The Future of Interpersonal Theory 221We agree that reciprocal interpersonal influence, reinforce-
ment, and gratification are central to understanding human
personality. This is reflected in the large number of psy-
chological concepts that in some way reflect the notion of
reciprocity. That is, individuals develop some consistently
sought-after relational patterns and some strategies for
achieving them. However, we do not believe that a single
superordinate motive such as self-confirmation will succeed
in comprehensively explaining how personality develops and
is expressed.
Summary
Our discussion of interpersonal reciprocity and transaction
has highlighted many of the unique strengths of interper-
sonal theory, as well as areas in which significant develop-
ment and synthesis are necessary. In our view, interpersonal
theory emphasizes relational functioning in understanding
personality; this emphasis has led to the development of
well-validated structural models that provide anchors to sys-
tematically describe interpersonal behavior and the patterned
regularity of human transaction. Interpersonal theory has
also emphasized field-regulatory aspects of personality in
addition to the more traditional drive, self, and affect-
regulatory foci of most theories of personality. The combi-
nation of descriptive structural models and clear focus on the
interpersonal situation provides a rich nomological net that
has had a significant impact in psychology, particularly with
regard to the classification of personological and psycho-
pathological taxa and the contemporaneous analysis of
human transactions and relationships. However, we also feel
that the future of interpersonal theory will require continuing
efforts to address (a) the intrapsychic or covert structures
and processes involved in human transaction, (b) the
overemphasis on complementarity as the fundamental recip-
rocal interpersonal pattern in human relationship, (c) the
overemphasis on self-confirmation as the fundamental mo-
tive of interpersonal behavior, and (d) the lack of a compre-
hensive developmental theory to complement its strength in
contemporaneous analysis.
THE FUTURE OF INTERPERSONAL THEORY
We believe the future of interpersonal theory is bright.
Addressing the four major issues previously noted will re-
quire interpersonal theorists to continue efforts at integrating
interpersonal theory’s nomological net with the wisdom con-
tained in the cognitive, psychodynamic, and attachment liter-
ature. Fortunately, this is already beginning to take place.
Benjamin (1993, 1995, 1996a, 1996b) has initiated this with
her interpersonal “gift of love” theory that integrates the
descriptive precision of the SASB model with intrapsychic,
motivational, and developmental concepts informed by at-
tachment, cognitive, and object-relations theories.Interpersonal Theory and Mental RepresentationWe have previously asked the question Where are interper-
sonal situations to be found?Our answer is that they are
found both in the proximal relating of two persons and also in
the minds of individuals. There are now converging lit-
eratures that suggest mental representations of self and other
are central structures of personality that significantly af-
fect perception, emotion, cognition, and behavior (Blatt,
Auerbach, & Levy, 1997). Attachment theory refers to these
asinternal working models(Bowlby, 1969; Main, Kaplan, &
Cassidy, 1985), object-relations theory refers to these as
internal object relations(Kernberg, 1976), and cognitive the-
ory refers to these as interpersonal schemas(Safran, 1990a).
Notably, theorists from each persuasion have observed the
convergence in these concepts (Blatt & Maroudas, 1992;
Bretherton & Munholland, 1999; Collins & Read, 1994;
Diamond & Blatt, 1994; Fonagy, 1999; Safran & Segal,
1990; Westen, 1992). Benjamin (1993, 1996a, 1996b) has
also proposed that mental representations of self and other
are central to the intrapsychic interpersonal situation. She
refers to these as important people or their internalized rep-
resentations,orIPIRs. Thus, whether referred to as internal
working models, internal object relations, interpersonal
schemas, or IPIRs, psychological theory has converged in
identifying mental representations of self and other as basic
structures of personality.
In our opinion, the fundamental advantage of integrating
conceptions of dyadic mental representation into interper-
sonal theory is the ability to import the interpersonal field
(Wiggins & Trobst, 1999) into the intrapsychic world of the
interactants (Heck & Pincus, 2001). What we are suggesting
is that an interpersonal situation can be composed of a proxi-
mal interpersonal field in which overt behavior serves impor-
tant communicative and regulatory functions, as well as an
internal interpersonal field that gives rise to enduring individ-
ual differences in covert experience through the elaboration
of interpersonal input.
In addition, Benjamin’s conception of IPIRs retains inter-
personal theory’s advantage of descriptive precision based on
the SASB model (Pincus et al., 1999). Benjamin (1993,
1996a, 1996b) proposes that the same reciprocal patterns that
describe the interactions of actual dyads may be used to
describe internalized relationships (mental representations