To understand a construct means to set it within an appropriate "nomological net" of lawful relations. For measures of interpersonal constructs, the interpersonal circumplex provides a nomological system of great potential for validating constructs and their measures. Three multidimensional measures-of dependency, empathy, and narcissism-were subjected to an interpersonal analysis, and construct parameters and similarities were estimated by using formulas derived from the circumplex model. The results offered a distinctly interpersonal perspective on the construct validity of the respective measures. Expanded uses for the interpersonal circumplex are discussed.

Three studies tested the hypothesis that the use of words referring to in-group or out-group status (such as us or them) may unconsciously perpetuate intergroup biases. In Experiment 1, nonsense syllables unobtrusively paired with in-group designating pronouns (e.g., we) were rated as more pleasant than syllables paired with out-group designators (e.g, they). In Experiment 2, in-group and out-group designators presented briefly to Ss as masked primes were found to influence the time required for Ss to evaluate subsequently presented trait adjectives, even though Ss were unaware of the group-designating primes. In Experiment 3, the masked prime we facilitated S reaction times to positive person descriptors, as compared to the effects of the masked prime they and the masked control prime xxx. The pronoun they; however, did not significantly facilitate S decisions concerning negative person descriptors.

Circumplex models assume that the content and structure of a particular domain (e.g., personality, affect, vocational interests) can be meaningfully described in terms of a circular array of variables. With the growing popularity of such models in psychology comes the need to apply appropriate research methodologies and data‐analytic strategies, as well as to further develop relevant research applications. The purpose of this chapter then is to review these methods and their associated applications. The chapter is organized with reference to basic empirical questions likely to underlie investigators' applications of the model and its related methods. Thus, after the circumplex is defined and examples from contemporary psychological literature are described, the chapter is divided into sections addressing the following questions: (a) How do I evaluate circular representations in my domain of interest? (b) How do I use the circumplex to describe individuals? (c) How do I use the circumplex to describe and compare groups? (d) How do I use the circumplex to evaluate constructs and their measures.? We conclude the chapter with a brief discussion of future directions in the development and application of circumplex methodology.

No abstract

Forty years ago, the Kaiser Research group pioneered an approach t o interpersonal assessment based on a structural model of personality, the interpersonal circle. With renewed interest in circular models, issues about the measurement, analysis, and application of these kinds of individual data reemerge. This article is an introduction t o and revision of the b u i c principles of circular profile analysis. Using the recent circumplex of interpersonal problems, we define the model and its data, explain the structural summary, and discuss the descriptive and possible clinical significance of profile indices. Future researchers should seek t o expand understanding of how circular profile variables relate to clinical assessment and treatment, and also apply the analytic methods t o test key aspects of interpersonal theory.(2) The variables ofapersonality system should be designed to measure-on the same continuum-the normal or "adjustive" aspects ofbehavior as well as abnormal or pathological extremes. (3) Measurement of interpersonal behavior requires a broad collection of simple, specijc variables which are systematically related to each other and which are applicable to the study of adjustive or maladjustive responses. Correspondence regarding this article can be directed to either author: Michael B. G u m , Psychology Department, University ofWisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha. WI 53141; orJ. D. Balakrishnan, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to gurtman@uwp.edu.