Object Representation Inventory Self-Other Differentiation Scale

Diamond, Diana; Kaslow, Nadine J.

doi:10.1037/t28347-000

Cited by 19 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A Pearson correlation coefficient of .75 or greater was obtained for ratings of each of the 12 traits and the three derived factors as well as for ratings of ambivalence, description length, conceptual level, scorable attributes, and differentiation-relatedness. This interrater reliability is comparable to reliabilities reported earlier (Blatt et al, 1979; Diamond et al, 1992).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Parental descriptions in prior studies have been reliably scored in terms of these content and structure variables (Blatt et al, 1979; Bornstein, Galley, & Leone, 1986; Bornstein, Leone, & Galley, 1988; Diamond et al, 1992), which are stable over at least a 2-month period (Bornstein, Leone, & Galley, 1990) and which are unrelated to intelligence, verbal productivity, or socioeconomic status (Blatt et al, 1979; Blatt, Stayner, Auerbach, & Behrends, 1996; Bornstein et al, 1986, 1988; Wilson, 1982). Previous research supports the construct and predictive validity of these variables (see reviews by Fishler, Sperling, & Carr, 1990, and Stricker & Healey, 1990).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To evaluate representations of self and significant others, Blatt and his colleagues (Blatt, Bers, & Schaffer, 1993; Blatt, Wein, Chevron, & Quinlan, 1979; Blatt, Chevron, Quinlan, Schaffer, & Wein, 1992; Diamond, Blatt, Stayner, & Kaslow, 1992) developed procedures to evaluate both the content and the structure of open-ended descriptions of self and significant others (e.g., parents). Content scores for descriptions of significant others include affectionate, ambitious, malevolent-benevolent, cold-warm, constructive involvement, intellectual, judgmental, negative-positive ideal, nurturant, punitive, successful, and weak-strong.…”

Section: Object Relations Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conceptual level is scored in terms of five levels: sensorimotor-preoperational (e.g., conceiving of a person, such as one's mother, primarily in terms of need gratification), concrete perceptual (focusing on physical characteristics), external iconic (emphasizing behavior and actions), internal iconic (noting feelings and other mental states), and conceptual (describing the person as an independent actor, developing and changing in time, with complex traits, needs, and goals). Differentiation-relatedness is measured on a 10-point scale ranging from self-other boundary confusion to a cohesive and reciprocally interrelated sense of self and others (Diamond et al, 1992). Scorable attributes is the number of the 12 content variables included in the description.…”

Section: Object Relations Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Attachment styles and parental representations.

Levy

Blatt²,

Shaver

1998

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

205

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationships between attachment styles and the content and structure of mental representations of parents were investigated. Undergraduates completed 3-and 4-category measures of attachment style and wrote descriptions of their parents. Securely attached participants' parental representations were characterized by differentiation, elaboration, benevolence, and nonpunitiveness. Representations by dismissing participants were characterized by less differentiation and more punitiveness and malevolence. Fearful participants also described their parents as relatively punitive and malevolent, but their representations were well differentiated and conceptually complex. Anxious-ambivalent participants described their parents ambivalently as both punitive and benevolent.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Object Relations Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Object Relations Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attachment styles and parental representations.

Levy

Blatt²,

Shaver

1998

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

205

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differentiation–Relatedness scale (D–R; Blatt and Auerbach 2003 ; Diamond et al 1991 ; Huprich et al 2016 ) was applied to assess developmental levels of representations of self, mother, and father. D–R assumes that, with psychological development, inner representations (i.e.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching Patient and Therapist Anaclitic–Introjective Personality Configurations Matters for Psychotherapy Outcomes

Werbart

Hägertz

Ölander

2018

J Contemp Psychother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decades of psychotherapy research suggest that patient–therapist match accounts for outcome beyond single patient or therapist variables. This study examines the associations between different patterns of patient–therapist matching (in terms of orientation on relatedness or self-definition) and outcomes at termination of psychoanalytic psychotherapy with young adults. Thirty-three patients and their therapists were classified as predominately anaclitic or introjective at baseline. Patients in the convergent patient–therapist dyads (both anaclitic or both introjective) showed significantly greater symptom reduction and increased developmental levels of representations of mother than patients in the complementary dyads (opposite personality configurations). Moreover, convergent patient–therapist match was connected with larger effect sizes on all outcome measures and lower proportion of non-improved patients. These findings suggest the importance of the therapists’ early adjusting their orientation on relatedness or self-definition to their patients’ predominant personality configuration in order to enhance treatment outcomes.

show abstract

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

Bornstein,

Thomson

2023

J Clin Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPeople vary in the degree to which they affiliate with others; exaggerated efforts maintain interpersonal closeness versus distance are codified in longstanding categorical models of personality pathology, and in contemporary dimensional frameworks as well.ObjectiveTo examine associations between destructive overdependence (DO), dysfuntional detachment (DD), and healthy dependency (HD) and qualities of the self‐concept.MethodA mixed‐sex sample of 229 adults completed the Relationship Profile Test to assess DO, DD, and HD, and the Object Relations Inventory (ORI) to assess qualities of the self‐concept.Results and ConclusionAnalyses indicated that (1) the ORI Strong dimension was uniquely predictive of DO (inversely related); (2) ORI Warm and Nurturing were unique predictors of DD (both inversely related); and (3) ORI Nurturing and Successful were unique predictors of HD. This study illuminates key intrapersonal features of these three personality styles.

show abstract

Object Representation Inventory Self-Other Differentiation Scale

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Attachment styles and parental representations.

Attachment styles and parental representations.

Matching Patient and Therapist Anaclitic–Introjective Personality Configurations Matters for Psychotherapy Outcomes

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About