Higher-Order Personality Factors Of The ISI

Abstract

To determine the higher order factors defined by scales of the Interpersonal Style Inventory (ISI), data from two male samples and from one female sample were separately analyzed. Intercorrelations of 14 of the scales were analyzed by the method of principal axes. The five rotated factors established were highly similar across samples. They were interpreted as Socialized vs. Unsocialized, Interpersonally Involved vs. Withdrawn, Autonomous vs. Conforming, Controlled vs. Spontaneous, and Stable vs. Anxious. The findings are compared to constructs established in the PRF and 16 PF.

Five Robust Trait Dimensions: Development, Stability, and Utility

“…Dunng this time, while many reviewers despaired at the lack of organization in the field of personality, a senes of factor studies, ongmating in the carefully crafted analyses of Fiske (1949), has clearly demonstrated the extraordinary robustness of what has become known as the "Big Five " Provided a sufficiently large sampling of charactenstics was employed, ratings by peers (Norman, 1963, Norman & Goldberg, 1966, Tupes & Chnstal, 1961, by professional evaluators (Fiske, 1949), or teachers (Digman & Inouye, 1986) reliably produced the same five factors (Dlgman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981) An excellent history of the development of the Big Five has been recently published by John, Angleitner, and Ostendorf (1988) Recently, several analyses of personahty inventones (Costa & McCrae, 1985, Digman, 1988, Lorr & Manning, 1978, McCrae & Costa, 1987, Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987 have indicated that the five factors of the rating domain frequently appear when the scales of these inventones are factored…”

“…In short, it may well be that the five factors first noted 40 years ago by Fiske furnish a very sturdy foundation for that particular edifice known as personaltty structure, that the great majonty-if not all-of our verbally based personality constructs can be housed somewhere within that structure, bringing an orderliness to a field long in need of one Goldberg (1981), Hogan (1983), and Brand (1984) have tried their hands at placing vanous systems and inventones within the structure of these five factors Table 1 reflects their efforts It also includes more recent studies, as an increasing number of investigators (e g , Lorr & Manning, 1978, McCrae & Costa, 1987, Noller at al , 1987 have independently noted these factors in their studies, some of which have been based on ratings, others, on inventones Two things are immediately evident upon examining this table One is the sturdy appearance of a fivefactor solution across these many different studies The other is that there IS some considerable disagreement over interpretation of these factors, particularly Factors 3 and 5, a point that will be addressed subsequently here Five Kobust Traits…”

Interpersonal Narratives in Cognitive and Interpersonal Psychotherapies

“…Internal consistencies of the component scale scores of this factor (ranging from .80 to .92), as well as data on convergent and discriminant validity, are presented in Lorr and Manning (1978).…”

An Investigation of the Structural Validity of Loevinger's Model and Measure of Ego Development

“…Lorr and Manning (1978) examined the progressive levels of ego development in relation to 15 scales of the Interpersonal Style Inventory (ISI; Lorr & Youniss, 1973), which probe an individual's characteristic ways of relating to other people and also an individual's style of impulse control (Lorr, 1986), and 8 supplementary scales of interpersonal style on a sample of 648 adolescents and young adults. In both males and females, the levels of ego development were characterized by the progressive pattem of interpersonal and impulse control features that Loevinger's model predicts.…”

“…Indeed, empirical evidence based on the subsamples used in the standardization of the ISI demonstrated interscale correlations ranging from .03 to .45 for the five ISI scales selected for this study (Lorr, 1986). These five scales were derived by factor analysis of items; second-order factor analyses of these scales plus the 10 other ISI scales were used in identifying five second-order factors (Lorr & Manning, 1978;Novy, 1992). Second-order factor analyses have yielded Sensitive Interpersonally versus Insensitive as one of three salient identifiers for the second-order factor.…”