicit socially desireable or defensive response styles. 'I'he second stage in that process involves examining the correlations between the sentence completion test items and the P.1i.t;. 1)esircability subscale, which was designed to screen out respondents who might report in a socially desireable and hence invalid manner. Table 12 lists these figures. We can easily see that the M-1 items and T 2 d both display positive, although not large or significant correlations with the Desireability subscale. T h e correlation between M-1 and the I)y subscale does not pose a problem, as these items were written to elicit a need for social desireability (to be the center of attention). As for 'T2d (the "do you console your fricnd when heishe feels sorrow" stem), the situation described by the stem does tend to elicit socially acceptable responses, but the observed correlation is not large enough, even in terms of absolute value, to be of concern.
VII.
Differential Validity: Correlation Between Items and Relevant/Irrelevant P.R.F. Subscales
The next step involves a similar process as was undertaken in the convergent and discriminant validity section, only here we calculate the mean correlation between each item and combinations of relevant and irrelevant P.R.F. subscales. For the Mirror subscale the relevant scales are Exhibitionism and Social Recognition, whereas the irrelevant scales are Change and Cognitive Structure. For the Ideal subscale, the relevant scales are Defendence and Social Recognition, and the irrelevant scales are Affiliation and Play. The relevant scales for Twinship are Autonomy and Change (here we look for a negative relationship), and the irrelevant scales are Exhibitionism and Play (where we expect no
relationship or a negative correlation of considerably smaller magnitude that1 with Au arid (:h.). See Table 13 for these figures. 'l'he results of this analysis are somewhat disappointing. All of the M-1, '1'-I, '1.-2, and '1'-3 items display the expected relationships with the relevant and irrelevant scales.
M-2 in general does not display the expected relationship to the relevant or irrelevant scales. M3a shows an equalcorrelation with each category, whereas the other M-3 items display the expected direction but not enough magnitude. 1-1 is acceptable in terms of direction but not magnitude, 12e is equal whereas the other 1-2 items are acceptable, and I-
3 acceptable, with the exception of I2e. Apart from the M-1 and 'I' subscales, this means of comparison did not work out as expected. Two reasons are suggested: 1.) Because each major subscale can be broken down into three sub-constructs, each of the nine subscales should be correlated with its own set of relevant/irrelevant scales, which 2.) the I'RF does not provide.
V I I I . Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results: Sentence C o m ~ l e t i o nSubscales and Self-Rating Scales
I t was predicted that each of the sentence completion subscales would correlate
positively with its face-valid self-rating counterpart. Correlations were calculated at the
.05 level, one-tailed, with column-wise protection of alpha such that critical p levels must be less than or equal to .0 17 (refer to Table 14 for specific values). T h e results are as follows: T h e Mirror-Hungry subscale correlated positively and significantly (r
=
.26) with the Mirror-Hungry rating scale. The Ideal-Hungry subscale
correlated positively and significantly with the Ideal-Hungry (r the'l-winship-Hungry (r
=
=
.27) and and less so with
.23) rating scale. The Twinship-Hungry subscale correlated
positively and significantly with the Twinship rating scale (r significant degree with the Ideal-Hungry rating scale (r
=
=
.23), and to a lesser though
.23). Correlations therefore
appeared as predicted, in addition to a positve correlation bctwecn the 'l'winship and Idealizing domains, which can be accounted for by the intercorrelation bctwecn the I and
'I' composite subscalcs. What is noteworthy is that this is the third time this Idealizing'l'winship relationship has appeared: I t was first evident in the subscale-by-subscale correlations, i t also appeared in the factor analysis, and now it has shown up iu the comparison between the sentence completion test and an external criterion (the Self-Rating scales).
Table 12 Differential Validity: Correlation with the I>esireability Subscale
1tcm -
--
l
M le
Item
r
Item
r
.18
Ilb
-.I1
'I' 1a
-.20
.17
I ~ C
-.o3
-r~b
-.lo
.I 1
Ile
-.05
'1 1 d
-.lo
--
M 1c ~
r
d
'l'ablc 13 1)iffcrential Validity Mean Correlations Hetween Items and Relevant/lrrclcvant I'.lLt;. Subscales
Mean Rcl.
Mean Irrcl.
-
lM 1c M 1d Mle M2a M2d
M 2c M3a M3b M3d
Ilb Ilc Ile I2 a I2 d 12e 13a 13b I3e '1' 1a
'I. 1 b 'I. 1d 'r2b 'I'2d 'r2e
-1'3b '1-3c
'r 3 f Note: Mean Kel. = Mean of correlation between the item and relevant scales. Mean Irrel. = Mean of correlations between the item and irrelevant scales.
'l'ablc 14 (:onvcr!rcnt and 1)iscriminant Validity Kesults: Sentence C o n ~ ~ l e t i oSubscalcs n and S& Ratinfr Scalcs
Sel (-Rating Scalcs
s (:'I. Subscale
SR'I'
SRM
SKI
.2624
.0340
.I852
p= .003
p= 3 6 4
p= .028
p crit. 5.017, I -tailed
1 273
.2693
.2257
p= .096
p= .003
p= .010
p crit. 5.017, 1-tailed
'I'
.02 18
.2303
.2305
p= .412
p= .009
p= .008
p crit. 5.017, 1-tailed
p 5.05
Note: M = Mirror-Hungry, I = Ideal-Hungry, T = Twinship-Hungry, SRM = SelfKatingIMirroring, SRI
=
Self-Kating/Idealizing, SKT
=
Self-Rating/Twinship.
IX.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity Kcsults: Sclf-Ihtinrr Scales and I1.li.tE. Subscales
It
scerncd logical that the Self-Rating scales would have the same relationship to
the cxtcrnal criteria (the I1.K.F. subscales) as the sentcnce completion test. 'l'he short answer to this question is that this is not the case (see Table 15). Although many of the correlations occurred in the predicted direction, none achieved significance at the .05 level. However, in terms of the absolute value of the correlations, some interesting patterns do emerge. For instance, the Mirror Self-Kating scale correlates positively with the Defendence and Social Recognition subscales, but not Exhibitionism. Nothing of note emerges between the Ideal Self-Kating scale and the P.R.F. subscales, but the 'Twinship Self-Kating scale correlates positively with Defendence but not the other scales - almost the inverse of the correlation pattern between the Twinship-Hungry subscale and the P.R.F. subscales. These relationships are important to the extent that they illustrate some of the basic differences between the test subscales and rating scales, all of which will be taken up further in the discussion section.
X.
Ex~loration:Correlation Between the Sentence Completion Subscales and the Remaining P.R.F. Subscales
1.
Mirror-Hungry Scale T h e correlations between the M subscale and the remaining P.R.F. subscales proved
to be most surprising. As stated earlier, i t was expected that for those subjects who endorsed all but the third Mirror-criterion, unlike those who endorsed all three criteria (the "insecure narcissists"), these "arrogant narcissists" as a group would correlate positively with P.R.F. Aggression and Dominance, and negatively with Abasement. Although not statistically significant, the relationship between the Mirror-Hungry subscale and the
Abasement (-. 19), Aggression (. 1 C)), and I)oniinancc (. 19) does provc surprising in that it suggests some of the characteristics that would be present in the "arrogant narcissist" personality profile, rather than the insecure narcissist portrayed by the Mirror-Hungry personality description. What this means is that the Mirror-Hungry type as measured by the sentcncc completion test, may indeed be very similar to the subclinical narcissist measured by Raskin's Narcissistic I'ersonality Inventory (1984). 'I'hese results are presented in Table 16.
2.
Ideal-Hungry Scale
Again these results never achieve statistical significance (see 'Table 17), but the interpretation of the absolute values of the correlations provides some wholly unexpected insights. T h e Ideal-Hungry subscale displays a positive, nonsignificant correlation with the Aggression subscale (.21), as well as negative, nonsignificant correlations with the Endurance (-.23), Order (-.23), and Nurturance(-.25) subscales. In short, a profile that suggests emotional lability with respect to anger, difficulty concentrating, and egocentricity -- an almost stereotypical "narcissisitic" profile.
3.
'I'winship-Hungry Subscale
O n e of the correlations (see Table 17) between the 'I'winship-Hungry subscale and the remaining P.K.F. subscales achieved statistical significance (Social Recognition, r=.26). O f the remaining scales three stood out: Understanding (-.31, signif.), Desireablity
(.I!), nonsig.), and Endurance (-.23, nonsig.). These suggest a need for social recognition and a tendency toward concrete rather than abstract modes of thought.
'l'able 15 (:onver~ent and 1)iscriminant Validity Kesults: Self-Katinq Scales and !'.K.F. Subscales
P.K.F. Subscale Rating Scale
SKM
-
Ex
I>e
.0623
.2390
p= .007
p= .262
p crit.
SKI
5
L)Y
Su
Sr
-A1449
.0287
.236 1
p= .323
p= .385
p= .007
.0063, 1 -tailed
-.0875
.I481
p= .I85
p= .064
-.1548 p= .056
.0850
.I444
.I235
p= .I92
p= .069
p= .lo3
p crit. 1.0083, 1-tailed
SK T
-.0346
.04 19
.2 129
p= .362
p= .334
p= .014
-.O 140
p= .443
p crit. 5 . 0 125, 1 -tailed
Note: SRM = Self-KatingIMirroring, SKI = Self-RatingIIdealizing, SR?' = SclfRatingITwinship, Ex = PRF Exhibitionism, De = I'RF Defendence, I)y = I'RF Desireability, Su = PRF Succorance, Sr = 1'RF Social Recognition, Ab = PRF Abasement, Au = PRF Autonomy, D o = PRF Dominance, C h = PRF Change.
'l.able 16 (:orrelations Iktween the M Subscalc and Remaining P.K.F. Subscales
l'.Ii.F. Subscales
I'=.100 1'=.276 p crit 5 .0O3l, one-tailed.
1'=.181
1'=.082
Note: Ab = Abasement, Ac = Achievement, Ag = Agression, Au = Autonomy, C h = Change, Cs = Cognitive Structure, Do = Dominance, En = Endurance, H a = Harmavoidance, Im = Impulsivity, N u = Nurturance, Od = Order, PI = Play, Se = Sentience, Un = Understanding.
'l'able 17 (:orrelations Between the I Subscale and Remaining P.K.F. Subscales
P.R.F. Subscales
1'= .005 1'= .009 p crit 5 .(I031, one-tailed.
P= .028
P= .263
1'= .429
Note: Ac = Achievement, Ag = Agression, Ex = Exhibitionism, Dy = Desireability, Ch Change, Cs = Cognitive Structure, Do = Ilominancc, En = Endurance, H a = Harmavoidance, Im = Impulsivity, N u = Nurturance, O d = Order, PI = Play, Se = Sentience, Un = Understanding.
=
'l'ahlc 1 X (:orrclations ISetween the 'I' Subscale and Kemaining 1I.K.F. Subscales
'I'
-.04
-. 16
1'= .326 1'= .051 p crit 5 .0O3 1, one-tailed.
.03
-.3 1
.26
I'= .377
l'= .001
I'= .003
Note: Ab = Abasement, Ac = Achievement, Af = Affiliation, Ag = Agression, Dy = Ihireability, Cs = Cognitive Structure, Do = Dominance, En = Endurance, Ha = Harmavoidance, Im = Impulsivity, Nu = Nurturance, O d = Order, PI = Play, Se = Sentience, Un = Understanding, Sr = Social Kecognition.
XI.
Inter-Kater Reliability 'Uhe Scoring Manual Kappa (Cohen, 1960) was chosen as the measure of inter-rarer reliability as i t
corrects for chance agreement between raters, and is appropriate for use with categorical variables (Rartko, 1991). Ixvel of agreement was determined for each separate item, and aggregated for each of the nine separate criteria, the three personalities, and the manual as a whole, although for the purposes of this research it is the nine criteria that are important. Results are presented in tables 19, 20, 2 1, and 22. Overall, the level of agreenient is moderate to high with a full scale kappa of .66, the lowest being '1'3 at .59, and the highest being '1.1 at .71 (Fleiss, 1987), with only one exception, that being item 'I'3d in the '1'-3 subscale, with a kappa of .30 ( p 5.001). In this instance the low figure can be accounted for by the fact that the second rater gave no scores in the three range.
'l'able 19 In~cr-RaterA!;reement: M i r r o r - H u n y Scale I tern
Percentage
I'earson r
kappa
76.07
.78
.67
--
Mla Mlb M 1c M 1d M le M2a M2b M2c M2d M 2e M3a M3b M3c M3d
Subscale Mean
'l'ablc 20
Inter-Rater Agreement: I d e a l - H u n ~ r vSubscale
I'ercen tagc
I'earsori r
kappa -
Ila Ilb Ilc I1 d lle 12a 12b I2c I2d 12e I3 a I3b I3c I3 d I3c
Subscale Mean
79.93
'l.ablc 2 1
Intcr-Katcr Avrccmcnt: 'I'winship-Hungry Subscale
I'crccn tagc
Subscale Mean
83.17
Pearson r
kappa
I nrcr-Kater Agreement: Scale 'I'otals
--
Subscale
I'ersonality Subscale
Mcan Kappa
Mean Kappa
M irror-Hungry I deal-Hungry Twinship Hungry
Full Scale Meail Kappa:
.66
Apart from a brief structural evaluatiotl/sumn~aryof the composite subscales, this discussiun will focus on the personality profiles that emerged as the result of comparisons between the sentence completion test and the P.K.F. subscales. It will conclude with future direction for research.
From a psychometric standpoint, the M composite subscale has a reasonably cohesive structure. M-1 is quite homogeneous and represents a single dimension which correlates positively but not significantly with the other M subscales. M-2 has suboptimal homogeneity, but it does appear to represent a single dimension which correlates positively and significantly with M-3 and T-1 (see below). M-3 also displays marginal homogeneity, and in the process of item selection was reduced to a cluster that measures the "A" criterion (that one feels bad in the absence of positive feedback, rather than the "B" criterion which states that even though one needs compliments, the good feeling does not last long.). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the second of four principal components is primarily composed of all of the M-items (except for M3a, which loaded on the fourth factor) and T2d. Multidimensional scaling produced a similar cluster. Based on these cumulative results, i t appears that the M subscales not only represent three separate aspects, but also a reasonably interrelated structure/construct in the form of the composite subscale. 'I'he theoretical implications of these results are that the three components of the personality type (as laid out in the personality profiles) do indeed belong together. As for the positive correlation between M-3 and 'l'-1, there is also a theoretical precedent from the standpoint of the evolution of Self Psychology theory. For many years, Kohut assumed
that twinshiplalter-ego needs were but a subset of mirror needs, and i t was only larcr that hc saw them as distinct needs. 'l'his intercorrelation of subscales suggests that there may bc a connection between the two need areas. If we arc to follow this line of thought, the connection between the two need areas may have its juncture at the labile self-esteem aspect of the Mirror-Hungry pattern and the need for similarity in the 'I'winship domain. Whether this has more to do with the nature of the stems or the theory itself, remains to be seen in future research. 'Through comparisons with external criteria, the Mirror-Hungry personality took shape in an unexpected manner. As predicted, the M composite subscale did correlate positively and significantly as predicted with PKF Exhibitionism, Ilefendence, and Social Recognition, but not with Succorance. This made sense from both an intuitive and theoretical standpoint. Someone who is mirror-hungry will most likely be somewhat exhibitionistic and seek social recognition, and because of their narcissistic vulnerability, will be sensitive to criticism. 'I'he fact that the M subscale did not correlate to any significant degree with Succorance foreshadowed the results that emerged from the exploratory aspect of the study: T h e M subscale correlated positively but not significantly with I'RF Dominance, Aggression, and negatively with Abasement. Although these results were non significant, in terms of absolute values, the profile that emerged was that of the M(-) category, the same variety of arrogantinon-insecure narcissist described by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. There are two possibilities here: Either the MirrorHungry personality type is identical to the NPI-type of narcissist, or the stems that were retained failed to evoke material beyond the superficial layers of personality. For future research, inclusion of the more projective "floater" stems ("I have daydreamed that I...")
might help tease out such distinctions. 'I'he M composite subscale correlated as ~ r e d i c t e dwith the Mirror-Hungry SelfRating scale. However, the Self-Rating scale did not exhibit the same relationship to the
PKF subscales as the SCT subscale. There may be a simple reason for this: The sentence
completion tcst is designed to gather a wide range of responses that call hc sortcci into catcgories. Therefore, the Mirror-Hungry personality as measured by the tcst has a wide range of manifestation. 'l'hc Self-Rating scale description of the Mirror-Hungry personality is only a snapshot of one of many possible representations, so i t could not have the same relationship to the 1'KF as the test.
Ideal-Hungry Personality
T h e I composite subscale suffered from the most psychometric deficiencies. T h e 1-1 subscale displayed the lowest index of homogeneity, and given that it measures the fundamental idealizing need ("seeks others to admire..."), this is a problem that must be addressed through substantial revision of the 1-1 subscale stems. It was also the first indication that to have a person admit to idealizing needs requires expression of feelings that are either not socially acceptable, or perhaps just not very common. In support of the latter argument, the negatively-skewed I-distribution suggests that even moderately highlevel responses to I-steins were infrequent. Whether this is a stem-problem (that is, the stems pull for extreme/uncommon sentiments), sampling artifact (so that future samples should include subjects who are highly likely to have strong idealizing needs), or a replicable finding remains to be seen. 1-2 proved to be very homogeneous, and because the retained stems describe the disappointment clause, it bodes well for the unity of the Idealhungry construct. 1-3 displayed borderline homogeneity, and will require little adjustment to make it acceptable. None of the I subscales correlated significantly with the other subscales, but one nonsignitkant relationship did stand out: 1-2 correlated positively with T-1 and '1.-3, and negatively with T-2. This pattern was replicated by the exploratory factor analysis, where factor one consisted of T-1, T-3, and to a minor extent, 1-2. In general, the factor analysis represented the I-subscale as fragmented: 1-1 is scattered across factors 2 , 3, and 4, 1-2
loading heavily on factor three (partially in factor one), and 1-3 on factor four. 'l'hc correlation bctwccr~1-2 and '1.-l/T-3 was also replicated by the mi~ltidimer~sional scaling analysis, but in a graphic manner in which 1-1 and 1-3 group together, whereas 1-2 is transposed into the middle of the '1'-cluster, between '1'-1 and 'I'-3. 'I'his relationship appeared yct again in the correlation between the I composite subscale and its Self-rating counterpart. T h e 1 subscale correlated positively with the Ideal Self-Rating scale andtht. 'I'winship Self-Kating scale. 'I'his may have theoretical implications. Either i t means that the I composite subscale (and therefore the Ideal-Hungry personality) does not form a natural factor, or that there is some relationship between the Ideal-Hungry disappointment clause and those aspects of the Twinship-Hungry personality having to d o with the need for identity in relationships and the tendency to reject when one realizes that such identity is impossible. Earlier, I stated that one of the ways that the Mirror need differs from the Ideal and 'Twinship needs is that for the Mirror-Hungry person, the difficulty lies in the inability to assimilate the externally-supplied narcissistic supplies, whereas for the Idealor Twinship-Hungry person, the flaw is externalized. What we have here is an example of the Ideal-tendency to externalize flaws transposed onto the Twinship-tendency to externalize flaws. There is therefore a certain conceptual logic to the grouping. As with the M composite subscale, comparisons with the PRF subscales produced some interesting results. In the hypothesized relationships, the only one that was confirmed was the positive correlation between Idealizing and PRF Defendence, which again substantiates Kohut's claim that manifestation of the need as a persistent behavior pattern is accompanied by a vulnerability to criticism. However, in the exploratory analysis, some nonsignificant correlations suggested an unexpected profile. T h e I subscale correlated positively with Aggression, and negatively with Endurance, Order, and Nurturance. This
..
raises a rather profound question. I o be Ideal-hungry means that one has some sort of disturbance in the Ideals sector of the self-structure, which would in turn suggest an atrophy of one's sense of goals in life and ability to channel one's energies in a goal-related manner
(the parallel structures for Mirroring are ambitions, energy, and self-csrcc~n).. l l ~ c correlations betwceri the i subscale and the I'KF suggest an inability to stick to goalsllack of concentration (negative correlation with Endurance), ambient anger (Aggression), unfocused-ncss and disorganization (negative correlation with Order), and egocentricity (negative correlation with Nurturance). In summary, despite psychometric tlaws, the I composite subscale may well be measuring disturbances in the Ideals sector of the self, and if so, it is operating in accordance with principles firmly anchored in Self-I'sychology theory.
T w i n s h i ~ - H u n p r vI'ersonality
Because of the marked negative skew of the T-distribution, it may be - as i t was suggested earlier, that the 'I'winship-Hungry behaviors occur less frequently
-
at least in
their extreme form. Structurally, the T composite subscale is the most psychometrically robust of the three major subscales. T-1 is very homogeneous, '1'-2 needs to be refined somewhat, and T-3 is also very homogeneous. What this means is that the two main 'I'winship components (need for similarity and rejection upon discovery of lack of similarity) are unitary dimensions, which are also highly correlated whereas T-2 hardly correlates at all with T-1 or 'r-2. So strong is this interrelationship that T-1 and T - 3 make up the first principal component in the principal components analysis results, and T-2 is split between the second and fourth factors. These results suggest that whatever T-2 measures (emotional symbiosis), it is somehow different from T - l or T-3. There are two possible explanations for these results. T h e first is that identical emotions may not be a necessary condition for Twinship any more than similar hair color. T h e similarity-factor in Twinship could take almost any form, and perhaps emotional similarity is just too specific. T h e other possible reason is grounded in the conjecture generated by case histories. I t was described earlier how as the Twinship need becomes more pathological,
the requirement that the other person be a "person" at all becomes irrelevant. If all one requires from one's partncrltwin is that they bc in some way superficially identical, then emotional symbiosis becomes undesirable. (;iven that most of the '1.winship scores occurred below the midpoint, very few subjects expressed strong 'I'winship needs, so perhaps this argument does not apply, but it does make some sense (and could be tested with an analysis of variance, lowlhigh 1'-11'1'-3 by *I--2). Correlatiotis between the '1' subscale and I'KF subscales provided fewer surprises but were no less interesting. Twinship did not correlate significantly with Ikfendence as predicted, but did show a significant relationship with Succorance, Autonomy (a negative correlation), and Change (negatively). This supported the hypothesis that someone who is Twinship-Hungry would have a strong need for the support of their partner (Succorance), be somewhat dependent (negative correlation with Autonomy), and dislike novelty. In the exploratory portion of the analysis, a significant positive correlation with Social Kecognition emerged, which again evokes Kohut's original merging of the Mirror and 'Fwinship needs. Some interesting negative relationships also emerged between Twinship and Understanding and Endurance, which suggests a non-affinity for abstract/intellectual thought and an inability to stick to goalsllack of concentration, which may describe some of the crossover between Idealizing and Twinship.
New Directions For Research
T h e next phase of research will focus on the scoring manual and the scoring system in general. Loevinger (1 993) refers to the "saving circularity" in which the manual and the constructs it measures are revised according to the data that emerges from each successive study. 'Fhe manual employed in this study was constructed from minimal pilot study data, and so the next step will be to substanially revise the manual based on the data gathered from the 107 subjects who participated in the current study. 'There are two other
possible scoring revisions. As for thc first, l.ocvingcr ( 1993) assumes that nlost \uhjccth respond in a dcfcnded manner, and so i t is necessary to apply an 'ogive rule' which states that those few extreme scores which do occur should be afforded extra wcight. Whether or not such a scoring rule will be employed in the manual depends on the results of the next revision. 'l'hc second scoring revision involves the stems. Each stem is desig~ledto pull for a specific content domain, and so in this study it was appropriate to apply the various standard item-selection procedures. However, in many sentence completion tests (I3oevinger1sin particular), each response is given a score for whatever content domain it evokes. For this type of test, item-selection statistics d o not apply because each stem is designed to elicit responses from several domains. I t may be possible to alter the current scoring system to fit that model, but to d o so in a step-wise fashion. 'fhe first step would be to employ a scoring system in which each response would receive a major score (the same as the current study), and a minor score. 'I'herefore, a response to an M-1 stem would be scored as usual, and be given an additional score for whichever of the other two personality types i t evoked. In this way, the total score for a given subject would be weighted in favor of the personality type that permeated their responses. Last of all, the item-clusters will be revised so as to build the test up to four items per criterion. There are several possible research directions. T h e Mirror-Hungry ~ersonalitymay be measuring a similar (but not so extreme) construct as Raskin's (1984) Narcissistic Personality Inventory. You will recall that one of the problems with the NPI was that although it purports ~o measure subclinical mirror-type narcissism, it displays positive correlations with several measures of pathological narcissism. Given that the sentence completion test displayed positive correlations with several I'RF subscales that suggested a NI'I-type profile (but did so in a nonsignificant manner), it may be that the MirrorHungry construct measured by the sentence completion test is more of a measure of "normal" mirror-based narcissism than the NPI. 'The next logical step would be to
employ the NI'I as an external criterion with which to compare the sentence c o n ~ ~ l c t i o n test. '].he Ideal-Hungry personality portion of the test may be detecting goal-rclated disturbances in the ideals sector, and so i t may be useful to employ one of the earlier SelfI'sychology-based measures such as l'atton and Kobbins' Goal Instability scale as an external criterion. For *17winship,a suitable external criterion may be a measure based in the social pychology area, one that measures similarity-based attraction. Overall, for the next study, I will employ a larger and more diverse sample, and as a general external criterion, peer ratings may prove useful. O n e other area that I would like to examine in the next phase of research is sex differences across the three need areas. In particular, I would speculate that Twinship needs would display marked sex differences in terms of what might be referred to as the agency/cotnmunion axes and how they are retlected in styles of relatedness. As for its contribution to the field of Self Psychology research, although the sentence completion test is in its infancy, it holds much promise as a measure of the narcissistic personality types. In particular, the findings relating to the Twinship-Hungry personality represent an entirely new contribution to the field. Apart from its research uses, this test may also have some utility in the field of applied Self Psychology. Psychotherapy research and practice rarely overlap, and the sentence completion test might be used in both areas. Self I'sychology oriented psychotherapy views the therapeutic process as a means by which the client can fully express unfulfilled narcissistic needs in an environment that allows for a restructuring of the self to occur. In order for this to take place, the therapist must be able to tolerate the client's expression of those needs. In certain situations, the therapist, for countertransferential reasons, might not able to do that. For example, if we have a situation with a mirror-hungry client and a mirror-hungry therapist who compete for the same narcissistic supplies, or perhaps an intensely ideal-hungry client and a selfdeprecating therapist who deflected all adulation. What I propose here is that the test
could be used as a means of matching clients and therapists for the purpose of ~ n i t i i t n i ~ i n g countcrtransferencc difficulties, alerting therapists to potential areas of countertransference, maximizing the client-therapist rapport, and perhaps therapy outcome. I.ast of all, as an alternative to the use o f peer ratings as an external criterion, one might administer the test to clients in the university clinic, and as a parallel measure, have therapists co~ripletca narcissistic personality rating scale o n their clients.
American Psychiatric Association. ( 1 980). 1)iagnostic and statistical nlanual of mental disorders, third edition. Washington L)C: American Psychiatric Association. Ashby, H.U., lxc, K.K.,& Duke, E.H. (1970, September). A ~larcissistic personality disorder MMI'I scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the Anierican Psychological Association, New York. Auerbach, J.S. (1985). Validation of two scales for narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessmeny,4X, 649-653. Bartko, J.J. (1991). Measurement and reliability: Statistical thinking considerations. Schizo~hreniaBulletin, 17(3), 483-489. Bradlee, P.M., & Emmons, R.A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the interpersonal circumplex and the five-factor model. I'ersonality- and Individual C)ifferences,13(7), 821 -830. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 20(1), 37-46. Detrick, I1.W. (1985). Alterego phenomena and the alterego transferences. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Progress in self psychology: vol. 1. (pp. 240-256). New York: Guilford Press. Detrick, L1.W. (1986). Alterego phenomena and the alterego transferences: Some further considerations. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Propress in self ~ s v c h o l oy: vol. 2. (pp. 299304). New York: Guilford I'rcss. Eagle, M N.(1984) Psychoanalysis and modern psychoanalytic theories. In, N.S. Endler & J. McVicker Hunt (Eds.), Personality and behavioral disorders. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 73- 112. Elson, M. (Ed.). The Kohut seminars on self psycholog and psychotherapy with adolesccnts and y-ounv adults. New York: Norton.
F,mmons, K A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the N;u-cissistic I'ersonality Inventory. b u r n a l of Personality Assessment,48(3), 291 -300. Emmons, K.A. (1987). Narcissism: 'l'heory and Measurement. Jour~ialof I'ersonality and Social P s y c h o l o ~ y , ~ ( I1)1-1 , 7. F,xner, J.E. (1969). Korschach responses as an index of narcissism. J w r ~ i aof l Projective ' l ' e c h n i u u e s , ~324-330. Exner, J.E. (1973). 'l'he self-focus sentence completion: A study of egocentricity. Journal of I'ersonality Ascsessment.37. 437-455. Freud, S. (1959). O n narcissism: an introduction. Sigmund Freud: Collected Papers. Vol. 4 . (Joan Riviere, Trans), New York: Rasic Rooks, pp. 30-59. Goldstein, W.N.(1985). DSM 111 and the narcissistic personality. American Journal of I'sychotherapy, 34(1), 4- 16. Graham, J.R. (1990). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford University I'ress. Greenberg, J.K. & Mitchell, S.A.(1983) Object relations in ~sychoanalytictheory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hamilton, N.G. (1989). A critical review of object relations theory. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1552-1 559. Harder, D.W. (1 979). 'I'he assessment of ambitious-narcissistic character style with three projective tests: T h e Early Memories, 'l'.A.'I'., and Korschach. Journal of I'ersonality Assessment,&
23-33.
Jackson, D.N. (1987). I'ersonality Research Form Manual. Port Huron, MI: Research I'sychologists Press. Kainer, R. G. K. (1990). T h e precursor as mentor, the therapist as muse: Creativity and selfobject phenomena. In A Goldberg (Ed.), T h e realities of transference: Prot~ressin self psycholo~y,Vol. 6. (pp. 175-1 88). Hillsdale: 'The Analytic I'ress.
Kaiser, H.F. ( 1974). An index of factorial simplicity. I'sychotnetrik;l, 39, 3 1 -.36. Kohut, H. & Wolf, E.S. (1978). '1-he disorders of the self and their treatment: An outline. International lournal of I'sychoanal~sis,5'), 41 3. Kohut, H. (1971). 'I'he analysis of the self. New York: International Universities I'ress Inc.
--- ----- (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities I'ress Inc.
- - - - - - - ( 1 984). How docs analysis cure?. Chicago: University of Chicago I'ress. -- --- -- (1985) Self psychology and the humanities: Reflections on a rew psychoanalytic auuroach. New York: Norton. Lasch, C. (1978). T h e culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing ex~ectations.New York: Norton. Lapan, K, & Patton, M.J. (1986). Self-psychology and the adolescent process: Measures of pseudoautonomy and peer-group dependence. Journal of Counselin3 I ' s y c h o l o _ ~ ~ , ~ (1362 ) , 142. Loewenstein, S. (1977). An overview of the concept of narcissism. Social C a s e w o r k , 3 ( 3 ) , 136-142. Loevinger, J, & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development, volume one. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Loevinger, J. (1993). Measurement of personality: True or false. Ps~cholocjcal Inquiry. 4(1), 1-16. Lothstein, L.M. & Ximet, G . (1988). l'winship and alter ego selfobject transferences in group therapy with the elderly: A reanalysis of the pairing phenomenon. International Journal of Group I'sychotherapy,-38(3), 303-317. Miller, A. (1981). T h e drama of the i f t e d child. (Ruth Ward, Trans.).New York: Hasic Hooks.
Millon, 'I.. (1982). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Manual, (2nd. cd.) Minneapolis: National Computer Systems. Murphy, K.K., tSc L>avidshofcr, ( 1 . 0 . (1988). I'sychological testing: I'rinciulcs and applications.. New Jersey: I'rentice Hall. Muslin, H.1.. (1985). Heinz Kohut: Beyond the pleasure principle, Contributions to psychoanalysis. In, J. Keppen (Ed.), Beyond Freud: A study of modern psychoanalytic theorists (pp. 203-230). London: 'l'he Analytic Press. Ornstein, 1'. (Ed.). (1978a). T h e search for the self: Selected writings of Heinz Kohut:1950-1978. (Vol. 1). P.H. Ornstein (Ed.). New York: International Universities Press, Inc.
-------------. (Ed.). (1978b). T h e search for the self: Selected w r i t i n ~ sof Heinz Kohut:1950-1978. (Vol. 2). P.H. Ornstein (Ed.). New York: International Universities Press, Inc.
------------- . (Ed.). (1991). T h e search for the self: Selected writings of Heinz Kohut:1978-1981. (Vol. 4). P.H. Ornstein (Ed.). Madison: International Universities Press, Inc. Patton, M.J. (1989). Validity of the superiority and goal instability scales as measures of defects in the self. Journal of I'ersonalit~Assessment,i3(1), 122 132. Patton, M.J., & Robbins, S.R. (1982). Kohut's self-psychology as a model for college-student counselling. Professional I ' s ~ c h o l o ~ v , ~ ( (876-888. ,), Patton, M.J., Connor, G.E. & Scott,K.J. (1982). Kohut's psychology of the self: Theory and measures of counseling outcome. Journal of Counseling I'sycholo_~~, 29(3), 268282. Phares, 1'. E., & Erskine, N.(1984). T h e measurement of selfism. Educational and P s ~ c h o l o ~ i c Measurcment,44, al 597-608. I'rifitera, A. & Kyan, J.J. (1984). Validity of the Narcissistic Personality i
Disorder in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Clinical Psycholo_~v,40,140-142.
Iiaskin, li. 1)( Hall, C. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. I'sycholor;ical Iieports, 45. 590. Kaskin, li. Novacek, J . & Hogan, K . (199la). Narcissism, self-cstccm, and dcfensive sclf-enhancement. Journal of I'ersonalitv,59(1), 19-37. Itaskin, K. Novacek, J.
8(
Hogan, K. ( I 9 9 l b ) . Narcissistic self-esteem
management. Journal of l'ersonality and Social I'sycholo~y,
a((,), 91 1-918.
Kaskin, R. & 'I'erry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of I'ersonality and Social p s y c h o l o c y , 3 ( 5 ) , 890-902. Itust, J., & (hlombok, S. (1989). Modern I'svchometrics: The Science of Ps~chonletricAssessment. London: Routledge. Shane, E., & Shane, M. (1 989). Child analysis and adult analysis. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Ilimensions of self experience: Pryress in self psycholo~y,vol. 5. (pp.59-74). Hillsdale: T h e Analytic Press. Shulman, 1l.G. & Ferguson, G.K. (1988). An experimental investigation of Kernberg's and Kohut's theories of narcissism. Journal of Clinical Psycholo_~y,44(3), 445451. Shulman, I).(;., & McCarthy, E.C. (1988). The projective assessment of narcissism: Development, reliability and validity of the N-1'. Psychoanalytic Psycholwy, 5(3), 285-297. Slyter, S.L. (1990). Kohut's psychology of the self: Measures of healthy and defensive narcissism (University of Maryland College Park, 1989/l99O). Dissertation abstracts international, 5 1, ( 1 -B), p.467 Smith, C.1'. (1992). Reliability issues. In C.1'. Smith (Ed.) Motivation and persona1ity:Handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, J.M. (1992, November). Address given at Simon Fraser University.
Solomon, K.S. (1982). Validity of the MMI'I Narcissistic I'crso~iality 1)isordcr Scale. I'sychological Keuorts,5(), 463-469. Sucdfcld, I)., 'l'etlock, P.E,
1)(
Steufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/intt'grativc
complexity. In C.1'. Smith (Ed.) Motivation and personalityHandbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University I'ress. Ulman, K.R., & Paul, H.. (1989). A self-psychological theory and approach to treating substance abuse disorders: The "intersubjective absorption" hypothesis. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), I>imcnsions of self experience: l'rogress in self psvcholog~,Vol. 5. (pp. 12 1-1 42). Hillsdale: T h e Analytic I'ress. Urist, J. (1977). The Rorschach test and the assessment of object relations. Journal of Personality Assessment,4l, 3-9. von Rroembsen, F. (1988). T h e twinship: A paradigm towards separation and integration. The American lournal of Psychoanaly-sis, 48(4), 355-365. Wahba, R. (1991). Envy in the transference: A specific selfobject disruption. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), The evolution of self psy-choloy: I'rogress in self psy-choloy, vol. 7. Hillsdale: T h e Analytic Press. Watson, P.J., Grisham, S.O., 'I'rotter, M.V., & Riderman, M . I). (1984). Narcissism and empathy: Validity evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality- Assessment,48(3), 30 1-305. Wolf, E. (1988). treat in^ the self. New York: Guilford Press.
Name: MaritalIKclationship Status
Age: -
Sex: ----
F,ducation:
Instructions This "sentence completion form" explores your social style, and the role other people play in your life. Refore you begin, here are two important things to consider when you complete each sentence: 1 .) In order to accurately reflect
own particular social style, you must base each
response on your own experiences, rather than what you think you might do in a given situation. For example, an incomplete sentence may pose a hypothetical situation such as: "If I were at the beach, and someone asked me to watch their belongings for them while they went swimming, I would ..." If you were to complete this sentence, you would base your response on an actual experience, or at least one that resembled the situation presented in the incomplete sentence. 2.) I t is also important that your responses not be too brief. For example, with an
incomplete sentence such as: "At parties where I d o not know anyone I ...," if you complete it as: "At parties where I do not know anyone I ... chat," or, "head straight for the munchies," it says very little about you as a social being. However, a fuller response says a lot more about you, such as: "At parties where I do not know anyone I ... usually feel uncomfortable, but try to make conversation with whoever looks friendly." In other words, this is not a test. It is a way of communicating a portrait of yourself, and the more you put into your responses, the more detailed the portrait.
Please turn the page and complete the following sentences.
1 .) [ cannot imagine being friends with someone unless
...
2.) 'lqhemanner in which I greet an old friend is somewhat different from the manner in which I greet a more recently acquired friend. This is so because ...
3.) 1 would rather talk to someone who ...
4.) If I tell a joke at a social gathering, and several people turn to listen ...
5.) It is very important to me that I get to know people who are ...
6.) Having a partner who is very much like mysclf ...
7.)If I have a new hairstyle (or am wearing new clothes), and I bi1mp into someone I haven't seen for a while ...
8.)'I'ry to bring to mind someone you held in very high esteem, but who you did not know all that well. Over time, as you got to know himiher better ...
9.) If I spend the day with my closest friend, and hislher mood changes suddenly, my own mood ...
10.) Having a partner who is very different from myself ...
1 1 .) If I had to work in a demanding job in which I would receive little or n o f e c d h ; ~ k from 111y boss or co-workers as to whether 1 was doing i t well ...
12.) If a person I admire rejects me ...
13.) If I arrive at the realization that someone who I consider to be a close friend is very different from me ...
14.) If a friend experiences intense sadness, we usually make an effort to console them, because that is what we are supposed to do in that situation: Therefore if someone cries, the "script" we follow is to offer some sort of consolation. However, what we do may or may not reflect how we actually feel (real empathy for their feelings, or just plain awkward). The last time a close friend expressed deep sorrow, my feelings zuere.. .
1 5 . ) 'l'hcrc are times my life (in everyone's life for that mattcr) when my cclf-cstccnl takcs a dip. When this happens, I can fecl quite out of sorts. Howevcr, if I associarc with a certain type of person my sensc of vitality is restored. For me that type of person would be ... (please avoid nondescript phrases such as ... "a happy person.")
16.) Some people feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get, whereas others find that the good feeling they get from a compliment seems to evaporate almost as soon as i t started. In my case ...
17.) There are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to do with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my /$e, 1felt this way because ...
18.) O n e person stands in the spotlight, while another stands off to one side. If I were in this scene, I zuozdd be ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
('l'he following incomplete scntencc refers to a non-romantic situation.)
19.) 'l.he kind of person who holds a real fascination for me ... (after completing the sentence, please describe why you arc hscinated by this person)
20.) Everyone's feelings are affected by what others neglect to say to us as much as what they do say. In my experience, my feelings are sensitive to the absence of comnlents such as ...
21 .) It is often true that when we first encounter someone who really impresses us, we tend to see only the prominent aspects of their personality, yet after we learn more about them, their entire personality becomes visible to us. You can probably recall such an instance in your own life (it could be someone you know, or a famous face, such as an inspiring political leader or media personage, someone who possesses exceptional ability, wealth, power, beauty, moral stature, intelligence, etc. ). Speaking from my own experience, when Igot to know someone ladmired, my reaction was ...
22.) If 1 were asked to take part in a play ...
2.3.) Whcn I am with my partncrlbest friend, how I feel depends on what rhcy ...
24.) Think of your best friend. Is it the similarities or differences in your pcrsonalitics that makes you friends? For me, what really makes the friendship "click" ...
25.) If I were to say whether I gain lasting satisfaction from positive feedback or admiration ...
(The following incomplete sentence refers to a non-romantic situation.)
26.) The kind of person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ... (after completing the sentence, please describe how it is that you are drawn to this person.)
27.) Consider these two scenes: In the first one, two friends stand side by side. It is obvious that they are quite different from one another. In the second scene, two other friends stand together, but unlike the first two, they are alike in many ways. [f'lwere in the first scene I wouldfeel ... If l were in the second scene I would feel ... (after completing thesc two sentences, please explain your responses.)
i-
28.) Some pcoplc like to be noticed, whereas for others, it's just not ilnportant. As for myself ...
29.) We all have people in our lives who we look up to, people who represent the ideals and goals we dream of attaining ourselves. Often, our association with such people is a personal one, and their very presence is important to us. I f f o r some reason, 1 h a d to part company w i t h srrrh a person, I wozrldfeel ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
30.) If a person I admire acts in a cold or unfriendly manner towards me, I feel ..
3 1 .) 1 have daydreamed that I ...
32.) When I get excited about something I've done, I expect my friends to ...
3.3.) My sense of well-being increases when 1 associate with a p e r w ~ iwho ..
34.) Some of the people I know are very similar to me, whereas others arc very diffcrerit from me. I feel the most comfortable with ...
35.) T h e things that I am most affected by when it comes to my partner ...
36.) A person outside of my family whose presence has enhanced my life ... (after completing the sentence, please describe that person)
37.) Some people are very discriminating when it comes to the people they admire; they have high standards, even when it comes to people they view as above all others. If these standards are not met, they would find i t impossible to continue to look up to a person. Some people however, could care less, and are inclined to overlook other people's faults, even those of the people they admire. As for myself.. . (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
38.) For me, thc idea of playing a starring rolc ...
39.) In my close friendships, a difference in outlook or lifestyle ...
40.) I need people to tell me that 1 ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
41 .) There have been times in my adult life when I have admired someone, or cvcn come to the conclusion that a certain person represents one of my ideals. The length of time that / saw this person as being admirable ...
42.) When I share my successes with other people, my secret wish is that they ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
4.3.) If I discover that a friend and I arc very dissimilar ..
44.) M y sense of self-worth can be affcctcd by ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
45.) For some people, their own emotions are quite unaffected by their friends' feelings, whereas for others, they experience their closest friend's feelings as if they were their own. In my case ...
46.) It sonletimes seems as though I am always searching for a person who ... (after completing the sentence, please describe the person)
47.) When sonleone I look up to displays a character flaw - that is, show that they are not as perfect as I initially imagined ...
48.1 In some friendships, similarity is what makes it work, whereas (or others, oppo\itc\ attract. In order that a friendship be a satisliying one, person be ...
it
is important that the orhcr
49.) Sometimes, when we have a lot in common with someone, we feel a strong sense of kinship. Such a friendship (one based o n similarity between people) can create a special bond. Hut, zf 1 discovered in the course of knowing that person, that we were not as much 'twins'as I thotrght we were...
SENr1'F,NCE COMI'I,E'1~lON
SCOKIN(; MANUAI,
Orientation
'I'he scoring rules for each stem are arranged in the following format:
1.) The root criterion. This is the anchoring concept for the stem.
A.) 'I'he stem itself, as it appears in the test. The Basic Ouestion: Describes the question that the stem is meant to ask. Also o~itlinesthe scoring rationale for each possible score of one, two, or three. Lists problems frequently encountered with scoring responses to this particular stem. Scorine Values and Exemplars: This manual employs both rational explanations and exemplars to provide scoring rules. There are three scoring values:
One: Any Kesoonse: This simply means no indication of the content described in the criterion, insufficient information, or no response.
'Two: Some indication of the t a r ~ e t e dresponse: This means that the target content is minimally detectable in the response.
Three: Definite indication of the tarceted response: Responses that in some way provide a definitive example of the root criterion concept.
M i r r o r - H u n y Criteria and Stems
I .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others. A.) If 1 tell a joke at a social gathering, and several people turn to listen ..
Rasic question: Do you use the situation as an opportunity to display yourself! In other words, just how important is satisfying this need to you? If the situation makes you anxious, is that aversive enough to make you avoid the situation, or is the opportunity so rewarding that you are willing to withstand any anxiety in order to deliver the joke? 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: An irrelevant response, or expression of anxiety without any indications of reward receives a score of one. An unembellished affirmative response would warrant a score of two. This sort of response could take many forms, from expression of positive mood, to any indication that the joker is either encouraged by the presence of the audience, or despite the anxiety helshe presses on because it is intrinsically rewarding. T h e difference between a score of two and three lies in the subject's selfawareness and plan of action. A "two" response often expresses a sense of anticipation without certainty as to outcome. Nor will i t include a conscious awareness of the mirrorneed. The key aspect of a "three" response is captured in the phrase "I feel good because ...." The respondent not only feels good, helshe knows why they feel good, and the action they take assumes success. Scoring Values and E x e m ~ l a r s One: Any response (Irrelevant response, expression of anxiety wi thout any indication of reward.) --I'd probably forget the punchline. --I get nervous --I would probably feel a little uneasy because I'm terrible at telling jokes. --I wonder if they will find the joke funny. --I hope they find it as funny as I did and if they don't I know they don't have the same sense of humour as me. .r
'I'wo: Some indication of the tarceted response (Positive response related to being exhibitionistic, or a negative response that includes mention of an element of reward. Often a sense of anticipation without certainty as to outcome. No statenlent of awareness of the mirror-need.) --I get excited and maybe a little nervous, depending on the group. (Nervous + excited implicit "yes." Overstimulated by reward.) (Indication of some sort of investment in carrying off the act successfully.) --I'll continue but feel shy. --I'll finish the joke and hope people like it.
=
(Element of reward in doing i t , even if relatively passive recipient.) --I feel I am a funny person/humorous. - - I fecl flattered. --I fecl good. --I finish the joke and probably continue, or depending o n the conversation, Ict peoplc make complementary jokes. (Mixture of sensitive hesitancy and reward.) --I feel pretty good, sometimes a little nervous actually. I would be quite nervous if a lot of people listened, I might even blow the punchline. (Hashfill but rewarding. 'l'his is like an elaborated version o f " I'll continue but feel shy." In terms of straight content, i t presents as a "two," but because it supplies a kind of compressed narrative of the respondent's experience, it reveals a mixture of enjoyment and discomfort that shows just how important the scene really is, which warrants a score of 2.5.) 'I'hree: Ilefinite indication of the t a r ~ e t e dresponse (In each case, there must be some explicit element included in the response. T h e key element in the "three" response is conscious mirror-hunger: "I feel good because ....") (Explicit statement of mood andexhibitionistic tendency - expressed through need or intended action.) --I feel happy because people are actually listening or paying attention. (key = 'because') --I become nervous because I wish the joke to be a success - I enjoy the attention. --I would be happy and probably tell more jokes. (Strong indication that being the center of attention is gratifying. 'This response also has an air if confidence that is somewhat boastful) --then attending the gathering was worth it. (Statement of intended action in situation.) --I'd tell another joke. --I keep telling the joke and make eye contact so as to include the new listeners. --I talk louder so they can hear me. (Humorous response that is inherently boastful and exhibitionistic.) --they'll soon regret it.
Mirror-hungry Criteria and Stems
I .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
t3.) If
I were asked to take part in a play ...
Hasic question: T h e question is basically the same a5 stem 11A: (iiven the opportunity to display yourself ( and thereby attract the attention of others) in a situation that is potentially frightening, would you still push yourself to do i t ? Does the need to display oncself override the situation-driven anxiety? 'I'he scoring rationale is based on two components: a.) Did the respondent say yes or no? A negative response yields a score of one. An affirmative response yields a score of two. b.) If the response is affirmative, how did he or she say yes? This is the amplitude component of the score. If the response suggests a willingness to take part without any clear statement of action, this is to be considered a "basic yes," which is given a score of two. However, if the response includes a course of action, andlor displays conscious exhibitionism, then it receives a score of three. Scoring Values and Exemdars One: Any resDonse (A negative or irrelevant response.) --I would decline, acting is not my thing. --I would squirm my way out of the offer. --I don't think I would because I can't act and am not really comfortable actinglperforming in front of people. 'two: Some indication of the t a r ~ e t e dresponse (Suggests willingness, but does not indicate a plan of action) (Affirmative response, with n o indication of amplitude.) --I'd say yes. (Ilefinite indication of a contact-shunning stance where although the act would be rewarding, the respondent declines to take part. Here it qualifies as a two because the respondent indicates that their internal state in response to the offer - "flattered" - is positive.) --I'd secretly feel flattered but am not sure that 1 would participate. (Equivocation coupled with a positive inclination, zuithout commitment) --I might be hesitant but very interested. --I would like to know what the play is about and if' I'm interested, I might join it. (Note that in both of the above examples, the initial descriptor indicates tentativeness)
( ( h , e q u i v o c a t i ~ nplus affirmative response.) --I would take a while to think about it, then agree. (An approach-avoidance conflict in which approach wins. ) --I would need a lot of encouragement, acting training, and none of my friends would be allowed to see the first performance - after that - okay. (Some indication that the anxiety is an index to the importance of the act, rather than its aversiveness - in this case must include some sort of positive descriptor as well. Here the equivocation is described in positive terms: "thrilled") --I would be thrilled but nervous or scared - 1 think I would d o it though. Three: Definite indication of the tarceted response (Definite course of action, andlor exhibitionisn~)
--I would want to play the main role. (Clear statement of action.) --I would - I like to be on-stage. (Shows more insight than a simple "yes.")
iMirror-hungrv (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self t o attract the attention of others.
(:.) For me, the idea of playing a starring role ...
I3asic auestion: Same as 1/A or 1 / H : Given the chance, would you take the opportunity to place yourself at the ccntcr of attention! 'I'his stem returns to the 'alone on stage' situation of 1/A, yet whereas 1/A suggests a kind of open, spontaneous dynamic (that is, if a group of people spontaneously responds to you, do you/can you encourage that to continue?), I/(; suggests a kind of 'position which one may take.' Hence the phrase "starring role." So, rather than a situation which is already happening - as in 1/A - 1/C suggests a situation which is initiated by premeditated choice. O n e has to ask oneself: Can I, and will I do i t ? ,. I he scoring rationale is again based on two components: a.) Did the respondent say yes or no? An affirmative response yields a score of two. b.) If the response is affirmative, how did he or she say yes? This is the amplitude component of the score, which can justify a score of three. A score of three requires that the respondent clearly indicates an exhibitionistic need. Scoring Values and Exemplars
(Negative or irrelevant response.) --I don't know what i t is. --is less important to me than playing an "important role." A "starring role" connotes a role which is very visible to others, but often when we are in visible roles, they are figurehead roles. Being under scrutiny can be constricting. I prefer a role that may be less visible, but which affords room to move and make changes. Often, those behind the scenes are the ones in charge. (This is simply a round-about way of saying "no.") T w o : Some indication of the targeted response
(A simple "yes.") --sounds like fun.
( A toned-down "yes.") --sounds good to me because I like to be the best at what I do, but I would also like i t if I shared that with another person. I would tlot want the glory alone. (Evidence of an approach-avoidance conflict in which approach wins.) --in a group situation is pretty "scary" but I usually try my best. --excites my interest and presents a welcome challenge.
'l.hree: Ilefinite indication of the tarr.etcd rcswnse (More than just an affirmative response, this describes the rcspondcnr's temperalncnt. --is to be the center of attention, a chance to show your talents and do what you arc good at. --appcals to me, because for that brief time, I am thc center of attention.
,Mirror-hungry ( h e r i a and Stems
I .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
I).) A person stands in the spotlight, while another stands off to one side. / f / were in this scene, 1 zuozrld be .. . (After completing the sentence, please explain your response.) Hasic question: With which person do you identify, the one at the center of attention, or the one in the periphery? 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: Simple identification with the spotlit figure is an affirmative response and warrants a score of two. In order to get a score of three, the response must be affirmative and include some sort of explanatory component that clearly states that the respondent has a knowingly exhibitionistic style. Scoring Values and Exemplars ()nc: Anv response
(i.e., the non-spotlit choice.) --the one standing off to one side. I never like to be in the spotlight, I would rather be the one listening but also participating in a subtle way. --off to one side. I do not like being the center of attention in any way. --the one standing off to one side. Unless I am with a group of close friends, I tend to be shy. (hints at a conditional yes, but not enough information) --the person to the side of the spotlight with fewer lines and responsibilities. I don't like being the center of attention. It's not that I'm intimidated by large audiences, just that I like to be well prepared before a presentation. Encouragement or praise would aid me in being the center of attention. (Begins with a no but ends with a conditional yes. 'This response is a "1 112," and the conservative rule dictates that it be a one. ) 'l'wo: Some indication of the tarrered response --probably in the spotlight. I like to d o things and get them done. I can't wait for someone else to d o it. It all depends on the situation, but I am usually getting involved right in something, not just organizing it. (A non-exhibitionistic yes.) --ideally standing in the spotlight if the situation were positive. However, I would be content to stand off to one side if I were providing support for the person in the spotlight.
'l'hrec: L)cfinitc indication of the tarrwtcd rcsvonsc (Affirmative response plus declared need to be the center of attention. i.e., knotuingb exhibitionistic.) --in the spotlight. I am self-centered at times. I often think I am in the center of everything. No, it's not always a good thing to be overly confident. F,xhibitionists arc more likely to be in the spotlight than in an obscure corner. --in the spotlight. I like being at the center of attention. My friends often say that I am the entertainment at parties. Maybe this is because I am interested in acting. --standing in the spotlight. This is because I like to be the center of attention, and if I wa5 standing in the spotlight everyone would be able to notice me. --the one in the spotlight. Generally, I like being "in the spotlight" (though not always). I have performed solo piano "under a spotlight," and the memory is a strong positive one.
~Mirror-hun~;ry (:riteria and Stcrns
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self t o attract the attention of
others.
t;,.) Somc people like to be noticed, whereas for others, it's just not important. As fbr
myself.. .
Raic question: 'l'his stem is completely self-explanatory, and is one of the more concrete stems. It simply asks: Is it important to you that you that others notice you in some particular way? 'I'he scoring rationale is virtually identical to the first four M-1 stems: A negative response yields a score of one, an affirmative response (a simple, unelaborated "yes") yields a score of two, and in order to qualify as a 'three,' an affirmative response must include some sort of elaboration such as a strong statement of exhibitionistic need. Scorincr Values and Exemplars ()ne: Any resoonse
(A statement to the effect that being noticed is not important.) --it is not important. I feel it is very uncomfortable to be noticed. I think lots of my friends d o not like people to be noticed too. (Anxiety.) --I mostly like to be in the background. In other words, I am mostly a lurker, a passive personality. 7'00 much attention makes me uncomfortable. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy being noticed, just that I prefer it in moderation. 'Two: Some indication of the targeted response (All of the following responses say "yes," but the conditional clauses limit it to a weak yes.) --I like to be noticed without having to act a certain way to obtain the interest of others. I don't want to have to act differently than normal to be noticed. If I would have to do that then I would likc to remain unnoticed. --I like to be noticed when the time is appropriate. For an example, I wouldn't want people to notice when I'm making mistakes, but rather when I'm at my best. --once in a while I need recognition, but for the most part I don't enjoy being the center of attention. (Clear statement of need, but it is not strong enough to be a "three.") --there are times when I don't mind having a lot of attention but depending on my mood, there are times when I prefer to be quiet and not noticed, especially after a bad day at school.
'l'hree: I>efinitc indication of the targeted rcsvonsc (Affirmative response accompanied by clear statement of need, suggesting a slight brittleness with respect to self-esteem, to the poinc where some of the responses could qualify as M-3 "labile self-cstcem" responses.) --I like to be noticed sometimes, when I feel like a nothing and being noticed makes me feel like I am someone in this world, and I'm not worthless. (Reparative.) --I don't wish to be ignored, but I don't directly seek attention. I often feel i~tlcotnforcahlc if everyone is looking at me. Sometimes, however, I need to be noticed or else I will feel insignificant. (Reparative.) --I like to be noticed also. Recognition of my efforts at school and programming for example, serve in part as motivation to continue. I also feel good about being noticed, as opposed to being ignored. (Stimulating.) --I like to be noticed as outstandingly nice and unique, because then people will want to interact with me. (Stimulating.)
M i r r o r - H u n ~ r y(:riteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks out confirming and admiring responses.
A.) If I have a new hairstyle (or am wearing new clothes), and I bump into someone I haven't seen for a while ...
I3asic uuestion: Given the opportunity to obtain a compliment, what would you do? Although this stem seems to encourage a social desirability bias, it does elicit the need for confirming and admiring responses in those who are at least willing to admit it. '[he scoring rationale is quite straightforward: Denial of the need for admiration or an irrelevant response yields a score of one. Some awareness that they will get an admiring response, or some indication that they passively seek the admiring response (without mentioning any exhibitionistic element) yields a score of two. A score of three is warranted if the respondent clearly monitors the other person's reaction or states that they tend to need that sort of response, or are somehow exhibitionistic. "Three" responses will tend to be of the active variety. Scorinz Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Denial of the need for gratification, or an irrelevant response) (Response unrelated to attaining gratification, or some form of denial of that need.)
--I don't really feel too awkward, and will generally act normally. --I would act as I normally would at any other time, I would like to catch up on how they have been. --I grab them, give them a big hug (if I like them) and ask them where in the world they've been. 'Two: Some indication of the targeted response (Some awarcness that they will get an admiring response, or some indication that they passively seek the admiring response.) (Statement that looking good equals feeling good, without explicit mention of the other person's response or exhibitionism, such that admiration is assumed. Passive.) --I feel good because it looks like I've kept myself up since the last time I saw the person. (Understated indication that the other person's response is important; an unembellished yes. Passive. ) --they usually notice the new hairstyle and comment that it looks good. CC
O
'l.hree: [)efinitc indication of the tarrwted rcsmnsc ( I k f i n i t c indication that they actively seek the other person's response, or that they nionicor the other person's state, or an expression of need t action.) (An elcmenr of exhibitionism, or some indication that the other person's response is an important aspect of the encounter. Active. ) --I often imagine seeing people that I haven't seen for a while and always imagine myself wearing something new or looking different. I feel like I look better when I am wearing something new. Change attracts attention. (Strong sense of awareness and possible action.)
--I usually try to have them notice it without m e actually saying anything about it, by almost "flaunting" it. (Active. ) (explicitly monitoring the other person's reaction combined with exhibitionism. Active. )
--I enjoy watching their reactions because it can tell a lot about the image I am projecting.
Mirror-Hun!;ry Critcria and Sterns
2 . ) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Seeks o u t confirming and admiring responses. 13.) Whcn 1 get excited about something I've done, I expect my friends to ...
Hasic question: 'I'he basic idea here is: "When you just built a terrific sandcastle, and you have enthusiastically dragged your friends over to see it, what kind of response do you want, and is there a particular response that you need?" T h e scoring rationale : Unless they feel particularly uncomfortable about answering this type of question, the average person will give a "two" response. 'I'hat is, the response will make some mention of the other person sharing in the respondent's excitement and providing some sort of confirmation. Because this is the "normative" response, the base rate answer is going to be a two. 'l'he toughest call is distinguishing between a two and a three. What constitutes a three as opposed to a two is not the expectation of a laudatory (normative) response, but statement of the need for some sort of confirmatory response on the part of the 'audience.' Therefore, to get a three, not only must one expect confirmation and admiration, but one must state that this positive feedback is sought rather than expected. It is conceivable that this could be conveyed implicitly through the tone of the response. Scorinq Values and E x e m ~ l a r s Any resmnse (Usually a response of a deflecting nature.)
&:
--I don't expect anything.
Two: Some indication of the targeted response (Confirmation or admiration is expected but not actively sought. Often has a matter-offact or lukewarm tone.) --show an interest in whatever it is that I have done and perhaps offer a few words of praise and ask me a few questions about it. --show a little interest and listen to what I have to tell them, even if they aren't really interested. --be supportive in the sense that they show somewhat of an interest in what I'm saying. I'm not saying they necessarily have to be totally ecstatic or excited, but rather show some consideration to what I'm excited about. I cannot expect my friends to be excited about the same things I get excited about, but should be there as a friend and should display common courtesy and be there as a friend to me.
'l'hree: L)et;nite indication of thc tar<;etcd resoonse (Excited or demanding combined with a clear statement of need.) --get just as excited as I am and praise me. 1 feel if I've done something to get excited about, those close to me should feel that they too should be ecstatic and reaffirm my cxcitedness. (Key = 1. audience should match respondent's enthusiasm, and 2. "re-affirm") --listen to what 1 have to say and respond positively. For example: "Wow, that's great!" or "Congratulations." I expect this because this is the way i t usually goes with most of my friends. (Key = This does not have a lukewarm tone, and it also provides something of a "script" for the audience. 'l'herefore, the explicit affectivc clement combined with the script is what makes it a three.)
Mirror-Hungry Criteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks o u t confirming and admiring responses.
C.) 1 have daydreamed that I ... Hasic uuestion: 'l'his stem is a "floater" in the sense that it could pull for fan tasies that reflect any of the three personality types. However, this stem was included so as to evoke the grandiose fantasies that are associated with unfulfilled mirror needs. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: Responses that d o not include an element of grandiosity related to being admired by others receive a score of one. Responses that are inherently exhibitionistic but do not mention an audience of some sort receive a two. If the response includes some mention of an audience (which can be implicit, such as a fantasy in which one receives an award, or if one behaves in an exhibitionistic manner, it receives a score of three. Scoring Values and Exemplars ()ne: Any response
(No mention of need for admiration or an audience.) --will be with my family. --am traveling in Asia. --am in Mexico, partying with my friends. Two: Some indication of the t a r ~ e t e dresponse (Contains an element of "being the center of attention," but no audience is mentioned. The audience here may be internalized.) --was saving someone who had just received an electric shock. (Hero) --will someday be in a political position (not necessarily an elected government official) where I will be able t o create positive change for society. (Hero) --will one day be very successful. My life would include a loving, stable relationship as well as enough personal and career challenges to keep me motivated. O f course this ideal life would also include financial stability and great comfort in my surroundings. (Seems to be mostly concerned with own comfort. Internallydirected rather than "hungry. "This internal audience is sufficient to warrant a score of two but not a three.)
'1.hree: 1)cfinitc indication of the tarceted response --have an expensive and flashy car, which has been payed off: I would then be the envy of people, at least that is what I think. --have illst finished such a wonderful manuscript that I am in line for an academy award. --was playing rugby for 'I'eam Canada in the 1995 World (:up. --become a world famous author and that I won a Nobel I'eacc I'rizc for one of my works. All of the people that weren't interested in me when I was a nobody now want to be my best friend. --am driving an F250 Ford 4x4 with a 4 inch suspension lift, 3 inch body lift, 3 5 inch Mud 'I'errain tires, Rancho shocks, steering stabilizers and a huge stereo playing (;uns n' Koses as I drink beer. ( Flagrantly exhibitionistic, so the "audience" and the need for admiration are entirely implicit.)
)Mirror-Hun~ryCriteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks o u t confirming and admiring responses.
I>.) When I share my successes with other people, my secret wish is that they .. (After completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
Basic auestion: 'I'his stem is a leading question of the most obvious sort. How we decide to score this stem is entirely dependent on how the response is worded. Responses to this stem seem to be more susceptible to the social desirability bias than others. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: Any response that does not directly describe a confirming or admiring response gets a score of one. A response that does refer to the 'audience's reaction" as confirming or admiring but does so in an understated way (ix., a single descriptor such as 'happy'), or a simple "I hope they will be impressed" type statement gets a score of two. Any response that explicitly describes the audience's reaction as confirming and admiring, with the use of multiple descriptors or mention of some sort of dependence on their response, warrants a score of three. S c o r i n ~Values and Exemplars
a: Any resDonse (Responses that do not refer to an admiring audience response.) --won't copy the way I succeed. --don't think I'm bragging, and gain some insight from my success that will benefit them. 'l'wo: Some indication of the t a r ~ e t e dresponse (Simple statements) --will be happy for me. --don't just say "that's nice." I like it if they ask questions or show some interest. --are appreciative and d o not take me for granted. --can get something out of my stories. If they ever run into the same situation, they might think about my story and then know what to d o perhaps. Only hope i t can help them in some way and also wish they would be glad to share my happiness with me as I would do the same to them. ( O n e or two explicit statements.) --will feel impressed be my successes. --praise me and are interested in what I've achieved
.I 'hrec: Ikfitlitc indication of the tarreted resDonsc (Elaborated or emphatic statements.) ('l'hree explicit statements. 'Fhis is an example of a "two" response that is stated so emphatically, that i t is scored as a three.) --are enthusiastic about my successes, enjoy them with me, congratulate me. (indication that the audience provides a response that encourages more display.) --will ask me questions about it, so I get a chance to talk about it more. (Explicit statement plus expression of dependent need.) --will be responsive and interested in what I am telling them because if they're not, it doesn't seem like such a success. --begin to see me in the light I see myself in.
Mirror-Hun!y Criteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks o u t confirming and admiring responses.
E.) 1 nccd people to tell me that I ... (Aftcr completing the sentence, please explain your response)
Basic question: In responding to this stem, the respondent must have a fairly acute need (or just be really honest) to admit that helshe needs confirming or admiring responses. 'l'his stem is therefore an open question that relies on the respondent's willingness to be candid. 'The scoring rationale is fairly straightforward: No mention of confirnling or admiring responses - either implicit or explicit, yields a score of one. Very general or understated expression of the need for confirmation or admiration receives a two. Explicit statement of the need for confirmation and admiration, and/or statements that if the need is not met, there will be negative consequences warrants a score of three. Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Does not seek out confirming or admiring responses.) (This response is a "1 112," so the conservative rule makes it a one.) --well, I don't really need to be told anything. I guess its nice to be accepted and appreciated by others, but its not a & necessity - I don't actively strive for acceptance. --am doing well O K on my own; I don't need to always d o what they would like to see me do. 'I'wo: Some indication of the targeted response (General statements of need for confirmation or admiration.) (Basic confirmation.) --am okay, normal, that I am a normal human. --am worth being. --make them feel comfortable when they're around me. 'I'hree: Definite indication of the t a r ~ e t e dresponse (Absolutely clear indication of need, and/or statement that if need is not met, there will be negative consequences.) --am doing a good job. I d o best when I'm given acknowledgment. --am doing well at whatever I'm doing and encourage me to continue. --am important to them and have the ability to make others happy (I just feel really good when I know that I've made people happy).
~Virror-HungryCriteria and Stems
3 . ) Labile self-esteem:
a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
A.) If I had to work in a demanding job in which I would receive little or no feedback from my boss or co-workers a5 to whether I was doing i t well ...
Basic question: T h e root criterion for this stem involves two questions, "a" questions and "b" questions. T h e is an "a" question which in a direct manner asks: "What happens to your self-esteem when you must perform in an environment bereft of any 'mirror' input?" Someone who is truly mirror-hungry would find this situation extremely uncomfortable, if not intolerable. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: Any response that suggests that the respondent feels comfortable in such an environment gets a score of one. A combination of fri~strationand tolerance where the ability to tolerate the environment predominates receives a score of two. T h e key word for a "two" response is passivity. A response which suggests an inability to work in such an environment without externally-supplied feedback warrants a score of three. T h e key word for a "three" response is action. A typical strategy in a "three" response is to ignore the 'no feedback' rule and ask for it anyway. S c o r i n ~Values and Exemolars
One: Any resoonse (i.e., declared ability to exist in such an environment.)
--I would not let it interfere with how I performed. Feedback is good, but people shouldn't always need a carrot to function. T h e carrot should be within themselves and occasionally recognized by others. 'I'wo: Some indication of the t a r ~ e t e dresponse (Is clearly bothered by this state of affairs, but is able to tolerate it. Feels terrible but does not take action.) (Some frustration but displays the ability to tolerate the situation. I'assive.) --I would feel frustrated, question how suited my boss was for his position, but continue doing my work as best as I could without approaching them because presumably I would hear if I was doing a bad job. (key = "without") (Frustration and tone of intolerance for the situation. Passive.) --I would feel frustrated because if I was working hard I would at least like to get some encouragement.
'l'hrce: Definite indication of the targeted response (Expresses intolerance for the situation by ignoring the parameters set out by the stem and seeks a possible solution; so frustrated that helshe takes action to obtain mirroring.)
--I would d o my best at the job and go to my boss or so-workers and & them how I'm doing and how I can improve what I'm doing. --I would look to other co-workers and ask them for their evaluation of my performance in the job, and talk t o the boss after work for some kind of feedback.
mirror-Huny Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile self-esteem:
a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
13.) Everyone's feelings are affected by what others neglect to say to us as much as what they do say. In my experience, my feelings are sensitive to the absence of comments such as ...
Basic question: This "a" stem asks, "what kind of interpersonal feedback d o you need the most?" I t poses the same question as M-3/A, but because it is more general (its context is one's life rather than the job situation), it lacks a specific reference point and is therefore more difficult to score. ?'he scoring rationale is as follows: Denial of the need for external input, or denial of any input related to mirror needs suggests a score of one. For scores of two and three, the basic requirement for a two is that one cannot do without mirroring input, but that one's stance is essentially passive. Differentiating between a two and a three requires that one decide whether the response is an average, expectable sort of mirror need (2), or if it appears to be of a more intense or pervasive variety (3), wherein one actively seeks mirroring. Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (i.e., denial of the need for any external input.) --no problem because I know what I am and what I am doing, so I don't need to care about what other people thought as long as I fully recognize myself.
Two: Some indication of the targeted response (Need for encouragement and acknowledgment; positive feedback for deeds done. Passive mode: Having someone else take the responsibility for feeding one's mirror hunger.) --how hard I try and how much effort I put into doing a good job. --encouragement when I do something that is correct, acknowledgment for having done someone a favor or thanks for helping someone out. --if I d o something nice for someone, such as a favor, and don't receive any acknowledgment, I will usually become irritated. --(he) did a good job, way to go, etc. Positive reinforcement. --if no-one commented on my significant weight loss. --comments of appreciation for the role I play in people's lives and for the contribution I make at my workplace. --words of encouragement and positive affirmation. --a lack of recognition for something I put effort into and viewed as important. --positive comments about my ability, my work, my life, my friends, my family.
'l'hree: 1)etinite indication of the targeted response (Active mode, with some indication that self-esteem will be affected if the need is not met.) --the image I bring across to people. This may be in stylc of clothcs, physical appearance, and speaking/communication skills. Obviously, I look for cues, but cues are most oftcn stated through direct speech. (A variety of specific mirror examples.) --hearing "I love you" from my boyfriend when I really want to hear it. Hc might say: "You know I love you, why d o I have to say it?" Well, knowing it just isn't enough - sometimes I need to hear it. ('This response really does describe the criterion.)
Mirror-Hungry Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile self-esteem:
a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
C.) Some people feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get, whereas others find that the good feeling they get from a compliment seems to evaporate almost as soon as i t started. In my case ...
Rasic question: This "b" stem is a straightforward question: Does the good feeling from a compliment last very long? The scoring rationale is as follows: Any response that states that conlpliments are satisfactory and/or avoids the issue of whether the feeling lasts or not, obtains a score of one. Any indication that the respondent dwells on compliments, or strongly values the effect that compliments have on their mood, or tends to weigh the value of the compliment where the end result is its devaluation, receives a score of two. Responses that clearly state that the effect of compliments does not last, receive a score of three. Scoriny Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Feels satisfied by compliments, or other response.) --I enjoy getting conlpliments if they are sincere and not forced. --I tend to feel satisfied, especially if the compliment comes from someone I respect. --compliments make me feel very satisfied and good with myself. --I cnjoy receiving compliments and they usually make my day much better. (States that compliments improve their mood.)
Two: Some indication of the targeted response (Does not answer the stem in a direct way, but still fulfils the criterion. For example, if compliments are so valued that the respondent dwells on them to sustain the effect, it is scored as a two.) --I would fall into the category of people who feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get. I usually feel very important and impressed if someone compliments me and I dwell on this compliment for some time. (Embedded in this response is the comment that not only does the compliment make them feel important, but they dwell on it so as to get the maximum effect from it. The compliment is therefore a valued thing.)
(Compliment subject to analysis which may devalue i t , which could lead to negative affect .) --it may immediately feel good but upon further analysis, whether I feel the compliment is genuine determines the lasting effect of the compliment. --I used to feel good about the compliments, but as I get older I think people say it just to be nice and not really mean it. It has no meaning to me any more, no reaction. --if I get a compliment I try to enjoy the compliment and try harder to keep the compliment always coming. 'I'hree: Definite indication of the targeted response (Clearly states that self-esteem is only temporarily sustained)
--I get a good feeling but right away I try not to believe and chink of i t as false. --compliments seem to evaporate as soon as I get them.
M i r r o r - H u n ~ r yCriteria and Stems
3.) Labile self-esteem:
a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
I).) My sense of self-worth can be affected by ... (After completing the sentence, please provide an example from your own life.) Basic question: This is another open stem, neither "A" nor "B." If the stimulus that affects the respondent's sense of self worth is related to mirror needs, then it is scorable within the M-3 context. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: Responses that make no reference to other people receive a score of one. Responses that make some general reference to other people receive a score of two. Responses that make a specific reference to feedback from others, i s . , positive feedback causes an elevation in mood, or negative feedback causes a drop in mood receive a score of three. Scoring Values and Exemplars <)ne: Any response
--things I've done wrong. --what I accomplish in the day. --nothing except my own opinion. --my own self versus somebody else. As long as I am putting in 100% in whatever I am doing, I usually feel good about myself. --how well I'm doing and achieving my goals.
Two:Some indication of the targeted response (General reference to input from others. "Average expectable" quality.) --other people's opinion of me. --how people see me. --negative criticism. --what people say about me. --people's opinions if they are vocally expressed t o me. --people complementing me or asking me for advice or help. Three: I)etinite indication of the targeted response (Specific reference to input from others, with some brief situational description. Explicit statement that positive feedback affects self-worth.) --no recognition for my good points. Like when I do something well, and nobody notices. --other people's opinion of me. If my friends put me down for the way I dress, I can end up feeling lousy.
iblirror-Hun~rvCriteria and Stems
3.) Labile self-esteem:
a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
E.) If I were to say whether I gain lasting satisfaction from positive feedback or admiration ...
Rasic question: Because there is no meaningful way of asking a subject just how Inng the effect of a compliment lasts, the only way one can really pose this question is by asking whether someone is satisfied by the duration of the good feeling engendered by a compliment. T h e scoring rationale for this "b" stem is as follows: If the respondent states that they d o obtain lasting satisfaction from positive feedback, or if they make some completely irrelevant response, they get a score of one. If the response contains a mixture of positive and negative, wherein the respondent says yeslbut, or makes some indirect mention of the transient nature of the good mood, it warrants a score of two. Any response in the negative, with specific reference to negative affect gets a three. (Note: 'This stem was misunderstood with great frequency.) Scoring Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
One: Any response (Reports that they do gain lasting satisfaction from positive feedback, irrelevant response, or insufficient information.) --I would say yes.
--I would say that I d o but it is from my own positive feedback that I gain the most lasting satisfaction. --I would say yes because I reflect back on positive feedback in order to feel better. (Although this is active solace-seeking, it is a "1 112," so according to the conservative rule, it must be scored as a one. No indication whether the feeling lasts.)
'b Some :indication of the targeted
response
(Reports some satisfaction, which does not last long.) --I'd say yes to a certain extent. It does not last for that long. --I would say that I gain satisfaction but not long lasting. (Responds in the negative, but in an indirect sort of way.) --I'd say "not from the same positive feedback." If someone says "good shoot" over and over it loses its effect. --I would say no because I always think there is so much to learn and I can't stay in one place forever.
'l'hrcc: Ilcfinirc indication of the targeted response --
(No, with specific rcfcrencc to negative affect.) --I would say n o - perhaps in the short term, but 1 a m constantly critical o f nlysclf and generally have a dark and ncgative personality. --yes, 1 have a tendency to dwell on negative things sometimes, so when given positive feedback, I thrive.
Idcal-Hunssry (:riteria and S t c ~ n s 1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
A.) It is very important to me that 1 get to know people who are ... (Aftcr completing the sentence, please explain your response)
13asic question: W h o are the people you value? As with some of the other stems, this one is not easy to score, because many of the responses come off sounding like the lists of attributes one sees in the personal ads. However, our rudimentary scoring rationale is as follows: Hecause almost all of the responses list idealizable attributcs, the only way to score responses is to look at how the statement is made. If there is a sense that the respondent is looking for people with whom they can have a relationship based on equality, score it as a one. Mildly-stated idealizable qualities with an implicit hierarchical quality warrant a score of two, and strongly-stated responses or responses with elitist values get a three. T h e defining characteristic of a "three" response is that the hierarchy is explicit; the person described is not only put on a pedestal, it is an especially high pedestal. Scoring Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
One: Any response (Seeks an equal.) --trustworthy, intelligent, and a lot of fun because I have been betrayed too often and I find friendships with boring people o r boring people or people that weren't interested in things other than artificial substances - I don't like them. (Seeks someone who will fit into their existing social structure.) --important to others who are close to me. (Because there is no sense of hierarchy, this response can only be scored as a one. What it most resembles is a companionship request.) --very strong willed, have good morals, are easy going and easy to get along with.
'h Some : indication of the targeted response (Implicit hierarchy) ( . l l ~ i sis a description of a mirror-based mentor. I t is an implicit hierarchy, the 'othcr' is above them. .['he absence of equality is what makes i t a two. ) --Honest. I don't feel like I can talk to someone who's just gonna tell me what they think I want to hear, but I want someone to criticize me so I can improve on what I've done wrong. ("Very intelligent" is an idealizable quality, but requires elaboration to make i t a "three.") --very intelligent and passionate about at least one aspect of their lives. ('This sounds like the description of a constant friend, along the lines of twinship.) --reliable, interesting, funny and intelligent, but d o not display their emotions overwhelmingly. Three: Llefinite irdication of the targeted response (Explicit hierarchy) (Unmistakable snob appeal.) --of sufficient social standing so as to facilitate my upward mobility in every surrounding that I am in.
Ideal-Hungry <:riteria and Stctns
1 .) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable
qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
H.) 'l'he kind of person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ... (After completing the sentence, please describe why you are drawn to this person) Hasic question: This stem asks the respondent to name the personal qualities that draw them to someone - which is a backwards way of asking about someone's needs. It also elicits the soothing function often sought in the idealized selfobject. 'l'empting as i t may be to score the need for soothing as a "three," this does not fit the criterion, so it must be bypassed as a "one," unless of course, it clearly evokes the criterion (i.e., if the "need for soothing" response depicts an admirable person, which is at the minimum, a "two."). T h e scoring rationale is as follows: Vague responses, responses that clearly belong to another category, or express the need for a soothing presence that does not evoke idealizable qualities, all get a score of one. A response that lists admirable qualities in a low-key manner gets a score of two. Responses in the two category tend to be of the "shopping list" variety. Responses in the three category must have all the elements of a two (admirable qualities clearly stated), as well as a idiosyncratic quality, often indicating the specific form that the need takes for this particular person. Scorinp Values and Exemulars
One:Any response --is no one I have met yet. --tends to be mysterious. (A response that clearly belongs to another category, i x . , twinship.) --are people who dress similar - and consequently listen to the same music I do, and share a lifestyle with (i.e., punk rock, poor, people who go to see live bands a lot.). (Nurturing and stable-.) --is a person who is funny, yet can be serious and kind. [This one leans toward the soothing function, but the description is not explicitly admirable.]
'b Some : indication of the targeted
response
(The following are "average expectable" twos -- simply a listing.) --is someone who is extremely attractive. --are unusual people who have their own charisma, charm and warmth. --is someone who is intelligent, sensitive, caring and funny. --has interesting and original ideas.
-Ihrec: llefinitc indication of the rargetcd rcsponsc (Responses that arc much more than a "shopping list.")
(Sotirce of strengthlcalm, and energy: Soothing hinction admirable arrributcs.) --is somconc who possesses self-confidence and dynamism. (Source ~ F c r n o t i o n a lstability arid self-reliance - the description implicitly p l a c o value on such a person. 'l'he respondent seems to be saying: "I cannot tolerate it if the person I admire runs to me if something goes wrong.) ,--arc those people who are secure with themselves. 1 hey are able to stand on thcir own two feet and don't have to go running to someone the first time something goes wrong.
Idcal-Hun!![!,
(:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others t o admire for their idealizable
qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
C.)'l'he kind of person who holds a real fascination for me ... (After completing the sentence, please describe
& yo11 are fascinated with
this person)
f3asic question: "Who catches your attention and why?" Another need question which asks what 'pulls you' in a reflexive way. Although the responses tend to be brief, there are clear differences between a score of two and a three: A response that does not depict admirable qualities, or describes attributes that seem to belong in another category get a score of one. A response that describes an admirable person gets a score of two, but a response that describes someone who is perfect or complete in some way gets a score of three. Take note that the "please describe" request was not used in the pilots. Scoring Values and Exemplars ()ne: Any response
(A response that clearly belongs to another category, i.e., twinship.) --is someone who enjoys similar activities. --is usually similar. --are people who like to d o the things I like to do. (Denial) --no one really fascinates me. (Insufficient information.) --are individuals who are not conventional.
:&I
Some indication of the targeted response (Some sort of listing of idealizable qualities. Note that some are designated "2.5", but that in this scoring scheme, they are considered twos.)
--makes a real difference in the world (or at least my world) through something they do. --are people who are completely different and don't "go with the flow" (not a follower). --are those who have been socially successful as well as those who are not affected by materialism. (2.5) --are intelligent people. --is someone who has their life together (organized) and who seems really happy. --highly educated people. --ambitious, independent people. --is Stephen Hawking or Madonna. (Icons are to be scored as twos)
--is a puson who is self-sufficient, independent, but not too indepcndcnt that they tccl thcv need nobody, and love dogs. (2.5) --usiially has a strong personality. - - i ~someone who is able to live pretty consistently to their moral beliefs, someone whose morals are at a high level. (2.5) --are people who have done something really profound in their life, have worked rcally hard to be wherc they are. (2.5) Three: Ilefinite indication of the targeted response (Ikscription of an admirable person that refers to some state of perfection, or of having "arrived" at some desired state. Often has a hierarchical quality.) --is a person who has everything - motley, looks, friends. --is someone who always does the right thing, no mistakes, no flaws.
Ideal-Hungry (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others t o admire for their idealizable
qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
I).) I t sometimes seems as though I am always searching for a person who .. (After completing the sentence, please describe the person)
Hasic uuestion: Asks "what are you looking for in the ideal personlparent!" "Understands me" is the most frequent response. Good chance that this batch of pilot study responses was strongly influenced by exposure to the rating scales. Mentioned alone, the soothing function of associated with the idealized relationship carries no weight. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: A response that makes no mention of admiration, or belongs in another category (i.e., twinship) is scored as a one. A response that evokes idealizable qualities in a low-key manner, andlor evokes a mildly hierarchical relationship is scored as a two. If the soothing fiinction is mentioned, the idealizable features are mildly implied, it can be scored as a two. Blunt expression of the need for an explicitly admirable presence, which may or may not depict an extremely hierarchical relationship, warrants a score of three. S c o r i n ~Values and Exemplars
One: Any response ( N o mention of admiration. A response that clearly belongs to another category, i x . , twinship.) --has similar interests as mine. --can be my kindred spirit. who can help restore my faith in people. --has the same mentality and attitude toward life as myself. --likes the same stuff I do. --is a fun-loving, sensitive, caring person. (Denial) --I'm not searching for anyone. (Soothing function alone.) --understands me.
'm:Some indication of the targeted response (1,ow-key hierarchical qualities.) (Soothing function that is implicitly admired because it literally provides a missing component in the respondent's life.) --will provide the security and stability that's missing in my life.
'l'hrec: l k f i n i t e indication of thc targeted rcsponsc (F,xplicitly admircd/hit.rarchicd)
--I can look u p to. --really meets my expectations. --is my hero. --is my knight in shining armour.
Ideal-Hun!:ry Critcria and
Steut~
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable
qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
E.) A person outside of my family whose presence has enhanced my life ... (After completing the sentence, please describe that person)
13asic uuestion: This stem is also a floater in the best sense of the word, because i t asks us who is one of the most important selfobjects in our life, and why. T h e targct response for this stem is a description of a mentor or parental/gniding figure outside of the familial realm. Again, the admiration is inlplied, rather than explicit - i t is what the person does for you that is valued. 'Fhe scoring rationale is as follows: Irrelevant responses or statements of denial get a score of one. Descriptions of admirable people or qualities get a score of two, and explicit descriptions of idealizable mentor-figures warrant a score of three. Responses in the three category have a hierarchical quality. Scorinq Values and Exemplars
One: Any response --My family & the center of my life. N o one matters outside of it.
k: Some indication of the targeted response (Admires someone because they are ...) (Compassionate and accepting.) --is my best friend. She is one of the most non-judgmental people I know, and she is always there for me, to listen and comfort me when I need her most. (Academically successful.) --to a challenging life of school. She is a friend who I have known since grade ten. She has always done well in school, and she gets straight A's. She is involved in activities such as the anri-apartheid club. (Has warm, human qualities.) --would be my boyfriend. H e has shown me what life, loving and fun are all about. H e enjoys life, is caring and sensitive to the needs of others, is smart, has goals and knows what is right and wrong. --Robert Fulghum, the famous philosophical writer. (An icon of sorts, scored as a two.)
'1.hrt.e: I k f i n i t e indication of the targeted response (Explicit description of someone who fulfills the ideal-function.) --is my coach. H e is a very krlowledgeablc man who has dedicated his lifc to learnirig about his field. And he has inspired me to set goals and achieve goals that I previously thought were unattainable.
I
Ideal-Hun!;rv Criteria and Stems.
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealizedlpedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
A.) Try to bring to mind someone you held in very high esteem, but who you did not know all that well. Over time, as you got to know hindher better ...
Basic question: Is the disappointment mechanism in the ideal-hungry narrative activated by this stem? T h e scoring rationale is as follows: Any indication that the respondent either continues to be in awe of the admired person or expresses no disappointment, warrants a score of one. If the respondent does devalue the admired person, but expresses some tolerance, then the response gets a ..core of two. If the respondent devalues and rejects the formerly admired person, they get a score of three. Scoring Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
k: Any response (Ongoing admiration, no disappointment.) --I began to befriend this person until we were very good friends. Over time I have kept up our friendship and have seen many more admirable and disadmirable personality traits. --I came to realize that she was just a normal person with many faults lots of people have, but I still hold her sort of in awe because I strongly admire many qualities she has and they're more important than little faults. --I found that I grew on them and we became much closer, in fact to the point where I considered the person a 'family member.'
'h Some : indication of the targeted response (Does devalue the admired person, but not in a judgmental or perfectionistic way. Expresses disappointment, but with a note of tolerance. Often a dynamic of equalization, in which the person is taken off their pedestal, but gently.) --that although I thought they were so great, I began to realize that they were only hunlan, just as I am. --I found that his qualities were a mix of good and bad. While he was friendly and capable, he could be egotistical and overbearing. --I began to realize that he was a person just like any other, and he kind of lost his mystique. --I found that a lot of the qualities I admired actually masked insecurities greater than or equal to my own. I therefore saw myself as having insecurities that everyone has and I wasn't alone.
'Ihrcc: Lkfin i tc indication of the targeted response ( [>isappointment combined with intolerance, i .c., devalues then rejects the admired person.) --my opinion of that person diminished as I discovered incongruities and vices in the person that I did not initially see. --he t l ~ r n c dout to be a goof because he thought too highly of himself and all he cared about was himself.
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealized/pedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause). R.) I t is often the case that when we first encounter someone who really impresscs us, we tend to see only certain prominent aspects of their personality, yet after we learn morc about them, their entire personality becomes visible to us. You can probably recall such an instance in your own life (it could be someone with whom you socialize or know from work or school, i t could be a famous face, such as an inspiring political leader or media personage, someone who possesses exceptional ability, wealth, power, beauty, moral stature, intelligence, etc. ). Speaking from your own experience, when you got to know someone yorr admired, your reaction was . . .
Rasic question: A bit stiffly worded. Lots of "twos. "Similar scoring rationale as I2/A: Any indication that the person's value is maintained warrants a score of one. If the respondent does devalue the admired person, but not in a judgmental or perfectionistic way, then the response gets a score of two. If the respondent denigrates and is obviously disappointed by the formerly admired person, they get a score of three. Scorine Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
One: Any response (Overall effect is positive: Either a dynamic of equalization or the person's value is maintained.) --not anything special. Although I admired the person I knew that they would have faults. --pleasant surprise. I recently got to know a very talented writer and was fascinated by the different aspects of their personality which contributed to their style and thought. --to like that person better as I got to know their full personality, including faults or disappointments because they made that person more accessible in terms of personal discussion (talking about my life or problems).
'M:Some indication of the targeted response (Simple devaluation: No accommodation, but no rejection either.) --this person is not as great as I made himlher out to be. --that they weren't as confident about themselves or as happy as I perceived them to be. --how easily I overlooked any negative traits that person had when I was overwhelmed by the prominent aspects of their personality. --generally one of surprise, because first appearances tend to be very stereotypical or incredibly general. When you actually get to know someone who you have in the past admired, I always tend to be a little shocked that their personalities go further than those stereotypes.
'l'hrcc: I k f i n i t c indication of thc targeted response (Specitic ideal-hungry "disappointrnt.nt clause" elaboration: I'crfcctionisric and rejecting, o r disappointnwnt and devaluation.) --usually disappointment. If I admire a person, I tcnd to notice only their good points or if I don't know about a certain aspect of their lives, I might makc up in my mind what I think it would be like. These are all good things. hut nobody is perfect and it's disappointing to realize a person you really admire is far from perfect as well.
Idcal-Hungry (Xtcria and Stenis
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealized/pedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
C.) There have been times in my adult life when I have admired someone, or even conic to the conclusion that a certain person represents one of my ideals. 77~elength o f time that 1
saw this person as being admirable ... Hasic question: This is an awkward stem which does nevertheless ask the question: If you admire someone, does that feeling last a long time, and if not, then what is the trigger? I t is therefore meant to tease out whether one has experienced this aspect of the ideal-hungry dynamic by asking what is most salient in one's memory. Some respondents see through the stem and describe the dynamic as i t applies to them. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent continues to admire the person, the response gets a score of one. If the respondent states that heishe will sometimes but not always reject following disappointment, then the response gets a score of two. If the response describes a situation in which disappointment is followed by rejection, then it is scored as a three. Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Continues to admire the person.) --was for over two years in high school. 1 had an English teacher in grade eleven and twelve who was a great inspiration. He made me think about what it means to be human and put more meaning into my life. I guess you could say that I admired him since 1991 and will continue to for as long as I can remember him.
'h Some : indication of the targeted
response (Will sometimes reject if disappointed. Rejection is not the automatic response.)
--depends. Some of the people that were ideals are still, others have dropped because of other things I have found put about them. --is i~suallyuntil I find out that person has done something that offends me - this may never happen. 'I'hree: Ikfinite indication of the targeted response (Ikscribes the dynamic: Kejection & the automatic response.) --is until that person contradicts that ideal. I see someone as compassionate - I idealize that, I idealize himiher. If she does something to go against t h a t , I usually reject that person in regards to that ideal and sometimes reject that person as someone to idealize in any way.
Ideal-Huncry Critcria and S t e m
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealizedlpedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause). I).) When someone 1 look up to displays a character flaw - that is, show that they are not as peat as I initially imagined ...
Basic question: 'l'his stem is a straightforward "what would your reaction be" question, which requires an unabashedly ideal-hungry stance to generate a score of three. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent displays a resilient, accepting attitude, with no judgment of the other person, or indicates that helshe feels a little let down, but that ultimately, the result is equalization, the score is a one. If the respondent feels let down, but the response lacks a strong rejecting quality, then the score is a two. However, if the respondent is easily disappointed by the presence of a character flaw and responds with rejection, then the response gets a score of three. Here the scoring rationale accommodates disappointment in the "one" category insofar as the end result is acceptance. Scorinq Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
h: Any response (Overall positive tone, no judgment of other. 1)isplays resilience.) (Feels let down but maintains an equal relationship.) --I am sometimes disappointed but I then have to come to a co~iclusionthat everyone displays character flaws - no one is perfect, then 1 accept the person for who helshe 1s. --I feel that they are not impossible to reach. In other words, my goal to be like them becomes more realistic. Undoubtably I am let down.
'h Some : indication of the targeted
response (Focuses on flaws, no positive emphasis.)
(Feels let down, and the language is overtly judgmental, but because the stem forces one to judge, and this response comes close to an "average expectable" response, it cannot be considered a three.) --I usually stand back and look at the person and think of why I admired them in the first place. If the flaw is something too major to forgive, then 1 probably won't be able to, even though 1 had admired them. If it is a minor flaw, it would be easy to forgive.
'l'hree: l k f i n i t e indication o f the targeted response (Kejccting) (t;,asily disappoi ntcd by tlaws.) --it would n o longer be possible f o r me to admire that person. 1 set very high standards for the company I keep. --I feel rcally let down, and completely lose interest in that person.
Idcal-Hun!rry (:ritcria and Stcms
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealizedlpedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
F,.) Some people are very discriminating when i t comes to the people they admire - they have high standards, even when i t comes to people they view as above all others. If thcsc standards arc not met, they would find it impossible to continue to look up to a person. Some people however, could care less. and are inclined to overlook other people's faults, even those of the people they admire. In my case ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response) Basic uuestion: Am I like this? This is one of those stems that specifically asks for selfinsight. It is also transparent, because it describes the dynamic completely, but does so in a non-pejorative manner. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent continues to admire the person, then the response is scored as a one. If the respondent notes the faults found in the other person, but is not preoccupied by them, then the response gets scored as a two. However, if the respondent indicates a note of intolerance and that what they expect is a certain degree of perfection, then the score is clearly a three. Scoring Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
One: Any response (Continues to admire/complete acceptance. ) --if I feel that a person is an ideal, I usually do not even discriminate some of their faults. I usually totally overlook them and look beyond to their good points. --I am critical at first, but the more I get to know the person, their faults start to become attractions. I like people who are different.
m:Some indication of the targeted response (Faults irritate but do not preoccupy them.)
--I overlook faults to an extent but when a person does something that I morally do not agree with, it makes me take a second look at the person. [Some element of scrutiny.]
' 1 hrcc: l k t i n i t c indication of the targeted response (Faults cannot bc overlooked. Seeks perfection, o r something close to it. Intolerant.)
--I tcnd to try to find excuses for people's h u l t s , but it always bothers rnc when someone 1 really admire shows that they're n o t perfect. --I rcalize that everyone has their faults, but thosc that I truly admire must have few of thosc faults, and the faults that they do have must be minor or inconsequen rial.
Ideal-Huni~ry(:riteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile onlv so long as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one. A.) If a person 1 admire rejects me ...
Rasic auestion: Does the abrupt dis-connection induce some drop in self-esteem or a defensive response that suggests narcissistic injury? Very few people responded to this stem in a direct manner, and this is to a certain extent reflected in the brevity of the responses. 'I'he scoring rationale focuses on Scoring rationale: A response that expresses little or no anger and suggests a resilient attitude is scored as a one. An "average expectable" expression of anger or grief is scored as a two. With this sample of responses, there is a clear difference between a two and a three: Almost all of the "two" responses are based on anger, whereas the "three" responses indicate a certain intensity of affect in response to rejection, such as a drop in self-esteem, rage or desire for revenge. S c o r i n ~Values and Exemplars (>ne: Any response
(Resilience: 'I'he "1 can cope with it" response.) --it hurts a little, but then I don't dwell on it. --then so be it. --I find someone else. --I don't take i t to heart, I go somewhere else.
'h Some : indication
of the targeted response (Average expectable anger, rage, confusion, disappointment, or grief. Unelaborated.)
--I get hurt. --I would be extremely disappointed. --I am confiised. --it makes me angry and hurt. --I am deeply hurt. --I'll reject them back.
'l.hrcc: 1)cfinite indication of the targeted response (Affcctcd to the point where self cstecmlworth is affected, or displays some kind of rcflcx hostility such as the need for revenge.)
( A d r o p in self esteem.) --my self-confidence level drops --my self-esteem will plummet. (Ilespite self-talk which is meant to quell one's serlse of inner disequilibrium thc respondent still experiences fragmentation.) --I feel awful. I feel lost and wondcr why I a m not good enough for them, but I realize that I am a good person and not everyone is going to like me and that's okay.
--I tend to criticize myself. (Kage or revenge.)
--I want revenge. --I say f--- you!
Iclcal-Hungry (Iritcria and Stems
3 . ) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile only so l o n ~as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
H.) If a pcrson I admire acts in a cold or unfriendly manner towards me, I feel ..
Rasic question: Kather than expect people to express feelings of worthlessness, i t is more appropriate to score for narcissistic rage. Almost no one admitted to feelings of worthlessness. 'l'his is true especially if one considers the social desirability factor, and the fact that for many people, the more worthless they feel, the more they are likely to deny that very state. 'l'herefore, the scoring rationale is based on the type and intensity of affcct in each response, except in those instances where the respondent does actually admit to feelings of worthlessness. 'The scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent is able to tolerate the "cold shoulder," then the response is scored as a one. If the response indicates simple anger, then the score is a two. If the respondent is deeply affected on the level of the self or self esteem, or they become angry to the point of taking retaliatory action, then the score is a three. Scorinc Values and Exemplars
One:Any response (Is able to tolerate the rejection.) --a little rejected, but then 1 remember times when I have acted cold to other people, I realize that we are all capable of i t and sometimes it happens.
'w:Some indication of the targeted response (Their view of the other person changes somewhat, although not dramatically. Or: Internalized rejection of other.) --as though they didn't deserve my admiration as much as if they had been friendly. --more hurt than if a person I didn't admire was to do the same thing. --very insulted and probably would lose respect for that person. (Some disdainlcontempc.) --like this person is missing out on a goocilgreat friendshiplrelationship, so the only feeling I get is "you're missing out on something."
'l'hree: 1)efinite indication of the targeted response (1)ceply affected, or anger leads to action.) --slighted, as if it were a reminder of how alienated I sometimes feel. --unworthy, as though something I might or might not have done might have changed that person's view of me. --extremely angry, insulted, anxious, and 1 try to express those feelings by reciprocating in a cold and unfriendly manner (while envisioning acts of violence in my head towards the person.).
3 . ) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile only so Ion? as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
'l'hcrc arc times my life (in everyone's life for that matter) when my self-esteem takes a dip. When this happens, I can feel quite out of sorts. However, if I a5sociate with a certain type of person my sense of vitality is restored. For me that type ofperson ruozild be ... (please avoid nondescript phrases such as ... "a happy person.")
(:.)
I k i c question: 'l'his stem is a floater and could pull for any of the three categories. It even pulls for a 'normal' category. 'l'hc main question is: What kind of person makes the respondent feel better? If it is someone they admire, someone who soothes by being admirable, or someone who has achieved the goals to which they aspire, then we are in business. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: If the response does not describe an obviously idealizable person, then the score is a one. If the response hints at idealization, or describes someone who has attained the respondent's goals, then the score is a two. If a response clearly describes someone who is admired, or represents some sort of hero-ideal, i t is scored as a three. Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (A response that does not describe an idealizable person.) --someone who is provocative and interesting. T h e only way 1 feel I can get out of a slump is if I feel I am inspired enough to get my creativity flowing Once this happens I usually can recognize my worth and things expand from there. (a self-starter) --someone who can make me laugh and realize that things aren't so bad, and make me feel good about myself again. --someone who is laid back, has fun, and makes me feel better when I'm around them. ----someone who cares for me unconditionally (my boyfriend or good friend) who will make me feel worthwhile and wanted again. (Mirroring)
'h Some : indication
of the targeted response (Hints at idealization, or object of admiration has attained respondent's goals. )
--someone who is doing the kind of work that I would like to do when I finished schooling. Or I suppose someone in the arts, open minded and usually very funny. --someone who is not concerned about what other people think; someone who feels good about themselves and is happy to be alive.
'l.hrcc: 1)efinitc indication of the targeted response (Explicitly admired, hero, synonym for admiration.) --SOIIICO~C who possesses a strong yet warm personality. eg: a friend L admire.
Ideal-Hunyrv Criteria and Stems
3 . ) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile only so long as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
I).) My sense of self-esteem gets a real boost when I associate wirh a person who ...
Basic question: Hasically, if the response is some variation o n "someone I admire," then i t is higher than a one. 'l'his makes i t a semi-floater, in that i t really could pull for ideal or mirror responses. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the response belongs in another category, then i t is scored as a one. If the response describes an idealizable person, but in a lukewarm manner, i t is scored as a two. Any explicit descriptions of idealized or mentorfigures gets scored as a three. Scoring: Values and E x e m ~ l a r s ()ne: Any response
(Kcsponses that belong to another category, ix., mirror.) --responds to me positively and makes the first step to continue the association over a long period of time. --recognizes what my achievements are and conipliments them. Hut for the most part it's someone who encourages me to perform to the best of my ability and reminds me when I fall short. [Mirror-mentor?] --also has a high self-esteem (self image) of himiherself because they encourage me, and make me feel that whatever I am doing is not worthless. [Mirror] --cares about me and appreciates my good habits and accepts my bad habits as part of me. [Mirror] --shares my view, has my same values and can really cooperate with me. [Twinship]
k: Some indication
of the targeted response
(Admirable yet bland) --is very positive and knows how to enjoy life, I t makes me tend to forget my insecurities and helps me t o look at the positive aspects in my own life. 'l'hree: Definite indication of the targeted response (Clearly describes the criterion.) --is considered attractive and enjoyable to be around (not socially dysfunctional). That is when I associate with someone considered socially desirable and physically attractive or a close friend or companion.
(A mentor.) --is very understanding, encourages me to follow my dreams and aspirations, and is willing to help me in any way helshc can.
Ideal-H un!;ry (:riteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happytworthwhile onlv so lonq as hetshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
F..) We all have people in our lives who we look up to, people who represent the ideals and goals we dream of attaining ourselves. Often, our association with such people is a personal one, and their very presence is important to us. If fir some reason, / had to part company with such a person, l would feel ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response) Hasic question: O u t of all the stems in the test, this one attracted the most heartfelt responses. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent reports being relatively unaffected (resilience), or is merely disappointed without being crushed, then the response is scored as a one. If the respondent admits to being affected, even to the point of including some ideal-hungry nuances, but the response is not very elaborated, then the response is scored as a two. If the person is in some way deeply affected - to their very core, in an elaborated description, then the score is a three. Confusion and loss of goals, isolation, feeling lost, etc. S c o r i n ~Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Kelatively unaffected.) --the same because 1 would still try hard to attain my goals. I would never give up. --very disappointed that this person was no longer part of my life, but confident that discontinuing relation was the right thing to do. (Clearly resilient. Could be the "average expectable" response.) --sad, yet challenged to find other people who will substitute in, with similar beliefs. Life is ever changing, take thought for an instant, then move on. --lost for a short while. However, then I tend to make new associations with different people. There are so many people out there to look up to. --probably confused for a while, until I could reprioritize who my favorite person is, or I might just worry about it, relax, and let things happen as they may.
'h Some : indication of the targeted response (Unhappy, but still able to cope.) --really bad. --trapped because of my concerns for the other person's feelings and scared of losing that person's support. --as if I had lost a close friend. However, 1 would recover by finding a new "hero." If you sever tics like that you sever a connection you probably had for a long time with someone you know well. 'Therefore, it is like losing a friend. --like I had just lost a big part of who I am.
'lhrcc: 1)cfinitc indication of the targeted response (1)ccply affccrcd.) ((:onfusion and loss of goals) --undriven and unable to fill goals I hoped to fi~lfill. --confused and hurt. '1'0 lose contact with a positive motivational influence or "mentor" would seriously harm my motivational track, especially regarding school or the job 1 am currently in, given that in both of these endeavors, I feel little satisfaction or sense of achievcn~cnt. (Feels isolated without that person, loss of motivation to achieve goals.) --alone, and probably a need to find someone else to fill the position. '1'0 have someone to look up to is to have someone to motivate me and help me attain my goals. --that my job of keeping my goals in sight and striving toward then1 would be that much more difficult. 'I'his person is my father, and to me he has done everything right. '1'0 be considered in the same category as him would be good. 'l'he best thing is that he considers one as an equal. I'd hate to lose that. --lost and misguided. I think I need that person in front of me every so often to keep me focused to the ideals and goals (Lleeply affected by the loss: Replaces the lost person by becoming that person.) --as if it were my responsibility to be like them and make them proud. This is the type of way I see my father. (I,oss of other leads to loss of ideals.) --like the ideals and goals that this person represented may n o longer be ones which I would like to attain. --alone. Usually it's jealousy and their drive for what they believe motivates me. So I felt like I had lost my aspirations as well.
'l'wi~lshiy-Hu~l!rry (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationshipslfriendshipslaffiliation with others who conform to hislher o w n appearance, opinions o r values.
A.) Having a partner who is very much like myself ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
Hasic question: Is this what I want! 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any variation on no, or a statement of indifference will be given a score of one. A characteristic pattern in the "one" scorers is a weighing of pros and cons, but with equal weighting without a vote in favor either way. If the answer is "yes," then the basic score is two. An affirmative response that does not provide enough information to suggest that the predominant mode in which the respondent operates is the "twinship mode," also warrants a score of two. A characteristic pattcrn in the "two" scorers is a weighing of pros and cons, with a vote in favor, or an abstract (i.e., unemotional) end0rsement.A response that indicates that twinship needs are a dominant feature of the respondent's friendship(s) warrants a three. A characteristic pattern in the "three" responses is a simple vote in favor, with a sense that the twinship mode is a pervasive aspect of the respondent's life.)As a general guide, it is also important to ask oneself where the emotional loading lies. 11
11
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Negative statement. O r , any weighing of pros and cons, without a vote in favor either way.) --is not important. As long as I am attracted to that person, mentally, physically, and emotionally. --can have pros and cons. --would drive me crazy. --isn't very important if we can accept each other's differences. --could get really boring. --is good, but not too much alike, thank you!
'h Some : indication
of the targeted response (Weighing of pros and cons, with a vote in favor, or an abstract endorsement.)
--is what I want. --makes me feel conlfortable with that person. --is good. --is important. --is enjoyable, preferable. --is something I have always wished for but may not have to be necessarily so. --is very gratifying. --would be nice.
'l'hrce: Lkftnitc indication of the targeted response (Simple votc in favor, a scnsc that it is pervasive.) --I gi~cssis important hecausc [hat's the way it is now and it's great
' l ' w i ~ ~ sph i - H i (kiteria and Stems
I .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationshipslfriendshipslaffiliation with others who conform t o hislher own appearance, opinions o r values.
R.) Some of the people I know arc very similar to me, whereas others are very diffcrcnt from me. I feel the most comfortable with ... Hasic uuestion: This stem is meant to tap into more general trends than 'I'-1/A. 'l'he phrase "I feel most comfortable with" draws the respondent in on a casual level, while at the same time asking for comprehensive information. T h e scoring rationale is as follows: Preference for those who are "different" warrants a score of one. A simple "yes" gets a score of two. If the respondent elaborates by stating that they desire "mutually shared characteristics," then it calls for a score of three. A response that indicates both a 'simple yes' and that twinship needs arc a dominant feature of the respondent's friendship(s) warrants a three. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three." Scoring Values and Exemplars
Ont.: Any response (Feels most comfortable with those who are different, mentions both "similar" and "different" but puts emphasis on "different," or makes some kind of statement such as "not exactly like me.") --people that are different from me because I am quiet and I need to be with more outgoing people that initiate conversation. --people who are similar but not exactly like me because it provides some interesting consequences. --people who are very different from me because we give different perspectives to our lives. --people that are a mixture, some things similar but not exactly, or things that are different.
'b Some : indication of the targeted response (Simple, unelaborated statement that similarity is preferred.) --those who are similar. --people who are similar to me. --people who are similar to me because they understand me bettcr. --people who have lots in common with me, especially inner qualities such as sensitivity.
'l'hrce: 1)ct;nitc indication of the targeted response (An cniphatic, elaborated response. '].he elaboratio~imust depict parallel characteristics. t;,xclusively similar.) --people who arc similar to me because that would mean we could have a lot in common, a lot of things to talk about, and would know how the other person would feel in certain situations. --people who are similar to me. Although I am now a Canadian, my origins are from somewhere else. I seem to have very different beliefs and habits from most people and therefore feel more comfortable with people who are similar to me. However, I am very adaptable and make most of the situation, even if the person is opposite in personality.
' l ' w i n s h i v - H u n < ~(:riteria r~ and Stcms
1 .) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Seeks relationships/friendships/affiliation
with others who conform to hislher own appearance, opinions o r values.
(1.) 'l'hink of your best friend. Is i t the similarities or differences in your personalities that makes you friends? For me, what really makes the friendship "click" ...
Basic question: What is the binding element in your closest friendship? 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any focus on differences or a balanced combination of similarity and differences gets a score of one, as do friendships based on complementarity. Exclusive focus on similarities or a weighted combination of similarity and differences gets a score of two. Also give a score of two if twinship is mentioned in conjunction with 'differences' in which it is apparent that a twinship relationship occurs strongly on one level but not on others. A score of three would require some sort of elaborate or intense statement of the desire for a conformingltwinship relationship. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three." S c o r i n ~Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Differences, complementarity) --is our individuality and differences. W e share experiences with one another to balance out the qualities that each of us does not possess. --are both. I admire my friend for her individual differences. We do have different values, and different ways of dealing with situations. We also have similarities which is how we met in the first place. --is the fact that we can talk about practically anything without having to be afraid of what the other person will think of me. ((hmplementary "goodness of fit" rather than similarity.) --is the open and (usually) honest communication that the two of us share, as well as our intellectual compatibility and complementary sense of humor. Those elements keep us the best of friends, because we don't particularly have similar interests or pastimes.
'h Some : indication
of the targeted response (Similarity. Mild, casual, friendly tone.)
--are the things that we have in common. --is having a lot of things in common, such as reacting similarly to similar situations. --is a1 that we have in common, we both go to school, have jobs, enjoy the same forms of entertainment, and have the same sense of humor.
(Similarity is the primary bond.) --is the stuff we d o together. 1 have two best friends and the reason we are so close is because we laugh together. It is our sinlilarities that make it work, but when there are differences, each of us is willing to look at the other side, and occasionally try something new. '1.hrcc: I k f i n i te indication of the targeted response (hlust state that similarity is the binding element, and the tone of the response should display a 'driven' tone, or make some sort of statement that friendships based on similarity are the & choice.)
--No examples.
'l'winshiv- H u n g r Criteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationships/friendships/affiliation
with others who conform t o hislher own appearance, opinions o r values.
I).) In some friendships, similarity is what makes it work, whereas for others, opposites attract. In order that a friendship be a satisfj4ng one, i t is important that the other pcrson be ...
Basic question: 'l'his is a general "which would you choose" question. It is meant to solicit the respondent's outlook in a frank, but non-threatening manner. The scorhg rationale is as follows: Any suggestion that similarity, that 'opposites attract,' or emphasis on complementarity rather than similarity gets a score of one. A simple emphasis on similarity yields a score of two. Any statement of permanence, pervasiveness, driven-ness or totality gets a score of three. A typical three response usually contains elements of a "two" with some sort of similarity-specific elaboration. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that i t could be considered a "thrce." S c o r i n ~Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Focus on opposites, complementarity, or a mixed answer with no specific emphasis.) (Very general or lukewarm responses.) --attentive and responsive to my ideas as this will show they value me as a friend. --someone you can relate to and vice versa. --interested in similar activities, but have other things that are different. To(3 much similarity makes life boring, you need the difference to keep up the interest. --somewhat similar, like share some of the same interests, but not identical. --to have similar interests to my own, yet have a mind of hidher own.
'h Some : indication of the targeted response (Hasic similarity. Average expectable response.) --outgoing and optimistic at all times. What makes a friendship work is for both people to get along well and enjoy the same thing as the other person enjoys.
'l'hrcc: [ ) ~ f i n i t eindication of the targeted response (Basic elements of a two with elaboration. Sense of pervasiveness, driven-ncss, pcrmancnce.) --similar to me in the things I like the most. 1 usually need to feel there is some connectiori that we will always havc in common. --interested in the same activities as myself, and generally havc similar viewpoints and feelings about certain issues.
'l'winship- H u n ! y Criteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Seeks relationshipslfriendshipslaffiliation
with others w h o conform to hislher own appearance, opinions o r values.
E.) Having a partner who is very different from myself ... (After completing the sentence, p l e a e explain your response.)
Pmic uuestion: rl'his stem is a simple inversion of 'I'-1/A. There are really only two possibilities with this stem: "is good" or "is bad." 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any positive comment gets a score of one. A negative response with a note of tolerance gets a score of two. Any statement that such a state of affairs would be virtually intolerable warrants a score of three. Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Some sort of positive statement.) --gives me different perspectives to look at and would maybe even influence my thinking to some extent. --allows me to be more open minded. --is stimulating. T h e relationship is exciting instead of stagnant. --is an interesting way to learn about people. --is interesting, since I get to experience things I would not normally do of my own accord. --is challenging yet rewarding. (Ambiguous, but seems to be essentially twinship-based. Makes a statement of complementarity rather than similarity. Actually a "1.5.")) --is like mixing oil and water; they never become one, but they will always be beside each other.
'b Some : indication of the targeted response (Basic "no" with some form of tolerance.) (Cannot tolerate it, so they try to fix it.) --is challenging, but 1'11 try to compromise our differences 'I'hree: Ikfinite indication of the targeted response (Basic "no" with some form of intolerance.) --would make it extremely difficult to make the relationship work.
'1-winship-Hungry Criteria and Sterns
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which helshe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own. A.) If I spend the day with my closest friend, and hisiher mood changes suddenly, my own mood ...
Hasic question: Almost everybody will say that their mood changes, but the way they say it, and how they elaborate on it, determines the score. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent indicates that their mood does not change with their friend's mood, or that it would change, but they frame it in the context of an external event that brought on the mood (rather than the sole cause being their friend's mood), then it is scored as a one. If the respondent frankly indicates that their mood does change according to their friend's mood, the response is scored as a two. A response that fulfills the criteria for a "two" and elaborates in such a way as to further confirm that statement is scored as a three. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three." Scoring Values and Exemplars <)ne: Any response
( N o mood change, reference to external event, or feels urge to run away or reject.) --usually changes to agree with him if I agree with the situation, or I ask what is bothering him. (Refers to a shared external event rather than a shared mood.) --will most likely change similarly, depending on the nature of the event which changed her mood. For example, if she suddenly became quite happy about something, it is most likely that the event which caused this would also make me happy to a similar degree. --softens and I often ask what is bothering the person and try to discuss anything that is on their mind without focusing back to myself. (Shared mood is not desired. Almost a boundary issue.) --changes for the worse and the last thing I want to do is spend any more time with that person, so I leave, make up a good excuse, etc. (Symbiotic relationship assumed, but w indication that mood is the same.) --changes because I react to their mood changes thinking that I might have brought on the changes or some other stimuli could gave created the mood swing.
'h Some : indication
of the targeted responsc (Simple yes: States that mood changes but offers n o relevant elaboration.)
--would be affectcd as well. 'l'hc reason for being is caring for one another.
'l'hrcc: I k f i n i t c indication of the targeted response (States that moods move in parallel and elaborates o n that theme.) --will probably change also. My relationship with most of my friends result in gathering similar traits. W e have come to have similar personalities and cmotions about things. 'I'his would likely result in my mood changing when my friend's does. --often follows suit. For example, if h e suddenly got really down I would certainly try to cheer him u p but it is hard to remain happy if someone you are very close to is down. If is was the other way (e.g., both feeling bored, then he is excited), I would also probably change moods to match.
'I'winshiv-Hun!rry Criteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Tends t o form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which heishe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own.
13.) When I am with my partnerlbest friend, how I feel depends on what thcy ...
Basic uuestion: 'l'his stern tends to elicit mirror responses. 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Responses that make no mention of the other person's mood, refer to an external event a5 the cause, or those responses that belong in another category (such as mirror needs.) are scored as ones. Any mention of the other person's mood is automatically scored as a two. A response that mentions the other person's mood and expands on the emotional symbiosis theme is scored as a three. S c o r i n ~Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
One: Any response (Responscs that make no mention of the other person's mood.)
--orhow they respond to me, conversation-wise. I would have a good, positive feeling if they listened intently and then responded with their own remarks. I would feel out of place or uncomfortable if they just passively listened, interrupted, or ignored. (Mirror) --do or don't d o to enjoy themselves and help me make the time we spend together fun or relaxing. 'I'heir negativity can sometimes bring me down as well. ( I + ) --say within the first few minutes. If right away they are critical or ignore what I have to say, for the day when I am with them, I will riot be in the best of moods. (Mirror) (Mentions other person's mood but, what is being satisfied are mirror needs.) --feel. It depends on (usually) if they have had a good day, are in a good, optimistic mood and give me the attention I need at that particular time.
'h Some : indication of the targeted response (Clearly and simply states that the other person's mood is the factor.)
--do and what kind of mood they are in. --say, what mood they are in because if my boyfriend is in a really bad mood I'm not going to start telling him all the great things going on in tny life. (Mentions other person's mood and mirror needs.)
'l'hrcc: 1)cfinitc indication of the targeccd response (F,xplicit description of the dynamic: N o t only do thcy state that the other pcrson's mood is the deciding factor, but they also expand on the emotional synlbiosis thtmc. 1 --feel. If thcy are happy, I tend to be happy, even if I was a little sad before. If thcy arc sad, I tend to be a little sad too, u d e s s something very exciting happcncd it1 my life and I can't help but be happy.
'l'winship-Hunrrv (:riteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which helshe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own. (:.) '1-he things that
I am most affected by when i t comes to my partner ...
Basic question: O f all the twinship stems this stem elicited responses with the most feeling. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: Responses that make no mention of the other person's mood, or those that clearly belong in another category get a score of one. Any reference to the partner's mood receives a score of two. If the twinship experience is momentary, i t is scored as a two, but if it seems pervasive in the respondent's life (i.e., goes beyond a single experience), i t is scored as a three. Scorinp Values and Exemdars ()ne: Any response (Responses that make no mention of the other person's mood or belong in another category.) (Mirror-needs.) --are things which anger me such as ignoring me or forgetting important dates or other things which are important to me. --are acts of generosity and things when I know they spent time on me. --is the way he treats me since I know i t reflects what he thinks of me. For example, if he is very caring, I know he cares about me, but if he is vague and seems unconcerned about my life, then I know he doesn't really care about me. (Ideal-needs.) --are hislher ability to handle situations rationally (I don't do that very well.). --involve time spent between just the two of us. Without interruptions or outside influences in his conversation or gestures, I can more accurately interpret his meaning. (Appears to imply emotional symbiosis, but insufficient information to be scored as a two.) --deal with issues of trust between us. Just as strongly I am deeply affected if he shows that he has a major worry or sickness or something bothering him.
'h Some : indication
of the targeted response (Simple nlention of mood, or mood as a clearly transitory experience.)
(Only a transitory shared experience, not a relationship. If i t went beyond a single experience, i t would be a three.) --is her laugh. If we're both laughing really hard, then it's the best feeling I could ever imagine, because I know she's having a good time and so am I.
'l'hrec: L)cfinitc indication of the targeted response (I>cscribes a gcncral twinship relationship. 'l'hc last scntcncc in this response is what makes a three.) --arc things that make my partner sad or angry. I find that 1 need to try and discover the cause of these feelings, bring them out in the open, and attempt to rectify them. When my partner feels these things, I feel them too. it
'1.winshio- Hunrrry Criteria and Sterns
2.) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which helshe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own.
11.) if a friend experienccs intense sadness, we usually make an effort to console them, because that is what we are supposed to do in that situation: 'I'herefore if someone cries, the "script" we follow is to offer some sort of consolation. However, what we do may or may not reflect how we actually feel (i.e., real empathy for their feelings, or just plain awkward). ?'he last time a close friend expressed deep sorrow, my feelings were ...
Hasic question: How d o you feel in response to someone's display of emotion! 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any indication that the respondent feels distanced from the other person's feelings is scored as a one. If there is some indication of shared feeling, it is scored as a two. The statement "I felt empathy" does not get scored as a two. Strong expression of shared feeling tempered with a distancing qualifier of some sort is scored as a two. A clear statement that the respondent shared hislher friend's feelings, with some sort of relevant elaboration is scored as a three, especially if the emotional sharing is involuntary. Scoring Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
One: Any response (Feels separate, distanced, the "I don't know how to" response, lacks a sense of emotional connectedness.) --it was hard for me to feel sorry for her. I didn't know the person that had died and in general it's hard for me to feel sorry in that way for other people. I listened to her talk and tried to say things like "that's terrible" but 1 was forcing myself to try. --of helplessness. I did not know how I could possibly make my friend feel any better, but he obviously needed someone. --a little bit of awkwardness mixed with genuine feelings of empathy. (Empathic but in a distanced way. No sense of emotional connectedness. Its abstractness provides little information .)
'h Some : indication
of the targeted response (Clear indication of shared feeling.)
(Specific mention of similar feelings.) --sympathetic and understanding because I had similar feelings before so 1 could relate to her problem, remembering my own emotions. --the same as hers. When a friend experiences true sorrow, not just weakness, you share in their sorrow so the burden is not too much for her. When someone is weak and cries over anything, the consolation becomes a routine.
( A powerful statement with a distancing qualifier, ix., "fbr hin1/hcru rathcr than "iclitli himlher." --of true sorrow and grief not only for him but his family as I know them very well, as well as the father who passed away. "For her" suggests some distance. "2.5") --very similar to hers. 1 could feel how upset and angry she was, and cried right along with her because what happened to her made me upset for her. (Although the shared feeling is involuntary, it is ego-dystonic. "2.5") --a little awkward, because that does not happen very often. It sort of made me feel depressed myself, and that is what I didn't like. 'I'hree: Iletinite indication of the targeted response (A clear statement that the respondent shared histher friend's feelings, with some sort of relevant elaboration.) --exactly the same, we share all our feelings. I feel her feelings as if they were my own.
'l'winship-Hungry (:riteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which hetshe experiences the other's feelings as histher own.
E.) For some people, their own emotions are quite unaffected by their friends' feelings, whereas for others, they experience their closest friend's feelings as if they were their own. In my case ... 13asic question: 'l'his stem simply "asks the question." as it is stated in the criterion. 'l'he problem with this stem is it really does presuppose some sort of self-awareness. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: A negative or mixed response with no emphasis gets a score of one. A very basic affirmative response, or a mixed response with balance toward positive emotion only, which is a unidirectional yes, is to be scored as a two. If the respondent describes the root criterion in their own words, it is scored as a three. I t is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that i t could be considered a "three." Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Negative or mixed response with no emphasis.) --I tend not to sympathize with other's feelings of unhappiness. I feel everyone should take care of their own problems and I don't feel sorry for them I will listen to them though. --my feelings rarely change due to what my friends feel but I do not entirely disregard them. --I am somewhere in between the two extremes.
'b Some : indication of the targeted response (A very basic affirmative response, or a mixed response with balance toward positive emotion only; a unidirectional yes.) --I experience a bit of both. Although my friend's feelings influence me, I don't change my own feelings about something if 1 don't agree with my friends. They influence me in that when my friend's feeling depressed I tend to feel more depressed too because I think of depressing things --I feel for their feelings but sometimes don't like to, especially if they are sad feelings because I don't exactly enjoy being depressed. --I am very sensitive to feelings, my own and other people's, and enjoy the understanding I can sometimes get for other people this way.
-1'hree: 1)efinite indication of the targeted response (1)rscribes the root criterion in their own words.)
--I experience my closest friend's feelings as if they were my own. When you are so close to someone it is difficult t o separate yourself from their emotions. Friends share everything. --I a m very affcctcd by the feelings of my friends. I a m the type of person w h o will cry just because my friend is crying, even if 1 don't know why!
.l~witlshiv-Hun!;ry Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought. A.) If I arrive at the realization that someone who I consider to be a close friend is very different from me in some respect ...
I3asic uuestion: Any response will be a variation on "is goodlis bad." 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any indication that the respondent feel at ease with people who are dissimilar or that helshe seeks to accommodate the friend who is "different" is scored as a one. If the respondent discusses both similarity and difference, but places no emotional weight on either, that will be scored as a one also. For a score of two, the respondent must dislike this state of affairs, but put up with it, discuss both similarity and difference, but place the emotional weight on similarity, or state that helshe feels that similarity is important in some areas but not in others. A response that clearly 'describes the dynamic' - ix., that conveys a sense of intolerance, either clearly or subtly, is to be scored as a three. An alternative three response would convey the idea that similarity is characteristic of all of the respondent's relationships. Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Accommodation or indifference, or discusses both similarity and difference, but places no emotional weight on either.)
--I will not end it but look at additional things such as our experiences together. --I make room for this difference and develop ways to accept and appreciate this aspect instead of dissolving the friendship altogether. --it is not too important to me since we think differently on many things.
'h Some : indication of the targeted response ('I'he "I would prefer not to" response: Does not like this state of affairs, but puts up with it. Or, discusses both similarity and difference, but places the emotional weight on similarity.)
'l'hrcc: 1)et;nite indication of the targeted response (Intolerant of differences, and/or clear indication that this is characteristic of all this respondent's relationships.)
--I tcnd to unconsciously depart in the relationship and tcnd t o become closer to someone who has more in common (but I can't say I'm always aware that I'm doing it). (1)isillusionnicnt and an escalating separation dynamic.) --I am saddened because if it is something like religion it is hard to talk about that subject at all without insulting each other (i.e., you will go to hell if...), so in a way, we would be further apart than I thought.
'1-winship-Hun!lrv Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger o r a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when he/she discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought.
H.) If I discover that a friend and I are very dissimilar ... Basic question: This stem restates the 'I'-3/A question, and so the scoring criteria are very similar: Any indication that the respondent feel at ease with people who are dissimilar or that helshe seeks to accomnlodate the friend who is "different" is scored as a one. If the respondent finds this state of affairs to be difficult - unless there is any elaboration that it is intolerable, i t is to be scored as a two. Any response that clearly states that the respondent would find the situation intolerable (a definite statement of "is bad"), or responds to the dissimilarity with rejection, is to be scored as a three. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three." Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Assimilation/accommodation.)
--I would still try t o remain friends but stay away from the conflicting areas if they would cause problems. --I try to find things that we do have in common. --I wonder why we're together and I try to find new common ground.
m:Some indication of the targeted response (Nonplused, finds this situation difficult.) --I'm not sure what to do. --I am usually disappointed. --I maintain the friendship and allow it to fade out naturally. --I don't see them as often. Three: Definite indication of the targeted response (Finds this situation to be intolerable, or displays some sort of sharply negative reaction.) --heishe wouldn't be a close friend in the first place. (More active than "allow it to fade out naturally.")
--I usually lose interest and don't keep in touch. --I move on. (Simple, yet decisive rejection.)
' l ' w i n s h i p - H u n Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger o r a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought.
C.) In my close friendships, a difference in outlook or lifestyle ... Hasic uuestion: Yet another stem in which the possible answers will all be a variation on "is goodlis bad." This stem is simply a rewording of 'r-31A and B, and so the scoring criteria are very similar: Any indication that the respondent feel at ease with people who are dissimilar or that helshe seeks to accommodate the friend who is "different" is scored as a one. If the respondent finds this state of affairs to be difficult - without any elaboration that it is intolerable, it is to be scored as a two. Any response that clearly states that the respondent would find the situation intolerable (a definite statement of "is bad") or unworkable, is to be scored as a chree. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three." There were no examples of "chree" responses in this sample. Scorintr Values and Exemplars (>ne: Any response
(Not particularly bothered by the situation.) --I usually ignore. --is good because it opens me up to new areas, but can be bad if the lifestyles are so different as to be offensive or morally unacceptable to the other. --adds to the diversity between us and makes being around each other more interesting. Different perspectives on life influence my own life and allow me to be more open minded.
'h Some : indication of the targeted response (Finds the situation difficult, but does not reject outright.) --is awkward. My closest friends have the same outlook in relation to our cultures. I t is difficult to relate to someone or understand the way they think if I know I couldn't even imagine that thought. Rut a different outlook not relating to morals is refreshing. --can be really difficult to wade through because when you care about someone you want to share almost everything with them and sometimes the arguments or discussions that arise are somewhat disconcerting.
'1-hree: l k f i n i t c indication of the targeted response (Finds the situation to be unworkable.) --usually would cause conflict, which is why I have the same outlook and goals in lifc as my close friends. I find i t difficult t o get along with people w h o d o not have the same goals. --is very rare. I usually make close friends with people w h o are not diffcrcnt from me.
'1-winship-Hunry (:riteria and Stems
3 . ) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger o r a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought. I).) 'I'here are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to do with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my life, I felt this way because ...
Rasic auestion: This simply asks: "What makes you want to end a friendship?" If the answer is in the twinship mode, then i t is storable. The scoring rationale is as follows: A response that belongs in another category, or just does not imply twinship is scored as a one. A response that indicates 'not enough in common' would be scored as a two, and a response that clearly describes the criterion is scored as a three. S c o r i n ~Values and E x e m ~ l a r s
One: Any response ( N o indication that lack of similarity caused the friendship to end.) --of my own personal morals, beliefs and ideals. Deceit and the betrayal of trust are the ultimate personal sins. --I placed trust in some people and now that trust is gone and I would be unable to face the person. --I expected too much of that person and judged them. I would realize this and adjust my expectations accordingly. (Possible idealizing.)
'h Some : indication
of the targeted response ('fhe "average expectable response.")
--we just didn't have enough in common, so we aren't as close as we used to be. 'I'hree: Definite indication of the targeted response (Actually describes the criterion, i.e., definite twinship dynamic.)
-- me and my best friend used to be like sisters, but then she started changing -- the people she liked, the stuff she was into. I tried to talk to her, but it was like she was a different person. We just don't see things the same way anymore.
'l'winship-Hun!;ry (:riteria and Sterns
3 . ) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger o r a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical t o self as previously thought. (Disappointment clause)
E.) Sometimes, when we have a lot in common with someone, we feel a sense of kinship. Such a friendship (one based on similarity between people) can create a special bond. If I discovered in the course of knowing a person, that rue were not as much 'twins' as 1 thozqbt we were.. . Basic question: This stem rephrases '1'-3/A, H, and C, but i t puts a finer point on it by presenting the twinship situation as it is described in the personality description. The scoring rationale is as follows: If the situation does not bother the respondent, then the response gets a score of one. One responses are the "adaptable" responses. If the respondent finds the situation unpleasant, but not intolerably so, then it gets a score of two. If the respondent finds the situation intolerable, then the response gets a score of three. Scoring Values and E x e m ~ l a r s Any response (The "adaptable" response.)
&:
--it did not matter to me because a close friendship had already been established and such a friendship could not be diminished by the realization that I didn't have so much in common with the other person as I thought. --it didn't really bother me too much, since I don't have to be identical to someone else to be friends with them. I t adds a little variety. --I stayed friends with the person and tried to adapt to the changed behavior.
'h Some : indication of the targeted
response (Finds the situation to be difficult but not intolerable.)
--I realize how well the person shielded their true self. --at first it was difficult to accept since prior to this we had been viewed as inseparable but with time I slowly began to accept that our lives must go separate ways. Three: Ikfinite indication of the targeted response. (Would find the situation intolerable.) ('l'he question is clearly misunderstood, yet the respondent clearly states that a twinship experience is what they desire.) --I would consider us as "kindred spirits," as "one soul in two bodies." I am very happy and feel blessed when I come upon a friend I can identify with so well.
'l'winshipHunery (:riteria and Stems
3 . ) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger o r a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought. (Disappointment clause)
F.) Consider these two scenes: In the first one, two friends stand side by sidc. I t is obvious that they are quite different from one another. In the second scene, two other friends stand together, but unlike the first two, they are alike in many ways. rf.1 ruere in the first scene, / would feel ... I f 1 were in the second scene I wouldfeel ... (After completing these two sentences, please explain your responses) Hasic uuestion: 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent feels comfortable or indifferent in the first scene and uncomfortable or indifferent in the second scene, then thc response gets a score of one. If the respondent gives a lukewarm response in which they state that they would prefer to be in the second scene, then it gets a score of two. If the respondent states that the second scene is the only one in which they could feel comfortable, the response gets a score of three. Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Prefers the first scene or does not state a strong preference.)
--I would feel comfortable in both scenarios. I have two very good friends, one who is the compete opposite of me in many ways, the other who is more like me, and we are all very good friends.
-
Some indication of the targeted response (Prefers the second scene, but does not express undue discomfort with respect to the first scene.) &:
--I would feel most comfortable in the second scene. 'I'hree: IIefinite indication of the targeted response (In so many words states that the second scene is the only viable option.) --I woi~ld& b e comfortable as one of the friends in the second scene, where they are more alike. It is easier to feel comfortable around people who have similar interests and ideologies.
APPENDIX C
Three Stories
'I'ht. following pages contain descriptjons of three pcople. As you read each description, ask yourself, "how much does this person remind me of myself, and do I identify with what they are going through?" T h e n indicate your response o n the scale helow each story. If you have any qualit'ying comments, feel free to write them in the space provided.
Barbara works at a job that allows her some degree of creative frcedorn. 'I'his is important to Barbara because she finds i t rewarding to express herself, be complimented on her work, and most of all, recognized and admired for those personal characteristics
that set her apart as a unique individual within the company. In other words, Barbara finds meaning in her work when it reflects some aspect of herself, and she receives some recognition for that. As it happens, once a year, the company in which Harbara is employed sponsors any interested employees to attend an annual convention where they can display their work. And each year, Harbara struggles with this opportunity. She loves to display her work and get the positive feedback that enhances her personal and professional self-esteem, but it also makes her uncomfortable to place her work, and hence herself, at the center of so much attention. Nevertheless, she always pushes herself to d o it, not only because she can display her work, but also because she has the satisfaction of placing herself in the company of people who will most likely admire her for what she has done. Another thing that Harbara finds difficult about these conventions is that she is quite sensitive as to what people say about her work. When she receives a compliment, Harbara feels, as most people do, a glow of pride. But, if she does not get the response she hoped for, she often feels a little flat, unhappy, or even angry. Barbara also notices that even when she does receive praise for her work, the good feeling she experiences is only temporary, and she finds herself wishing i t would last longer, or that someone else would come along and offer more positive feedback. Despite her occa.iona1 discomfort, Barbara continues to attend these conventions and finds them to be very rewarding experiences.
Indicate the cxtent to which this personality description reminds you of yourself by circling one of the choices below: Strongly Llisagrce
Disagree
Additional comments:
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Srrongly Agree
Natalie has been working at her new job for about 6 months now. She is one of a number of employees whose work is directed by three different managers. Natalie likes her iob, which involves being an assistant to whichever of the three managcrs happens to be posted in her department. O n particular days, Natalie works with a manager named Susan. 'l'he first time she met Susan, Natalie was impressed by her poise and confidence, and admired the abilities she brought to the job. Natalie could see that Susan had the respect of the other managers, as well as all of Natalie's co-workers. Natalie could not help but notice that on those days she worked with Susan she found her job more fulfilling, she was happier in general, and she experienced a sense of confidence and energy that seemed almost 'borrowed' from Susan. She looked forward to working with Susan, as she did not experience her job the same way when she worked with the other managers. Natalie continued to find her job more fulfilling and felt that sense of confidence whenever she worked with Susan. Rut after a while, she began to notice things about Susan that she had not seen before, and a feeling of disappointment set in. She realized that Susan had flaws like everybody else, and that she was not living up to the image Natalie had of her when she first met her. Natalie continues to work with Susan, and they still get on well, but she finds that she does not look up to her, or experience the same sense of fulfillment or confidence as when she first worked with Susan. She sometimes finds herself wishing that the company would hire a manager who would inspire the same admiration that Susan did when she first arrived.
Indicate the extent to which this personality description reminds you of yourself by circling one of the choices below: Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Additional comments:
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agrrr
1)ianc met a new friend at work. She recently attended a company rnccting designed to acquaint the staffwith some new employees that had just been hired. llianc's boss introduced her to a friendly-looking woman named (;wen. As they sat atid talked over lunch in the cafeteria, Lliane could not help but notice how much she and Gwcn had in common. Not only did they share the same interests, they held almost identical opinions on many topics. 'l'hey even had similar taste in clothes and movies. I>iane liked Gwen from the moment she met her. Soon, Diane and Gwen were the best of friends, and they spent a lot of their time offwork together. 1)iane really liked hanging out with Gwen. It seemed to her that their friendship had real depth to it. Not only did they have a lot in common, but it seemed almost as if 1)iane or Gwen would experience each others moods as if it were her own. When Gwen was in a good mood, Diane was happy, and when Gwen felt sad about something, Diane felt it too. After a while, as Diane got to know Gwen better, she began to notice things about Gwen that she had not seen before. I t seemed that in some respects, Gwen was actually quite different from what Diane had thought. Diane came to the conclusion that she and Gwen did not, after all, have all that much in common. Diane and Gwen remained friends, but Diane does not feel that close bond anymore. She found herself wondering if she would ever meet a new friend who she could consider a true "kindred spirit."
Indicate the extent to which this personality description reminds you of yourself by circling one of the choices below: Strongly Ilir.~gree
Disagree
Additional comments:
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Lkscriptivc Statistics: Subscale Frcuuency l>istributions
Count
One symbol
Value
=
Count
One symbol
approx..40 occurrences
Value
=
approx. .60 occurrences
M3
Count
One symbol
value
=
approx. .80 occurrences
Count
One symbol
=
Count
One symbol
=
Count
One symbol
=
Value
approx. .60 occurrences
Value
approx. .60 occurrences
Value
approx. .60 occurrences
Count
One symbol
Value
=
Count
approx. .80 occurrences
Value
One symbol equals approximately
Count
One symbol
.80 occurrences
Value
=
approx. 1.00 occurrence
Count
One symbol
=
Count
Value
approx. .40 occurrences
Value 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17 .OO 18.00 19-00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00
One symbol
=
approx. .40 occurrences
Count
One symbol
Value
=
approx. . 4 0 occurrences
Self -Rating (Mirror) Count
One symbol
Value
=
approx. .80 occurrences
Self -Rating (Ideal) Count
One symbol
Value
=
approx. .60 occurrences -
-
--
Self-Rating (Twinship) Count
Value
0 One symbol
=
5
approx. .50 occurrences
10
15
20
25
lieliability Analvsic: Item t o Subscale Correlations
S C A L E
M 1 SCALE
MEAN I F ITEN DELETED
S C A L E
SQUARn, MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM m A L CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
M 3 SCALE MEAN IF ITEM DELETED
ALPHA =
CORRECTED ITEMTOTAL CORRELATION
M 2 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
.2429
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMTOTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
I 1 SCALE M i J I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMTCYTAL CORRELATIOPJ
SQUARED MULTI PLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECI'ED ITEMm A L CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED WTAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELmD
I 2
ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
I 3 SCALE
MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
=
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
.2102
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
T L SCALE MEpI.J
I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
=
S C A L E
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATIOIJ CORRELATION
SCALE VARIANCE IF ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED m A L MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED TOTAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
TOTAL
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
IF ITEM
.3701
T 3 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA =
CORRECTED ITEM-
T 2 SCALE MEAN IF ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
SCALE VARIPSJCE I F ITEM DELETED
.5915
SCALE VARIANCE IF ITEM DELETED
S C A L E M SCALE MEATJ I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIAtJcE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMTUTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTI PLE CORREWIOPJ
18.6062 18.7575 18.0965 17.6648 18.5530 19.4770 20.1044 20.1483 19.2289 19.5186 20.9646 19.1139 20.0289 19.8445 21.4174
SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
10.8057 10.6260 9.8908 10.7115 10.6648 9.2008 10.2740 10.6978 9.8025 9.8103 11.3037 10.5084 10.8265 10.6420 10.1763 ALPHA
=
.4011
ALPHA
I F ITEM DELETED
.6491 .6431 .6301 .6232 .6339 .6538 .6555 .6826 .6619 .6544 .6770 -6397 -6608 .67 32 .6876
CORRECTED ITEMm A L CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
.1366 .0883 .1323 .1296 .1777 .3551 .2294 .I191 .3014 .2099 .1948 .2265 .1575 .1232 .1984
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.3993 .4010 .3517 .4022 .4145 .3032 .3981 .3886 .3264 .3505 .4415 .3824 .4061 .4046 .3753
S C A L E T SCALE m 1 I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIAPICE I F ITEM DELETED
14.9526 15.1610 15.6667 14.8104 14.9898 15.8891 16.9695 17.1580 16.6274 16.2585 15.8131 14.5630 15.1631 16.9614 15.3587 14.1996
CORRECTED ITEM TOTAL CORRELATIOPJ
SQUARED MULTI PLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.6275 .6166 .6310 .6030 .6297 .6526 .6773 .6619 .6529 .6594 .6441 .6088 .6186 .6525 .6259 .5984
Keliabilit~Analysis: ltcm t o Subscale Correlations Second Itcration
S C A L E
M I SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA =
S C A L E
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED TCYTAL MUL4TI PLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED TCrrAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
M 2
M 3 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA =
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED TCTAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
.7013
SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
SCALE VARIAPJCE I F ITEM DELETED
.3493
S C A L E
I 1 SCALE MEfUI I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
=
S C A L E
=
S C A L E
=
SQUARED MCnTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION TUTAL
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
I 2 SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMCORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ACPHA I F ITEM 13XJ3TED
CORRECTED ITEMTCYTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
TOTAL
.5731
I 3 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
CORRECTED ITEW
.2739
SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
.3298
S C A L E
T 1 SCALE MEAIJ I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA =
S C A L E
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED TCYTAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED TCTAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
T 2
T 3 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA =
CORRECTED ITEMSQUAFUD TCYTAL MULTIPLE CO'ORRELATIOFJ CORRELATION
.6 1 7 7
SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
SCALE VARIAIICE I F ITEM DELETED
.5986
S C A L E
M SCALE MEAPI I F ITEM DELETED
RM113 RM123 RM133 RM14 3 RM153 RM213 RM223 RM243 RM2 53 RM313 RM323 RM3 33 RM343
22.9813 22.9533 23.2243 23.3458 23.0187 23.3364 22.8879 22.9813 22.9626 22.8785 23.2150 23.7009 23.1869
ALPHA =
.7013
S C A L E
SCALE VARINJCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED mrAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.6821 .6793 .6634 .6612 .6677 .6890 .6880 .6974 .6891 .7063 .6712 .6915 .7023
16.6223 16.9506 16.1945 15.9453 16.67 89 17.6216 18.1571 17.3204 17.6401 18.7870 17.1515 17.9663 17.6251
I SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
8.7254 8.6486 7.9543 8.9314 7.5516 8.2864 8.0594 7 .go30 9.1534 8.4636 8.5810 8.1940
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED TOTAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.3924 .4027 .3430 .4382 .3099 .3979 .3295 .3441 .4411 .3734 .4005 .3693
S C A L E
T SCALE MEAfJ I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIAlJCE I F ITEM DELETED
13.7694 14.0351 14.5392 13.6815 13.7612 14.5667 15.9478 16.0093 15.3026 14.6385 13.5112 14.0628 14.1837 13.1196
CORRECTED ITEMSQUARED TCYTAL MULTIPLE CORRELATION CORRELATIOPd
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.6307 .6208 .6365 .6057 .6317 .6544 .6894 .6695 .6721 .6493 .6147 .6238 .6294 .6023
Kcliability Analysis: Ircm to Subscale Correlations 'l'hird I tcration
S C A L E
M I SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
=
S C A L E
I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM?YYTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMm A L CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETEE
M 2 SCALE
=
CORRECTED ITEM TCYTAL CORRELATION
.7013
MEAN
ALPHA
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
.4504
M 3 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED.
S C A L E
I 1 SCALE W J I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
SCALE I F ITEM DELETED
=
S C A L E
=
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRErn ITEMTUTa CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMT
SQUARED MULTIPLE O;)RRELPTION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.5731
I 3 SCALE W J I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
CORRECTED ITEMTCrrAL CORRELATION
I 2 MEAN
ALPHA
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
.4090
S C A L E
T 1 SCALE MEPTJ I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
CORRECTED
ITEMCORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMmrAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
m A L
T 2 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
T 3 SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
ITEMm A L
CORRELATION
S C A L E
M SCALE
MEPTJ I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM-
TOTAL CORRELATIOP,J
14.9344 15.2804 14.6431 14.2735 14.9989 15.9619 16.4400 15.5193 15.9388 17.0065 15.3858 15.8582 ALPHA =
S C A L E
SQUARED MCTLTIPLE CORRE~ION
.1944 .2776 .3615 .4035 .2909 .1204 .1388 .I761 .1643 .1151 .2986
.lo30
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
-6707 .6685 .6533 .6469 .6549 .6802 .6782 .6855 .6793 .6975 .6569 .6923
.6915
I SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETD
SCALE
VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
7.1688 6.6766 7.4736 6.0716 6.5579 6.6131 6.5581 7.5897 6.9467 6.9155
CORRECTED ITEM-
mm CORRELA!I'ION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
.0834 .lo41 .1604 .2928 -1642 .2596 -1812 .1473 -1897 .1224
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.4022 .3504 .4481 .2824 .3681 .3138 .3438 .4422 .3616 .3822
S C A L E
T SCALE J I F ITEM DELETED m
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMTGTAL CORRELATIOrJ
SQUARED MULTIPLE mRRELA!rIOTI
.2058 .3788 .1798 .5599 .2277 .1596 .1241 .1389 .1918 .2411 .3431 .2469 .4344
ALPHA
=
.6721
mpHA I F ITEM DELETED
.6468 .6370 .6507 .6217 .6475 .6759 .7111 .6902 .6654 .6338 .6440 .6433 .6176
Reliability Analysis: Item t o Subscale Corrc.lations Fourth lterarion
S C A L E
M 1 SCALE ITEAPJ I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
=
S C A L E
=
S C A L E
CORRECTED ITEMTCYTAI, CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMmrAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORREIATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMWTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORREIATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.7013
M 2 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
.4504
M 3 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
I 1 SCALE MENJ I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
=
S C A L E
=
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECI'ED ITEMTCYTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECI'ED ITEMTUTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULATIPLE CDRRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
SQUARED MULTIPLE
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.5731
I 3 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
CORRECTED ITEM?YrrAL CORRELATION
I 2 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA
SCALE VARIAPJCE I F ITEM DELETED
.4090
S C A L E
T 1 SCALE MEPIJ I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
TOTAL CORRELATION
ALPHA
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELA!TION
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEN DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM-
TCTAL
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
I F ITEM DELETED
T 3 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA =
CORRECTED ITEM-
T 2 SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
SCALE VARIAIJCE I F ITEM DELETED
.59 86
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM-
TOTAL CORRELATION
ALPHA
S C A L E
M SCALE m 1 I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMTCYTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRErnI0P.J
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMTUTAL CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
14.9344 15.2804 14.6431 14.2735 14.9989 15.9619 16.4400 15.5193 15.9388 17.0065 15.3858 15.8582
ALPHA
=
S C A L E
.6915
I SCALE MEAN I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E
T SCALE
m J I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEMTOTAL C0RRELATIOP.J
SQUARED MLTLTI PLE CORRELATIOFJ
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
-.
W
-
W
NORTON G COMPANY
NEW YORK
5 0 0 FIFTH AVENUE
LONDON
.
NEW YORK 10110-0017
December 12, 1994 Terry Estrin 377 West 20th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. Canada V5Y 2C5 Dear Terry Estrin:
Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1994, for permission to use material from The Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch in your master's dissertation, "A Measure of Narcissistic Personality Types" at Simon Fraser University. This letter will grant you permission to use the material as requested in your dissertation and in all copies to meet university requirements, including University Microfilms edition. You must fully credit our work as the source (including the full copyright notice as it appears in our work), and you must re-apply if your dissertation is later published. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions.
~ r e r ~ e r i a ; Courtright ~. P2rrnissions Department
TEL (212) 354-5500. FAX: (212) 869-0856
Terry E s t r i n D e p t :,of Psychology
.
Simon
Fraser University
Burnaby Brit.
(303
nmhi a, CanaAa
13th December 1994
D e a r Terry E s t r i n .
I have j u s t received your fax re copyright for extracts from -hut and wolf's paper originally published in the TJPA. We hereby grant copyright permission far t h e extracts you quote to be insetted in your thesis ONLY. Any further publication of your t h c s i s would require author's or heirs' permission as e l l .
Y o u r e sincerely,
