Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5, Personality and Social Psychology

Psychoanalytic Personality Theories: Bringing Order to Chaos 125

and useful mental models of self-other interactions (Main,
Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).

Mental Structure and Process

Along with psychoanalysts’ recognition that mental images
of self and others were key building blocks of person-
ality came a change in the way the structures and processes
of personality were conceptualized. Terms like introject,
schema,andobject representationgradually took their place
alongside those of Freud’s structural model as cornerstones
of psychoanalytic theory and therapy (Bornstein, 1996;
Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983). Analysts recognized that in ad-
dition to mental images of self and others, a key derivative of
early relationships was the formation of internal working
modelsof self-other interactions (sometimes identified as
scripts). This alternative conceptualization of the nature of
mental structure not only enabled psychodynamic theorists
to derive new treatment approaches (especially for working
with character-disordered patients), but also helped con-
nect psychodynamic models with research in attachment the-
ory and social cognition (Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 1993;
Masling & Bornstein, 1994).
This language shift not only was due to theoretical changes,
but also reflected a need to develop a psychoanalytic terminol-
ogy that was less abstract and closer to the day-to-day experi-
ence of psychoanalytic patients. In fact, close analysis of
psychoanalytic discourse during the early days of object rela-
tions theory indicated that this terminological evolution was
already underway, regardless of the fact that some newfound
language was only gradually becoming formalized within the
extant psychoanalytic literature.
In this context, Mayman (1976) noted that at any given
time, a psychoanalytic theorist or practitioner may use sev-
eral different levels of discourse to communicate theoretical
concepts. At the top of this framework is psychoanalytic
metapsychology—the complex network of theoretical con-
cepts and propositions that form the infrastructure of psycho-
analysis. Metapsychological terms are often abstract, rarely
operationalizable, and typically used in dialogue with other
theorists and practitioners. The concepts of libido and selfob-
ject are examples of language most closely associated with
psychoanalytic metapsychology.
The middle-level language of psychoanalysis incorporates
the constructs used by theorists and practitioners in their own
day-to-day work. It is the language in which psychoanalysts
conceptualize problems and communicate informally—the
kind of language likely to turn up in the heart of a case study
or in a set of clinical notes. The terms oral dependentand
sublimationare examples of the middle-level language of
psychoanalysis.

The bottom level of psychoanalytic language centers on

the experience-near discourse that characterizes therapist-

patient exchanges within an analytic session. Less formal than

Mayman’s (1976) middle-level language, this experience-

near discourse is intended to frame psychoanalytic concepts

in a way that resonates with a patient’s personal experience

without requiring that he or she have any understanding of

psychoanalytic metapsychology. When an analyst discusses a

patient’s “aggressive impulses” or “sibling rivalry,” that ana-

lyst has translated an abstract concept into experience-near

terms.

Thus, like most personality theorists, psychoanalysts

today conceptualize mental structures and processes on

several levels simultaneously. Unfortunately, it has taken

psychoanalytic psychologists a long time to develop an expe-

rience-near language for day-to-day work—longer perhaps

than it has taken psychologists in other areas. On the positive

side, however, in recent years psychoanalytic theorists have

addressed this issue more openly and systematically than

have theorists from other theoretical backgrounds (e.g., see

Horowitz, 1991; Kahn & Rachman, 2000).

Personality Stability and Change

The parallel conceptualization of psychoanalytic concepts in

relational terms introduced a fundamentally new paradigm

for thinking about continuity and change in personality de-

velopment and dynamics. In addition to being understood in

terms of a dynamic balance among id, ego, and superego,

stability in personality was now seen as stemming from con-

tinuity in the core features of key object representations (in-

cluding the self-representation; see Blatt, 1991; Bornstein,

1996). In this context, personality change was presumed to

occur in part because internalized representations of self and

other people changed as a result of ongoing inter- and intra-

personal experiences (Schafer, 1999).

This alternative framework influenced psychoanalytic the-

ories of normal personality development and led to a plethora

of studies examining the intrapsychic processes involved in

therapeutic resistance, transference, and cure (Blatt & Ford,

1994; Luborsky & Crits-Christoph, 1990). It also called theo-

rists’ attention to the critical importance of present-day expe-

riences in moderating long-term psychodynamic processes.

One important consequence of newfound concepts of person-

ality stability and change was a continuing shift from past to

present in the study of psychodynamics (Spence, 1982).

Insight, Awareness, and Coping

As noted earlier, a key tenet of all psychodynamic models is

that unconscious processes are primary determinants of

thought, emotion, motivation, and behavior. To the degree that