124 Psychodynamic Models of Personality
within the infant-caregiver unit result in subsequent character
pathology and may predict the form that character pathol-
ogy will take (Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 1993; Masling &
Bornstein, 1993).
Contemporary Integrative Models
Object relations theory and self psychology have revived aca-
demic psychologists’ interest in psychodynamic ideas during
the past several decades, in part because they represent nat-
ural bridges between psychoanalytic theory and research in
other areas of psychology (e.g., cognitive, social, develop-
mental; see Barron, Eagle, & Wolitzky, 1992; Masling &
Bornstein, 1994; Shapiro & Emde, 1995). While object rela-
tions theory and self psychology continue to flourish, a paral-
lel stream of theoretical work has developed that focuses on
integrating psychodynamic models of personality with ideas
and findings from competing clinical frameworks.
As Figure 5.1 shows, contemporary integrative psychody-
namic models draw from both object relations theory and self
psychology (and to some extent, from classical psychoana-
lytic theory as well). Unlike most earlier psychodynamic the-
ories, however, these integrative frameworks utilize concepts
and findings from other schools of clinical practice (e.g., cog-
nitive, behavioral, humanistic) to refine and expand their
ideas. Some integrative models have gone a step further,
drawing upon ideas from neuropsychology and psychophar-
macology in addition to other, more traditional areas.
There are almost as many integrative psychodynamic mod-
els as there are alternative schools of psychotherapeutic
thought. Among the most influential models are those that link
psychodynamic thinking with concepts from cognitive ther-
apy (Horowitz, 1988; Luborsky & Crits-Christoph, 1990), be-
havioral therapy (Wachtel, 1977), and humanistic-existential
psychology (Schneider & May, 1995). Other integrative mod-
els combine aspects of psychoanalysis with strategies and
principles from family and marital therapy (Slipp, 1984).
Needless to say, not all analytically oriented psychologists
agree that these integrative efforts are productive or desirable.
Moreover, the question of whether these integrative frame-
works are truly psychoanalytic or have incorporated so many
nonanalytic principles as to be something else entirely is
a matter of considerable debate within the psychoanalytic
community.
PSYCHOANALYTIC PERSONALITY THEORIES:
BRINGING ORDER TO CHAOS
Given the burgeoning array of disparate theoretical per-
spectives, a key challenge confronting psychodynamic theo-
rists involves finding common ground among contrasting
viewpoints. Although there are dozens of psychodynamically
oriented models of personality in existence today, all these
models have had to grapple with similar theoretical and
conceptual problems. In the following sections, I discuss how
contemporary psychodynamic models have dealt with three
key questions common to all personality theories.Personality Processes and DynamicsThree fertile areas of common ground among psychodynamic
models of personality involve motivation, mental structure
and process, and personality stability and change.MotivationWith the possible exception of the radical behavioral ap-
proach, every personality theory has addressed in detail the
nature of human motivation—that set of unseen internal
forces that impel the organism to action (see Emmons, 1997;
Loevinger, 1987; McAdams, 1997). Although classical psy-
choanalytic theory initially conceptualized motivation in
purely biological terms, the history of psychoanalysis has
been characterized by an increasing emphasis on psycholog-
ical motives that are only loosely based in identifiable physi-
ological needs (Dollard & Miller, 1950; Eagle, 1984).
During the 1940s and 1950s, evidence from laboratory
studies of contact-deprived monkeys (Harlow & Harlow,
1962) and observational studies of orphaned infants from
World War II (Spitz, 1945, 1946) converged to confirm that
human and infrahumans alike have a fundamental need for
contact comfortand sustained closeness with a consistent
caregiver. Around this time, developmental researchers were
independently formulating theories of infant-caregiver at-
tachment that posited a separate need to relate to the primary
caregiver of infancy and specified the adverse consequences
of disrupted early attachment relationships (Ainsworth, 1969,
1989; Bowlby, 1969, 1973).
Object relations theorists and self psychologists integrated
these developmental concepts and empirical findings into
their emerging theoretical models, so that by the late 1960s
most psychodynamic psychologists assumed the existence of
one or more psychological drives related to contact comfort
(e.g., Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971; Winnicott, 1971). Theo-
rists emphasized the critical importance of interactions that
take place within the early infant-caregiver relationship, not
only because these interactions determined the quality of con-
tact comfort available to the infant, but also because positive
interactions with a nurturing caregiver were necessary for the
construction of a cohesive sense of self (Kohut, 1971; Mahler
et al., 1975); stable, benevolent introjects (Blatt, 1974, 1991);