210 Interpersonal Theory of Personality
nor do interpersonal theorists regularly recognize the social
psychological literature on interpersonal interaction in their
work (cf. Kiesler, 1996).
Thus, the current state of affairs compels interpersonal
theorists to take the next step in defining the interpersonal
foundations for an integrative theory of personality. The ini-
tial integrative efforts provide a platform to refine the scope
of interpersonal theory, and the areas in which integration is
lacking indicate that further development is necessary. The
goal of this chapter is to begin to forge a new identity for in-
terpersonal theory that recognizes both its unique aspects and
integrative potential; in this chapter, we also suggest impor-
tant areas in need of further theoretical development and em-
pirical research.
THE INTERPERSONAL SITUATION
I had come to feel over the years that there was an acute need for
a discipline that was determined to study not the individual
organism or the social heritage, but the interpersonal situations
through which persons manifest mental health or mental disor-
der. (Sullivan, 1953b, p. 18)
Personality is the relatively enduring pattern of recurrent in-
terpersonal situations which characterize a human life. (Sullivan,
1953b, pp. 110–111)These statements are remarkably prescient, as much of psy-
chology in the new millenium seems devoted in one way or
another to studying interpersonal aspects of human existence.
To best understand how this focus has become so fundamen-
tal to the psychology of personality (and beyond), we must
clarify what is meant by an interpersonal situation.Perhaps
the most basic implication of the term is that the expression
of personality (and hence the investigation of its nature)
focuses on phenomena involving more than one person—that
is to say,some form of relating is occuring(Benjamin, 1984;
Kiesler, 1996; Mullahy, 1952). Sullivan (1953a, 1953b) sug-
gested that individuals express “integrating tendencies” that
bring them together in the mutual pursuit of both satisfactions
(generally a large class of biologically grounded needs) and
security (i.e., self-esteem and anxiety-free functioning).
These integrating tendencies develop into increasingly com-
plex patterns or dynamisms of interpersonal experience.
From infancy onward through six developmental epochs
these dynamisms are encoded in memory via age-appropriate
learning. According to Sullivan, interpersonal learning of
social behaviors and self-concept is based on an anxiety
gradientassociated with interpersonal situations. All inter-
personal situations range from rewarding (highly secure)
through various degrees of anxiety and ending in a class of
situations associated with such severe anxiety that they are
dissociated from experience. Individual variation in learning
occurs when maturational limits affect the developing a
person’s understanding of cause-and-effect logic and consen-
sual symbols such as language (i.e., Sullivan’s prototaxic,
parataxic, and syntaxic modes of experience), understanding
of qualities of significant others (including their “reflected
appraisals” of the developing person), as well as their under-
standing of the ultimate outcomes of interpersonal situations
characterizing a human life. Thus, Sullivan’s concept of the
interpersonal situation can be summarized as the experience
of a pattern of relating self with other associated with varying
levels of anxiety (or security) in which learning takes place
that influences the development of self-concept and social
behavior. This is a very fundamental human experience for
psychology to investigate, and it is a significant aspect of
the efforts to integrate interpersonal theory with cognitive,
attachment, psychodynamic, and evolutionary theories previ-
ously noted.
Sullivan (1954) described three potential outcomes of in-
terpersonal situations. Interpersonal situations are resolved
when integrated by mutual complementary needs and recip-
rocal patterns of activity, leading to “felt security” and prob-
able recurrence. A well-known example is the resolution of
an infant’s distress by provision of tender care by parents.
The infant’s tension of needs evokes complementary parental
needs to provide care (Sullivan, 1953b). Interpersonal situa-
tions are continued when needs and patterns of activity are
not initially complementary, such that tensions persist and
covert processing of possible alternative steps toward resolu-
tion emerge, leading to possible negotiation of the rela-
tionship (Kiesler, 1996). Finally, interpersonal situations areTABLE 9.1 Landmark Publications in Interpersonal Theory
1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s
Sullivan (1953a) Schaefer (1961) Benjamin (1974) Wiggins (1980) Benjamin (1996b)
Sullivan (1953b) Sullivan (1962) McLemore & Benjamin (1979) Anchin & Kiesler (1982) Wiggins & Trapnell (1996)
Sullivan (1954) Lorr & McNair (1963) Wiggins (1979) Wiggins (1982) Kiesler (1996)
Sullivan (1956) Sullivan (1964) Kiesler (1983) Wiggins & Trobst (1999)
Leary (1957) Lorr & McNair (1965) Benjamin (1984)
Schaefer (1959) Carson (1969) Horowitz & Vitkus (1986)