Describing Interpersonal Behavior 213Figure 9.1 The Interpersonal Circle (IPC).
are conceptually and statistically independent, and qualities
180º apart are conceptual and statistical opposites. Although
the circular model itself is a continuum without beginning or
end (Carson, 1969, 1996; Gurtman & Pincus, 2000), any seg-
mentalization of the IPC perimeter to identify lower-order
taxa is potentially useful within the limits of reliable discrim-
inability. The IPC has been segmentalized into sixteenths
(Kiesler, 1983), octants (Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips,
1988), and quadrants (Carson, 1969).
Although the IPC represents a model of functioning in
which the individual is presumed to be in many possible in-
terpersonal situations, the model itself is monadic. The IPC
structure does not include specific structural or contextual
references to the interacting other. Most often, it is used
to describe qualities of the individual interacting with a
“generalized other” (Mead, 1932; Sullivan, 1953a, 1953b),
such as the “hostile-dominant patient” interacting with a
generic “psychotherapist” (e.g., Gurtman, 1996; Horowitz,
Rosenberg, & Kalehzan, 1992).
The Dyadic Approach
In contrast to the individual differences approach, a second
approach assumes that the basic unit of analysis for the study
of interpersonal functioning was the dyad. As is the case for
the IPC, there is a long history of theoretical and empirical
conceptualizations of dyadic interpersonal functioning. At the
same time that Leary and his colleagues were investigating in-
dividual differences in interpersonal behavior, Schaefer
(1959, 1961) began investigating mother-child dyads in an ef-
fort to develop a structural model of interpersonal behavior.
His methods were similar, but he emphasized the specific
dyad as the basic unit of observation: “For maternal behavior,
the universe [of content] is the behavior of the mother directed
toward an individual child, excluding all other behaviors of
the mother” (Schaefer, 1961, p. 126). His work showed a re-
markable convergence with Leary (1957)—both investigators
found that a two-dimensional circular model best represented
interpersonal behavior. As with the IPC, the horizontal di-
mension was love-hostility. However, the vertical dimension
differed, and was labeledautonomy,ranging from autonomy-
granting to controlling. Given a dyadic focus, Schaefer (1961)
also derived a complementary circular model of children’s be-
havior in reaction to mothers. Although this early model
failed to parallel his maternal behavior model, the notion that
parent-like interpersonal behaviors and childlike interper-
sonal behaviors may be distinguished from each other was an
important advance that led to the development of a second
prominent circular model of interpersonal behavior from a
dyadic point of view.
Structural Analysis of Social Behavior(SASB; Benjamin,
1974, 1984, 1996a, 1996b, 2000) is a complex three-plane
circumplex that operationally defines interpersonal and
intrapsychic interactions (see Figure 9.2). The dimensions
underlying SASB include autonomy (i.e., enmeshment-
differentiation on the vertical axis), affiliation (i.e., love-hate
on the horizontal axis), and interpersonal focus (i.e., parent-
like transitive actions towards others represented by the top
circle, childlike intransitive reactions to others represented
by the middle circle, and introjected actions directed toward
the self represented by the bottom circle). Benjamin (1996c)
described the development of SASB as an effort “to combine
the prevailing clinical wisdom about attachment with the
descriptive power of the circumplex as Schaefer had envi-
sioned it” (p. 1204). The unique multiplane structure of
SASB also incorporates Sullivan’s concept of introjection—
that is, the expected impact of interpersonal situations on the
self-concept—by proposing a third corresponding circle that
reflects how one relates to self.
By separating parent-like and childlike behaviors into two
planes, SASB incorporates both the vertical dimension of
Schaefer’s model (control vs. emancipate) and that of the IPC
(dominate vs. submit). The transitive surface represents the
former, whereas the intransitive surface opposes submission
with autonomy-taking. Thus, according to circumplex geom-
etry, controlling and autonomy-granting are opposite inter-
personal actions, whereas submitting and autonomy-taking
are opposite interpersonal reactions (Lorr, 1991). Dominance
and submission are placed at comparable locations on differ-
ent surfaces to reflect the fact that they are complementary
positions rather than opposites. Thus, SASB expands inter-
personal description by including taxa reflecting friendly