Italian Version of the Relationship Profile Test (RPT-I): Temporal Stability, Construct Validity, and Cross-Cultural Comparison

Intrapersonal dynamics of closeness versus distance: Qualities of the self‐concept distinguish destructive overdependence, dysfunctional detachment, and healthy dependency

“…Construct validity data for the DO, DD, and HD are compelling; scores on all three subscales show theoretically predicted relationships with indices of attachment, identity, relatedness, defense style, and affect regulation (Bornstein et al, 2002;Haggerty et al, 2010Haggerty et al, , 2016, and with measures of alexithymia, relational-interdependent self-construal, and overall satisfaction with life (Bornstein et al, Languirand, Geiselman, et al, 2003, 2009. RPT scores evidence expected patterns of gender differences and associations with measures of gender role (Bornstein et al, 2004) as well as expected correlations with other personality constructs (Denckla et al, 2011(Denckla et al, , 2015Gritti et al, 2022). Adequate internal consistency and acceptable levels of 3-year retest reliability have been reported (Bornstein & Huprich, 2006).…”

“…Studies examining the psychometrics of RPT scores confirm that the three RPT subscales show acceptable internal consistency (Denckla et al, 2011;Haggerty et al, 2016), expected patterns of inter-subscale correlations (Bornstein et al, 2004;Cecero et al, 2006), and adequate retest reliability over periods extending as far as 158 weeks, even in participants who experience high levels of daily hassles or major life events (Bornstein & Huprich, 2006). Research confirms the generalizability of RPT scores across different regions within the United States (Natoli et al, 2023), and in Spanish (Abuín & de Rivera, 2015) and Italian community adults (Gritti et al, 2022). Beyond psychometrics, there has been a great deal of research examining the correlates and consequences of DO, DD, and HD scores in various populations and settings.…”

The smartphone as a “significant other”: interpersonal dependency and attachment in maladaptive smartphone and social networks use

“…Conversely, excessive/pervasive reliance on others (i.e., Destructive Overdependence: DO), and the inability to lean on others for support even when needed (i.e., Dysfunctional Detachment: DD) lead to more negative outcomes. High levels of DO and DD have been consistently linked to increased risks for psychological and physical difficulties across different populations and cultures [17,63,64].…”

“…The negative outcomes of maladaptive dependency (i.e., DO and DD) include poor self-esteem, alexithymia, and depression [17,63] which, as discussed above, may in turn lead to maladaptive smartphone and SNS use. Attachment patterns are expressed in consistent ways across different relationships and reinforced by a particular individual (i.e., attachment figure).…”

“…The latter can be defined as the capacity to form relationships with others characterized by mutual support and adequate boundaries (i.e., healthy dependency), versus excessively relying on others for guidance and nurturance (i.e., destructive overdependence) or failing to connect with others, remaining socially disconnected and aloof (i.e., detachment). Interpersonal dependency appears promising in helping understanding the emotional bond that users develop with their smartphone also given the associations that maladaptive interpersonal dependency has with other forms of addiction [14], as well as with risk factors for digital addiction itself such as depression, low self-esteem, and alexithymia [15][16][17].…”