ASSESSMENT Bornstein

10.1177/1073191102238195
et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE RPT

Construct Validity of the

Relationship Profile Test
Links With Attachment, Identity,
Relatedness, and Affect

Robert F. Bornstein
Gettysburg College

Kimberly J. Geiselman
Towson State University

Elizabeth A. Eisenhart
Bryn Mawr College

Mary A. Languirand
Gettysburg College

Studies suggest that overdependence and detachment have negative effects on psychological
adjustment, health, and therapy process and outcome. In contrast, healthy dependency (i.e.,
flexible, situation-appropriate help and support seeking) has beneficial effects in each of
these areas. In this investigation, 90 college students (50 women and 40 men) completed a
battery of personality scales including the Relationship Profile Test (RPT), a 30-item mea-
sure of destructive overdependence, dysfunctional detachment, and healthy dependency.
RPT scores showed the expected patterns of subscale intercorrelations, gender differences,
and links with measures of attachment style, identity, relatedness, and affect. Implications of
these results for the construct validity of the RPT are discussed in the context of theoretical
models of dependency-detachment.

Keywords: healthy dependency, overdependence, detachment, personality assessment, clini-

cal assessment

In recent years, researchers have delineated the under-
lying structure of interpersonal dependency and examined
links between dependency and a variety of other traits
(Bornstein, 1993; Pincus & Gurtman, 1995). As a result of
these efforts, a consensus has emerged among clinicians
that the converse of dependency is dysfunctional detach-
ment (DD)—an inability to cultivate social ties and engage
in adaptive affiliative behaviors (Kantor, 1993; Millon,
1996). Moreover, researchers have found it useful, both
conceptually and empirically, to distinguish destructive
overdependence (DO) (characterized by rigid, inflexible
dependency) from healthy dependency (HD) (character-

Portions of this article were presented at the 73rd annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, March 8, 2002.
Copies of the Relationship Profile Test, along with scoring information, can be obtained from the first author. Correspondence regarding
this article should be sent to Robert F. Bornstein, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA 17325; e-mail:
bbornste@gettysburg.edu.
Assessment, Volume 9, No. 4, December 2002 373-381
DOI: 10.1177/1073191102238195
© 2002 Sage Publications

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015

374 ASSESSMENT
ized by flexible, situation-appropriate help and support
seeking) (see Bornstein, 1998; Pincus & Wilson, 2001).
Considerable effort has been devoted to elucidating the
developmental antecedents of DD and DO. Studies indi-
cate that detachment results from an array of underlying
factors, including early socialization experiences that em-
phasize independence and self-sufficiency at the expense
of social connectedness (Clark & Ladd, 2000; Colgan,
1987), intrapsychic conflicts regarding closeness and inti-
macy (Birtchnell, 1996), and biologically based differ-
ences in temperament that elicit detachment-promoting
responses from parents and peers (Coolidge, Thede, &
Jang, 2001). In contrast, overdependence stems primarily
from a sustained pattern of overprotective and/or authori-
tarian parenting (Head, Baker, & Williamson, 1991), al-
though certain infantile temperament variables (e.g., low
soothability) may play a role in eliciting these parenting
styles (Bornstein, 1993; Pincus & Gurtman, 1995).
Studies have also documented the early childhood fac-
tors that lead to HD later in life. HD is rooted in (a) a his-
tory of authoritative parenting, which instills in the child a
sense of confidence and self-directedness (Cross &
Madson, 1997; Lee & Robbins, 1995), and (b) consistent
messages from parents and other authority figures that it is
acceptable to ask for support when needed (Clark & Ladd,
2000; Lang-Takac & Osterweil, 1992). As a result, the
child learns that looking to others for help is not a sign of
weakness or failure. Studies suggest that only when au-
thoritative parenting is coupled with active encourage-
ment of situation-appropriate help seeking is an individual
likely to develop a healthy-dependent personality style
(Kobayashi, 1989; Singelis, 1994; Wang, Bristol, Mowen, &
Chakraborty, 2000).
Although overdependence and detachment have been
studied for decades, the concept of HD—and its assess-
ment in research and clinical settings—is relatively new.
Although HD overlaps to some degree with connectedness
(Clark & Ladd, 2000), mature dependency (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995), and mature object relations (Sundin,
Armelius, & Nilsson, 1994), perusal of the empirical liter-
ature confirms that HD differs from these neighboring
constructs in several ways (Bornstein, Languirand, West,
Creighton, & Geiselman, 2001, 2002). For example, al-
though HD is similar in certain respects to secure attach-
ment, these constructs differ with respect to underlying
process: Whereas secure attachment is rooted in internal
working models of self-other interactions that lead to posi-
tive expectations regarding relationship outcomes (Main,
Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), HD is rooted in a set of motives
and affective responses that enable the person to seek help
from others without feeling helpless, moderate affiliative
urges through internal means, and delay short-term gratifi-
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015
cation to strengthen long-term supportive relationships
(Bornstein, 1998).
HD and secure attachment also differ with respect to
cross-situational stability. Secure attachment is associated
with greater behavioral consistency than is HD, with simi-
lar interaction patterns exhibited in different contexts (e.g.,
friendships, romantic relationships) (see Heiss, Berman, &
Sperling, 1996). In contrast, HD is expressed differently in
different settings, with the healthy-dependent person ex-
hibiting an array of relationship-specific self-presentation
styles (Pincus & Wilson, 2001) and modifying his or her
behavior in response to situational cues and external de-
mands (Bornstein & Languirand, in press).
Perhaps most important from a psychometric stand-
point, studies confirm that HD and secure attachment are
empirically as well as conceptually distinct (Klohnen &
John, 1998). Healthy-dependency scores are only mod-
estly related to scores on measures of secure attachment,
with correlations in the r = .30 to .40 range (Bornstein
et al., 2001, 2002; Pincus & Wilson, 2001). Thus, secure
attachment scores account for—at most—approximately
16% of the variance in healthy-dependency scores.
Bornstein et al. (2001, 2002) obtained preliminary data
regarding the construct validity of a newly developed self-
report scale—the Relationship Profile Test (RPT)—that
was designed to assess detachment, overdependence, and
HD within the same instrument. The RPT yields three
subscale scores: DO, DD, and HD. In Bornstein et al.’s in-
vestigations, all three RPT subscales showed the expected
patterns of intercorrelations and gender differences, ac-
ceptable internal consistency, and good retest reliability
over a 23-week intertest interval. In addition, the three
RPT subscale scores showed theoretically predicted rela-
tionships with scores on measures of need for approval
(Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), life satisfaction (Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), alexithymia (Taylor,
Bagby, & Parker, 1992), psychological separateness/isola-
tion (Wang & Mowen, 1997), and relational-interdepen-
dent self-construal (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000).
Continued attention to the construct validity of the RPT
is important for several reasons. First, studies have shown
that overdependence and detachment both have negative
effects on psychotherapy process and outcome.
Overdependent patients tend to overuse mental health ser-
vices, have difficulty terminating psychotherapy, and ob-
tain a significantly higher number of psychotropic
medication prescriptions than do nondependent patients
with similar diagnostic profiles (Ekselius, Lindstrom, von
Knorring, Bodlund, & Kullgren, 1994; O’Neill &
Bornstein, 2001). Detached patients, on the other hand,
delay seeking treatment after symptoms appear, terminate
therapy prematurely, and show only modest benefit in in-

sight-oriented treatment relative to nondetached patients
(Kantor, 1993; Sperry, 1995).
In contrast to overdependent and detached patients, evi-
dence suggests that healthy-dependent patients may be
particularly good candidates for insight-oriented therapy.
Several qualities associated with HD (e.g., stable self-con-
cept, relationship flexibility, adaptive help seeking) have
been shown to predict positive outcome in insight-oriented
treatment (Blatt & Ford, 1994; Summers, 1999). More-
over, successful insight-oriented psychotherapy is often
characterized by a shift from overdependent and/or de-
tached behavior to healthy-dependent functioning
(Hoglend et al., 2000; Hoglend & Piper, 1997).
Parallel findings have emerged in the health arena.
Overdependence is associated with increased risk for ill-
ness and disease (Bornstein, 1998) because over-
dependence acts as a diathesis that—when coupled with a
high level of interpersonal stress—compromises immune
function (Blatt, Cornell, & Eshkol, 1993). Detachment
leads to increased illness risk as well because the
alexithymic tendencies associated with detachment pre-
vent the person from disclosing negative emotions
(Pennebaker, 1990, 1995). HD has the opposite effect be-
cause the healthy-dependent person’s combination of au-
tonomy and connectedness facilitates disclosure of
troubling feelings, leads to more effective coping with in-
terpersonal conflict, and sets the stage for adaptive medi-
cal help seeking when symptoms appear (Bornstein &
Languirand, in press; Cross & Madson, 1997).
The purpose of the present study was to obtain addi-
tional information regarding the convergent and
discriminant validity of the RPT by assessing links be-
tween RPT scores and scores on measures of attachment
style, identity, relatedness, and affect regulation. As-
sessing the relationships between RPT scores and scores
on these constructs is important for several reasons. First,
exploring links between RPT scores and indices of attach-
ment style will help elucidate convergences and diver-
gences between these constructs and place HD within an
appropriate nomological net. Second, exploring links be-
tween RPT scores and indices of identity and relatedness
will enhance understanding of the intrapersonal and inter-
personal dynamics of HD. Finally, examining the relation-
ships between RPT scores and affect regulation scores
may help specify the underlying factors that account for
increased illness risk in overdependent and detached
persons and decreased illness risk in healthy-dependent
individuals.
Briere’s (1998) Inventory of Altered Self-Capacities
(IASC) was used to assess dimensions of identity, related-
ness, and affect, whereas Collins and Read’s (1990) Adult
Attachment Scale (AAS) was used to assess attachment
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015
Bornstein et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE RPT 375
style. Several sets of hypotheses were tested, all of which
were derived from extant research on overdependence, de-
tachment, and HD (Baltes, 1996; Birtchnell, 1987;
Bornstein, 1993; Colgan, 1987; Cross et al., 2000; Kantor,
1993; Pincus & Wilson, 2001; Rude & Burnham, 1995).
All statistically significant RPT-comparison measure cor-
relations were expected to be moderate in magnitude (i.e.,
in the .25-.50 range) and comparable in women and men.
Attachment style (AAS). DO scores should be positively
correlated with scores on the AAS Anxiety Scale and neg-
atively correlated with scores on the Close Scale. In con-
trast, DD scores should be negatively correlated with
scores on both the Depend and Close subscales. HD scores
should be positively correlated with scores on the Depend
and Close subscales but negatively correlated with scores
on the Anxiety subscale.
Identity (IASC Identity Impairment [II] and Suscepti-
bility to Influence [SI] Scales). DO scores should be posi-
tively correlated with scores on the IASC II and SI Scales.
Like DO scores, DD scores should be positively correlated
with II Scale scores. However, in contrast to DD scores,
DO scores should be negatively correlated with SI Scale
scores. HD scores should be negatively correlated with
scores on both the II and SI Scales.
Relatedness (IASC Interpersonal Conflicts [IC],
Idealization-Disillusionment [ID], and Abandonment
Concerns [AC] Scales). DO scores should be positively
correlated with scores on the AC Scale, whereas DD
scores should be positively correlated with scores on the
ID Scale (a high ID score reflects a tendency to experience
rapid shifts in opinions of other people). HD scores should
be negatively correlated with scores on all three related-
ness scales: IC, ID, and AC.
Affect regulation (IASC Affect Dysregulation [AD] and
Tension Reduction Activities [TRA] Scales). DO and DD
scores should be positively correlated with scores on the
AD Scale. However, HD scores should be negatively cor-
related with AD scores and with scores on the TRA Scale
(low TRA scores indicate an ability to cope effectively
with negative affect through internal means).
RPT subscale intercorrelations. These were expected
to follow the patterns obtained by Bornstein et al. (2001,
2002), who found that HD scores were inversely related to
DO and DD scores, whereas DO and DD scores were or-
thogonal. Continued examination of the DO-DD relation-
ship is particularly useful because extant theoretical
models conceptualize DO and DD as opposing personality
styles (Birtchnell, 1987, 1996), yet Ekselius et al. (1994)
found that psychiatric patients who obtained high scores
on a measure of dependent personality disorder (PD) also
376 ASSESSMENT
scored high on schizoid PD (r = .30) and avoidant PD (r =
.66), even though these latter disorders are thought to be
detachment based (Millon, 1996). If evidence continues to
show that DO and DD scores are orthogonal (Bornstein
et al., 2001, 2002) or positively correlated (Ekselius et al.,
1994), theoretical frameworks that conceptualize depend-
ency and detachment as opposing personality styles may
need to be revised.
RPT subscale gender differences. Consistent with re-
sults from initial validity studies (Bornstein et al., 2001,
2002), women should score higher than men on the DO
and HD Scales; there should be no gender differences on
the DD Scale. Previous investigations of clinical and col-
lege student samples have also found that women obtain
higher scores than men on measures of overdependence
and HD (Pincus & Wilson, 2001), with minimal gender
differences in detachment (Birtchnell, 1996).
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 90 undergraduates (50 women and 40
men) enrolled in general psychology classes at Gettysburg
College, who took part in the study to fulfill a course re-
quirement. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 21, with a
mean of 18.35 years (SD = 0.82). No participants from the
present study had taken part in earlier RPT construct valid-
ity studies.
Measures
The RPT
The RPT is a rationally derived questionnaire that asks
the participant to respond to 30 self-statements, each of
which is rated on a 7-point scale anchored by the terms not
at all true of me (1) and very true of me (7). The RPT yields
three 10-item subscale scores: (a) DO, (b) DD, and (c) HD.
Sample items from the RPT subscales include “Being re-
sponsible for things makes me nervous” (DO), “Other
people want too much from me” (DD), and “It is easy for
me to trust people” (HD).
RPT statements were derived from the theoretical and
empirical literature on overdependence, detachment, and
HD. Statements were written to tap the four components of
each personality style (i.e., cognitive, emotional, motiva-
tional, behavioral), as well as other core features of the di-
mension in question. Sources used to derive RPT items
included Baille and Lampe (1998), Benjamin (1996),
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015
Birtchnell (1987, 1996), Bornstein (1993), Gurtman
(1992), Kantor (1993), Livesley (1995), Millon (1996),
Overholser (1996), Paris (1998), Pincus and Gurtman
(1995), and Rude and Burnham (1995). In addition, the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(4th ed.) (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) de-
pendent PD, avoidant PD, and schizoid PD symptom crite-
ria were used to develop certain DO and DD items. Initial
validation data confirmed that all three RPT subscales
showed good internal consistency and retest reliability and
theoretically predicted relationships with measures of
need for approval, life satisfaction, alexithymia, psycho-
logical separateness, and relational-interdependent self-
construal (Bornstein et al., 2001, 2002).
Comparison Measures
Two measures were used to assess the convergent and
discriminant validity of the three RPT subscales.
The AAS (Collins & Read, 1990) is a 21-item measure
of attachment style in adolescents and adults. Each AAS
item is a self-statement, which is rated by the participant
on a 5-point scale anchored with the terms not at all char-
acteristic (1) and very characteristic (5). The AAS yields
three 7-item subscale scores: Depend (i.e., confidence in
the dependability of others), Close (i.e., comfort with
closeness and intimacy), and Anxiety (i.e., concerns re-
garding rejection and abandonment).
Information regarding the construct validity of the
AAS is provided by Collins and Read (1990) and Brennan,
Clark, and Shaver (1998). AAS scores show good retest re-
liability over 8 weeks and yield theoretically predicted re-
lationships with scores on measures of self-concept, self-
esteem, trust, and love style. Recent investigations confirm
that AAS scores also show the expected relationships with
scores on measures of depression and anaclitic personality
traits (Whiffen, Aube, Thompson, & Campbell, 2000). An
additional advantage of the AAS over other adult attach-
ment measures is that AAS items are worded to tap broad
relationship patterns rather than assessing behavior in ro-
mantic relationships alone (Brennan et al., 1998).
Despite its many strengths, the AAS also has two disad-
vantages relative to other adult attachment scales. First,
AAS subscales do not map well onto current four-cell
models of attachment and may not assess certain attach-
ment patterns exhibited by adolescents and adults
(Brennan et al., 1998). Second, AAS subscale scores show
relatively modest correlations with theoretically related
subscale scores from other adult attachment measures
(e.g., West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994).
The IASC (Briere, 1998) is a 63-item scale assessing
various dimensions of identity, relatedness, and affect reg-
 Bornstein et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE RPT 377

TABLE 1 TABLE 2
Gender Differences in RPT and Intercorrelations of RPT Subscale Scores
Comparison Measure Scores
RPT-DO RPT-DD RPT-HD
Women Men
RPT-DO — .09 –.35**
Scale Score SD Score SD t RPT-DD .25 — –.52**
RPT-HD –.24 –.18 —
RPT
DO 27.14 5.90 23.75 6.62 3.54** NOTE: N = 50 women and 40 men. Subscale intercorrelations for women
DD 29.74 6.33 30.86 5.68 1.18 are above the diagonal; those for men are below the diagonal. RPT = Re-
HD 37.77 6.02 34.52 6.04 2.27* lationship Profile Test; DO = Destructive Overdependence; DD = Dys-
AAS functional Detachment; HD = Healthy Dependency.
Depend 21.42 4.64 20.13 3.59 1.57 **p < .01.
Anxiety 13.95 4.50 14.78 4.38 0.96
Close 22.91 4.40 23.00 3.62 0.10
IASC
Procedure
II 18.31 6.64 17.10 7.21 0.92
SI 16.64 5.37 13.98 4.46 2.72**
IC 20.49 5.27 20.22 5.13 0.26 Participants completed batteries of measures in two 30-
ID 17.81 6.27 16.83 5.53 0.84 to 40-minute sessions separated by 7 to 14 days. Within
AC 18.05 6.81 16.75 6.52 1.00 each session, measures were presented in random order.
AD 18.27 6.14 17.65 6.59 0.52
TRA 13.29 3.56 13.43 4.04 0.20

NOTE: N = 50 women and 40 men. RPT = Relationship Profile Test RESULTS

(Bornstein, Languirand, West, Creighton, & Geiselman, 2001, 2002); DO
= Destructive Overdependence; DD = Dysfunctional Detachment; HD =
Healthy Dependency; AAS = Adult Attachment Scale (Collins & Read,
1990); Depend = confidence in the dependability of others; Anxiety = fear
of abandonment/rejection; Close = comfort with closeness and intimacy;
IASC = Inventory of Altered Self-Capacities (Briere, 1998); II = Identity
Impairment; SI = Susceptibility to Influence; IC = Interpersonal Con-
flicts; ID = Idealization-Disillusionment; AC = Abandonment Concerns;
AD = Affect Dysregulation; TRA = Tension Reduction Activities.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
ulation. IASC items are preceded by the question, “In the
last 6 months, how often have you experienced the follow-
ing?” Items describing intrapersonal and interpersonal ex-
periences follow (e.g., “suddenly hating someone you
liked a lot,” “feeling like you don’t really have an identity,”
“feeling empty when people went away from you”). Each
item is rated on a 5-point scale anchored by the terms never
(1) and very often (5).
The IASC yields seven subscale scores: II, SI, IC, ID,
AC, AD, and TRA. Two of these subscales (II and SI) tap
facets of identity, three (IC, ID, and AC) assess related-
ness, and the remaining two (AD and TRA) assess aspects
of affect control.
Initial construct validity studies confirmed that the
IASC subscales show good internal consistency in com-
munity and clinical samples and good convergent and
discriminant validity with respect to (a) archival measures
of suicidality and child abuse history and (b) self-reports
of Axis II pathology, interpersonal problems, and defense
style (see Briere, 1998, for a detailed discussion of these
data).
The results of this study are summarized in Tables 1
through 3.
RPT and Comparison
Measure Gender Differences
As Table 1 shows, women obtained significantly higher
scores than men on the RPT DO and HD Scales. Although
men scored slightly higher than women on the DD Scale,
this difference was not significant. When the gender dif-
ference effect sizes obtained in this study were compared
to those of Bornstein et al. (2001, 2002), using focused
comparisons (Rosenthal, 1984), no significant differences
between the present effect sizes and the earlier ones were
found (Zs were 0.72, 0.35, and 0.79, respectively, for the
DO, DD, and HD effect size contrasts).
Analyses of comparison measure (AAS and IASC)
scores revealed no significant gender differences on any
AAS subscale and only one gender difference on the
IASC: Women obtained significantly higher scores than
men on the SI Scale.
RPT Subscale Intercorrelations
As Table 2 shows, similar RPT subscale correlations
were obtained in women and men. As expected, HD scores
were inversely related to DO and DD scores in participants
of both genders. Although these correlations were statisti-
cally significant in women, the HD-DO and HD-DD cor-
relations in men—although in the predicted direction—

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015

378 ASSESSMENT

TABLE 3 All three RPT scales also showed predictable correla-

Convergent and Discriminant tions with IASC identity, relatedness, and affect regulation
Validity of the RPT Subscales indices. DO scores were associated with high levels of AC,
Comparison Measure–Subscale Correlations II, SI, and AD. DD scores were associated with high levels
RPT-DO RPT-DD RPT-HD
of ID and AD. HD scores were associated with low levels
Comparison of ID, AC, II, SI, AD, and TRA. Including predicted
Measure Predict Obtain Predict Obtain Predict Obtain nonrelationships, 18 of 21 RPT-IASC correlations (86%)
were as expected.
AAS
Depend o .07 – –.41** + .39**
Anxiety + .24* o .09 – –.29**
Close – –.25* – –.38** + .60** DISCUSSION
IASC
II + .55** + .14 – –.37** The present results illuminate the intrapersonal and in-
SI + .55** – .03 – –.26*
terpersonal dynamics of DO, DD, and HD. Our findings
IC o .02 o .17 – –.18
ID o .07 + .37** – –.31** indicate that the overdependent person experiences con-
AC + .27** o .15 – –.33** cerns about abandonment, anxiety regarding the continued
AD + .27** + .33** – –.32** availability of caregivers, problems with closeness and in-
TRA o .14 o .17 – –.23* timacy, difficulty resisting external pressure and influ-
NOTE: N = 50 women and 40 men. RPT = Relationship Profile Test; DO ence, and impairments in identity and affect regulation.
= Destructive Overdependence; DD = Dysfunctional Detachment; HD = When coupled with Bornstein et al.’s (2001, 2002) find-
Healthy Dependency; Predict = predicted RPT–comparison measure re- ings regarding the overdependent person’s lack of self-
lationship; Obtain = obtained RPT–comparison measure relationship;
AAS = Adult Attachment Scale; Depend = confidence in the dependabil- confidence and dissatisfaction with life, the picture that
ity of others; Anxiety = fear of abandonment/rejection; Close = comfort emerges is that of an anxious, insecure individual with a
with closeness and intimacy; IASC = Inventory of Altered Self-Capac- tenuous self-concept who may at times be overwhelmed
ities; II = Identity Impairment; SI = Susceptibility to Influence; IC = In-
terpersonal Conflicts; ID = Idealization-Disillusionment; AC = by negative affect.
Abandonment Concerns; AD = Affect Dysregulation; TRA = Tension Like the overdependent individual, the detached person
Reduction Activities. Predicted relationships are as follows: + = positive experiences difficulties in affect regulation and problems
correlation predicted, – = negative correlation predicted, and o = scores
expected to be uncorrelated. with closeness and intimacy. However, in contrast to the
*p < .05. **p < .01. overdependent person, the detached person sees others as
undependable and has a tendency to respond to conflict
with wholesale shifts in attitude toward the other individ-
ual. When coupled with Bornstein et al.’s (2001, 2002)
were not significant. However, focused comparisons of findings regarding the detached person’s sense of isola-
RPT interscale intercorrelation coefficients obtained in the tion, difficulty expressing feelings, and dissatisfaction
present study with those obtained by Bornstein et al. with life, the picture that emerges is of a withdrawn, almost
(2001, 2002) revealed no significant effect size differences schizoid individual with a generalized negative outlook,
between investigations (cross-study effect size compari- low expectations regarding interpersonal relationships,
son Zs ranged from 0.29 to 0.65 in women and from 0.72 to and difficulty managing troubling emotions.
1.51 in men). In many ways, the most intriguing results to emerge
from this investigation involve HD. The healthy-depend-
Convergent and Discriminant ent person sees others as dependable, is capable of experi-
Validity of RPT Subscale Scores encing genuine intimacy and closeness, has few concerns
regarding abandonment by a valued other, and is able to
As Table 3 shows, DO, DD, and HD scores exhibited maintain a consistent view of significant figures, even in
the expected patterns of intercorrelations with AAS the face of interpersonal conflict. In addition, the healthy-
subscale scores. DO scores were positively correlated with dependent person has little difficulty with affect regula-
Anxiety scores and negatively correlated with Close tion, few identity concerns, and the ability to evaluate ex-
scores. DD scores were negatively correlated with Depend ternal influence critically and resist this influence if he or
and Close scores. HD scores were positively correlated she so desires. When combined with Bornstein et al.’s
with Depend and Close scores and negatively correlated (2001, 2002) findings regarding the healthy-dependent
with Anxiety scores. Including predicted nonrelationships person’s interdependent self-construal, need for approval,
(i.e., DO-Depend and DD-Anxiety), nine of nine RPT- ease in verbalizing feelings, and satisfaction with life, the
AAS comparisons (100%) were as expected. picture that emerges is that of a secure, confident individ-

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015


ual who feels connected to other people and desires to
please others without being overly concerned regarding
the possibility of relationship conflict or disruption.
The positive relationships between AD scores and
overdependence and detachment scores may help explain
the increased illness risk associated with these two person-
ality styles. Previous investigators have attributed the in-
creased illness risk associated with overdependence to the
negative effects of relationship conflict (Bornstein, 1998)
and attributed the increased illness risk associated with de-
tachment to alexithymic tendencies and an inability to ver-
balize troubling feelings (Kantor, 1993). Although these
factors almost certainly play a role in observed over-
dependence-illness and detachment-illness links, the pres-
ent findings suggest that AD (i.e., affective lability
coupled with difficulty modulating dysphoric states) may
also underlie increases in illness rates in overdependent
and detached individuals.
Given the marked differences in affect regulation ca-
pacity across these three personality styles, continued ex-
ploration of contrasting affective experiences in DO, DD,
and HD is warranted. Although studies have documented
links between DD and depression (Kantor, 1993) and be-
tween DO and both depression and anxiety (Bornstein,
1993), no investigations have assessed milder daily affect
patterns associated with these traits. Similarly, although
the present results—along with those of Bornstein et al.
(2001, 2002)—indicate that HD is associated with effec-
tive coping and overall life satisfaction, no studies have ex-
plored the range of affective experiences characteristic of
HD.
In addition to providing new information regarding the
intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics of overdepen-
dence, detachment, and HD, the present findings confirm
and extend the initial RPT construct validity findings of
Bornstein et al. (2001, 2002). Most important, these re-
sults offer additional support for the convergent and dis-
criminant validity of the three RPT subscales. They also
replicate earlier findings regarding RPT gender differ-
ences and intersubscale relationships. DO and DD scores
were again uncorrelated, a finding that dovetails with ear-
lier RPT construct validity data. In light of these results—
and other findings documenting positive relationships be-
tween dependency- and detachment-related PD scores in
clinical and nonclinical participants (Ekselius et al.,
1994)—it may be time to revise extant theoretical frame-
works that conceptualize dependency and detachment as
opposing personality styles (Birtchnell, 1987; Millon,
1996).
One limitation of the present investigation involves its
relatively modest sample size. It is possible that stronger
results in certain domains would have been obtained if a
greater number of participants were assessed. Although
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015
Bornstein et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE RPT 379
this limitation is less problematic than it might otherwise
be because focused comparisons of effect size demon-
strated no differences in gender or subscale inter-
correlations across independent studies and samples,
future construct validity investigations should include
larger participant groups whenever possible. This will be
particularly important in deriving clinical and nonclinical
norms for the RPT DO, DD, and HD Scales.
If the RPT continues to yield promising results, it may
prove to be a useful assessment tool for assessing depend-
ency- and detachment-related traits in research and clini-
cal settings. Studies now under way are assessing the long-
term retest reliability of RPT scores and the construct va-
lidity of the RPT in psychiatric inpatients and outpatients.
Future investigations should also examine factors that alter
overdependent, detached, and healthy-dependent behav-
iors and emotional reactions. Such studies will help re-
searchers make more accurate predictions regarding trait-
related variability in responding across different situations
and settings and may also lead to improved psycho-
therapeutic interventions for effecting long-term change.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Baille, A. J., & Lampe, L. A. (1998). Avoidant personality disorder: Em-
pirical support for DSM-IV revision. Journal of Personality Disor-
ders, 12, 23-30.
Baltes, M. M. (1996). The many faces of dependency in old age. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of person-
ality disorders. New York: Guilford.
Birtchnell, J. (1987). Attachment-detachment, directiveness-receptive-
ness: A system for classifying interpersonal attitudes and behavior.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 60, 217-227.
Birtchnell, J. (1996). Detachment. In C. G. Costello (Ed.), Personality
characteristics of the personality disordered (pp. 173-205). New
York: John Wiley.
Blatt, S. J., Cornell, C. E., & Eshkol, E. (1993). Personality style, differ-
ential vulnerability, and clinical course in immunologic and cardio-
vascular disease. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 421-450.
Blatt, S. J., & Ford, R. Q. (1994). Therapeutic change. New York: Plenum.
Bornstein, R. F. (1993). The dependent personality. New York: Guilford.
Bornstein, R. F. (1998). Depathologizing dependency. Journal of Ner-
vous and Mental Disease, 186, 67-73.
Bornstein, R. F., & Languirand, M. A. (in press). Healthy dependency.
New York: Newmarket.
Bornstein, R. F., Languirand, M. A., West, M. A., Creighton, J. A., &
Geiselman, K. J. (2001, April 20). Construct validity of the Relation-
ship Profile Test. Paper presented at the 72nd meeting of the Eastern
Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Bornstein, R. F., Languirand, M. A., West, M. A., Creighton, J. A., &
Geiselman, K. J. (2002). Construct validity of the Relationship Pro-
file Test: A self-report measure of dependency-detachment. Manu-
script submitted for publication.
380 ASSESSMENT
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure-
ment of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson
& W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships
(pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.
Briere, J. (1998). Inventory of Altered Self-Capacities manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Clark, K. E., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy sup-
port in parent-child relationships. Developmental Psychology, 36,
485-498.
Colgan, P. (1987). Treatment of dependency disorders in men: Toward a
balance of identity and intimacy. Journal of Chemical Dependency
Treatment, 1, 205-227.
Collins, N. J., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models,
and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Coolidge, F. L., Thede, L. L., & Jang, K. J. (2001). Heritability of person-
ality disorders in childhood: A preliminary investigation. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 15, 33-40.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interde-
pendent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 791-808.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and
gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York:
John Wiley.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satis-
faction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-
75.
Ekselius, L., Lindstrom, E., von Knorring, L., Bodlund, O., & Kullgren,
G. (1994). Comorbidity among the personality disorders in DSM-III-
R. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 155-160.
Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality
measures: The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 105-118.
Head, S. B., Baker, J. D., & Williamson, D. A. (1991). Family environ-
ment characteristics and dependent personality disorder. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 5, 256-263.
Heiss, G. E., Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1996). Five scales in
search of a construct: Exploring continued attachment to parents in
college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 102-115.
Hoglend, P., Bogwald, K. P., Amlo, S., Heyerdahl, O., Sorbye, O., Mar-
ble, A., et al. (2000). Assessment of change in dynamic psychother-
apy. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 9, 190-199.
Hoglend, P., & Piper, W. E. (1997). Treatment length and termination
contracts in dynamic psychotherapy. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry,
51, 37-42.
Kantor, M. (1993). Distancing. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Klohnen, E. C., & John, O. P. (1998). Working models of attachment: A
theory-based prototype approach. In J. A Simpson & W. S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 115-140).
New York: Guilford.
Kobayashi, J. S. (1989). Depathologizing dependency: Two perspec-
tives. Psychiatric Annals, 19, 653-658.
Lang-Takac, E., & Osterweil, Z. (1992). Separateness and
connectedness: Differences between the genders. Sex Roles, 27, 277-
289.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The So-
cial Connectedness and Social Assurance Scales. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 42, 232-241.
Livesley, W. J. (Ed.). (1995). The DSM-IV personality disorders. New
York: Guilford.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, child-
hood, and adulthood. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 50, 66-104.
Millon, T. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond. New
York: John Wiley.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015
O’Neill, R. M., & Bornstein, R. F. (2001). The dependent patient in a psy-
chiatric inpatient setting: Relationship of interpersonal dependency
to consultation and medication frequencies. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 57, 289-298.
Overholser, J. C. (1996). The dependent personality and interpersonal
problems. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 184, 8-16.
Paris, J. (1998). Working with traits: Psychotherapy of personality disor-
ders. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Pennebaker, J. (1990). Opening up: The healing power of confiding in
others. New York: William Morrow.
Pennebaker, J. (Ed.). (1995). Emotion, disclosure, and health. Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (1995). The three faces of interpersonal
dependency: Structural analysis of self-report dependency measures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 744-758.
Pincus, A. L., & Wilson, K. R. (2001). Interpersonal variability in de-
pendent personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 223-251.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures in social research.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rude, S. S., & Burnham, B. L. (1995). Connectedness and neediness:
Factors of the DEQ and SAS dependency scales. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 19, 323-340.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdepen-
dent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
580-591.
Sperry, L. (1995). Handbook of diagnosis and treatment of the DSM-IV
personality disorders. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Summers, F. (1999). Transcending the self: An object relations model of
psychoanalytic therapy. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Sundin, E., Armelius, B. C., & Nilsson, T. (1994). Reliability studies of
scales of psychological capacities. Psychoanalysis and Contempo-
rary Thought, 17, 591-615.
Taylor, G. J., Bagby, M. R., & Parker, J. D. (1992). The Revised Toronto
Alexithymia Scale: Some reliability, validity, and normative data.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 57, 34-41.
Wang, C. L., Bristol, T., Mowen, J. C., & Chakraborty, G. (2000). Alter-
native modes of self-construal: Dimensions of connectedness-sepa-
rateness and advertising appeals to the cultural and gender-specific
self. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 107-115.
Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separateness-connectedness
self-schema. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 185-207.
West, M. L., & Sheldon-Keller, A. E. (1994). Patterns of relating: An
adult attachment perspective. New York: Guilford.
Whiffen, V. E., Aube, J. A., Thompson, J. M., & Campbell, T. L. (2000).
Attachment beliefs and interpersonal contexts associated with de-
pendency and self-criticism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 19, 184-205.
Robert F. Bornstein, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Get-
tysburg College. He is author of The Dependent Personality
(Guilford, 1993), coeditor (with Joseph Masling) of six volumes
in the Empirical Studies of Psychoanalytic Theories series (APA
Books, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2002), and coauthor (with Mary
A. Languirand) of When Someone You Love Needs Nursing
Home Care (Newmarket, 2001) and Healthy Dependency
(Newmarket, 2003).
Kimberly J. Geiselman, B.A., is enrolled in the Clinical Mas-
ter’s Program at Towson State University in Towson, Maryland.
Elizabeth A. Eisenhart, B.A., is enrolled in the Clinical-
Developmental Doctoral Program at Bryn Mawr College in Bryn
Mawr, Pennsylvania.
 Bornstein et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE RPT 381

Mary A. Languirand, Ph.D., is in private practice in Gettys- coauthor (with Robert F. Bornstein) of When Someone You Love
burg, Pennsylvania. She is coauthor (with Lynn Tondat Carter) of Needs Nursing Home Care (Newmarket, 2001) and Healthy De-
The Thinking Skills Workbook: A Cognitive Skills Remediation pendency (Newmarket, 2003).
Manual for Adults (Charles C Thomas, 1980, 1984, 2000) and

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 22, 2015