216 Interpersonal Theory of Personality
model into his description of complementarity, whereby the
distance from the center of the circle represents a dimen-
sion of intensity. That is, complementarity involves both the
class of behaviors and their strength. Reciprocity on domi-
nance, correspondence on nurturance, and equivalent inten-
sity thus define complementary behaviors.
In addition, Kiesler (1983, 1996) defined two other broad
classes of reciprocal interpersonal patterns anchored by the
IPC model. When reciprocal interpersonal patterns meet one
of the two rules of complementarity, he referred to this situa-
tion as an acomplementary pattern.In such a case, interac-
tants may exhibit correspondence with regard to nurturance
or reciprocity with regard to dominance, but not both. When
interactants exhibit neither reciprocity on dominance nor cor-
respondence on nurturance, he referred to this situation as an
anticomplementary pattern.In Kiesler’s (1996) discussion of
these three reciprocal patterns of interpersonal behavior, it is
clear that they relate rather directly to the types of outcomes
of interpersonal situations suggested by Sullivan. Comple-
mentary reciprocal patterns are considered to promote rela-
tional stability—that is, such interpersonal situations are
resolved, they are mutually reinforcing, and they are recur-
ring. Acomplementary patterns are less stable and instigate
negotiation (e.g., toward or away from greater complemen-
tarity). Finally, anticomplementary patterns are the most un-
stable and lead to avoidance, escape, and disintegration of the
interpersonal situation.
SASB
After developing his two circular models of maternal and
child behavior, Schaefer (1961) suggested that relationships
between the two surfaces could be the basis for articulating a
theory of influenceof maternal behavior on child behavior,
stating
Bowlby (1951) has pointed out that both European and Ameri-
can investigators agree that the quality of parental care has great
importance to the development of the child. Less agreement ex-
ists about how specific patterns of parent behavior are related to
specific patterns of child behavior. One obstacle to the under-
standing of such relationships has been a lack of knowledge of
the interrelations of the concepts within each universe[italics
added]. For the purpose of discussion, let us accept the concep-
tual models presented here and attempt to develop hypotheses
concerningthe relationship of the two models[italics added].
(pp. 143–144)Benjamin (1974, 1984, 1996a, 1996b) has extended
Schaefer’s proposition by formally articulating a class of
reciprocal interpersonal patterns defined by intersurface
relationships within the SASB model, referred to as SASB
predictive principles.The main predictive principles are
complementarity, similarity, opposition, antithesis, and intro-
jection, although others may be logically deduced (Schacht,
1994). It is important to note that these principles are not mu-
tually exclusive from those anchored in the IPC model. The
first four listed can also be articulated using the IPC. Com-
plementarity implies the very same conditions for an inter-
personal situation in both models with content (i.e., differing
taxa) being the point of descriptive distinction. As Kiesler
(1983) noted, similarity and opposition are specific forms of
an acomplementary pattern as defined on the IPC. Antithesis
is a form of anticomplementarity from the IPC perspective,
again distinctly described using the SASB lexicon. Only
introjection cannot be at least partially specified within the
IPC model.
Complementarity is based on the relations between transi-
tive and intransitive SASB surfaces; it reflects the typical
transactional so-called pulls, bids, or invitations that influ-
ence dyadic interactants. It is defined when both members of
a dyad are focused on the same person and exhibit compara-
ble amounts of affiliation and autonomy. These can be identi-
fied by the numbers indicating the SASB surface (1, 2, or 3)
and the cluster (1 through 8) as indicated in Figure 9.2. For
example, a therapist focuses on her patient and empathically
communicates that she notices an emotional shift (1-2:
affirm). In response, the patient focuses on himself and
tells the therapist of the associated perceptions, cognitions,
wishes, fears, or memories associated with his current affec-
tive state (2-2: disclose). All possible complementary posi-
tions are marked by taxa appearing in the same locations
on surface one and surface two (i.e., attack-recoil, blame-
sulk, control-submit, protect-trust, active love-reactive love,
affirm-disclose, emancipate-separate, and ignore-wall off).
Like the continuous nature of the IPC, the SASB model has
several versions, differing in their level of segmentalization
and thus precision in terms of their descriptive taxa and
predictive principles.
Similarity is exhibited when an individual imitates or acts
like someone else—that is, they occupy the same points on
the same SASB surface. Imitation, modeling, and observa-
tional learning (Bandura, 1977) are important mechanisms in
social learning theories that can be described by similarity.
However, similarity has a different meaning if it is exhibited
by two interactants in an interpersonal situation. If two
people rigidly maintain similar positions at the same time, the
situation will be rather unproductive—negotiation must
occur for there to be much progress. A familiar example is a
couple planning their weekend. If both attempt to control
(demand their way), there is a power struggle. If both submit,