212 Interpersonal Theory of Personality
completely unaware” (p. 92). In discussing the data of
psychiatry, Sullivan (1964) asserted that “human behavior,
including the verbal report of subjective appearances
(phenomena), is the actual matter of observation” (p. 34).
Thus, we can assert that interpersonal theory is not strictly
an interactional theory emphasizing observable behavior;
rather, the terminterpersonalis meant to convey a sense of
primacy, a set of fundamental phenomena important for per-
sonality development, structuralization, function, and pathol-
ogy. It is not a geographic indicator of locale: It is not meant
to generate a dichotomy between what is inside the person
and what is outside the person. From a Sullivanian stand-
point, the intrapsychic is intrinsically interpersonal, derived
from the registration and elaboration of interactions occurring
in the interpersonal field (Mitchell, 1988). As we will see,
however, descriptions of observable interpersonal behavior
and patterns of relating have generated far more consensus
among interpersonal theorists than have elaboration of in-
trapsychic processes and concepts.
DESCRIBING INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR
The emphasis on interpersonal functioning in Sullivan’s
work stimulated efforts to develop orderly and lawful con-
ceptual and empirical models describing interpersonal be-
havior. The goal of such work was to obtain a taxonomy of
interpersonal behavior—“to obtain categories of increasing
generality that permit description of behaviors according to
their natural relationships” (Schaefer, 1961, p. 126; see also
Millon, 1991, for a general discussion of taxonomy in clas-
sification of personality and psychopathology). In contem-
porary terms, such systems are referred to as structural
models, which can be used to conceptually systematize ob-
servation and covariation of variables of interest. If suffi-
ciently integrated with rich theory, such models can even be
considered nomological nets (Benjamin, 1996a; Gurtman,
1992).
There have been two distinct but related empirical
approaches to the development of structural models describ-
ing interpersonal functioning. We refer to these as theindi-
vidual differences approachand thedyadic approach(Pincus,
Gurtman, & Ruiz, 1998). These authors pointed out that
although each approach has unique aspects, the approaches
converge in that they assert that the best structural model of
interpersonal behavior takes the form of a circle orcircumplex
(Gurtman & Pincus, 2000; Pincus et al., 1998; Wiggins &
Trobst, 1997). The geometric properties of circumplex mod-
els give rise to unique computational methods for assess-
ment and research (Gurtman, 1994, 1997, 2001; Gurtman &
Balakrishnan, 1998; Gurtman & Pincus, in press) that are not
reviewed here. In the present chapter, circumplex models of
interpersonal behavior are used to anchor description of theo-
retical concepts. The development of circumplex models of
interpersonal behavior has significantly influenced contem-
porary developments in interpersonal theory, and vice versa
(Pincus, 1994).The Individual Differences ApproachTheindividual differences approachfocuses on qualities of
the individual, (e.g., personality traits) that are assumed to
give rise to behavior that is generally consistent over time and
across situations (Wiggins, 1997). From a relational stand-
point, this approach involves behavior which is also generally
consistent across interpersonal situations, giving rise to the in-
dividual’sinterpersonal style(e.g., Lorr & Youniss, 1986; Pin-
cus & Gurtman, 1995; Pincus & Wilson, 2001), and in cases of
psychopathology, an individual’s interpersonal diagnosis
(Kiesler, 1986; Leary, 1957; McLemore & Benjamin, 1979;
Wiggins, Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989).
The individual differences approach led to the empirical
derivation of a popular structural model of interpersonal
traits, problems, and behavioral acts often referred to as the
Leary circle(Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey, 1951;
Leary, 1957) or the Interpersonal Circle(IPC; Kiesler, 1983;
Pincus, 1994; Wiggins, 1996). Leary and his associates at the
Kaiser Foundation Psychology Research Group observed in-
teractions among group psychotherapy patients and asked,
“What is the subject of the activity, e.g., the individualwhose
behavior is being rated, doing to the object or objects of
the activity?” (Freedman et al., 1951, p. 149). This context-
free cataloging of all individuals’ observed interpersonal
behavior eventually led to an empirically derived circular
structure based on the two underlying dimensions of
dominance-submission on the vertical axis and nurturance-
coldness on the horizontal axis (see Figure 9.1).
The IPC model is a geometric representation of individ-
ual differences in a variety of interpersonal domains, includ-
ing interpersonal traits (Wiggins, 1979, 1995), interpersonal
problems (Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 2000),
verbal and nonverbal interpersonal acts (Gifford, 1991;
Kiesler, 1985, 1987), and covert interpersonal impacts
(Kiesler, Schmidt, & Wagner, 1997; Wagner, Keisler, &
Schmidt, 1995). Thus, all qualities of individual differences
within these domains can be described as blends of the cir-
cle’s two underlying dimensions. Blends of dominance and
nurturance can be located along the 360º perimeter of the cir-
cle. Interpersonal qualities close to one another on the perim-
eter are conceptually and statistically similar, qualities at 90º