Interpersonal Circumplex Model
© 2010
This eText is the property of Toru Sato. All rights reserved © 2010. This eText is not to be copied, distributed, or downloaded without permission of the author. Any violation of copyright found in this eText is unintentional. Please notify the author if copyrighted material is found and not appropriately referenced.
The interpersonal circumplex theory, was initially inspired by Harry Stack
Sullivan (1953) and later realized as a model by Timothy Leary (1957). Since
the introduction of the interpersonal circumplex model, various researchers
have proposed revisions of it (e.g., Benjamin, 1974; Kiesler, 1996; Strong,
Hills, & Nelson, 1988; Wiggins, 1979). Even though these models vary
from each other, there are certain underlying commonailities in their theoretical
assumptions. Let's examine some of these assumptions. These theories suggest
that we can understand people's personality in social situations by using
only two basic personality trait dimensions. The two traits can have many
names depending on the specific theory but here we will conceptualize them
as agency and communion (see figure below). The behavioral
patterns that correspond to the opposing ends of the agency dimension are
can be labeled as dominating and submitting, while those of the communion
dimension are labeled loving and ignoring (Horowitz, 2004). The main idea
of the interpersonal circumplex model is that the social aspect of our
personality can be understood by figuring out one's level of agency and
communion. Once we know a person's the level of agency and communion, their
personality can be mapped out on a two dimensional space like the figure
below. Theorists such as Leary (1957) argued that all other dimensions of
personality can be viewed as a combination of certain levels of these two
personality traits. This view, however, is not
shared by all theorists using the interpersonal circumplex model.
Although this idea of mapping people's personality on a two dimensional space is very interesting, the interpersonal circumplex theory suggests a great deal more than this. These theories claim that individuals tend to repeat interpersonal patterns by consistently acting in a specific manner and inviting others to respond to them within a constricted range of actions which are complementary to their own actions. Complementary responses are made to sustain a natural interaction and allow an unfolding of events in an unbroken causal chain. Individuals tend to repeat interpersonal patterns by consistently acting in a specific manner and eliciting certain responses from others that are complementary to their own actions. This in turn, enables the person to repeat the same interpersonal behavior since an interpersonal behavior complementary to one's own behavior elicits the same original behavior again (due to complementary processes). These theories also suggest that people tend to invite complementary responses from others in order to affirm and validate our chosen interpersonal style of living and being. According to these theories, a person's behavior is designed to produce reactions from others that confirm the perceptions, expectations, and construals of others as well as the self (Carson, 1982).
Complementarity is operationalized by a two-dimensional interpersonal circle. As mentioned earlier, the two dimensions can be understood as communion (from loving to ignoring) and agency (from dominating to submitting). Complementarity occurs on the basis of; (1) "reciprocity" on the agency dimension, and (2) "correspondence" on the communion dimension. In other words, dominating is complementary to submitting and vice versa (i.e., reciprocity). Loving, however, is complementary to loving as ignoring is to ignoring (i.e., correspondence). Any behavior that is a combination of a certain amount of communion and agency will have a complementary response that way. The double-headed arrows in the figure below indicate which behaviors are complimentary to each other. For example, if I act in a loving and dominating manner to my younger brother, I am inviting him to respond to me in a loving and submissive manner to me. In addition to complementarity in the type of behavior, complementarity also occurs in the intensity of behavior. For example, an intensely dominating behavior will most likely invite an equally intense submissive response in others. Likewise, a moderately loving action will most likely invite a moderately loving response in others. Although the principles of interpersonal complementarity seem to apply to a wide variety of interpersonal situations, it is applicable primarily to naturally occurring, relatively unstructured interpersonal settings. This model is used not only to examine individual differences in personality but also to examine how personality influences the types of relationships we have (e.g., Sato & Gonzalez, 2009) as well as compatibility of personalities in relationships (e.g., Auerbach, Kiesler, Strentz, Schmidt, & Serio, 1994; Nowicki & Manheim, 1991).
References
Auerbach, S. M., Kiesler, D. J., Strentz, T., Schmidt, J. A., & Serio, C. D. (1994). Interpersonal impacts and adjustment to the stress of simulated captivity: An empirical test of the Stockholm Syndrome. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 207-221.
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Use of structural analysis of social behaviour. Psychological Review, 81, 392-425.
Carson, R. C. (1982). Self-fulfilling prophecy, maladaptive behaviour, and psychotherapy. In J. C. Anchin & D. J. Kiesler (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychotherapy (pp. 64-77). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996).Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
Nowicki, S. Jr., & Manheim, S. (1991). Interpersonal complementarity and time of interaction in female relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 322-333.
Sato, T., & Gonzalez, M. A. (2009). Interpersonal patterns in close relationships: The role of sociotropy-autonomy. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 327-345.
Strong, S. R., Hills, H. I., & Nelson, B. N. (1988). Interpersonal Communication Rating scale (revised). Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412.