See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/40040925

Development and Validation of a Measure of Interpersonal Strengths: The

Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths

Article  in  Psychological Assessment · December 2009

DOI: 10.1037/a0017269 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
28 900

2 authors, including:

Robert L. Hatcher
CUNY Graduate Center
39 PUBLICATIONS   2,752 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert L. Hatcher on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychological Assessment © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 21, No. 4, 554 –569 1040-3590/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017269

Development and Validation of a Measure of Interpersonal Strengths:

The Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths

Robert L. Hatcher Daniel T. Rogers

University of Michigan Kennesaw State University

An Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths (IIS) was developed and validated in a series of large college
student samples. Based on interpersonal theory and associated methods, the IIS was designed to assess
positive characteristics representing the full range of interpersonal domains, including those generally
thought to have negative qualities (e.g., introversion, coldness, submissiveness). The 8 subscales
(octants) of the 64-item IIS demonstrated good circumplex features and reliability. Tests comparing Big
5 interpersonal factors, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP), Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities
(BIC), and other interpersonal measures demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity and shared
interpersonal structure. The IIS accounted for significant additional variance in life satisfaction and
quality of personal relationships beyond the IIP and the BIC.

Keywords: interpersonal measurement, circumplex, IIS, strengths

Interpersonal theory has developed into a rich and powerful frame-
work for understanding the nature of interpersonal relating. The
introduction of the interpersonal circle (Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, &
Coffey, 1951; Leary, 1957), illustrated in Figure 1, substantially
impacted the assessment of interpersonal relating (for reviews, see
Freedman, 1985; Horowitz, Turan, Wilson, & Zolotsev, 2008; Pincus
& Gurtman, 2006; Wiggins, 1996). The circle is a conceptual tool
depicting all interpersonal features as blends of two key orthogonal
factors, dominance–submission and affiliation– hostility. The specific
blend determines the location of a feature on the circle (e.g., agree-
ableness is a blend of affiliation and submission).
Wiggins’s Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS; Wiggins, 1979;
IAS-R; Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988), a measure of inter-
personal traits, significantly advanced the operationalization of the
interpersonal circle. The IAS was constructed to meet robust
requirements. These included the presence of an orderly statistical
relationship between the variables, such that those adjacent on the
circle should share the highest correlations, with diminishing cor-
relations as distance on the circle increases between variables, to a
minimum at the opposite side. To represent effectively the blend-
ing of affiliation– hostility and dominance–submission, the vari-
Robert L. Hatcher, Psychological Clinic, University of Michigan;
Daniel T. Rogers, Department of Psychology, Kennesaw State University.
Robert L. Hatcher is now at The Wellness Center, The Graduate Center/
The City University of New York.
This study was supported in part by a generous anonymous donor. An
earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Interpersonal Theory and Research, Madison, WI, June 2007.
We are grateful to Michael Gurtman and Christopher Peterson for consul-
tation and to Alex Barends, Maria Slowiaczek, and Nancy Davis for
contributions in the earlier stages of the study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert L.
Hatcher, The Wellness Center, The Graduate Center/The City University
of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 6422, New York, NY 10016.
E-mail: robert.hatcher@gmail.com
554
ables were to be equally spaced around the circle. Finally, each
variable was to participate substantially and equally in the overall
variable space (communality). Together, these requirements char-
acterize the mathematical model called the circumplex (Tracey,
2000). Robust statistical methods have been developed to test a set
of variables for their circumplex relationships (Browne, 1992;
Tracey, 2000), and several interpersonal measures have demon-
strated these properties. Examples include the IAS-R (Gurtman &
Pincus, 2000), the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP; Alden,
Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990; Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureño, &
Villasenor, 1988), the Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities (BIC;
Hofsess & Tracey, 2005; Paulhus & Martin, 1987), and the Circum-
plex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV; Locke, 2000).
Early interpersonal theorists and researchers conceptualized
both positive and negative features in all sections of the interper-
sonal circle (Freedman et al., 1951; Leary, 1957). For example, for
what is now called the “cold– unfriendly” octant, Leary (1957)
described characteristics ranging from “hard-hearted, frequently
angry, often unfriendly,” to “can be frank and honest” (p. 135),
with the expectation that more positive features would contribute
to positive, adaptive interpersonal outcomes. Later work on the
interpersonal circle has paid less attention to consistent represen-
tation of positive and negative features, with the exception of the
IIP, to be discussed later. Examination of Figure 1, a modern
conceptualization of the circle, demonstrates the issue. Features
that could be described as generally positive appear on the right
side of the circle, including Dominant–Assured, Extraverted–
Gregarious, Warm–Friendly, and Agreeable–Trusting. The left
side of the circle, however, refers to negative behavioral fea-
tures, including Disagreeable–Mistrusting, Cold–Unfriendly,
Introverted–Inhibited, and Submissive–Unassured. There are con-
ditions under which these behaviors and attitudes may be of
considerable value (e.g., mistrust of unreasonable returns from
investments has been proven to be wise). But in general, Leary’s
efforts to find positive forms of these domains have been largely
lost.
 INVENTORY OF INTERPERSONAL STRENGTHS
Figure 1. The interpersonal circle.
The loss of focus on positive features was due in part to
Wiggins’s (1979) use of “bipolar” dimensions as conceptual an-
chors for the circle, by which he meant dimensions anchored by
opposite characteristics. Wiggins’s IAS contains 16 variables, each
paired with its opposite across the circle (e.g., quarrelsome vs.
agreeable). Factor-analytic investigations of interpersonal adjec-
tives by Big Five researchers yielded factors that were also an-
chored by adjectives of opposite valence, as in extraversion–
introversion and agreeableness– disagreeableness (Goldberg,
1992; Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992). It may also be that
early researchers did not recognize that circumplex characteristics
can be embedded in variable sets that are all positively correlated
(positive manifold), so that they believed it was important to
develop scales anchored in polar opposites (Hofsess & Tracey,
2005).
Contemporary statistical models can remove the effects of the
positive manifold, making the underlying circumplex structure
evident (Browne, 1992; Tracey, 2000) and opening the way to
extend the interpersonal circle’s nomological net to include a fuller
range of positive, generally adaptive interpersonal phenomena,
thus enhancing the range of interpersonal theory and measurement.
The widely used Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP;
Alden et al., 1990; Horowitz et al., 1988) stimulated our interest in
positive interpersonal features because it focuses exclusively on
negative ones. The IIP’s dimensions are anchored in opposite types
of negative features, preserving the full set of interpersonal dimen-
sions. For example, the pole opposite introversion is intrusiveness,
a negative form of extraversion.
Previous Research on Positive Interpersonal Features
Although positive interpersonal features have not been a major
focus for interpersonal theorists, there has been broad interest in
social competence (Rose-Krasnor, 1997). This diverse conceptual
domain includes social skills and competence, interpersonal com-
petence and capabilities, emotional intelligence, and assertiveness,
with measures for each category. These measures tend not to
engage the full range of positive interpersonal features, however.
555
Among these measures, the Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities
(BIC; Paulhus & Martin, 1987) asks respondents to rate the degree
to which they are capable, when the situation calls for it, of
behaving in ways characterized by the 16 IAS segments, such as
warmly, trustingly, or quarrelsomely. The BIC has circumplex
structure (although, because of the positive manifold, the authors
did not recognize this fact; Hofsess & Tracey, 2005). However, the
BIC does not address the issue of positive interpersonal features on
the left side of the interpersonal circle. Instead, it preserves Wig-
gins’s bipolar dimensions as a basis for capabilities, resulting in
questions such as “when the situation requires it, how capable are
you of being quarrelsome (synonyms: uncooperative, hostile)?”
These responses may be useful in some extreme situations, but in
general quarrelsomeness seems unlikely to enhance interpersonal
relating.
The Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV; Locke,
2000) measure the value an individual places on a range of
interpersonal outcomes, including adaptive and maladaptive be-
haviors. In achieving its circumplex structure, the CSIV scales on
the left side of the interpersonal circle address a degree of adap-
tiveness. For example, the cold– unfriendly octant includes valuing
“appearing cool and detached, being guarded, and concealing their
thoughts and feelings” (Locke, 2000, p. 254). The introverted–
inhibited octant assesses the value of “avoiding ridicule and rejec-
tion by avoiding blunders and concealing their positive feelings”
(Locke, 2000, p. 254). In identifying valued outcomes for the left
side of the interpersonal circle, the CSIV manages to avoid por-
traying these behaviors as completely negative. Yet, the interper-
sonal adaptiveness of being perceived as guarded, detached, and
concealing feelings seems unclear.
The Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacies (CSIE;
Locke & Sadler, 2007) assesses an individual’s belief or confi-
dence in their ability to enact behaviors corresponding to each area
of the interpersonal circle. The CSIE addresses the left side of the
circle in ways similar to the IAS, BIC, and CSIV. Many items
reflect a potential to make positive, adaptive contributions to
interpersonal relations (e.g., “I can tell them when I am annoyed”
and “I can be a follower”). Other items retain the negative focus
found in other measures (e.g., “I can be cold and unfriendly when
I want to,” “I can be cruel when the situation calls for it”). The
positive aspects of the interpersonal circle appear stronger in the
CSIE than most previous interpersonal measures, but the difficulty
in finding positive features on the left side persists.
Other measures of social competence, not based on the inter-
personal circle, include the Social Skills Inventory (SSI; Riggio,
1986) and the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ;
Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988). The SSI is a
measure of adult social skills. Its seven dimensions are emotional
expressivity, sensitivity, and control; and social expressivity, sen-
sitivity, control, and manipulation. Gurtman’s (1999) analysis of
the relationship of the SSI to the interpersonal circle using the IIP
indicated that all but two of its 60 items fell in the extraversion,
friendliness, and dominance octants, only partially covering the
available range of interpersonal features. Buhrmester et al. (1988)
developed the ICQ by taking an interpersonal skills approach to
five key “interpersonal task domains.” These domains are “initia-
tion of interactions and relationships,” “self-disclosure of personal
information,” “emotional support of others,” “management of in-
terpersonal conflicts that arise in close relationships,” and “asser-
556 HATCHER AND ROGERS
tion of personal rights and displeasure with others” (p. 992).
Gurtman’s study demonstrated that the domains of the ICQ, like
those of the SSI, all fell in the extraversion, friendliness, and
dominance octants of the interpersonal circle.
Obstacles to Developing a Full Positive/Adaptive/Normal
Interpersonal Circle Measure
The lack of adjectives describing relatively positive, adaptive
features on the left side of the interpersonal circle poses a chal-
lenge to conceptualizing and assessing these domains. If the IAS is
any indication (e.g., “warmthless”), even established negative ad-
jectives are hard to find, although Hofstee et al. (1992) populated
a fairly complete circle with common words such as bossy, sly,
abrupt, harsh, insincere, detached, cold, inhibited, glum, unsocia-
ble, silent, timid, and naı̈ve. It is clear that a full adjective-based
positive interpersonal circle measure is not possible.
Another obstacle is the overlap between introverted character-
istics and various forms of pathology, including depression, anx-
iety, narcissistic sensitivity, and the social withdrawal associated
with shame and grief (Gurtman, 1992; Horowitz, 2004). This is
true as well for the interpersonal domains that deal with submis-
siveness, coldness, and disagreeableness. Pathologies related to
extraverted behaviors, such as hypomania, are less common. Fur-
ther, behaviors on the left side of the circumplex that may con-
tribute positively to interpersonal relationships when used appro-
priately are, when used excessively or exclusively, more socially
disruptive or difficult than those on the right side. For example,
when used to excess, agreeableness is generally more acceptable
than clear boundary-setting. It is a challenge to find a path through
this terrain, creating items that effectively express these positive
features but buffering them from more pathological/problematic
interpretations. For example, although some persons may be un-
assured and submissive, others, sharing the same general disposi-
tion, may be able to be cooperative, work well as an assistant, and
reach compromises with others. Some persons may tend to be
disagreeable and mistrusting, yet others sharing this general dis-
position may be able to argue effectively with others, without
being arrogant, manipulative, or calculating.
Research Goals
The goal of the present research was to develop and validate a
measure of positive interpersonal features for all domains of the
interpersonal circle, with robust circumplex properties, that would
assess dispositions toward others that are likely to be adaptive,
positive, and routine. We conceptualized these features within the
broad construct of interpersonal strengths, which we viewed as
encompassing interpersonal features that contribute to interper-
sonal competence, emotional stability, fewer interpersonal prob-
lems, and better relationship outcomes, among other positive in-
dicators. As a result, the structure of some items would overlap to
a degree with existing, single construct scales (e.g., traits, attitudes,
capabilities, efficacies, preferences). We saw the strengths con-
struct as similar to the inclusive interpersonal problems construct
that informs the IIP, with items that also overlap with single
construct scales to some degree. This combination of single con-
structs was deemed appropriate insofar as item development
yielded a measure that assessed the general construct of interper-
sonal strengths.
We expected IIS items and octant scales to demonstrate cohe-
siveness through large and equal participation in their common
interpersonal variable space, as shown by equal and large commu-
nalities in a circumplex model. We expected IIS octants to be
equally spaced around the circumplex, as the model requires. We
expected a structural analysis of the relationship between the IIS
and the IIP to show the orderly, sinusoidal correlational patterns
predicted by interpersonal theory. For example, the IIS coopera-
tiveness variable should have its peak correlation with the IIP’s
overly submissive octant, and should show an orderly shift around
the circle toward a low point with the opposite octant, overly
domineering. We expected the interpersonal factors of the Big Five
to show the same orderly relationship with the IIS. These steps
would validate the measure as a cohesive representative of the
interpersonal circle.
If the IIS reflected positive, adaptive interpersonal strengths, we
expected positive correlations between each of its octant scales and
measures of life satisfaction, relationship quality, and interpersonal
competence (ICQ), and negative correlations with IIP octants and
with Big Five Neuroticism. We expected IIS octants on the left
side of the interpersonal circle to correlate negatively with neurot-
icism and the IIP. We expected respondents’ overall elevation
(Gurtman & Balakrishnan, 1998), the mean IIS score, to account
for variance in life satisfaction above and beyond their elevation
on the IIP—showing that these features have explanatory power
beyond the mere absence of interpersonal pathology (Peterson,
2006b). If access to a wide range of positive interpersonal features
contributes to successful interpersonal relationships (Leary, 1957;
Paulhus & Martin, 1988), respondents who show more uniform
levels of endorsement around the circle should have greater life
satisfaction and relationship quality.
Development of the IIS
This section reports the three phases of the development of the
Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths (IIS). The first phase involved
initial item development, examination, and revision, with piloting
in a primarily undergraduate sample. The second phase used two
additional undergraduate samples to test the new item set and
refine a 64-item version. The third phase confirmed the structure of
the 64-item set as a standalone measure in a new undergraduate
sample. Each of these phases is described as a separate study in
this section of the report.
The second section of the report details a study of the conver-
gent and discriminant validity of the final 64-item version. The IIS
was tested in relation to several established interpersonal mea-
sures, and its ability to account for variance in life satisfaction and
relationship satisfaction was examined.
Study 1
In this study, item development and initial testing for the IIS
were conducted.
Method
Participants
An undergraduate sample of 325 completed, for course credit, a
brief demographic questionnaire and an initial 149-item version of
 INVENTORY OF INTERPERSONAL STRENGTHS
the IIS. The total sample, from a large Midwestern university,
included 134 men (41%) and 160 (49%) women, with 31 not
indicating gender (10%). The mean age was 20.0 years (range 18
to 60). Participants were 5% African American, 11% Asian Amer-
ican, 2.5% Latina or Latino, 76% Caucasian, and 5.5% other
(primarily biracial).
Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths (IIS), Preliminary
Version
An initial item set was developed by reviewing items on estab-
lished measures related to interpersonal functioning, including the
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP; Alden et al., 1990;
Horowitz et al., 1988), the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS;
Wiggins, 1995; Wiggins et al., 1988), the circumplex Big Five
(Hofstee et al., 1992), and the Values in Action scale (Peterson,
2006b). Of these, the IIP, with its sampling of a range of interper-
sonal actions, attitudes, and values, had the greatest influence on
item development. In addition, the research team, composed of the
authors and three other clinical psychologists, created items based
on a shared understanding of the interpersonal circle derived from
the above work and from Kiesler (1996), Hofstee et al. (1992),
Carson (1969), Leary (1957), and the work of Wiggins (e.g.,
Wiggins & Broughton, 1985) and Gurtman (e.g., Gurtman &
Balakrishnan, 1998). The research team chose to pursue a sentence
(vs. single word) format that did not use a fixed item stem (e.g.,
“I’m good at ______.,” “It’s easy for me to ______.”) so that the
IIS items varied in their basic structure. These decisions were
based on the goals of describing positive features on the left side
of the interpersonal circumplex and capturing the broad construct
of interpersonal strengths. Based on the Big Five and the IAS, the
IIS’s response scale reflects the respondent’s evaluation of how
characteristic these interpersonal features were of themselves. All
items were required to clearly reference an aspect of interpersonal
relating, for example, “I’m warm with other people” versus “I am
a warm person.” In this way an initial list of 339 items was
developed. The list was then sorted into groups of similar items,
and redundant or unclear items were eliminated or rewritten. The
items were piloted with a group of 20 staff and student trainees in
a university-based psychological clinic, with comments and dis-
cussion in a group format. This additional feedback contributed to
the revision and selection of a set of 149 items for initial testing.
Procedure
Participants were directed to an institutional review board-
approved website study containing a consent form, a demographic
survey, and the preliminary 149-item version of the IIS. IIS items
were rated on a 6-point scale, ranging from very little like me to
almost always like me. Three unrotated factors were retained from
principal axis factoring, one a general factor or positive manifold
(Alden et al., 1990; Tracey, Rounds, & Gurtman, 1996), and two
forming preliminary axes for circumplex analysis. Item loadings
on these two factors were used to locate the items in circular space
and to determine the length of the vector in the circular space
defined by the factors (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Locke, 2000).
Items with vector length less than .15 were discarded (Alden et al.,
1990) and the remaining items were refactored. The location of
axes in factor analysis is arbitrary, and common practice is to
557
rotate the circumplex using an established criterion item (in this
case, “I can be very persuasive” at 90°). The items were divided
into eight octant sets on the basis of their location within sequential
45° ranges on the circumplex.
Results
A total of 107 items met the criteria for retention. All IIS octants
had at least 10 items, and some had as many as 14. These initial
results, including octant item lists, were presented for review at the
Ohio Society for Psychotherapy Research meeting on April 8,
2006. The major critique was that the “warm–friendly” octant
contained items with an active, assertive quality (e.g., “I pursue
new relationships with others”), and other item content was sug-
gested. An additional 42 items were developed to fill out the circle,
which, when added to the 107 retained items, brought the total
number of items for testing in the next study back to 149.
Study 2
This study aimed to identify a 64-item version of the IIS using
two separate samples.
Method
Participants
Sample 1. An undergraduate sample of 563 completed, for
course credit, a brief demographic questionnaire and the new 149
IIS item set produced by Study 1, along with other measures. Of
the total sample, 231 participants were from a large Midwestern
university, including 103 men (45%) and 127 (55%) women, with
1 not indicating gender. The mean age was 18.6 years (range 18 to
26). Participants were 5% African American, 13% Asian Ameri-
can, 2.6% Latina or Latino, 0.4% Native American, 73% Cauca-
sian, and 5.6% other (primarily biracial), with two participants not
indicating race. The remainder of the sample consisted of 332
participants from a medium-sized Southern university, including
52 men (16%) and 279 (84%) women, with 1 not indicating
gender. Participants’ ages were not recorded, but in later samples
drawn from this same population, the mean age was 25.8 years.
Participants were 14% African American, 2% Asian American,
4% Latina or Latino, 1% Native American, 71% Caucasian, and
8% other (primarily international students), with one participant
not indicating race.
Sample 2. An undergraduate sample of 326 completed the
same protocol as Sample 1. Of the total sample, 153 participants
were from a large Midwestern university, including 62 men
(40.5%) and 91 (59.5%) women. The mean age was 19.0 years
(range 18 to 37). Participants were 1% African American, 14%
Asian American, 2.6% Latina or Latino, 2% Native American,
74% Caucasian, and 6.6% other (primarily biracial), with 1 not
indicating race. The remainder of the sample consisted of 173
participants from a medium-sized Southern university, including
25 men (14%) and 148 (86%) women. As in the first sample, the
ages of these participants’ were not recorded. Participants were 9%
African American, 3% Asian American, 3% Latina or Latino, 1%
Native American, 80% Caucasian, and 4% other (primarily bira-
cial).
558 HATCHER AND ROGERS

Results 95% CI [168°, 186°]; Restrain ⫽ 233°, 95% CI [223°, 242°];

Item locations were generated in the first sample using the
method described in Study 1. Because the estimated circumplex
location of some items can vary considerably across samples, we
selected items separately (using the criteria of Study 1) for each of
the two samples, assigned them to octants, and compared the
results. Items that were close in location within their respective
octants in both samples (less than 22.5° apart) were retained,
yielding 10 to 16 items per octant. The eight items with the largest
vector lengths for each octant were selected for initial testing as
candidates for the 64-item version.
The resulting octant set was tested for circumplex characteristics
using CIRCUM (Browne, 1992), which provides a stringent con-
firmatory test for circumplex structure. Some trial and error was
required to create satisfactory item groups for octants. The result-
ing item set, the IIS-64, was designed to optimize fit under
CIRCUM analysis in both samples. Circumplex structure was
tested as a fully constrained model, with m ⫽ 3 and vector length
and octant separation set as equal for all octants. The fit for the first
sample (N ⫽ 563) was good, with maximum likelihood estimated
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .050, 90%
CI [0.033, 0.066], with probability of “close” fit (Browne, 1992) of
.491, where any p ⬎ .05 is acceptable. The RMSEA is the
preferred index for fit for CIRCUM (Browne, 1992); RMSEA is a
parsimony-weighted index of model fit, which takes into account
model complexity (Acton & Revelle, 2002). Browne and Cudeck
(1992) suggested that RMSEA values less than .08 indicate a
“reasonable” fit. The CIRCUM model fit for the second sample
(N ⫽ 326) was also good, with RMSEA ⫽ .056 (90% CI [0.033,
0.079], close fit probability 0.311. The total combined sample
(N ⫽ 889) also showed good fit, with RMSEA ⫽ 0.051 (90% CI
[0.039, 0.063]), close fit probability .439. This test confirms suc-
cess in selecting items that fit circumplex criteria in this sample,
and thus may be sample-specific. Independent confirmation is
required.
The octants were named in a group meeting of 20 clinician-
researchers, who developed and rank-ordered a list of possible
names (see Appendix for octant names and items). The actual
angle location and vector length for each octant was determined
using the combined samples (N ⫽ 889) by means of a CIRCUM
analysis with unconstrained octant angular location and vector
length. With the Connect octant set at 0°, the estimates were as
follows: Engage ⫽ 43°, 95% CI [37°, 50°]; Lead ⫽ 86°, 95% CI
[77°, 95°]; Direct ⫽ 127°, 95% CI [117°, 136°]; Balance ⫽ 177°,
Cooperate ⫽ 268°, 95% CI [259°, 277°]; Consider ⫽ 307°, 95%
CI [300°, 314°]. The 95% CIs for each of these estimates included
the expected angular location for the octant except for the Consider
octant, expected at 315°.
A second analytic method, Tracey’s (1997) RANDALL, was
also used to assess the circumplex structure of the IIS. This method
is based on the fact that the octant correlation matrix of a fully
conforming circumplex has a mathematically determined pattern
of ordered relations. The extent to which a given correlation matrix
demonstrates this ordering can be evaluated with an exact proba-
bility, accompanied by a correspondence index. For the current
sample p ⬍ .001, with a correspondence index of .96, indicating an
excellent fit.
Study 3
This study was a confirmatory test for the IIS-64 structure as a
standalone instrument.
Method
Participants
An undergraduate sample of 684 completed, for course credit, a
brief demographic questionnaire and the 64-item version of the IIS
developed in Study 2, along with other measures described in the
second section of the report. Of the total sample, 265 participants
were from a large Midwestern university, including 93 men (35%)
and 172 (65%) women. The mean age was 19.6 years (range 18 to
56). Participants were 6% African American, 11% Asian Ameri-
can, 3% Latina or Latino, 1% Native American, 69% Caucasian,
and 9% other (primarily biracial), with 1 not indicating race. The
remainder of the sample consisted of 419 participants from a
medium-sized Southern university, including 117 men (28%) and
302 (72%) women, whose mean age was 25.8 years (range 18 to
56). Participants were 10% African American, 3% Asian Ameri-
can, 4% Latina or Latino, 0.5% Native American, 77% Caucasian,
and 15.5% other (primarily biracial). Participants were 10% Afri-
can American, 3% Asian American, 4% Latina or Latino, 0.5%
Native American, 77% Caucasian, and 5.5% other (primarily bi-
racial).
Results
The IIS octant correlations for this confirmatory sample (N ⫽
684) are presented in Table 1, along with octant means, standard

Table 1
Intercorrelations, Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Reliabilities, and Vector Lengths of IIS Subscales

IIS subscale Connect Engage Lead Direct Balance Restrain Cooperate Consider M SD ␣ Vector

Connect — 4.61 1.24 .93 .93

Engage .79 — 4.16 1.36 .84 .91
Lead .62 .72 — 4.20 1.32 .85 .92
Direct .48 .55 .78 — 4.10 1.29 .84 .92
Balance .45 .49 .65 .78 — 4.10 1.34 .76 .91
Restrain .53 .48 .57 .64 .74 — 4.23 1.24 .79 .91
Cooperate .66 .51 .50 .50 .62 .77 — 4.59 1.17 .84 .93
Consider .77 .64 .52 .43 .52 .66 .81 — 4.66 1.14 .90 .93

Note. N ⫽ 686. All correlations are significant at p ⬍ .01. IIS ⫽ Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths.
 INVENTORY OF INTERPERSONAL STRENGTHS
deviations, alphas, and vector lengths. Octant means, which were
based on item endorsement, were in the higher range of the 6-point
scale. Although the current study provided no data to suggest why
this might be, we hypothesize that on average the participants felt
positively about their interpersonal strengths. Similar patterns have
been observed for endorsing positive interpersonal features on the
BIC (Paulhus & Martin, 1987) and denying negative interpersonal
features on the IIP (Horowitz et al., 1988).
Octant scores were tested for circumplex characteristics using
CIRCUM in a fully constrained model, with m ⫽ 3. The fit was
good, with maximum likelihood estimated RMSEA ⫽ .055, 90%
CI [0.041, 0.070], with probability of “close” fit of .252. Actual
octant angle location and vector length were estimated with
CIRCUM analysis, with octant angular location and vector length
unconstrained. With the Connect octant set at 0°, the estimates for
the remaining octants were: Engage ⫽ 39°, 95% CI [32°, 46°];
Lead ⫽ 98°, 95% CI [89°, 108°]; Direct ⫽ 141°, 95% CI [131°,
152°]; Balance ⫽ 180°, 95% CI [169°, 190°]; Restrain ⫽ 228°,
95% CI [218°, 238°]; Cooperate ⫽ 272°, 95% CI [262°, 281°];
Consider ⫽ 309°, 95% CI [301°, 317°]. The 95% CIs for each of
these estimates included the expected angular location for the
octant. Figure 2 demonstrates the circumplex model for the IIS-64.
The circumplex structure in this sample was also assessed with
Tracey’s (1997) RANDALL, yielding p ⬍ .001 (correspondence
index ⫽ .97), indicating an excellent fit.
Discussion
The development of the IIS-64 yielded a measure with excellent
circumplex properties, including conforming angular locations and
vector lengths and good score reliabilities for each of the eight
octants, so that in further studies it is likely that reliable measure-
ment may be conducted at the octant level. The octants themselves
have good face validities that seem to fulfill the goal of identifying
positive features for the entire interpersonal circle, including the
left side of the circle. The Connect octant consists of items cap-
turing a warm and comfortable connection with others. The En-
Figure 2. Circumplex structure of the Inventory of Interpersonal
Strengths, 64-item version (IIS-64).
559
gage octant, closer on the interpersonal circle to the dominant axis,
conveys energetic but caring engagement with others. The Lead
octant focuses on competitiveness, taking charge, and assertive-
ness. The Direct octant, as in frank and forthright (Leary, 1957),
reflects the ability to pursue important purposes, including per-
sonal needs, without being derailed by the needs of others. As
such, it does not necessarily convey the qualities of disagreeable-
ness, vindictiveness, or lack of concern for others that characterize
the related octant items found in the IAS and the IIP. In this and
other octants on the left side of the circle, it was important to
include more conditional descriptors (e.g., “I am comfortable
disagreeing with others”) so as to shift emphasis from more
extreme forms of this characteristic (e.g., “I disagree with others”).
The Balance octant conveys the ability or characteristic of taking
some distance from social involvement and pressures, while re-
taining a level of connection, care, and concern for others, as in “I
can help others with their needs without neglecting my own.” Thus
it reflects in a mild way the “coldness” that is the negative anchor
of the warm– cold dimension. In this sense, Balance seems related
to “mindfulness,” (Kabat-Zinn, 1990), as it reflects the tendency to
be resilient in respect to social pressures and one’s own social
needs. The Restrain octant concerns recognizing and respecting
others’ autonomy and needs for privacy, being thoughtful about
taking action, and remaining constructive when aggravated by
others. In this way, Restrain reflects positive aspects of the ten-
dency toward shyness or caution in social interactions. The Coop-
erate octant is a self-respecting, positive form of the submissive-
ness domain, lacking the abject or dominated qualities found in
other measures. Thus it includes working to facilitate others’ goals,
expressing gratitude for others’ generosity, and respecting others’
needs. Finally, the Consider octant contains familiar ideas of
loyalty, gratitude, and pleasure in helping others.
The use of outside groups to critique the measure during devel-
opment provided an important quality control on the items and
their coverage of the interpersonal circumplex, as, of course, did
the actual responses of our participants. The age range of partici-
pants was wider than is typical for studies utilizing undergraduate
participants, which makes it more likely that the measure will be
valid in other populations.
Study 4
The study in this second section of the report examined the
validity of the IIS, including its relationships to other measures of
interpersonal features and social skills. We first examined the
distribution of respondents’ peak values on the IIS, calculated as
the circular mean of the individual’s octant scores. Grouping these
values by octants yields eight interpersonal styles. We compared
the overall IIS levels between these groups, expecting equal en-
dorsement of positive interpersonal features across interpersonal
styles. We then related the IIS to the interpersonal factors of the
Big Five (Hofstee et al., 1992). The Big Five interpersonal factors
should map onto IIS interpersonal space, indicating that the IIS
covers the full range of interpersonal characteristics. We examined
the discriminant and convergent validity of IIS in relation to the
IIP and the BIC, and its structural convergence to these measures
of the interpersonal circle. We related the IIS to measures of
interpersonal competence, expecting to find that their scales would
have peak correlations on corresponding IIS octant scores. We
560 HATCHER AND ROGERS
examined the differential predictive power of the IIS in relation to
measures of life and relationship satisfaction.
Method
Participants
This study utilized participants from Studies 2 and 3. To max-
imize coverage of validation measures, different waves of partic-
ipants in these two studies completed different measures.
Measures
Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths. Participants completed
the IIS as described. T tests compared means and standard devia-
tions for the 64 IIS items embedded within the 149-item IIS that
was completed in Study 2 (N ⫽ 693) with those from the separated
IIS-64 from Study 3 (N ⫽ 685). The overall IIS means and those
for six of the eight octants did not differ significantly, nor did any
of the standard deviations (using Levene’s test for equality of
variances). The means differed on the Lead octant (4.19 vs. 4.30,
t ⫽ –2.20, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.12) and the Consider octant (4.66 vs.
4.76, t ⫽ –2.31, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.12). The overall level of agreement
and the small effect sizes of the two statistically significant dif-
ferences were judged to justify combining the 64 items from the
IIS versions for comparison with other measures administered in
both Study 2 and Study 3.
Measure of Big Five factors. The Mini-Modular Markers 40
(3M40) is a Big Five measure developed by Saucier (2002) with
five 8-item scales: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientious-
ness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect. Each scale has four items
representing the opposite poles of the dimensions (e.g., Introver-
sion, Disagreeableness). Items are rated on a 9-point scale ranging
from extremely unlike me to extremely like me. Across multiple
samples, Saucier reported alphas for self-ratings from .77 to .82 for
Extraversion, .71 to .76 for Agreeableness, .76 to .84 for Consci-
entiousness, .67 to .72 for Emotional Stability, and .67 to .73 for
Intellect. In the current sample (N ⫽ 643), alphas were .83, .80,
.79, .76, and .81, respectively.
Measures linked to the interpersonal circumplex. The Inven-
tory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) is an eight-octant, 64-item
measure with demonstrated circumplex properties (Alden et al.,
1990; Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 2000). The IIP mea-
sures problems in each octant of the interpersonal circle, describ-
ing interpersonal behaviors as “hard to do” or done “too much,”
utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale (not at all to extremely). The
reliability and validity of the IIP have been supported in many
studies (e.g., Gurtman, 1996). The octants and their alpha reliabili-
ties in the current sample (N ⫽ 963) were as follows: Overly
Nurturant (.80), Intrusive (.75), Domineering (.77), Vindictive
(.79), Cold (.84), Socially Avoidant (.87), Nonassertive (.88), and
Exploitable (.81). Reliability of the full scale was .95.
The 16-item Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities-Short Form
(BIC; Paulhus & Martin, 1987) is based on the Interpersonal
Adjective Scales (IAS; Wiggins et al., 1988). Each BIC question
reflects a 22.5° section of the IAS circumplex. Respondents rate
their capability of enacting, in appropriate situations, each of 16
interpersonal behaviors. A global capability question is asked for
each behavior: “How likely is it that you could be _______ if the
situation requires it?” Main items for each category are accompa-
nied by alternative descriptors (e.g., dominant: commanding,
forceful; quarrelsome: uncooperative, hostile). Answers are re-
corded on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from totally inca-
pable to easily capable. Hofsess and Tracey (2005) demonstrated
the circumplex properties of the BIC using octant scores created by
combining adjacent items. Although they found low internal con-
sistency for the resulting two-item scales, the BIC showed ade-
quate circular ordering. Reliabilities for the current sample of 106
participants (followed by those from Hofsess and Tracey) were PA
(ambitious– dominant) ⫽ .51 (.64); BC (arrogant– calculating) ⫽
.56 (.38); DE (cold– quarrelsome) ⫽ .44 (.63); FG (aloof–
introverted) ⫽ .65 (.70); HI (lazy–submissive) ⫽ .49 (.49); JK
(unassuming–ingenuous) ⫽ .16 (.09); LM (warm–agreeable) ⫽
.36 (.56), and NO (gregarious– extraverted) ⫽ .62 (.73).
Other measures. The Interpersonal Competence Question-
naire (ICQ; Buhrmester et al., 1988) assesses interpersonal com-
petencies in five key “interpersonal task domains.” These domains
were (reporting alphas from the Buhrmester et al., 1988, study and
the current study, N ⫽ 220) as follows: Initiation of Interactions
and Relationships (.83, .91), Self-Disclosure of Personal Informa-
tion (.75, .89), Emotional Support of Others (.78, .84), Manage-
ment of Interpersonal Conflicts That Arise in Close Relationships
(.80, .89), and Asserting Influence”(.65, .86). The alpha for the
total scale in the current sample was .95. All items begin with the
phrase, “How good are you at . . .” followed by fairly specific
content, such as “carrying on conversations with new people that
you would like to know better.” Its 5-point scale ranges from 1 ⫽
I’m poor at this; I’d feel so uncomfortable and unable to handle
this situation, I’d avoid it if possible to 5 ⫽ I’m EXTREMELY good
at this; I’d feel very comfortable and could handle this situation
very well.
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Pavot & Diener, 1993, 2008) is a widely
used 5-item scale that yields respondents’ overall evaluation of the
quality of their lives. Rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree, the scale has demon-
strated excellent reliability (alphas in the mid to high .80s) and
good convergent and discriminant validity across many studies. In
the current study (N ⫽ 1,321), alpha was .87.
The Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory
(PRQC; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000) is an 18-item ques-
tionnaire derived and confirmed factor analytically in a college
student population. Using a 7-point scale from not at all to ex-
tremely, it assesses six domains of relationship quality in the
individual’s current partner/relationship, including overall degree
of relationship satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion,
and love. Fletcher et al. (2000) recommend a short version with
one item from each cluster. In our samples, the “love” item
lowered the scale’s alpha score reliability to .67 from the .88 with
the five remaining items, presumably because many participants
were in more casual relationships. This item was dropped.
Results
IIS Profile Peaks
Each respondent to the IIS has a peak value on the IIS circle,
calculated as a circular mean of the individual’s octant scores. This
 INVENTORY OF INTERPERSONAL STRENGTHS
point represents the individual’s salient interpersonal quality or
theme as measured by the IIS (Gurtman & Balakrishnan, 1998).
Formally known as the angular displacement of a circular profile,
these points were calculated (Wiggins, Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989)
for the full sample (N ⫽ 1,378) and identified by their octant
location. Peak values were fairly evenly distributed around the
circle: Connect ⫽ 11% (IIS M ⫽ 4.33), Engage ⫽ 11% (4.51),
Lead ⫽ 14% (4.24), Direct ⫽ 16% (4.18), Balance ⫽ 13% (4.48),
Restrain ⫽ 11% (4.42), Cooperate ⫽ 12% (4.32), and Consider ⫽
12% (4.33). A one-way ANOVA demonstrated significant differ-
ences, though with small effect size, between these means F(7,
1378) ⫽ 4.85, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .02. Post hoc comparisons (Scheffe)
found significant differences only for Direct (lower) compared to
Engage and Balance. Thus overall level of endorsement of IIS
features did not vary much across profile peak groups.
Location of the IIS in Big Five Interpersonal Space
The octants of the IIS were correlated with each of the Big Five
factors (see Table 2). The first two factors of the Big Five,
Extraversion–Introversion and Agreeableness–Disagreeableness,
define a widely recognized version of interpersonal space (Hofstee
et al., 1992). The circumplex relationship between the IIS and
these dimensions is shown in Table 2, but the sinusoidal relation-
ship that is the hallmark of a circumplex-based relationship is more
readily perceived when graphed, as in Figure 3. The Extraversion
scale peaks as expected on IIS Engage (r ⫽ .56), and has its
minimum on IIS Cooperate (r ⫽ .08), closely followed by the
expected IIS Restrain (r ⫽ .09). The Agreeableness scale has its
predicted minimum on IIS Direct (r ⫽ .08), and its maximum is at
IIS Cooperate (r ⫽ .53), closely followed by IIS Consider (r ⫽
.52). The remaining Big Five Factors showed a common pattern of
small correlations with all IIS octants, with slightly larger corre-
lations on the left side of the interpersonal circle.
Structural Convergence of the IIP and IIS
The correlations between the octants of the IIS and the IIP in
Table 3 help confirm the structural convergence of these two
interpersonal measures. Following Alden et al. (1990), we used
ipsitized scores for both measures. The diagonal of the correlation
matrix compares IIS and IIP octants that are expected to occupy
the same space on the interpersonal circle. Structural convergence
is demonstrated by peak positive correlations on corresponding
octants and peak negative correlations on opposite octants. Corre-
lations of the IIS on the criterion IIP along the positive diagonal
Table 2
Correlations of IIS Subscales With Big Five Factors
Big Five factor Connect Engage Lead Direct
Extraversion .45 .56 .50
Agreeableness .46 .31 .16
Conscientiousness .01 ⫺.01 .15
Emotional Stability ⫺.04 .02 .11
Openness .01 .08 .17
Note. N ⫽ 663. rs ⬎ .07 are significant at p ⬍ .05. rs ⬎ .10 are significant at p ⬍ .01. IIS ⫽ Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths.
561
range from .27 to .55, with six out of eight pairings matching
expectations. The two that did not were off by one octant: the IIS
Consider octant had its largest correlation with IIP Overly Nur-
turant (r ⫽ .41), one octant away from the expected IIP Exploit-
able, which had the next largest correlation (r ⫽ .34); the IIS
Connect octant had slightly larger correlations (r ⫽ .33 and .31) on
the two IIP octants surrounding the expected IIP Overly Nurturant
octant (r ⫽ .27). Octant scores on one measure should also show
their largest negative correlations with the other measure’s octants
that are located on the opposite side of the circle. The largest
negative correlations of the IIS on the IIP ranged from –.31 to –.55
and matched expectations, except for the IIP Overly Nurturant
octant, which had its largest correlation with IIS Direct (r ⫽ –.49),
one octant away from the expected IIS Balance, which had the next
largest correlation (r ⫽ –.31). This pattern of correlations demon-
strates a somewhat closer circumplex matching between the IIS
and the IIP than was found by Alden et al. in their confirmatory
study of the IIP with the IAS.
This pattern of structural convergence is illustrated in Figure 4,
which plots the IIP and IIS octants on common axes as determined
by principal components analysis (Alden et al., 1990). The two
components accounted for 56% of the variance in the 16 combined
octant scales. Table 4 provides the component loadings, commu-
nalities, vector lengths (amplitude), rotated angular locations (IIP
Domineering set at 90°), and difference in angular locations for
each of the IIP and IIS octants. Each member of the octant pairs is
within half an octant (22.5°) of the other, except for Connect and
Overly Nurturant, which are 24.2° apart. The mean difference is
12.3°. Similar to the findings of Alden et al. (1990) for the IIP and
the IAS, communalities range from .46 to .63. These results
demonstrate that the two octant sets share a common circular
structure.
The mean IIP and IIS scores, reflecting an overall assessment of
interpersonal distress and endorsement of more positive interper-
sonal features, respectively, correlated –.43. Persons who more
strongly endorse interpersonal features on the IIS show lower
levels of interpersonal distress, thus demonstrating the relative
positiveness and adaptiveness of IIS items.
Relationship of the IIS to Measures of Social
Skills/Competence
The 16-item Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities (BIC) was
converted to eight octant scales following Hofsess and Tracey
(2005). Because the BIC is based on the IAS, with structure
IIS subscale
Balance Restrain Cooperate Consider IIS mean
.30 .17 .09 .08 .25 .39
.08 .20 .37 .53 .52 .40
.19 .19 .20 .09 .08 .14
.17 .24 .18 .05 ⫺.04 .10
.18 .14 .23 .14 .11 .16
562 HATCHER AND ROGERS

Figure 3. The circumplex features of the correlations between the Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths (IIS)
and Big Five Extraversion and Agreeableness.

described as bipolar by Wiggins (1979), we expected to find
positive correlations between octants on the upper right quadrant,
corresponding to IIS Lead (PA), Engage (NO), and Connect (LM).
We expected negative correlations between the IIS octants Coop-
erate (JK), Restrain (HI), Balance (FG), and their counterparts on
the BIC, which mirror the generally negative adjectives on the left
side of the IAS interpersonal circle. For example, the BIC Meek-
Submissive scale refers to how capable the respondent is of be-
having in a submissive, forceless, yielding, weak, timid, or shy in
manner, when the social situation requires it. We were less con-
fident about how the two IIS octants on the borderline between
these sets, Consider and Direct, would relate to the BIC. IIS
Consider has many elements that would make it relate more
strongly to BIC Warm–Trusting and Extraverted–Gregarious, and
individuals endorsing IIS Direct items, we believed, might well
endorse being capable of acting in a crafty, cunning, sly, and
calculating manner.
To clarify the relationships between the IIS and BIC octants we
examined interoctant correlations (see Table 5). Here we find BIC
Warm–Trusting has its peak correlation with IIS Connect (r ⫽
.28), BIC Extraverted–Gregarious has its peak correlation with IIS
Engage (r ⫽ .63), and BIC Dominant–Assured has its peak cor-
relation with IIS Lead (r ⫽ .48), all as expected. BIC Crafty–
Boastful has its peak correlation with IIS Direct (r ⫽ .24), and BIC
Cold–Quarrelsome has overall negative correlations, with the least
negative of these with its counterpart, IIS Balance (r ⫽ –.01). BIC
Introverted–Aloof is negatively correlated with all IIS octants,
with the least negative of these with IIS Cooperate (r ⫽ –.17)
instead of with its counterpart, IIS Restrain (r ⫽ –.28). BIC
Meek–Submissive has its most positive correlation with its coun-

Table 3
Correlations of IIP and IIS Subscales and Mean Scores

IIS subscale

IIP subscale Connect Engage Lead Direct Balance Restrain Cooperate Consider IIS mean

Overly Nurturant .27 .15 ⫺.15 ⫺.49 ⫺.31 ⫺.04 .14 .41 ⫺.13
Intrusive .33 .50 .25 .00 ⫺.28 ⫺.47 ⫺.42 ⫺.05 ⫺.18
Domineering ⫺.11 .19 .46 .44 .09 ⫺.29 ⫺.55 ⫺.33 ⫺.26
Vindictive ⫺.20 .05 .35 .55 .18 ⫺.14 ⫺.38 ⫺.48 ⫺.36
Cold ⫺.35 ⫺.23 .17 .41 .27 .16 ⫺.07 ⫺.34 ⫺.39
Socially Avoidant ⫺.36 ⫺.54 ⫺.23 .12 .30 .38 .38 .07 ⫺.46
Nonassertive .13 ⫺.16 ⫺.46 ⫺.40 ⫺.04 .25 .48 .30 ⫺.40
Exploitable .31 .11 ⫺.34 ⫺.57 ⫺.20 .08 .31 .34 ⫺.27
IIP mean ⫺.30 ⫺.32 ⫺.38 ⫺.44 ⫺.44 ⫺.34 ⫺.28 ⫺.25 ⫺.43

Note. N ⫽ 985. rs ⬎ .06 are significant at p ⬍ .05. rs ⬎ .09 are significant at p ⬍ .01. IIP ⫽ Inventory of Interpersonal Problems; IIS ⫽ Inventory of
Interpersonal Strengths.
 INVENTORY OF INTERPERSONAL STRENGTHS
Figure 4. Structural convergence of the octants of the Inventory of
Interpersonal Strengths (IIS) and Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP)
on shared axes. Standard general octant labels (e.g., PA, NO) identify
equivalent IIS and IIP octants.
terpart IIS Cooperate (r ⫽ .01). Finally, BIC Humble–Agreeable
has mostly low positive correlations with IIS octants, with its peak
on IIS Cooperate (r ⫽ .25) instead of with its counterpart, IIS
Consider (r ⫽ .12). These results are not surprising. We expected
that the BIC’s positive capabilities would relate strongly to the
positive features identified by the IIS, and that the capabilities tied
to what we would consider relatively negative features (e.g., quar-
relsomeness) would correlate negatively. This result is reflected in
the lack of correlation of mean BIC and IIS scores (r ⫽ .00).
Despite the divergence in orientation between these two mea-
sures, they in fact share the interpersonal circle as a common
conceptual space. We projected the two measures onto common
interpersonal axes, accounting for 51% of the overall variance, to
assess the overlap in interpersonal space of the two measures (see
Table 4). Here we find somewhat more variation in communality,
ranging from .36 to .66, and somewhat greater interoctant differ-
ences in angular location, with a mean difference of 17.2°, than
that found in the IIS–IIP comparison. All the differences except
one indicate that the BIC octants seem to be rotated approximately
15° clockwise from the IIS octants, perhaps resulting from the way
the items of the BIC scales are distributed across its 16 scales. For
example, the Trusting component of BIC Warm–Trusting (NO)
includes the descriptors trusting, with synonyms gullible and na-
ı̈ve. These items are closer to the content of the IIS Consider octant
(LM) and the IIP Overly Nurturant Octant (LM). This likely
accounts for the 17.2° clockwise shift of the BIC relative to the IIS.
Overall, we found that the BIC and IIS share common interper-
sonal space.
Unlike the BIC, the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire
(ICQ) was not designed to assess competence in all eight inter-
personal domains. Rather, it was based on research showing which
563
features were most involved in interpersonal competence for ad-
olescents (Buhrmester et al., 1988). The ICQ was analyzed by
Gurtman (1999) for its range of coverage of interpersonal features
using the IIP as an indicator of the interpersonal circle. Based on
his findings and our understanding of the IIS, we expected the
following peak correlations with IIS octants: Emotional Support of
Others (IIS Consider), Initiation of Interactions and Relationships
(Engage), Asserting Influence (Lead/Direct), Self-Disclosure of
Personal Information (Engage), and Management of Interpersonal
Conflicts That Arise in Close Relationships (Consider). The cor-
relations of IIS octants and ICQ scales are presented in Table 5.
ICQ Emotional Support had its peak correlation on Consider (r ⫽
.60). Initiation of Interactions had its peak with the expected
Engage (r ⫽ .60). Asserting Influence had, as expected, its highest
correlations with Lead (r ⫽ .61) and Direct (r ⫽ .57), and Self-
Disclosure peaked on Engage (r ⫽ .48) as predicted. Management
of Conflict did not have a distinct peak on the IIS octants, with
evenly spread correlations in the .44 to .47 range across Balance,
Restrain, Cooperate, and Consider. These results confirm Gurt-
man’s IIP-based analysis of the ICQ’s interpersonal locations and
lend further validation to the IIS as a measure of the interpersonal
circle. The correlation between the mean scores of the ICQ and the
IIS (r ⫽ .60) demonstrated a good level of convergent validity with
this measure of adaptive, positive interpersonal capabilities.
Differences in Peak Profile Octant Groups on the IIP
and ICQ
If the IIS measures positive interpersonal features in all facets of
the interpersonal circle, we would expect few to no differences
between peak profile groups on measures of interpersonal distress
and interpersonal competence. Two one-way ANOVAs were con-
ducted for the eight peak profile groups with IIP (N ⫽ 984) and
ICQ (N ⫽ 410) mean scores as the dependent variables. For the
IIP, the analysis of variance (ANOVA() was significant, F(7,
976) ⫽ 5.81, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .04. In post hoc analyses (Scheffe)
the Connect group showed greater IIP distress than Direct ( p ⬍
.05), and Balance showed less distress than Connect ( p ⬍ .001),
Cooperate ( p ⬍ .01), and Consider ( p ⬍ .05). For the ICQ, the
ANOVA was not significant, F(7, 402) ⫽ 1.78. Together these
results point to a uniform distribution of positive interpersonal
capabilities for persons with profile peaks in all eight octants, and
rather minor differences in interpersonal distress.
Accounting for Life Satisfaction and Relationship Quality:
Positive Interpersonal Features Versus Interpersonal
Problems and IAS-Based Capabilities
An important proposition of interpersonal psychology is that
deficits are not the opposite of strengths (Carson, 1969; Horowitz,
2004; Kiesler, 1996). Positive interpersonal features are consid-
ered indicators of adaptive, interpersonally creative characteristics
that exceed the absence of deficit (Peterson, 2006a). To demon-
strate that the IIS brings added value in accounting for variation in
life satisfaction and relationship quality, separate regressions were
conducted with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the
Perceived Relationship Components Questionnaire (PRCQ) as de-
pendent variables and the mean IIP and the mean IIS as indepen-
dent variables. Hierarchical regression for these variables, with IIP
564 HATCHER AND ROGERS

Table 4
Factor Loadings, Communality Values, Vector Lengths, Rotated Angles, and Angular Differences
for IIS, IIP, and BIC Circumplex Scales

Octant and scales Factor 1 Factor 2 h2 Vector Angle Difference

IIS–IIPa
LM
IIS Connect ⫺.363 ⫺.626 .52 .72 353.2
IIP Overly Nurturant ⫺.573 ⫺.411 .50 .71 329.0 24.2
NO
IIS Engage .062 ⫺.766 .59 .77 27.9
IIP Intrusive .159 ⫺.769 .62 .79 35.0 7.1
PA
IIS Lead .615 ⫺.314 .48 .69 86.2
IIP Domineering .729 ⫺.314 .63 .79 90.0 3.8
BC
IIS Direct .777 .234 .66 .81 130.1
IIP Vindictive .781 .045 .61 .78 116.6 13.5
DE
IIS Balance .332 .580 .45 .67 173.5
IIP Cold .532 .483 .52 .72 155.5 17.9
FG
IIS Restrain ⫺.216 .672 .50 .71 221.1
IIP Socially Avoidant ⫺.077 .768 .60 .77 209.0 12.1
HI
IIS Cooperate ⫺.625 .487 .63 .79 255.4
IIP Nonassertive ⫺.674 .320 .56 .75 267.9 12.5
JK
IIS Consider ⫺.677 ⫺.074 .46 .68 299.6
IIP Exploitable ⫺.754 ⫺.180 .60 .78 306.7 7.1
Mean angular difference 12.3

IIS–BICb
LM
IIS Connect ⫺.367 .475 .36 .60 10.7
BIC Warm–Trusting ⫺.226 .630 .45 .67 352.8 17.9
NO
IIS Engage ⫺.728 .111 .54 .74 54.3
BIC Extraverted–Gregarious ⫺.733 .344 .66 .81 37.8 16.5
PA
IIS Lead ⫺.555 ⫺.587 .65 .81 109.6
BIC Dominant–Assured ⫺.636 ⫺.325 .51 .71 90.0 19.6
BC
IIS Direct ⫺.009 ⫺.783 .61 .78 152.3
BIC Crafty–Boastful ⫺.295 ⫺.707 .59 .77 130.4 21.9
DE
IIS Balance .606 ⫺.302 .46 .68 216.5
BIC Cold–Quarrelsome .441 ⫺.373 .33 .58 202.8 13.7
FG
IIS Restrain .561 .009 .31 .56 243.9
BIC Introverted–Aloof .760 ⫺.197 .62 .78 228.4 15.5
HI
IIS Cooperate .602 .464 .58 .76 280.6
BIC Meek–Submissive .770 .157 .62 .79 254.5 26.1
JK
IIS Consider .026 .720 .52 .72 330.9
BIC Humble–Agreeable ⫺.039 .619 .38 .62 336.6 5.7
Mean angular difference 17.1

Note. h2 ⫽ communality; Angle ⫽ rotated angle, in degrees; Diff. ⫽ angular difference, in degrees; IIS ⫽
Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths; IIP ⫽ Inventory of Interpersonal Problems; BIC ⫽ Battery of Interpersonal
Capabilities.
a
N ⫽ 984. b N ⫽ 106.

and IIS means entered sequentially, are displayed in Table 6. The
mean IIS score accounts for a significant increment in variance for
both life satisfaction and relationship quality beyond the mean IIP.
Correlations between IIS octants and mean SWLS (see Table 5)
ranged from .17 (Cooperate) to .33 (Engage); as predicted, positive
correlations were found between IIS octants on the left side of the
interpersonal circle and mean SWLS: Direct (.28), Balance (.32),
and Restrain (.24). Similar, though smaller, positive correlations
were found between IIS octants and the PRCQ (see Table 5),
ranging from .12 (Direct) to .20 (Consider). All correlations were
 INVENTORY OF INTERPERSONAL STRENGTHS 565

Table 5
Correlations of IIS Subscales and Criteria Measures

IIS subscale

Criteria measure Connect Engage Lead Direct Balance Restrain Cooperate Consider IIS mean

BICa
Warm–Trusting .28ⴱⴱ .20ⴱ .08 .00 .17 .15 .27ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .22ⴱ
Extraverted–Gregarious .55ⴱⴱ .63ⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .21ⴱ .24ⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ
Dominant–Assured .23ⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .11 .13 .09 .06 .27ⴱⴱ
Crafty–Boastful ⫺.03 .04 .20ⴱ .24ⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.16 ⫺.18 ⫺.21ⴱ ⫺.02
Cold–Quarrelsome ⫺.13 ⫺.20ⴱ ⫺.16 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.19 ⫺.06 ⫺.21ⴱ ⫺.15
Introverted–Aloof ⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.50ⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱ ⫺.18 ⫺.28ⴱⴱ ⫺.17 ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱ
Meek–Submissive ⫺.22ⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ ⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.14 ⫺.24ⴱ .01 ⫺.24ⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ
Humble–Agreeable .16 .04 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 .08 .11 .25ⴱⴱ .12 .10
BIC mean .05 ⫺.04 .02 .08 .01 ⫺.09 .08 ⫺.08 .00
ICQb
Emotional Support .49ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ .60ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ
Initiating Interactions .54ⴱⴱ .60ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱ
Asserting Influence .32ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱ .57ⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ
Self-Disclosure .39ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ
Management of Conflict .36ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ
ICQ mean .55ⴱⴱ .60ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ .60ⴱⴱ
SWLSc .30ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ
PRQCd .18ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ

Note. IIS ⫽ Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths; BIC ⫽ Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities; ICQ ⫽ Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire; SWLS ⫽
Satisfaction With Life Scale; PRQC ⫽ Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory.
a
N ⫽ 108. b N ⫽ 410. c N ⫽ 1,315. d N ⫽ 1,277.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

positive and significant, including those on the left side of the SWLS. The BIC capability octants on the left side of the circle, we
interpersonal circle. As part of the effort to show that the IIS also note, are negatively associated with SWLS.
indicates positive, adaptive interpersonal characteristics at all Finally, we were interested in persons whose endorsements of
points around the interpersonal circle, we compared the octants of positive interpersonal features are more uniformly distributed.
the IIS and the BIC, a measure of interpersonal capabilities, in Some interpersonal theorists suggest that such persons should have
relation to the SWLS with a series of hierarchical multiple regres- more ready and flexible access to a range of alternative ways of
sions (see Table 7). Here we find that seven of the eight IIS octants processing interpersonal experience, and on the basis of this rea-
are associated with significant incremental variance in the SWLS soning, we expected that they would report fewer interpersonal
beyond those of the BIC. The IIS octant Cooperate is eclipsed by problems, greater life satisfaction, and better relationship-forming
BIC Meek–Submissive, which is negatively associated with skills (Leary, 1957; Wiggins et al., 1989), although this claim has
been questioned (Gurtman & Balakrishnan, 1998; Pincus & Gurt-
man, 2006). To test this hypothesis, we utilized a measure of octant
Table 6 variability (amplitude; Gurtman & Balakrishnan, 1998), where
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Satisfaction With greater variability is presumed to indicate less flexibility. We
Life and Relationship Quality found that octant variability had small correlations in the expected
directions with interpersonal problems (IIP; r ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .001,
Variable R2 ⌬R2 B SE B ␤ N ⫽ 984); life satisfaction (SWLS; r ⫽ –.12, p ⬍ .001, N ⫽
1,314); relationship-forming ability (ICQ; r ⫽ –.15, p ⬍ .001, N ⫽
Satisfaction with lifea 410) and the IIS mean score (r ⫽ –.15, p ⬍ .001, N ⫽ 1,379).
Step 1
IIP mean .10 ⫺.79 .08 ⫺.31ⴱⴱⴱ
Step 2 General Discussion
IIP mean ⫺.53 .08 ⫺.21ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
IIS mean .15 .05 .48 .06 .24ⴱⴱⴱ The Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths (IIS) was developed to
Relationship qualityb provide a circumplex-based measure of positive interpersonal fea-
Step 1
IIP mean .05 ⫺.62 .09 ⫺.23ⴱⴱⴱ tures for the full interpersonal circle. We conceptualized these
Step 2 positive features as interpersonal strengths, encompassing a wide
IIP mean ⫺.45 .09 ⫺.17ⴱⴱ range of qualities that include interpersonal competencies, traits,
ⴱⴱⴱ
IIS mean .07 .02 .31 .07 .15ⴱⴱⴱ and values. Items reflect the positive aspects of each octant’s
Note. IIP ⫽ Inventory of Interpersonal Problems.
particular interpersonal quality, including octants heretofore gen-
a
N ⫽ 973. b N ⫽ 948. erally characterized as negative. For example, the general tone of
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. the “introverted–inhibited” octant, of holding back in interpersonal
566 HATCHER AND ROGERS

Table 7
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Satisfaction With Life: BIC Versus IIS Octants

Satisfaction with life R2 ⌬R2 B SE B ␤

Step 1
BIC Warm–Trusting .02 .14 .11 .13
Step 2
BIC Warm–Trusting .08 .11 .07
IIS Connect .05 .04ⴱⴱ .25 .12 .20ⴱⴱ
Step 1
BIC Extraverted–Gregarious .08 .26 .08 .29
Step 2
BIC Extraverted–Gregarious .09 .11 .10
IIS Engage .14 .05ⴱⴱ .35 .14 .30ⴱⴱ
Step 1
BIC Dominant–Assured .02 .10 .08 .13
Step 2
BIC Dominant–Assured ⫺.02 .09 ⫺.02
IIS Lead .09 .08ⴱⴱⴱ .38 .13 .31ⴱⴱⴱ
Step 1
BIC Crafty–Boastful .00 ⫺.05 .07 ⫺.07
Step 2
BIC Crafty–Boastful ⫺.10 .07 ⫺.13
IIS Direct .06 .06ⴱⴱ .34 .13 .25ⴱⴱ
Step 1
BIC Cold–Quarrelsome .05 ⫺.18 .08 ⫺.22
Step 2
BIC Cold–Quarrelsome ⫺.10 .07 ⫺.13
IIS Balance .10 .06ⴱⴱ .36 .14 .23ⴱⴱ
Step 1
BIC Introverted–Aloof .04 ⫺.14 .07 ⫺.11
Step 2
BIC Introverted–Aloof ⫺.08 .07 ⫺.11
IIS Restrain .13 .09ⴱⴱⴱ .50 .15 .31ⴱⴱⴱ
Step 1
BIC Meek–Submissive .04 ⫺.14 .07 ⫺.19
Step 2
BIC Meek–Submissive ⫺.14 .07 ⫺.19ⴱⴱ
IIS Cooperate .05 .01 .17 .14 .12
Step 1
BIC Humble–Agreeable .01 .08 .10 .08
Step 2
BIC Humble–Agreeable .05 .10 .05
IIS Consider .08 .07ⴱⴱⴱ .30 .11 .26ⴱⴱⴱ

Note. N ⫽ 105. BIC ⫽ Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities; IIS ⫽ Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

situations, is reflected in a positive form in items such as “I respect
others’ needs for privacy.” Overall, we have provided evidence
that these strengths, as measured by the IIS, are associated with
better life outcomes, fewer interpersonal problems, more interper-
sonal competence, and more emotional stability.
The difficulty in finding positive adjectives for the left side of
the circle, evident in the IAS and the Big Five circumplex scales,
led us to conclude that sentences would better describe positive
interpersonal features, as exemplified by the IIP for problematic
features. The process of item development and selection produced
a measure with strong circumplex properties. Locating the IIS
within the interpersonal nomological net defined by the Big Five,
the IIP, and the BIC demonstrated that this instrument participates
fully and consistently in the domain of interpersonal measurement.
Correlations with the non-interpersonal Big Five dimensions were
small and low compared to those of the Big Five interpersonal
dimensions.
We found that peak profile locations showed a reasonably
uniform distribution of central interpersonal themes for study
participants across all octants around the IIS circle. There were no
detected differences in the levels of interpersonal competence
among these groups, and just a few differences in the levels of
interpersonal distress. This supports the claim that the IIS has
identified a uniform set of positive, adaptive interpersonal features
around the interpersonal circle. Overall, these results show that the
IIS can help identify large numbers of people whose positive,
adaptive modes of interpersonal engagement may not have previ-
ously been recognized. Further, the positive association with in-
terpersonal competence (ICQ) provided convergent validation of
the IIS, and the negative association with the IIP, divergent vali-
dation. The location of ICQ subscales on the IIS circle was as
predicted based on Gurtman’s (1999) interpersonal analyses of the
ICQ. BIC items measuring positive capabilities (on the right side
of the circle) and negative capabilities (on the left) generally
 INVENTORY OF INTERPERSONAL STRENGTHS
followed expectations for their associations with IIS octants, ex-
cept for IIS Direct and BIC Crafty–Boastful, which had a small
positive correlation. This finding suggests that persons endorsing
higher levels of IIS Direct features, such as “I know how to look
after my own interests,” or “I can make a decision even if others
disagree,” are more likely to feel capable of being “boastful/
conceited, arrogant” and “crafty/cunning, sly, calculating,” when
the situation requires it. It remains unclear what situation would
require being boastful, conceited, or arrogant, however.
Hierarchical regressions of IIP and IIS mean scores on measures
of life satisfaction and relationship quality indicated that the IIS as
a measure of positive interpersonal features adds explanatory
power over and above the relative absence of interpersonal dis-
tress. Hierarchical regressions of BIC and IIS octant scores on the
measure of life satisfaction showed that the IIS, and particularly
the IIS octant scores on the left side of the interpersonal circle,
provided greater explanatory leverage than a measure of interper-
sonal capabilities. It should be noted that the reliabilities of the
BIC are often suppressed due to the two-item scales, and as found
in previous research. The results of the hierarchical regression
must be interpreted with this issue in mind.
Finally, the idea that more uniform access to the full range of
positive interpersonal features would be associated with greater
life satisfaction, fewer interpersonal problems, and greater inter-
personal competence received some support in this study.
Study Limitations
This study was based on undergraduate samples. Other inter-
personal measures, such as the IIP and the IAS, were initially
developed in similar samples, and have over time proved to be
robust in broader samples. But this remains to be demonstrated for
the IIS. In addition, the study is based entirely on self-report
instruments. Future studies could include interpersonal strength
ratings made by others and examine the IIS in relation to external
variables.
Future Directions
Confidence in the validity of the IIS will be enhanced by further
study of its relationships with other, more focused measures of
positive interpersonal constructs. The ability of the IIS to demon-
strate incremental validity relative to these measures is an impor-
tant factor in selecting methods to assess interpersonal functioning.
For example, investigation of the differences between strengths as
assessed by the IIS and efficacies as assessed by the CSIE will
offer valuable insight into the relationship of these two measures
and their underlying constructs.
It would be valuable to examine the links between the IIS and
additional desirable interpersonal outcomes such as satisfaction in
couples, positive outcomes in work situations, health-related out-
comes, and outcomes in psychotherapy and other helping relation-
ships.
We anticipate that the IIS could make a valuable contribution in
a variety of research and applied settings. The measure may
provide researchers with information relevant to investigations of
personality, psychotherapy process, and treatment outcome. Prac-
titioners could utilize the IIS to gather information about clients’
adaptive interpersonal functioning that might otherwise be ob-
567
scured if emphasis is given to deficits and symptoms. Such infor-
mation could then contribute to providing feedback during assess-
ment and to establishing goals for treatment. The measure may
prove to be a valuable predictor of success in settings where
positive interpersonal features are important to effective function-
ing, such as in the workplace or in family relationships. Finally, the
IIS may be a valuable measure of change in any setting that aims
to improve interpersonal functioning.
References
Acton, G. S., & Revelle, W. (2002). Interpersonal personality measures
show circumplex structure based on new psychometric criteria. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 79, 446 – 471.
Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of
circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 55, 521–536.
Browne, M. W. (1992). Circumplex models for correlation matrices. Psy-
chometrika, 57, 469 – 497.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230 –258.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five
domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991–1008.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,
71–75.
Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract?
Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72, 592– 603.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement
of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340 –
354.
Freedman, M. B. (1985). Interpersonal circumplex models (1948 –1983).
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 622– 625.
Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. F., Ossorio, A. G., & Coffey, H. S. (1951). The
interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personality, 20, 143–
161.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five
factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26 – 42.
Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality
measures: The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 105–118.
Gurtman, M. B. (1996). Interpersonal problems and the psychotherapy
context: The construct validity of the Inventory of Interpersonal Prob-
lems. Psychological Assessment, 8, 241–255.
Gurtman, M. B. (1999). Social competence: An interpersonal analysis and
reformulation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 233–
245.
Gurtman, M. B., & Balakrishnan, J. D. (1998). Circular measurement
redux: The analysis and interpretation of interpersonal circle profiles.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 344 –360.
Gurtman, M. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2000). Interpersonal adjective scales:
Confirmation of circumplex structure from multiple perspectives. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 374 –384.
Hofsess, C. D., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2005). The interpersonal circumplex as
a model of interpersonal capabilities. Journal of Personality Assessment,
84, 137–147.
Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of
the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146 –163.
568 HATCHER AND ROGERS
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2000).
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villasenor,
V. S. (1988). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric prop-
erties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 56, 885– 892.
Horowitz, L. M., Turan, B., Wilson, K. R., & Zolotsev, P. (2008). Inter-
personal theory and the measurement of interpersonal constructs. In G. J.
Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2: Personality measurement and
testing (pp. 420 – 439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: The program of the Stress
Reduction Clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.
New York, NY: Delta.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York, NY:
Ronald Press.
Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliabil-
ity, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality
disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 249 –267.
Locke, K. D., & Sadler, P. (2007). Self-efficacy, values, and complemen-
tarity in dyadic interactions: Integrating interpersonal and social-
cognitive theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 94 –
109.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1987). The structure of personality
capabilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 354 –
365.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new
conception of interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 88 –101.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life
Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164 –172.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction With Life Scale, and the
emerging construct of life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology,
3, 137–152.
Peterson, C. (2006a). A primer in positive psychology. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C. (2006b). The Values in Action (VIA) classification of
strengths. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), A life
worth living: Contributions to positive psychology (pp. 29 – 48). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (2006). Interpersonal theory and the
interpersonal circumplex: Evolving perspectives on normal and abnor-
mal personality. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal
personality (2nd ed., pp. 83–111). New York, NY: Springer.
Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 649 – 660.
Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical
review. Social Development, 6, 111–135.
Saucier, G. (2002). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of
the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 1–31.
Tracey, T. J. G. (1997). RANDALL: A Microsoft FORTRAN program for
a randomization test of hypothesized order relations. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 57, 164 –168.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2000). Analysis of circumplex models. In H. E. A. Tinsley
& S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and
mathematical modeling (pp. 641– 664). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tracey, T. J. G., Rounds, J., & Gurtman, M. (1996). Examination of the
general factor with the interpersonal circumplex structure: Application
to the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 31, 441– 466.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait descriptive terms:
The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 37, 395– 412.
Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal adjective scales professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Wiggins, J. S. (1996). An informal history of the interpersonal circumplex
tradition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 217–233.
Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1985). The interpersonal circle: A
structural model for the integration of personality research. In R. Hogan
& W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1, pp. 1– 47).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wiggins, J. S., Phillips, N., & Trapnell, P. (1989). Circular reasoning about
interpersonal behavior: Evidence concerning some untested assumptions
underlying diagnostic classification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 296 –305.
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and
geometric characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales
(IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 517–530.
 INVENTORY OF INTERPERSONAL STRENGTHS
Appendix
Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths
Connect
I enjoy being with other people.
I feel good when I’m with other people.
I’m warm with other people.
I look forward to spending time with people.
I make time to be with others.
I’m excited about meeting new people.
I approach other people with friendliness.
I like asking people about their lives.
Engage
I can really shine in the spotlight.
I feel comfortable being open about myself.
I put myself out there in order to connect with others.
I try to regain contact with people with whom I’ve lost touch.
I enjoy mingling at parties.
I try to help people to loosen up.
I can make people laugh.
I put other people at ease.
Lead
I don’t give up easily in competitive situations.
I feel confident in front of other people.
I enjoy lively competition with others.
I can be very persuasive.
I am a strong but fair leader.
I can ask other people for what I want.
I can take charge in a group.
I am able to be assertive with other people.
Direct
I can assert my needs even when it’s not agreeable to others.
I can make a decision even if others disagree.
I argue effectively with others.
I know how to look after my own interests.
I can take care of myself, even when others’ needs feel pressing.
I can let other people know when I think that they’re asking for
too much from me.
I’m comfortable disagreeing with others.
When others get me down, I can bounce back.
View publication stats
569
Balance
I recover quickly when people hurt my feelings.
I realize that I don’t have to be friends with everyone.
I can help others with their needs without neglecting my own.
I can say “no” to others.
I like to be clear on my agreements with other people.
I can rely on myself when I’m having problems with others.
I’m ok with not being included in all activities.
I know how to be angry without pushing people away.
Restrain
It’s important to me to be honest even when it’s difficult.
When someone irritates me, I look for a constructive solution.
I can listen and think before I act in relationships.
I hesitate to express opinions about others without all the facts.
I recognize when others need privacy.
I can be interested in others without being nosy.
I can resist others’ tempting me to indulge myself.
I’m respectful of others’ need for time to themselves.
Cooperate
I enjoy learning from people who have more experience than I do.
I’m pretty even-tempered with others.
I am able to compromise.
I show my gratitude for what others do for me.
I work really well as an assistant.
I’m a good listener.
I’m cooperative.
I don’t ask others for more than they are comfortable giving.
Consider
I enjoy celebrating others’ achievements.
Offering other people emotional support is important to me.
I stick by my friends when they’re in trouble.
It makes me happy when others are happy.
My feelings of gratitude warm my relationships with others.
When friends ask for favors, I’m delighted to help them out.
I feel enriched by helping others.
I enjoy complimenting others.
Received September 20, 2008
Revision received July 9, 2009
Accepted July 13, 2009 䡲