Structural analysis of social behavior.

Abstract

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

Patient and therapist introject, interpersonal process, and differential psychotherapy outcome.

“…Surface 3 represents intrapsychic actions that result when focus on the other (Surface 1) is directed inward on the self (introjection). The reader is directed to Benjamin (1974Benjamin ( , 1982 for a more complete description of the SASB system. Figure t presents an alternate version of theSASB model in which the 36 behaviors for each circumplex are collapsed into eight clusters.…”

“…The dynamic interaction of these early inter- ' The term inlrojection has multiple definitions related to various psychodynamic and developmental theories (see Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983). Our article relies most directly on the theories of Sullivan (1953) and Benjamin (1984). nalized interpersonal influences forms a hypothesized personality structure termed the "introject," which comprises a relatively stable conscious and unconscious repertoire of ways of treating the self.…”

“…Henry, Schacht, & Strupp (1986) demonstrated a precise method for operational!zing the therapeutic relationship that allowed the therapist's relationship contribution to be seen as a specific technique in itself. Moment-by-moment transactions between therapist and patient were measured with Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB; Benjamin, 1974Benjamin, ,1982Benjamin, ,1984 and compared across good versus poor outcome cases seen by the same therapists. Disaffiliative and complex (mixed-message) interpersonal transactions occurring between patient and therapist were found to be strongly related to subsequent clinical outcome.…”

Effects of training in time-limited dynamic psychotherapy: Changes in therapist behavior.

“…The effects of the training program on therapists" behavior were assessed with two independently rated process scales: (a) the Vanderbilt Therapeutic Strategies Scale (VTSS; Butler, Henry, & Strupp, 1992), which comprises two subscales: Interviewing Style (IS), which measures the quality of general psychodynamic technique, and Specific Strategies (SS), which measures specific adherence to the TLDP protocol; and (b) the SASB (Benjamin, 1974), which measures moment-by-moment interpersonal process using a circumplex sys-tern. 2 Raters who were independent of the research team, unfamiliar with the training status of the therapists, and unaware of the study's hypotheses were used to rate third-session process on both instruments.…”

The therapeutic relationship in cognitive-behavioral therapy: Patient perceptions and therapist responses

“…The process of interpersonal interactions in dynamic therapy has been analyzed using a fine-grained procedure of coding discrete units of patient-therapist exchanges (Structural Analysis of Social Behavior [SASB]; Benjamin, 1974;1982). This procedure is based on a circumplex model with two dimensions, control and affiliation, that are thought to characterize interpersonal transactions (Kiesler, 1983).…”