A Comparison of Two Social Interest Assessment

Instruments with Implications for Managed Care

William L. Curlette, Roy M. Kern, Kelly P. Gfroerer, and

I. Yancey Whitaker

Abstract
The authors compared two instruments designed to measure social interest, the
Sulliman Scale of Social interest (Sulliman, 1973) and the Belonging-Social Interest
scale of the Basic Adierian Scales for Interpersonal Success—Adult form (Wheeler,
Kern, & Curlette, 1993). Research questions addressed test-retest reliabilities, correla-
tions between measures, and ability of each measure of social interest to predict an
external criterion defined by the Coping Resources Inventory for Stress (CRIS; Matheny,
Curlette, Aycock, Pugh, & Taylor, 1987). The instruments appear equal ly reliable; how-
ever, low correlations between Belonging-Social Interest scale and the Sulliman scale
and subscales suggest that they measure different aspects of social interest. There was
no significant difference in the ability of the scales to predict the external criterion.
The advantage of the Belonging-Social Interest scale is that it is administered along
with nine additional scales which taken together can provide richer information about
the client's situation.

As tbe 1990s come to a close, the advent of managed care pressures

mental bealtb professionals to assess clients more rapidly and to design treat-
ment plans for clients tbat are brief tberapy in nature. If Individual Psychology
is to survive in this environment, it too must make the transition from a clini-
cal, "we know it works," approach to a model that is more specifically
operational ized. Therefore, research efforts that support theoretical constructs
and move theory into application are needed. One of the richest and most
widely applicable constructs in Individual Psychology is social interest, a
broad and complicated idea. According to Alfred Adler,

It is almost impossible to exaggerate the value of an increase in social feeling. The

mind improves, for intelligence is a communal feeling. The feeling of worth and
value is heightened, giving courage and an optimistic view, and there is a sense
of acquiescence in the common advantage and drawbacks of our lot. The indi-
vidual feels at home in life and feels his existence to be worthwhile just so far as
he is useful to others and is overcoming common, instead of private, feelings of
inferiority. Not only the ethical nature, but the right attitude in aesthetics, the best
understanding of the beautiful and the ugly, will always be founded upon the
truest of social feeling, (cited in Ansbacher, 1991, pp. 28-29)

The Journal of Individual Psychology, Vol. 55, No. 1, Spring 1999

C1999 by the University ofTexas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819
 Comparing Two Social Interest Scales 63

The depth of this construct is reflected by the large body of literature gener-
ated using research instruments designed to measure social interest (e.g.,
Crandall, 1991; Curlette, Wheeler, & Kern, 1997; Fish & Mozdzierz, 1991;
Leak, 1991; Mozdzierz, Greenblatt, & Murphy 1986; Watkins, 1994). Cur-
rently, instruments most commonly used by researchers to measure social
interest are the Sulliman Scale of Social Interest (SSSI) developed by Sulliman
(1973); the Social Interest Index (SH) developed by Greever, Tseng, and
Freedland (1973); the Social Interest Scale (SIS) developed by Crandall (1975);
a combination of the SIS and the SH developed by Leak and Williams (1989);
and the Basic Adierian Scales for Interpersonal Success—Adult form (BASIS-
A) developed by Wheeler, Kern, and Curlette (1993), which includes a
Belonging-Social Interest scale.
Research with these instruments has led to psychological findings that
enhance tbe understanding of tbe concept of social interest. Specifically, In-
dividual Psychology research utilizing the SSSI, SH, SIS, and Belonging-Social
Interest scale has shown positive correlations between subjects' high scores
on social interest instruments and altruism, empathy, religious beliefs, trust-
worthiness, volunteering, vigor, marital adjustment, dominance,
inner-directedness, self-significance, spontaneity, self actualization, synergy,
acceptance of aggression, cooperation, stress monitoring, and extroversion
(Crandall, 1982; Curlette et al., 1997; Edwards & Kern, 1995; Hedberg &
Huber, 1995; Hettman & Jenkins, 1990; Kern, Gfroerer, Summers, Curlette,
& Matheny, 1996; Markowski & Greenwood, 1984; Meunier & Royce, 1988;
Mozdzierz & Semyck, 1980; Tobacyk, 1983; Watkins & Hector, 1990; Zarski,
West, & Bubenzer, 1981). In contrast, studies have shown that subjects who
score low on these social interest instruments and thus reflect a lack of social
interest are more likely to experience depression, anger, overall mood distur-
bance, hopelessness, anxiety, hostility, abuse, self-destructiveness, and
increased child abuse potential (Crandall, 1982; Crandall & Biaggio, 1984;
Curlette et al., 1997; Fish & Mozdzierz, 1991; Forman & Crandall, 1986;
Joubert, 1986; Miller, Denton, &Tobacyk, 1986; Miller, Smitb, Wilkinson, &
Tobacyk, 1987; Mozdzierz & Semyck, 1981; Zarski, West, & Bubenzer, 1981).
Thus, empirical evidence suggests that social interest is a broad con-
struct that relates to personality variables that are important to assessing an
individual's mental health. Furthermore, social interest is a theory-driven
construct viewed by many Individual Psychologists as a major determinant
in human motivation with varied implications for personality, assessment,
and treatment (Manaster, 1991). With the advent of managed care and the
need for fast, effective assessments, social interest becomes a crucial factor.
From an Individual Psychology therapeutic perspective, information about a
client's social interest provides the therapist with an idea of the client's level
of discouragement or psychological impairment, potential directions for
64 William L. Curlette et al.

interventions and treatment plans, and information about how many sessions
may be required for effective therapy with the client. This is of particular
importance from a managed care perspective that requires brief therapy.
Eckert (1993) discussed the three factors in brief therapy that facilitate
quick yet effective treatment:
Rather than allow the therapeutic process to unfold for the most part
spontaneously, as in many long-term approaches, brief therapists at-
tempt to structure and control the process to a considerably greater
degree. As noted previously, three facets of planning receive particu-
lar attention in mosf approaches to brief treatment: (a) conducting a
rapid initial assessment at the outset of therapy, (b) clarifying the
therapeutic focus and goal, and (c) selecting techniques that are ap-
propriate to achieve the goal. (p. 243)
From an Individual Psychology perspective, accurately assessing a client's
level of social interest at the onset of therapy would allow the therapist to
understand rapidly important information about the client's personality. Fur-
thermore, this understanding could lead to quicker clarification of therapeutic
goals as well as aid the therapist in selecting the most appropriate methods
and techniques for achieving these goals.
However, because social interest is such a broad construct and numer-
ous instruments exist to measure it, the clinician may wonder which instrument
is best to use. In fact, many professionals have reported a need for additional
research focusing on the concept of social interest (Bubenzer, Zarski, & Walter,
1991; Hedberg & Huber, 1995; Mozdzierz et al., 1986; Peterson, Epperson,
& Hutzell, 1985; Watkins, 1994). Fish and Mozdzierz (1991) specifically
suggested a need for further studies of the SSSI:
Further studies of social interest via the SSSI definitely appear
warranted...It remains to be seen if the SSSI will stand the rigors of
further reliability/validity studies using varied criteria, in a variety of
subject groups with multivariate analysis on the way to clinical appli-
cation, (p. 156)
In accordance with these calls for research and managed care's need for
quick assessment, we examined two instruments measuring social interest,
the Sulliman Scale of Social Interest and the Belonging-Social Interest Scale
oi the BASIS-A Inventory. We used the following research questions to guide
our study:
1. How do the test-retest reliabilities of tbe two instruments compare?
2. To what extent do the two instruments correlate with each other?
3. How well do the two instruments predict an external criterion,
stress-coping resources?
 Comparing Two Social Interest Scales 65

Method

Instrumentation. The BSI scale of the BASIS-A Inventory (Wheeler et al.,

1993) and the two subscales and total score of the SSSI (Sulliman, 1973), were
employed to assess social interest. The CRIS (Matheny et al., 1987) was used to
measure stress coping. The BASIS-A Inventory was developed "to help under-
stand how an individual's life-style, based on beliefs developed in early
childhood, contributes to one's effectiveness in social, work, and intimate rela-
tionships" (Kern, Wheeler, & Curlette, 1997, p. 1 ).The Belonging-Social Interest
scale of the BASIS-A Inventory measures the degree to which a person feels a
sense of belonging. If a person generally feels as if he or she belongs in a group,
it is likely that the individual will display traits such as cooperativeness, extro-
version, and gregarious behaviors towards others.
The BASIS-A Inventory measures five life style themes and five additional
supporting themes that expand and enhance the interpretation of tbe five
primary themes. A unique feature of the instrument is that it asks an indi-
vidual to recollect childhood experiences, whereas otber personality
assessment instruments consist of items that identify adult perceptions of cur-
rent functioning. Each of the 65 items on the BASIS-A Inventory begins with
the phrase "When I was a child, I...." The Belonging-Social Interest scale on
the BASIS-A Inventory has nine items.
The SSSI consists of 50 statements to each of which the subject responds
"true" or "false" based on whether he or sbe believes the statement reflects
his or ber present beliefs. For example. Item 1 states "People are all of equal
worth, regardless of what country they live in" (Sulliman, 1973). Three scores
are provided based on tbe 50 items: a total scale score and two subscale
scores (SSSI-1 and SSSl-2). SSSI-1 measures "concern for and trust in others,"
and SSSI-2 measures "confidence in oneself and optimism in one's view of
the world" (Kaplan, 1991, p. 121). "The SSSI was deveioped using teachers'
ratings of students' social interest and obtained Kuder-Ricbardson-20 inter-
nal consistency formula r = .90, while a validity coefficient of .71 was
obtained" (Mozdzierz, Greenblatt, & Murpby, 1988, p. 36).
In summary, the Belonging-Social Interest scale of the BASIS-A Inventory
focuses on the belonging aspect of social interest by having individuals re-
flect on their childhood memories. On the otber hand, tbe SSSI addresses
present day perceptions of adults and may be measuring additional aspects
of social interest.
The CRIS is a 280-item inventory of stress coping resources which pro-
vides 37 scores (Curlette, Aycock, Matheny, Pugh, & Taylor, 1990). In this
study, an overall coping resources effectiveness score provided a general over-
view of the individual's resourcefulness. Curlette et al. reported that tbe
coefficient alpha reliability for tbe CRIS score is .97 and tbe test-retest
66 William L. Curlette et al.

reliability for the CRIS is .95. Other studies have supported the inventory's
validity (e.g., Matheny, Aycock, Curlette, & Junker, 1993).

Participants. One-hundred seventy-three female college students from

a small college in the southeastern United States volunteered to participate
in this study, and they completed the BASIS-A, SSSl, and the Coping Re-
sources Inventory for Stress (CRIS; Matheny, Curlette, Aycock, Pugh, & Taylor,
1987). The mean age ofthe participants was 21 years, with a range from 1 7
to 55 years. Eighty-two (47.4%) of the 173 participants were 18 years old.

Procedures. Each participant was given a packet of materials consist-

ing of the following: an informed consent letter, the BASIS-A Inventory, the
SSSl, and the CRIS. All of the instruments were self-administered. However,
when subjects were given the packets, a short introduction and an explana-
tion ofthe study were presented. Participants were informed that all information
would be confidential and were then asked to complete each instrument in
the order that it appeared in the packet. The order of the instruments in the
packets was systematically varied.

Analysis and Results

Reliability of SSSl Scales and BSI. Reliability has been calculated in a

number of studies on the Belonging-Social Interest scale. Curlette et al. (1997)
reported three test-retest reliabilities for the BASIS-A for different samples of
people with the retest occurring at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 10 weeks. The test-
retest reliability coefficients are .89, .69, and .80, respectively, for a median
test-retest reliability of .80 and a mean reliability of .79. Additionally, Curlette
et al. reported coefficient alpha reliabilities from three different data sets of
.86, .85, and .82 for the Belonging-Social Interest scale. In comparison, the
test-retest reliabilities for the overall SSSl scale are reported for slightly differ-
ent time intervals and with the same people being used at both of the retests
(Watkins & Blazina, 1994). The 1 -week reliability for the overall SSSl was .80
and the 5-week reliability for the overall SSSl was .75, with a median reliabil-
ity of .775 and a mean reliability of .775.

Correlations between SSSl and BSI. The correlations of the Belonging-

Social Interest scale with the SSSl, SSSI-1, and SSSI-2 are the following: .33,
.27, and .40 respectively (ps < .01). For instruments purporting to measure the
same construct, these low correlations indicate a substantial amount of
 Comparing Two Social Interest Scales 67

disagreement between the BASIS-A scale and the three Sulliman scales. One
reason for the low relationships between the two instruments may be that the
Belonging-Social Interest scale measures adult perceptions of early childhood
experiences whereas the SSSI measures adult perceptions of the present. As
Hedberg and Huber (1995) suggested, these measures may be evaluating dif-
ferent aspects of social interest.

Comparing SSSI and BASIS-A to an Extrinsic Criterion Measure. Using

the overall score (CRE) on the CRIS as a criterion measure, the SSSI and BA-
SIS-A could be evaluated in terms of the ability of each to relate to the same
criterion. These relationships were first assessed using Pearson correlations
and then with multiple regression to study the possible combinations of SSSI
scales in relation to the CRIS CRE score and the possible combinations of
BASIS-A scales after entering the Belonging-Social Interest scale.
The four Pearson correlations between the CRIS CRE score and each of
the social interest measures are all statistically significant (p < .001). These
correlations are between the CRIS CRE score and the SSSI ( r = .38), the SSSI-1
(r= .27), the SSSI-2 ( r = .41), and the BSI ( r = .38). Using Hotelling's formula
for the significant difference between two correlation coefficients shows that
there is no statistically significant difference in the ability to predict the CRIS
CRE score between the BSI and SSSI, BSI and SSSI-1, BSI and SSSI-2. Thus,
there is no statistically significant difference in the ability of the BSI and SSSI
scales in predicting the extrinsic criterion measure.
Stepwise multiple regression analyses using the CRIS CRE score as the
dependent variable were run to compare possible combinations of the Sulliman
scales for predicting the CRIS CRE scores in comparison to possible combina-
tions of scales of the BASIS-A Inventory for predicting the CRIS CRE scores. In
the multiple regression analysis to see how the Sulliman scales predicted the
CRIS CRE score, the SSSI-2 scale correlated (r = .41) with the CRIS CRE score.
No other SSSI scales entered the model with alpha set at .05. In the stepwise
multiple regression analysis to see how the BASIS-A Inventory scales predicted
the CRIS CRE score, the Belonging-Social Interest scale was forced to enter first
and the other BASIS-A scales were then allowed to enter. After the Belonging-
Social Interest scale entered the model, the next variable to enter the regression
equation was Softness. Together these variables had a multiple correlation co-
efficient of .54 (p < .0001) for predicting the CRIS CRE scores. However, the
overlap of Belonging-Social Interest and Softness scales was enough in regard
to the CRIS CRE scale that Belonging-Social Interest was removed from the
model and Striving for Perfection entered the model. One more variable. Tak-
ing Charge, entered the model with a negative beta weight that was statistically
significant (p = .03). The overall model to predict the CRIS CRE scale had a
multiple /?of .58 (p < .0001) and included Softness with a positive beta weight.
68 William L. Curiette et al.

Striving for Perfection with a positive beta weight, and Taking Charge with a
negative beta weight. These results showed that the BASIS-A Inventory may
provide a more expansive and clinically useful explanation of the Coping Re-
sources Inventory for Stress score than the SSSI.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to compare two measures of so-
cial interest, particularly in regard to how they relate to the same criterion
measure, the overall score on the Coping Resources Inventory for Stress. Both
measures of social interest, the Sulliman Scale of Social Interest and the Be-
longing-Social Interest scale of the BASIS-A Inventory, correlated essentially
the same with the criterion. However, the Belonging-Social Interest scale is
part of a comprehensive life style inventory which includes other scales that
may expand on the interpretation of its measure of social interest.
The finding of low correlations between the BSI scale and SSSI scales
indicates that the instruments measure different aspects of the broad and
highly complex construct of social interest. Also, as the name of the Belong-
ing-Social Interest scale on the BASIS-A Inventory indicates, it measures the
belonging aspects of social interest whereas the SSSI attempts to measure
various aspects of social interest. As previously mentioned, another explana-
tion is that the BASIS-A Inventory is based on adult perceptions of early
childhood, while the SSSI relies on current adult perceptions. Although the
correlations between the two instruments are low, both appear to be viable
measures of social interest at this time.
Because managed care criteria require rapid assessment at the beginning
of therapy, the length of a test, as well as its reliability and validity, must be
considered. Both the Belonging-Social Interest scale of the BASIS-A Inven-
tory and the Sulliman Scale of Social Interest have been validated with many
different criteria. Comparison of the reliabilities of the SSSI and the BSI scales
indicates that both instruments have essentially the same test-retest reliabil-
ity. One way the length of a test can be viewed is the number of items (Lord
& Novick, 1968). The BSI has 9 items, whereas the SSSI has 50 items. Further-
more, the 65-item BASIS-A Inventory has nine scales in addition to the BSI.
Thus, using the Belonging-Social Interest scale in conjunction with the nine
other scales on the BASIS-A Inventory allows the clinician to assess the client's
social interest in relation to a broader life style context and thereby gain a
richer interpretation of the client's social interest.
For example, the BASIS-A Inventory includes a Being Cautious scale that
measures hurt in the family of origin, with higher scores indicating more
hurt. If the therapist reviews a client's profile on the BASIS-A and observes a
 Comparing Two Social Interest Scales 69

very high score on the Being Cautious scale coupled with a moderate score
on the Belonging-Social Interest scale, the therapist could assume with a fair
degree of confidence that the client is experiencing some discouragement
because of his or her life style personality and belief system. However, if a
client's profile exhibits a moderate to high Belonging-Social Interest score
and a low Being Cautious score, the therapist could assume that the present-
ing concern is more likely situational; thus, fewer sessions may be required
from a managed care agency compared to the first situation.
In summary, because social interest is such a broad construct, it is advan-
tageous to consider a person's life style in relation to social interest.
Furthermore, because managed care has become necessary due to brief
therapy, the Adierian therapist may benefit from using the BASIS-A Inventory,
a 65-item instrument which assesses social interest along with nine other
dimensions. However, if the therapist is more interested in current adult per-
ceptions of the client's social interest, the 50-item Sulliman Scale of Social
Interest would be more appropriate.

References

Ansbacher, H. L. (1991). The concept of social interest. Individual Psy-

chology 47(^), 28-46.
Bubenzer, D. L., Zarski, J. J., & Walter, D. A. (1991). Measuring social
interest: A validity study. Individual Psychology, 47('\), 124-135.
Crandall, J. E. (1975). A scale for social interest, journal of Individual
Psychology 31, 187-195.
. (1982). Social interest, extreme response style, and implications
for adjustment. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 82-89.
. (1991). A scale for social interest. Individual Psychology, 47('\),
106-114.
Crandall, J. E., & Biaggio, M. K. (1984). Relations of two measures of
social interest to ego defensiveness. Individual Psychology, 40, 83-91.
Curlette, W. L., Aycock, D. W., Matheny, K. B., Pugh, J. L., & Taylor, H. F.
(1990). Coping Resources Inventory for Stress Manual. Atlanta, GA:
Health Prisms.
Curlette, W. L., Wheeler, M., & Kern, R. M. (1997). BASIS-A Inventory
technical manual. Highlands, NC: TRT Associates.
Eckert, P. A. (1993). Acceleration of change: Catalysts in brief therapy.
Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 241-253.
Edwards, D., & Kern, R. M. (1995). The implications of teachers' social
interest on classroom behavior. Individual Psychology, 57(1), 67-73.
70 William L. Curlette et al.

Fish, R., & Mozdzierz, G. J. (1991). Validation of the Sulliman Scale of

Social Interest with psychotherapy outpatients. Individual Psychology, 47^).
150-158.
Forman, B. D., & Crandall, j . E. (1986). Social interest, irrational beliefs,
and identity. Individual Psychology, 42, 26-42.
Greever, K. B., Tseng, M. S., & Freedland, B. U. (1973). Development of
the Social Interest Index, journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
41 454-458.
Hedberg, C, & Huber, R. J. (1995). Homosexuality, gender, communal
involvement, and social interest. Individual Psychology, 51, 244-252.
Hettman, D. W., & Jenkins, E. (1990). Volunteerism and social interest.
Individual Psychology 46, 298-303.
joubert, C. E. (1986). Social interest, loneliness, and narcissism. Psy-
chological Reports, 58, 870.
Kaplan, H. (1991). Sex differences in social interest. Individual Psychol-
ogy 4 7{l), 120-123.
Kern, R. M., Gfroerer, K. P., Summers, I. Y., Curlette, W. L., & Matheny,
K. B. (1996). Life-style, personality, and stress coping. Individual Psychology
52(1), 42-53.
Kern, R. M., Wheeler, M. & Curlette, W. L. (1997). BASIS-A Interpre-
tive Manual. Highlands, NC: TRT Associates.
Leak, G. K. (1991). Two social interest measures and social desirability
response sets. Individual Psychology, 47, 136-140.
Leak, G. K., & Williams, D. E. (1989). Relationship between social inter-
est and perceived family environment. Individual Psychology 45(3),
362-368.
Lord, F., & Novick, M. (1986). Statistical theories of mental test
scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Manaster, C. J. (1991). Editor's comment. Individual Psychology, 47, 1-3.
Markowski, E. M., & Greenwood, P. D. (1984). Marital adjustment as a
correlate of social interest. Individual Psychology, 40, 300-308.
Matheny, K. B., Aycock, D. W., Curlette, W. L., & junker, G. N. (1993).
The Coping Resources Inventory for Stress: A measure of perceived resource-
fulness, journal of Clinical Psychology 49(6), 815-830.
Matheny, K. B., Curlette, W. L., Aycock, D. W., Pugh, J. L., & Taylor, H. F.
(1987). Coping Resources Inventory for Stress (CRIS). Atlanta: Health Prisms.
Meunier, G. F., & Royce, S. (1988). Age and social interest. Individual
Psychology 44, 49-52.
Miller, G. F., Smith, T. S., Wilkinson, L., & Tobacyk, J. (1987). Narcissism
and social interest among counselors-in-training. Psychological Reports, 60,
765-766.
 Comparing Two Social Interest Scales 71

Miller, M. J., Denton, G. O., & Tobacyk, J. (1986). Social interest and
feelings of hopelessness among elderly persons. Psychological Reports,
58, 410.
Mozdzierz, G. J., Greenblatt, R. L., & Murphy, T. E. (1986). Social inter-
est: The validity of two scales. Individual Psychology, 42, 35-43.
Mozdzierz, G. J., Greenblatt, R. L., & Murphy, T. J. (1988). Further valida-
tion of the Sulliman Scale of Social Interest. Individual Psychology, 44,
30-34.
Mozdzierz, G. J., & Semyck, R. (1980). The social interest index: A study
of construct validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 417-422.
Mozdzierz, G. j . , & Semyck, R. (1981). Further validation of the social
interest index with male alcoholics. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45,
79-84.
Peterson, T. J., Epperson, D. L., & Hutzell, R. R. (1985). A comparison of
two social interest measures with female convicts. Individual Psychology,
47,349-353.
Sulliman, J. R. (1973). The development of a scale for the measurement
of "social interest." Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 567. (University
Microfilm No. AAI7331567)
Tobacyk, J. (1983). Paranormal beliefs, interpersonal trust, and social in-
terest. Psychological Reports, 53, 229-230.
Watkins, C. E. (1994). Measuring social interest. Individual Psychology,
50(1), 69-94.
Watkins, C. E., & Blazina, C. (1994). Reliability of the Sulliman Scale of
Social Interest. Individual Psychology, 50, 164-168.
Watkins, C. E., & Hector, M. (1990). A simple test of the concurrent va-
lidity of the Social Interest Index. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55,
812-814.
Wheeler, M., Kern, R., & Curiette, W. (1993). BASIS-A Inventory High-
lands, NC: TRT Associates.
Zarski, J. J., West, J. D., & Bubenzer, D. L. (1981). Social interest, run-
ning, and life adjustment. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 146-149.