A measure of Kohut's narcissistic personality types
Transcript of A measure of Kohut's narcissistic personality types
A MEASURE O F K O H U T ' S NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY TYPES
b Y
7'erencc David Fktrin
H A . , 'l'he University of British Columbia, 1987
'I 'HESIS SUHMI'T'I'EL) I N I'AR'I'IAL FUI,E'II,LMEN'I- O F
T H E KEQUIREMEN'I'S FOR T H E DEGREE O F
MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department
of
Psychology
O 'I'erence David Estrin, 1994
S I M O N FRASER UNIVERSITY
All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.
Approval
Name: Terence David Estrin
Degree: Master of Arts
Titlc of thesis: A Measure of Kohut's Narcissistic Personality Types
Examining Committce:
Chair: Dr. Charles Crawfor Professor
S /
Ikpartmcnt of I'sych'olo Simon ~ S e r Clnidersirfl
/
- *' /
Dr. James Iddrcia - - Senior Supervisor !
Department of Psychblogy Simoy+raser University
*L-e--- P r . Stephen t
Assistant Professor Department of I'sychology ~ir@~e$'Upiuersi t~ /
- L7 4 - \ 7 - - - / Dr. Andrea Kowaz
Assistant I'rofessor Department of Psychology Simon Fraser University
', v
%r. Jery Zaslove External Examiner I'rofessor Department of English Simon Fraser University
PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE
I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or
extended essay (the titIe of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser
University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or
in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other
educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree
that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be
granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. Tt is understood that copying or
publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my
written permission.
Title of Thesis/Project/Extended Essay
A Measure of Kohut's Narcissistic Personality Types
Author: .. -cC -. I
(signature)
Terence David Estri n
(name)
Abstract
'l'he purpose of this research was to develop a sentence completion test designcd to
measure the Mirror-hungry, Idcal-hungry, and 'l'winship-hungry personalities in a s t i~dent
sanlplc (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). 'l'wo measures were developed: the test itself and an
accompanying scoring manual, as well as a set of brief narrative-based rating scales.
I'sychometric analysis found the greatest degree of homogeneity for 'l'winship and Mirror.
Exploratory factor analysis yielded a 'l'winship and Mirror factor, whereas Idealizing was
scattered. Correlations between the test and rating scales emerged as predicted, as did
most comparisons to external criteria. Inter-rater reliability was very satisfactory.
Overall, results indicate much promise for the Mirror and 'l'winship subscales, whereas the
Idealizing subscale requires further refinement.
Acknowledgments
When I began this project, I had very little in thc form of a blueprint from which to
work. What it has become is the result of consultation with people to whom I owe a great
deal of thanks.
First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. James Marcia for his guidance
throughout the project. I t is rare to find a supervisor who supports the creative aspects of his
student's work as much as he does, and I valued that greatly. Even when the test was just a
tentative idea, he seemed to have a sense that I was following a worthwhile path, and
helped guide my plans in a thoughtful and theoretically-informed manner. In short, the test
would not be in its current form were it not for his input.
I would also like to thank Dr. Stephen Hart for his good humoured advice in
matters statistical and methodological, and for giving me the oportunity to present my
ideas in his assessment and research design classes. His input helped immeasurably to
provide structure for this rather large project.
For their expert statistical advice my thanks go to Drs. Chris Koney, Kay
Koopman and Michael Maraun. I would also like to thank Dr. Andrea Kowaz for her
excellent suggestions regarding stem form.
Abundant thanks go to Penny Simpson, my Self-Psychology-Literate colleague
who provided a note of salvation by doing the first manipulation check, typed in the
responses and vital statistics data (among other things), acted as the official computer
consultant, and had the unenviable job of being my co-rater for scoring.
Warm thanks to Joan Foster and Elizabeth Michno for the hours of statistical and
technical support, and to Joan Wolf who designed the randomization tables for scoring.
I would also like to thank the student volunteers who gave up a considerable amount
of their time to take part in this study.
l'hc person who really belongs at thc top of this letter of patirude is my wife and
best friend, Felicity, and I dedicate this work to her.
Table of Contents
... Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 111
............................................................................................................... A c k n o ~ l c d ~ m c n t s iv
.. ... I.ist of I'ablcs ................................................................................................................... V I I I
.............................................................................................................. l is t of Appendices ix
.......................................................................................................................... Introduction 1
............................................................................................................................ O h jectives 2
Literature Review
I . Narcissism, Self Psychology and the Emergence of the Self ....................... 3
................................................... . I 1 Kohut's Classification of Self-Disorders 12
. . ................................................................................ I I I . Measuring Narcissism 15
Measures Based on the "Grandiose" Narcissism Construct .................................... 17
............................................................................ . A Self-Keport Measures 17
. R Projective Measures ................................................................................ 20
.......... Measures Rased on Self Psychology 'Theory: Grandiosity and Idealization 22
Methodology
I . 'The Research Question Restated ................................................................ 33
. . . . . . I1 . Derivation ot the 1 est Crlterla .................................................................. 33
I 1 I . 'I'heoritical Bases of the 'I'est Criteria ....................................................... 35
. ................................................... IV 'l'he Mirror-Hungry I'ersonality Criteria 35
...................................................... . V 'The Ideal-Hungry Personality Criteria 41
VI . 'The Twinship-Hungry Personality Criteria ............................................... 45
I'cst Coustri~ctiorl
I .
I I .
1 1 1 .
IV .
v .
VI .
VI I .
Results
I .
11 .
I l l .
IV .
v .
Vl .
VI 1 .
V11I .
IX .
X .
XI .
Stcm ( h i t e n t and 1)esign ........................................................................... 5.3
Stcm Selection and Reduction ................................................................... 54
. . Scor~ng Manual (:onstruction ..................................................................... 64
'l'he Self-Rating Scales ............................................................................... 66
Construct Validity: Convergent and Discriminant Validity ..................... 66
A . 'l'he Personality Research Form ............................................................. 66
13 . Convergent and Discriminant Validity Hypotheses .............................. 67
................................... Content Validity: Principal Components Analysis 71
Methods Summary ..................................................................................... 72
. . ................................................................................. Descriptive Stat~s tlcs 75
Keliability: Inter-1 tem Correlations .......................................................... 78
Keliablity: I tern-to-Subscale Correlations ................................................ 87
Content Validity: Principal Components Analysis liesults ..................... 107
Convergent and 1)iscriminant Validity: Sentence Completion and P.R.F. Subscales ................................................................................. 112
........ Differential Validity: Correlation with the 1)esireability Subscale 115
Differential Validity: Correlation Retween Items and Relevant1 ....................................................................... Irrelevant P.R.F. Subscales 115
Convergent and Discriminant Validity: Sentence Completion Subscales and Self-Kating Scales ............................................................. 116
Convergent and Lliscrirninant Validity: Self-Kating Scales ............................................................................... and P.K.F. Subscales 1 19
Exploration: Correlation Between the Sentence Completion Subscales and Remaining P.R.F. Subscales .............................................. 120
Inter-Rater Keliability: The Scoring Manual ........................................... 126
List of Tables and Appendices
. . . Mirror-Hungry Orttcr~a and Stems ........................................................................ 57
7 . . Idcal-Hungry Lr~tcrra and Stenls .......................................................................... 59
. . I winship-Hungry Criteria and Stcms .................................................................... 61
I'redicted Correlations for Convergent and Lliscriminant Validity Estimates ..... 71
. . . . . Ikscrtpt~ve Stattstics ............................................................................................. 76
Correlations Between all Sentence Completion Subscales ..................................... 88
All Iterations: Mean Inter-Item Correlations ........................................................ 90
Reliability Analysis: Final Iteration ...................................................................... 92
I'rincipal Components Analysis Final Statistics .................................................. 108
Factor Loadings for Four-Factor Oblique Solution ............................................. 110
Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results: Sentence Completion
............................................................................................. and P.R.F. Subscales 114
Ilifferential Validity: Correlation with the Ilesireability Subscale .................... 116
Differential Validity: Mean Correlations Between Items and
.................................................................... Kelevant/Irrelevant P.K.F. Subscales 117
Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results: Sentence Completion
......................................................................... Subscales and Self-Rating Scales 119
Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results: Self-Rating Scales
............................................................................................. and P.K.F. Subscales 121
.............. Correlations Between the M Subscale and Kemaining !'.Kt;. Subscales 123
................ Correlations Between the I Subscale and Remaining P.K.F. Subscales 124
............... Correlations Between the 'I' Subscale and Remaining P.K.F. Subscales 125
................................................. Inter-Kater Agreement: Mirror-Hungry Subscale 127
................................................... Inter-Kater Agreement: Ideal-Hungry Subscale 128
............................................. 2 1 : 11ltcr- Rater Agrecrnent: 'l'winship-Hungry Subscale 129
. . 22: Inter-Rater Agreement: Scale 1 orals ................................................................... 1.30
t;i!ritres
1 : Factor plot. test items .......................................................................................... 1 1 1
Auocndices
............................................................................................................... 'I'he 'I'est 146
The Scoring Manual ............................................................................................. 158
. . ................................................................................................ Self-Rat~ng Scales 242
. . . Frequency D~stribut~orl Histograms ..................................................................... 246
. . . .............................................................................. Intcr-Item Correlation 1 able 252
....................................................................................................... First Iteration 257
................................................................................................... Second Iteration 262
'I'hird Iteration ..................................................................................................... 267
Fourth Iteration .................................................................................................... 272
................................................. Permission to Keproduce Copyrighted Material 277
'l'he purpose of this research is to develop a sentence completion test desiencd to
measure Kohut's three narcissistic persorlality types i t1 a student samplc. 'l 'he mirror-hungry,
ideal-hungry, and twinship-hungry personalities each represent a distinct style of
externally-depetldenc, "subclinical" narcissistic self-esteem regulatio~~, and as such form a
nonpathological subgroup included within a greater classification of narcissistic self-
disorders (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). I'revious studies have attempted to measure Kohut's
bipolar self-constructs as reflected in healthy or pathological/defensive grandiosity and
idealization, but none have yet measured the complete tripartite self (grandiosity, ideals,
and twinship) as reflected in these normal personality types. Moreover, the majority of
prior works do not follow a self-psychology model, and assess subclinical narcissism
based on the DSM-111 narcissistic personality disorder model - that is, roughly
corresponding to the grandiose, or mirror-hungry type only. 'l'he significance of the present
study is twofold: 'l'he measure derives its structure from three subclinical narcissistic
personalities, and examines a facet of the tripartite self that has not previously been
researched. 'l'hus, the focal problem addressed here is the construction of a measure of
normal narcissism as expressed through Kohut's three narcissistic personality types, which
will be measured in two ways: the sentence completion test, and a set of three brief
narratives based on the personality types.
1 . 'l'hc first objective is to opcrationalize the three narcissistic personality type
cowsrructs h y employing a theory-drivcn, systematic method to derive sets of scoring
criteria from each of Kohut and Wolfs ( 1 978) brief personality profiles. 'l'his will provide
a governing rule to organize the scoring criteria into three relatively uniform constellations,
as well as identify the key aspects of the three content domains that will be measured by
the sentence stems.
2. 7'0 generate a large ( 1 50-200) pool of sentence stems, each of which will be written
to pull for a given criterion domain. 'l'his item pool was subjected to a series of pilot
studies which resulted in the current 46-item test (See Methodology section).
3. A second measure was developed in which subjects were asked to rate the extent to
which they resemble each of the three personality profiles. This measure will be referred to
as the "Self-Rating Scales."
4. Five pilot studies were run to select the stenis and as a means of developing the
initial scoring manual. A sample of exemplars was culled from these responses and
assembled as the initial scoring manual.
5. 2-0 assess the psychometric adequacy of the sentence completion instrument, the
convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs by comparison with Personality
Research Form subscales, and evaluate the manual via inter-rater agreement. Content
validity will be assessed through a principal components analysis, and constitute the first
step toward construct validation.
I.itcratt~rc Ilcvicw
I . Narcissisni, Sclf I'sycholovy, and the t;.mer!~ence of the Sclf
Kohut's self-psychology follows the general theme that individuals develop in
relation to other peoplc, or more specifically, that the self/personaliry develops through
the introjectioa of relationships (Hamilton, 1989). How this process occurs requircs some
theoretical explication, and the most appropriate place to begin is with self psychology's
most ubiquitous construct: narcissism. ,
What zinarcissism? In the self psychology literature i t tends to be a circuitously-
defined concept at best. Even in the broader forum, narcissism remains something of an
elusive construct - the meaning of which depends on one's theoretical orientation - and
although there are numerous perspectives to consider (e.g., Freud, Kernberg, and others), the
self psychology definition is most relevant for our purposes.
, Freud's definition of narcissism was essentially of a libidinal energy that could i l ,
either be invested in some aspect of the self, or in external objects (i.e., people) (Freud,
1959). He viewed primary narcissism (a feeling of omnipotence, grandiosity, and almost
no sense of the selflbody as being distinct from the caregiver) as the infant's natural, yet
immature, egocentric state that must eventually be abandoned for mature object love.
Secondary narcissism emerges in adulthood under certain stressful conditions and
constitutes a regressive redirection of libido from the object world to the self - hence the
negative connotation. Even his conception of "normal narcissism," referred to the outward
expressions of instinctual energy, such as being in love (Slycer, 1989). If narcissism is self
love wherein the greater balance of libido may sometimes be invested in the self rather
than other people, then for Freud, the notion of healthy adult narcissism cannot exist
(I,oewensrein, 1977).
Kernberg's couccption of naricissism represents thc current opposing rhcory to rhc
sclf psychology modcl, and csscntially follows Freud's lead. Kcrnbcrg views pathological
narcissisnl and object love as mutually exclusive, whereas hcalthy narcissisnl is see11 to
promote objcct Iovc. In this scnsc he appears to allow for the cxisrcncc of hcalthy adult
narcissism, but as we will scc, i t is really just in the service of object lovc, much i l l the
manner of Frcud's model, which maintains the interdependence of sclf lovc and objcct lovc
(I.ocwcnstcin, 1977).
Kcrnbcrg's model describes two forms of hcalthy narcissism, mature and
immature. Mature narcissism is defined as normal self esteem, which offers some
resiliency when injured, the result being transient self-criticism. Immature narcissism is
most commonly associated with neurotic states or characterological problems, and
responds to injury with mood swings (I,oewenstein, 1977). However, healthy narcissism is
viewed as a completely different entity from pathological narcissism.
From an etiological standpoint, healthy and pathological narcissism result from
good arid bad early objects which have been internalized as good and bad internal
representations. Healthy narcissism and the resultant involvement in object love are the
results of hcalthy inner object representations acquired in infancy, whereas pathological
narcissism results from some form of unhealthy inner object relatedness. - In order to
develop pathological narcissism, one must over-invest in a pathological self that emerges i
as a defensive barrier against a world devoid of emotional or physical sustenance, resulting
in grandiosity and devaluation of others, exploitive relationships, the inability to enjoy
much except positive feedback from others and fantasies, the tendency to idealize people
who provide narcissistic supplies and devalue all others, and denial of dependency needs *
(Johnson, 1991). For Kernberg, pathological narcissism and its attendant aggression are the
result of infantile rage and frustration, which leads to pathological defenses such as
splitting (in which grandiosity, shyness, and feelings of inferiority may coexist without
affecting each other)which is employed to buffer the intense ragc which develops i n
response to early parental deprivatio~i(l~oewc~~~tei~~, 1977).
in many ways, Kernberg's model of narcissism simply rcfranics Freud's ideas i l l
object relations terms. Unlikc Freud, Kernberg can conccivc of healthy adult narcissism,
hut again, the focus is primarily on its role in encouraging object love, whereas, as wc will
see in Kohut's scheme, healthy adult narcissis~n and self love are interdependent. 'l'hus,
Kernberg disagrees with Kohut on four points: He feels that normal immature narcissism
does not occupy the same continuum as pathological narcissism, that self-love and object
love follow the same line of development, that aggression is primary to narcissisni because
pathological narcissism is enmeshed with infantile ragc and frustration, and that the natural
state of the infant is not one of primary narcissism(I.oewenstein, 1977).
Kohut (1 971) concurs with Freud that theiinfant's narcissism consists of omnipotent
grandiosity accotnpanied by the need to merge with an onlnipotent object.\I'he similarity ,-
ends there, as Kohut views narcissism/self-love and object love as following conipletely
separate developnierital lines. In his theoretical framework, healthy adult narcissism does
exist, in that i t represents the transformation of the infant's "libidinal investment of the
self' (primary narcissism) into healthy self-esteem, goalslambitions and the development
of mature ideals (Ornstein, 1978a, p. 627). In the broadest sense, Kohut's definition of
unhealthy narcissism describes not narcissism itself, but the strategy necessary to maintain
an adult fixation at the archaic stage (owing to a dearth of adequate environmental
responsiveness to that-person's healthy narcissism in infancy), and therefore bears only a
superficial resemblance to Freud's version (Loewenstein, 1977, Ornstein, 1978b). /
Self psychology's positive narcissism represents the motive force behind L.
personality development. -. When Kohut referred to narcissism as "an integral, self-contained
set of psychic functions" (Ornstein, 1978b, p. (;la), he meant that constellation of needs
that sustain the infant's emotional life. Narcissistic needs, then, represent's the infant's
expression and need for confirmation of self-esteem in all of its manifestations; the basic
rcquircrncnt that the infant exists in an cnvirunmcnt that accomodatcs hislhcr fc.clings of
omnipotence and grandiosity (that is, the caregiver's ability to mirror back thesc
qualities), coupled with the infant's wish to 'borrow' a sensc of calm, when necessary,
through merger with a parent who is perceived as a source of strength and omnipotence.
Kohut rnaintaincd that thesc two forms of infantile riarcissisrn eventually beconie the two
main constituents of mature self-esteem as both expressed and sustained by mature
ambitions and ideals. 'l'hus, to say that an infant has a narcissistic need simply means that
helshc requires an environment that allows them to experience the sense of hislher own
greatness, joyful self-expression, calm, and perhaps most importantly, to dwell in the
presence of others who can reflect and confirm those positive experiences (Kohut, 1985)
Narcissistic needs are so central to Kohut's developmental scheme that he views them as no
less important than the physiological ones, for they define us all as living creative beings.
Another way to define narcissism is to frame it in its cultural context, which
requires that we simply focus on the term's emotional valence. T o the layperson, the phrase
"normal narcissisnl" must appear as something of an oxymoron. Self psychology sidesteps
that pejorative connotation by defining narcissism as the healthy propensity to experience
the full range of one's own vitality and emotions, and expend creative energy (Kohut and
Wolf, 1978). In fact, it is implicit to self psychology theory that what we observe as
"narcissistic" in the negative sensc of the word, is nothing more than the expression of an
i incomplete self that has, in infancy, been chronically starved of genuine narcissistic support.,
T o carry this point a step further, Kohut (Ornstein, 197813) asserts that our cultural
values often negate healthy narcissistic needs, not just in terms of the derogatory label
(which does appear to point to an as-yet diagnostically-undifferentiated personality
configuration) but also as an ambient ethos that discourages true self-nurturance. For
example, because it reveres altruism, Christianity discourages expression of the grandiose
self in that it derogates any hint of egotism or self-directed concerns, although i t does
promote a submissive idealizationlmerger. Conversely, secular views can encourage self-
cnhanccmcnt, but disdain institutionalized idcalizarion (at least when Kohur wrote thih).
130th of these ci~ltural influcnccs have positive rationales for denying what is pcrccivccl in
the former case as the denial of selfishness and in the latter, the avoidance of irrational
reliance o n noncxistcnt deities, yet the cumulative effect is to deny the cultural fulfillment
of healthy narcissistic needs (Ornstein, 197Xb) In short, self psychology views narcissism
as a positive force, whereas unfi~lfilled narcissistic needs expressed on a cultural scale -
such as war - can be otherwise. I11 order to explain how healthy narcissism leads to self-
formation, wc must next exanline the formative dynamic behind Kohut's tripartite model
of the self: the sclf-selfobject relationship.
The self-selfobject relationship represents self psychology's central dynamir
construct. The term selfobject - or narcissistically-invested object, refers to an
internalized representation of a significant other who is experienced as part of the self, and
as such provides the functions that sustain one's sense of vitality, cohesiveness, and overall
psychological equilibrium, such as the regulation of healthy self-esteem (Kohut, 1978). In
infancy our empathic bond with those selfobjects (i.e., our parents) represents our very
lifelirie to the world of other people; these relationships are our life, and without them our
cmotio~ial world would be 'formless and void.' As Kohut's schematic suggests, it is these
relationships that provide the mechanism by which the self (self psychology's central psychic
construct) becomes an integrated whole.
Selfobjects also play an important and complex role in the continuity of our sense
of self and self-esteem throughout adulthood.(When we meet with the usual frustrations and
successes as we strive to realize our ambitions, certain people/selfobjects with whom we
share our experiences can provide the type of responses that mirror our feelings of inner
worth. Our ambitions can also carry mature (and not so mature) ideals to which we aspire,
and when we recognize one of those particular qualities in others, they can come to
One could argue that what our culture really encourages is self-gratification, the great band- aid that the narcissistically-crippled culture as a whole seeks. Lasch (1978) has much to say about this, but that is another paper.
rcprcscnt living ideals to which we can mold those aspirations. 111 that intcrnicdiarc rc;i11ii
driven by both our ambitions and ideals, the role of alterego and twinship relationships
may constitute the most ubiquitous of the self-selfobject rclatio~~ships hccawsc they
rcprcscnr the nccd to participate as a human being among other human beings (Kohut,
1984). 'I'hc thrcc typcs of self-selfobject relationships therefore provide the vehicle through
which healthy narcissistic needs are met throughout the lifespan. Thus, the self-sclfobjcct
relationship represents the central self-formation dynamic, in that the existence and
continuity of the self depends on the varieties of selfobject experiences particular to each
pason. Having presented something of a general overview, let 11s take a developmental step
backward and consider the origins of the core psychic structure, the self.
The self emerges as the product of a continuous interplay between psychic structure
and the affectivelempathic environment into which the infant is born. The newborn infant
possesses a Nuclear Self - a pre-self state of pure awareness, potential and needs
(Ornstein, 1991). How this Nuclear Self develops into the mature self depends entirely on
the empathic tone of the relationship maintained between caregiverlselfobject and the
infant. Just as Mahler describes the mother's (or father's) manner of relatedness to the infant
as the prime determinant of "psychological birth," so Kohut portrays the empathic
resonance between parent and infant as the primary determinant of self structure (Greenberg
1)( Mitchell, 1983, ~ . 2 7 6 ) . The crucial factor here (one might say the binding energy)
consists of the caregiver's ability to respond to the infant's narcissistic needs. 'Thus, in
Kohut's model, the manner in which the neonate's self-functions/narcissistic needs are
fulfilled through the caregiver (selfobject) constitutes both the initial, archaic self-
selfobject relationship from which the beginnings of the tripartite self structure emerge
(Kohut, 1984).
'The firmly-established, mature self (the result of years of interaction
between the child and hislher selfobjects) is made up of three components. Two of these
comprise Kohut's original bipolar self. One pole emerges as the result of the selfobject's
"mirroring" rcsporw to the child's exhibitionistic and grandiose nccds, which reprewilts tllc
basic striving for and cnjoynic~~t of power and succcss. Hcre the signs of approval oncc
rcccivcd from the selfobject become internalized as self-esteem, vitality, sclf-
asscrtivc~less, and ambitions. The selfs other pole represents the child's nwlcar idcals
(idealizing nccds). Where the child once had a need for a seemingly on~r~ipotcnt sclf-
object perceived as a source of imperturbable soothing and calming responses, the sclf has
now internalized all of these qualities so that the child develops hislhcr own sense of secure
strength, self-regard, a self-soothing capacity, and mature ideals (Kohut & Wolf, 1978).
In his earliest writings, Kohut posited two types of selfobjects: The "Mirroring
Selfobject" who confirms and responds to the infant's innate sense of energy, greatness and
perfection, and the "Idealized Parent Imago" - someone the child can look up to, and
with whom helshe can merge as an image of calm, assuredness and omnipotence (Kohut &
Wolf, 1978). In his last work (Kohut,1984), he recognized the alteregoltwinship selfobject
relationship as distinct aspect of the selfs needs because it continued to emerge in the
therapeutic context in the form of transference. This aspect of the self emerges as a function
of the "tension between the dual poles of ambitions and ideals" (Kohut & Wolf, 1978),
representing the repertoire of activities, both physical and psychological, that drive the
individual to attain hislher goals. Its origins arise from a child's need to learn basic talents
and skills by working with and emulating suitable selfobjects (Kohut & Wolf, 1978),
which becomes a means of self-differentiation through relatedness, similarity and
belonging (Kohut, 1984).
Kohut refers to the process by which the self acquires psychological structure
(initially provided by the selfobject) as a combination of "optimal frustration" and
"transmuting internalization." The prerequisite here is a satisfying empathic resonance
between the infant and caregiver wherein the infant's narcissistic needs are adequately met.
Optimal frustration refers to brief, non-traumatic interruptions in the empathic attention
given to the child, such that the child must learn to satisfy those needs on hislher own. This
means that the child intcrnalizcs the functions that wcrc formerly cxpcricnccd v ia the
carcgivcr(s)/selfobjccr(s). 'l'ransmuting internalization refers to the nlcans by which the
psychic assimilation occurs (Ornstcin, 1991).
' Ih is process occurs nor only in childhood but throughout development siich
that any person will show a distiilct pattern of self-selfobjcct rclatiotiships over the
lifespan, that can, at the very least, enhance the ability to take enjoyment in life, and under
certain circumstances, transform us (hence Kohut's therapeutic method). 'l'hc earliest archaic
setting provides the prototype, the series of early relationships from which the self
progresses through to the mature self-sc1fc)bject relationships. Not only is the intinlacy that
accompanies the self-selfobject relationship important in childhood, but as was stated
earlier, in adult life we tend to seek out - to varying degrees - empathic responses
similar to those experienced in infancy. In times of mental well-being, positive
relationships can evoke a resonance with all of the positive self-selfobjcct relationships that
have occurred throughout our lives. In times of disequilibrium, we may seek out the same
kinds of empathic responses that provided us with a sense of self-esteem, calming, etc. The
cohesive self is therefore not a fixed entity (Kohut, 1984). Its continued integrity depends
on two functions: internalized self-support/esteem, and the ongoing need for satisfying
self-selfobject relationships (Muslin, 1985).
However, self-development rarely, if ever, proceeds in such a picture-perfect
manner. '1.0 take the other extreme, such as when the archaic self-selfobject relationship is
markedly deficient, the child is unable to internalize those crucial functions (such as those
involving a sense of self esteem and cohesiveness) because they are simply not available.
Kohut likens this situation to that of an organism that is deprived of its very sustenance: the
essential warmth and empathic responsiveness that characterizes healthy human relations.
'I'he self, however, does not expire, it simply adapts and distorts to the situation at hand.
Kohut and Wolf (1978) state:
Once the self has crystallized in the interplay of inherited and cnvironmcutal factors, i t aims toward the realization of its own specific programme of action - a programme that is determined by the specific intrinsic pattern of its constirucnt ambitions, goals, skills and talents, and by the tensions that arise bctwccn these consritucnts (p. 41 4).
Not unlikc ( i r l Rogers' notion that even the most abnormal behaviors arc simply a
distorted version of the natural urge to express oneself, this view maintains that thc
deprivation of healthy narcissistic satisfactions in infancy will result in any numbcr of
variations on the "enfeebled self' theme. Kcgardless of the specific behavioral constellation
that emerges, two key characteristics will be present: 1 .) Chronic attempts to locate
selfobjects who can momentarily fill archaic rifts in psychic structure. Rather than seeking
others for the purpose of non-exploitive relations, such a person acquires their sense of self-
cohesion by associating with others who they believe can somehow "remedy" their
impoverished sense of self esteem, feelings of anxiety and emptiness, ctc. 2.)
Acconlpanying this basic dynamic will be any number of defensive and compensatory
structures - maladaptive coping strategies which are also employed to f i l l missing gaps in
self structure (Eagle, 1984, Kohut, 1977). Although severe self-pathology can present as a
number of identifiable behavior patterns(Kohut and Wolf, 1978), it is not central to our
discussion and need only be mentioned to illustrate the greater continuum that comprises
self-development.
The research outlined in this proposal will not focus on either extreme. I t is
likely that optimal development as portrayed in Kohut's basic scheme and the conlplete
archaic selfobject failure instance appear with relatively infrequently in the general
population. Instead, it is assumed that most adequately functioning people in our society
behave in a manner that reflects an admixture of healthy selfobject relations and some
central personality features which qualify as subclinical yet maladaptive narcissistic
strategies. As Miller ( 1 981) suggests, infants who receive even mildly inappropriate
reponses to their emotional expression ("who are not allowed to experience their feelings as
belonging to their own selves") will search for those missing narcissistic supplies for the
rest of their adult lives. According to this model, even a relatively "~iornial" i~phr i~iging
can yield a person with mild but influential defects in thcir self-structure which handicaps
thcir ability to maintain self-esteem, self-soothe or maintain any of the other self-functions
(depending on the nature of the empathic rift) without recourse to cxtcrrial sources. It is, as
Kvhut (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), suggested, not so much what parents do that helps or hinders
thcir children's development as much as what they are. He believed that even within the
range of "normal" personality development, children can suffer emotional trauma simply
because they are in the care of people whose own self-structuralization is incomplete (whose
own narcissistic needs were never adequately met and unconsciously look to the child to
fulfil those needs), and are therefore incapable of meeting the child on an
emotional/empathic level that is uncluttered by competing sets of needs. In summary, even
in noriclinical populations, if infantile narcissistic needs remain unfulfilled, one tends to
see an adult who seeks to satisfy those needs through other people in a less-than-adaptive
manner (hence the presumed prevalence of the normal narcissistic personality types that
form the basis of this proposed study). A brief introduction to the classification of self-
disorders will serve to conclude this general introduction and provide an explanatory
context for the development of the test criteria.
11. Kohut's Classification of Self-Disorders
Self-psychology divides narcissistic (as opposed to neurotic) psychopathology into
primary and secondary disorders of the self. Primary self-disorders reflect a profoundly
damaged self-structure and consist of a group of pathological and unanalyzable states
including the psychoses and borderline states. Also included in this category are the
narcissistic behavior disorders and the narcissistic personality disorders (not the I X M
variety), wherein one may observe severe symptomatology, but the self is sufficiently
intact to benefit from analysis. In contrast, secondary self-disturbances are those
conlplaints that fall within the range of normal selfobject relations and represent a hcalrhy
sclfs reactions to everyday strcssors (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). Although self psychology
theory has evolved considerably, this basic distinction see~ns to have endured. In his final
work, Kohut ( 1 984) recapitulated the notion of secondary vs. primary self-disturbances by
marking the distinction between persons whose chronic emotional disequilibrium co~npels
them to continl~ally seek out analogues of archaic selfobjects - from those whose
narcissistic needs are enhanced by, but not dependent upon, the significant people in their
lives.
The narcissistic personality types fall under the heading of secondary self-
disturbances, and it is inlplicit to this proposal, as well as to Kohut's thinking, that they
represent some of the common personality variants seen in normally-functioning adults
(1984). Although the tripartite typology represented by the mirror-, ideal-, and twinship-
hungry personalities purportedly represents the normal personality range (Kohut & Wolf,
1978), if one contrasts it with Kohut's descriptions of healthy, mature selfobject relations,
these personality types - as we will see below - could each be viewed as a less-than-
optimal interpersonal stance. This does not mean that the narcissistic personality types are
in any way pathological, it simply means that even within the normal range of interpersonal
behaviors one can observe an adaptive vs. maladaptive continuum. Kohut's descriptions of
the developmental process that leads to healthy narcissism simply.represents a schematic
description of the most adaptive end of that c o n t i n u ~ ~ m . In comparison, the narcissistic
personality types do appear to fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum. Another
consideration is that if the behaviors described by these personality types were extreme
enough (represented by what Kohut and Wolf refer to as the "contact shunning" versus
"merger hungry" dimension), they could be classified within the secondary self-disturbance
domain. Although the conceptual underpinnings of this research can certainly accommodate
a blurred distinction between the primary and secondary self-disorders, the proposed
mcasurc will maintain a deliberately narrow focus, and assess only that continuutn
represented by the relatively healthy manifestations of the personality types.
I3eforc we proceed to a description of the steps necessary to develop the mcasurc
itself, an important issue must be addressed: Is i t appropriate to use Kohut's typology as
the basis for research? Hecause Kohut himself may have balked at the idea, i t is a question
that, if left unanswered, could lead the astute reader to conclude that the very basis of the
proposed measure rests on theoretical quicksand. When Kohut and Wolf (I 978) publishcd
their outline of the self-disorders, they did so reluctantly. It was never meant to be a
canonical work, but rather, a snapshot of a theory in progress. In it, Kohut and Wolf
repeatedly caution against the use of reductive typologies and emphasize that Kohut's
? . classifications may be open to improven~ent. 1 his presents a serious problem for a
proposal that advocates designing an entire measure based on a subgroup of these particular
classifications. Even in his final work Kohut (I984), dismisses classifications as mere
artifacts: "...they are temporary, changeable, improvable - in short, they will cease to he
useful if we are unwilling to alter them in order to accommodate new insights or thoughts"
(pp.202-203). If only for the sake of Kohut's protests, one might say that there is no easy
justification for basing a measure of narcissistic types on a typology that the theorist
himself insists is in all probability a temporary construction.
Yet if Kohut sees his classifications (i.e., the personality types) as nothing more than
a kind of heuristic, then perhaps therein lies an affirmative answer to our original question.
One can a s u m e that Kohut's concern lay with his audience's literal reading of, and rigid
adherence to the surface features of his personality descriptions. 'To justify using the
narcissistic personality types as the basis for the measure, requires that one represent these
personality profiles in terms of their zrndedying dynamics rather than focusing on specific
characterological details, thus avoiding the very real problem of trying to account for the
almost infinite permutations that each of the personality types could take - which in and
of itself would reflect a slavish attention to phenotypic details. Recause the scoring criteria
arc based upon each personality type's key dynamics, the measure rcmains true to thC
essence of the theory, while accounting for Kohur's concern that his ideas would become
fossili~cd or rcduccd to a set of trait-descriptors. 'I'he sentence completion format is ideal
for this purposc in that it allows one to accommodate and classify a wide variety of
responses without straying from the focal principles. 'I'hus, thc proposcd measure will be
organized around the key concepts underlying Kohut's classifications, thereby providing a
logically acceptable basis for its construction. Just how this will be accon~plished will be
taken up in methodology section, following the literature review. Having provided a
general introduction to self psychology theory, as well as a justification as to how these
constructs are to be validated without losing sight of their innate complexity, the next
section reviews prior attempts to measure narcissism constructs both within the context of
self psychology theory, and in the broader forum.
I1 I . Measuring Narcissism
The purpose of a literature review is to provide a conceptual and historical frame
for the study at hand. Our task then, is to determine the significance of this research
endeavor within that greater context. In order to do this, we must be aware of several key
factors: a.) that the purpose of this study is to operationalize and measure three narcissistic
personality types as described by Kohut and Wolf (1978); b.)that although these
personality types have been discussed extensively, they have never been operationalized in
this form; c.) that although the mirror and ideal constructs -- in the most general sense --
have been operationalized and tested, none of the studies described below provide any
usefill basis for comparison with the three personality types; d.) another related point is
that of those studies described below that profess to measure "normal" narcissism, none
actually attain that goal, and therefore cannot be utilized; e.) lastly, although mirror and
idealizing constructs have been operationalized, the twinship construct never has.
Another major issue has to do with narcissism research as a wholc. As 13r;1dlcc Luc
I;,mnions ( 1 992) state:
(:onsidering the amount of theoretical interest that the construct of narcissism has it may yet realize its potential as an explanatory device and in this way
realize its heuristic promise. At present, however; narcissism is an unnianageably diverse and aniorphous construct and, therefore, a highly probleniatic empirical entity. 'I'he process of unconstrained evolution which has characterized this construct for several decades has led to the unfortunate situation in which theoretical development is somewhat inversely related to the process of clarification and subsequent construct validation (Rradlee & Emmons, 1992, pp 821 -822).
The first question we must ask is: Where do we locate self psychology-based
narcissism studies in the midst of all this confusion? The short answer is that most of the
narcissism literature is not based on self psychology constructs. Unfortunately, the
confusion endemic to narcissism research also applies to those studies based on Kohutian
constructs. Refore embarking on the review itself, let i t be said that the above quote is
meant to illustrate why none of the measures discussed below will be utilized for the
purpose of validating Kohut's three narcissistic personality constructs. Hradlee and
Emmons' (1992) reference to the state of confusion endemic to narcissism research may
sound hyperbolic, when in fact they could not have stated it more clearly. A general
overview of the literature presents a chaotic jumble of definitions and terminology, ail put
forth in a desperate bid to arrive at some common "truth." This review will be selective in
its scope: Only the most relevant instruments that measure the general narcissism construct
(i.e., grandiosity) will be described here, whereas studies that specifically set out to
validate the Kohutian bipolar self receive full representation.
Narcissism research covers a broad theoretical spectrum, but has for the most part
focussed on that heterogeneous grouping of thoughts, feelings and behaviors clustered
around what Kohut would refer to as the pole of Ambitions: Grandiosity, self-esteem,
exhibitionism, egocentricity, etc. Measures derived from self psychology theory have,
without exception, examined both grandiosity and idealization. This overview will begin
with those instrumcnts that assess grandiose narcissism - none of which arc hasccl on sclf
psychology theory - followed by a discussion of attempts to validate Kohut's grandiosity
ancl idealization constructs. '[.he review concludes with a discussion of recent attempts to
locate Kohut's self-constructs within existing narcissism studies.
Measures Rased on the "(;randioseM Narcissism Construct
A . Sel f -Rc~ort Measures
With the exception of Raskin and Hall's (1 979) Narcissistic Personality Inventory,
not one of the 'grandiose' narcissism measures have viewed narcissism as a normal
individual differences variable. For example, Ashby, Lee and Duke (1 979) developed the
Narcissistic Personality Disorder Subscale, based on a selection of 19 MMPI items that
successfully discriminated between psychotherapy clients who met the criteria for
narcissistic personality disorder from those who did not. Further evidence for construct
validity was attained via comparison with three concepts: The NPDS's ability to
differentiate between healthy versus pathological self-esteem, the presence of a healthy love
relationship (a lack thereof indicating pathological narcissism), and the frequency of
nightmares (Solomon, 1982). The psychometric adequacy of this scale has not been
established (Slyter, 1989).
Phares and Erskine (1 984) developed a 28-item scale designed to measure
"selfism," in an attem-pt to reinterpret the motivational/psychoanalytic narcissism construct
as a cognitive/social-learning variable (Emmons, 1787). However, as Slyter (1 989)
indicates, although the Selfism scale displays adequate reliability and validity, the
construct i t measures is essentially unidiniensional in that it appears to assess
egocentristn/selfishlless rather than the broader narcissism construct. Yet another instrument
that arises from a social learning context is the narcissistic personality subscale for the
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (Millon, 1982). 'The MCMI Narcissism Subscale
was initially validated on a clinical population, and in further construct validity studies i t
was found to correlate significantly with the Narcissistic I'crsonality Inventory (Aucrbach,
1984, I'rifitcra 1S( Ryan, 1984), which is not surprising considering that even though the
NI'I mcasures "normal" narcissism, both instruments view the construct in roughly the same
way as consisting of grandiosity, egocentrism, and high self-estecni.
'I'he extensively-validated Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall,
1979, Raskin & 'Terry, 1988) to date represents the only objective instrument to measure
individual differences in "grandiose" narcissism as a normative personality trait. The NI'I
began as an 80-item forced-choice questionnaire based on the [ISM-Ill narcissistic
personality disorder diagnostic criteria: Grandiosity, fantasies of unlinlited success,
exhibitionism, sense of entitlement, and interpersonal exploitiveness (American
Psychiatric Association, 1980). Raskin and Hall (1 98 1) employed internal consistency
procedures to reduce the 80-item measure to 54 items, yielding an alpha coefficient
ranging from .80 -.86 across several unpublished studies (Raskin & 'Terry, 1988).
Numerous studies have sought to establish the NPI's construct validity through
comparison with several domains. Having noted some behavioral and attitudinal
similarities between narcissistic and creative people, Raskin and Hall (1981) found the
NPI to be significantly and positively correlated with two measures of creativity. Kaskin
and Hall (1981) also found the NPI to be positively correlated with the F,xtraversion and
Psychoticism scales of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Emmons (198 1) noted
significant correlations between the NPI and sensation-seeking (disinhibition, experience-
seeking, and boredom susceptibility). Watson, Grisham, Trotter, and Hiderman (1984)
not surprisingly, found the NI'I to correlate negatively with measures of empathy and
social desirability. Hy comparing the NPI with measures such as the Eysenck Personality
Inventory, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and the 16PF, Emmons (1984) found
positive correlations with dominancc, exhibitionism, extroversion, self-esteem, and self-
monitoring, and negative correlations with abasement, deference, and social anxiety,
demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity, respectively. 'l'hc same studv
yielded a strong correlation between the NPI and peer ratings of narcissism, p h a p s the
closest any study came to providing eviderice for concurrent validity. The NI'I also
discriminates between narcissistic and non-narcissistic psychotherapy patients (I'rifitera &
Ryan, 1984). Overall, these studies offer cousiderable support for the validity of the
heterogeneous narcissism construct measured by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
'I'he first attempt to establish the N1'Ifs factoriallcontcnt validity was Emmons'
( 1 984) factor-analytic study of the 54-item measure, which yielded four factors:
ExploitivenessIEntitlement, LeadershipIAuthority, SuperiorityIArrogance, and Self-
AbsorptionISelf-Admiration. Emmons (1 987) replicated the four-factor structure and
found those factors to account for 70'Yo of the variance. In this same study the NI'I
displayed significant positive correlations with the Narcissistic Personality Uisorder
Subscale of the MCMI (Millon, 1 982), the MMPI Narcissistic I'ersonality Disorder
Subscale (Ashby, Lee, & Duke, 1979, Solomon, 1982), and the Selfism Scale (I'hares &
Erskine, 1984), suggesting the presence of some sort of common "narcissism factor." Kaskin
and 'Terry (1988) appear to have uncovered that "factor" when they performed a principal-
components analysis with 1,018 NPI protocols, which yielded a general narcissism
component as well as the seven other first-order components/subscales: Authority, Self-
Sufficiency, Superiority, Exhibitionism, E~~lo i t iveness , Vanity, and Entitlement. 'This
study produced the current 40-item NPI, which shows a total scale correlation of .98 with
the older 54-item scale. Construct validity has been further established that what the NPI
measures is indeed narcissism by correlation with observational and self-report data and an
observer trait-ranking for narcissism (Raskin & 'Terry, 1988).
Although the NPI continues to be used extensively in research, it presents some
problems as to its status as a measure of subclinical narcissism. First, in self-psychological
terms, the complex of behaviors and attitudes measured by the NPI is a defensive,
pathological strategy designed to maintain a false sense of self esteem to conceal actual
low self csteeni. '['here is however, no way to completely differentiate hctwccn healthy and
pathological narcissism of this type outside of a clinical setting. Second, Emmons' ( 1 984)
discovery that the NI'I correlates highly with illdices of sensation-seeking does not bode
well cither, because it echoes Kohut's notion that sensation-seeking strategies are often
employed to compensate for a feeling of inner deadness (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), thus
supporting the notion that this type of narcissism conceals a negative state. 'l'hird, Slyter
(1989) rightly points out that the correlation between the NPI and the MCMI narcissism
subscale is highly problematic, because i t suggests that the so-called subclinical narcissistic
behaviors are decidedly abnormal. As for its utility for comparison with the mirror-
hungry personality type represented in the sentence completion test being proposed here, it
is not suitable for several reasons: a) In addition to those mentioned above, it is based on
the DSM-111 model, which, as Goldstein (1985) indicates, is a conglomerate of Kohutian
and Kernbergian criteria; b) the arrogantlsuperior narcissist in no way resembles the
insecure narcissist embodied by the mirror-hungry personality type; and c) if they were the
same entity, because it is a projective measure, the sentence completion test would be a
more sensitive measure of defensive narcissism than the NPI which makes no such
distinction.
B. Proiective Measures
Projective techniques have displayed some utility in assessing grandiose narcissism
as an individual differences variable. Some of these studies include use of the 'I'hcmatic
Apperception Test (Harder, 1979), Rorschach responses (Exner, 1969, Urist, 1977), Exner's
(1973) sentence completion test designed to measure egocentricity, and the Narcissism-
I'rojective (Shulman and McCarthy, 1988) which employs a combination of 'TAT cards
and early childhood memories. With the exception of Exner (1973) none of the above
studies rely on one measure alone as an index of narcissism.
'['he most recent projective-based narcissism study is Shultnan and t;crguso~i's
(1988) attempt to test specific premises of Kohut's and Kernberg's theories. Here the
authors took a snlall group of subjects (n= 14) selected for their high scores on the 54-item
version of the Narcissistic I'crsonality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979, Kaskin & 'l'crry,
1988), and subjected them to tachistoscopically-pres{:l~ted phrases chosen to represent the
Kernbergian emphasis on the narcissist's defenses against intense dependency needs and their
aggression (phrase: "I'm needy and hateful."), and the Kohutian assumption that the
narcissistically injured person possesses an incomplete or fragmented self (phrase: "I'm not
a complete person."). The dependent variables were subjects' responses on the Narcissism-
Projective, and Exner's Self-Focus Sentence Completion (both described above). Only the
Kernbergian stirnulus was found to have a significant effect on the subjects' narcissism and
egocentricity. Although the authors claim much confidence in the N-P as a means of
testing divergent theories of narcissism (Shulman & Ferguson, 1988, Shuln~an &
McCarthy, 1988), their experiment displays a fundamental flaw that renders the results
meaningless: Despite the fact that Ot to Kernberg and Ernest Wolf (for the Kohut stimulus)
were consulted regarding appropriate phrase content, the authors failed to realize that the
Kernberg stimulus would generate a powerful latency effect purely on the basis of its 'hot'
cnlotional tone a. opposed to the relatively neutral "Kohut" phrase. One also has to wonder
whether the validity of a theory as a whole can be determined by a single stimulus
presentation. Shulman and Ferguson's (1988) study represents the only attempt to date to
assess the validity of any specific aspect of Kohut's theory of narcissism with a projective
measure, and it appears that their findings have no bearing on the research set out in this
proposal.
Mcasiircs Rased on Self-I'sycholog Theory: Grandiosity and Idcali~ation
Self-report instruments based on Kohutian narcissism havc as a rule focussed on both
aspects of thc bipolar self model. A grandiositylambitiotls scale by i t s c l f s i ~ n p l ~ does not
exist. 'I'hc one aspect of the Kohutian self that has yct to be examined as a tcstablc construct
is the 'intermediate area of talents and skills' represented by altercgo and twinship needs.
Despite the popularity of Kohut's theories, there have been few efforts to design measures of
ambitions and idealization, and those that have emerged have been the products of a small
nunlber of investigators, each of whom appears to havc approached the model with a
different purpose. In general, these measures utilize a broader reading of ambitions and
ideals than is encompassed by the mirror- and ideal-hungry types outlined in this proposal,
and for that reason alone, cannot be utilized for construct validation purposes in future
research involving the proposed sentence completion test.
Patton and Kobbins (1982), employed self psychology as a rnodel for structured
assessments of clients in a college counseling center. Their study assessed indices of
mirror- and ideal-related self-disturbances in otherwise high-functioning students, and
focussed 011 the (ma1)adaptive strategies that clients employed to defend against their
narcissistic vulnerabilities. Although not a self-report instrument, Patton and Robbins'
work did highlight the prevalence of 'narcissistically-injured' clients in the college
population, and provided an important foundation for later work (cf. I'atton, <:onnor &
Scott, 1982, I'atton & Kobbins, 1985).
Patton, Connor, and Scott (1982) derived the Client Cohesion of Self-Schemata
scales from three of Kohut's (1971, 1977) constructs: The Grandiose Self, the Idealized
I'arent Image, and Self-Functions. They created 10, 8-point observer rating scales, each of
which was designed to assess the client's self-cohesion (as an index of counseling process
and success) on a continuum ranging from dis-cohesion to optimal self cohesion. The first
three scales were designed to represent thc three pivotal constructs of the grandiose self -
exhibitionism, assertiveness, and ambitions - each of which was divided into the eight-
point range. For cxamplc, F,xhibitiotiism could be expressed as crude exhibitionism at the
"fragmented" cnd or as a more restrained form of self-expression at the positive end
(p .274) . 'l'hc next three scales represented faccts of the developmental line formed from
that aspect of the bipolar self that emerges from the idealized parent irnage:
Idealization/desire for merger, healthy admiration of others, and establishment of mature
goals. The remaining four scales were based on four self-functions: Empathy, locus of self-
esteem regulation, tension tolerance, and use of abilities.
Scale construction procedures used to derive the Client Cohesion of Self-schemata
scales were fairly rigorous. As the first step in constructing the interval rating scales, the
authors wrote 16 sample "anchors" representing optimal self-cohesion through severe dis-
cohesion continuum for each scale. 178 judges were asked to rank-order sets of 16 example
anchors. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W) and the average Spearman rank
correlation between participants were used to determine the consistency with which the sets
of anchors were rank-ordered in a coherent continuum, and item (anchor) selection was
determined by the standard deviation for each anchor. Based on Kendall's W, results
indicated a high and significant level of agreement anlong judge's ranking efforts, with the
exception of the fifth scale (admiration of others). The average Spearman rank correlation
between pairs of judges indicated a high level of scale stability, again with the exception
of scale five. These results indicate that with the exception of the fifth scale, the ten scales
represent a stable, coherent continuum. The psychometric adequacy of the scales was next
determined by examination of the data produced by three trained raters who listened to
taped sessions with eighteen clients. Results here are mixed, and clearly indicate the
strengths and weaknesses of the scales: Reliability estimates for individual raters ranged
from low to moderate, while the composite rater estimates were high, indicating that if
the scales were to be used for further research, the results would be suspect unless multiple
ratcrs wcrc cmploycd (I'atton ct al. 1982). Fur both single and miiltiplc raters, the fifth
scale presented significant problems. No validity data were provided by the authors.
Apart from the obvious problems with reliability and lack of validity, not to
mention the cumbersome process of using multiple raters to code tapes (as opposed to a
self-report measure), this study represents a careful attempt to address some of the key
issues in self psychology at that time. For example, the authors include a cautionary note
with which Kohut would have been in full agreement: " No amotint of history taking or the
cataloging of client conlplaints and symptoms will suffice to establish the presence of a
disorder of the self' (p. 272). By employing principles rather than behavioral details in
their rating scales, and by rating actual client interactions, the authors remain true to their
roles as self-psychology-oriented therapists (rather than becoming the bean-counting, trait-
psychologists that Kohut disdained). Another important feature of these scales is that they
represent a comprehensive attempt to employ complex self psychology theories by
accounting for the full spectrum of self-functioning in each of the domains selected.
Robbins and Patton's (1985) Superiority and Goal Instability scales represent the
first attempt to construct a self-report measure based on the mirrorlgrandiosity and
idealization constructs. They created two broad scale definitions that assessed grandiosity
and idealization as expressed through college-level students' involvement in career planning
and decisiveness, respectively. Mature grandiosity was defined as stable self esteem and
the ability to enjoy oneself, enhanced by satisfaction gained through various educational or
vocational pursuits. Immature/malfunctioning grandiosity was defined as inflated self-
esteem, exhibitionism, fantasies of unlimited power or greatness, or marked inhibition of
grandiose expression. Mature idealization was defined as stable self-esteem accompanied
by the ability to choose and implement one's goals. Immature/malfiinctioning
idealization was defined as a desire for merger with powerful others, lack of goals,
fatigue, or fear of commitment to goals. Items were written so that endorsement would
reflect "mild-to-moderate forms of immature self-expression "(p.223).
'l.cst-retest reliability over a two-week interval was adequate for lwth scales.
Grandiosity displayed a reliability coefficient of .80 and idealization was .76. Internal
stability was demonstrated by tests of internal consistency which yielded alpha
coefficients of .76 and .81 for grandiosity and idealization, respectively. 'l'wo significant
factors were found to account for 86% of the variance. Recause of the nature of the content
of the items that remained after the item-selection procedures, the scales were renamed
Superiority and Goal Instability. For example, a typical Superiority scale item is: " I
know that I have more natural talents than most," whereas a typical Goal Instability item
reads: "After a while, I lose sight of my goals" (p. 225).
Concurrent validity estimates were obtained by correlating the scales with eight
measures: Age, self-esteem, introversion/extraversion, a career decision scale, an Interest
Pattern Maturity Index, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, social desirability, and a
Personal Con~petencies Inventory. Not surprisingly, Superiority displayed a moderate
correlation (.54) with the NPI, and a negative correlation with introversion (-.40), which
suggested a generally gregarious social style which the authors deemed to be an immature
form of grandiosity. One surprise relationship was the insignificant correlation between
Superiority and self-esteem (.09). 'This presents something of a paradox given that the
NI'I tends to correlate highly with inflated self esteem (and this scale certainly does
reflect a superior, arrogant attitude), all of which suggests that what the Superiority scale
may actually measure is an aggressive variation of the mirror-hungry type (an overtly
exhibitionistic, and possibly superior manner accompanied by labile self-esteem). As
predicted, Goal Instability correlated negatively with self-esteem (-.64) and personal
competencies (-.48). The authors interpret this pattern as reflecting the predicted
fatigueldepletion and lack of goals. Overall, endorsement of Goal Instability items was
associated with isolate-type activities, a lack of career decisiveness, and an overall
instability andlor lack of goals.
'l'hc main problcnl with thcsc two scales has to do with conceptual breadth ancl
reprcsentativcncss. Roth scales are based on a small sample of an extremely diverse rangc
of behaviors associated with deficits with the grandiose and idealizing sectors of the self, a
point with which the authors agree. 'l'he Superiority scale does appear to cover the broadest
spectrum of the two scales, but the Goal Instability scale presents some real problems. 'l'hc
Goal Instability scale represents a somewhat tangential reading of what could be loosely
called the ideal-hungry construct, expressed as a continuum ranging from healthy goal-
setting ideals to a complete lack of direction. Although the ideal-related rationale is
conceptually correct, it represents but one of several possible continua within the construct,
and not by any means the most central. A subsequent validation study by Kobbins(1989)
suggested that the Superiority scale is closely related to Kohut's mirror-hungry personality
(this is true only in the broadest sense), in that it reflects a pattern of gregariousness,
interpersonal exploitiveness, and impulsivity. 'I'he Goal Instability scale was found to be
related to social withdrawal, depression, and a lack of ambitions and goals, a pattern
commensurate with the interpersonal stance described by Kohut and Wolfs "contact-
shunning" personality, which reflects not the type of personality - mirror, ideal or twinship
- but rather the extent or intensity of the need-state (Robbins, 1989, Kohut & Wolf, 1978).
As Slyter ( 1 989) indicates, these drawbacks should not obscure the utility these scales
present for assessing adjustment to college life, especially in terms of the appearance of
mild narcissistic disturbances in response to stress.
Another attempt to operationalize Kohut's theories is Lapan and Patton's (1986)
Pseudoautonomy and Peer-Group Dependence scales, which were developed to assess
narcissistic disturbances in the grandiosity and idealization sectors in an adolescent
sample. The authors developed two forced-choice, self report scales that displayed high
scale reliability and factorial independence. The Pseudoautonomy scale was deemed to
represent "the adolescent's defensive independence and nonconformity" whereas the I'eer-
Group Dependence scale was inferred to assess "the adolescent's defensive reliance on, and
need for assurance from, friends" (p. 141 ) . 130th scales were presumed to rcprescnt unliealthy
narcissistic behavior patterns employed by adolesce~its to maintain thc-ir sense of sclf
during this turbulent developnlental phase (1.apan & I'atton, 1986). f3ccause these scales
seem to represent very specific behaviors and attitudes that resemble some of the indices of
self-fragmentation outlined in Kohut and Wolfs (1978) self-disorder typology, they may
not actually measure pathological responses as the authors suggest, but rather, a contextually
"appropriate" means of maintaining self-cohesion for the normal yet narcissistically-
vulnerable person whose self fragments and reintegrates in the process of adolescent psychic
growth. Thus, this scale may misinterpret certain adolescent behaviors as being
pathological. A related argument has been put forth as to why the MM1'1 should never be
administered to adolescents, as their age-appropriate responses may appear pathological in
an adult context (Graham, 1990).
The Inventory of Self I'sychology (Slyter, 1989) constitutes the most recent and
theoretically-congruent attempt to measure Kohut's theory of the bipolar self and its
functions with a self-report measure. The author set out to extend the measurement of
Kohutian narcissism beyond previous attempts to operationalize the bipolar self construct
by constructing scales that capture both healthy and defensive narcissism in the bipolar self.
Healthy narcissism is defined as the self's healthy capacities and adaptive functions,
whereas defensive narcissism is defined as the patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviors
that attempt to cover up weaknesses in the self (p.43). This strategy led to the construction
of four scale dimensions: The Healthy Grandiose Self, the Defensive Grandiose Self, the
Healthy Idealized Parent Image, and the Defensive Idealized Parent Image. 'The study's
main goal is to design an instrument that comes as close as possible to capturing "the
multidimensional nature of the self and the comprehensiveness of Kohut's psychology of the
self paradigm" (Slyter, 1989, p.43). N o small task.
A somewhat abbreviated description of the scales is as follows: The Healthy
Grandiose Self is "that aspect of the self that refers to the attainment of realistic and stable
positive self-esteem" (p.55), generally characterized by the capacity to ell joy oneself;
express healthy assertiveness; engage in activities that reflect realistic ambitions and goals;
have abundant energy; and display resiliency in the face of disappointnlcnt. 'l'he lkfensive
(irandiosc Sclf refers to "that aspect of the self which is expressed through frequent ups and
downs in self-esteem" (p. 56), the belief that one is perfect, superior, or unique; the ~leed for
attention and approval; fantasies of perfection and domination; reactive arrogance, the use
of manipulative tactics to get needs met; vulnerable self-esteem; and difficulty in
accepting praise. 'l'he Healthy Idealized Parent Inlace is "that aspect of the self which is
expressed through a capacity for enthusiasm and healthy admiration for the realistic
qualities of others" (p.57) characterized by the ability to regulate inner tension states and
effectively self-soothe oneself when necessary; displays empathy, humor; accepts one's own
limitations; and possesses a system of idealized goals values and ambitions. 'The Defensive
Idealized Parent Image describes "that aspect of the self which refers to a need to look up
to important others, live through them, and feel attached to their
greatness/power/perfection" (p.57). This also includes reactive criticism, sarcasm, or
depression either when disappointed by the the idealized one, or because of envy for other's
accomplishments, reliance on others for a sense of confidence, strength, direction and calm;
and the tendency to react with depression or withdrawal in response to separations from
others, (Slyter, 1989, p.57-58).
Subscale items were derived from the features listed above, all based on books,
articles and case studies by Kohut and other self psychology sources. 'The final version of
the inventory has fifteen items per dimension, and scoring is based on a six-point forced-
choice scale.Test reliability was established with a moderate to high level of internal
consistency (alphas range from .79-.89), and test-retest reliability ranged from r.84- r.87.
Convergent and discriminant validity was assessed by correlating the four subscales with a)
SAT scores (with the expectation of a positive relationship with the healthy subscales), b)
the NPI, c) the Superiority and Goal Instability scales, and d) the Marlowe-Crown Social
1)csirahility scale. A criterion validity study compared therapist ratings with clicrit scores
o n the four dimensions. In general this last study did not show support for criterion-related
validity.
What follows is a brief synopsis of the most salicnt results of the convergent and
discriminant validity study. Recause the Superiority scale is purported to reflect a less-
mature form of grandiose narcissism, i t was expected to show a high correlation with the
Ikfcnsive Grandiose Self subscale. Instcad, the Superiority scale displayed a modest
positive correlation (.20) with the Healthy Grandiose self subscale and a low yet
significant correlation (. 12) with the Defensive Grandiose Self subscale. All other
correlations were in the expected directions, for example, the Goal Instability scale
correlated .68 with both Defensive subscales, and -.55 and -.44 with the Healthy subscales,
respectively. Given these data, the question remains: if the HGS subscale is supposed to
measure healthy rather than defensive grandiosity, then why does it show a positive
correlation with the Superiority scale? The short answer is most likely that defensive and
healthy narcissism do share some common features, in particular, high self-esteem, and if
the HGS subscale does not adequately discriminate between healthy and defensive self-
esteem, that would explain the weak positive correlation. It is not surprising then, that
although it was expected that the DGS subscale would show a modest positive correlation
with the NPI, a negative correlation emerged(-.21). The NPI also showed a modest
positive correlation with the HGS subscale (-.39), further supporting the notion that the
HGS subscale either shared common features with defensive self-esteem, or, like the
Superiority scale, it really does assess an immature, arrogant grandiose stance (given that
in a self psychology context, the NPI measures defensive rather than healthy self esteem).
In her critique of the MCMI narcissism subscale, Slyter cites Auerbach (1984) as stating
that one of the potential problems with many narcissism scales is that they may only tap
the defensive layers of self-esteem, and it may very well be true for the HGS scale also.
Overall, Slyter's ( 1 989) Inventory of Self I'sychology does show adequate
reliability, but insufficient validity to be of use for this proposed study, which is
unfortunate considering the obvious similarity between the 1)efensive Grandiose Self
subscale and the mirror-hungry personality, or betwecn the 1)efensive Idealized I'arcnt
Image and the ideal-hungry type. Slyter outlines some of the scale's drawbacks, in
particular, that the I)GS subscale probably docs not measure grandiosity, and because its
items reflect a "wanting confirmation from others" theme, it more likely reflects a
1)efensive Idealized Parent subscale theme, a repression of grandiose needs, low self-
esteem (Slyter, 1989), or a contact-shunning stance. This is noteworthy, because Robbins
(1989) suggested that the Goal Instability scale probably reflects the contact-shunning
stance, and Slyter found a correlation of .68 between the I)GS subscale and the Goal
Instability scale. Having read Slyter's conclusions, i t is apparent that, given the time to
redo the experiment, the scales could be reconstructed to measure what they are purported
to measure. However, this scale, like the ones that precede it, poses too many conceptual
inconsistencies to be useful as a basis for validation of Kohut's narcissistic personality
types.
As a kind of coda to this review, there is one other area of research that bears
mentioning. Recently, there have been attempts to locate Kohut's bipolar self within
existing experimental contexts. An important current issue in narcissism research is the
differentiation between what are referred to as overt/phallic and covert/hypersensitive
narcissistic styles (Wink, 1992), neither of which are ever mentioned in the literature
without making some sweeping reference to Kernberg and Kohut's formulations in the same
breath. Overt/phallic narcissism is captured by those instruments based on the DSM-111
narcissistic personality disorder model, such as the NPI or MCMI NI'D subscale, and is
generally described by that group of attributes featuring: Grandiosity, high self-
confidence, energy and self-esteem, and extreme egocentrism (Kaskin & Novacek, 1989,
Wink, 1992). Covert/hypersensitive narcissism is characterized by the inhibition of, and
therefore concealed sense of grandiosity, exhibitionism and egoccntrici ty, accornpanicd hy
a introverted, fatigued stance (Wink, 1992), and has received thc most support
for its existence from the clinical literature of Kohut and Kernberg, although Wink(l992)
contends that the Narcissistic I'ersonality Ilisorder Scale created by Ashby, Ixe And
I h k e ( 1 979), docs also measure it. In both instances, whether overt or covert, i t is assumed
that some sort of defensivelpathological process is at work.
Raskin, Novacek, and Hogan (1 991 a) make a similar claim by arguing for the
existence of two defensive self-esteem maintenance styles, which they label "warriors" and
"worriers." (p.915). The warrior represents the defensive narcissist for whom self-esteem is
maintained by the aggressive pursuit of victory in a life viewed as a series of competitions,
and seeks to affiliate himlherself with people who serve to enhance hislher sense of power
and dominance. 'The worrier however, constantly searches for acceptance and social
approval, and strives to be liked. The worrier therefore represents the defensive narcissist
for whom the exhibitionistic grandiose strategy has failed, leading to self-doubt and
extensive reliance on external supports for self-esteem maintenance (Kaskin, Novacek ik
Hogan, 1991). It does not require much of a conceptual leap to link the warrior with the
overtlphallic narcissist, and the worrier with the covertlhypersensitive type.
'These two constructs appear in a slightly different guise in yet another study by
Raskin, Novacek and Hogan (1991 b), which claims to differentiate between Kohut's
grandiose and idealizing aspects of the self by examining the relationship between
narcissism, self-esteem and defensive self-enhancement. Their results show that defensive
self-enhancement (a means of regulating self-esteem) consists of two orthogonal
components: grandiose self-enhancement (found to be related to narcissism) and social
desirability (not related to narcissism). 'They suggest that people pursue self-esteem in two
ways, one of which reflects a classic 'narcissist' personality style (which the authors equate
with a mirror-hungry, grandiose-exhibitionistic profile), and the other being a need for
approval and social acceptance (which they equate with the idealizing stance o f thc idcal-
hungry personality type).
'I'he parallels between this line of thinking and the warrior-overtlphallic narcissist,
and the worrier-covcrt/hypersensitive narcissist are obvious. Raskin e t ul. ( 1 99 1 b) also
claim that these two factors represent the two lines of personality development described
by Kohut as Ambitions and Ideals. Convincing as their arguments may sound, conceptual
dissimilarities prevent this matchmaking attempt. First, their measure of "mirroring
narcissisrn"is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory - i t and the other scales used are
based o n the DSM-111 narcissistic personality disorder diagnostic entity - which is a
heterogeneous and not purely Kohutian construct. Second, the social desirability dimension
does to a certain extent represent the essence of the ideal-hungry type, but it represents a
stance that is not specific as to whom one desires social acceptance from, a key aspect of
the ideal-hungry personality. The defensive strategy represented by the desire to gain
social acceptance is too indiscriminate to truly represent the ideal type, one which
emphasizes a narcissistic dependence on particular individuals or conceptslentities. What
they appear to represent are 1) the arrogant, dominating narcissist (the warrior clearly
does not actually depend on other people so much as the ability to dominate them), and 2)
the contact-shunning mirror-hungry type wherein mirror-needs are suppressed for fear that
they will not be fulfilled.
One clue to this misunderstanding may be that the aforementioned researcher's
references to Kohut's work inevitably refers back to 1971 and 1977, a stage at which Kohut's
thinking was still in its early stages. What this suggests is that their knowledge of self
psychology may not be very sophisticated, and that a simple reading of Kohut and Wolfs
(1 978) typology of self disorders or later case studies (Elson, 1985) would probably
clarify the issues.
The reader is asked to recall Rradlee and Emmons' (1992) cautionary statement,
which essentially urges us to see that although the current generation of non-Kohutian
narcissism researchers may actually be discussing similar constructs, the connection
between measures such as the NI'I and Kohut's theory is a tenuous one. LTnfortunately, thosc
instruments that were designed to validate bipolar self constructs either lack sufficient
validity or measure slightly different constructs than the narcissistic personality types to be
used for construct validation purposes. One also gets the impression that although many
tried, no one actually "hit the mark" to the extent that they would have wished.
Methodolwy-
I . The Kesearch 0-uestion Kestated
'1-his proposal outlines the construction of a sentence completion test and scoring
manual designed to measure three nonpathological narcissistic personality types and
thereby demonstrate that these three personality types may be detected in the student
population. 'The psychometric properties of the test will be assessed through measures of
reliability, and the three personality constructs will be assessed through measures of
convergent and discriminant validity, as well as an analysis of factor structure. The scoring
manual will be assessed with a measure of inter-rater reliability. A parallel measure
referred to as the "Self-Rating Scales" was devised, which asks the subjects to rate the
extent to which they resemble the protagonist in three brief narratives, each of which
corresponds to a personality type.
11. Derivation of the Test Criteria
This section outlines the derivation of the measure's scoring criteria from Kohut
and Wolfs (1 978) brief characterological descriptions of the mirror-, ideal-, and twinship-
hungry narcissistic personality types. T o accomplish this, the general descriptions must be
disassembled into their component partslcriteria in a systematic manner, which requires
some sort of governing rule or template. This led to a criterion-selection rationale that
represents an attempt to maintain theoretical fidelity by employing the core clcmcnts of ,I
specific syndrome that Kohut observed in clinical practice as a criterion-selectio~i device.
I t was this syndrome that originally led Kohut to develop his psychology of the self. Kohut
and Wolf (1978) describe i t as follows:
I t was clear from the outset that these patients arc charac te r id by a specific vulnerability: their self-esteem is ~~nusnally labile and, in particular, they are extremely sensitive to failures, disappointments and slights. I t was, however, not the scrutiny of the symptomatology but the process of treatment that illuminated the nature of the disturbance of these patients ... These patients reactivated certain speczfic narcissistic needs in the psychoanalytic situation, i .e. that they established ' narcissistic transferences', made effective psychoanalytic treatment possible. The psychopathological syndrome from which these patients suffer was designated as narcissistic personality disorder (p.413) [italics mine).
The foregoing excerpt describes Kohut's prototypical example of the narcissistic disorder
syndrome as it appears in the analytic setting. For the purpose of this study two
assumptions were made regarding this description: 1 ) That it represents self-psychology's
definition of the "narcissistic personality" in the most general sense (i.e., applying to all
interpersonal situations, not just the analytic setting), and as such it describes the central
dynamic that underlies all expressions of narcissistic pathology, from the most benign to
the most extreme; 2) More specifically, Kohut observes that this personality manifests as
two key features: for such people, narcissistic needs become highly salient in significant
interpersonal relationships, and that they display labile self esteem that is contingent on
some aspect of need-fulfilment.
The criteria selection method involves taking the latter two aspects of the
narcissistic personality disorders (the behavioral expression of a particular narcissistic need
and labile self esteem), and using them as a screening template to select the key criteria
from the descriptions of the narcissistic personality types. Thus, if one looks only for these
two features when deciding how to derive the criteria, it effectively reduces each
characterological description to its most essential components, which for our purposes will
constitute the key scoring criteria for the measure. Hence, the basic dynamic underlying
pathological narcissism will be applied to the nonpathological personality types; that
which Kohut chscrved in the analytical situation will now be employed to assess a normal
intcrpcrsonal stancc. '1'0 conclude, the criterion-selection methodology treats each
charactcrological description as a source text from which three key interpersonal principles
(the basic scoring criteria) can be derived.
I I I . 'l'heoretical Rases of the Test Criteria
What follows is a description of the means by which the test criteria were derived
from the three personality types. For every personality type, the source text, three criteria
abstracted from that text, as well as the rationale for the internal /hierarchical structure of
each criterion-cluster are provided. Each will be introduced by a broader definition of the
personality-type based on relevant ideas scattered throughout Kohut's writings as well as
case material provided by some other self-psychology writers.
IV. The Mirror-Hungry Personality Criteria
'The mirror-hungry personality is best introduced in terms of the mirror-
transference phcnomenon. Initially, Kohut (1971) described three types of mirror
transference, the first being an attempt at archaic merger where the selfobject -- one's
therapist, for example -- is experienced as an extension of the grandiose self, not unlike a
kind of primary narcissism. The less-archaic alterego or twinship transference (at the time
viewed as a type of mirror transference) involves experiencing another person as just like
oneself. This transference type has since been recognized as distinct from the mirror
transference (see Kohut, 1984). The third and least archaic form is the 'true' mirror
transference wherein the other is seen as distinct from the self, and valued primarily for the
appreciative responses they provide (admiration, etc.) (Elson, 1985). A 'true' mirror
transference refers to a reactivation - in the therapeutic setting - of that phase in a child's
development when the parent's response to the infant's need for enthusiastic
acknowledgment of all aspects of grandiose self-expression, as well as their ability to sharc
in the child's enjoy~nent fulfills the infant's necd for acccptancc and confirmation of healthy
wlf-csteem (Kohut, 1978).
Of all the mirror transferences, the latter version most resembles the mirror-hungry
personality. Thus, if we observe a person who expresses this need in a persistent Fashion
through other people or, as in some cases, through one's children (Miller, 198 I ) , we can say
that some sort of persistent attempt at need-fulfillment is at work. I t follows thcn, that we
can conceptualize the mirror-transference in terms of behaviors in the broader interpersonal
realm, wherein a person forever in search of appreciative responses may display an entire
lifetime characterized by the search for selfobjects who can provide the necessary
narcissistic supplies (Kohut, 1984). Conversely, such a person may carefully avoid seeking
such responses, the need being so great that helshe recoils at the thought that one might not
get the desired response (although not included in Kohut's description, it makes intuitive
sense to include this nonpathological version of the "contact-shunning" dimension). Thus,
when the 'true' mirror transference is generalized from the therapeutic to the interpersonal
realm, it comes very close to accounting for the mirror-hungry personality type.
Having provided something of a general introduction to the mirror-hungry type, we
now turn to the specific task of explaining the derivation of the test criteria from the
original text. Kohut and Wolfs (1978) brief description of the mirror-hungry personality
follows:
Mirror-hungry personalities thirst for selfobjects whose confirming and admiring responses will nourish the famished self. They are impelled to display themselves and to evoke the attention of others, trying to counteract, however fleetingly, their inner sense of worthlessness and lack of self-esteem. Some of them are able to establish relationships with reliably mirroring others that will sustain them for long periods. But most of them will not be nourished for long, even by genuinely accepting responses. Thus, despite their discomfort about their need to display themselves and despite their sometimes severe stage fright and shame they must go on trying to find new selfobjects whose attention and recognition they seek to induce. (p. 421)
'l'hc mirror-hungry personality type can be condensed into three principal features which
form the basic scoring criteria. Ry employing the prescribed criteria-selection method, thc
following criteria were derived from the Inore general characterological description:
1 .) lkhavioral nunifestation of the need: Llisplays self to attract the attention of others.
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks out confirming and admiring responses.
3 .) Labile self-esteem: a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
We now have a simple, explanatory set of criteria which retains the essential mirror-hungry
dynamic: Kohut (1971) describes the mirror-hungry type as an attempt to maintain, albeit
temporarily, the notion that " I am perfect" (p.27 ), an attempt to confer perfection upon the
self that is apparent in the cause-and-effect sequence schematized by the criteria. In effect,
the first criterion (displays self) represents the behavior one engages in to effect the second
criterion (to receive confirming and admiring responses). If successful, the consequence of
criteria one and two, is criterion three (temporary elevation of self-esteem), the only hitch
being that criterion three contains the disappointment clause (the elevation of self-esteem
always being temporary) that leads back to criterion one. Conversely, a person may
display criteria one and two but not receive the desired response, in which case a state of
low self-esteem would be the obvious result. If chronic, the latter case could lead to the
contact-shunning version of the mirror-hungry personality type.
The mirror-hungry criteria form a hierarchical structure that arises from each
criterion's relative prototypicality. Criteria one and two, because they both capture the
essence of the classic narcissist stance, each independently represent the mirror-hungry
?. prototype more completely than the third criterion. I he third criterion, although necessary
to the overall personality configuration, cannot on its own account for the character type; i t
simply does not provide enough descriptive data, and on its own i t could conceivably
apply to the other two personality-types. The mirror-hungry criteria-cluster therefore
displays a hierarchical structure, as do the other two personality types.
Although the third criterion carries relatively less significance in terms of its
descriptive power, its presence or absence actually defines the nature of the personality
profile as a whole. Hecause it constitutes the "disappointment clause" upon which the
mirror-hungry type's perception of their self-esteem depends, endorsement of third
criterion sentence stems represents the deciding factor as to whether a given scoring profile
can be interpreted as truly mirror-hungry.
This raises an important question: What does it mean if a test subject endorses the
first two criteria (exhibitionism and the search for admiring responses), but not the third
criterion (labile self-esteem)? One way to answer this is to say that the mirror-hungry type
depicts a personality constellation that may or may not be completely observable in all of
its aspects, and it is quite possible for it to be operating to a substantial degree in a
particular person, and yet have one or more of the criteria-behaviors obscured. An example
already mentioned is the contact-shunning version, in which case the behaviors described by
the first two criteria may not be in evidence even though the need for mirroring is just as
great.
However, regarding the presence or absence of the third "disappointment clause",
there appear to be three possibilities. First, if a subject endorses all three criteria, then it
can be assumed that their response to the measure matches the profile described by Kohut's
mirror-hungry type. Second, if a subject were to endorse the first two criteria, but not the
third, one could assume that this profile depicts a person for whom mirror-relations are
important, but their sense of well being does not overly depend on the fulfillment of that
need. 'The third possibility is in some ways the most problematic: Here the first two
criteria receive strong endorsement, while the third criterion stems are completed in such a
way as to indicate sustained, high self-esteem. 'l'his possibility is mo\t certainly not
Kohut's mirror-hungry profile, although what i t does suggest is that there arc two types of
mirror-hungry narcissists: one who displays labile self-esteem (the true mirror-hungry type)
and another who employs the exhibitionistic strategy but displays high self-esteem. 'l'hc
empirical basis for such a distinction will be discussed in the concluding portion of this
section.
Concludinp Kemarks
To be mirror-hungry suggests a persistent attempt to convince oneself of one's own
grandiosity via exhibitionistic strategies. Thus the essence of the mirror hungry type seems
to be best captured by the traits of exhibitionism and grandiosity. Kohut's discussion of the
mirror transference dynamic, exemplified by the egocentric phrase "I am ..." concurs with
this point (Elson, 1985). There is however, a catch, betrayed by the word "convince." As
mentioned above, the third criterionldisappointment clause ensures that what we observe in
the mirror-hungry type is really an insecure narcissist; if a subject responds in a way that
endorses the third criterion, then we can say that this person appears to match the mirror-
hungry profile to the extent that their self-esteemlnarcissistic equilibrium fluctuates, and
that their "resting state" (in the absence of external input) is dysphoric.
If the subject does not endorse the third criterion, then perhaps their defensive
exhibitionistic strategy really does work and they do experience high self esteem. There is
some empirical evidence to support this, much of it gathered in conjunction with the
extensively-validated measure of DSM-111-based "normal" narcissism, the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979, Raskin & Terry, 1988). In a study of
narcissistic self-esteem management, Raskin, et al. (1 991) found that the variance common
to hostility, grandiosity, dominance (all features common to the arrogant narcissist style)
and narcissism is strongly related to subject's reported self-esteem, which suggests that the
deknsivc strategies do occasionally work quite well, or, as Kohut suggests, labile self
esteem may be well concealed by a grandiose exterior that is sufficiently convincing both
to the self and others. It is after all, a strategy to maintain defensive self-esteem.
Such a defensive strategy does not pose a problem for our self-report measure,
mainly because those arrogant narcissists who somehow manage to function among other
people are in the minority. However, just as the NPI detects this type of subject, i t is
presumed that this proposed measure will also, and as with the NI'I, there is no way to
detect whether the strategy employed is defensive or healthy. For example, if the first two
mirror-hungry criteria were employed as a kind of defensivelcompensatory strategy to
prevent or disguise the presence of low self-esteem (the way Kohut describes it), one would
never be able to access the underlying sense of worthlessness via self-report because i t would
be masked by a loud, aggressive, domineering sort of self-esteem. If this is true - and
Kohut's interpretation of the underlying dynamic of the arrogant narcissist as a defense
against narcissistic vulnerability certainly suggests that it is - then this latter version of the
mirror-hungry type appears to have profoundly misled an entire generation of researchers
who have only begun to untangle the subclinical narcissistic personality. Bradlee and
Emmons' (1992) remark regarding the chaotic state of narcissism research indirectly
supports this notion, as does Auerbach's (1 984) warning that narcissism inventories
probably only access the defensive aspects of the self (cited in Slyter, 1989).
It is important to demarcate a boundary between this proposed research endeavor
and the greater body of narcissism research which appears to be for the most part based on
heterogenous definitions of "narcissism." Unlike the ideal- and twinship-hungry types, the
mirror-hungry personality does at least superficially resemble the personality profile
measured by the N.P.I., and i t is of critical importance that the insecure style described
by the mirror-hungry personality be distinguished from the more aggressive narcissistic
stance assessed by measures based on subclinical versions of the DSM-111 narcissistic
personality disorder. Just how the mirror-hungry type will appear on the actual measure
rcmains speculative at this point, although a well-constructed sentence conlplcrion test
w o d d seem to offer an advantage over other types of self-report measures in terms of
minimizing self-report bias that would otherwise conceal a subject's attempts to convince
the researcher of hidher grandiosity.
'l'wo forms of the mirror-hungry type will be utilized here: the "true" mirror-
hungry type -- that is, a respondent who displays high scores on all three aspects of the
personality, and those respondents who resemble the true (insecure) mirror-hungry type, bur
do not endorse stems based on the third/disappointment criterion. In the latter case i t is
assumed that these profiles would fall into two groups: Those who simply have strong
mirror needs, and those who have strong mirror needs yet maintain a facade of high self
esteem as a defensive strategy.
V. The Ideal-Hungry Personality Criteria
In Culture of Narcissism, Christopher 1,asch (1 978) cites Susan Stern, whose
memoirs of political life in the 1960's provide a vivid example of the ideal-hungry
personality:
When she tried to evoke her state of mind during the 1968 demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, she wrote instead about the state of her health. " I felt good, I could feel my body supple and strong and slim, and ready to run miles, and my legs moving sure and swift under me ... I felt real." Kepeatedly she explains that association with important people made her feel important ... When the leaders she idealized disappointed her, as they always did, she looked for new heroes to take their place, hoping to warm herself in their "brilliance" and to overcome her feeling of insignificance. In their presence, she occasionally felt strong and solid - only to find herself repelled, when disenchantment set in again .... (pp. 7-81
Here we have an example of someone who is sustained by potent idealizable selfobjects in
the form of not only individual people, but an entire political movement. This is precisely
the dynamic that Kohut (1 971) captures in the phrase "you are perfect and I am part of you"
(p. 27); that is to say, one who gains a sense of completeness by merger-through-associatim
with a source of strength and calm. Such a person may not cxpcrience a massive depletion
of self-esteem in response to minor selfobject-related disappointments, yet the very
prcscncc of an idcalizable entity does provide an exhilarating feeling of vitality. I t is the
adult analogue to the infant's postulated experience: "Since all bliss and power reside in the
idealized object, the child feels empty and powerless when he is separated from i t and he
attempts, therefore, to maintain a continuous union with it" (Kohut, 1978, p. 479). As
adults, "our ideals are our internal leaders; we love them and are longing to reach them"
(Ibid. p.437), or in more clinical terms, as Kohut describes in the case of Mr. B.: "... the
analyst's presence increased and solidified ... self-esteem and thus, secondarily, improved
... ego functioning and efficiency "(Ibid. p. 485).
As with the mirror-hungry type, ideal-based selfobject relations are familiar - we
all experience such feelings to varying degrees. But like the mirror-hungry type, the ideal-
hungry personality suggests a flaw: both Kohut's (as we will see below) and Lasch's
examples fall within the compass of a "normal" narcissism, yet they both express the notion
that such a person lacks a certain life-enhancing element - it is all in the search - the
object one finally grasps can only wither in the light of that which was initially hoped for.
Although not a portrait of crippling pathology, it does represent a certain frustrating slant
on how one finds fulfillment in the world. Kohut and Wolfs ( 1 978) description of the
ideal-hungry personality is strikingly similar to Lasch's evocative example:
Ideal-hungry personalities are forever in search of others whom they can admire for their prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, or moral stature. They can experience themselves as worthwhile only so long as they can relate to selfobjects to whom they can look up to. Again, in some instances, such relationships last a long time and are genuinely sustaining to both individuals involved. In most cases, however, the inner void cannot be forever filled by these means. The ideal-hungry feels the persistence of the structural defect and, as a consequence of this awareness, he begins to look for - and of course he inevitably finds - some realistic deficits in his God. The search for new idealizable selfobjects is then continued, always in the hope that the next great figure to whom the ideal-hungry attaches himself will not disappoint him. (p. 461)
'l'he ideal-hungry criteria were derived in the same manner as the mirror-hungry
criteria, with two need-manifestations and one indication of labile self-esteem:
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, or views.
2.) Rehavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to find fault in, and is therefore easily disappointed by idealized1 " p e d e s t a l i d " ' other. Judgemental stance leads to end of the "relationship." (Disappointment clause)
3.) 1,abile Self-esteem: Experiences self as worthwhile only so long as helshe can relate to the admired one.
The hierarchical structure of the ideal-hungry type differs markedly from the mirror-
hungry criteria. The most important difference has to do with the labelling of the criteria.
If organized the same way as the mirror criteria, it would be necessary to group the second
and third ideal-hungry criteria together into a two-faceted disappointment clause (as with
the mirror type), in effect, creating a two-component profile. However, the second and
third ideal-hungry criteria are conceptually separate aspects of the overall dynamic
(whereas the dual facets of the third mirror-criterion are interrelated). l'he third ideal
criterion captures the labile self-esteem component, but the second criterion, although
labelled a behavioral manifestation of the need, is only an indirect expression of the need,
and more an expression of the way the need is met. This second criterion would be more
accurately labelled "behavioral expression of the dynamic," but because this dynamic
describes part of the need-fulfillment strategy, a d because it is is necessary to complete
the ideal-hungry profile, I have have chosen to retain the same labelling pattern as for the
other two personality types.
2'0 reframe the above argument, the reason that the second criterion ('Easily
disappointed by...') is more an expression of the overall dynamic than a direct
manifestation of the need for an idcalizablc selfobject bccomes apparent when we examine
the factor that contributes to thc chronicity of this personality profile, which, as in the
mirror-hungry type, depends on the presence of the disappointment clause. '1-he critical
difference here is that the disappointment clause lies not in the area of labile self-estcem
but rather in the perception of the expected idealizahility of the selfobject, which is
explained by criterion two. The dynamic represented by the second criterion suggests that
the need for an idealizable presence is so great that the ideal-hungry person carries in thcir
psyche a kind of amorphous ideal. Once an idealizable other is located, helshe becomes
prematurely "enhanced" and so becomes that ideal in the observer's mind, such that helshe is
installed as the perfect selfobject to meet the ideal-hungry person's needs. The only
problem is that the real person can never compare to the newly-installed
selfobjectlenhanced replica, so disapointment is inevitable.
Although for both the mirror and ideal types the narcissistic supplies are
externally-supplied (to the extent that the designated selfobject is viewed as a sustaining
presence), with the ideal-hungry, the perception of the disappointment lies with the
external object, whereas for the mirror-type the inability to maintain any sense of self
satisfaction seems to come from an inner dissatisfaction (the inability to properly
assimilate the admiring responses), rather than a perceived devaluation of the anticipated
perfection of the selfobject. In either case they both display the same ephemeral need-
satisfaction. T o use perhaps a stronger metaphor than is necessary, it is as if one were in the
position of having to bail out a sinking boat with a slow leak: One may get most of the
water out for a short time, but the boat will always begin sinking again, and so the task
continues.
Kohut suggested that to be ideal-hungry (as described by the idealizing
transference) expresses the feeling that "I am nothing, but at least there is something great
and perfect outside myself ... [and] ... even though I am nothing, 1 will become as great as
it is" (Elson, 1985, p.79). It is easy to see then, that the mirror- and ideal-hungry types
yearn for the same lost sense of grandiose perfection, but the ideal hungry simply tries to
find it in someone else, hence Kohut's phrase "you are perfect and I am part of you."
VI. The T w i n s h b - H u n ~ r y I'ersonality Criteria
For much of self-psychology's evolution, the alter-egoltwinship construct
maintained a subordinate status to the "twin poles of ambitions and ideals" that comprise
the bipolar self. It was only late in Kohut's writings that he recognized twinship not as a
subcategory of the mirror transference, as it was originally conceived, but as a completely
independent selfobject need domain (Kohut, 1984). However, he never made a semantic
distinction between the terms "alterego" and "twinship," and so tended to use the terms
interchangeably, when in fact they now refer to different concepts. Detrick (1 986) later
split the construct, insisting that although both alterego and twinship transferences manifest
as a focus on selfobjects who provide a sustaining alikeness-experience, the alterego
dimension suggests a group dynamiclidentification, whereas twinship refers to a sameness
or alikeness in a dyadic relationship. Given that Detrick's distinction makes both logical
and intuitive sense, what Kohut originally named the alterego hungry personality should, in
light of this theoretical development, be properly referred to as a twinship-hungry
personality. Following Kohut's lead, Detrick (1 985) accounts for the alterego dynamic
with the phrase: "We are..." (p. 242)(as compared with the mirror-hungry "I am perfect" or
the ideal-hungry "you are perfect and I am part of you").(Kohut, 1971, p.27), although one
could sce how this phrase could describe both an alterego or twinship relationship. 13ecause
alterego and twinship experiences are parallel entities, they share enough common features
to justify introducing the twinship-hungry personality with a discussion of the alterego
experience, i t being a more generalized example of twinship. Arguably, many of the
following alterego examples will also contain a strong twinship component.
Alter-ego relations constitute the most basic of human experiences: the knowledge
that permeates the very grain of our being, that one is "a human being among other human
beings "(Kohut, 1984, p. 200). Kohut conceived of two alterego experiences, one
pathological(discussed below as an type of transference), and the other, normal. 'I'he
healthy version emerges from the infant's experience of a sense of security that comes from
belonging to, and participating in, the the world of human sounds and smells and goings-
on. Both the alterego and twinship experiences depend very much on available support and
stimulation in the mirror and ideal sectors, and as such represent the repertoire of skills
and experiences we develop in conjunction with other people (Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984). In
his last work, Kohut (1984) wrote with some feeling on this topic, providing such examples
as the image of a little girl kneading bread alongside her mother in the kitchen, or the boy
who works next to his father in the basement workshop. Perhaps the most profound example
Kohut offered was of the patient who, for a time required only the analyst's silent presence,
a subtlc example of a need we all share: to have experiences that provide a kind of
unspoken emotional support through shared activities (1 984).
Neither the alterego nor twinship experiences require a parent-child type of
relationship, as is the case with the foregoing examples. Certainly, if an adult craves such
relationships on a chronic basis, then the need is probably archaic, but in general, alcerego
needs are an integral part of every stage of our lives. For example, our parents or teachers
teach us to tie our shoelaces, but our friends probably learn that skill at about the same
time, which makes it a collective experience (in kindergarten the whole class fumbles
together to get their shoes on before leaving school at the end of the day). As we get older
we may enjoy shared identifications through team sports or any number of group
affiliations, and as adults we can gain a sense of satisfactiol~ through membership in our
chosen profession. Healthy alterego experiences are therefore best represented by
relationships characterized by equality rather than a parent-child dynamic.
'l'he most universal and perhaps the most profound alterego satisfaction a person can
experience is to share a common spoken and written language with other people. For all of
us, learning a language in infancy must have a parent-child relationship component, but only
at the outset. Once we have acquired even a rudimentary grasp, we use it in all our
interactions for the rest of our lives. Kecently, the evolutionary biologist John Maynard
Smith (1992) suggested that the shared ability to use language to work toward common
goals is the one factor that makes the human race a colony animal, thereby providing an
example of the alterego experience in the broadest possible sense. Alterego experiences
therefore d o support that repertoire of skills, both psychological and concrete, that we
develop in conjunction with others.
An introduction to the twinship-hungry personality type requires brief mention of
the twinship transference phenomenon: the expression of twinship needs in the context of a
highly significant therapeutic relationship "in which the damaged intermediate area of
talents and skills seeks a selfobject that will make itself available for the reassuring
experience of essential alikeness" (Kohut, 1984, p. 193). The form a twinship transference
takes depends on when the damage to the self occurred, that is, whether the expressed need
is archaic or mature. The archaic-type transferences manifest as a need for a merger with,
and complete control over, the selfobject (like an adult manifestation of primary
narcissism), whereas the more mature versions center on a need for twinship alikeness
(Detrick, 1986, Lothstein & Zimet, 1988, Wahba, 1991).
Kohut's twinship-hungry (formerly alterego-hungry) personality type most
resembles the mature twinship transference with a minor element of the inflexibility
characteristic of a more archaic need:
Alter-ego personalities need a relationship with a selfobject that by conforming to the self s appearance, opinions, values confirms the existence, the reality of the self. At times the alter-ego personalities,too, may be able to form lasting friendships - relationships in which each of the partners experiences the feelings of the other as if it had been experienced by himself ... Rut again, in most instances, the inner void cannot be filled permanently by the twinship. 2'he alter- ego-hungry discovers that the other is not himself and, as a consequence of this discovery, begins to feel estranged from him. It is thus characteristic for most of these relationships to be short-lived. Like the mirror- and ideal-hungry, the alter- ego-hungry is prone to look restlessly for one replacement after another ( p. 46 1 - 462).
Despite Kohut's insistence that these personality types represent variants of normal
personality (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), this profile, although not pathological, does read like a
description of someone who would benefit from at least some psvchotherapy. As with the
mirror and ideal personality types, the dynamic displayed by the character profile
probably falls in the midrange of normal functioning, with the one qualification that the
disappointment clause ("the inner void cannot be filled permanently by the twinship")
ensures its chronicity. Speculation aside, it is not really possible to state with any certainty
whether any of these personality types really do represent an average expectable level of
narcissistic maintenance, or whether they fall into that grey area between pathology and
normal functioning. A general hypothesis regarding the nature of the twinship-hungry
personality will be offered in the concluding section
As a general illustration, one can say that twinship and alter-ego experiences
constitute a continuum. At the healthy end we have the child learning to knead bread
alongside hislher parent. This is someone who as an adult might find much happiness and
emotional fulfillment in friendships with people with whom they share common interests
and activities. As an example of a less adaptive manifestation of the need (more like the
twinship-hungry personality), Wahba (1991) tells of a client who feels happy and relaxed
when she notices similarities between her analyst and herself, but when she perceives some
real differences, becomes bitterly sarcastic. The twinship dynamic is surely at work here,
and if we are to locate i t in the greater cot~tinuum, Wahba's clinical cxdmplc may come
close, although Kohut's description does not convey as much brittleness (and hcncc archaic
tone) as does Wahba's portrait of the twinship transferencc. For the sake of further
illustration and a truly pathological example of the need for a twin, Iletrick (1985)
suggests that at the far end of the continuum, one might find a quasi-schizoid adult whose
incomplete self-structure dictates an almost autistic need for sameness in his or her
designated selfobject, who in this case would be more accurately deemed a dehumanized
object.
As a kind of parallel case, another important example of a twinship is the creative
alliance, a generative twinship based on the interaction of similar and complenlentary
features. Kelationships such as these are easily identified when the creative output of two
people working in tandem represents a true example of the "whole being greater than the
sum of the parts." Kohut (1984) evokes the creative friendship between Wordsworth and
Coleridge as just such an alliance where two dissimilar personalities linked by a common
bond (their unparalleled poetic sensiblities and artistic energy) had a profound effect on
each other's artistic output. In more recent times, anyone who has been a fan of rock 'n roll
music in the last twenty five years (in particular, since the "British invasion") will note that
in many cases, creative partnerships tend to offer the best music , and when band members
depart for solo careers, the creative well dries up.
I have provided these examples as a means of locating what may at first glance
appear to be a somewhat experience-distant personality type in an experience-near context.
The twinship-hungry category can present as the least intuitively accessible, and the most
unusual of the personality types, when it is probably the most ubiquitous. However, even if
one can easily bring to mind people that fit the twinship-hungry mold, in comparison to
the ideal or mirror types, this personality type in the pure sense (in Kohut's abstracted
description) just does not strike one as being all that common. There may be a good
explanation for this. Twinship needs most likely appear in this form only when a person
experiences some sort of narcissistic disequilibrium (Elson 1 C)t37), and even then rhc
expression of the need could be very subtle. Case studies of non-detrimental twinship
alliances in psychotherapy (1,othstein & Zitnet, 1988) support both Kohut's (1984)
suggcqtion that this need is often expressed silently, as well as the hypothesis that twinships
tend to occur at specitic developmental junctures wherein one feels a need to shore up one's
sense of self/narcissistic equilibrium through identification with another (von Broernbsen,
1988, Lothstein & Zimet, 1988). A fairly common, and far more transient exanlple of the
twinship(or alterego) need can occur when we are in unfamiliar circumstances while on a
trip to a foreign country, and we find ourselves feeling more than a little lost and wanting
familiar "landmarks", not of the geographical but social variety.
How we express this need may be not nearly as overt as the expression of mirroring
or idealizing needs, and it may be for this very reason that it has been infrequently
discussed as a clinical phenomenon outside of Kohut's writings. Although there is no
shortage of discussion of it in theory (Detrick, 1985, 1986, Shane & Shane, 1989, Ulnlan
& Paul, 1989, Kainer, 1990), clinical case studies are sparse (Wolf, 1988, Lothstein &
%inlet, 1988, Wahba, 1991, Brothers, 1993, and Martinez, 1993, being some of the
exceptions). Similarly, the few attempts to validate Kohut's constructs experimentally
have ignored both the alter-ego and twinship phenomena altogether (Patton, Connor, &
Scott, 1982, Patton & Robbins, 1982, Shulman & Ferguson, 1988, Slyter, 1989).
Although this might suggest that investigation of the alterego type would be less than
fruitful, it is preferable to take to heart Kohut's (1984) suggestion that this need-domain
bears examination. The following scoring criteria were derived according to the same
method applied to the mirror and ideal personality types:
Ikhavioral manifestation of the need:
l~ehavioral manifestation of the need:
1,abilc self-esteem:
Sccks rclationshipsl fricndships/aftiliarioii with others who conform to hislhcr own appearance, opinions or values.
'l'ends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which hc/shc experiences the other's feelings as hislhcr own.
Recomes disillusioned (or displays anger, or a conlplete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when hclshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought.(C)isappointment clause)
'The twinship criteria follow a pattern similar to the ideal-hungry type. As with the
ideal-type the perception of the disappointment clause lies with a perceived flaw in the
sclfs internal (selfobject) representation of the person upon whom narcissistic stability
depends (an unacceptable incompatibility between the self and selfobject). Although the
second criterion describes alter-ego relationships as somewhat emotionally symbiotic,
suggesting that one's moods would be dependent on one's partner, this is certainly not the
same as saying that one's self-esteem depends on the partner's emotional state. Therefore
the labile self-esteem factor must reside in the "disappointment clause" which is in effect
the personality characteristic that would cause such a person to frequently end relationships,
in turn affecting affectlself-esteem. For the twinship-hungry personality, self esteem as
well as what some suggest is a need for a sense of security-through-sameness (Iktr ick,
1986, lathstein & Zimet, 1988, Kohut, 1984) appears to depend on the very existence of
the relationship which the narcissistically-needy person orchestrates. As with the mirror-
and ideal-hungry types, the twinship-hungry person is faced with a cyclical dynamic
characterized by the ultimately futile task of trying to maintain a sense of self-cohesion
through others.
All of the above factors suggest a hierarchical structure that supports a scoring
rationale. Recause the first criterion refers to the search for the specific relationship, it is
prototypical of the twinship profile. Criterion three is also prototypical because it
explicitly describes the person's strong response to the absence of that typc of relationship.
'l'hc second criterion describes a state of affairs that exists in many rcla:ionships and
rhercforc cannot be considered prototypical.
(:oncludinq Remarks
'I'he twinship-hungry personality typc represents a slightly different and, as stated
above, subtle sort of narcissistic need fulfillment. Rather than searching for an external
narcissistic supply source, the very nature of the twinship seems to imply that what one
wants is a replica or affirmation of what one already possesses. Lothstein and %inlet
(1 388) in their article on alterego and twinship needs among the elderly, suggest that the
twinship dynamic tends to emerge in response to profound alterations in a person's
established life pattern, as a means of maintaining previous narcissistic equilibrium. Kohut
might assert that whether a twinship is pathological depends on the context, and the
"increased dependency needs" that Lothstein and Zimet ( 1 988, p. 3 1 5) men tion, act as an
inevitable destabilizing context in which a twinship alliance is a normal and healthy
reaction (as Sullivan would contend, in our youth, twinships/"chumships" are a most
important developmental stage, just as it is highly adaptive to maintain both twinship and
alterego relationships in adolescence). What makes a twinship less healthy is the need for
the "static sameness" that Detrick (1986) observes in some twinship relationships. Hc
considers these to be more pathological because chronic interpersonal rigidity negates "the
healthy joyful need to learn and grow together" (p. 300).
One could view these two types of twinships a5 being opposing responses to change:
one person allies himlherself with another with whom helshe can understand and navigate
the potentially destabilizing experience, while the other displays a kind of rigid panic and
clings to a mirror-image of the self. I t seems intuitively correct that the former (healthy)
version is the more transient form, and that the twinship hungry personality type should
niost rcsernblc this version wcrc i t not for the prublcm of that "inner void" nlcntioncd i l l
Kohut and Wolfs (1978, pp. 461 -462) description that ensures the cyclical rcpctition of the
pattcrn. I t seems reasonable to assume that the twinship-hungry person docs not crave
pathological sameness, but rather, carries with them a gap in their self-structure that
generates a specific type of chronic destabilizing i~i f l i~ence that triggers the need for a
twinship relationship.
Test Construction
I . Stem Content and I>es ip~
Stems were designed with the following characteristics in mind: 1 .) That each
stem be criterion-specific, meaning that it was written to exert maximum pull for the
criterion on which it is based, and therefore encourage those responses that reflect the
content of a given criterion. 2.) Although designed to provide the optimal context for the
targetted response, each stem must be sufficiently open-ended to allow for responses from
all three (or other) personality-type domains. In this sense, the real goal in writing
effective stems was to find the right balance between stems that are too leading and those
that are too vague. The most successful stems will be the ones for which the target response
will have the greatest likelihood of being expressed if the subject's feelings, cognitions and
interpersonal behavior most resembles that personality type, while still allowing for the
possibility of other responses. 3.) Each stem's expressed interpersonal context depends on
the personality type for which i t is written. For example, the mirror-hungry dynamic can
be indiscriminate as to who provides the narcissistic supplies. Mirror stenis can therefore
refer to a single person or many people ("the audience"). However, the ideal and twirlship
stems must reflect a narrower interpersonal focus, in which a particular significant person
(or people) becomes the valued other. Since the ideal type tends to 'pedestalize' significant
others, terms that reflect equal status like "friend" were avoided in favor of "person" or
"people", whereas the twinship's dyadic focus demanded terms like "hiend" or "partner."
4.) None of the criteria upon which each stem-cluster is based represent:; a pure construct, to
the extent that i t can have multiple manifestations. A good example is the first mirror-
hungry criterion, exhibitionism. Exhibitionism can take many forms, so sterns must be
able to pull for physical exhibitionism (physical attributes, clothing, tattoos, ctc.),
achievement-related exhibitionism (good grades, job prestige etc), or any other
imaginable form. 'I'his demands sufficient variability in stem type, even within a criterion,
so that in the final version of the test, stems do not just paraphrase each other.
11. Stem Selection and Reduction
The item selection procedure follows two stages, the first being subjective, and the
second, statistically-based. In anticipation of item reduction procedures, four times as
many stems were written as would be required for the final 46-item version of the test. As
i t turned out, what followed was much more than a matter of selecting the stems that
"worked" and discarding the ones that did not. Not only were a substantial number of the
initial items discarded and new ones written, but it soon became apparent that the only
way to construct a test that asked the right questions was by executing a series of pilot
studies in which subject responses guided further stem design, which is really the only way
one can approach test construction of this type (Loevinger, 1994). The steps involved in the
first stage of stem selection are outlined below.
A. Starre One: Stem and 'l'est Coustructi~tl
1. -1'hc initial item pool was randomized and submitted to fifteen sclf-psychology-
literate colleagues who were asked to match each stem to the criterion for which i t
appeared to be written. This process alone facilitated significant stem restructuring and
rewriting, and reduced the item pool from I95 to 90 items.
2. Five pilot studies (n=10-30, 5-90 sterns per group of first year psychology
students), were undertaken to provide an opportunity to assess the basic utility of the stems.
Responses were sorted into personality categories as to whether the respondent was replying
in a mirror-, ideal-, or twinship-hungry nianner (a category designated "other" was
included.). Based on the impression created by these groups of responses, each sentence
stem was evaluated according to the basic selection criteria:
Does the stem:
1. "Ask the question?" 2. Differentiate between groups? 3. Encourage breadth of response? 4. Trigger a defensive response set? 5 . Encourage cliched or stereotypical responses (var . of #4)?
By reworking the stems in this way, not only was the item pool reduced further from 90 to
46 items, but the stems were significantly redesigned in a manner that was directly
informed by subject response.
3 . Upon completion of the five pilot studies, the item pool was submitted to a
manipulation check via re-sorting by an informed rater. The results of this manipulation
check were encouraging. Within each cluster of fifteen stems (sixteen in the case of
twinship), the rater successfully matched thirteen out of fifteen stems to their source
criteria in each personality domain. Those stems that were not matched were not mis-
niatched to another category, but were simply designated "tloaters" by the rater -- stems
that could pull for any of the three personalitics. (;ivcn the success of the n~anipulation
check, it was decided that all of the stems would be retained, as well as the floaters, which
might provide interesting scoring possibilities. This resulted in the final 46-stem item
pool (scc 'I'ahlcs 1-3 below). l 'his marked the end of the subjective aspect of the stem
sclcction procedure.
Mirror-hun!;ry Criteria and Stems
--
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
M l a If I tell a joke at a social gathering, and several people turn to listen ...
M l b I f I were asked to take part in a play ...
M l c For me, the idea of playing a starring role ...
M 1 d A person stands in the spotlight, while another this scene, 1 would be .. .
stands off to one side. If ( ruere in
(After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
Mle. Some people like to be noticed, whereas for others, it's just not important. As,fir myself:. .
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks ou t confirming and admiring responses.
If I have a new hairstyle (or am wearing new clothes), and I bump into someone I haven't seen for a while ...
When I get excited about something I've done, I expect my friends to ...
I have daydreamed that I ...
When I share my successes with other people, my secret wish is that they ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
I need people-to tell me that I ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
3.) Labile self-esteem: a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses. (Disappointment clause: The dynamic that keeps the cycle going)
If I had to work in a demanding job in which I would receive little or no feedback from my boss or co-workers as to whether I was doing i t well ...
Everyone's feelings are affected by what others neglect to say to us as much as what they do say. In my experience, my feelings are sensitive to the absence of comments such as ...
Some people feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get, whereas others find that the good feeling they get from a compliment seems to evaporate almost as soon as it started. In my case ...
My sense of self-worth can be affected by . .. (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
If I were to say whether I gain kstingsatisfaction from positive feedback or admiration ...
Iksignated "Floater" Stems
M2c 1 have daydreamed that I ...
M3d My sense of self-worth can be affected by ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
Ideal-Hungry Criteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, or views.
11 a. I t is very important to me that I get to know people who are ...
(the following incomplete sentence refers to a non-romantic situation.) I1 b. The kind of person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ...
(After completing the sentence, please dcscribe how i t is that you are drawn to this person)
(the following incomplete sentence refers to a non-romantic situation.) I l c . The kind of person who holds a real fascination for me ...
(After completing the sentence, please describe why you are fascinated with this person)
I1 d. I t sometimes seems a5 though I am always searching for a person who .. (After completing the sentence, please describe the person)
I le . A person outside of my family whose presence has enhanced my life .. (After completing the sentence, please describe that person)
- 2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in)
idealizedJpedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
12a Try to bring to mind someone you held in very high esteem, but who you did not know all that well. Over time, as you got to know himiher better ...
I2b It is often the case that when we first encounter someone who really impresses us, we tend to see only the prominent aspects of their personality, yet after we learn more about them, their entire personality becomes visible to us. You can probably recall such an instance in your own life (it could be someone you know, or a famous face, such as an inspiring political leader or media personage, someone who possesses exceptional ability, wealth, power, beauty, moral stature, intelligence, etc. ). Speaking from my own experience, when [got to know someone you admired, my reaction was . . .
'l'hcrc have becn times in my adult life when I have adnlircd sonlconc, or even come to the conclusion that a certain person reprcsents one of my ideals. 7 h length of' time that I jaw thij perron as being rzdmirable ...
Whcn someone I look up to displays a character flaw - that is, show that they are not as faultless as I initially imagined ...
Some people arc very discriminating when it comes to the people they admire - they have high standards, even for those they view as above all others. If these standards are not met, they would find i t impossible to continue to look up to a person. Some people however, could care less, and are inclined to overlook other people's faults, even those of the people they admire. In my case ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile onlv so lone as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
If a person I admire rejects me ...
If a person I admire acts in a cold or unfriendly manner towards me, I feel ..
There are times my life (in everyone's life for that matter) when my self-esteem takes a dip. When this happens, I can feel quite out of sorts. However, if I associate with a certain type of person my sense of vitality is restored. For me that type of person would be ... (please avoid nondescript phrases such as ... "a happy person.")
My sense of self-esteem gets a real boost when I associate with a person who ...
We all have people in our lives who we look up to, people who represent the ideals and goals we dream of attaining ourselves. Often, our association with such people is a personal one, and their very presence is important to us. f i r some reason, I had to part company with such a person, I wouldfeel ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
I k s i m a t e d "Floater" Stems
I l a I t is very important to me that I get to know people who are ...
I3c 'l'here are times my life (in everyone's life for that matter) when my self-esteem takes a dip. When this happens, I can feel quite out of sorts. However, if I associate with a certain type of person my sense of vitality is restored. For me that type of perron would be .. . (please avoid nondescript phrases such as ... "a happy person.")
' l .w insh ip -Huny (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationships/friendships/affiliation with others who conform to histher own appearance, opinions or values.
'1'1 a
n b
'1.1 c
'I- 1 d
T l e
Having a partner who is very much like myself ...
Sonlc of the people I know are very sitnilar to me, whereas others arc very different from me. I feel the most comfortable with ...
'I'hink of your best friend. Is i t the similarities or differences in your personalities that makes you friends? For me, what really makes the friendship "click" ...
In some friendships, similarity is what makes i t work, whereas for others, opposites attract. In order that a friendship be a satisfying one, it is important that the other person be .. .
Having a partner who is very different from myself ...
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which hetshe experiences the other's feelings as histher own.
T2a If I spend the day with my closest friend, and hislher mood changes suddenly, my own mood ...
'1'2b When I am with my partnerlbest friend, how I feel depends on what they ...
7'2c The things that I am most affected by when it comes to my partner ...
T 2 d If a friend experiences intense sadness, we usually make an effort to console them, because that is what we are supposed to do in that situation: 'Therefore if someone cries, the "script" we follow is to offer some sort of consolation. However, what we do may or may not reflect how we actually feel (i.e., real empathy for their - feelings, or just plain awkward). The last time a close friend expressed deep sorrow, my feelings were . . .
T2e For some people, their own emotions are quite unaffected by their friends' feelings, whereas for others, they experience their closest friend's feelings as if they were their own. l n my rase ...
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when he/she discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought. (Disappointment clause)
If I arrive at the realization that someone who 1 consider to be a close friend is very different from me in some respect ...
If I discover that a friend and I arc very dissimilar ...
In my close friendships, a difference in outlook or lifestyle ...
? 7 1 here are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to do with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my life, / fel t this way because . . .
Sometimes, when we have a lot in common with someone, we feel a sense of kinship. Such a friendship (one based on similarity between people) can create a special bond. I f I discovered in the course of knowing that person, that we were not as much 'twins'as I thought we were ...
Consider these two scenes: In the first one, two friends stand side by side. I t is obvious that they are quite different from one another. In the second scene, two other friends stand together, but unlike the first two, they arc alike in many ways. I f I were in the first scene, I would feel ... (f I were in the second scene I would feel .. . (After completing these two sentences, please explain your responses)
Des i~na ted "Floater" Stems
'I'2c The things that 1 am most affected by when it comes to my partner ..
'13d There are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to do with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my life, IIfelt this way because . . .
4. '1-he test itself was forn~attcd as follows: So as to provide a general frame for thc
sttbjccts' responses, the test is prcfaced by some general instructions that encourage subjects
to draw from their own experiences and to avoid overly-brief sentence completions. 'l'hc
actual wording of the instructions was refined during the pilot studies, when verbal
introductions were provided to the students. As with the sentence stems, the instructions
take subject response as proof of efficacy. The test was structured so that within a criterion-
cluster, stems were ordered from the most general to the most specific. Stems were
distributed so that personality types alternated as much as possible.
B. Stage Two: Stem Selection and Reliability
Three statistical measures of reliability were employed to selectively reduce the
item pool: Item-total and inter-item correlation, and internal consistency (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 1988, Rust & Golombok, 1789).
'The item-subscale correlation evaluates the relative potency or pull of each item,
and the extent to which each item draws the same sort of response as the rest of the items in
its subscale. Items with low item-subscale correlations will either be rewritten or
discarded. Because each of the three subscales consists of three dissimilar criteria, these
correlations will be performed both as item to three subscale correlations for the general
constructs, and item to nine sub-subscale correlations for the individual criteria, with the
emphasis on the latter.
'l'he inter-item correlation yields the item correlation matrix which displays both
item-subscale and item-to-other subscale correlations The main purpose of this procedure
is to retain those items that correlate highly with their own subscale and redistribute or
discard items that display stronger correlations with subscales other than ther own.
The internal consistency- method represents the final step in assessing reliability
because it reveals the extent to which each subscale item measures the same domain as the
rest of the subscale. 'l.his reliability index (as expressed by cocfficicnt alpha, the nicall
reliability coefticicnt), is based on the number of observations made and the extent to
which each item in a subscale represents an observation of the same value observed by other
rest items in that subscale (Murphy and I)avidshofer, 1988). Items that do not meet this
criterion will be discarded.
Unless specific precautions are taken, open-ended ( ix . sentence completion) tests
will usually yield significantly lower estimates of reliability than objective sclf-rcport
tests. Smith's (1 992) recommendations as to how to optimize the reliability of projective
tests ate useful here. First, i t is important to make every effort to reduce the error of
measurement. Smith (1992) suggests the following: 1) Reduce coding errors through
maximization of inter-rater agreement. Suedfeld, Tetlock,and Streufert (1992) suggest at
least two week's extensive training to ensure inter-rater reliability of .85 or better. In this
regard, the co-rater was trained extensively. 2) Items must be sampled as broadly as
possible over a given domain. This issue was addressed with respect to maintaining stern
diversity even within a criterion cluster. 3) Testing conditions must be kept stable and
Smith (1 992) also recommends that score variability be maximized by use of a
heterogenous sample (see description of sample below), and to select stimuli that yield the
greatest score dispersion. (Smith, 1992, p. 137-1 38). This requires that item selection
procedures not be taken to their logical extreme, otherwise the test would consist of a
collection of stems that encourage a narrow spectrum of responses.
I1 I . Scoring: Manual Construction
The manual employs a categorically-based scoring system. A sample of exemplars
was culled from the pilot study responses and assembled as the initial scoring manual. In
constructing the manual, the goal was to provide clear and simple examples to maximize
inter-rater agreement, as well as avoid the steep learning curve usually associated with using
manuals of this type. I t is considered categorical as opposed to purely cxcmpl ; i r -bad
(such as the Itotter ISK), because each set of exemplars (meant to illustrate examples of a
one, two, or three scoring value) were grouped under a g e ~ ~ e r a l descriptive heading which
cxprcsscd the central conceptual theme (I,oevinger, 1970).
I3ecause the stems must be scored in such a way as to yield sufficient variability to
perform the necessary psychometric analyses, a scoring system with a 1-3 range of rater
response that also mininlizcs ambiguity that could lead to low inter-rater agreement was
employed. This system at least superficially resembles Loevinger's (1970) format and, as
with that sentence completion test, eliminates zero-value responses. it was decided that
because each stem is designed to pull for its particular criterion, it will be scored for that
criterion-response only. Although it would be preferable to interpret all stem-responses so
that each stern could be given a score for each of the three subscale domains (mirror, ideal,
or twinship), such a system would prove to be unmanageably complcx at this stage of the
research. This strategy will inevitably suppress responses in those particular instances where
a subject who displays a preponderance of one particular response type (i.c., mirror-hungry)
would somehow manages to complete most of the stems in that particular style.
Otherwise, assuming that the item-selection procedures reduce the number of stems to
those that pull most effectively for their particular target response, this scoring procedure
should not pose a problem. If, at a later date it is decided that it would be useful to
reinterpret the protocols so that each stem-response could be coded for each personality
type, the data will be -available for that purpose.
In general, a given test profile will be considered as a whole, but because each
criterion carries its own qualitative weight, each total criterion-score will be treated as a
kind of subscale within the three major subscales (yielding a total of nine, five-item
subscales) which can provide a more sensitive reading of a total test score. Apart from
these basic parameters, no other assumptions can be made regarding scoring at this point.
The manual's reliability will be assessed via measures of inter-rater reliability.
1V. .l'hc Sclf-Katinc Scales
'l'hc Self-Rating scales arc brief, face valid, narrative style personality descriptions
that allow thc subjccts to rate the extent to which they rcscmble one or more of the
personality types. Each is written to closely match the content of personality descriptions,
and comes in two versions, one with a male protagonist, and one with a female protagonist
'I'he pcrsonality descriptions were also worded in such a way as to minimize inhibiting
responses (so that the respondent would not perceive any pejorative connations) and
allowed subjects to respond on a 1-7 Likert scale format, as well as write any additional
comments deemed necessary. (See Appendix one)
V. Construct Validity: Convergent and Discriminant Validity
A. Thc Personality Research Form
? 7
1 he Personality Research Form-E (Jackson, 1987) is a nleticulously constructed,
352-item inventory consisting of twenty subscales based on the manifest needs outlined by
Murray et a/. (1938). Its utility for the purpose of this research endeavor is obvious: The
PKF is designed to measure those dimensions of normal personality judged to be the most
important to a broad range of personal living and functioning domains (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 1988), which also appear to display substantial overlap with some of the
personality characteristics measured by the sentence completion test outlined in this
proposal. The I'RF-E consists of 22, 16-item content scales, of which a subset of 10 will be
utilized here: Abasement, Aggression, Autonomy, Change, Exhibitionism, Lkfendence,
Ihireabil i ty, [hminance, Succorance, and Social Recognition.
14. Convcr~cn t and L)iscrimina~lt Validity Hyvothcscs
'l'hc construct explication task has been accomplished to the extent that the
behaviors related to the three constructs being measured have been described via the
criteria-clustcrs for each personality type. In order to establish convergent and
discriminant validity it is necessary to hypothesize which other constructs will be related
or unrelated to the three central personality constructs. 'I'his will constitute at least the
beginnings of what Cronbach and Meehl (1955) refer to as the nomological network, which
in this case will be based upon hypothesized correlations between the measure's three
subscales and several PKF subscales.
The Mirror-Hungry Personality
The mirror-hungry construct must be expressed in a form that allows comparisons
with other measures. The simplest way to acheive this goal is to compare the three criteria
in the mirror-hungry cluster (consisting of descriptions of behavior and self-esteem) with
similar behavior patterns measured by another test. The broad range of normal personality
features represented by the twenty-two P.K.F. subscales serve this purpose quite adequately.
The first criterion (displays self) clearly indicates an exhibitionistic stance. The second
criterion (seeks out confirming and admiring responses) would be best equated with the
"Desireability," "Social Recognition," and "Uefendence" (inability to accept criticism,
ctc.) subscales. The "Llefendence" subscale also serves to detect the general sensitivity to
criticism that Kohut observed in all of his patients who displayed a narcissistic
vulnerability. Although it is not included in the personality type descriptions,
defensiveness is purported to be an inevitable aspect of any narcissistic vulnerability, and
will therefore be included for comparison with all three personality types. The third
criterion indicates fluctuating self-esteem, although self-esteem will not be assessed at this
stage. .l.o sum this up then, the most central features of the mirror-hungry type Jre
exhibitionism, a need for social dcsireability, social recognition, and a sensitivity to
criticism, in the absence of a sustained sense of grandiosity or high self-esteem.
'I'hese are the hypotheses regarding the mirror-hungry type:
1 .) .l'he mirror-hungry type can be reliably detected in a studcnt sample.
2.) The mirror-hungry subscale should show a positive correlation with P.K.F. "Aggression"
and "Dominance," and a negative correlation with "Abasement," only for those subjects who
endorse the first two mirror criteria but do not endorse the third criterion.
3.) 'I'he mirror-hungry subscale should show positive correlations with the following I'RF
subscales: a.) "Exhibitionism," b.) "Desireability, " c.) "Social Recognition, " d.)
" Defendence," and e.) "Succorance."
The Ideal-Hungry Personality
'The three ideal-hungry criteria suggest general attitudinal and behavior patterns.
'The first criterion (seeks others to admire) suggests an interpersonal stance in which one
may devalue oneself in deference to perceived greater other. The PRF."Succorance"
subscale appears to best capture this dimension in that it indicates a tendency to turn
towards significant others for reassurance. Because the first criterion describes a person who
seeks to acquire admirable qualities -- albeit by proxy -- this should be reflected in the
I'KF "Social Recognition" subscale. As compensation for this transient sense of self worth,
such a person also ought to display an attitude similar to the "Defcndence" subscale. Other
authors (i.e., Raskin et al. 1991) have equated general, indiscriminate humility with the
ideal-hungry type, in which case the "Abasement" subscale would be an appropriate
analogy. This reflects theoretical error, which does not acknowledge the specific foci of
the ideal-hungry person's attention. However, an extreme endorsement of the ideal-hungry
subscalc ought to represent a person who although they do focus on particular pcoplc a\
idols, should display a certain degree of 'surplus humility' which will be evident in their
interactions with others in general as a kind of low-level abascnlcnt attitude. 'l'he second
criterion (incvitablc disappointment in idealized other) suggests a tendency to be
somewhat judgenlental or dichotonlous in one's thinking, but mostly reflects an extension
of the first criterion, and as such does not need elaboration. 'l'he third criterion
(experiences self as worthwhile as long as connection to admired one is maintained)
suggests labile or low self esteem. All of these features support specific hypotheses:
I .) 'The ideal-hungry type can be reliably detected in a student sample.
2.) The ideal-hungry subscale should show positive correlations with the a.)"Succorance,"
b.) "Social Recognition," and c.) "l)efendencensubscales
3.) The ideal-hungry subscale should show negative correlations with a.) "Dominance," and
b.) "Autonomy" subscales, in addition to a positive correlation with "Abasement."
The Twinship-Hungry I'ersonality
Deciding which I'KF subscales would best describe this personality type is less
clear-cut than with the first two personalities. The first criterion (seeks relationships with
others who conform ...) suggests an affiliative need, although like the ideal-hungry
personality, that need appears to have a specific rather than an indescriminate focus. What it
does suggest is a moderate expression of the stance captured by the "Succorance"subscale,
which reflects a need for support from others. The expressed need for sameness may also
reflect a conservative attitude best exemplified by the inverse of PKF "Change" and
"Autonomy." The second criterion (emotional symbiosis) does not resemble any particular
PRF subscale. The third criterion (disappointment) certainly suggests a tendency to
dichotomize like the ideal-hungry, as well as the ensuing labile or low self-esteem. The
twinship-hungry construct hypotheses are:
1 . ) 'l'his personality type can be reliably detected in a student sample, but will a p p c u lcss
frequently than the other two pcrsoriality types.
2 . ) 'l'he twinship subscale should show a positive correlation with the I'KF "Succorancc" and
" l )efendenccH subscales.
3.) Siniilarily, the twinship subscale should display a negative correlation with "(:hangc"
and "Autonomy."
Tabled below are the hypothesized relationships between the narcissistic
personality dimensions and P.K.F. subscales. Any predictions regarding correlations
between the sentence completion test and the self-rating scales will be identical to those
made for the sentence conlpletion subscales and the P.R.F. subscales.
'l'ablc 4
I'rcdictcd Correlations for Convcrpmt and 1)iscriminant Validity t;,stimates
S(:'l' Subscale
I'KF Subscale
- -
Mirror Ideal 'l'winship
Abasement
Aggression
Autonomy
Change
F,xhibitionism
Ilefendence
Desireabili ty
Dominance
Succorance
Social Kecog.
ncg. (-)
pos. (-)
------------
pos.
pos.
pos.
pos. (-1
pos.
pos.
pos.
neg.
pos.
pos.
------------
pos.
------------
Note. 'I'he minus sign in parentheses (-) indicates those instances in which the third
criterion is not endorsed in a given mirror-hungry protle.
VI . Content Validity: l'rinciyal C o m ~ o n c n t s Analysis
It is hopcd that a clear match between the structure of the three subscales and the
contcnt domain will be observed. Three overlapping factors as well as a possible fourth for
general dysphoria are predicted. I t is also predicted that much of the overlap will rcsult
from the "labile self-esteem" clause in each personality.
VI I . Methods Summary
Content validity: Operationalize the three personality types and construct a test using a
theory-driven, systematic method to derive the scoring criteria. Have an expert rater re-
sort the stems to their source criteria. 'This at least accomplishes the first two steps in
assessing content validity: a)To describe the content domain, and b) to specify the area of
the content domains measured by each test item (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1988). 'The third
stage in assessing content validity, which is to compare the structure of the test with the
structure of the content domain, will be accomplished via a principal component analysis.
Reliability: The effectiveness of the manual will be assessed determined by Cohen's
kappa (1 960), a measure of inter-rater agreement that corrects for chance agreement. For
the purpose of item analysis I will utilize internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), item-to-
subscale and item-total correlations, as well as the principal components analysis results.
Converqent and Discriminant Validity Acconlplished via observed correlations with
Personality Research Form subscales. In order to decide which correlation coefficient will
be used, I will first exanline the raw data (scatterplots), in order to determine whether the
data are linear or nonlinear. If the data display linear relationships, I will employ
Pearson's r, but if the data are nonlinear, I will employ 'eta.' A measure of differential
validity will be used to assess the extent to which the items in a given subscale measure the
same domain. Two sets of correlations will be observed: The relationship between the
three personality types and the ten P.K.F. subscales, as well as between the personality
types and the self-rating scales, the self-rating scales and the P.K.F. subscales, and finally,
subjects will be selected who not only displayed a high score on a particular personality
subscale, but also its corresponding self-rating scales (i.e., high on "mirror" on both), and
those subject's scores on the P.R.F. subscales will be observed. I t is assumed that the
hypothesized relationships as described in the correlation table will most likely be
supported by those subjects.
Procedure
1 . S a m ~ l e : Subjects consisted of 107 (52 men, 55 women) Simon Fraser University
undergraduates between the ages of 18 and 30. The sample was drawn from a variety of
sources: 'I'he psychology subject pool, the volunteer subject pool, a wide variety of campus
clubs, and direct solicitation of subjects from classes in psychology, English, biology,
engineering, and communications courses. Pilot study data came solely from first year
psychology tutorials.
2. I'rocedure: For those subjects who were recruited through the volunteer subject pool,
course credit was given in return for participation, whereas for all other subjects, incentive
came in the form of a brief report on their P.R.F. profile. All subjects gave their informed
consent and all test procedures were approved by the S.F.U. ethics board. Test
administration was standardized in that all subjects completed the test package in the
same order (sentence completion test, self-rating scales, P.R.F.), and the sentence
conlpletion test instructions were read aloud to each subject. Testing took place in the
same designated site in the psychology department. After testing, each subject was fully
debriefed as to the purpose of the study.
3. S u : Responses to a given stem were treated as a discrete entity. All 107 responses
to each stem were typed out and randomized in separate batches. Two raters employed the
scoring manual and followed the same procedure for each rating: Both raters f irs t read thc
scoring criteria for a given stem, followed by a discussion in which each rater made every
effort to "think out loud" and thus express any implicit criteria -- that is, the assumptions
onc has about statements in the manual -- which may or may not be the understanding held
by the other rater. l 'his procedure was repeated for each stem so as to lend some prccisioll
to the undertaking, as well as minimize conceptual drift during scoring. Each response was
then matched to the level of the criterion which i t most closely resembled. As for
interpretation of the responses, i t became an axiom of sorts that raters were to avoid
overinterpretation; given that the measure employs the 'just ask' approach to sten1
construction, it was assumed that the responses would be equally straightforward.
I . l>escrit~tive Statistics
' I ahlc 5 lim the mean, standard deviation, variance, and minimum and maximum
scores for each subscale, major scale (made up of the three sub~calcs), the three Self-Rating
scales, and the I'KF subscales. 'l'hese figures are based upon the 27-item final version of the
scale, described below in the item-subscale correlation procedure. 1)iscussion will be
limited to the SCT subscale frequency data as well as the frequency distribution
histograms which can be found in Appendix L). For the sake of clarity, subscales M-1 to '1'-
3 will simply be referred to as the subscales, whereas M, I, and '1- will be referred to as the
conlposite subscales.
Over half of the subscale distributions are non-symmetrical. M-1 , 1-2, 1'-1, T-2,
and T-3 are negatively skewed. As for the composite subscales, the M-distribution is very
symn~etrical, the I-distribution is negatively skewed, and the T-distribution is very
negatively skewed. If we observe the distribution of scores with respect to the midpoint,
we see that for the M-distribution, the range is 9 - 26, and 57 subjects fall below the
midpoint (17.5), and 50 occur above - a fairly even distribution. The I-distribution range
is 11 -24, and 86 subjects fall below the midpoint (17.5), and only 21 above, meaning that
80% of the scores fall below the midpoint. The T-distribution is even more striking: The
range is 9 - 26, and 100 subjects fall below the midpoint (17.5), and only 7 above, so that
93?40 of the scores fall below the midpoint. These findings may have a bearing on
statements already made about the narcissistic personalities. Earlier i t was suggested that
although the three personalities would be detectable in a s t u d e ~ t population, the 'l'winship-
hungry personality would occur less frequently. Given the distribution of scores for the
Twinship-items, the findings do seem to support this hypothesis: Very few subjects scored
in the high end. What was unexpected is that the findings also seem to suggest that the
Ideal-hungry personality also seems to occur less frequently -- at least in its extreme form.
I'ablc 5
1)cscrivtive Statistics
Scntcncc <:omplction
Variable Mean Std 1)ev Variance Minimum Maximum
Self-Rating Scales
SUM 5.16 1.49 2.23 1 .OO 7.00 SKI 3.78 1.62 2.63 1 .OO 7.00 S K'r 4.25 1.83 3.36 1 .00 7.00
Note : SKM = Self-Rating 1 Mirror-Hungry, SRI = Self-Rating / Ideal-Hungry, SRT =
Self-Rating I 'l'winship.
I'crsonality liescarch Form
Variable Mean Std 1)cv Variance Minimum Maximum
Note: Ab=Abasement, Ac=Acheivernent, Af=Affiliation, Ag=Aggression, Au=Autonomy, Ch=Change, CsXognitive Structure, De=Defendence, Do=L)ominance, En=Endurance, Ex=Exhibitionism, Ha=Harmavoidance, Irn=Irnpulsivity, Nu=Nurturance, Od=Order, I'l=l'lay, Se=Sentience, Sr=Social Recognition, Su=Succorance, Un=Understanding, In= Infrequency, Dy= Iksireability.
I I . Itcliabili ty: lntcr-1 tern Corrc la t i~t f i
'I'he inter-item correlation matrix represents thc first and most 'molecular' level of
interpretation. What follows is an analysis of the 46 x46 inter-item correlation table (scc
Appendix F:). Lkcause of the number of correlations generated (and the increased
probability of attaining statistical significance by chance alone) i t was decided for the
sake of interpretation that any absolute value greater than .20 would be considered
"significant." 'I'he results will be discussed by subscale rather than by item.
The M-1 subscale ("displays self to attract the attention of others") appears to be
quite cohesive, with low to moderate (.22-.46) positive intercorrelations throughout. When
correlated with the M-2 subscale ("seeks out confirming and admiring responses"), nothing
of any magnitude appears, although all of the M-1 items do display a low (< .20)
correlation with the M-2 items. When compared to the M-3 subscale ("low self-esteem in
the absence of desired responses"), items M lc , M Id , and M 1 e all display correlations
greater than .20 with item M3b. However, items M l a , M l b, and M I c display low
negative correlations (-.O1 to -.05) with M3a and M3e. Although M3e may be ruled out
because respondents tended to misunderstand its wording, in terms of pure stimulus value,
i t may or may not be noteworthy that all of the aforementioned stems with the exception
of M l c begin with the word "if." Overall, the M-1 subscalc appears to have a d i f f k
positive interrelationship with the M-2 and M-3 subscales.
M-1 does not appear to correlate to any noteworthy degree with the I subscalcs.
When compared to the 1-1 subscalc ("seeks others to admire for their idealizable
qualities"), M-1 shows some degree of correlation with the item I - l a (M 1 a - 11 a, .23, M 1 e
- I- 1 a, .24) but no significant negative correlations with the 1-2 subscale ("easily
disappointed by flaws in idealized other"). 'l'he M- 1 subscalc displays n o significant
correlations, positivc or negative, with the 1-3 subscale ("experiences self as happy only so
long as connection with admired one is maintained").
When correlated with the 7'-1 subscale ("seeks relationships with those who
conform to self'), no significant correlations, positive or negative, appear. 'l'he M- 1
subscale does show some relation to T-2 ("forms emotionally symbiotic relationships") in
a low positive correlation (.22) between M l b and T2c. However, items M la, M l d , and
M l e all display low negative correlations with T2c (-.I 7, -.12, -.I 9). The M-1 subscale
displays some significant correlations with the T-3 ("rejects partner upon discovery of
dissimilarity") subscale ( M l c with T3b .22, M l d with T3b and T3e, .20, and M l e with
T3a, .21), and no negative correlations of note.
Summary: The M-1 subscale correlates most strongly with its own items, then the other M
subscales, to a certain degree with the T-3 subscale, and in an unclear manner with the
remainder.
Most of the M-2 subscalc ("seeks out confirming and admiring responses") items
intercorrelated positivcly, although none exceeded .20, but many did occur in the . I 6 -.I9
range. The M-2 subscale did display some positive correlations with the M-3 ("low self-
esteem in the absence of desired responses") subscale (M2d with M3b, .30, and M2e with
M3b, M3e, .23, .20), although low negative correlations predominate. The M-2 subscale
does show some degree of relationship with the other M subscales, in a diffuse positive
manner with M-1, but only with certain "anchor items" (M2d and M2e with M3b and
M3e) in the M-3 subscale.
No significant positive or negative correlations appeared when the M-2 subscale
was correlated with the 1-1 ("seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities") and I -
2 ("cxpcricnccs self as happy only so long as connection with admired one is maititaincd")
subscales. Sonic negative correlations of note were M2c with 13a (-.I 9), and M2b with 13c
(-.23). The interrelationship of M-2 and 1-3 items s e e m to indicate n o real relationship.
M-2 shows some degree of association with the 'I'-1 ("seeks relationships with those
who conforni to self') subscale: M2a with 'I'lb (.24) and M2d with '1'1 h (.24), and n o
noteworthy negative correlations. When compared to the 'I'-2 subscale, a pattern of
combination of low positive and negative correlations emerged, with two marked positive
correlations: M2b with T2a (.20), '1'2e (.20). When compared to the '1'-3 subscale ("rejects
partner upon discovery of dissimilarity"), many positive correlations appeared: M2b with
T3b (.21), M2d with 'I'3e (.21) and M2e with T3c, T3e (.21, .23). Some low negative
correlations appeared.
Sun~mary: Overall, the M-2 subscale has a diffuse positive relationship with the 3'
subscales and may have a more marked positive relationship to the T-3 subscale, than to
itself. Apart from two negative correlations with 1-3 items, there appears to be no
relationship between the M-2 and I subscales.
Most of the items in the M-3 subscale ("low self-esteem in the absence of desired
responses") intercorrelate positively, although all below .20, with the exception of M3b-
M3a (.23). Two negative correlations occur: M3e with M3c (-.07), M3d (-.18), which
suggests a kind of conceptual partition that may or may not reflect a difference in item
content. Overall, the M-1 subscale displays low to moderate cohesion, with a
predominance of low positive intercorrelations.
'I'he M-3 subscale displays some relationship to the 1-1 subscale ("seeks others to
admire for their idealizable qualities") in two pairings: M3d with I l a (.24), and M3c with
I l c (.21). However, all of the M-3 items correlate negatively with item I I b ("'The kind of
person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ...." ). When conlparcd to the 1-2 subsc;llc
("cxpericnccs sclf as happy only so long as connection with admired one is maintained"), a
mixturc of low negative and low positive correlations predominate, the highest being M3e
with 12a ( 3 1 ) . 12b (.21), which limits the relationship between the scales to three items.
'l'he situation is much the same when the M-3 subscalc is conlparcd to the 1-3 ("cxycricnccs
sclf as happy only so long as conncction with admired one is maintained") subscale, with a
balance of low positive and negative correlations, the highest being M3d with 13d (.23),
and M3c with I3c (.27). Overall, the M-3 subscale does not correlate to any noteworthy
degree with the I subscales apart from specific items in 1-1 and 1-3.
'I'he M-3 subscale displays little relationship with any of the Twinship subscales.
Some low positive correlations arise with the T-1 subscale ("seeks relationships with those
who conform to self') the highest being M3b with 'I'lb (.22). A combination of low
positive and low negative correlations links the M-3 with the '1'-2 ("forms emotionally
syn~biotic relationships") subscale, the highest being M3d with T2e (.26). The same
conditions occur when the M-3 and T-3 ("rejects partner upon discovery of dissimilarity")
subscales are correlated, although low positive correlations do predominate, the highest
being M3b with T3e (.24).
, T
Summary: I he M-3 subscale displays moderate intercorrelations with itself, a mixed
picture when compared to M-1, and a predominantly negative relationship to the M-2
subscale. Any relationship between the M-3 and I subscales is limited to two itcms per
subscale, and signiticant correlations with the 'I' subscales are limited to one positive
correlation per subscale.
' rhe 1-1 ("seeks others to admire for their idealizablc qualities") subscale does
display some cohesion. When correlated with itself, nonsignificant positive correlations
predominate, but a distinct pattern of negative correlations also appears: I ten1 I 1 tl
correlates ncgativcly with I l a (-.15), I l b (-.01), and I l c (-.03). I t would seem then, that
item I Id is thc odd one out. When compared to the 1-2 and 1-3 subscalcs, nonsignificant
negative correlations predominate, indicating very little relationship between the three
Ideal-hungry subscales.
Nothing of any significance appeared when the 1-1 subscale was correlated with the
'[--I ("seeks relationships with those who conform to self') subscale. When compared to the
'1'-2 ("forms emotionally symbiotic relationships") subscale, two positive correlations
emerged: I l d with 'I'2a (.22), and I l e with 'I'2b (.20), otherwise, low negative correlations
predominate. When compared to the 'r-3 subscale ("rejects partner upon discovery of
dissimilarity") , item I l c correlated positively with items T3a (.22), and 'T'3c (.23),
otherwise, low positive correlations predominate.
Summary: Overall, the 1-1 subscale appears to stand apart from the other I subscales. In
relation to the other subscales, items I1 d items I l e correlate positively with T2a and T2b,
whereas item I l c correlates positively with items T3a and T3c, all of which suggests a
positive relationship with the 'I' subscales that is limited to specific items rather than the
scales as a whole. With respect to the M subscales, I l a bears some relation to certain M-1
and M-3 items (although as noted above, all of thc M-3 items correlate negatively with the
1-1 items), and there appears to be no relationship between the 1-1 and M-2 subscales.
The 1-2 subscale ("experiences self as happy only so long as connection with
admired one is maintained") appcars to be moderately intercorrelated: 12a correlates .35
with 12b, 3 2 with I2d, and .28 with I2c, whereas 12d correlates .34 with I2e, which
suggests two merged clusters of items within the subscale. The remainder are low positive
correlations and no negativc correlations occur, which suggests two clusters: a-b-d, and d-c.
'l'he picture changes when 1-2 is correlated with 1-3. Here we see a combiuatio~l of very low
(nonsignificant) positive and low negative correlations, a diffuse relationship betwc.cn
subscalcs.
Subscale 1-2 displays some strong connections to subscale 'I'-1 ("seeks relationships
with those who conform to self'). 12d correlates .25 with 'I'lc, .23 with 'I ' ld, and .25 with
'Tle. 12e also correlates .25 with T l d . 12c correlates .24 with 'I'lc, and I2e correlates .22
with '1'1 b, such that items l2c,d,e appear to form anchor points. Only four negative
correlations occur, and they are extremely low. The 1-2 subscale displays almost no
relationship with the T-2 subscale ("forms emotionally syn~biotic relationships"), although
there are some salient negativc correlations: 12d with 'T2b (-.27), and 12e with T2b, T2d
(-.20, -. 18). 'The 1-2 subscale displays a marked positive relationship with the '1'-3
subscale: I2d with '1'3a (.20), 'T3e (.39), I2e with T3b (.23), 1'3f (.20), T3d (.21). Again,
12d and e appear to be anchors, otherwise low positive correlations (below .20)
predominate.
Summary: When the 1-2 subscale is intercorrelated with the T subscale items, we see a
pronounced clustering effect: 12d correlates positively with I2e, but also with TI b, 'l'lc,
and T l d . 12d also correlates positively with T3a and T3e, whereas 12e correlates
~ o s i t i v e l ~ with T3b, T3d, and T3f. In effect, what we see are three clusters anchored
around I2d and 12e. The 1-2 subscale displaycs a diffuse, nonsignificant relationship to the
M subscales.
When corrclated with itself, the 1-3 subscale ("experiences self as happy only so
long as connection with admired one is maintained") is somewhat split: 13b correlates .22
with 13a, and I3e correlates .25 with I3b. However, the remainder of the scale is
irltcrrelatcd by a scrics of nonsignificant rlcgative intcrcorrclations (<-.OX). 'l'hcrcforc,
within the scale itself, items 13a, 13b and Ibe form a cluster with 13b as the anchor.
'l'hc 1-3 subscale displays one positive correlation with the suhscalc: 13d with
.l ' lc (.20), otherwise, the relationship is characterized by a balance of low positive and
negativc correlations. 'l'hcrc appears to be some degree of relationship between two sets of
items in the 1-3 and 'r-2 subscales: 13b with T2c (.24), 13e with '1'2c (.21), '1'2e ( 2 0 ) .
Otherwise i t is characterized by primarily zero-relationship values or weak negative
correlations. When correlated with the 7'-3 subscale, some positive relationships appear:
13b with 'l'3c (.20), as well as several mixed positive and negative correlations. Again, an
indefinite picture characterized by a single focused feature, further clouded by the many
almost-significant correlations
Summary: A mixed, generally nonsignificant relationship with the M subscales, other I
subscales, and the first two T subscales, with some relationship to the 'I'-3 subscale.
Intercorrelations among the T-1 subscale ("seeks relationships with those who
conform to self') reveals a very cohesive collection of items. T l a displays a positive
intercorrelation with T l b (.25), 1 ' 1 c (.25), and ' r l e (.29). T l b correlates positively with
T l c (.25) and T l d (.55), and T l c with T l d (.28). No negativc correlations occur. The
relationship betwcen T-1 and subscale T-2 is characterized by a series of nonsignificant
negative correlations. However, the relationship betwcen T-1 and 'I'-3 is much stronger:
'I ' la with '1'3e (.20), 'I'3f ( .3 l ) . T l b with T3b (.22), T3e (.33), and T3f (.38). T l d with
T3a (.43), T3b (.34), T3e (.37), and T3f ( .56) . T l e with T3b (.20), T 3 c (.22), and T3f
(.27). However, 'I'3d does correlates negatively with T l a , T l b, 'I'lc, and ' r l e .
Summary-: T-1 correlates very strongly with itself and T-3 (with the exception of 'I'3d),
but has a negative relationship to the 'r-2 subscale. With respect to the M subscale, some
itcms in thc .['-I subscalc show low positive correlations with itcms in thc M-2 si~bscalc,
othcrwisc nothing of any magnitude was observed. As for the I scale, '1'- 1 shows a strong
positive relationship to the 1-2 subscalc but as for the othcr two subscalcs, the picture is
rnixcd.
'I'-2 is not a very cohesive subscale, although there is one positive correlation of note
between 1'2d with T2e (.26), otherwise i t is characterized by low positive correlations.
When compared to '1'-3, almost all of the correlations are negative. For example, 'I'3a
correlates negatively with all of the '1'-2 stems.
Summary: A mixed relationship with the M subscales characterized by a diffuse pattern
marked by a few positive correlations. Virtually no relationship to the 1-1 and 1-2
subscales, but a strong positive connection to the 1-3 subscale. T-2 correlates negatively
with 'I'-1 and 'r-3.
'I'hc intercorrelations among the T-3 items are quite strong: T3b with T3a (.27),
7'3d (.23), T3e (.23), and T3f i.32); T3c with T3b (.34), T3e (.30), T3f i.20); T3f with
T3a (.20), and T3c (.32). T-3 displays a strong positive relationship to the M-1 subscale
but a mixed picture with respect to the othcr M subscales. T-3 also displys a strong
positive relationship to the 1-2 subscale, but a mixed rip to the other I subscales. It
correlates negatively with T-2, and positively to the T-1 and T - 3 subscales except for
1'3d.
S u t n m a r ~ : Overall, the '1'-3 subscale displays some positive relationship to the M - l , ~ n d
M-2 subscales, and a mixed but generally positive interrelationship with the M-3 subscale.
'1'-3 has a strong positive relationship tp the 1-2 and '['-I subscales.
Conclusions
Given the size and complexity of this set of correlations, i t is difficult to make
definite statements. Apart from the correlations between items that achieve noticeable
magnitude, it appears that much of the interconnections between the collection of items
that make up the subscales appears to be carried by large patterns of low positive and
negative correlations rather than a set of clear-cut patterns. Having said this, some features
do stand out. Clearly, the most strongly internally correlated subscales are M-1, 1-2, I'-1
and T-3 , whereas the marginal scales are M-2, M-3, T-2, 1-1 and 1-3. The most strongly
related scales appear to fall into three groupings: a.) T-3 with M- 1, M-2, and 1-2, b.) '1'-1
with 1-2 and T-3, and c.) T-2 with 1-3.
It is important to note that these correlations were calculated using the original 46
sentence stems, whereas the remainder of the analyses will be performed using the reduced,
27-item version of the test. As a means of providing something of an overview of the
difference between the two item pools in terms of subscale-to-subscale correlation, Table
6 lists the correlations between all of the subscales for the reduced version of the test.
Correlations were calculated such that each result must display a critical p. of .001 to
attain significance at the .05 level.
Previously, it was observed that 1'-3 forms a cluster with M-1, M-2, and 1-2. In the
reduced scale version, T-3 does correlate positively with M-1 (.14), M-2 ( . l l ) , and 1-2
(.26), but not to any significant degree, although one could say that in terms of absolute
value, the correlation between T-3 and 1-2 is noteworthy. Secondly, in the full scale
version, T-1 was observed to form a cluster with 1-2 and T-3. In thc reduced scale, T-1
docs correlate positively ( but not to a significant degree) with 1-2 ( .21), and corrc1;trcj to
a significant degree with T-3 (.54) and M-2 ( .30) . Lastly, '1.-2 does still corrclatc
positively with 1-2 (.21) in the reduced version.
Hcrc now is a summary of the subscale clusters that appear in 'l'ablt. 6: M-I, M-2,
and M-3 form an intercorrelated cluster. '1'-1 and .I'-3 form another cluster, and the 'I'-
cluster and M-cluster are linked insofar as 7'-1 correlates positivcly with M-2. 7.-2 seems
to be an entity unto itself, although i t does display weak positive correlations with thc M -
subscales. 'I'he I-scales do not form a cluster. 1-1 and 1-3 correlate negatively (-.08). I t is
noteworthy that 1-2 correlates negatively with T-2 (-.21), but positively with '1'-1 (.21)
and 'T-3(.26). In summary, we have several clusters: 1 .) M-1/M-2/M-3, and 2.) '1'-11'1'-3
(with I-2), 3.) '1.-2 by itself, as well as a fragmentation of the I-scale. As we will see
below, the factor analysis essentially replicates these findings.
I I I. Keliabili ty: Item-to-Subscale Correlations
The item pool was put through five iterations of the SPSS Reliability program in
order to produce nine relatively homogeneous item clusters, one for each subscale (SI'SS,
1990). A complete represcntation of the first four iterations can be found in Appendix F.
It was initially hoped that the nine subscales could be reduced from five to four items
each, although this was not always possible, and so for ease of comparison, each subscale
was reduced to three stems. Table 7 illustrates the steps leading to the final stage as
indicated by changes in the mean inter-item correlation for each subscale, and Table 8
presents the fifth and final iteration of the item pool. Discussion of 'Table 8 will focus on
two indices: a.) The mean inter-item correlation (the mean correlation between all
possible pairs of items within a subscale), which is the index of a given subscale's
homogeneity, and b.) the corrected item-total correlation (the correlation between a given
'l'ahlc 6
(:orrclations Hetwcctl all S C T Subscales
M 1
M 2
M 3
11
I2
I3
'I' 1
'1'2
'1'3
'l 'ablc 7
I<cliability Analysis
All Iterations: Mean Inter-Item Correlations.
Ttcrations
M- 1
M-2
M-3
1-1
1-2
1-3
-1.- 1
'1.-2
T - 3
M
I
'I'
'I'ablc X
l~cliahility Analysis: Final Iteration
Scale Scale (:orrcctcd h4can Variance I tern- Squarcd Alpha
Subscale If Itcm If Item 'I'otal Multiple If Itcm I tems l)elctcd Delctcd Correlation Correlation 1)elcted
M l c 3.7477 I .6999 .4593 .2110 .5807 M l d 3.8692 1.5676 .4864 ,2378 .5458 M l c 3.5421 1.8543 .4746 .2259 .5654
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .40
Alpha: .66
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .19
Alpha: .41
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .18
Alpha: .39
'l'ablc 8 cont.
Scale Scale Corrcctcd hlcan Variance Item- Squared Alpha
Sl~bscalc If Item If Item Total Multiplc If I ten1 1 terns I>cletcd l>elctcd Correlation (:orrelation 1)clctcd
I l b 3.6916 1.2530 .I376 .032 1 .2457 I l c 3.4299 1 .285 1 .I094 .0198 .3027 I l e 3.6822 1.0113 .2237 .0508 .0422
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .I I
Alpha: .28
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .32
Alpha: .57
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .19
Alpha: .41
Scale Scalc Corrected hl can Variance I tcm- Squared Alpha
Subscalc I f I ten1 If ltctn 'I'otal Multiple If i tcnl I terns 1)clcted 1)cleted Correlation Correlation 1)clctcd
T l a 2.9346 1.0240 .2533 .0672 .7 126 ' r l b 2.8598 1 .O65 1 .4854 .3287 .3119 '1.1 d 3.1776 1.1663 .4418 .3 108 .390 1
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .33
Alpha: .57
Mcan Inter-Item Correlation: .17
Alpha: .36
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .29
Alpha: .55
Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance I tern- Squared Alpha
Subscale If Item If Item 'I'otal Multiple 1 f I tern 1 tcms 1)cleted l)clcted Correlation Correlation Ilclcted
M 1 c M l d M l e M2a M2d M 2c M3a M3b M3d
Mean Inter-Item Correlation
Alpha: .63
I l b I l c I1 e 12a I2d I2e 13 a 13b I3e
Mean Inter-Item Correlation
Alpha: .37
Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
Subscalc If Item If Item '1'0 tal Multiple If [ tern l tcms Ikleted 1)clcted Correlation Correlation I)clctcd
Mean Inter-Item Correlation: .15
Alpha: .60
iten1 arid the sum of the remaining items in the subscale), which provides an index of an
item's correlation with the remainder of the items in its subscale. With respect to the mean
inter-item correlation, a coefficient of .20 and above indicates a reasonably honlogeneous
item cluster, whereas figures below .20 suggest that the subscale is probably made up of
more than one underlying factor. As for the corrected item-total correlation, any
coefficient above .20 is generally considered an acceptable degree of relationship between
an item and the remainder of its subscale. Discussion will proceed by subscale and exclude
the three major composite subscales, M, I, T. 'Two questions must be answered here: Is the
scale adequately homogeneous, and if so, does the cluster of stems that are retained still
assess the root criterion?
M - l is a wry cohesive subscale, with a mean inter-item correlation of .40 and
corrected itc~n-total correlations of .46 (Mlc) , .49 ( M l d ) , and .47 (M lc). 'I'hesc rcsults,
along with the conclusions drawn from the inter-item correlation matrix indicate that the
M-1 subscale constitutes a homogeneous entity. 'I'he M-1 root criterion - "displays self to
attract the attention of others" - can be reduced to a basic exhibitionism construct. 'l'he
retained items are:
M 1 c. For me, the idea of playing a starring role ...
M l d. A person stands in the spotlight, while another stands off to one side. If I were in this scene, I would be ...
Mle . Some pcople like to be noticed, whereas for others, it's just not important. Asfor myse6..
The discardcd items are:
M l a . If I tell a joke at a social gathering, and several people turn to listen ...
M l b . If I were asked to take part in a play ...
'I'he retained stems are very direct and prime the respondent with specific words related to
exhibitionism, such as "starring," "spotlight,", or "noticed," whereas the rejected stems do
not, and seem to suggest situations with some sort of buildup; where one has to make a
decision about a situation. This led to various forms of hesitancy in the subject's responses
to the rejected stems. For example, with M l a , subjects often said things like: "Well, I'm
not very good at telling jokes, but if it was a good joke ... etc." As for M l b , one of the
most common responses was: " I t would depend on what part I was offered."
I t may be that another difference between the retained and discarded stems is
whether the situation is perceived as threatening and non-threatening. The discarded stems
have a formal and context-specific quality, whereas the retained stems refer specifically to
exhibitionism. 111 Mia , the subject must dccidc what to do whcn the audicncc turn, to
listen, and in M l b , one is askcd what one would do if invited to take part in a public event.
However, with the retained stems, one entertainj the idea (Mlc) of playing a starring role,
or one is already doing something ( M l d ) , and is simply askcd "where were you" in this
sccnc. 'l'hc last stem ( M l e ) is sinlply a request to state a generality about oneself.
In conclusion it can be said that the retained items in this subscale both reflect a unitary
underlying dimensionlfactor, and assess the root criterion of exhibitionism.
M-2 Subscale
M-2 is not nearly as homogeneous as M-1, with a mean inter-item correlation of
.19, and corrected item-total correlations of .24 (M2a), .25 (M2d), and .24 (M2e). These
results agree with the inter-item correlation results reported earlier, which found that most
of the M-2 items did intercorrelate positively, but only to the .16 - .19 level. Although M-
2 probably represents a unitary factor, its homogeneity is maintained by a rather weak
inter-item bond.
The M-2 root criterion - "seeks out confirming and admiring responses" - is
related, but not identical to, exhibitionism, as it refers to how one gets their narcissistic
supplies (in this case, actively). The retained stems are:
M2a. If I have a new hairstyle (or am wearing new clothes), and I bump into someone I haven't seen for a while ...
M2d. When I share my successes with other people, my secret wish is that they . ..
M2e. I need people to tell me that I ...
'The discarded items are:
M2b When I get excited about something I've done, I expect my friends to ...
M2c I have daydreamed that I. ..
M2a and M2d reflect the same idea: Given the context of some sort of self-
enhancing situation, what is the response one desires from others? One of the discarded
stems (M2b) asks a similar question, but the word "expect" may have put too fine a point
o n it. Although M2c certainly pulled for the full range of targetted responses, i t is
ultinlately too open-ended. Given that the retained stems do provide a context in which
respondents can say whether they do or do not desire confirming and admiring responses, i t
seems that the retained stems do assess the root criterion.
M-3 Subscale
M-3 has a similar structure to M-2, with a mean inter-item correlation of .18, and
corrected item-total correlations of .26 (M3a, .23 (M3b), and .20 (M3d). The inter-item
correlation matrix results displayed a pattern of weak positive intercorrelations (<.20), a
relatively strong correlation between M3a and M3b (.23), and a partitioning off of item
M3e by virtue of its negative correlation with item M3d (-.18). Both lines of evidence
suggest a weakly intercorrelated cluster, which may with some further refinement, attain
sufficient homogeneity.
The M-3 subscale has two root criteria: the "A" criterion (low self-esteem in the absence of
desired responses), and the "B" criterion (self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such
responses). Here is the one instance where the initial stem-writing strategy was at odds with
psychometric analysis because the items had to fall into two conceptual groupings. This
undoubtably affected scale homogeneity, as did the wording of item M3e, which caused it
to be repeatedly misunderstood (it shouldread: "If I were to say whether I gain lasting
satisfaction from positive feedbackladmiration ..." rather than "positive feedback or
admiration"). The retained stems are:
M3a. If I had to work in a demanding job in which I would receive little o r no fccdback from my boss or co-workers as to whether I was doing i t well ...
M3b. Everyone's feelings arc affected by what others neglect to say to us as nluch as what they rlo say. In my experience, my feelings arc sensitive to the rtbsencr of comments such as ...
M3d. My sense of self-worth can be affected by ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
The discarded stems are:
3c. Some people feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get, whereas others find that the good feeling they get from a compliment seems to evaporate almost as soon as i t started. fn my rase ...
M3e. If 1 were to say whether I gain hstingsatisfaction from positive feedback or adnliration ...
What occured is that the "A" stems and the "floater" stem(M3d) formed a semi-
homogeneous cluster. One of the reasons this may have occurred is that it is virtually
impossible to get subjects to state whether the positive effect brought about by a
compliment lasts very long. Some subjects were very explicit in their responses and did
say whether the positive effect lasted or not, but those subjects also seemed to have some
real insight into the question. In conclusion, with such a clear conceptual division, i t is
obvious that the retained stems do reflect the root criterion. The issue that remains is
whether the "A" criterion is sufficient to fulfill the third component of the construct.
1-1 Subscale
1-1 presents the lowest inter-item correlation (.11) of all the subscales as well as
low corrected item-total correlations: I1 b (. 14), I l c (. 1 l ) , and I l d (.22). Results from the
inter-item correlation matrix depict a subscale partitioned into two negatively correlated
clusters of items. The items that make up the three-item subscale seen here arc interrelated
by nonsignificant positive correlations. Overall, 1-1 is not a very homogeneous subscale,
arid requires furthcr dcvclopmctit. 'l'hc 1 - 1 root criterion is "seeks others to adrnirc for
their idcalizablc qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intclligcncc, or views." 'l'hc
rctairlcd sterns arc:
1 1 b. 'l'hc kind of person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ...
I l c . 'l'he kind of person who holds a real fascination for me ...
I lc . A person outside of my family whose presence has enhanced my life ...
'I'he discarded stems are:
I l a . I t is very important to me that I get to know people who are ...
I 1 d . I t somethirnes seems as though I am always searching for a person who ...
What is unusual about the entire set of 1-1 stems is that two of the retained stems
(I 1 b and I l c ) seem very similar to two of the two discarded stems. On closer examination
the difference between the two retained versus two discarded stems is that the retained
stems ask for descriptions of people. One of the reasons why the retained stem cluster has
such low scale homogeneity is that I1 b and I1 c are quite different from I1 e. I1 b and I1 c
offer more room for those extreme responses, whereas I l e tended to evoke moving
descriptions of people who served an ideal-function in the respondent's life. In a sense, I l e
does not so much ask if one seeks o u t people to idealize, so much as ask if one has ever had
an ideal-type influence (and the affective manner in which the stem is completed
determines the score); Nevertheless, this item cluster has the lowest mean inter-item
correlation. It clearly needs work, to the extent that it makes little difference to talk about
items that were retained or discarded. In conclusion, the 1-1 subscale does not seem to
represent one underlying factor, although it does assess the root criterion.
1-2 is a very cohesive subscale, with a mean inter-item correlation of 3 2 , and
corrected item-total correlations of .37 (I2a), .41 (I2d), and .3H ( 1 2 ~ ) . Inter-item
corrclation matrix results suggest that there are two merged clusters of positively
correlated items, and the final three-item version is nladc up of aspects of both clusters,
resulting in a homogeneous subscale. The 1-2 root criterion is: "Easily disappointed by
(finds flaws in) idealized/pedestalized other, which ends the relationship," which is of
course, the disappointment clause.The retained stems are:
Try to bring to mind someone you held in very high esteem, but who you did not know all that well. Over time, as you got to know himlher better ...
When someone I look up to displays a character flaw - that is, show that they are not as faultless as I initially imagined ...
Some people are very discriminating when it comes to the people they admire - they have high standards, even for those they view as above all others. If these standards are not met, they would find it impossible to continue to look up to a person. Some people however, could care less, and are inclined to overlook other people's faults, even those of the people they admire. In my rase ...
The discarded stems are:
I t is often the case that when we first encounter someone who really impresses us, we tend to see only the prominent aspects of their personality, yet after we learn more about them, their entire personality becomes visible to us. You can probably recall such an instance in your own life (it could be someone you know, or a famous face, such as an inspiring political leader or media personage, someone who possesses exceptional ability, wealth, power, beauty, moral stature, intelligence, etc. ). Speaking from my own experienre, when Igot to know someone you admired, my reaction was . . .
There have been times in my adult life when I have admired someone, or even come to the conclusion that a certain person represents one of my ideals. The length of time that I saw this person as being admirable ...
I3ccause this scale coi~ld have been retained at four items rather than thrcc, i t makc5
little sense to talk abour whether the retained items arc better. However, even at the five
item level, 12c did not have as high an item-total correlation as the others. .l'he reason for
this is that i t is simply a confilsing item, as were all the prototypes with similar wording
that came before it. With a homogeneity index of .32, the only comment one car1 make
about this scale is why it works so well. One reason seems to be that test subjects seemed
to find it easier to speak of the loss or rejection of an idealized person than to describe
how one idolizes. This subscale clearly measures the root criterion, because each stem
describes the rejection dynamic.
1-3 Subscale
1-3 is "borderline" in terms of subscale homogeneity, with a mean inter-item
correlation of . l9, and corrected item-total correlations of .20 (I3a), .32 (I3b), and .22
(I3e). The earlier inter-item correlation results clearly evoke this pattern with a within-
scale cluster of positively-correlated items (I3a, I3b, I3e) set against a background of
nonsignificant negative correlations. Subscale 1-3 clearly requires some but not much
refinement to improve its homogeneity. The 1-3 subscale root criterion is: "Experiences
self as happylworthwhile only so long as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired
one. The retained stems are:
13a. If a person I admire rejects me ...
I3b. If a person I admire acts in a cold or unfriendly manner towards me, I feel ...
13e. We all have people in our lives who we look up to, people who represent the ideals and goals we dream of attaining ourselves. Often, our association with such people is a personal one, and their very presence is important to us. l f for some reason, I had to part company with such a person, I would.feel. ..
'1-he discarded stems arc:
13c. 'I'here are times my life (in everyone's life for that matter) when my self-esteem takes a dip. When this happens, I can feel quite out of sorts. However, if I associate with a certain type of person my sense of vitality is restored. f i r me that type o f ' person z~~ould be .. .
13d. My sense of self-esteem gets a real boost when I associate with a pcrson who ...
Both of the rejected stems contained the term "self-esteem," which caused many a
defensive reaction. This is particularly frustrating because in some ways, the discarded
stems "ask the question" more directly. The fact that I3c correlated negatively (-.07) with
the other stems in this subscale tends to suggest that i t was one of those stems affected by
the "stem-writer's paradox."l As for the retained stem's thematic content, the first two
follow the same theme and elicited direct responses, whereas the third stem - which is
slightly different - evoked some of the most heartfelt reactions. 'The retained stems do
assess the root criterion, with the qualification that in order to score the responses so that
their meaning was relevant to this personality dynamic, the scoring rationale had to give
low scores to the "average expectable response" to this sort of rejection scenario.
'1'- 1 Subscale
T-1 is one the subscales that is homogeneous enough to have been maintained at five
items, but was reduced to three for the purpose of comparison. I t has a mean inter-item
correlation of .33, and its corrected item-total correlations are .25 (T la ) , .49 ( T l b ) , and
.44 ('I'ld). These strong intercorrelations were also observed in the inter-item correlation
matrix. 'The T-1 subscale root criterion is: "Seeks relationships1 friendshipslaffiliation
with others who conform to hislher own appearance, opinions or values." The retained
stems are: - -
Being that the best stems - that is, the ones that ask the question most directly, will in a sense be the worst stems because they evoke a defensive response.
. l . l a. Having a partner who is very much like myself ...
'1'1 h . Some of the people I know are very similar to me, whereas others are very different from me. I feel the most comfortable with ...
1 I11 some friendships, similarity is what makes it work, whereas for others, opposites attract. In order that a friendship be a satisfying one, it is important that the other person be .. .
The discarded stems are:
1 Think of your best friend. Is it the similarities or differences in your personalities that makes you friends? For me, what really makes the friendship "click" ...
'I 'le. Having a partner who is very different from myself ...
These stems are all very straightforward, so there is little point discussing whether one or
more factors underly this subscale. The stems do assess the root criterion.
' r-2 Subscale
T-2 is far less cohesive than T-1, with a mean inter-item correlation o f . 17, and
corrected item-total correlations of .16 (T2b), .28 (T2d), and .22 (T2e). Given that the
inter-item correlation matrix showed that the strongest correlation occurred between items
T2d and T2e, this is as homogeneous that this subscale can be without further refinement.
' Ihe 'T-2 root criterion is: "Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which
helshe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own. The retained stems are:
T2h. When I am with my partnerlbest friend, how I feel depends on what they ...
'172d. If a friend experiences intense sadness, we usually make an effort to console them, because that is what we are supposed to do in that situation: Therefore if someone cries, the "script" we follow is to offer some sort of consolation. However, what we do may or may not reflect how we actually feel (i.e., real empathy for their feelings, or just plain awkward). The last time a close friend expressed deep mrrotu, my feelings were . . .
' 1 .2~. For some people, their own emotions arc quite unaffected by their friends' feclinp, whereas for others, they experience their closest friend's feelings as if they wcrc their own. /n my CUSP . ..
'l'he discarded stems arc:
'1'2a. If I spend the day with my closest friend, and hislher mood changes suddenly, my own mood ...
'1'2c. The things that I am most affected by when it comes to my partner ...
O f the stems that were retained, 'I'2d and 'I'2e are very similar in that they both describe
the same situation, and i t is no surprise that T2b is the odd one out with an itern-total
correlation o f . 16. This scale could be improved by the addition of stems similar to the
retained ones. I t is also unclear as to whether the retained stems do evoke the root criterion.
In this regard, the stem that seems to assess the criterion most clearly is T2e, simply
because it describes the situation.
'1.-3 Subscale
T-3 is a very homogeneous subscale which could have been retained at five items. I t
has a mean inter-item correlation of .29, and corrected item-total correlations of .43
('Iq3b), 3 4 ('173c), and 3 2 (T30, a pattern which is also supported by results from the
inter-item correlation matrix. The T-3 root criterion is: "Becomes disillusioned (or
displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe
discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought." This is of course
the disappointment clause. The retained stems are:
T3b. If I discover that a friend and I are very dissimilar ...
7'3c. In my close friendships, a difference in outlook or lifestyle ...
'1'3f. Consider these two scenes: In the first one, two friends stand side hy side. It is obvious that they are quite different from one another. I11 the second scene, two other friends stand together, but unlike the first two, they are alike in many ways. /f ' / ruere in the first scene, / zuordd fie/ . . . if'/ ruere in the second scene I would feel . . .
'I'hc discarded stems are:
'I'3a. If l arrive at the realization that sonleone who 1 consider to be a close friend is very different from me in some respect ...
T 3 d . There are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to do with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my life, I felt this way because ...
T3e. Sometimes, when we have a lot in common with someone, we feel a sense of kinship. Such a friendship (one based on similarity between people) can create a special bond. If I discovered in the course of knowing that person, that zue were not as much 'twins'as I thought we were ...
This subscale is the only one that began with six items, and the one iten1 that was dropped
to make it a five-item subscale was T3d. From the standpoint of pure content, 7'3d is the
only stem that does not actually describe the similarity/dissimilarity issue. Instead, i t
employs a more open-ended approach that allows for a "twinship" response to the betrayal
theme, if indeed that is how subjects exhibiting "twinship-behaviors" respond. 'This is
again one of those instances where the retained and discarded stems not only form a
reasonably honlogeneous entity, but they also pull for the targetted criterion very well.
Summary
O f the three Mirror-Hungry subscales, M-1 is adequately homogeneous, whereas M-
2 and M-3 require further refinement. 1-2 is a very homogeneous subscale, 1-3 is much like
M-2 and M-3 in that it is "borderline," and 1 - 1 clearly needs work with a mean inter-item
correlation of . l I . '1'-l and '['-?I arc very homogeneous, whereas '1'-2 is suboptimal. 'l'hcsc
conclusions essentially replicate the findings from the inter-item correlation matrix.
IV. Corirent Validity: Principal Components Analysis
I'reliminary tests were employed to determine whether this type of analysis would
be suitable. Results from Hartlett's test of sphericity prodilced a large test statistic value
and snlall significance level (591.70, p= .000), which suggested that i t is unlikely that the
population correlation matrix is an identity matrix (wherein all the diagonals are 1 and all
the off diagonals are 0), and that a factor model is appropriate (Norusis, 1990). Secondly,
examination of the anti-image correlation matrix did not reveal a high proportion of largc
correlations, which suggested that partial correlations between unique factors would be
close to zero, again recommending the factor model (Norusis, 1990). Lastly, the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was employed to compare the observcd with
the partial correlation coefficients. If the KMO index is small, it indicates that
correlations between pairs of variables cannot be explained by other variables, and a factor
analysis would not be advisable. The figure produced by this test was .55. Kaiser (1974)
suggests that correlations in the .50 range are very poor. However, given the evidence from
the first two indices, I decided to proceed.
'I'he SI'SS Factor program (SPSS, 1990) was performed using the reduced 27-
item scale, specifying 3, 4, and 5 factors. Scree test results suggested that either a two or
five factor model would be appropriate (given that it portrayed the first two factors as
very distinct, followed by a tight cluster of three factors, followed by the "scree.")
Examination of the factor pattern matrices revealed that the factor model that provided
the best depiction of the data was the four-factor solution with oblique rotation (See Table
10). Factors 1 and 3 were plotted to provide the most interpretable picture (See Figure 1) .
'I'hc four-factor solution with oblique rotation produced two clear factors (which
account for 13.1%0 and 8.5'Vo of the variance, respectively) and two mixed factor, (each of
which account for approximately 8% of the variance). See l'able 9 below for these
sratisrics
I'rincipal Componenrs Analysis Final Statistics --
Factor Eigenvalue (Yo Var. Cum. 'Yo
The first factor consists mainly of ?'-scale items: T l a , '1.1 b, T l d , T3b , T3c, '1'3f,
and to a minor degree, 12d and I2e. The second factor is primarily composed of M-scale
items: M l c , M l d , Mle , M2a, M2d, M2e, M3b, I32d, and to a lesser extent, M3d. M3a
loads negatively on factor one. The third and fourth factors appear to consist of mainly I -
scale items. Factor three is made up of the I2a, I2d, I2e, I l c , as well as T3b. It should be
noted that the entire T-2 subscale loads negatively and to a substantial degree, on the third
factor. Factor four consists of I le, I3a, I3b, I3e, M3a, T2b, T2e, and T3c.
The structure -of the plotted factors (see Figure One) was somewhat different
(horizontal axidfactor one, vertical axis/ factor three), with factors one and two forming a
central cluster, and the 1-2 and T-2 subscales forming two separate 'polar' clusters. Within
the central clusters, three sub-groupings formed: a.) T3b with T3c, b.) T l a , TI b, T l d , and
T3f, and c.) and the largest portion, which consists of M l d , Mle , M2a, M2d, M2e, M3a,
M3b, M3d, I1 b, I lc , I le , I3a, I3c, and I3e.
.l'he factor loadings depict two coherent factors, the first being ;l 'l'winship factor
(without the '1'-2 subscale which appears to he split between the second and fourth Factors),
and the second a Mirror factor. 'I'he third factor is primarily reprcsentcd by the 1-2 scale,
whereas the fourth is split between the 1-3 scale and a mix of other items (1-1 seems to be
associated with factor two).
These results essentially follow the same structure that was first encountered in the
subscale-by-subscale correlation discussion: '1'- 1 and '1-3 and 1-2 display some
interrelationship (factor one), as do M-1 with M-2 (factor two), 1-3 with 'I*-2(factor four),
and 1-2, which was found to be one of the most homogeneous subscales, forms its own
factor (factor three) Because 7'-2 and 1-2 are negatively correlated, they maintain an
antipodal relationship. Although these patterns of correlations do form a rough sketch of
the factor structure just discussed, the four factors do only account for a third of the total
variance, and because the factor structure is only partially analogous to the content structure
of the theory, many questions remain as to the reasons for the patterns that emerged in this
analysis.
As a footnote to this discussion, and something of an illustration of the crossover
between the I and 'I' subscales, it is worth mentioning that a multidimensional scaling
analysis was performed using the subscales rather than the items as variables. 'The results
clearly showed how the M-scales formed a complete cluster, as did the I and T subscales.
However, the 1-2 subscale, rather than displaying proximity to the other I-scales, was
transposed amidst theT-scales between T-1 and T-3. In a sense, what occurred was that the
Ideal-hungry disappointment clause had located itself next to the Twinship-hungry
disappointment clause. This matter will be taken up in the discussion section.
'l'ablc 1 0
Factor I.oadinqs for Four-Factor Obliauc Solution
Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
'1'3 f
' I ' I d
'I. 1 b
'1'1 a
'1'3 b
'I'3c
M3b
M l d
M l c
M l c
M2d
M2a
M2e
M3d
I l e -.00 .29 .02 .60
13b -.09 . l l .2 1 .57
13 a .14 - .I3 -.I4 .50
I3e -.03 .18 .13 .50
M3a -.23 .20 .O 1 .37
I l b - .I9 .20 .12 -.25
I I T
1 I 1 I I 2 d I 2 e
1251 ! 1 ? I
I l c 13b I
I3e1
I l b M2d M3a I l e M2a - - - - - + - - - - - ,
Mld M3b Mle ! M2e
! 13a M3d
1 T2e 1
T2b1 I T2d I ? I 1 I ! ! I
Figure One: Factor plot, test items. Horizontal factor 1, vertical factor 3.
V. (:onvcrrynt and I>iscrirninanr Validity Kcsults: Scnte~ice ( :oni~let ion a n d
Personality Research Form Subscales
Mirror-Hunpry Subscale
As described earlier, the Mirror-Hungry type is regarded as having two
manifestations - those subjects who endorse all three criteria (M+), and those who endorse
only the first two (M-). For the purpose of assembling that group of subjects in the latter
category, it was necessary to define "endorse," and so it was decided that a total subscale
score that exceeded one standard deviation above the sample mean would be considered
sufficiently elevated for this purpose. Therefore, the group of subjects who would comprise
that group that "endorsed" the first two criteria would have to score in cxcess of 7.4 on the
M-1 and M-2 subscales and have a score of 3 on the M-3 subscale (in effect indicating no
endorsement at all). Unfortunately, only two subjects out of a total of 107 met these
criteria - hardly enough upon which to base an analysis. T o conclude, although i t was
planned to do two levels of analysis with the Mirror-Hungry subscale, there were not
sufficient subjects to form the M(-) category.
Correlations were calculated at the .05 level, one-tailed, with column-wise
protection of alpha such that critical p levels must be less than or equal to .0062 (refer to
Table 1 1 for specific values). I t was predicted that the Mirror-Hungry subscale would
correlate positively with the following P.R.F. subscales: Exhibitionism, Defendencc,
I>esireability, Social Recognition, and Succorance. T h e results are as follows: The Mirror-
Hungry subscale did correlate positively and significantly with the Exhibitionism (.42),
Ikfendence (.28), and Social Recognition subscales (.36). It also correlated positively
with the Ilesireability and Succorance subscales, but not to a significant degree.
2. Ideal-Hungry Subscale
Correlations were calculated at the .05 level, one-tailed, with column-wise
protection of alpha such that critical p levels must be less than or equal to .0083 (refer to
'l'able 1 1 for specific values). I t was predicted that the Ideal-Hungry subscale would
correlate positively with the following P.K.F. subscales: Abasement, I>efendeticc,
Succorance, and Social Recognition. It was also predicted that the Ideal-Hungry subscale
would correlate negatively with the P.K.F. I)uminance and Autonomy subscales. 'l'he
rcsults are as follows: The Ideal-Hungry subscale correlated positively and significantly
with the Lkfendence subscale (.33) but no others. No significant negative correlatiorls
appeared.
3. T w i n s h i ~ - H u n ~ r y Subscale
Correlations were calculated at the .05 level, one-tailed, with column-wise
protection of alpha such that critical p levels must be less than or equal to .0125 (refer to
l'able 1 1 for specific values). It was predicted that the Twinship-Hungry subscale would
correlate positively with Defendence and Succorance, and negatively with Autonomy and
Change. The results are as follows: The Twinship-Hungry subscale did correlate positively
and significantly with the Succorance subscale (r = .37). Although it did correlate
positively with the Defendence subscale, it was not to a significant degree. The Twinship-
Hungry subscale did correlate negatively and significantly with the Autonomy (-.28) and
Change (- .29) subscales.
Corlvcrgent and 1)iscriminant Validity liesults: Sentence Com~lct ion and I'ersonalitr
Research Form Subscales
P.K.F. Subscale s.<::r. Subscale
EX l k I)Y Su S r
M .4243 .2783 .0277 .I749 .3633
p= .000 p= .002 p= 3 8 9 p= .036 p= .000
p crit. I .0063, 1-tailed
I -.I125 .33 19 .O 139 .0403 -.0126 .I747
p= .I24 p= .000 p= .444 p= .340 p= .449 p= .036
p crit 5 .0083, 1 -tailed
'I- -.2806 -.29 17 .I367 .3729
p= .002 p= .001 p= .080 p= .000
p crit. 1.0 125, 1-tailed
Note: M = Mirror-Hungry, I = Ideal-Hungry, T = Twinship-Hungry, Ex = PRF Exhibitionism, L>e = I'KF Ikfendence, Dy = PRF Desireability, Su = PRF Succorance, Sr = PKF Social Kecognition, Ab = I'KF Abasement, Au = PRF Autonomy, Do = PRF Dominance, Ch = I'RF Change.
VI . Iliffcrential Validity: (:orrelation with the 1)csirability Subscalc
As a means of screening for items that elicit socially desireable responses during
the pilot study phase, great care was taken to modify certain stems that did elicit socially
desireable or defensive response styles. 'I'he second stage in that process involves examining
the correlations between the sentence completion test items and the P.1i.t;. 1)esircability
subscale, which was designed to screen out respondents who might report in a socially
desireable and hence invalid manner. Table 12 lists these figures. We can easily see that the
M-1 items and T2d both display positive, although not large or significant correlations
with the Desireability subscale. The correlation between M-1 and the I)y subscale does not
pose a problem, as these items were written to elicit a need for social desireability (to be
the center of attention). As for 'T2d (the "do you console your fricnd when heishe feels
sorrow" stem), the situation described by the stem does tend to elicit socially acceptable
responses, but the observed correlation is not large enough, even in terms of absolute value,
to be of concern.
VII . Differential Validity: Correlation Between Items and Relevant/Irrelevant P.R.F.
Subscales
The next step involves a similar process as was undertaken in the convergent and
discriminant validity section, only here we calculate the mean correlation between each
item and combinations of relevant and irrelevant P.R.F. subscales. For the Mirror subscale
the relevant scales are Exhibitionism and Social Recognition, whereas the irrelevant scales
are Change and Cognitive Structure. For the Ideal subscale, the relevant scales are
Defendence and Social Recognition, and the irrelevant scales are Affiliation and Play. The
relevant scales for Twinship are Autonomy and Change (here we look for a negative
relationship), and the irrelevant scales are Exhibitionism and Play (where we expect no
relationship or a negative correlation of considerably smaller magnitude that1 with Au arid
(:h.). See Table 13 for these figures.
'l'he results of this analysis are somewhat disappointing. All of the M-1, '1'-I, '1.-2,
and '1'-3 items display the expected relationships with the relevant and irrelevant scales.
M-2 in general does not display the expected relationship to the relevant or irrelevant
scales. M3a shows an equalcorrelation with each category, whereas the other M-3 items
display the expected direction but not enough magnitude. 1-1 is acceptable in terms of
direction but not magnitude, 12e is equal whereas the other 1-2 items are acceptable, and I-
3 acceptable, with the exception of I2e. Apart from the M-1 and 'I' subscales, this means of
comparison did not work out as expected. Two reasons are suggested: 1 .) Because each
major subscale can be broken down into three sub-constructs, each of the nine subscales
should be correlated with its own set of relevant/irrelevant scales, which 2.) the I'RF does
not provide.
VIII . Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results: Sentence C o m ~ l e t i o n Subscales
and Self-Rating Scales
I t was predicted that each of the sentence completion subscales would correlate
positively with its face-valid self-rating counterpart. Correlations were calculated at the
.05 level, one-tailed, with column-wise protection of alpha such that critical p levels must
be less than or equal to .0 17 (refer to Table 14 for specific values).
The results are as follows: The Mirror-Hungry subscale correlated positively and
significantly (r = .26) with the Mirror-Hungry rating scale. The Ideal-Hungry subscale
correlated positively and significantly with the Ideal-Hungry (r = .27) and and less so with
the'l-winship-Hungry (r = .23) rating scale. The Twinship-Hungry subscale correlated
positively and significantly with the Twinship rating scale (r = .23), and to a lesser though
significant degree with the Ideal-Hungry rating scale (r = .23). Correlations therefore
appeared as predicted, in addition to a positve correlation bctwecn the 'l'winship and
Idealizing domains, which can be accounted for by the intercorrelation bctwecn the I and
' I ' composite subscalcs. What is noteworthy is that this is the third time this Idealizing-
'l'winship relationship has appeared: I t was first evident in the subscale-by-subscale
correlations, i t also appeared in the factor analysis, and now it has shown up iu the
comparison between the sentence completion test and an external criterion (the Self-Rating
scales).
Table 12
Differential Validity: Correlation with the I>esireability Subscale
1 tcm r Item r Item r
- -- --
M 1 c .18 I l b -.I1 'I' 1 a -.20
~ l d .17 I ~ C -.o3 - r ~ b -.lo
M l e . I 1 I l e -.05 '1 1 d - . lo
'l'ablc 13
1)iffcrential Validity Mean Correlations Hetween Items and Relevant/lrrclcvant I'.lLt;. Subscales
Mean Rcl. Mean Irrcl. --
lM 1 c
M 1 d
M l e
M2a
M2d
M 2c
M3a
M3b
M3d
I l b
I l c
I l e
I2 a
I2 d
12e
13a
13b
I3e
'1' 1 a
'I. 1 b
'I. 1 d
' r2 b
'I'2d
' r2e
-1'3 b
'1-3c
'r 3 f
Note: Mean Kel. = Mean of correlation between the item and relevant scales. Mean Irrel. = Mean of correlations between the item and irrelevant scales.
'l'ablc 14
(:onvcr!rcnt and 1)iscriminant Validity Kesults: Sentence C o n ~ ~ l e t i o n Subscalcs and S&
Ratinfr Scalcs
Sel (-Rating Scalcs
s (:'I. Subscale S RM SKI S R'I'
.2624 .0340 .I852
p= .003 p= 3 6 4 p= .028
p crit. 5.017, I -tailed
1 273 .2693 .2257
p= .096 p= .003 p= .010
p crit. 5.017, 1-tailed
'I' .02 1 8 .2303 .2305
p= .412 p= .009 p= .008
p crit. 5.017, 1-tailed
p 5 . 0 5
Note: M = Mirror-Hungry, I = Ideal-Hungry, T = Twinship-Hungry, SRM = Self-
KatingIMirroring, SRI = Self-Kating/Idealizing, SKT = Self-Rating/Twinship.
IX. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Kcsults: Sclf-Ihtinrr Scales and I1.li.tE.
Subscales
I t scerncd logical that the Self-Rating scales would have the same relationship to
the cxtcrnal criteria (the I1.K.F. subscales) as the sentcnce completion test. 'l'he short answer
to this question is that this is not the case (see Table 15). Although many of the correlations
occurred in the predicted direction, none achieved significance at the .05 level.
However, in terms of the absolute value of the correlations, some interesting patterns do
emerge. For instance, the Mirror Self-Kating scale correlates positively with the
Defendence and Social Recognition subscales, but not Exhibitionism. Nothing of note
emerges between the Ideal Self-Kating scale and the P.R.F. subscales, but the 'Twinship
Self-Kating scale correlates positively with Defendence but not the other scales - almost
the inverse of the correlation pattern between the Twinship-Hungry subscale and the P.R.F.
subscales. These relationships are important to the extent that they illustrate some of the
basic differences between the test subscales and rating scales, all of which will be taken up
further in the discussion section.
X. Ex~loration: Correlation Between the Sentence Completion Subscales and the
Remaining P.R.F. Subscales
1 . Mirror-Hungry Scale
The correlations between the M subscale and the remaining P.R.F. subscales proved
to be most surprising. As stated earlier, i t was expected that for those subjects who
endorsed all but the third Mirror-criterion, unlike those who endorsed all three criteria
(the "insecure narcissists"), these "arrogant narcissists" as a group would correlate positively
with P.R.F. Aggression and Dominance, and negatively with Abasement. Although not
statistically significant, the relationship between the Mirror-Hungry subscale and the
Abasement ( - . 19), Aggression (. 1 C)) , and I)oniinancc (. 19) does provc surprising in that it
suggests some of the characteristics that would be present in the "arrogant narcissist"
personality profile, rather than the insecure narcissist portrayed by the Mirror-Hungry
personality description. What this means is that the Mirror-Hungry type as measured by
the sentcncc completion test, may indeed be very similar to the subclinical narcissist
measured by Raskin's Narcissistic I'ersonality Inventory (1984). 'I'hese results are
presented in Table 16.
2. Ideal-Hungry Scale
Again these results never achieve statistical significance (see 'Table 17), but the
interpretation of the absolute values of the correlations provides some wholly unexpected
insights. The Ideal-Hungry subscale displays a positive, nonsignificant correlation with the
Aggression subscale (.21), as well as negative, nonsignificant correlations with the
Endurance (-.23), Order (-.23), and Nurturance(-.25) subscales. In short, a profile that
suggests emotional lability with respect to anger, difficulty concentrating, and
egocentricity -- an almost stereotypical "narcissisitic" profile.
3. 'I'winship-Hungry Subscale
One of the correlations (see Table 17) between the 'I'winship-Hungry subscale and
the remaining P.K.F. subscales achieved statistical significance (Social Recognition,
r=.26). O f the remaining scales three stood out: Understanding (-.31, signif.), Desireablity
(.I!), nonsig.), and Endurance (-.23, nonsig.). These suggest a need for social recognition
and a tendency toward concrete rather than abstract modes of thought.
'l'able 15
(:onver~ent and 1)iscriminant Validity Kesults: Self-Katinq Scales and !'.K.F. Subscales
P.K.F. Subscale Rating -
Scale Ex I>e L)Y S u S r
SKM .0623 .2390 -A1449 .0287 .236 1
p= .262 p= .007 p= .323 p= .385 p= .007
p crit. 5 .0063, 1 -tailed
SKI -.0875 .I481 -. 1548 .0850 .I444 .I235
p= .I85 p= .064 p= .056 p= .I92 p= .069 p= .lo3
p crit. 1.0083, 1 -tailed
S K T -.0346 .04 19 .2 129 -.O 140
p= .362 p= .334 p= .014 p= .443
p crit. 5 . 0 125, 1 -tailed
Note: SRM = Self-KatingIMirroring, SKI = Self-RatingIIdealizing, SR?' = Sclf- RatingITwinship, Ex = PRF Exhibitionism, De = I'RF Defendence, I)y = I'RF Desireability, Su = PRF Succorance, Sr = 1'RF Social Recognition, Ab = PRF Abasement, Au = PRF Autonomy, D o = PRF Dominance, C h = PRF Change.
'l.able 16
(:orrelations Iktween the M Subscalc and Remaining P.K.F. Subscales
l'.Ii.F. Subscales
I'=.100 1'=.276 1'=.181 1'=.082 p crit 5 .0O3l, one-tailed.
Note: Ab = Abasement, Ac = Achievement, Ag = Agression, Au = Autonomy, C h =
Change, Cs = Cognitive Structure, Do = Dominance, En = Endurance, H a = Harmavoidance, Im = Impulsivity, Nu = Nurturance, Od = Order, PI = Play, Se =
Sentience, Un = Understanding.
'l'able 17
(:orrelations Between the I Subscale and Remaining P.K.F. Subscales
P.R.F. Subscales
1'= .005 1'= .009 P= .028 P= .263 1'= .429 p crit 5 .(I03 1, one-tailed.
Note: Ac = Achievement, Ag = Agression, Ex = Exhibitionism, Dy = Desireability, Ch =
Change, Cs = Cognitive Structure, Do = Ilominancc, En = Endurance, Ha =
Harmavoidance, Im = Impulsivity, Nu = Nurturance, O d = Order, PI = Play, Se =
Sentience, Un = Understanding.
'l'ahlc 1 X
(:orrclations ISetween the 'I' Subscale and Kemaining 1I.K.F. Subscales
'I ' -.04 -. 16 .03 -.3 1 .26
1'= .326 1'= .051 I'= .377 l'= .001 I'= .003 p crit 5 .0O3 1, one-tailed.
Note: Ab = Abasement, Ac = Achievement, Af = Affiliation, Ag = Agression, Dy =
Ihireability, Cs = Cognitive Structure, Do = Dominance, En = Endurance, Ha =
Harmavoidance, Im = Impulsivity, Nu = Nurturance, O d = Order, PI = Play, Se =
Sentience, Un = Understanding, Sr = Social Kecognition.
X I . Inter-Kater Reliability 'Uhe Scoring Manual
Kappa (Cohen, 1960) was chosen as the measure of inter-rarer reliability as i t
corrects for chance agreement between raters, and is appropriate for use with categorical
variables (Rartko, 1991). Ixvel of agreement was determined for each separate item, and
aggregated for each of the nine separate criteria, the three personalities, and the manual as a
whole, although for the purposes of this research it is the nine criteria that are important.
Results are presented in tables 19, 20, 2 1, and 22. Overall, the level of agreenient is
moderate to high with a full scale kappa of .66, the lowest being '1'3 at .59, and the highest
being '1.1 at .71 (Fleiss, 1987), with only one exception, that being item 'I'3d in the '1'-3
subscale, with a kappa of .30 ( p 5.001). In this instance the low figure can be accounted for
by the fact that the second rater gave no scores in the three range.
'l'able 19
In~cr-Rater A!;reement: M i r r o r - H u n y Scale
I tern --
Percentage I'earson r kappa
M l a
M l b
M 1 c
M 1 d
M l e
M2a
M2b
M2c
M2d
M 2e
M3a
M3b
M3c
M3d
Subscale Mean 76.07 .78 .67
'l'ablc 20
Inter-Rater Agreement: Ideal -Hun~rv Subscale
I'ercen tagc I'earsori r kappa ----
I l a
I l b
I l c
I1 d
l l e
12a
12b
I2c
I2d
12e
I3 a
I3 b
I3c
I3 d
I3c
Subscale Mean 79.93
'l.ablc 2 1
Intcr-Katcr Avrccmcnt: 'I'winship-Hungry Subscale
I'crccn tagc Pearson r kappa
Subscale Mean 83.17
I nrcr-Kater Agreement: Scale 'I'otals --
Subscale Mcan Kappa
I'ersonality Subscale Mean Kappa
M irror-Hungry
I deal-Hungry
Twinship Hungry
Full Scale Meail Kappa: .66
Apart from a brief structural evaluatiotl/sumn~ary of the composite subscales, this
discussiun will focus on the personality profiles that emerged as the result of comparisons
between the sentence completion test and the P.K.F. subscales. It will conclude with future
direction for research.
From a psychometric standpoint, the M composite subscale has a reasonably
cohesive structure. M-1 is quite homogeneous and represents a single dimension which
correlates positively but not significantly with the other M subscales. M-2 has suboptimal
homogeneity, but it does appear to represent a single dimension which correlates
positively and significantly with M-3 and T-1 (see below). M-3 also displays marginal
homogeneity, and in the process of item selection was reduced to a cluster that measures
the "A" criterion (that one feels bad in the absence of positive feedback, rather than the "B"
criterion which states that even though one needs compliments, the good feeling does not
last long.). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the second of four principal
components is primarily composed of all of the M-items (except for M3a, which loaded
on the fourth factor) and T2d. Multidimensional scaling produced a similar cluster. Based
on these cumulative results, i t appears that the M subscales not only represent three separate
aspects, but also a reasonably interrelated structure/construct in the form of the composite
subscale.
'I'he theoretical implications of these results are that the three components of the
personality type (as laid out in the personality profiles) do indeed belong together. As for
the positive correlation between M-3 and 'l'-1, there is also a theoretical precedent from
the standpoint of the evolution of Self Psychology theory. For many years, Kohut assumed
that twinshiplalter-ego needs were but a subset of mirror needs, and i t was only larcr that
hc saw them as distinct needs. 'l'his intercorrelation of subscales suggests that there may bc
a connection between the two need areas. If we arc to follow this line of thought, the
connection between the two need areas may have its juncture at the labile self-esteem aspect
of the Mirror-Hungry pattern and the need for similarity in the 'I'winship domain. Whether
this has more to do with the nature of the stems or the theory itself, remains to be seen in
future research.
'Through comparisons with external criteria, the Mirror-Hungry personality took
shape in an unexpected manner. As predicted, the M composite subscale did correlate
positively and significantly as predicted with PKF Exhibitionism, Ilefendence, and Social
Recognition, but not with Succorance. This made sense from both an intuitive and
theoretical standpoint. Someone who is mirror-hungry will most likely be somewhat
exhibitionistic and seek social recognition, and because of their narcissistic vulnerability,
will be sensitive to criticism. 'I'he fact that the M subscale did not correlate to any
significant degree with Succorance foreshadowed the results that emerged from the
exploratory aspect of the study: The M subscale correlated positively but not significantly
with I'RF Dominance, Aggression, and negatively with Abasement. Although these results
were non significant, in terms of absolute values, the profile that emerged was that of the
M(-) category, the same variety of arrogantinon-insecure narcissist described by the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory. There are two possibilities here: Either the Mirror-
Hungry personality type is identical to the NPI-type of narcissist, or the stems that were
retained failed to evoke material beyond the superficial layers of personality. For future
research, inclusion of the more projective "floater" stems ("I have daydreamed that I...")
might help tease out such distinctions.
'I'he M composite subscale correlated as ~ red ic ted with the Mirror-Hungry Self-
Rating scale. However, the Self-Rating scale did not exhibit the same relationship to the
PKF subscales as the SCT subscale. There may be a simple reason for this: The sentence
completion tcst is designed to gather a wide range of responses that call hc sortcci into
catcgories. Therefore, the Mirror-Hungry personality as measured by the tcst has a wide
range of manifestation. 'l'hc Self-Rating scale description of the Mirror-Hungry
personality is only a snapshot of one of many possible representations, so i t could not have
the same relationship to the 1'KF as the test.
Ideal-Hungry Personality
The I composite subscale suffered from the most psychometric deficiencies. The
1-1 subscale displayed the lowest index of homogeneity, and given that it measures the
fundamental idealizing need ("seeks others to admire..."), this is a problem that must be
addressed through substantial revision of the 1-1 subscale stems. It was also the first
indication that to have a person admit to idealizing needs requires expression of feelings
that are either not socially acceptable, or perhaps just not very common. In support of the
latter argument, the negatively-skewed I-distribution suggests that even moderately high-
level responses to I-steins were infrequent. Whether this is a stem-problem (that is, the
stems pull for extreme/uncommon sentiments), sampling artifact (so that future samples
should include subjects who are highly likely to have strong idealizing needs), or a
replicable finding remains to be seen. 1-2 proved to be very homogeneous, and because the
retained stems describe the disappointment clause, it bodes well for the unity of the Ideal-
hungry construct. 1-3 displayed borderline homogeneity, and will require little adjustment
to make it acceptable.
None of the I subscales correlated significantly with the other subscales, but one
nonsignitkant relationship did stand out: 1-2 correlated positively with T-1 and '1.-3, and
negatively with T-2. This pattern was replicated by the exploratory factor analysis, where
factor one consisted of T-1, T-3, and to a minor extent, 1-2. In general, the factor analysis
represented the I-subscale as fragmented: 1-1 is scattered across factors 2 , 3, and 4, 1-2
loading heavily on factor three (partially in factor one), and 1-3 on factor four. 'l'hc
correlation bctwccr~ 1-2 and '1.-l/T-3 was also replicated by the mi~ltidimer~sional scaling
analysis, but in a graphic manner in which 1-1 and 1-3 group together, whereas 1-2 is
transposed into the middle of the '1'-cluster, between '1'-1 and 'I'-3. 'I'his relationship
appeared yct again in the correlation between the I composite subscale and its Self-rating
counterpart. The 1 subscale correlated positively with the Ideal Self-Rating scale andtht.
'I'winship Self-Kating scale. 'I'his may have theoretical implications. Either i t means that
the I composite subscale (and therefore the Ideal-Hungry personality) does not form a
natural factor, or that there is some relationship between the Ideal-Hungry disappointment
clause and those aspects of the Twinship-Hungry personality having to do with the need for
identity in relationships and the tendency to reject when one realizes that such identity is
impossible. Earlier, I stated that one of the ways that the Mirror need differs from the
Ideal and 'Twinship needs is that for the Mirror-Hungry person, the difficulty lies in the
inability to assimilate the externally-supplied narcissistic supplies, whereas for the Ideal-
or Twinship-Hungry person, the flaw is externalized. What we have here is an example of
the Ideal-tendency to externalize flaws transposed onto the Twinship-tendency to
externalize flaws. There is therefore a certain conceptual logic to the grouping.
As with the M composite subscale, comparisons with the PRF subscales produced
some interesting results. In the hypothesized relationships, the only one that was confirmed
was the positive correlation between Idealizing and PRF Defendence, which again
substantiates Kohut's claim that manifestation of the need as a persistent behavior pattern is
accompanied by a vulnerability to criticism. However, in the exploratory analysis, some
nonsignificant correlations suggested an unexpected profile. The I subscale correlated
positively with Aggression, and negatively with Endurance, Order, and Nurturance. This
. . raises a rather profound question. I o be Ideal-hungry means that one has some sort of
disturbance in the Ideals sector of the self-structure, which would in turn suggest an atrophy
of one's sense of goals in life and ability to channel one's energies in a goal-related manner
(the parallel structures for Mirroring are ambitions, energy, and self-csrcc~n). . l l ~ c
correlations betwceri the i subscale and the I'KF suggest an inability to stick to goalsllack
of concentration (negative correlation with Endurance), ambient anger (Aggression),
unfocused-ncss and disorganization (negative correlation with Order), and egocentricity
(negative correlation with Nurturance). In summary, despite psychometric tlaws, the I
composite subscale may well be measuring disturbances in the Ideals sector of the self, and
if so, i t is operating in accordance with principles firmly anchored in Self-I'sychology
theory.
Twinshi~-Hunprv I'ersonality
Because of the marked negative skew of the T-distribution, it may be - as i t was
suggested earlier, that the 'I'winship-Hungry behaviors occur less frequently - at least in
their extreme form. Structurally, the T composite subscale is the most psychometrically
robust of the three major subscales. T-1 is very homogeneous, '1'-2 needs to be refined
somewhat, and T-3 is also very homogeneous. What this means is that the two main
'I'winship components (need for similarity and rejection upon discovery of lack of
similarity) are unitary dimensions, which are also highly correlated whereas T-2 hardly
correlates at all with T-1 or 'r-2. So strong is this interrelationship that T-1 and T - 3 make
up the first principal component in the principal components analysis results, and T-2 is
split between the second and fourth factors. These results suggest that whatever T-2
measures (emotional symbiosis), it is somehow different from T - l or T-3. There are two
possible explanations for these results. The first is that identical emotions may not be a
necessary condition for Twinship any more than similar hair color. The similarity-factor
in Twinship could take almost any form, and perhaps emotional similarity is just too
specific. The other possible reason is grounded in the conjecture generated by case
histories. I t was described earlier how as the Twinship need becomes more pathological,
the requirement that the other person be a "person" at all becomes irrelevant. If all one
requires from one's partncrltwin is that they bc in some way superficially identical, then
emotional symbiosis becomes undesirable. (;iven that most of the '1.winship scores
occurred below the midpoint, very few subjects expressed strong 'I'winship needs, so
perhaps this argument does not apply, but it does make some sense (and could be tested
with an analysis of variance, lowlhigh 1'-11'1'-3 by *I--2).
Correlatiotis between the '1' subscale and I'KF subscales provided fewer surprises
but were no less interesting. Twinship did not correlate significantly with Ikfendence as
predicted, but did show a significant relationship with Succorance, Autonomy (a negative
correlation), and Change (negatively). This supported the hypothesis that someone who is
Twinship-Hungry would have a strong need for the support of their partner (Succorance), be
somewhat dependent (negative correlation with Autonomy), and dislike novelty. In the
exploratory portion of the analysis, a significant positive correlation with Social
Kecognition emerged, which again evokes Kohut's original merging of the Mirror and
'Fwinship needs. Some interesting negative relationships also emerged between Twinship
and Understanding and Endurance, which suggests a non-affinity for abstract/intellectual
thought and an inability to stick to goalsllack of concentration, which may describe some
of the crossover between Idealizing and Twinship.
New Directions For Research
The next phase of research will focus on the scoring manual and the scoring system
in general. Loevinger (1 993) refers to the "saving circularity" in which the manual and the
constructs it measures are revised according to the data that emerges from each successive
study. 'Fhe manual employed in this study was constructed from minimal pilot study
data, and so the next step will be to substanially revise the manual based on the data
gathered from the 107 subjects who participated in the current study. 'There are two other
possible scoring revisions. As for thc first, l.ocvingcr ( 1993) assumes that nlost \uhjccth
respond in a dcfcnded manner, and so i t is necessary to apply an 'ogive rule' which states
that those few extreme scores which do occur should be afforded extra wcight. Whether or
not such a scoring rule will be employed in the manual depends on the results of the next
revision. 'l'hc second scoring revision involves the stems. Each stem is desig~led to pull for
a specific content domain, and so in this study it was appropriate to apply the various
standard item-selection procedures. However, in many sentence completion tests
(I3oevinger1s in particular), each response is given a score for whatever content domain i t
evokes. For this type of test, item-selection statistics do not apply because each stem is
designed to elicit responses from several domains. I t may be possible to alter the current
scoring system to fit that model, but to d o so in a step-wise fashion. ' fhe first step would
be to employ a scoring system in which each response would receive a major score (the
same as the current study), and a minor score. 'I'herefore, a response to an M-1 stem would
be scored as usual, and be given an additional score for whichever of the other two
personality types i t evoked. In this way, the total score for a given subject would be
weighted in favor of the personality type that permeated their responses. Last of all, the
item-clusters will be revised so as to build the test up to four items per criterion.
There are several possible research directions. The Mirror-Hungry ~ersonali ty may
be measuring a similar (but not so extreme) construct as Raskin's (1984) Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. You will recall that one of the problems with the NPI was that
although it purports ~o measure subclinical mirror-type narcissism, it displays positive
correlations with several measures of pathological narcissism. Given that the sentence
completion test displayed positive correlations with several I'RF subscales that suggested
a NI'I-type profile (but did so in a nonsignificant manner), it may be that the Mirror-
Hungry construct measured by the sentence completion test is more of a measure of
"normal" mirror-based narcissism than the NPI. 'The next logical step would be to
employ the NI'I as an external criterion with which to compare the sentence c o n ~ ~ l c t i o n
test.
'].he Ideal-Hungry personality portion of the test may be detecting goal-rclated
disturbances in the ideals sector, and so i t may be useful to employ one of the earlier Self-
I'sychology-based measures such as l'atton and Kobbins' Goal Instability scale as an
external criterion. For *17winship, a suitable external criterion may be a measure based in
the social pychology area, one that measures similarity-based attraction. Overall, for the
next study, I will employ a larger and more diverse sample, and as a general external
criterion, peer ratings may prove useful. One other area that I would like to examine in the
next phase of research is sex differences across the three need areas. In particular, I would
speculate that Twinship needs would display marked sex differences in terms of what
might be referred to as the agency/cotnmunion axes and how they are retlected in styles of
relatedness.
As for its contribution to the field of Self Psychology research, although the
sentence completion test is in its infancy, it holds much promise as a measure of the
narcissistic personality types. In particular, the findings relating to the Twinship-Hungry
personality represent an entirely new contribution to the field. Apart from its research uses,
this test may also have some utility in the field of applied Self Psychology. Psychotherapy
research and practice rarely overlap, and the sentence completion test might be used in both
areas. Self I'sychology oriented psychotherapy views the therapeutic process as a means by
which the client can fully express unfulfilled narcissistic needs in an environment that
allows for a restructuring of the self to occur. In order for this to take place, the therapist
must be able to tolerate the client's expression of those needs. In certain situations, the
therapist, for countertransferential reasons, might not able to do that. For example, if we
have a situation with a mirror-hungry client and a mirror-hungry therapist who compete for
the same narcissistic supplies, or perhaps an intensely ideal-hungry client and a self-
deprecating therapist who deflected all adulation. What I propose here is that the test
could be used as a means of matching clients and therapists for the purpose of ~n i t i i t n i~ ing
countcrtransferencc difficulties, alerting therapists to potential areas of countertransference,
maximizing the client-therapist rapport, and perhaps therapy outcome. I.ast of all, as an
alternative to the use of peer ratings as an external criterion, one might administer the test
to clients in the university clinic, and as a parallel measure, have therapists co~ripletc a
narcissistic personality rating scale on their clients.
American Psychiatric Association. ( 1 980). 1)iagnostic and statistical nlanual of
mental disorders, third edition. Washington L)C: American Psychiatric Association.
Ashby, H.U., lxc, K.K., & Duke, E.H. (1970, September). A ~larcissistic
personality disorder MMI'I scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the Anierican
Psychological Association, New York.
Auerbach, J.S. (1985). Validation of two scales for narcissistic personality
disorder. Journal of Personality Assessmeny,4X, 649-653.
Bartko, J.J. (1991). Measurement and reliability: Statistical thinking
considerations. Schizo~hrenia Bulletin, 17(3), 483-489.
Bradlee, P.M., & Emmons, R.A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the
interpersonal circumplex and the five-factor model. I'ersonality- and Individual
C)ifferences,13(7), 821 -830.
Cohen, J . (1 960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement. 20(1), 37-46.
Detrick, I1.W. (1985). Alterego phenomena and the alterego transferences. In A.
Goldberg (Ed.), Progress in self psychology: vol. 1. (pp. 240-256). New York: Guilford
Press.
Detrick, L1.W. (1986). Alterego phenomena and the alterego transferences: Some
further considerations. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Propress in self ~svcho lo y: vol. 2. (pp. 299-
304). New York: Guilford I'rcss.
Eagle, M N.(1984) Psychoanalysis and modern psychoanalytic theories. In, N.S.
Endler & J. McVicker Hunt (Eds.), Personality and behavioral disorders. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 73- 1 12.
Elson, M. (Ed.). The Kohut seminars on self psycholog and psychotherapy with
adolesccnts and y-ounv adults. New York: Norton.
F,mmons, K A . (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the N;u-cissistic
I'ersonality Inventory. b u r n a l of Personality Assessment,48(3), 291 -300.
Emmons, K.A. (1987). Narcissism: 'l'heory and Measurement. Jour~ial of
I'ersonality and Social P s y c h o l o ~ y , ~ ( I ) , 1 1-1 7.
F,xner, J.E. (1969). Korschach responses as an index of narcissism. J w r ~ i a l of
Projective ' l ' e c h n i u u e s , ~ 324-330.
Exner, J.E. (1 973). 'l'he self-focus sentence completion: A study of egocentricity.
Journal of I'ersonality Ascsessment.37. 437-455.
Freud, S. (1959). O n narcissism: an introduction. Sigmund Freud: Collected
Papers. Vol. 4 . (Joan Riviere, Trans), New York: Rasic Rooks, pp. 30-59.
Goldstein, W.N.(1985). DSM 111 and the narcissistic personality. American
Journal of I'sychotherapy, 34(1), 4- 16.
Graham, J.R. (1990). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New
York: Oxford University I'ress.
Greenberg, J.K. & Mitchell, S.A.(1983) Object relations in ~sychoanalytic theory.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hamilton, N.G. (1989). A critical review of object relations theory. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1552-1 559.
Harder, D.W. (1 979). 'I'he assessment of ambitious-narcissistic character style with
three projective tests: The Early Memories, 'l'.A.'I'., and Korschach. Journal of I'ersonality
Assessment,& 23-33.
Jackson, D.N. (1987). I'ersonality Research Form Manual. Port Huron, MI:
Research I'sychologists Press.
Kainer, R. G. K. (1990). The precursor as mentor, the therapist as muse: Creativity
and selfobject phenomena. In A Goldberg (Ed.), The realities of transference: Prot~ress in
self psycholo~y, Vol. 6. (pp. 175-1 88). Hillsdale: 'The Analytic I'ress.
Kaiser, H.F. ( 1974). An index of factorial simplicity. I'sychotnetrik;l, 39, 3 1 -.36.
Kohut, H. & Wolf, E.S. (1978). '1-he disorders of the self and their treatment: An
outline. International lournal of I'sychoanal~sis,5'), 41 3.
Kohut, H. (1971). 'I'he analysis of the self. New York: International Universities
I'ress Inc.
--- ----- (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities
I'ress Inc.
- - - - - - - ( 1 984). How docs analysis cure?. Chicago: University of Chicago I'ress.
- - - - - - - (1985) Self psychology and the humanities: Reflections on a rew
psychoanalytic auuroach. New York: Norton.
Lasch, C. (1978). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing
ex~ectations. New York: Norton.
Lapan, K, & Patton, M.J. (1986). Self-psychology and the adolescent process:
Measures of pseudoautonomy and peer-group dependence. Journal of Counselin3
I ' s y c h o l o _ ~ ~ , ~ ( 2 ) , 136- 142.
Loewenstein, S. (1977). An overview of the concept of narcissism. Social
Casework ,3 (3) , 136-1 42.
Loevinger, J , & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development, volume one. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Loevinger, J. (1 993). Measurement of personality: True or false. Ps~cholocjcal
Inquiry. 4(1), 1-16.
Lothstein, L.M. & Ximet, G . (1988). l'winship and alter ego selfobject
transferences in group therapy with the elderly: A reanalysis of the pairing phenomenon.
International Journal of Group I'sychotherapy,-38(3), 303-317.
Miller, A. (1981). The drama of the i f t e d child. (Ruth Ward, Trans.).New York:
Hasic Hooks.
Millon, 'I.. (1982). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Manual, (2nd. cd.)
Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.
Murphy, K.K. , tSc L>avidshofcr, ( 1 . 0 . (1988). I'sychological testing: I'rinciulcs and
applications.. New Jersey: I'rentice Hall.
Muslin, H.1.. (1985). Heinz Kohut: Beyond the pleasure principle, Contributions to
psychoanalysis. In, J. Keppen (Ed.), Beyond Freud: A study of modern psychoanalytic
theorists (pp. 203-230). London: 'l'he Analytic Press.
Ornstein, 1'. (Ed.). (1978a). The search for the self: Selected writings of Heinz
Kohut:1950-1978. (Vol. 1). P.H. Ornstein (Ed.). New York: International Universities
Press, Inc.
------------- . (Ed.). (1978b). The search for the self: Selected wr i t in~s of Heinz
Kohut:1950-1978. (Vol. 2). P.H. Ornstein (Ed.). New York: International Universities
Press, Inc.
------------- . (Ed.). (1991). The search for the self: Selected writings of Heinz
Kohut:1978-1981. (Vol. 4). P.H. Ornstein (Ed.). Madison: International Universities
Press, Inc.
Patton, M.J. (1989). Validity of the superiority and goal instability scales as
measures of defects in the self. Journal of I'ersonalit~ Assessment,i3(1), 122 132.
Patton, M.J., & Robbins, S.R. (1 982). Kohut's self-psychology as a model for
college-student counselling. Professional I ' s ~ c h o l o ~ v , ~ ( ( , ) , 876-888.
Patton, M.J., Connor, G.E. & Scott,K.J. (1982). Kohut's psychology of the self:
Theory and measures of counseling outcome. Journal of Counseling I'sycholo_~~, 29(3), 268-
282.
Phares, 1'. E., & Erskine, N.(1984). The measurement of selfism. Educational and
Ps~cholo~ica l Measurcment,44, 597-608.
I'rifitera, A. & Kyan, J.J. (1 984). Validity of the Narcissistic Personality
i Disorder in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Clinical Psycholo_~v,40, 140-142.
Iiaskin, li. 1)( Hall, C. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. I'sycholor;ical
Iieports, 45. 590.
Kaskin, li. Novacek, J . & Hogan, K . (199la). Narcissism, self-cstccm, and
dcfensive sclf-enhancement. Journal of I'ersonalitv,59(1), 19-37.
Itaskin, K. Novacek, J . 8( Hogan, K. ( I 9 9 l b ) . Narcissistic self-esteem
management. Journal of l'ersonality and Social I'sycholo~y, a((,), 91 1-918.
Kaskin, R. & 'I'erry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic
personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of I'ersonality
and Social psycholocy,3(5) , 890-902.
Itust, J., & (hlombok, S. (1989). Modern I'svchometrics: The Science of
Ps~chonletric Assessment. London: Routledge.
Shane, E., & Shane, M. (1 989). Child analysis and adult analysis. In A. Goldberg
(Ed.), Ilimensions of self experience: Pryress in self psycholo~y, vol. 5. (pp.59-74).
Hillsdale: The Analytic Press.
Shulman, 1l.G. & Ferguson, G.K. (1988). An experimental investigation of
Kernberg's and Kohut's theories of narcissism. Journal of Clinical Psycholo_~y,44(3), 445-
451.
Shulman, I).(;., & McCarthy, E.C. (1988). The projective assessment of
narcissism: Development, reliability and validity of the N-1'. Psychoanalytic Psycholwy,
5(3), 285-297. -
Slyter, S.L. (1990). Kohut's psychology of the self: Measures of healthy and
defensive narcissism (University of Maryland College Park, 1 989/l99O). Dissertation
abstracts international, 5 1, ( 1 -B), p.467
Smith, C.1'. (1992). Reliability issues. In C.1'. Smith (Ed.) Motivation and
persona1ity:Handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Smith, J .M. (1992, November). Address given at Simon Fraser University.
Solomon, K.S. (1982). Validity of the MMI'I Narcissistic I'crso~iality 1)isordcr
Scale. I'sychological Keuorts,5(), 463-469.
Sucdfcld, I)., 'l'etlock, P.E, 1)( Steufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/intt'grativc
complexity. In C.1'. Smith (Ed.) Motivation and personalityHandbook of thematic
content analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University I'ress.
Ulman, K.R., & Paul, H.. (1989). A self-psychological theory and approach to
treating substance abuse disorders: The "intersubjective absorption" hypothesis. In A.
Goldberg (Ed.), I>imcnsions of self experience: l'rogress in self psvcholog~, Vol. 5.
(pp. 12 1-1 42). Hillsdale: The Analytic I'ress.
Urist, J. (1977). The Rorschach test and the assessment of object relations. Journal
of Personality Assessment,4l, 3-9.
von Rroembsen, F. (1 988). The twinship: A paradigm towards separation and
integration. The American lournal of Psychoanaly-sis, 48(4), 355-365.
Wahba, R. (1991). Envy in the transference: A specific selfobject disruption. In A.
Goldberg (Ed.), The evolution of self psy-choloy: I'rogress in self psy-choloy, vol. 7.
Hillsdale: The Analytic Press.
Watson, P.J., Grisham, S.O., 'I'rotter, M.V., & Riderman, M. I). (1984).
Narcissism and empathy: Validity evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality- Assessment,48(3), 30 1-305.
Wolf, E. (1988). treat in^ the self. New York: Guilford Press.
Name: Age: - Sex: ---- MaritalIKclationship Status F,ducation:
Instructions
This "sentence completion form" explores your social style, and the role other people play
in your life. Refore you begin, here are two important things to consider when you
complete each sentence:
1 .) In order to accurately reflect own particular social style, you must base each
response on your own experiences, rather than what you think you might do in a given
situation. For example, an incomplete sentence may pose a hypothetical situation such as:
"If I were at the beach, and someone asked me to watch their belongings for them while
they went swimming, I would ..." If you were to complete this sentence, you would base
your response on an actual experience, or at least one that resembled the situation presented
in the incomplete sentence.
2.) I t is also important that your responses not be too brief. For example, with an
incomplete sentence such as: "At parties where I do not know anyone I ...," if you complete
it as: "At parties where I do not know anyone I ... chat," or, "head straight for the
munchies," it says very little about you as a social being. However, a fuller response says a
lot more about you, such as: "At parties where I do not know anyone I ... usually feel
uncomfortable, but try to make conversation with whoever looks friendly." In other words,
this is not a test. It is a way of communicating a portrait of yourself, and the more you put
into your responses, the more detailed the portrait.
Please turn the page and complete the following sentences.
1 .) [ cannot imagine being friends with someone unless ...
2.) 'lqhe manner in which I greet an old friend is somewhat different from the manner in which I greet a more recently acquired friend. This is so because ...
3.) 1 would rather talk to someone who ...
4.) If I tell a joke at a social gathering, and several people turn to listen ...
5.) It is very important to me that I get to know people who are ...
6.) Having a partner who is very much like mysclf ...
7.) If I have a new hairstyle (or am wearing new clothes), and I bi1mp into someone I haven't seen for a while ...
8.) 'I'ry to bring to mind someone you held in very high esteem, but who you did not know all that well. Over time, as you got to know himiher better ...
9.) If I spend the day with my closest friend, and hislher mood changes suddenly, my own mood ...
10.) Having a partner who is very different from myself ...
1 1 .) If I had to work in a demanding job in which I would receive little or n o f e c d h ; ~ k from 111y boss or co-workers as to whether 1 was doing i t well ...
12.) If a person I admire rejects me ...
13.) If I arrive at the realization that someone who I consider to be a close friend is very different from me ...
14.) If a friend experiences intense sadness, we usually make an effort to console them, because that is what we are supposed to do in that situation: Therefore if someone cries, the "script" we follow is to offer some sort of consolation. However, what we do may or may not reflect how we actually feel (real empathy for their feelings, or just plain awkward). The last time a close friend expressed deep sorrow, my feelings zuere.. .
1 5 . ) 'l'hcrc are times my life (in everyone's life for that mattcr) when my cclf-cstccnl takcs a dip. When this happens, I can fecl quite out of sorts. Howevcr, if I associarc with a certain type of person my sensc of vitality is restored. For me that type of person would be ... (please avoid nondescript phrases such as ... "a happy person.")
16.) Some people feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get, whereas others find that the good feeling they get from a compliment seems to evaporate almost as soon as i t started. In my case ...
17.) There are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to do with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my /$e, 1 felt this way because ...
18.) One person stands in the spotlight, while another stands off to one side. If I were in this scene, I zuozdd be ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
('l'he following incomplete scntencc refers to a non-romantic situation.)
19.) 'l.he kind of person who holds a real fascination for me ... (after completing the sentence, please describe why you arc hscinated by this person)
20.) Everyone's feelings are affected by what others neglect to say to us as much as what they do say. In my experience, my feelings are sensitive to the absence of comnlents such as ...
21 .) It is often true that when we first encounter someone who really impresses us, we tend to see only the prominent aspects of their personality, yet after we learn more about them, their entire personality becomes visible to us. You can probably recall such an instance in your own life (it could be someone you know, or a famous face, such as an inspiring political leader or media personage, someone who possesses exceptional ability, wealth, power, beauty, moral stature, intelligence, etc. ). Speaking from my own experience, when Igot to know someone ladmired, my reaction was . . .
22.) If 1 were asked to take part in a play ...
2.3.) Whcn I am with my partncrlbest friend, how I feel depends on what rhcy ...
24.) Think of your best friend. Is it the similarities or differences in your pcrsonalitics that makes you friends? For me, what really makes the friendship "click" ...
25.) If I were to say whether I gain lasting satisfaction from positive feedback or admiration ...
(The following incomplete sentence refers to a non-romantic situation.)
26.) The kind of person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ... (after completing the sentence, please describe how it is that you are drawn to this person.)
27.) Consider these two scenes: In the first one, two friends stand side by side. It is obvious that they are quite different from one another. In the second scene, two other friends stand together, but unlike the first two, they are alike in many ways. [f'l were in the first scene I wouldfeel ... If l were in the second scene I would feel ... (after completing thesc two sentences, please explain your responses.)
28.) Some pcoplc like to be noticed, whereas for others, it's just not ilnportant. As for myself ...
29.) We all have people in our lives who we look up to, people who represent the ideals and goals we dream of attaining ourselves. Often, our association with such people is a personal one, and their very presence is important to us. I f f o r some reason, 1 h a d to part company w i t h srrrh a person, I wozrldfeel ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
30.) If a person I admire acts in a cold or unfriendly manner towards me, I feel ..
3 1 .) 1 have daydreamed that I .. .
i- 32.) When I get excited about something I've done, I expect my friends to ...
3.3.) My sense of well-being increases when 1 associate with a pe rw~i who ..
34.) Some of the people I know are very similar to me, whereas others arc very diffcrerit from me. I feel the most comfortable with ...
35.) The things that I am most affected by when it comes to my partner ...
36.) A person outside of my family whose presence has enhanced my life ... (after completing the sentence, please describe that person)
37.) Some people are very discriminating when it comes to the people they admire; they have high standards, even when it comes to people they view as above all others. If these standards are not met, they would find i t impossible to continue to look up to a person. Some people however, could care less, and are inclined to overlook other people's faults, even those of the people they admire. As for myself.. . (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
38.) For me, thc idea of playing a starring rolc ...
39.) In my close friendships, a difference in outlook or lifestyle ...
40.) I need people to tell me that 1 ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
41 .) There have been times in my adult life when I have admired someone, or cvcn come to the conclusion that a certain person represents one of my ideals. The length of time that / saw this person as being admirable ...
42.) When I share my successes with other people, my secret wish is that they ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
4.3.) If I discover that a friend and I arc very dissimilar ..
44.) M y sense of self-worth can be affcctcd by ... (after completing the sentence, please explain your response)
45.) For some people, their own emotions are quite unaffected by their friends' feelings, whereas for others, they experience their closest friend's feelings as if they were their own. In my case . . .
46.) It sonletimes seems as though I am always searching for a person who ... (after completing the sentence, please describe the person)
47.) When sonleone I look up to displays a character flaw - that is, show that they are not as perfect as I initially imagined ...
48.1 In some friendships, similarity is what makes it work, whereas (or others, oppo\itc\ attract. In order that a friendship be a satisliying one, it is important that the orhcr person be ...
49.) Sometimes, when we have a lot in common with someone, we feel a strong sense of kinship. Such a friendship (one based on similarity between people) can create a special bond. Hut, zf 1 discovered in the course of knowing that person, that we were not as much 'twins'as I thotrght we were ...
SENr1'F,NCE COMI'I ,E'1~lON
S C O K I N ( ; M A N U A I ,
Orientation
'I'he scoring rules for each stem are arranged in the following format:
1 .) The root criterion. This is the anchoring concept for the stem.
A.) 'I'he stem itself, as it appears in the test.
The Basic Ouestion: Describes the question that the stem is meant to ask. Also o~itlines the scoring rationale for each possible score of one, two, or three. Lists problems frequently encountered with scoring responses to this particular stem.
Scorine Values and Exemplars: This manual employs both rational explanations and exemplars to provide scoring rules. There are three scoring values:
One: Any Kesoonse: This simply means no indication of the content described in the criterion, insufficient information, or no response.
'Two: Some indication of the tar~eted response: This means that the target content is minimally detectable in the response.
Three: Definite indication of the tarceted response: Responses that in some way provide a definitive example of the root criterion concept.
M i r r o r - H u n y Criteria and Stems
I .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
A.) If 1 tell a joke at a social gathering, and several people turn to listen ..
Rasic question: Do you use the situation as an opportunity to display yourself! In other words, just how important is satisfying this need to you? If the situation makes you anxious, is that aversive enough to make you avoid the situation, or is the opportunity so rewarding that you are willing to withstand any anxiety in order to deliver the joke? 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: An irrelevant response, or expression of anxiety without any indications of reward receives a score of one. An unembellished affirmative response would warrant a score of two. This sort of response could take many forms, from expression of positive mood, to any indication that the joker is either encouraged by the presence of the audience, or despite the anxiety helshe presses on because it is intrinsically rewarding. The difference between a score of two and three lies in the subject's self- awareness and plan of action. A "two" response often expresses a sense of anticipation without certainty as to outcome. Nor will i t include a conscious awareness of the mirror- need. The key aspect of a "three" response is captured in the phrase "I feel good because ...." The respondent not only feels good, helshe knows why they feel good, and the action they take assumes success.
Scoring Values and Exem~lars
One: Any response
(Irrelevant response, expression of anxiety wi --I'd probably forget the punchline. --I get nervous
thout any indication of reward.)
.r
--I would probably feel a little uneasy because I'm terrible at telling jokes. --I wonder if they will find the joke funny. --I hope they find it as funny as I did and if they don't I know they don't have the same
sense of humour as me.
'I'wo: Some indication of the tarceted response
(Positive response related to being exhibitionistic, or a negative response that includes mention of an element of reward. Often a sense of anticipation without certainty as to outcome. No statenlent of awareness of the mirror-need.) --I get excited and maybe a little nervous, depending on the group. (Nervous + excited =
implicit "yes." Overstimulated by reward.)
(Indication of some sort of investment in carrying off the act successfully.) --I'll continue but feel shy. --I'll finish the joke and hope people like it.
(Element of reward in doing i t , even if relatively passive recipient.) --I feel I am a funny person/humorous. - - I fecl flattered. --I fecl good. - - I finish the joke and probably continue, or depending o n the conversation, Ict peoplc
make complementary jokes. (Mixture of sensitive hesitancy and reward.) --I feel pretty good, sometimes a little nervous actually. I would be quite nervous if a lot
of people listened, I might even blow the punchline. (Hashfill but rewarding. 'l'his is like an elaborated version o f " I ' l l continue but feel shy." In terms of straight content, i t presents as a "two," but because it supplies a kind of compressed narrative of the respondent's experience, it reveals a mixture of enjoyment and discomfort that shows just how important the scene really is, which warrants a score of 2.5.)
'I'hree: Ilefinite indication of the t a r~e ted response (In each case, there must be some explicit element included in the response. The key element in the "three" response is conscious mirror-hunger: "I feel good because ....")
(Explicit statement of mood andexhibitionistic tendency - expressed through need or intended action.) --I feel happy because people are actually listening or paying attention. (key =
'because') --I become nervous because I wish the joke to be a success - I enjoy the attention. --I would be happy and probably tell more jokes.
(Strong indication that being the center of attention is gratifying. 'This response also has an air if confidence that is somewhat boastful) --then attending the gathering was worth it.
(Statement of intended action in situation.) --I'd tell another joke. --I keep telling the joke and make eye contact so as to include the new listeners. --I talk louder so they can hear me.
(Humorous response that is inherently boastful and exhibitionistic.) --they'll soon regret it.
Mirror-hungry Criteria and Stems
I .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
t3.) If I were asked to take part in a play ...
Hasic question: The question is basically the same a5 stem 11A: (iiven the opportunity to display yourself ( and thereby attract the attention of others) in a situation that is potentially frightening, would you still push yourself to do i t? Does the need to display oncself override the situation-driven anxiety? 'I'he scoring rationale is based on two components: a.) Did the respondent say yes or no? A negative response yields a score of one. An affirmative response yields a score of two. b.) If the response is affirmative, how did he or she say yes? This is the amplitude component of the score. If the response suggests a willingness to take part without any clear statement of action, this is to be considered a "basic yes," which is given a score of two. However, if the response includes a course of action, andlor displays conscious exhibitionism, then it receives a score of three.
Scoring Values and Exemdars
One: Any resDonse
(A negative or irrelevant response.) --I would decline, acting is not my thing. --I would squirm my way out of the offer. --I don't think I would because I can't act and am not really comfortable
actinglperforming in front of people.
' two: Some indication of the t a r ~ e t e d response (Suggests willingness, but does not indicate a plan of action)
(Affirmative response, with no indication of amplitude.) --I'd say yes.
(Ilefinite indication of a contact-shunning stance where although the act would be rewarding, the respondent declines to take part. Here it qualifies as a two because the respondent indicates that their internal state in response to the offer - "flattered" - is positive.) --I'd secretly feel flattered but am not sure that 1 would participate.
(Equivocation coupled with a positive inclination, zuithout commitment) --I might be hesitant but very interested. --I would like to know what the play is about and if' I'm interested, I might join it. (Note that in both of the above examples, the initial descriptor indicates tentativeness)
( ( h , equivocat i~n plus affirmative response.) --I would take a while to think about it, then agree. (An approach-avoidance conflict in which approach wins. ) --I would need a lot of encouragement, acting training, and none of my friends would be
allowed to see the first performance - after that - okay.
(Some indication that the anxiety is an index to the importance of the act, rather than its aversiveness - in this case must include some sort of positive descriptor as well. Here the equivocation is described in positive terms: "thrilled") --I would be thrilled but nervous or scared - 1 think I would d o it though.
Three: Definite indication of the tarceted response (Definite course of action, andlor exhibitionisn~)
- - I would want to play the main role. (Clear statement of action.) --I would - I like to be on-stage. (Shows more insight than a simple "yes.")
iMirror-hungrv (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
(:.) For me, the idea of playing a starring role ...
I3asic auestion: Same as 1/A or 1 / H : Given the chance, would you take the opportunity to place yourself at the ccntcr of attention! 'I'his stem returns to the 'alone on stage' situation of 1/A, yet whereas 1/A suggests a kind of open, spontaneous dynamic (that is, if a group of people spontaneously responds to you, do you/can you encourage that to continue?), I/(; suggests a kind of 'position which one may take.' Hence the phrase "starring role." So, rather than a situation which is already happening - as in 1/A - 1/C suggests a situation which is initiated by premeditated choice. O n e has to ask oneself: Can I, and will I do i t ? , . I he scoring rationale is again based on two components: a.) Did the respondent say yes or no? An affirmative response yields a score of two. b.) If the response is affirmative, how did he or she say yes? This is the amplitude component of the score, which can justify a score of three. A score of three requires that the respondent clearly indicates an exhibitionistic need.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
(Negative or irrelevant response.) --I don't know what i t is. --is less important to me than playing an "important role." A "starring role" connotes a
role which is very visible to others, but often when we are in visible roles, they are figurehead roles. Being under scrutiny can be constricting. I prefer a role that may be less visible, but which affords room to move and make changes. Often, those behind the scenes are the ones in charge. (This is simply a round-about way of saying "no.")
Two: Some indication of the targeted response
(A simple "yes.") --sounds like fun.
( A toned-down "yes.") --sounds good to me because I like to be the best at what I do, but I would also like i t if I
shared that with another person. I would tlot want the glory alone.
(Evidence of an approach-avoidance conflict in which approach wins.) --in a group situation is pretty "scary" but I usually try my best. --excites my interest and presents a welcome challenge.
'l.hree: Ilefinite indication of the tarr.etcd rcswnse (More than just an affirmative response, this describes the rcspondcnr's temperalncnt. --is to be the center of attention, a chance to show your talents and do what you arc good at. --appcals to me, because for that brief time, I am thc center of attention.
,Mirror-hungry ( h e r i a and Stems
I .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
I) . ) A person stands in the spotlight, while another stands off to one side. / f / were in this scene, 1 zuozrld be . . . (After completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
Hasic question: With which person do you identify, the one at the center of attention, or the one in the periphery? 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: Simple identification with the spotlit figure is an affirmative response and warrants a score of two. In order to get a score of three, the response must be affirmative and include some sort of explanatory component that clearly states that the respondent has a knowingly exhibitionistic style.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
()nc: Anv response
(i.e., the non-spotlit choice.) --the one standing off to one side. I never like to be in the spotlight, I would rather be the
one listening but also participating in a subtle way. --off to one side. I do not like being the center of attention in any way. --the one standing off to one side. Unless I am with a group of close friends, I tend to be
shy. (hints at a conditional yes, but not enough information)
--the person to the side of the spotlight with fewer lines and responsibilities. I don't like being the center of attention. It's not that I'm intimidated by large audiences, just that I like to be well prepared before a presentation. Encouragement or praise would aid me in being the center of attention. (Begins with a no but ends with a conditional yes. 'This response is a "1 112," and the conservative rule dictates that it be a one. )
'l'wo: Some indication of the tarrered response
--probably in the spotlight. I like to do things and get them done. I can't wait for someone else to do it. It all depends on the situation, but I am usually getting involved right in something, not just organizing it. (A non-exhibitionistic yes.)
--ideally standing in the spotlight if the situation were positive. However, I would be content to stand off to one side if I were providing support for the person in the spotlight.
'l'hrec: L)cfinitc indication of the tarrwtcd rcsvonsc
(Affirmative response plus declared need to be the center of attention. i.e., knotuingb exhibitionistic.) --in the spotlight. I am self-centered at times. I often think I am in the center of
everything. No, it's not always a good thing to be overly confident. F,xhibitionists arc more likely to be in the spotlight than in an obscure corner.
--in the spotlight. I like being at the center of attention. My friends often say that I am the entertainment at parties. Maybe this is because I am interested in acting.
--standing in the spotlight. This is because I like to be the center of attention, and if I wa5 standing in the spotlight everyone would be able to notice me.
--the one in the spotlight. Generally, I like being "in the spotlight" (though not always). I have performed solo piano "under a spotlight," and the memory is a strong positive one.
~Mirror-hun~;ry (:riteria and Stcrns
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Displays self to attract the attention of others.
t;,.) Somc people like to be noticed, whereas for others, it's just not important. As fbr myself.. .
Raic question: 'l'his stem is completely self-explanatory, and is one of the more concrete stems. It simply asks: Is it important to you that you that others notice you in some particular way? 'I'he scoring rationale is virtually identical to the first four M-1 stems: A negative response yields a score of one, an affirmative response (a simple, unelaborated "yes") yields a score of two, and in order to qualify as a 'three,' an affirmative response must include some sort of elaboration such as a strong statement of exhibitionistic need.
Scorincr Values and Exemplars
()ne: Any resoonse (A statement to the effect that being noticed is not important.)
--it is not important. I feel i t is very uncomfortable to be noticed. I think lots of my friends d o not like people to be noticed too. (Anxiety.)
--I mostly like to be in the background. In other words, I am mostly a lurker, a passive personality. 7'00 much attention makes me uncomfortable. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy being noticed, just that I prefer it in moderation.
'Two: Some indication of the targeted response
(All of the following responses say "yes," but the conditional clauses limit it to a weak yes.) --I like to be noticed without having to act a certain way to obtain the interest of others. I
don't want to have to act differently than normal to be noticed. If I would have to do that then I would likc to remain unnoticed.
--I like to be noticed when the time is appropriate. For an example, I wouldn't want people to notice when I'm making mistakes, but rather when I'm at my best.
--once in a while I need recognition, but for the most part I don't enjoy being the center of attention. (Clear statement of need, but it is not strong enough to be a "three.")
--there are times when I don't mind having a lot of attention but depending on my mood, there are times when I prefer to be quiet and not noticed, especially after a bad day at school.
'l'hree: I>efinitc indication of the targeted rcsvonsc
(Affirmative response accompanied by clear statement of need, suggesting a slight brittleness with respect to self-esteem, to the poinc where some of the responses could qualify as M-3 "labile self-cstcem" responses.) --I like to be noticed sometimes, when I feel like a nothing and being noticed makes me
feel like I am someone in this world, and I'm not worthless. (Reparative.) - - I don't wish to be ignored, but I don't directly seek attention. I often feel i~tlcotnforcahlc
if everyone is looking at me. Sometimes, however, I need to be noticed or else I will feel insignificant. (Reparative.)
- - I like to be noticed also. Recognition of my efforts at school and programming for example, serve in part as motivation to continue. I also feel good about being noticed, as opposed to being ignored. (Stimulating.)
--I like to be noticed as outstandingly nice and unique, because then people will want to interact with me. (Stimulating.)
Mirror-Hun~ry (:riteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks out confirming and admiring responses.
A.) If I have a new hairstyle (or am wearing new clothes), and I bump into someone I haven't seen for a while ...
I3asic uuestion: Given the opportunity to obtain a compliment, what would you do? Although this stem seems to encourage a social desirability bias, it does elicit the need for confirming and admiring responses in those who are at least willing to admit it. '[he scoring rationale is quite straightforward: Denial of the need for admiration or an irrelevant response yields a score of one. Some awareness that they will get an admiring response, or some indication that they passively seek the admiring response (without mentioning any exhibitionistic element) yields a score of two. A score of three is warranted if the respondent clearly monitors the other person's reaction or states that they tend to need that sort of response, or are somehow exhibitionistic. "Three" responses will tend to be of the active variety.
Scorinz Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Denial of the need for gratification, or an irrelevant response)
(Response unrelated to attaining gratification, or some form of denial of that need.) --I don't really feel too awkward, and will generally act normally. --I would act as I normally would at any other time, I would like to catch up on how they
have been. --I grab them, give them a big hug (if I like them) and ask them where in the world they've
been.
'Two: Some indication of the targeted response (Some awarcness that they will get an admiring response, or some indication that they passively seek the admiring response.)
(Statement that looking good equals feeling good, without explicit mention of the other person's response or exhibitionism, such that admiration is assumed. Passive.) --I feel good because it looks like I've kept myself up since the last time I saw the person.
(Understated indication that the other person's response is important; an unembellished CC O yes. Passive. ) --they usually notice the new hairstyle and comment that it looks good.
'l.hree: [)efinitc indication of the tarrwted rcsmnsc ( Ikf in i tc indication that they actively seek the other person's response, or that they nionicor the other person's state, or an expression of need t action.)
(An elcmenr of exhibitionism, or some indication that the other person's response is an important aspect of the encounter. Active. ) --I often imagine seeing people that I haven't seen for a while and always imagine myself
wearing something new or looking different. I feel like I look better when I am wearing something new. Change attracts attention. (Strong sense of awareness and possible action.)
--I usually try to have them notice it without me actually saying anything about it, by almost "flaunting" it. (Active. )
(explicitly monitoring the other person's reaction combined with exhibitionism. Active. ) --I enjoy watching their reactions because it can tell a lot about the image I am projecting.
Mirror-Hun!;ry Critcria and Sterns
2 . ) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks out confirming and admiring responses.
13.) Whcn 1 get excited about something I've done, I expect my friends to ...
Hasic question: 'I'he basic idea here is: "When you just built a terrific sandcastle, and you have enthusiastically dragged your friends over to see it, what kind of response do you want, and is there a particular response that you need?" The scoring rationale : Unless they feel particularly uncomfortable about answering this type of question, the average person will give a "two" response. 'I'hat is, the response will make some mention of the other person sharing in the respondent's excitement and providing some sort of confirmation. Because this is the "normative" response, the base rate answer is going to be a two. 'l'he toughest call is distinguishing between a two and a three. What constitutes a three as opposed to a two is not the expectation of a laudatory (normative) response, but statement of the need for some sort of confirmatory response on the part of the 'audience.' Therefore, to get a three, not only must one expect confirmation and admiration, but one must state that this positive feedback is sought rather than expected. It is conceivable that this could be conveyed implicitly through the tone of the response.
Scorinq Values and Exem~la r s
&: Any resmnse (Usually a response of a deflecting nature.)
--I don't expect anything.
Two: Some indication of the targeted response (Confirmation or admiration is expected but not actively sought. Often has a matter-of- fact or lukewarm tone.)
--show an interest in whatever it is that I have done and perhaps offer a few words of praise and ask me a few questions about it.
--show a little interest and listen to what I have to tell them, even if they aren't really interested.
--be supportive in the sense that they show somewhat of an interest in what I'm saying. I'm not saying they necessarily have to be totally ecstatic or excited, but rather show some consideration to what I'm excited about. I cannot expect my friends to be excited about the same things I get excited about, but should be there as a friend and should display common courtesy and be there as a friend to me.
'l'hree: L)et;nite indication of thc tar<;etcd resoonse (Excited or demanding combined with a clear statement of need.)
--get just as excited as I am and praise me. 1 feel if I've done something to get excited about, those close to me should feel that they too should be ecstatic and reaffirm my cxcitedness. (Key = 1. audience should match respondent's enthusiasm, and 2. "re-affirm")
--listen to what 1 have to say and respond positively. For example: "Wow, that's great!" or "Congratulations." I expect this because this is the way i t usually goes with most of my friends. (Key = This does not have a lukewarm tone, and it also provides something of a "script" for the audience. 'l'herefore, the explicit affectivc clement combined with the script is what makes it a three.)
Mirror-Hungry Criteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks out confirming and admiring responses.
C.) 1 have daydreamed that I ...
Hasic uuestion: 'l'his stem is a "floater" in the sense that it could pull for fan tasies that reflect any of the three personality types. However, this stem was included so as to evoke the grandiose fantasies that are associated with unfulfilled mirror needs. The scoring rationale is as follows: Responses that do not include an element of grandiosity related to being admired by others receive a score of one. Responses that are inherently exhibitionistic but do not mention an audience of some sort receive a two. If the response includes some mention of an audience (which can be implicit, such as a fantasy in which one receives an award, or if one behaves in an exhibitionistic manner, it receives a score of three.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
()ne: Any response (No mention of need for admiration or an audience.)
--will be with my family. --am traveling in Asia. --am in Mexico, partying with my friends.
Two: Some indication of the t a r~e ted response (Contains an element of "being the center of attention," but no audience is mentioned. The audience here may be internalized.)
--was saving someone who had just received an electric shock. (Hero) --will someday be in a political position (not necessarily an elected government official)
where I will be able to create positive change for society. (Hero) --will one day be very successful. My life would include a loving, stable relationship as
well as enough personal and career challenges to keep me motivated. O f course this ideal life would also include financial stability and great comfort in my surroundings. (Seems to be mostly concerned with own comfort. Internally- directed rather than "hungry. "This internal audience is sufficient to warrant a score of two but not a three.)
'1.hree: 1)cfinitc indication of the tarceted response
--have an expensive and flashy car, which has been payed off: I would then be the envy of people, at least that is what I think.
--have illst finished such a wonderful manuscript that I am in line for an academy award. --was playing rugby for 'I'eam Canada in the 1995 World (:up. --become a world famous author and that I won a Nobel I'eacc I'rizc for one of my works.
All of the people that weren't interested in me when I was a nobody now want to be my best friend.
--am driving an F250 Ford 4x4 with a 4 inch suspension lift, 3 inch body lift, 35 inch Mud 'I'errain tires, Rancho shocks, steering stabilizers and a huge stereo playing (;uns n' Koses as I drink beer. ( Flagrantly exhibitionistic, so the "audience" and the need for admiration are entirely implicit.)
)Mirror-Hun~ry Criteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks ou t confirming and admiring responses.
I>.) When I share my successes with other people, my secret wish is that they .. (After completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
Basic auestion: 'I'his stem is a leading question of the most obvious sort. How we decide to score this stem is entirely dependent on how the response is worded. Responses to this stem seem to be more susceptible to the social desirability bias than others. The scoring rationale is as follows: Any response that does not directly describe a confirming or admiring response gets a score of one. A response that does refer to the 'audience's reaction" as confirming or admiring but does so in an understated way (ix. , a single descriptor such as 'happy'), or a simple "I hope they will be impressed" type statement gets a score of two. Any response that explicitly describes the audience's reaction as confirming and admiring, with the use of multiple descriptors or mention of some sort of dependence on their response, warrants a score of three.
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exemplars
a: Any resDonse (Responses that do not refer to an admiring audience response.)
--won't copy the way I succeed. --don't think I'm bragging, and gain some insight from my success that will benefit them.
'l'wo: Some indication of the t a r ~ e t e d response (Simple statements)
--will be happy for me. --don't just say "that's nice." I like it if they ask questions or show some interest. --are appreciative and do not take me for granted. --can get something out of my stories. If they ever run into the same situation, they might
think about my story and then know what to do perhaps. Only hope i t can help them in some way and also wish they would be glad to share my happiness with me as I would do the same to them.
(One or two explicit statements.) --will feel impressed be my successes. --praise me and are interested in what I've achieved
.I 'hrec: Ikfitlitc indication of the tarreted resDonsc (Elaborated or emphatic statements.)
('l'hree explicit statements. 'Fhis is an example of a "two" response that is stated so emphatically, that i t is scored as a three.) --are enthusiastic about my successes, enjoy them with me, congratulate me.
(indication that the audience provides a response that encourages more display.) --will ask me questions about it, so I get a chance to talk about it more.
(Explicit statement plus expression of dependent need.) --will be responsive and interested in what I am telling them because if they're not, it
doesn't seem like such a success.
--begin to see me in the light I see myself in.
Mirror-Hun!y Criteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks out confirming and admiring responses.
E.) 1 nccd people to tell me that I ... (Aftcr completing the sentence, please explain your response)
Basic question: In responding to this stem, the respondent must have a fairly acute need (or just be really honest) to admit that helshe needs confirming or admiring responses. 'l'his stem is therefore an open question that relies on the respondent's willingness to be candid. 'The scoring rationale is fairly straightforward: No mention of confirnling or admiring responses - either implicit or explicit, yields a score of one. Very general or understated expression of the need for confirmation or admiration receives a two. Explicit statement of the need for confirmation and admiration, and/or statements that if the need is not met, there will be negative consequences warrants a score of three.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Does not seek out confirming or admiring responses.)
(This response is a "1 112," so the conservative rule makes it a one.) --well, I don't really need to be told anything. I guess its nice to be accepted and
appreciated by others, but its not a & necessity - I don't actively strive for acceptance.
--am doing well O K on my own; I don't need to always do what they would like to see me do.
'I'wo: Some indication of the targeted response (General statements of need for confirmation or admiration.)
(Basic confirmation.) --am okay, normal, that I am a normal human. --am worth being. --make them feel comfortable when they're around me.
'I'hree: Definite indication of the tar~eted response (Absolutely clear indication of need, and/or statement that if need is not met, there will be negative consequences.)
--am doing a good job. I do best when I'm given acknowledgment. --am doing well at whatever I'm doing and encourage me to continue. --am important to them and have the ability to make others happy (I just feel really good
when I know that I've made people happy).
~Virror-Hungry Criteria and Stems
3. ) Labile self-esteem: a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
A.) If I had to work in a demanding job in which I would receive little or no feedback from my boss or co-workers a5 to whether I was doing i t well ...
Basic question: The root criterion for this stem involves two questions, "a" questions and "b" questions. The is an "a" question which in a direct manner asks: "What happens to your self-esteem when you must perform in an environment bereft of any 'mirror' input?" Someone who is truly mirror-hungry would find this situation extremely uncomfortable, if not intolerable. The scoring rationale is as follows: Any response that suggests that the respondent feels comfortable in such an environment gets a score of one. A combination of fri~stration and tolerance where the ability to tolerate the environment predominates receives a score of two. The key word for a "two" response is passivity. A response which suggests an inability to work in such an environment without externally-supplied feedback warrants a score of three. The key word for a "three" response is action. A typical strategy in a "three" response is to ignore the 'no feedback' rule and ask for it anyway.
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exemolars
One: Any resoonse
(i.e., declared ability to exist in such an environment.) --I would not let it interfere with how I performed. Feedback is good, but people
shouldn't always need a carrot to function. The carrot should be within themselves and occasionally recognized by others.
'I'wo: Some indication of the t a r ~ e t e d response (Is clearly bothered by this state of affairs, but is able to tolerate it. Feels terrible but does not take action.)
(Some frustration but displays the ability to tolerate the situation. I'assive.) --I would feel frustrated, question how suited my boss was for his position, but continue
doing my work as best as I could without approaching them because presumably I would hear if I was doing a bad job. (key = "without")
(Frustration and tone of intolerance for the situation. Passive.) --I would feel frustrated because if I was working hard I would at least like to get some
encouragement.
'l'hrce: Definite indication of the targeted response (Expresses intolerance for the situation by ignoring the parameters set out by the stem and seeks a possible solution; so frustrated that helshe takes action to obtain mirroring.)
- - I would do my best at the job and go to my boss or so-workers and & them how I'm doing and how I can improve what I'm doing.
- - I would look to other co-workers and ask them for their evaluation of my performance in the job, and talk to the boss after work for some kind of feedback.
mirror-Huny Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile self-esteem: a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
13.) Everyone's feelings are affected by what others neglect to say to us as much as what they do say. In my experience, my feelings are sensitive to the absence of comments such as ...
Basic question: This "a" stem asks, "what kind of interpersonal feedback do you need the most?" I t poses the same question as M-3/A, but because it is more general (its context is one's life rather than the job situation), it lacks a specific reference point and is therefore more difficult to score. ?'he scoring rationale is as follows: Denial of the need for external input, or denial of any input related to mirror needs suggests a score of one. For scores of two and three, the basic requirement for a two is that one cannot do without mirroring input, but that one's stance is essentially passive. Differentiating between a two and a three requires that one decide whether the response is an average, expectable sort of mirror need (2), or if it appears to be of a more intense or pervasive variety (3), wherein one actively seeks mirroring.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (i.e., denial of the need for any external input.)
--no problem because I know what I am and what I am doing, so I don't need to care about what other people thought as long as I fully recognize myself.
Two: Some indication of the targeted response
(Need for encouragement and acknowledgment; positive feedback for deeds done. Passive mode: Having someone else take the responsibility for feeding one's mirror hunger.)
--how hard I try and how much effort I put into doing a good job. --encouragement when I do something that is correct, acknowledgment for having done
someone a favor or thanks for helping someone out. --if I do something nice for someone, such as a favor, and don't receive any
acknowledgment, I will usually become irritated. --(he) did a good job, way to go, etc. Positive reinforcement. --if no-one commented on my significant weight loss. --comments of appreciation for the role I play in people's lives and for the contribution I
make at my workplace. --words of encouragement and positive affirmation. --a lack of recognition for something I put effort into and viewed as important. --positive comments about my ability, my work, my life, my friends, my family.
'l'hree: 1)etinite indication of the targeted response
(Active mode, with some indication that self-esteem will be affected if the need is not met.) --the image I bring across to people. This may be in stylc of clothcs, physical appearance,
and speaking/communication skills. Obviously, I look for cues, but cues are most oftcn stated through direct speech. (A variety of specific mirror examples.)
--hearing "I love you" from my boyfriend when I really want to hear it. Hc might say: "You know I love you, why d o I have to say it?" Well, knowing it just isn't enough - sometimes I need to hear it. ('This response really does describe the criterion.)
Mirror-Hungry Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile self-esteem: a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
C.) Some people feel quite satisfied by the compliments they get, whereas others find that the good feeling they get from a compliment seems to evaporate almost as soon as i t
started. In my case ...
Rasic question: This "b" stem is a straightforward question: Does the good feeling from a compliment last very long? The scoring rationale is as follows: Any response that states that conlpliments are satisfactory and/or avoids the issue of whether the feeling lasts or not, obtains a score of one. Any indication that the respondent dwells on compliments, or strongly values the effect that compliments have on their mood, or tends to weigh the value of the compliment where the end result is its devaluation, receives a score of two. Responses that clearly state that the effect of compliments does not last, receive a score of three.
Scoriny Values and Exemplars
One: Any response
(Feels satisfied by compliments, or other response.) --I enjoy getting conlpliments if they are sincere and not forced. --I tend to feel satisfied, especially if the compliment comes from someone I respect. --compliments make me feel very satisfied and good with myself. --I cnjoy receiving compliments and they usually make my day much better. (States that
compliments improve their mood.)
Two: Some indication of the targeted response
(Does not answer the stem in a direct way, but still fulfils the criterion. For example, if compliments are so valued that the respondent dwells on them to sustain the effect, it is scored as a two.) --I would fall into the category of people who feel quite satisfied by the compliments they
get. I usually feel very important and impressed if someone compliments me and I dwell on this compliment for some time. (Embedded in this response is the comment that not only does the compliment make them feel important, but they dwell on it so as to get the maximum effect from it. The compliment is therefore a valued thing.)
(Compliment subject to analysis which may devalue i t , which could lead to negative affect .) --it may immediately feel good but upon further analysis, whether I feel the compliment
is genuine determines the lasting effect of the compliment. --I used to feel good about the compliments, but as I get older I think people say it just to
be nice and not really mean it. It has no meaning to me any more, no reaction. --if I get a compliment I try to enjoy the compliment and try harder to keep the
compliment always coming.
'I'hree: Definite indication of the targeted response (Clearly states that self-esteem is only temporarily sustained)
--I get a good feeling but right away I try not to believe and chink of i t as false. --compliments seem to evaporate as soon as I get them.
Mirror-Hun~ry Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile self-esteem: a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
I).) My sense of self-worth can be affected by ... (After completing the sentence, please provide an example from your own life.)
Basic question: This is another open stem, neither "A" nor "B." If the stimulus that affects the respondent's sense of self worth is related to mirror needs, then it is scorable within the M-3 context. The scoring rationale is as follows: Responses that make no reference to other people receive a score of one. Responses that make some general reference to other people receive a score of two. Responses that make a specific reference to feedback from others, i s . , positive feedback causes an elevation in mood, or negative feedback causes a drop in mood receive a score of three.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
<)ne: Any response
--things I've done wrong. --what I accomplish in the day. --nothing except my own opinion. --my own self versus somebody else. As long as I am putting in 100% in whatever I am
doing, I usually feel good about myself. --how well I'm doing and achieving my goals.
Two: Some indication of the targeted response (General reference to input from others. "Average expectable" quality.)
--other people's opinion of me. --how people see me. --negative criticism. --what people say about me. --people's opinions if they are vocally expressed to me. --people complementing me or asking me for advice or help.
Three: I)etinite indication of the targeted response (Specific reference to input from others, with some brief situational description. Explicit statement that positive feedback affects self-worth.)
--no recognition for my good points. Like when I do something well, and nobody notices. --other people's opinion of me. If my friends put me down for the way I dress, I can end
up feeling lousy.
iblirror-Hun~rv Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile self-esteem: a) Low self-esteem in the absence of desired responses. b) Self-esteem only temporarily sustained by such responses.
E.) If I were to say whether I gain lasting satisfaction from positive feedback or admiration ...
Rasic question: Because there is no meaningful way of asking a subject just how Inng the effect of a compliment lasts, the only way one can really pose this question is by asking whether someone is satisfied by the duration of the good feeling engendered by a compliment. The scoring rationale for this "b" stem is as follows: If the respondent states that they do obtain lasting satisfaction from positive feedback, or if they make some completely irrelevant response, they get a score of one. If the response contains a mixture of positive and negative, wherein the respondent says yeslbut, or makes some indirect mention of the transient nature of the good mood, it warrants a score of two. Any response in the negative, with specific reference to negative affect gets a three. (Note: 'This stem was misunderstood with great frequency.)
Scoring Values and Exem~lars
One: Any response
(Reports that they do gain lasting satisfaction from positive feedback, irrelevant response, or insufficient information.)
--I would say yes. --I would say that I do but it is from my own positive feedback that I gain the most
lasting satisfaction. --I would say yes because I reflect back on positive feedback in order to feel better. (Although this is active solace-seeking, it is a "1 112," so according to the conservative rule, it must be scored as a one. No indication whether the feeling lasts.)
'b: Some indication of the targeted response
(Reports some satisfaction, which does not last long.) --I'd say yes to a certain extent. It does not last for that long. --I would say that I gain satisfaction but not long lasting.
(Responds in the negative, but in an indirect sort of way.) --I'd say "not from the same positive feedback." If someone says "good shoot" over and
over it loses its effect. --I would say no because I always think there is so much to learn and I can't stay in one
place forever.
'l'hrcc: - - - Ilcfinirc indication of the targeted response
(No, with specific rcfcrencc to negative affect.) --I would say no - perhaps in the short term, but 1 am constantly critical o f nlysclf and
generally have a dark and ncgative personality. --yes, 1 have a tendency to dwell on negative things sometimes, so when given positive
feedback, I thrive.
Idcal-Hunssry (:riteria and S tc~ns
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
A.) It is very important to me that 1 get to know people who are ... (Aftcr completing the sentence, please explain your response)
13asic question: Who are the people you value? As with some of the other stems, this one is not easy to score, because many of the responses come off sounding like the lists of attributes one sees in the personal ads. However, our rudimentary scoring rationale is as follows: Hecause almost all of the responses list idealizable attributcs, the only way to score responses is to look at how the statement is made. If there is a sense that the respondent is looking for people with whom they can have a relationship based on equality, score it as a one. Mildly-stated idealizable qualities with an implicit hierarchical quality warrant a score of two, and strongly-stated responses or responses with elitist values get a three. The defining characteristic of a "three" response is that the hierarchy is explicit; the person described is not only put on a pedestal, it is an especially high pedestal.
Scoring Values and Exem~la r s
One: Any response
(Seeks an equal.) --trustworthy, intelligent, and a lot of fun because I have been betrayed too often and I find
friendships with boring people o r boring people or people that weren't interested in things other than artificial substances - I don't like them.
(Seeks someone who will fit into their existing social structure.) --important to others who are close to me.
(Because there is no sense of hierarchy, this response can only be scored as a one. What it most resembles is a companionship request.) --very strong willed, have good morals, are easy going and easy to get along with.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Implicit hierarchy)
( . l l~ i s is a description of a mirror-based mentor. I t is an implicit hierarchy, the 'othcr' is above them. .['he absence of equality is what makes i t a two. ) --Honest. I don't feel like I can talk to someone who's just gonna tell me what they think I
want to hear, but I want someone to criticize me so I can improve on what I've done wrong.
("Very intelligent" is an idealizable quality, but requires elaboration to make i t a "three.") --very intelligent and passionate about at least one aspect of their lives.
('This sounds like the description of a constant friend, along the lines of twinship.) --reliable, interesting, funny and intelligent, but do not display their emotions
overwhelmingly.
Three: Llefinite irdication of the targeted response (Explicit hierarchy)
(Unmistakable snob appeal.) --of sufficient social standing so as to facilitate my upward mobility in every surrounding
that I am in.
Ideal-Hungry <:riteria and Stctns
1 .) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
H.) 'l'he kind of person to whom I am drawn like a magnet ... (After completing the sentence, please describe why you are drawn to this person)
Hasic question: This stem asks the respondent to name the personal qualities that draw them to someone - which is a backwards way of asking about someone's needs. It also elicits the soothing function often sought in the idealized selfobject. 'l'empting as i t may be to score the need for soothing as a "three," this does not fit the criterion, so it must be bypassed as a "one," unless of course, it clearly evokes the criterion (i.e., if the "need for soothing" response depicts an admirable person, which is at the minimum, a "two."). The scoring rationale is as follows: Vague responses, responses that clearly belong to another category, or express the need for a soothing presence that does not evoke idealizable qualities, all get a score of one. A response that lists admirable qualities in a low-key manner gets a score of two. Responses in the two category tend to be of the "shopping list" variety. Responses in the three category must have all the elements of a two (admirable qualities clearly stated), as well as a idiosyncratic quality, often indicating the specific form that the need takes for this particular person.
Scorinp Values and Exemulars
One: Any response
--is no one I have met yet. --tends to be mysterious.
(A response that clearly belongs to another category, ix . , twinship.) --are people who dress similar - and consequently listen to the same music I do, and share
a lifestyle with (i.e., punk rock, poor, people who go to see live bands a lot.).
(Nurturing and stable-.) --is a person who is funny, yet can be serious and kind. [This one leans toward the soothing function, but the description is not explicitly admirable.]
'b: Some indication of the targeted response
(The following are "average expectable" twos -- simply a listing.) --is someone who is extremely attractive. --are unusual people who have their own charisma, charm and warmth. --is someone who is intelligent, sensitive, caring and funny. --has interesting and original ideas.
-I hrec: llefinitc indication of the rargetcd rcsponsc (Responses that arc much more than a "shopping list.")
(Sotirce of strengthlcalm, and energy: Soothing hinction admirable arrributcs.) --is somconc who possesses self-confidence and dynamism.
(Source ~Fcrno t iona l stability arid self-reliance - the description implicitly p laco value on such a person. 'l'he respondent seems to be saying: " I cannot tolerate it if the person I admire runs to me if something goes wrong.)
, - --arc those people who are secure with themselves. 1 hey are able to stand on thcir own two
feet and don't have to go running to someone the first time something goes wrong.
Idcal-Hun!![!, (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
C.) 'l'he kind of person who holds a real fascination for me ... (After completing the sentence, please describe & yo11 are fascinated with this person)
f3asic question: "Who catches your attention and why?" Another need question which asks what 'pulls you' in a reflexive way. Although the responses tend to be brief, there are clear differences between a score of two and a three: A response that does not depict admirable qualities, or describes attributes that seem to belong in another category get a score of one. A response that describes an admirable person gets a score of two, but a response that describes someone who is perfect or complete in some way gets a score of three. Take note that the "please describe" request was not used in the pilots.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
()ne: Any response
(A response that clearly belongs to another category, i.e., twinship.) --is someone who enjoys similar activities. --is usually similar. --are people who like to do the things I like to do.
(Denial) --no one really fascinates me.
(Insufficient information.) --are individuals who are not conventional.
I&: Some indication of the targeted response (Some sort of listing of idealizable qualities. Note that some are designated "2.5", but that in this scoring scheme, they are considered twos.)
--makes a real difference in the world (or at least my world) through something they do. --are people who are completely different and don't "go with the flow" (not a follower). --are those who have been socially successful as well as those who are not affected by
materialism. (2.5) --are intelligent people. --is someone who has their life together (organized) and who seems really happy. --highly educated people. --ambitious, independent people. --is Stephen Hawking or Madonna. (Icons are to be scored as twos)
--is a puson who is self-sufficient, independent, but not too indepcndcnt that they tccl thcv need nobody, and love dogs. (2.5)
--usiially has a strong personality. - - i ~ someone who is able to live pretty consistently to their moral beliefs, someone whose
morals are at a high level. (2.5) --are people who have done something really profound in their life, have worked rcally
hard to be wherc they are. (2.5)
Three: Ilefinite indication of the targeted response (Ikscription of an admirable person that refers to some state of perfection, or of having "arrived" at some desired state. Often has a hierarchical quality.)
--is a person who has everything - motley, looks, friends. --is someone who always does the right thing, no mistakes, no flaws.
Ideal-Hungry (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
I).) I t sometimes seems as though I am always searching for a person who .. (After completing the sentence, please describe the person)
Hasic uuestion: Asks "what are you looking for in the ideal personlparent!" "Understands me" is the most frequent response. Good chance that this batch of pilot study responses was strongly influenced by exposure to the rating scales. Mentioned alone, the soothing function of associated with the idealized relationship carries no weight. The scoring rationale is as follows: A response that makes no mention of admiration, or belongs in another category (i.e., twinship) is scored as a one. A response that evokes idealizable qualities in a low-key manner, andlor evokes a mildly hierarchical relationship is scored as a two. If the soothing fiinction is mentioned, the idealizable features are mildly implied, it can be scored as a two. Blunt expression of the need for an explicitly admirable presence, which may or may not depict an extremely hierarchical relationship, warrants a score of three.
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (No mention of admiration. A response that clearly belongs to another category, ix . , twinship.)
--has similar interests as mine. --can be my kindred spirit. who can help restore my faith in people. --has the same mentality and attitude toward life as myself. --likes the same stuff I do. --is a fun-loving, sensitive, caring person.
(Denial) --I'm not searching for anyone.
(Soothing function alone.) --understands me.
'm: Some indication of the targeted response (1,ow-key hierarchical qualities.)
(Soothing function that is implicitly admired because it literally provides a missing component in the respondent's life.) --will provide the security and stability that's missing in my life.
'l'hrec: l k f in i t e indication of thc targeted rcsponsc (F,xplicitly admircd/hit .rarchicd)
- - I can look up to. --really meets my expectations. --is my hero. --is my knight in shining armour.
Ideal-Hun!:ry Critcria and Steut~
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks others to admire for their idealizable qualities, such as prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, o r views.
E.) A person outside of my family whose presence has enhanced my life ... (After completing the sentence, please describe that person)
13asic uuestion: This stem is also a floater in the best sense of the word, because i t asks us who is one of the most important selfobjects in our life, and why. The targct response for this stem is a description of a mentor or parental/gniding figure outside of the familial realm. Again, the admiration is inlplied, rather than explicit - i t is what the person does for you that is valued. 'Fhe scoring rationale is as follows: Irrelevant responses or statements of denial get a score of one. Descriptions of admirable people or qualities get a score of two, and explicit descriptions of idealizable mentor-figures warrant a score of three. Responses in the three category have a hierarchical quality.
Scorinq Values and Exemplars
One: Any response
--My family & the center of my life. N o one matters outside of it.
k: Some indication of the targeted response (Admires someone because they are ... )
(Compassionate and accepting.) --is my best friend. She is one of the most non-judgmental people I know, and she is always there for me, to listen and comfort me when I need her most.
(Academically successful.) --to a challenging life of school. She is a friend who I have known since grade ten. She has
always done well in school, and she gets straight A's. She is involved in activities such as the anri-apartheid club.
(Has warm, human qualities.) --would be my boyfriend. He has shown me what life, loving and fun are all about. He
enjoys life, is caring and sensitive to the needs of others, is smart, has goals and knows what is right and wrong.
--Robert Fulghum, the famous philosophical writer. (An icon of sorts, scored as a two.)
'1.hrt.e: Ikf in i te indication of the targeted response
(Explicit description of someone who fulfills the ideal-function.) --is my coach. He is a very krlowledgeablc man who has dedicated his lifc to learnirig
about his field. And he has inspired me to set goals and achieve goals that I previously thought were unattainable.
Ideal-Hun!;rv Criteria and Stems.
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealizedlpedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
A.) Try to bring to mind someone you held in very high esteem, but who you did not know all that well. Over time, as you got to know hindher better ...
Basic question: Is the disappointment mechanism in the ideal-hungry narrative activated by this stem? The scoring rationale is as follows: Any indication that the respondent either continues to be in awe of the admired person or expresses no disappointment, warrants a score of one. If the respondent does devalue the admired person, but expresses some tolerance, then the response gets a ..core of two. If the respondent devalues and rejects the formerly admired person, they get a score of three.
Scoring Values and Exem~lars
k: Any response (Ongoing admiration, no disappointment.)
--I began to befriend this person until we were very good friends. Over time I have kept up our friendship and have seen many more admirable and disadmirable personality traits.
--I came to realize that she was just a normal person with many faults lots of people have, but I still hold her sort of in awe because I strongly admire many qualities she has and they're more important than little faults.
--I found that I grew on them and we became much closer, in fact to the point where I considered the person a 'family member.'
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Does devalue the admired person, but not in a judgmental or perfectionistic way. Expresses disappointment, but with a note of tolerance. Often a dynamic of equalization, in which the person is taken off their pedestal, but gently.)
--that although I thought they were so great, I began to realize that they were only hunlan, just as I am.
--I found that his qualities were a mix of good and bad. While he was friendly and capable, he could be egotistical and overbearing.
--I began to realize that he was a person just like any other, and he kind of lost his mystique.
--I found that a lot of the qualities I admired actually masked insecurities greater than or equal to my own. I therefore saw myself as having insecurities that everyone has and
I I wasn't alone.
'Ihrcc: Lkfin i tc indication of the targeted response
( [>isappointment combined with intolerance, i .c., devalues then rejects the admired person.) --my opinion of that person diminished as I discovered incongruities and vices in the
person that I did not initially see. --he t l~rncd out to be a goof because he thought too highly of himself and all he cared about
was himself.
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealized/pedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
R.) I t is often the case that when we first encounter someone who really impresscs us, we tend to see only certain prominent aspects of their personality, yet after we learn morc about them, their entire personality becomes visible to us. You can probably recall such an instance in your own life (it could be someone with whom you socialize or know from work or school, i t could be a famous face, such as an inspiring political leader or media personage, someone who possesses exceptional ability, wealth, power, beauty, moral stature, intelligence, etc. ). Speaking from your own experience, when you got to know someone yorr admired, your reaction was . . .
Rasic question: A bit stiffly worded. Lots of "twos. "Similar scoring rationale as I2/A: Any indication that the person's value is maintained warrants a score of one. If the respondent does devalue the admired person, but not in a judgmental or perfectionistic way, then the response gets a score of two. If the respondent denigrates and is obviously disappointed by the formerly admired person, they get a score of three.
Scorine Values and Exem~lars
One: Any response (Overall effect is positive: Either a dynamic of equalization or the person's value is maintained.)
--not anything special. Although I admired the person I knew that they would have faults. --pleasant surprise. I recently got to know a very talented writer and was fascinated by the
different aspects of their personality which contributed to their style and thought. --to like that person better as I got to know their full personality, including faults or
disappointments because they made that person more accessible in terms of personal discussion (talking about my life or problems).
'M: Some indication of the targeted response (Simple devaluation: No accommodation, but no rejection either.)
--this person is not as great as I made himlher out to be. --that they weren't as confident about themselves or as happy as I perceived them to be. --how easily I overlooked any negative traits that person had when I was overwhelmed
by the prominent aspects of their personality. --generally one of surprise, because first appearances tend to be very stereotypical or
incredibly general. When you actually get to know someone who you have in the past admired, I always tend to be a little shocked that their personalities go further than those stereotypes.
'l'hrcc: Ikf in i tc indication of thc targeted response (Specitic ideal-hungry "disappointrnt.nt clause" elaboration: I'crfcctionisric and rejecting, o r disappointnwnt and devaluation.)
--usually disappointment. If I admire a person, I tcnd to notice only their good points or if I don ' t know about a certain aspect of their lives, I might makc up in my mind what I think it would be like. These are all good things. hut nobody is perfect and it's disappointing to realize a person you really admire is far from perfect as well.
Idcal-Hungry (Xtcria and Stenis
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealized/pedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
C.) There have been times in my adult life when I have admired someone, or even conic to the conclusion that a certain person represents one of my ideals. 77~e length o f time that 1 saw this person as being admirable . . .
Hasic question: This is an awkward stem which does nevertheless ask the question: If you admire someone, does that feeling last a long time, and if not, then what is the trigger? I t is therefore meant to tease out whether one has experienced this aspect of the ideal-hungry dynamic by asking what is most salient in one's memory. Some respondents see through the stem and describe the dynamic as i t applies to them. The scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent continues to admire the person, the response gets a score of one. If the respondent states that heishe will sometimes but not always reject following disappointment, then the response gets a score of two. If the response describes a situation in which disappointment is followed by rejection, then it is scored as a three.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Continues to admire the person.)
--was for over two years in high school. 1 had an English teacher in grade eleven and twelve who was a great inspiration. He made me think about what it means to be human and put more meaning into my life. I guess you could say that I admired him since 1991 and will continue to for as long as I can remember him.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Will sometimes reject if disappointed. Rejection is not the automatic response.)
--depends. Some of the people that were ideals are still, others have dropped because of other things I have found put about them.
--is i~sually until I find out that person has done something that offends me - this may never happen.
'I'hree: Ikfinite indication of the targeted response (Ikscribes the dynamic: Kejection & the automatic response.)
--is until that person contradicts that ideal. I see someone as compassionate - I idealize that, I idealize himiher. If she does something to go against tha t , I usually reject that person in regards to that ideal and sometimes reject that person as someone to idealize in any way.
Ideal-Huncry Critcria and S t e m
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealizedlpedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
I).) When someone 1 look up to displays a character flaw - that is, show that they are not as peat as I initially imagined ...
Basic question: 'l'his stem is a straightforward "what would your reaction be" question, which requires an unabashedly ideal-hungry stance to generate a score of three. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent displays a resilient, accepting attitude, with no judgment of the other person, or indicates that helshe feels a little let down, but that ultimately, the result is equalization, the score is a one. If the respondent feels let down, but the response lacks a strong rejecting quality, then the score is a two. However, if the respondent is easily disappointed by the presence of a character flaw and responds with rejection, then the response gets a score of three. Here the scoring rationale accommodates disappointment in the "one" category insofar as the end result is acceptance.
Scorinq Values and Exem~lars
h: Any response (Overall positive tone, no judgment of other. 1)isplays resilience.)
(Feels let down but maintains an equal relationship.) --I am sometimes disappointed but I then have to come to a co~iclusion that everyone
displays character flaws - no one is perfect, then 1 accept the person for who helshe 1s.
--I feel that they are not impossible to reach. In other words, my goal to be like them becomes more realistic. Undoubtably I am let down.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Focuses on flaws, no positive emphasis.)
(Feels let down, and the language is overtly judgmental, but because the stem forces one to judge, and this response comes close to an "average expectable" response, it cannot be considered a three.) --I usually stand back and look at the person and think of why I admired them in the first
place. If the flaw is something too major to forgive, then 1 probably won't be able to, even though 1 had admired them. If it is a minor flaw, it would be easy to forgive.
'l'hree: lkf in i te indication of the targeted response (Kejccting)
(t;,asily disappoi ntcd by tlaws.) --it would no longer be possible fo r me to admire that person. 1 set very high standards for
the company I keep. --I feel rcally let down, and completely lose interest in that person.
Idcal-Hun!rry (:ritcria and Stcms
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Easily disappointed by (finds flaws in) idealizedlpedestalized other, which ends the "relationship" (Disappointment clause).
F,.) Some people are very discriminating when i t comes to the people they admire - they have high standards, even when i t comes to people they view as above all others. If thcsc standards arc not met, they would find it impossible to continue to look up to a person. Some people however, could care less. and are inclined to overlook other people's faults, even those of the people they admire. In my case ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
Basic uuestion: Am I like this? This is one of those stems that specifically asks for self- insight. It is also transparent, because it describes the dynamic completely, but does so in a non-pejorative manner. The scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent continues to admire the person, then the response is scored as a one. If the respondent notes the faults found in the other person, but is not preoccupied by them, then the response gets scored as a two. However, if the respondent indicates a note of intolerance and that what they expect is a certain degree of perfection, then the score is clearly a three.
Scoring Values and Exem~lars
One: Any response (Continues to admire/complete acceptance. )
--if I feel that a person is an ideal, I usually do not even discriminate some of their faults. I usually totally overlook them and look beyond to their good points.
--I am critical at first, but the more I get to know the person, their faults start to become attractions. I like people who are different.
m: Some indication of the targeted response (Faults irritate but do not preoccupy them.)
-- I overlook faults to an extent but when a person does something that I morally do not agree with, it makes me take a second look at the person. [Some element of scrutiny.]
' 1 hrcc: l k t i n i t c indication of the targeted response (Faults cannot bc overlooked. Seeks perfection, or something close to it. Intolerant.)
- - I tcnd to try to find excuses for people's hu l t s , but it always bothers rnc when someone 1 really admire shows that they're not perfect.
- - I rcalize that everyone has their faults, but thosc that I truly admire must have few of thosc faults, and the faults that they do have must be minor or inconsequen rial.
Ideal-Huni~ry (:riteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile onlv so long as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
A.) If a person 1 admire rejects me ...
Rasic auestion: Does the abrupt dis-connection induce some drop in self-esteem or a defensive response that suggests narcissistic injury? Very few people responded to this stem in a direct manner, and this is to a certain extent reflected in the brevity of the responses. 'I'he scoring rationale focuses on Scoring rationale: A response that expresses little or no anger and suggests a resilient attitude is scored as a one. An "average expectable" expression of anger or grief is scored as a two. With this sample of responses, there is a clear difference between a two and a three: Almost all of the "two" responses are based on anger, whereas the "three" responses indicate a certain intensity of affect in response to rejection, such as a drop in self-esteem, rage or desire for revenge.
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exemplars
(>ne: Any response (Resilience: 'I'he "1 can cope with it" response.)
--it hurts a little, but then I don't dwell on it. --then so be it. --I find someone else. --I don't take i t to heart, I go somewhere else.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Average expectable anger, rage, confusion, disappointment, or grief. Unelaborated.)
--I get hurt. --I would be extremely disappointed. --I am confiised. --it makes me angry and hurt. --I am deeply hurt. --I'll reject them back.
'l.hrcc: 1)cfinite indication of the targeted response (Affcctcd to the point where self cstecmlworth is affected, or displays some kind of rcflcx hostility such as the need for revenge.)
( A drop in self esteem.) --my self-confidence level drops --my self-esteem will plummet.
(Ilespite self-talk which is meant to quell one's serlse of inner disequilibrium thc respondent still experiences fragmentation.) --I feel awful. I feel lost and wondcr why I am not good enough for them, but I realize that
I am a good person and not everyone is going to like me and that's okay.
--I tend to criticize myself.
(Kage or revenge.) --I want revenge. --I say f--- you!
Iclcal-Hungry (Iritcria and Stems
3 . ) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile only so l o n ~ as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
H . ) If a pcrson I admire acts in a cold or unfriendly manner towards me, I feel ..
Rasic question: Kather than expect people to express feelings of worthlessness, i t is more appropriate to score for narcissistic rage. Almost no one admitted to feelings of worthlessness. 'l'his is true especially if one considers the social desirability factor, and the fact that for many people, the more worthless they feel, the more they are likely to deny that very state. 'l'herefore, the scoring rationale is based on the type and intensity of affcct in each response, except in those instances where the respondent does actually admit to feelings of worthlessness. 'The scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent is able to tolerate the "cold shoulder," then the response is scored as a one. If the response indicates simple anger, then the score is a two. If the respondent is deeply affected on the level of the self or self esteem, or they become angry to the point of taking retaliatory action, then the score is a three.
Scorinc Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Is able to tolerate the rejection.)
--a little rejected, but then 1 remember times when I have acted cold to other people, I realize that we are all capable of i t and sometimes it happens.
'w: Some indication of the targeted response (Their view of the other person changes somewhat, although not dramatically. Or: Internalized rejection of other.)
--as though they didn't deserve my admiration as much as if they had been friendly. --more hurt than if a person I didn't admire was to do the same thing. --very insulted and probably would lose respect for that person.
(Some disdainlcontempc.) --like this person is missing out on a goocilgreat friendshiplrelationship, so the only feeling I get is "you're missing out on something."
'l'hree: 1)efinite indication of the targeted response (1)ceply affected, or anger leads to action.)
--slighted, as if it were a reminder of how alienated I sometimes feel. --unworthy, as though something I might or might not have done might have changed that
person's view of me. --extremely angry, insulted, anxious, and 1 try to express those feelings by reciprocating in
a cold and unfriendly manner (while envisioning acts of violence in my head towards the person.).
3 . ) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile only so Ion? as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
(:.) 'l'hcrc arc times my life (in everyone's life for that matter) when my self-esteem takes a dip. When this happens, I can feel quite out of sorts. However, if I a5sociate with a certain type of person my sense of vitality is restored. For me that type ofperson ruozild be ... (please avoid nondescript phrases such as ... "a happy person.")
I k i c question: 'l'his stem is a floater and could pull for any of the three categories. It even pulls for a 'normal' category. 'l'hc main question is: What kind of person makes the respondent feel better? If it is someone they admire, someone who soothes by being admirable, or someone who has achieved the goals to which they aspire, then we are in business. The scoring rationale is as follows: If the response does not describe an obviously idealizable person, then the score is a one. If the response hints at idealization, or describes someone who has attained the respondent's goals, then the score is a two. If a response clearly describes someone who is admired, or represents some sort of hero-ideal, i t is scored as a three.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (A response that does not describe an idealizable person.)
--someone who is provocative and interesting. The only way 1 feel I can get out of a slump is if I feel I am inspired enough to get my creativity flowing Once this happens I usually can recognize my worth and things expand from there. (a self-starter)
--someone who can make me laugh and realize that things aren't so bad, and make me feel good about myself again.
--someone who is laid back, has fun, and makes me feel better when I'm around them. ----someone who cares for me unconditionally (my boyfriend or good friend) who will
make me feel worthwhile and wanted again. (Mirroring)
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Hints at idealization, or object of admiration has attained respondent's goals. )
--someone who is doing the kind of work that I would like to do when I finished schooling. Or I suppose someone in the arts, open minded and usually very funny.
--someone who is not concerned about what other people think; someone who feels good about themselves and is happy to be alive.
'l.hrcc: 1)efinitc indication of the targeted response (Explicitly admired, hero, synonym for admiration.)
--SOIIICO~C who possesses a strong yet warm personality. eg: a friend L admire.
Ideal-Hunyrv Criteria and Stems
3. ) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happylworthwhile only so long as helshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
I).) My sense of self-esteem gets a real boost when I associate wirh a person who ...
Basic question: Hasically, if the response is some variation o n "someone I admire," then i t is higher than a one. 'l'his makes i t a semi-floater, in that i t really could pull for ideal or mirror responses. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the response belongs in another category, then i t is scored as a one. If the response describes an idealizable person, but in a lukewarm manner, i t is scored as a two. Any explicit descriptions of idealized or mentor- figures gets scored as a three.
Scoring: Values and Exem~lars
()ne: Any response (Kcsponses that belong to another category, ix., mirror.)
--responds to me positively and makes the first step to continue the association over a long period of time.
--recognizes what my achievements are and conipliments them. Hut for the most part it's someone who encourages me to perform to the best of my ability and reminds me when I fall short. [Mirror-mentor?]
--also has a high self-esteem (self image) of himiherself because they encourage me, and make me feel that whatever I am doing is not worthless. [Mirror]
--cares about me and appreciates my good habits and accepts my bad habits as part of me. [Mirror] --shares my view, has my same values and can really cooperate with me. [Twinship]
k: Some indication of the targeted response (Admirable yet bland)
--is very positive and knows how to enjoy life, I t makes me tend to forget my insecurities and helps me t o look at the positive aspects in my own life.
'l'hree: Definite indication of the targeted response
(Clearly describes the criterion.) --is considered attractive and enjoyable to be around (not socially dysfunctional). That is
when I associate with someone considered socially desirable and physically attractive or a close friend or companion.
(A mentor.) --is very understanding, encourages me to follow my dreams and aspirations, and is
willing to help me in any way helshc can.
Ideal-H un!;ry (:riteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Experiences self as happytworthwhile onlv so lonq as hetshe can maintain a connection to the admired one.
F..) We all have people in our lives who we look up to, people who represent the ideals and goals we dream of attaining ourselves. Often, our association with such people is a personal one, and their very presence is important to us. I f f ir some reason, / had to part company with such a person, l would feel ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response)
Hasic question: O u t of all the stems in the test, this one attracted the most heartfelt responses. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent reports being relatively unaffected (resilience), or is merely disappointed without being crushed, then the response is scored as a one. If the respondent admits to being affected, even to the point of including some ideal-hungry nuances, but the response is not very elaborated, then the response is scored as a two. If the person is in some way deeply affected - to their very core, in an elaborated description, then the score is a three. Confusion and loss of goals, isolation, feeling lost, etc.
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Kelatively unaffected.)
--the same because 1 would still try hard to attain my goals. I would never give up. --very disappointed that this person was no longer part of my life, but confident that
discontinuing relation was the right thing to do.
(Clearly resilient. Could be the "average expectable" response.) --sad, yet challenged to find other people who will substitute in, with similar beliefs. Life
is ever changing, take thought for an instant, then move on. --lost for a short while. However, then I tend to make new associations with different
people. There are so many people out there to look up to. --probably confused for a while, until I could reprioritize who my favorite person is, or I
might just worry about it, relax, and let things happen as they may.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Unhappy, but still able to cope.) --really bad. --trapped because of my concerns for the other person's feelings and scared of losing that
person's support. --as if I had lost a close friend. However, 1 would recover by finding a new "hero." If you
sever tics like that you sever a connection you probably had for a long time with someone you know well. 'Therefore, it is like losing a friend.
--like I had just lost a big part of who I am.
' lhrcc: 1)cfinitc indication of the targeted response (1)ccply affccrcd.)
((:onfusion and loss of goals) --undriven and unable to fill goals I hoped to fi~lfill. --confused and hurt. '1'0 lose contact with a positive motivational influence or "mentor"
would seriously harm my motivational track, especially regarding school or the job 1 am currently in, given that in both of these endeavors, I feel little satisfaction or sense of achievcn~cnt.
(Feels isolated without that person, loss of motivation to achieve goals.) --alone, and probably a need to find someone else to fil l the position. '1 '0 have someone to
look up to is to have someone to motivate me and help me attain my goals. --that my job of keeping my goals in sight and striving toward then1 would be that much
more difficult. 'I'his person is my father, and to me he has done everything right. '1'0 be considered in the same category as him would be good. 'l'he best thing is that he considers one as an equal. I'd hate to lose that.
--lost and misguided. I think I need that person in front of me every so often to keep me focused to the ideals and goals
(Lleeply affected by the loss: Replaces the lost person by becoming that person.) --as if it were my responsibility to be like them and make them proud. This is the type of
way I see my father.
(I,oss of other leads to loss of ideals.) --like the ideals and goals that this person represented may no longer be ones which I would like to attain. --alone. Usually it's jealousy and their drive for what they believe motivates me. So I felt
like I had lost my aspirations as well.
'l'wi~lshiy-Hu~l!rry (:riteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationshipslfriendshipslaffiliation with others who conform to hislher own appearance, opinions or values.
A.) Having a partner who is very much like myself ... (After completing the sentence, please explain your response.)
Hasic question: Is this what I want! 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any variation on 1 1 1 1
no, or a statement of indifference will be given a score of one. A characteristic pattern in the "one" scorers is a weighing of pros and cons, but with equal weighting without a vote in favor either way. If the answer is "yes," then the basic score is two. An affirmative response that does not provide enough information to suggest that the predominant mode in which the respondent operates is the "twinship mode," also warrants a score of two. A characteristic pattcrn in the "two" scorers is a weighing of pros and cons, with a vote in favor, or an abstract (i.e., unemotional) end0rsement.A response that indicates that twinship needs are a dominant feature of the respondent's friendship(s) warrants a three. A characteristic pattern in the "three" responses is a simple vote in favor, with a sense that the twinship mode is a pervasive aspect of the respondent's life.)As a general guide, it is also important to ask oneself where the emotional loading lies.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Negative statement. Or , any weighing of pros and cons, without a vote in favor either way.)
--is not important. As long as I am attracted to that person, mentally, physically, and emotionally.
--can have pros and cons. --would drive me crazy. --isn't very important if we can accept each other's differences. --could get really boring. --is good, but not too much alike, thank you!
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Weighing of pros and cons, with a vote in favor, or an abstract endorsement.)
--is what I want. --makes me feel conlfortable with that person. --is good. --is important. --is enjoyable, preferable. --is something I have always wished for but may not have to be necessarily so. --is very gratifying. --would be nice.
'l 'hrce: Lkftnitc indication of the targeted response (Simple votc in favor, a scnsc that it is pervasive.) --I gi~css is important hecausc [hat's the way it is now and it's great
' l 'wi~~shi p - H i (kiteria and Stems
I .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationshipslfriendshipslaffiliation with others who conform to hislher own appearance, opinions or values.
R.) Some of the people I know arc very similar to me, whereas others are very diffcrcnt from me. I feel the most comfortable with ...
Hasic uuestion: This stem is meant to tap into more general trends than 'I'-1/A. 'l'he phrase "I feel most comfortable with" draws the respondent in on a casual level, while at the same time asking for comprehensive information. The scoring rationale is as follows: Preference for those who are "different" warrants a score of one. A simple "yes" gets a score of two. If the respondent elaborates by stating that they desire "mutually shared characteristics," then it calls for a score of three. A response that indicates both a 'simple yes' and that twinship needs arc a dominant feature of the respondent's friendship(s) warrants a three. I t is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three."
Scoring Values and Exemplars
Ont.: Any response
(Feels most comfortable with those who are different, mentions both "similar" and "different" but puts emphasis on "different," or makes some kind of statement such as "not exactly like me.")
--people that are different from me because I am quiet and I need to be with more outgoing people that initiate conversation.
--people who are similar but not exactly like me because it provides some interesting consequences.
--people who are very different from me because we give different perspectives to our lives.
--people that are a mixture, some things similar but not exactly, or things that are different.
'b: Some indication of the targeted response (Simple, unelaborated statement that similarity is preferred.)
--those who are similar. --people who are similar to me. --people who are similar to me because they understand me bettcr. --people who have lots in common with me, especially inner qualities such as sensitivity.
'l'hrce: 1)ct;nitc indication of the targeted response (An cniphatic, elaborated response. '].he elaboratio~i must depict parallel characteristics. t;,xclusively similar.)
--people who arc similar to me because that would mean we could have a lot in common, a lot of things to talk about, and would know how the other person would feel in certain situations.
--people who are similar to me. Although I am now a Canadian, my origins are from somewhere else. I seem to have very different beliefs and habits from most people and therefore feel more comfortable with people who are similar to me. However, I am very adaptable and make most of the situation, even if the person is opposite in personality.
' l 'winshiv-Hun<~r~ (:riteria and Stcms
1 .) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Seeks relationships/friendships/affiliation with others who conform to hislher own appearance, opinions or values.
(1.) 'l'hink of your best friend. Is i t the similarities or differences in your personalities that makes you friends? For me, what really makes the friendship "click" ...
Basic question: What is the binding element in your closest friendship? 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any focus on differences or a balanced combination of similarity and differences gets a score of one, as do friendships based on complementarity. Exclusive focus on similarities or a weighted combination of similarity and differences gets a score of two. Also give a score of two if twinship is mentioned in conjunction with 'differences' in which it is apparent that a twinship relationship occurs strongly on one level but not on others. A score of three would require some sort of elaborate or intense statement of the desire for a conformingltwinship relationship. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three."
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Differences, complementarity)
--is our individuality and differences. We share experiences with one another to balance out the qualities that each of us does not possess.
--are both. I admire my friend for her individual differences. We do have different values, and different ways of dealing with situations. We also have similarities which is how we met in the first place.
--is the fact that we can talk about practically anything without having to be afraid of what the other person will think of me.
((hmplementary "goodness of fit" rather than similarity.) --is the open and (usually) honest communication that the two of us share, as well as our
intellectual compatibility and complementary sense of humor. Those elements keep us the best of friends, because we don't particularly have similar interests or pastimes.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Similarity. Mild, casual, friendly tone.)
--are the things that we have in common. --is having a lot of things in common, such as reacting similarly to similar situations. --is a1 that we have in common, we both go to school, have jobs, enjoy the same forms of
entertainment, and have the same sense of humor.
(Similarity is the primary bond.) --is the stuff we d o together. 1 have two best friends and the reason we are so close is
because we laugh together. It is our sinlilarities that make it work, but when there are differences, each of us is willing to look at the other side, and occasionally try something new.
'1.hrcc: I k f in i te indication of the targeted response (hlust state that similarity is the binding element, and the tone of the response should display a 'driven' tone, or make some sort of statement that friendships based on similarity are the & choice.)
--No examples.
'l'winshiv- H u n g r Criteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationships/friendships/affiliation with others who conform to hislher own appearance, opinions or values.
I).) In some friendships, similarity is what makes it work, whereas for others, opposites attract. In order that a friendship be a satisfj4ng one, i t is important that the other pcrson be ...
Basic question: 'l'his is a general "which would you choose" question. I t is meant to solicit the respondent's outlook in a frank, but non-threatening manner. The scorhg rationale is as follows: Any suggestion that similarity, that 'opposites attract,' or emphasis on complementarity rather than similarity gets a score of one. A simple emphasis on similarity yields a score of two. Any statement of permanence, pervasiveness, driven-ness or totality gets a score of three. A typical three response usually contains elements of a "two" with some sort of similarity-specific elaboration. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that i t could be considered a "thrce."
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Focus on opposites, complementarity, or a mixed answer with no specific emphasis.)
(Very general or lukewarm responses.) --attentive and responsive to my ideas as this will show they value me as a friend. --someone you can relate to and vice versa. --interested in similar activities, but have other things that are different. To(
similarity makes life boring, you need the difference to keep up the --somewhat similar, like share some of the same interests, but not identical. --to have similar interests to my own, yet have a mind of hidher own.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Hasic similarity. Average expectable response.)
3 much interest.
--outgoing and optimistic at all times. What makes a friendship work is for both people to get along well and enjoy the same thing as the other person enjoys.
'l'hrcc: [ ) ~ f i n i t e indication of the targeted response (Basic elements of a two with elaboration. Sense of pervasiveness, driven-ncss, pcrmancnce.)
--similar to me in the things I like the most. 1 usually need to feel there is some connectiori that we will always havc in common.
--interested in the same activities as myself, and generally havc similar viewpoints and feelings about certain issues.
'l'winship- H u n ! y Criteria and Stems
1 .) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Seeks relationshipslfriendshipslaffiliation with others who conform to hislher own appearance, opinions or values.
E.) Having a partner who is very different from myself ... (After completing the sentence, p leae explain your response.)
Pmic uuestion: rl'his stem is a simple inversion of 'I'-1/A. There are really only two possibilities with this stem: "is good" or "is bad." 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any positive comment gets a score of one. A negative response with a note of tolerance gets a score of two. Any statement that such a state of affairs would be virtually intolerable warrants a score of three.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Some sort of positive statement.)
--gives me different perspectives to look at and would maybe even influence my thinking to some extent.
--allows me to be more open minded. --is stimulating. The relationship is exciting instead of stagnant. --is an interesting way to learn about people. --is interesting, since I get to experience things I would not normally do of my own
accord. --is challenging yet rewarding.
(Ambiguous, but seems to be essentially twinship-based. Makes a statement of complementarity rather than similarity. Actually a "1.5.")) --is like mixing oil and water; they never become one, but they will always be beside each
other.
'b: Some indication of the targeted response (Basic "no" with some form of tolerance.)
(Cannot tolerate it, so they try to fix it.) --is challenging, but 1'11 try to compromise our differences
'I'hree: Ikfinite indication of the targeted response (Basic "no" with some form of intolerance.)
--would make it extremely difficult to make the relationship work.
'1-winship-Hungry Criteria and Sterns
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which helshe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own.
A.) If I spend the day with my closest friend, and hisiher mood changes suddenly, my own mood .. .
Hasic question: Almost everybody will say that their mood changes, but the way they say it, and how they elaborate on it, determines the score. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent indicates that their mood does not change with their friend's mood, or that it would change, but they frame it in the context of an external event that brought on the mood (rather than the sole cause being their friend's mood), then it is scored as a one. If the respondent frankly indicates that their mood does change according to their friend's mood, the response is scored as a two. A response that fulfills the criteria for a "two" and elaborates in such a way as to further confirm that statement is scored as a three. I t is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three."
Scoring Values and Exemplars
<)ne: Any response (No mood change, reference to external event, or feels urge to run away or reject.)
--usually changes to agree with him if I agree with the situation, or I ask what is bothering him.
(Refers to a shared external event rather than a shared mood.) --will most likely change similarly, depending on the nature of the event which changed her
mood. For example, if she suddenly became quite happy about something, it is most likely that the event which caused this would also make me happy to a similar degree.
--softens and I often ask what is bothering the person and try to discuss anything that is on their mind without focusing back to myself.
(Shared mood is not desired. Almost a boundary issue.) --changes for the worse and the last thing I want to do is spend any more time with that
person, so I leave, make up a good excuse, etc.
(Symbiotic relationship assumed, but w indication that mood is the same.) --changes because I react to their mood changes thinking that I might have brought on the
changes or some other stimuli could gave created the mood swing.
'h: Some indication of the targeted responsc (Simple yes: States that mood changes but offers n o relevant elaboration.)
--would be affectcd as well. 'l'hc reason for being is caring for one another.
'l'hrcc: Ikf in i tc indication of the targeted response (States that moods move in parallel and elaborates on that theme.)
--will probably change also. My relationship with most of my friends result in gathering similar traits. We have come to have similar personalities and cmotions about things. 'I'his would likely result in my mood changing when my friend's does.
--often follows suit. For example, if he suddenly got really down I would certainly try to cheer him up but it is hard to remain happy if someone you are very close to is down. If is was the other way (e.g., both feeling bored, then he is excited), I would also probably change moods to match.
'I'winshiv-Hun!rry Criteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which heishe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own.
13.) When I am with my partnerlbest friend, how I feel depends on what thcy ...
Basic uuestion: 'l'his stern tends to elicit mirror responses. 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Responses that make no mention of the other person's mood, refer to an external event a5 the cause, or those responses that belong in another category (such as mirror needs.) are scored as ones. Any mention of the other person's mood is automatically scored as a two. A response that mentions the other person's mood and expands on the emotional symbiosis theme is scored as a three.
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exem~lars
One: Any response (Responscs that make no mention of the other person's mood.)
--or how they respond to me, conversation-wise. I would have a good, positive feeling if they listened intently and then responded with their own remarks. I would feel out of place or uncomfortable if they just passively listened, interrupted, or ignored. (Mirror)
--do or don't do to enjoy themselves and help me make the time we spend together fun or relaxing. 'I'heir negativity can sometimes bring me down as well. ( I + )
--say within the first few minutes. If right away they are critical or ignore what I have to say, for the day when I am with them, I will riot be in the best of moods. (Mirror)
(Mentions other person's mood but, what is being satisfied are mirror needs.) --feel. It depends on (usually) if they have had a good day, are in a good, optimistic mood
and give me the attention I need at that particular time.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Clearly and simply states that the other person's mood is the factor.)
--do and what kind of mood they are in. --say, what mood they are in because if my boyfriend is in a really bad mood I'm not
going to start telling him all the great things going on in tny life. (Mentions other person's mood and mirror needs.)
'l'hrcc: 1)cfinitc indication of the targeccd response
(F,xplicit description of the dynamic: Not only do thcy state that the other pcrson's mood is the deciding factor, but they also expand on the emotional synlbiosis thtmc. 1 --feel. If thcy are happy, I tend to be happy, even if I was a little sad before. If thcy arc
sad, I tend to be a little sad too, udess something very exciting happcncd it1 my life and I can't help but be happy.
' l 'winship-Hunrrv (:riteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which helshe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own.
(:.) '1-he things that I am most affected by when i t comes to my partner ...
Basic question: O f all the twinship stems this stem elicited responses with the most feeling. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: Responses that make no mention of the other person's mood, or those that clearly belong in another category get a score of one. Any reference to the partner's mood receives a score of two. If the twinship experience is momentary, i t is scored as a two, but if it seems pervasive in the respondent's life (i.e., goes beyond a single experience), i t is scored as a three.
Scorinp Values and Exemdars ()ne: Any response (Responses that make no mention of the other person's mood or belong in another category.)
(Mirror-needs.) --are things which anger me such as ignoring me or forgetting important dates or other
things which are important to me. --are acts of generosity and things when I know they spent time on me. --is the way he treats me since I know i t reflects what he thinks of me. For example, if he is
very caring, I know he cares about me, but if he is vague and seems unconcerned about my life, then I know he doesn't really care about me.
(Ideal-needs.) --are hislher ability to handle situations rationally (I don't do that very well.).
--involve time spent between just the two of us. Without interruptions or outside influences in his conversation or gestures, I can more accurately interpret his meaning.
(Appears to imply emotional symbiosis, but insufficient information to be scored as a two.) --deal with issues of trust between us. Just as strongly I am deeply affected if he shows that
he has a major worry or sickness or something bothering him.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Simple nlention of mood, or mood as a clearly transitory experience.)
(Only a transitory shared experience, not a relationship. If i t went beyond a single experience, i t would be a three.) --is her laugh. If we're both laughing really hard, then it's the best feeling I could ever
imagine, because I know she's having a good time and so am I .
'l'hrec: L)cfinitc indication of the targeted response
(I>cscribes a gcncral twinship relationship. 'l'hc last scntcncc in this response is what makes i t a three.) --arc things that make my partner sad or angry. I find that 1 need to try and discover the
cause of these feelings, bring them out in the open, and attempt to rectify them. When my partner feels these things, I feel them too.
'1.winshio- Hunrrry Criteria and Sterns
2.) Behavioral manifestation o f the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which helshe experiences the other's feelings as hislher own.
11.) if a friend experienccs intense sadness, we usually make an effort to console them, because that is what we are supposed to do in that situation: 'I'herefore if someone cries, the "script" we follow is to offer some sort of consolation. However, what we do may or may not reflect how we actually feel (i.e., real empathy for their feelings, or just plain awkward). ?'he last time a close friend expressed deep sorrow, my feelings were ...
Hasic question: How do you feel in response to someone's display of emotion! 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any indication that the respondent feels distanced from the other person's feelings is scored as a one. If there is some indication of shared feeling, it is scored as a two. The statement "I felt empathy" does not get scored as a two. Strong expression of shared feeling tempered with a distancing qualifier of some sort is scored as a two. A clear statement that the respondent shared hislher friend's feelings, with some sort of relevant elaboration is scored as a three, especially if the emotional sharing is involuntary.
Scoring Values and Exem~lars
One: Any response (Feels separate, distanced, the "I don't know how to" response, lacks a sense of emotional connectedness.)
--it was hard for me to feel sorry for her. I didn't know the person that had died and in general it's hard for me to feel sorry in that way for other people. I listened to her talk and tried to say things like "that's terrible" but 1 was forcing myself to try.
--of helplessness. I did not know how I could possibly make my friend feel any better, but he obviously needed someone.
--a little bit of awkwardness mixed with genuine feelings of empathy. (Empathic but in a distanced way. No sense of emotional connectedness. Its abstractness provides little information .)
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Clear indication of shared feeling.)
(Specific mention of similar feelings.) --sympathetic and understanding because I had similar feelings before so 1 could relate to
her problem, remembering my own emotions. --the same as hers. When a friend experiences true sorrow, not just weakness, you share in
their sorrow so the burden is not too much for her. When someone is weak and cries over anything, the consolation becomes a routine.
( A powerful statement with a distancing qualifier, ix., "fbr hin1/hcru rathcr than "iclitli
himlher." --of true sorrow and grief not only for him but his family as I know them very well, as well
as the father who passed away.
"For her" suggests some distance. "2.5") --very similar to hers. 1 could feel how upset and angry she was, and cried right along with
her because what happened to her made me upset for her.
(Although the shared feeling is involuntary, it is ego-dystonic. "2.5") --a little awkward, because that does not happen very often. It sort of made me feel
depressed myself, and that is what I didn't like.
'I'hree: Iletinite indication of the targeted response (A clear statement that the respondent shared histher friend's feelings, with some sort of relevant elaboration.)
--exactly the same, we share all our feelings. I feel her feelings as if they were my own.
'l'winship-Hungry (:riteria and Stems
2.) Behavioral manifestation of the need: Tends to form emotionally symbiotic relationships in which hetshe experiences the other's feelings as histher own.
E.) For some people, their own emotions are quite unaffected by their friends' feelings, whereas for others, they experience their closest friend's feelings as if they were their own. In my case . . .
13asic question: 'l'his stem simply "asks the question." as it is stated in the criterion. 'l'he problem with this stem is it really does presuppose some sort of self-awareness. 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: A negative or mixed response with no emphasis gets a score of one. A very basic affirmative response, or a mixed response with balance toward positive emotion only, which is a unidirectional yes, is to be scored as a two. If the respondent describes the root criterion in their own words, it is scored as a three. I t is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that i t could be considered a "three."
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Negative or mixed response with no emphasis.)
--I tend not to sympathize with other's feelings of unhappiness. I feel everyone should take care of their own problems and I don't feel sorry for them I will listen to them though.
--my feelings rarely change due to what my friends feel but I do not entirely disregard them.
--I am somewhere in between the two extremes.
'b: Some indication of the targeted response (A very basic affirmative response, or a mixed response with balance toward positive emotion only; a unidirectional yes.)
--I experience a bit of both. Although my friend's feelings influence me, I don't change my own feelings about something if 1 don't agree with my friends. They influence me in that when my friend's feeling depressed I tend to feel more depressed too because I think of depressing things
--I feel for their feelings but sometimes don't like to, especially if they are sad feelings because I don't exactly enjoy being depressed.
--I am very sensitive to feelings, my own and other people's, and enjoy the understanding I can sometimes get for other people this way.
-1'hree: 1)efinite indication of the targeted response (1)rscribes the root criterion in their own words.)
- - I experience my closest friend's feelings as if they were my own. When you are so close to someone it is difficult to separate yourself from their emotions. Friends share everything.
- - I am very affcctcd by the feelings of my friends. I am the type of person who will cry just because my friend is crying, even if 1 don't know why!
.l~witlshiv-Hun!;ry Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought.
A.) If I arrive at the realization that someone who I consider to be a close friend is very different from me in some respect ...
I3asic uuestion: Any response will be a variation on "is goodlis bad." 'I'he scoring rationale is as follows: Any indication that the respondent feel at ease with people who are dissimilar or that helshe seeks to accommodate the friend who is "different" is scored as a one. If the respondent discusses both similarity and difference, but places no emotional weight on either, that will be scored as a one also. For a score of two, the respondent must dislike this state of affairs, but put up with it, discuss both similarity and difference, but place the emotional weight on similarity, or state that helshe feels that similarity is important in some areas but not in others. A response that clearly 'describes the dynamic' - ix., that conveys a sense of intolerance, either clearly or subtly, is to be scored as a three. An alternative three response would convey the idea that similarity is characteristic of all of the respondent's relationships.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Accommodation or indifference, or discusses both similarity and difference, but places no emotional weight on either.)
--I will not end it but look at additional things such as our experiences together. --I make room for this difference and develop ways to accept and appreciate this aspect
instead of dissolving the friendship altogether.
--it is not too important to me since we think differently on many things.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response ('I'he "I would prefer not to" response: Does not like this state of affairs, but puts up with it. Or, discusses both similarity and difference, but places the emotional weight on similarity.)
'l'hrcc: 1)et;nite indication of the targeted response (Intolerant of differences, and/or clear indication that this is characteristic of all this respondent's relationships.)
- - I tcnd to unconsciously depart in the relationship and tcnd t o become closer to someone who has more in common (but I can't say I'm always aware that I'm doing it).
(1)isillusionnicnt and an escalating separation dynamic.) --I am saddened because if it is something like religion it is hard to talk about that subject
at all without insulting each other (i.e., you will go to hell if...), so in a way, we would be further apart than I thought.
'1-winship-Hun!lrv Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when he/she discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought.
H.) If I discover that a friend and I are very dissimilar ...
Basic question: This stem restates the 'I'-3/A question, and so the scoring criteria are very similar: Any indication that the respondent feel at ease with people who are dissimilar or that helshe seeks to accomnlodate the friend who is "different" is scored as a one. If the respondent finds this state of affairs to be difficult - unless there is any elaboration that it is intolerable, i t is to be scored as a two. Any response that clearly states that the respondent would find the situation intolerable (a definite statement of "is bad"), or responds to the dissimilarity with rejection, is to be scored as a three. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three."
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Assimilation/accommodation.)
--I would still try to remain friends but stay away from the conflicting areas if they would cause problems.
--I try to find things that we do have in common. --I wonder why we're together and I try to find new common ground.
m: Some indication of the targeted response (Nonplused, finds this situation difficult.)
--I'm not sure what to do. --I am usually disappointed. --I maintain the friendship and allow it to fade out naturally. --I don't see them as often.
Three: Definite indication of the targeted response (Finds this situation to be intolerable, or displays some sort of sharply negative reaction.)
--heishe wouldn't be a close friend in the first place.
(More active than "allow it to fade out naturally.") --I usually lose interest and don't keep in touch.
- - I move on. (Simple, yet decisive rejection.)
' l ' w i n s h i p - H u n Criteria and Stems
3.) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought.
C.) In my close friendships, a difference in outlook or lifestyle ...
Hasic uuestion: Yet another stem in which the possible answers will all be a variation on "is goodlis bad." This stem is simply a rewording of 'r-31A and B, and so the scoring criteria are very similar: Any indication that the respondent feel at ease with people who are dissimilar or that helshe seeks to accommodate the friend who is "different" is scored as a one. If the respondent finds this state of affairs to be difficult - without any elaboration that it is intolerable, it is to be scored as a two. Any response that clearly states that the respondent would find the situation intolerable (a definite statement of "is bad") or unworkable, is to be scored as a chree. It is possible that a "two" response could be stated in such an emphatic way that it could be considered a "three." There were no examples of "chree" responses in this sample.
Scorintr Values and Exemplars
(>ne: Any response (Not particularly bothered by the situation.)
--I usually ignore. --is good because it opens me up to new areas, but can be bad if the lifestyles are so
different as to be offensive or morally unacceptable to the other. --adds to the diversity between us and makes being around each other more interesting.
Different perspectives on life influence my own life and allow me to be more open minded.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Finds the situation difficult, but does not reject outright.)
--is awkward. My closest friends have the same outlook in relation to our cultures. I t is difficult to relate to someone or understand the way they think if I know I couldn't even imagine that thought. Rut a different outlook not relating to morals is refreshing.
--can be really difficult to wade through because when you care about someone you want to share almost everything with them and sometimes the arguments or discussions that arise are somewhat disconcerting.
'1-hree: l k f in i t c indication of the targeted response (Finds the situation to be unworkable.)
--usually would cause conflict, which is why I have the same outlook and goals in lifc as my close friends. I find i t difficult to get along with people who d o not have the same goals.
--is very rare. I usually make close friends with people who are not diffcrcnt from me.
'1-winship-Hunry (:riteria and Stems
3. ) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought.
I).) 'I'here are times when a person feels a strong, almost reflexive urge to abandon a friendship. Often it has a lot to do with what we expect the other person to be. If for some reason that person stops being who we thought they were supposed to be, we may feel betrayed. In my life, I felt this way because . . .
Rasic auestion: This simply asks: "What makes you want to end a friendship?" If the answer is in the twinship mode, then i t is storable. The scoring rationale is as follows: A response that belongs in another category, or just does not imply twinship is scored as a one. A response that indicates 'not enough in common' would be scored as a two, and a response that clearly describes the criterion is scored as a three.
S c o r i n ~ Values and Exem~lars
One: Any response (No indication that lack of similarity caused the friendship to end.)
--of my own personal morals, beliefs and ideals. Deceit and the betrayal of trust are the ultimate personal sins. --I placed trust in some people and now that trust is gone and I would be unable to face the
person. --I expected too much of that person and judged them. I would realize this and adjust my
expectations accordingly. (Possible idealizing.)
'h: Some indication of the targeted response ('fhe "average expectable response.")
--we just didn't have enough in common, so we aren't as close as we used to be.
'I'hree: Definite indication of the targeted response (Actually describes the criterion, i.e., definite twinship dynamic.)
-- me and my best friend used to be like sisters, but then she started changing -- the people she liked, the stuff she was into. I tried to talk to her, but it was like she was a different person. We just don't see things the same way anymore.
'l'winship-Hun!;ry (:riteria and Sterns
3. ) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought. (Disappointment clause)
E.) Sometimes, when we have a lot in common with someone, we feel a sense of kinship. Such a friendship (one based on similarity between people) can create a special bond. If I discovered in the course of knowing a person, that rue were not as much 'twins' as 1 thozqbt we were.. .
Basic question: This stem rephrases '1'-3/A, H, and C, but i t puts a finer point on it by presenting the twinship situation as it is described in the personality description. The scoring rationale is as follows: If the situation does not bother the respondent, then the response gets a score of one. One responses are the "adaptable" responses. If the respondent finds the situation unpleasant, but not intolerably so, then it gets a score of two. If the respondent finds the situation intolerable, then the response gets a score of three.
Scoring Values and Exem~lars
&: Any response (The "adaptable" response.)
--it did not matter to me because a close friendship had already been established and such a friendship could not be diminished by the realization that I didn't have so much in common with the other person as I thought.
--it didn't really bother me too much, since I don't have to be identical to someone else to be friends with them. I t adds a little variety.
--I stayed friends with the person and tried to adapt to the changed behavior.
'h: Some indication of the targeted response (Finds the situation to be difficult but not intolerable.)
--I realize how well the person shielded their true self. --at first it was difficult to accept since prior to this we had been viewed as inseparable but
with time I slowly began to accept that our lives must go separate ways.
Three: Ikfinite indication of the targeted response. (Would find the situation intolerable.)
('l'he question is clearly misunderstood, yet the respondent clearly states that a twinship experience is what they desire.) --I would consider us as "kindred spirits," as "one soul in two bodies." I am very happy
and feel blessed when I come upon a friend I can identify with so well.
' l 'winshipHunery (:riteria and Stems
3. ) Labile Self-esteem: Becomes disillusioned (or displays anger or a complete depolarization of previous feelings for partner) when helshe discovers that the partner is not as identical to self as previously thought. (Disappointment clause)
F.) Consider these two scenes: In the first one, two friends stand side by sidc. I t is obvious that they are quite different from one another. In the second scene, two other friends stand together, but unlike the first two, they are alike in many ways. rf.1 ruere in the first scene, / would feel ... I f1 were in the second scene I wouldfeel ... (After completing these two sentences, please explain your responses)
Hasic uuestion: 'l'he scoring rationale is as follows: If the respondent feels comfortable or indifferent in the first scene and uncomfortable or indifferent in the second scene, then thc response gets a score of one. If the respondent gives a lukewarm response in which they state that they would prefer to be in the second scene, then it gets a score of two. If the respondent states that the second scene is the only one in which they could feel comfortable, the response gets a score of three.
Scoring Values and Exemplars
One: Any response (Prefers the first scene or does not state a strong preference.)
--I would feel comfortable in both scenarios. I have two very good friends, one who is the compete opposite of me in many ways, the other who is more like me, and we are all very good friends.
- &: Some indication of the targeted response (Prefers the second scene, but does not express undue discomfort with respect to the first scene.)
--I would feel most comfortable in the second scene.
'I'hree: IIefinite indication of the targeted response (In so many words states that the second scene is the only viable option.)
--I woi~ld &be comfortable as one of the friends in the second scene, where they are more alike. It is easier to feel comfortable around people who have similar interests and ideologies.
A P P E N D I X C
Three Stories
'I'ht. following pages contain descriptjons of three pcople. As you read each
description, ask yourself, "how much does this person remind me of myself, and do I
identify with what they are going through?" Then indicate your response on the scale helow
each story. If you have any qualit'ying comments, feel free to write them in the space
provided.
Barbara works at a job that allows her some degree of creative frcedorn. 'I'his is
important to Barbara because she finds i t rewarding to express herself, be complimented
on her work, and most of all, recognized and admired for those personal characteristics
that set her apart as a unique individual within the company. In other words, Barbara finds
meaning in her work when it reflects some aspect of herself, and she receives some
recognition for that.
As it happens, once a year, the company in which Harbara is employed sponsors any
interested employees to attend an annual convention where they can display their work.
And each year, Harbara struggles with this opportunity. She loves to display her work and
get the positive feedback that enhances her personal and professional self-esteem, but it also
makes her uncomfortable to place her work, and hence herself, at the center of so much
attention. Nevertheless, she always pushes herself to do it, not only because she can display
her work, but also because she has the satisfaction of placing herself in the company of
people who will most likely admire her for what she has done.
Another thing that Harbara finds difficult about these conventions is that she is quite
sensitive as to what people say about her work. When she receives a compliment, Harbara
feels, as most people do, a glow of pride. But, if she does not get the response she hoped
for, she often feels a little flat, unhappy, or even angry. Barbara also notices that even when
she does receive praise for her work, the good feeling she experiences is only temporary,
and she finds herself wishing i t would last longer, or that someone else would come along
and offer more positive feedback. Despite her occa.iona1 discomfort, Barbara continues to
attend these conventions and finds them to be very rewarding experiences.
Indicate the cxtent to which this personality description reminds you of yourself by circling one of the choices below:
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Llisagrce Disagree Agree
Srrongly Agree
Additional comments:
Natalie has been working at her new job for about 6 months now. She is one of a
number of employees whose work is directed by three different managers. Natalie likes
her iob, which involves being an assistant to whichever of the three managcrs happens to be
posted in her department. O n particular days, Natalie works with a manager named Susan.
'l'he first time she met Susan, Natalie was impressed by her poise and confidence, and
admired the abilities she brought to the job. Natalie could see that Susan had the respect
of the other managers, as well as all of Natalie's co-workers.
Natalie could not help but notice that on those days she worked with Susan she
found her job more fulfilling, she was happier in general, and she experienced a sense of
confidence and energy that seemed almost 'borrowed' from Susan. She looked forward to
working with Susan, as she did not experience her job the same way when she worked with
the other managers.
Natalie continued to find her job more fulfilling and felt that sense of confidence
whenever she worked with Susan. Rut after a while, she began to notice things about Susan
that she had not seen before, and a feeling of disappointment set in. She realized that Susan
had flaws like everybody else, and that she was not living up to the image Natalie had of
her when she first met her. Natalie continues to work with Susan, and they still get on well,
but she finds that she does not look up to her, or experience the same sense of fulfillment or
confidence as when she first worked with Susan. She sometimes finds herself wishing that
the company would hire a manager who would inspire the same admiration that Susan did
when she first arrived.
Indicate the extent to which this personality description reminds you of yourself by circling one of the choices below:
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agrrr
Additional comments:
1)ianc met a new friend at work. She recently attended a company rnccting
designed to acquaint the staffwith some new employees that had just been hired. llianc's
boss introduced her to a friendly-looking woman named (;wen. As they sat atid talked
over lunch in the cafeteria, Lliane could not help but notice how much she and Gwcn had in
common. Not only did they share the same interests, they held almost identical opinions
on many topics. 'l'hey even had similar taste in clothes and movies. I>iane liked Gwen
from the moment she met her.
Soon, Diane and Gwen were the best of friends, and they spent a lot of their time
offwork together. 1)iane really liked hanging out with Gwen. It seemed to her that their
friendship had real depth to it. Not only did they have a lot in common, but it seemed
almost as if 1)iane or Gwen would experience each others moods as if it were her own.
When Gwen was in a good mood, Diane was happy, and when Gwen felt sad about
something, Diane felt it too.
After a while, as Diane got to know Gwen better, she began to notice things about
Gwen that she had not seen before. I t seemed that in some respects, Gwen was actually
quite different from what Diane had thought. Diane came to the conclusion that she and
Gwen did not, after all, have all that much in common. Diane and Gwen remained friends,
but Diane does not feel that close bond anymore. She found herself wondering if she would
ever meet a new friend who she could consider a true "kindred spirit."
Indicate the extent to which this personality description reminds you of yourself by circling one of the choices below:
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Ilir.~gree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree
Additional comments:
Lkscriptivc Statistics: Subscale Frcuuency l>istributions
Count Value
One symbol = approx..40 occurrences
Count Value
One symbol = approx. .60 occurrences
M3
Count value
One symbol = approx. .80 occurrences
Count Value
One symbol = approx. .60 occurrences
Count
One symbol =
Value
approx. .60 occurrences
Count Value
One symbol = approx. .60 occurrences
Count Value
One symbol = approx. .80 occurrences
Count Value
One symbol equals approximately .80 occurrences
Count Value
One symbol = approx. 1.00 occurrence
Count Value
One symbol = approx. .40 occurrences
Count Value
11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17 .OO 18.00 19-00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00
One symbol = approx. .40 occurrences
Count Value
One symbol = approx. . 4 0 occurrences
Self -Rating (Mirror)
Count Value
One symbol = approx. .80 occurrences
Self -Rating (Ideal)
Count Value
One symbol = approx. .60 occurrences
- -- -
Self-Rating (Twinship)
Count Value
0 5 10 15 2 0 2 5
One symbol = approx. .50 occurrences
lieliability Analvsic: Item to Subscale Correlations
S C A L E M 1
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARn, ALPHA
I F ITEN I F ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E M 2
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM - m A L
CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE
CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E M 3
SCALE MEAN
IF ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = . 2 4 2 9
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- TOTAL
CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE
CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E I 1
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED M i J VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCYTAL MULTI PLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATIOPJ CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E I 2
ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS
SCALE SCALE MEAN VARIANCE
I F ITEM I F ITEM DELETED DELETED
S C A L E I 3
SCALE SCALE MEAN VARIANCE
I F ITEM I F ITEM DELETED DELETED
CORRECI'ED ITEM- SQUARED m A L MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED WTAL MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA I F ITEM D E L m D
ALPHA = .2102
S C A L E T L
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEpI.J VARIPSJCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATIOIJ CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E T 2
SCALE MEAN IF ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = . 3 7 0 1
SCALE VARIANCE IF ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED m A L MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA IF ITEM DELETED
S C A L E T 3
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE IF ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED TOTAL MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = . 5 9 1 5
S C A L E M
SCALE MEATJ
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIAtJcE I F ITEM DELETED
18.6062 18.7575 18.0965 17.6648 18.5530 19.477 0 20.1044 20.1483 19.2289 19.5186 20.9646 19.1139 20.0289 19.8445 21.4174
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED TUTAL MULTI PLE
CORRELATION C O R R E W I O P J
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.649 1
.643 1
.6301
.6232
.6339
.6538
.6555
.6826
.6619
.6544
.677 0 -6397 -6608 .67 32 .6876
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
10.8057 10.6260 9.8908 10.7115 10.6648 9.2008 10.2740 10.6978 9.8025 9.8103 11.3037 10.5084 10.8265 10.6420 10.1763
CORRECTED ITEM- m A L
CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE
CORRELATION
.1366
.0883
.1323
.1296
.1777
.3551
.2294
.I191
.3014
.2099
.1948
.2265
.1575
.1232
.1984
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.3993
.4010
.3517
.4022
.4145
.3032
.3981
.3886
.3264
.3505
.4415
.3824
.4061
.4046
.3753
ALPHA = .4011
S C A L E T
SCALE m 1
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIAPICE I F ITEM DELETED
14.9526 15.1610 15.6667 14.8104 14.9898 15.8891 16.9695 17.1580 16.6274 16.2585 15.8131 14.5630 15.1631 16.9614 15.3587 14.1996
CORRECTED ITEM - SQUARED TOTAL MULTI PLE
CORRELATIOPJ CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.6275
.6166
.6310
.6030
.6297
.6526
.677 3
.6619
.6529
.6594
.6441
.6088
.6186
.6525
.6259
.5984
Keliabil i t~ Analysis: ltcm to Subscale Correlations
Second Itcration
S C A L E M I
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIAPJCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = . 7 0 1 3
S C A L E M 2
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA TCYTAL MUL4TI PLE I F ITEM
CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E M 3
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCrrAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = . 3 4 9 3
S C A L E I 1
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEfUI VARIANCE I T E W SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TUTAL MCnTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = .2739
S C A L E I 2
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ACPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION 13XJ3TED
ALPHA = .5731
S C A L E I 3
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCYT AL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = .3298
S C A L E T 1
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAIJ VARIAIICE ITEM- SQUAFUD ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCYTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CO'ORRELATIOFJ CORRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = .6 1 7 7
S C A L E T 2
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCYTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E T 3
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED TCTAL MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = . 5 9 8 6
S C A L
RM113 RM123 RM133 RM14 3 RM153 RM213 RM223 RM243 RM2 5 3 RM313 RM323 RM3 3 3 RM3 4 3
ALPHA =
E M
SCALE MEAPI
I F ITEM DELETED
22.9813 22.9533 23.2243 23.3458 23.0187 23.3364 22.8879 22.9813 22.9626 22.8785 23.2150 23.7009 23.1869
.7013
SCALE VARINJCE I F ITEM DELETED
16.6223 16.9506 16.1945 15.9453 16.67 89 17.6216 18.1571 17.3204 17.6401 18.7870 17.1515 17.9663 17.6251
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED mrAL MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.6821
.6793
.6634
.66 12
.6677
.6890
.6880
.697 4
.6891
.7063
.67 12
.6915
.7023
S C A L E I
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
8.7254 8.6486 7.9543 8.9314 7.5516 8.2864 8.0594 7 .go30 9.1534 8.4636 8.5810 8.1940
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED TOTAL MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.3924
.4027
.3430
.4382
.3099
.3979
.3295
.3441
.4411
.37 34
.4005
.3693
S C A L E T
SCALE MEAfJ
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIAlJCE I F ITEM DELETED
1 3 . 7 6 9 4 1 4 . 0 3 5 1 1 4 . 5 3 9 2 1 3 . 6 8 1 5 1 3 . 7 6 1 2 14 .5667 1 5 . 9 4 7 8 1 6 . 0 0 9 3 1 5 . 3 0 2 6 14 .6385 1 3 . 5 1 1 2 1 4 . 0 6 2 8 14 .1837 1 3 . 1 1 9 6
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED TCYTAL MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATIOPd
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.6307
.6208
. 6 3 6 5
.6057
.6317
.6544
.6894
.6695
. 6 7 2 1
.6493
.6147
. 6 2 3 8
.6294
.6023
Kcliability Analysis: Ircm to Subscale Correlations
'l'hird I tcration
S C A L E M I
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM - SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCYTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = .7013
S C A L E M 2
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM ?YYTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = .4504
S C A L E M 3
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM m A L MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED. DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETEE
S C A L E I 1
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED W J VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCrrAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E I 2
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = .5731
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
C O R R E r n ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA TUTa MULTIPLE I F ITEM
CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E I 3
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED W J VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM T<YTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION O;)RRELPTION DELETED
ALPHA = .4090
S C A L E T 1
SCALE MEPTJ
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- m A L
CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE
CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E T 2
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM mrAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E T 3
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- m A L
CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE
CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E M
SCALE MEPTJ
I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = .6915
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
14.9344 15.2804 14.6431 14.2735 14.9989 15.9619 16.4400 15.5193 15.9388 17.0065 15.3858 15.8582
CORRECTED ITEM- TOTAL
CORRELATIOP,J
SQUARED MCTLTIPLE
C O R R E ~ I O N
.1944
.277 6
.3615
.4035
.2909
.1204
.1388
.I761
.1643
.1151
. 2 9 8 6
.lo30
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
-67 07 .6685 .6533 .6469 .6549 .6802 .67 82 .6855 .6793 .6975 .6569 .6923
S C A L E I
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM D E L E T D
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
7.1688 6.6766 7.4736 6.0716 6.5579 6.6131 6.5581 7.5897 6.9467 6.9155
CORRECTED ITEM- m m
CORRELA!I'ION
SQUARED MULTIPLE
CORRELATION
.0834
.lo41
.1604
.2928 -1642 .2596 -1812 .147 3 -1897 .1224
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
.4022
.3504
.4481
.2824
.3681
.3138
.3438
.4422
.3616
.3 822
S C A L E T
SCALE m J
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE CORRECTED VARIANCE ITEM- I F ITEM TGTAL DELETED CORRELATIOrJ
SQUARED MULTIPLE
mRRELA!rIOTI
.2058
.37 88
.1798
.5599
.2277
.1596
.1241
.1389
.1918
.2411
.3431
.2469
.4344
mpHA I F ITEM DELETED
.6468
.6370
.6507
.62 17
.6475
.6759
.7 111
.6902
.6654
.6338
.6440
.6433
.6176
ALPHA = .6721
Reliability Analysis: Item t o Subscale Corrc.lations
Fourth lterarion
S C A L E M 1
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED ITEAPJ VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TCYTAI, MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = .7013
S C A L E M 2
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM mrAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORREIATION DELETED
ALPHA = .4504
S C A L E M 3
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM WTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORREIATION DELETED
S C A L E I 1
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED M E N J VARIAPJCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM ?YrrAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E I 2
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = .5731
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECI'ED ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA TCYTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM
CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E I 3
SCALE SCALE CORRECI'ED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TUTAL MULATI PLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CDRRELATION DELETED
ALPHA = .4090
S C A L E T 1
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEPIJ VARIAIJCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELA!TION DELETED
S C A L E T 2
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
I F ITEM I F ITEN TCTAL MULTIPLE I F ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
S C A L E T 3
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED TOTAL MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = . 5 9 8 6
S C A L E M
SCALE m 1
I F ITEM DELETED
ALPHA = .6915
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
14.9344 15.2804 14.6431 14.2735 14.9989 15.9619 16.4400 15.5193 15.9388 17.0065 15.3858 15.8582
CORRECTED ITEM- TCYTAL
CORRELATION
SQUARED MULTIPLE
CORRErnI0P.J
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E I
SCALE MEAN
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE VARIANCE I F ITEM DELETED
CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED TUTAL MULTIPLE
CORRELATION CORRELATION
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
S C A L E T
SCALE mJ
I F ITEM DELETED
SCALE CORRECTED VARIANCE ITEM- I F ITEM TOTAL DELETED C0RRELATIOP.J
SQUARED MLTLTI PLE
CORRELATIOFJ
ALPHA I F ITEM DELETED
- . W - W NORTON G COMPANY NEW YORK LONDON
5 0 0 FIFTH AVENUE . NEW YORK 10110-0017
December 12, 1994
Terry Estrin 377 West 20th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. Canada V5Y 2C5
Dear Terry Estrin:
Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1994, for permission to use material from The Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch in your master's dissertation, "A Measure of Narcissistic Personality Types" at Simon Fraser University.
This letter will grant you permission to use the material as requested in your dissertation and in all copies to meet university requirements, including University Microfilms edition. You must fully credit our work as the source (including the full copyright notice as it appears in our work), and you must re-apply if your dissertation is later published.
Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions.
~ r e r ~ e r i a ; ~ . Courtright P2rrnissions Department
TEL (212) 354-5500. FAX: (212) 869-0856
Terry E s t r i n D e p t . :,of Psychology Simon Fraser University Burnaby B r i t . (303 nmhi a, CanaAa
13th December 1994
D e a r Terry E s t r i n .
I have jus t received your fax re copyright for extracts from -hut and wolf's paper originally published in the TJPA.
We hereby grant copyright permission far the extracts you quote to be insetted in your thesis ONLY. Any further publication of your t h c s i s would require author's or heirs' permission as e l l .
Y o u r e sincerely,