A brief review of the literature on structural analysis of interpersonal behavior is followed by a proposal which draws heavily from prior models, especially those of Schaefer and of Leary. The proposed model goes beyond previous ones in that it has a highly explicit structure which defines behavioral opposites, complements, and antidotes. Built on two axes named affiliation and interdependence, the model describes dyadic social interactions in terms of complementary proportions of those underlying dimensions. Opposite behaviors appear at 180° angles whereas complementary behaviors appear at topologically similar positions on two separate planes. Antidotes are defined as opposites of complements. Using the questionnaire method, the proposed structure has been tested by the responses of normal as well as psychiatric subjects. Analysis of these data by the techniques of autocorrelation, circumplex analysis, and factor analysis supports the model.The assumption that behavior is orderly and lawful is the basis of scientific psychology. If the assumption is valid, then it should be possible to develop a model for predicting which particular behaviors will tend to be associated with each other. Analysis of the basic structure of social behavior is one possible approach which might be expected to yield such predictions. The need for a structural model of social behavior has been emphasized by Foa and Turner (1970):. . . there has been some reluctance to recognize that specification of psychological components is likely to be as complex in construction and as revolutionary in consequence as the notion of structure has been in nuclear physics and in genetics [p. 246].Efforts to describe the structure of social behavior can be viewed in terms of two major categories: the multidimensional approaches which include as many dimensions as are needed to meet a given mathematical criterion, and the approaches which confine the number of dimensions to two or three so that a model can be constructed in real space. The multidimensional approach is 1 Special thanks for encouragement and help with the development of this paper go to Marjorie H. Klein and James Greenley; the editors of Psychological Review also made helpful contributions to the final version.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Lorna

Background The purpose of this investigation was to compare a new psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa, Integrative Cognitive-Affective Therapy (ICAT), with an established treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy-Enhanced (CBT-E). Method Eighty adults with symptoms of bulimia nervosa were randomized to ICAT or CBT-E for 21 sessions over 19 weeks. Bulimic symptoms, measured by the Eating Disorder Examination, were assessed at baseline, end of treatment, and 4-month follow-up. Treatment outcome, as measured by binge eating frequency, purging frequency, global eating disorder severity, emotion regulation, self-oriented cognition, depression, anxiety, and self-esteem, was determined using generalized estimating equations, logistic regression, and a general linear model (intent-to-treat). Results Both treatments were associated with significant improvement in bulimic symptoms as well as all measures of outcome, and no statistically significant differences were observed between the two conditions at end of treatment or follow-up. Intent-to-treat abstinence rates for ICAT (37.5% at end of treatment, 32.5% at follow-up) and CBT-E (22.5% at both end of treatment and follow-up) were not significantly different. Conclusions ICAT was associated with significant improvements in bulimic and associated symptoms that did not differ from those obtained with CBT-E. This initial randomized controlled trial of a new individual psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa suggests that targeting emotion and self-oriented cognition in the context of nutritional rehabilitation may be efficacious and worthy of further study.

No abstract

Structural analysis of social behavior (SASB) is a model that can be used to assess interpersonal and intrapsychic interactions in terms of three underlying dimensions: (a) focus (other, self, introject), (b) affiliation-hostility (love-hate), and (c) interdependence-independence (enmeshment-differentiation). Assessment of individuals or groups in terms of these dimensions can be made by self-ratings on the SASB Intrex questionnaires, ratings by others using the same questionnaires, or by objective observer ratings. Data generated by questionnaires or formal codes yield identical summary parameters, making it possible to compare directly objective observer assessments with self-ratings, if desired. The goal of this chapter is to help the reader understand the structure of SASB, become aware of how it has been used in studying interpersonal and intrapsychic events, assess its validity, assess the substance and relevance of criticisms, and consider future possibilities.