This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida]

On: 14 November 2014, At: 06:42

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Construct Validity of the Relationship Profile Test:

Impact of Gender, Gender Role, and Gender Role
Stereotype
Robert F. Bornstein , Kimberly J. Geiselman , Heather A. Gallagher , H. Mei Ng , Erin E.
Hughes & Mary A. Languirand
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Robert F. Bornstein , Kimberly J. Geiselman , Heather A. Gallagher , H. Mei Ng , Erin E. Hughes & Mary
A. Languirand (2004) Construct Validity of the Relationship Profile Test: Impact of Gender, Gender Role, and Gender Role
Stereotype, Journal of Personality Assessment, 82:1, 104-113, DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8201_15

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8201_15

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 82(1), 104–113
Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Construct Validity of the Relationship Profile Test:

Impact of Gender, Gender Role,
and Gender Role Stereotype RPT
BORNSTEIN
GENDER EFFECTS
ET AL.

Robert F. Bornstein, Kimberly J. Geiselman, Heather A. Gallagher, H. Mei Ng,

Erin E. Hughes, and Mary A. Languirand
Department of Psychology
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014

Gettysburg College

Research supports the construct validity of the Relationship Profile Test (RPT; Bornstein &
Languirand, 2003), a 30-item, self-report measure of destructive overdependence (DO), dys-
functional detachment (DD), and healthy dependency. In this investigation, we assessed the re-
lationships of gender, gender role, and gender role stereotype ratings to RPT subscale scores. In
Study 1, we replicated earlier patterns of gender differences in RPT scores, assessed
cross-sample consistency in gender difference effect sizes, and provided preliminary
nonclinical norms for the RPT subscales. Study 2 showed that—as expected—DO items are
perceived as stereotypically feminine, whereas DD items are perceived as stereotypically mas-
culine. In Study 3, we examined the relationships of RPT subscale scores to masculinity, femi-
ninity, and androgyny scores. We discuss the theoretical, empirical, and clinical implications of
these findings.

Virtually every theory of personality—cognitive and
psychodynamic, behavioral and humanistic—attempts to ex-
plain the antecedents and consequences of individual differ-
ences in relatedness. As Baumeister and Leary (1995) noted,
variations in interpersonal closeness–distance are not only
central to theories of personality but also have implications
for models of attachment, psychopathology, social develop-
ment, social cognition, stress and illness, and psychological
treatment. Although researchers disagree regarding whether
humans have a fundamental “need to relate” to other humans
or whether affiliative ties are a product of other, more basic
motives (e.g., biological gratification), evidence leaves little
doubt that people exhibit a variety of strategies designed to
attain some optimal level of closeness–distance (Ainsworth,
1969, 1989; Birtchnell, 1987, 1996; Gurtman, 1992; Millon,
1996). Some people clearly value close contact with others
and expend great effort to obtain it. Other people seem to find
close contact aversive and expend great effort to avoid it.
Given the importance of interpersonal closeness–distance
for myriad domains within psychology, it is not surprising that
researchers have devoted considerable energy to exploring the
interpersonal dynamics of dependency and detachment
(Bornstein & Languirand, 2003; Bornstein et al., 2003). Con-
temporary definitions of detachment emphasize the person’s
inability to cultivate social ties or exhibit situa-
tion-appropriate affiliative behaviors (Birtchnell, 1987,
1996). Detachment is associated with deficits in a broad array
of interpersonal domains (e.g., social, sexual, occupational)
and can result from an array of underlying factors, including
early learning and socialization experiences that emphasize
self-sufficiency at the expense of social connectedness (Clark
& Ladd, 2000; Colgan, 1987), intrapsychic conflicts regard-
ing closeness and intimacy (Birtchnell, 1996; Bornstein,
1998), and biologically based differences in temperament that
elicit detachment-promoting responses from parents and
peers (Coolidge, Thedy, & Jang, 2001).
Studies indicate that dependency—like detachment—is
more complex than theoreticians initially believed, and sev-
eral researchers (e.g., Bornstein & Languirand, 2003; Cross,
Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Kobayashi, 1989) have distinguished
destructive overdependence (DO; characterized by
maladaptive, inflexible dependency) from healthy depend-
ency (HD; characterized by flexible, adaptive, help and sup-
port seeking). DO stems in part from a sustained pattern of
overprotective and/or authoritarian parenting (Head, Baker,
& Williamson, 1991), although certain infantile temperament
variables (e.g., low “soothability”) may help elicit these
parenting styles (Bornstein, 1993). Throughout life,
overdependent individuals exhibit a pattern of insecure, cling-
ing behavior that alienates potential caregivers and under-
 RPT GENDER EFFECTS 105
mines the dependent person’s efforts to cultivate affiliative TABLE 1
ties (Blatt & Homann, 1992; Pincus & Gurtman, 1995). Components of DO, DD, and HD
In contrast to destructively overdependent persons, Component
healthy dependent individuals show considerable behavioral
flexibility and the ability to delay short-term gratification to Cognitive Emotional Motivational Behavioral
strengthen long-term supportive relationships (Bornstein, DO Perception of Fear of negative Desire to Clinginess;
1998; Hetherington, 1999). Studies indicate that HD is self as weak evaluation; maintain reassurance
rooted in (a) a history of exposure to authoritative parenting, and abandonment close ties to seeking;
which instills in the child a sense of confidence and ineffectual concerns caregivers/ helpless
authority self-
self-directedness (Lee & Robbins, 1995), and (b) consistent figures presentation
messages from parents and other authority figures that it is DD Perception Fear of being Desire to Social
acceptable to ask for support when needed (Clark & Ladd, others as hurt/over- maintain avoidance;
2000; Lang-Takac & Osterweil, 1992). Studies suggest that hurtful or whelmed distance from rigidly
untrustworthy others; need autonomous
when authoritative parenting is coupled with active encour-
for control self-
agement of situation-appropriate help-seeking, an individual presentation
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014

is particularly likely to develop a healthy dependent person- HD Perception of Security in Desire for Autonomous
ality style (Kobayashi, 1989; Singelis, 1994; Wang, Bristol, self as intimacy; closeness/ functioning
Mowen, & Chakraborty, 2000).1 competent, confidence in intimacy in coupled
others as autonomy the context of with
Recent research on the links among DO, dysfunctional de- trustworthy autonomy situation-
tachment (DD), and HD has drawn primarily from Bornstein and appropriate
et al.’s (2003) four-component model, which conceptualizes self-reliance help-
DO, DD, and HD in terms of four core processes: cognitive, seeking
emotional, motivational, and behavioral. As Table 1 shows, Note. From “Construct Validity of the Relationship Profile Test: A
each style reflects a particular set of beliefs regarding the self Self-Report Measure of Dependency–Detachment,” by R. F. Bornstein et al.,
and other people, longstanding emotional responses to social 2003, Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, pp. 64–74. Copyright 2003 by
contact, one or more affiliative/isolating motives, and an ar- Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reprinted with permission. DO =
destructive overdependence; DD = dysfunctional detachment; HD = healthy
ray of behaviors designed to attain some optimal level of in- dependency.
terpersonal closeness–distance. This four-component model *p < .05. **p < .01.
is consistent with findings regarding the interpersonal and
intrapersonal dynamics of DO, DD, and HD (Birtchnell,
1987; Lang-Takac & Osterweil, 1992; Millon, 1996; Rude & daily stressors or major life events (Bornstein, Geiselman,
Burnham, 1995) and provides a framework for conceptualiz- Eisenhart, & Languirand, 2002; Bornstein et al., 2003). The
ing change processes in dependent, detached, and healthy de- convergent and discriminant validity of each RPT subscale is
pendent psychotherapy patients (Beck & Freeman, 1990; supported by data showing that scores on these subscales
Blatt & Schichman, 1983; Overholser & Fine, 1994). show meaningful correlations with indexes of attachment
To facilitate research on the antecedents, correlates, and style, relatedness, alexithymia, affect regulation,
consequences of these three personality styles, Bornstein and self-concept, life satisfaction, and need for approval
Languirand (2003) developed the Relationship Profile Test (Bornstein et al., 2002, 2003).
(RPT), a 30-item, self-report measure of DO, DD, and HD. Initial construct validity studies (Bornstein et al., 2002,
Initial construct validity findings for the scale have been 2003) further indicate that women obtain significantly higher
promising: RPT subscale scores show acceptable internal scores than men do on the RPT DO and HD scales, which
consistency, predictable interscale intercorrelations, and suggests that women show higher levels than men of both
good retest reliability over 23- and 85-week intertest inter- maladaptive dependency and HD.2 Men obtain slightly
vals, even in participants who experience high numbers of higher scores than women do on the RPT DD scale, although
in two separate validation samples (Bornstein et al., 2002,
2003), these DD scale gender differences were not statisti-
1
Although healthy dependency is similar in certain ways to secure cally significant. Thus, women have higher levels of healthy
attachment, there are some important differences between these two
constructs. Secure attachment is associated with substantially
greater behavioral consistency than is healthy dependency, which
may be expressed very differently in different contexts (Bornstein,
2
Riggs, Hill, & Calabrese, 1996; Heiss, Berman, & Sperling, 1996; In both validation samples (Bornstein et al., 2002, 2003), DO
Pincus & Gurtman, 1995). Beyond these behavioral differences, and HD scores were inversely correlated in women (rs were –.35 and
studies confirm that healthy dependency scores are only modestly –.32, respectively) and in men (rs were –.24 and –.34, respectively).
related to scores on measures of secure attachment, with correlations Thus, the RPT DO and HD scales are tapping different constructs,
typically in the r = .30 to .40 range (Bornstein et al., 2003; Pincus & not overlapping aspects of the same trait constellation (for a discus-
Wilson, 2001). sion of this issue, see also Bornstein & Languirand, 2003).
 106 BORNSTEIN ET AL.
and unhealthy dependency than men do, but women and men
report comparable levels of detachment.
Because gender and gender role help determine partici-
pants’ responses to self-report dependency test items
(Bornstein, 1995) and responses to items on measures of var-
ious dependency- and detachment-related constructs (e.g.,
avoidance, alexithymia, self-efficacy, need for approval; see
Alden, 1989; Birtchnell, 1996; Colgan, 1987; O’Neill &
Bornstein, 1996; Pincus & Gurtman, 1995; Pincus & Wilson,
2001), continued exploration of the impact of these variables
on RPT subscale scores is warranted. This investigation con-
sists of three studies examining the relationships of gender,
gender role, and gender role stereotype ratings to RPT
scores. In Study 1, gender differences in RPT DO, DD, and
HD scores were assessed, and the magnitudes of these gender
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014
differences were compared to those obtained in earlier RPT
validition samples. In Study 2, the degree to which RPT DO,
DD, and HD items reflect stereotypically feminine or mascu-
line behaviors was explored by asking participants to rate
each RPT item on a 7-point masculinity–femininity dimen-
sion. In Study 3, correlations between RPT subscale scores
and scores on the Bem (1974) Sex Role Inventory (BSRI)
were assessed to evaluate the degree to which variance in the
RPT subscales may be attributable to gender role effects.
STUDY 1: GENDER DIFFERENCES
IN RPT SCORES
A plethora of investigations have shown that women obtain
higher scores than men do on self-report—but not free re-
sponse—measures of dependency (see Bornstein, 1995, for a
meta-analytic review). These patterns have also been ob-
tained in studies involving the RPT (Bornstein et al., 2002,
2003). Consistent with previous results, women should ob-
tain significantly higher scores than men do on the DO and
HD scales, whereas men should obtain slightly (but not sig-
nificantly) higher scores than women do on the DD scale. A
test for heterogeneity of gender difference effect sizes across
samples should indicate that these effect sizes do not differ
from those obtained in earlier investigations.
Method
Participants. Participants were 92 women and 82 men
enrolled in General Psychology classes at Gettysburg Col-
lege who took part in the study to fulfill a course requirement.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 22 years, with a mean of
19.04 (SD = 0.85). No participants had taken part in earlier
RPT studies.
Measure. The RPT is a rationally derived question-
naire that asks the participant to respond to 30
self-statements, each of which is rated on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me).
The RPT yields three 10-item subscale scores: (a) DO, (b)
DD, and (c) HD. Sample items from the RPT subscales in-
clude “Being responsible for things makes me nervous”
(DO), “Other people want too much from me” (DD), and “I
am comfortable asking for help” (HD).
RPT statements were derived from the theoretical and em-
pirical literature on overdependence, detachment, and HD.
Statements were written to tap the four components of each
personality style (i.e., cognitive, emotional, motivational, be-
havioral) as well as other core features of the dimension in
question. Sources used to derive RPT items included Baillie
and Lampe (1998), Benjamin (1996), Birtchnell (1987,
1996), Bornstein (1993), Gurtman (1992), Kantor (1993),
Livesley (1995), Millon (1996), Overholser (1996), Paris
(1998), Pincus and Gurtman (1995), and Rude and Burnham
(1995). In addition, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM–IV]; American Psychiatric
Association, 1994) dependent personality disorder (PD),
avoidant PD, and schizoid PD symptom criteria were used to
develop certain DO and DD items. Preliminary construct va-
lidity data for the RPT were provided by Bornstein et al.
(2002, 2003); detailed information regarding item develop-
ment and subscale refinement was provided by Bornstein et
al. (2003).
Procedure. Participants completed the RPT in groups
of 10 to 12. Testing sessions lasted approximately 15 min.
Results
The central results of Study 1 are summarized in Table 2,
which contrasts the mean DO, DD, and HD scores obtained
by these participants with those obtained by participants in
earlier RPT investigations. As Table 2 shows, women in our
sample obtained significantly higher DO and HD scores than
did men. These gender differences parallel closely those of
the earlier validation samples. Tests for heterogeneity of ef-
fect size (Rosenthal, 1991) confirmed that the gender differ-
ence effect sizes in Table 2 did not differ across samples for
any RPT subscale: Heterogeneity estimates (χ2 values) for
the DO, DD, and HD subscales were 3.75, 0.85, and 5.07, re-
spectively (df = 2 throughout, all ps > .05).
Follow-up analyses examined the internal consistency of
each RPT subscale and intercorrelations among these
subscale scores. Coefficient alphas for the DO, DD, and HD
scales were .85, .69, and .77, respectively. Because women
and men produced highly similar patterns of intersubscale
correlations, these were calculated for the combined sample
and were as follows: DO–DD, r(90) = .02, ns; DO–HD, r(90)
= –.23, p < .05; DD–HD, r(90) = –.43, p < .01.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 support the construct validity of the
RPT by demonstrating that across three separate samples of
 RPT GENDER EFFECTS 107
TABLE 2 (DD), and .63 (HD). Cohen (1988) considered effect sizes of
Gender Differences in RPT Scores this magnitude to be small (DD), and medium (DO, HD).3
RPT Scale
Finally, internal consistency estimates and intersubscale
correlations in this sample paralleled closely those obtained
DO DD HD by Bornstein et al. (2003). Although coefficient alphas for
Sample M SD M SD M SD the RPT subscales were somewhat lower than the optimal in-
ternal consistency values described by Nunnally and
Bornstein, Geiselman, Eisenhart, & Languirand (2002)
Womena 27.14 5.90 29.74 6.33 37.77 6.02
Bernstein (1994), they are well within the range of those ob-
Menb 23.75 6.62 30.86 5.68 34.52 6.04 tained for other widely used self-report instruments (see
t 3.54** 1.18 2.27** Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000, for relevant meta-analytic re-
d 0.74 0.27 0.54
sults). Thus, our internal consistency estimates and
Bornstein et al. (2003) intersubscale correlations offer additional support for the
Womenc 26.97 7.05 29.84 5.78 38.13 5.53
Mend 23.69 6.11 30.58 5.37 34.60 4.64 psychometric soundness of the RPT.
t 2.77* 0.74 3.85**
d 0.49 0.14 0.67
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014

This sample STUDY 2: GENDER ROLE STEREOTYPE

Womene 25.87 6.94 30.46 5.41 37.26 6.41
Menf 22.45 6.23 30.37 5.81 34.62 6.17
t 3.40** 0.11 2.01**
d 0.52 0.02 0.32
Note. t values represent gender differences in each RPT scale. d values are
standardized effect size indexes derived from corresponding t values. RPT =
Relation Profile Test; DO = destructive overdependence; DD =
dysfunctional detachment; HD = healthy dependency.
an = 50. bn = 40. cn = 75. dn = 55. en = 92. fn = 82.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
college students, small to moderate gender differences in
RPT subscale scores are obtained. These DO and HD gender
differences are consistent with a priori expectations and with
previous research on gender differences in self-reported de-
pendency (Bornstein, 1995). The very modest differences in
DD scores are also consistent with our hypotheses and with
previous studies involving the RPT (Bornstein et al., 2002,
2003). Moreover, these small DD gender differences dovetail
with DSM–IV (text revision [DSM–IV–TR]; American Psy-
chiatric Association, 2000) assertions regarding differential
gender base rates in detachment-related PDs. According to
the DSM–IV–TR, women and men are diagnosed with
avoidant PD at equal rates, whereas schizoid PD “is diag-
nosed slightly more often in males” (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000, p. 696).
By pooling data across the three participant samples in Ta-
ble 2, it was possible to derive preliminary nonclinical norms
for the RPT scale based on a reasonably large combined
group (N of women = 217, N of men = 177). For DO, women
obtained a mean score of 26.43 (SD = 6.45, range = 12 to 45),
whereas men obtained a mean of 23.01 (SD = 6.18, range =
10 to 43). For DD, women obtained a mean score of 30.01
(SD = 5.98, range = 16 to 44), whereas men obtained a mean
of 30.90 (SD = 5.65, range = 15 to 51). For HD, women ob-
tained a mean score of 37.84 (SD = 6.21, range = 20 to 50),
whereas men obtained a mean of 34.59 (SD = 5.79, range =
20 to 49). The standardized gender difference effect sizes
(ds) associated with these norms are as follows: .77 (DO), .16
RATINGS OF RPT ITEMS
Several investigations have assessed the degree to which
scores on measures of personality traits and PDs are influ-
enced by respondents’ gender role orientation (see Lindsay,
Sankis, & Widiger, 2000; Morey, Warner, & Boggs, 2002;
Widiger & Spitzer, 1991). To evaluate the impact of gender
role on DSM–IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)
PD symptom criteria, Sprock, Crosby, and Nielsen (2001)
asked college student participants to rate each PD criterion
on a 7-point masculinity–femininity scale ranging from 1
(extremely masculine) to 7 (extremely feminine). In Study 2,
we used a similar procedure, with RPT subscale items rated
in lieu of PD symptoms.
In line with Western norms regarding gender role-related
behavior (Brems & Johnson, 1990; Cadbury, 1991; Wang &
Mowen, 1997) and previous research on relatedness and gen-
der role (Bornstein, Bowers, & Bonner, 1996; Cross &
Madson, 1997; Sprock et al., 2001), we expected there to be
significant differences in mean masculinity–femininity rat-
ings of DO, DD, and HD items. DO items should be rated as
most “feminine,” whereas DD items should be rated as most
“masculine,” and HD items should be rated as being neither
strongly masculine nor strongly feminine.
Method
Participants. Participants were 43 women and 40 men
enrolled in General Psychology classes at Gettysburg Col-
lege who took part in the study to fulfill a course requirement.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 22 years, with a mean of
19.93 (SD = 1.30). No participants had taken part in Study 1
or in earlier RPT studies.
3
RPT subscale norms were calculated using sample size weighted
means, so each participant sample in Table 2 contributed to the over-
all mean in proportion to its size.
 108 BORNSTEIN ET AL.
Measure. A modified version of the RPT was con-
structed with the following instructions used in place of stan-
dard RPT instructions:
Listed below are a series of self-statements. Using the
scale alongside each statement, please rate that state-
ment for masculinity–femininity. That is, if you think a
given statement is stereotypically masculine, you’d
give it a low rating, like 1 or 2. If a given statement is
stereotypically feminine, you’d give it a high rating,
like 6 or 7. If a statement seems neither masculine nor
feminine, but neutral with respect to gender role, you’d
give that statement a middle rating of 4.
Aside from this change, RPT items were presented in the
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014
same order and using the same wording as in the standard
version of the test. The scale for the modified RPT ranged
from 1 (statement is stereotypically masculine) to 7 (state-
ment is stereotypically feminine).
Procedure. Participants completed the RPT in groups
of 10 to 12. Testing sessions lasted approximately 15 min.
Results
The results of Study 2 are summarized in Table 3, which
shows the mean gender role stereotype ratings for items
within each RPT subscale. A 2 × 3 mixed analysis of variance
revealed a significant main effect of RPT subscale on gender
role ratings, F(2, 162) = 149.66, p < .001. There was no main
effect of participant gender on these ratings, F(1, 81) = 1.68,
ns, nor was there a Subscale × Participant Gender interaction,
F(2, 162) = 0.33, ns.
To determine whether gender role stereotype ratings var-
ied as expected across RPT subscales, a focused contrast
analysis was conducted on scores collapsed across gender
using Equation 5.2 from Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin
(2000; with clarification from R. Rosenthal, personal com-
munication, June 30, 2003). This analysis yielded an
intersubscale gender role stereotype effect size (r) of .85,
confirming that—as the data in Table 3 suggest—gender role
stereotype ratings vary as expected across the DO, HD, and
DD subscales.4
To further investigate differences in gender role stereo-
type ratings across RPT subscales, three effect size estimates
(ds) were calculated reflecting the magnitudes of
intersubscale gender role stereotype rating differences.
These ds were as follows: DO–HD, 1.02; HD–DD, 1.10; and
DO–DD, 1.65.
4
When gender role stereotype effect size estimates were calcu-
lated separately for women and men, the corresponding rs were .82
and .89, respectively.
TABLE 3
RPT Scale Gender Stereotype Ratings
Gender Role Stereotype Rating
Women Men
RPT
Scale M SD Range M SD Range
DO 49.58 4.88 37 to 63 50.88 5.60 35 to 70
DD 33.30 9.10 17 to 56 34.73 6.06 25 to 48
HD 44.37 4.32 36 to 58 44.40 4.04 34 to 52
Note. N = 43 women and 40 men. Gender role stereotype rating scores have
a potential range of 10 to 70, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived
femininity in RPT test items. RPT = Relation Profile Test; DO = destructive
overdependence; DD = dysfunctional detachment; HD = healthy
dependency.
Discussion
The results of Study 2 confirm that items in the three RPT
subscales differ with respect to the degree to which they re-
flect stereotypically masculine or feminine behavior. DO
items were perceived as most stereotypically feminine,
whereas DD items were perceived as most stereotypically
masculine. These results parallel those obtained in studies of
gender role and PD symptoms (e.g., Sprock et al., 2001) and
are consistent with prevailing theoretical models of un-
healthy dependency (Bornstein, 1992, 1993), HD (Bornstein
& Languirand, 2003), and detachment (Birtchnell, 1996;
Kantor, 1993).
In the absence of data regarding the relationship of gender
role orientation to RPT scores, it is difficult to know whether
the Study 2 gender role stereotype ratings reflect genuine dif-
ferences in gender role orientation in participants who score
high on the DO, DD, and HD scales or merely reflect differ-
ences in raters’ perceptions of RPT item content. Study 3 was
designed to address this question.
STUDY 3: RELATIONSHIPS OF RPT SCORES
AND GENDER ROLE SCORES
Study 3 examined the relationship between RPT subscale
scores and Bem (1974) BSRI scores in a mixed-sex sample of
college students. Consistent with research on other
self-report dependency and detachment tests (Benjamin,
1996; Bornstein, Bowers, et al., 1996; Gurtman, 1992;
Pincus & Wilson, 2001), we expected to obtain statistically
significant RPT–BSRI correlations as follows. RPT DO
scores should be positively correlated with BSRI femininity
scores and negatively correlated with BSRI masculinity
scores. DD scores should show the opposite patterns. In addi-
tion, DO and DD scores should be inversely related to BSRI
androgyny (gender role balance/flexibility) scores. Because
studies show that HD is associated with cognitive and behav-
 RPT GENDER EFFECTS 109
ioral flexibility across a broad array of domains (Bornstein & TABLE 4
Languirand, 2003), HD scores should show moderate posi- Relationships of BSRI Scores
to RPT Scale Scores
tive correlations with both femininity and masculinity scores
and with Bem’s (1974) index of androgyny. Correlation RPT Scale
With BSRI
Method Score DO DD HD

Masculinity
Participants. Participants were 84 women and 49 men Women –0.61** 0.08 0.41**
enrolled in General Psychology classes at Gettysburg Col- Men –0.61** 0.08 0.29*
Z 0.00 0.00 0.60
lege who took part in the study to fulfill a course requirement. Femininity
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 22 years, with a mean of Women 0.20 –0.24* 0.30**
19.26 (SD = 1.01). No participants had taken part in Studies 1 Men 0.11 –0.17 0.40*
or 2 or in earlier RPT studies. Z 0.45 0.41 0.50
Androgyny
Women –0.24* –0.33** 0.44**
Measures. The standard version of the RPT was used to Men –0.22 –0.37** 0.49**
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014

assess DO, DD, and HD (see Study 1 Method section). Bem’s
(1974) BSRI was used to assess gender role. The BSRI is a
60-item questionnaire consisting of a series of personality
traits, each of which is rated by the participant for the degree to
which the trait listed in that item is characteristic of him or her.
Ratings are made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never or
almost never true) to 7 (almost or almost always true). Twenty
BSRI items comprise the masculinity scale, 20 items comprise
the femininity scale, and the remaining 20 items serve as fill-
ers. Typical items from the BSRI masculinity scale include
“Ambitious,” “Analytical,” and “Willing to take risks.” Typical
items from the femininity scale include “Affectionate,” “Com-
passionate,” and “Gentle.”
A review of literature examining the construct validity of
the BSRI as a measure of gender role orientation was pro-
vided by Lenney (1991). Studies assessing the convergent
and discriminant validity of the BSRI have generally been
supportive, although some studies suggest that BSRI items
go beyond the straightforward assessment of gender roles,
tapping other dimensions of personality (e.g., interpersonal
sensitivity, self-efficacy) as well as masculinity and feminin-
ity (Brems & Johnson, 1990).
In addition to computing standard BSRI masculinity and
femininity scores, a separate androgyny score was calculated
for each participant. Following the guidelines of Bem (1974)
and Lenney (1991), androgyny was operationalized as the dif-
ference between a respondent’s masculinity and femininity
scores, with smaller differences reflecting greater androgyny
(see Watson, Biderman, & Boyd, 1989, for a discussion of the
interpersonal and intrapersonal dynamics of androgyny).
Procedure. Participants completed the RPT and BSRI
in groups of 10 to 12. Order of measures was counterbal-
anced across participants. Testing sessions lasted approxi-
mately 30 min.
Results
The central results of Study 3 are presented in Table 4, which
summarizes the correlations between RPT scores and BSRI
Z 0.06 0.23 0.28
Note. N = 84 women and 49 men. Z values are Z scores representing the
magnitude of gender differences in RPT–gender-role correlations. Because
high androgyny scores reflect smaller masculinity–femininity differences, an
inverse correlation represents a positive relationship between androgyny and
RPT subscale score. To maintain consistency with the other correlations in
Table 4, the signs of all androgyny correlations are reversed, so a positive
correlation reflects a positive RPT–androgyny relationship. RPT = Relation
Profile Test; BSRI = Bem Sex Role Inventory; DO = destructive
overdependence; DD = dysfunctional detachment; HD = healthy dependency.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
scores. As Table 4 shows, in participants of both genders, DO
scores were negatively correlated with masculinity scores
and unrelated to femininity scores. DO scores were nega-
tively correlated with androgyny scores in women, but in
men, this correlation was not significant. DD scores were un-
related to masculinity scores in women and men, negatively
correlated with femininity scores in women, and negatively
correlated with androgyny scores in women and men. HD
scores were positively correlated with masculinity, feminin-
ity, and androgyny scores in women and men.
Further information regarding these RPT–BSRI correla-
tions may be obtained from the gender difference Z scores in
Table 4. These Z scores reflect the magnitude of the differ-
ence of each RPT–BSRI correlation across gender. As these
Z scores show, on every dimension, women and men pro-
duced comparable RPT–BSRI correlations (all Zs were
nonsignificant). When the RPT–BSRI correlations in Table 4
were collapsed across gender, the following pooled correla-
tion coefficients were obtained (df = 131 throughout): For
masculinity scores, DO = –.61 (p < .01), DD = .08 (ns), and
HD = .37 (p < .01); for femininity scores, DO = .17 (ns), DD
= –.21 (p < .05), and HD = .33 (p < .01); for androgyny
scores, DO = .23 (p < .05), DD = .34 (p < .01), and HD = –.46
(p < .01). Except for the DO–masculinity correlation (which
was –.61 in both women and men), all these RPT–gender role
correlations are in the small to medium range (Cohen, 1988).
Follow-up analyses examining the internal consistency of
each RPT subscale and intercorrelations among the RPT
subscale scores yielded patterns similar to those of Study 1.
 110 BORNSTEIN ET AL.
Coefficient alphas for the DO, DD, and HD scales were .82,
.64, and .74, respectively. RPT intersubscale correlations
(collapsed across gender) were as follows: DO–DD, r(131) =
.07, ns; DO–HD, r(131) = –.40, p < .01; and DD–HD r(131)
= –.31, p < .01.
Discussion
The results of Study 3 indicate that RPT subscale scores
show the expected relationships to gender role scores. Ob-
tained RPT–BSRI correlations were all in the predicted di-
rection and were generally modest in magnitude. Although
the DO–masculinity correlation was larger than the other
RPT–gender role correlations, the magnitude of this correla-
tion (r = –.61 in participants of both genders) was virtually
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014
identical to the correlation between Interpersonal Depend-
ency Inventory (IDI) scores (Hirschfeld et al., 1977) and
BSRI masculinity scores obtained by Bornstein, Bowers, et
al. (1996). In the Bornstein, Bowers, et al. investigation,
IDI–masculinity correlations were –.64 in women and –.55
in men.
The positive relationship between androgyny and HD
score along with the inverse relationships between
androgyny and DO and DD scores offer additional support
for the construct validity of the RPT subscales. As Bornstein
and Languirand (2003) noted, HD should be associated with
role-related flexibility in myriad domains, including gender
role. Conversely, previous studies of DO and DD (Alden,
1989; Bornstein, 1992, 1993; Kantor, 1993; Millon, 1996)
suggest that these personality styles are associated with lack
of flexibility in social interaction and with rigidity in inter-
personal coping and strategic self-presentation.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results of Studies 1 to 3 support the construct validity of
the RPT as a measure of DO, DD, and HD. The patterns of gen-
der differences in this and earlier samples, coupled with the
RPT subscale–gender role links obtained in Study 3, confirm
that the DO, DD, and HD scales are related to gender and gen-
der role in theoretically meaningful ways. Although under-
graduate raters judged DO items to be stereotypically femi-
nine and DD items to be stereotypically masculine (Study 2),
the RPT–gender role correlations in Study 3 were generally
modest in magnitude and indicated that—with the exception
of the large DO–masculinity correlation—RPT subscale
scores are not unduly influenced by gender role orientation.
In addition to supporting the construct validity of the RPT,
these results have implications for understanding the interper-
sonal and intrapersonal dynamics of DO, DD, and HD. Con-
sistent with extant studies of interpersonal dependency (e.g.,
Sanfilipo, 1994; Watson et al., 1989), these findings indicate
that participants who score high on the DO scale report low
levels of masculinity: They describe themselves as
unaggressive, unambitious, unassertive, and unwilling to take
risks. Although there have been no investigations assessing
the detachment–gender role link, these findings are generally
consistent with prevailing theoretical models of avoidance
and detachment (e.g., Benjamin, 1996; Birtchnell, 1996;
Kantor, 1993) and indicate that participants who score high on
the DD scale report low levels of femininity: They describe
themselves as relatively unempathic, unaffectionate, and in-
sensitive to the needs of others. Clearly, gender role orienta-
tion helps predict self-reported dependency and detachment
levels in adolescents and adults (see Bornstein, 1996, and
Kantor, 1993, for discussions of this process).5
The finding that HD participants reported high levels of
both masculinity and femininity as well as scored high on
Bem’s (1974) index of androgyny is particularly interesting.
This pattern suggests that—as Bornstein and Languirand
(2003) and others (e.g., Hetherington, 1999; Kobayashi,
1989) argued—HD reflects a complex array of traits that en-
able the person to combine intimacy with autonomy and seek
reassurance and support without feeling weak or helpless.
The positive relationship between HD scores and androgyny
scores indicates that HD participants are capable of system-
atically varying their self-presentation and social influence
strategies across situation and setting, showing the flexibility
in responding that is central to HD (see Bornstein et al., 2002,
2003; Hetherington, 1999; Lang-Takac & Osterweil, 1992;
Pincus & Wilson, 2001).
Taken together, the results of these studies help tighten the
nomological net surrounding DO, DD, and HD. Table 5 sum-
marizes the empirically established correlates of these three
personality styles, combining our results with those of earlier
investigations (Bornstein et al., 2002, 2003) and allowing for
some general statements regarding the intrapersonal and in-
terpersonal functioning of overdependent, detached, and
healthy dependent people. As Table 5 shows, the DO person
lacks self-confidence, fears rejection, reports few masculine
characteristics, has difficulty resisting external influence and
modulating affect through internal means, and reports a gen-
eralized dissatisfaction with life. The DD person distrusts
others, is uncomfortable with closeness, feels socially iso-
lated, has difficulty verbalizing emotions, reports low levels
of both femininity and androgyny, and—like the DO per-
son—acknowledges a generalized dissatisfaction with life.
The picture that emerges of the HD person stands in stark
contrast to those of DO and DD individuals. As Table 5
shows, the HD person has a strong identity, is comfortable
with closeness, has confidence in the dependability of others,
and has an interdependent self-concept that is firmly embed-
ded in their social and cultural milieu (see Cross et al., 2000;
Wang & Mowen, 1997). In addition, the HD person is able to
5
Needless to say, detached participants did not literally describe
themselves as unsympathetic or insensitive but rated themselves low
on BSRI traits such as sympathetic and sensitive.
 RPT GENDER EFFECTS 111
TABLE 5 A key limitation of RPT construct validity evidence to
Correlates of DO, DD, and HD date concerns its normative base: Extant RPT data have been
Trait Correlate r
obtained exclusively from college student samples. Al-
though these data are useful in research settings and in cer-
DO Fear of abandonment/rejection .26a tain clinical contexts (e.g., college and university counseling
Discomfort with closeness .25a
Identity impairment .55a centers), an important task in RPT development involves as-
Susceptibility to external influence .55a sessing the generalizability of these results—as well as those
Affect dysregulation .27a of Bornstein et al. (2002, 2003)—to clinical populations. It
Lack of self-confidence/reliance on others .71b
Dissatisfaction with life .20b
will also be necessary to obtain clinical norms for the RPT
Low masculinity .61c subscales so the instrument can be used effectively in inpa-
DD Lack of confidence in others .41a tient and outpatient settings. Once such norms are obtained,
Discomfort with closeness .38a RPT scores can be used to facilitate treatment planning and
Disillusionment .37a assess changes in functioning during the course of therapy.
Separateness/isolation .27b
Dissatisfaction with life .26b Based on extant construct validity data, it is reasonable to ex-
Alexithymia .47b pect that successful treatment will result in decreases in DO
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014

Low need for approval
Independent self-construal
Low femininity
Low androgyny
HD Confidence in others
Lack of anxiety regarding abandonment
Comfort with closeness
Strong identity
Ability to modulate affect/reduce tension internally
Satisfaction with life
Ability to verbalize feelings (low alexithymia)
High need for approval
Relational/interdependent self-construal
High masculinity
High femininity
High androgyny
Note. rs represent the magnitude of the relationship between Relation
Profile Test score and score on the relevant comparison measure. DO =
destructive overdependence; DD = dysfunctional detachment; HD = healthy
dependency.
aBornstein, Geiselman, Eisenhart, and Languirand (2002). bBornstein et al.
(2003). cThis study.
modulate anxiety through internal means, verbalize feelings
(including negative feelings), and show gender role flexibil-
ity along with an array of feminine and masculine traits. In
contrast to DO and DD persons, the HD person reports high
levels of life satisfaction.
Although findings regarding the construct validity of the
RPT scale have been supportive, several questions remain
unaddressed. For example, no studies have examined the im-
pact of culture and ethnicity on RPT scores, although re-
search in other areas suggests that these variables may affect
the dynamics of overdependence (Neki, 1976), detachment
(Birtchnell, 1996), and HD (Kobayashi, 1989). An important
next step in establishing the construct validity of the RPT
will be to assess cultural differences in RPT subscale scores
and explore subcultural differences in RPT patterns within a
given society. It is possible that as individuals raised in a
sociocentric or individualistic culture become assimilated
into a society with contrasting norms and values, their DO,
DD, and HD scores will shift accordingly (see, e.g., Dwairy,
2002; Sato, 2001).
.31b and DD, along with increases in HD; unsuccessful treatment
.21b
.19c should not lead to significant changes in these domains (for
.34c related discussions, see Blatt & Ford, 1994, and Sundin,
.39a Armelius, & Nilsson, 1994).
.29a As clinical norms are obtained for the RPT, it will be im-
.60a portant to assess links between RPT subscale score patterns
.37a
.27a and PD diagnoses. In this investigation (Studies 1 and 3) as
.46b well as earlier investigations (Bornstein et al., 2002, 2003),
.48b DO and HD scores were found to be orthogonal in women
.32b
.33b and men. It is possible that the accuracy of PD diagnoses
.37c could be enhanced by examining differences in DO–HD pat-
.33c terns across PD categories that show high comorbidity but
.46c
different underlying dynamics (e.g., narcissistic and border-
line, dependent and avoidant). It might also be useful to ex-
amine differences in DO–HD patterns within certain PDs: As
several researchers have noted (e.g., Bornstein, 2003;
Westen & Shedler, 1999), many PD categories are far more
heterogenous than is commonly recognized with respect to
symptom patterns as well as associated behaviors. Research
examining within-category differences in dependency, de-
tachment, and HD may increase the discriminant validity of
PD diagnoses and provide a foundation for more precise PD
descriptors and diagnostic criteria in future versions of the
diagnostic manual.6
As with all self-report instruments, it will also be impor-
tant to assess the impact of participants’ self-presentation
strategies on RPT scores in future construct validity studies.
Preliminary findings in this area (Bornstein et al., 2003) indi-
cate that HD scores were positively correlated r = .32) with
scores on a widely used measure of need for approval
(NAPP; Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), whereas DD scores
were negatively correlated with NAPP scores r = –.31). Ad-
6
The orthogonality of unhealthy overdependence and HD is con-
sistent with certain models of adult attachment (e.g., Griffin &
Bartholomew, 1994); research assessing the links between RPT
scores and attachment style in clinical participants will be useful in
extending the utility of the RPT to other contexts and settings (for
preliminary findings regarding RPT-attachment style relationships
in nonclinical participants, see Bornstein et al., 2002).
 112
ditional research is needed to assess the impact of various
self-presentation and dissimulation/faking effects on RPT
scores in different contexts and settings.
Finally, it will be useful to examine the impact of situational
variables (e.g., mood) on RPT scores. Although Bornstein et
al. (2003) found that daily hassles and major life events did not
moderate the retest reliability of RPT scores over 23 and 85
weeks, other more immediate influences might well alter par-
ticipants’ responses to RPT items. In this context, Bornstein,
Rossner, Hill, and Stepanian (1994) found that instructional
set affected participants’ responses to a self-report—but not a
free response—measure of interpersonal dependency.
Whether similar manipulations affect scores on the RPT
subscales is an issue that should now be addressed.
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014
BORNSTEIN ET AL.
Bornstein, R. F. (1992). The dependent personality: Developmental, social,
and clinical perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 3–23.
Bornstein, R. F. (1993). The dependent personality. New York: Guilford.
Bornstein, R. F. (1995). Sex differences in objective and projective depend-
ency tests: A meta-analytic review. Assessment, 2, 319–331.
Bornstein, R. F. (1996). Beyond orality: Toward an object rela-
tions/interactionist reconceptualization of the etiology and dynamics of
dependency. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 13, 177–203.
Bornstein, R. F. (1998). Depathologizing dependency. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 186, 67–73.
Bornstein, R. F. (2003). Behaviorally referenced experimentation and symp-
tom validation: A paradigm for 21st-century personality disorder re-
search. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 1–18.
Bornstein, R. F., Bowers, K. S., & Bonner, S. (1996). Relationships of objec-
tive and projective dependency scores to sex role orientation in college
students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 555–568.
Bornstein, R. F., Geiselman, K. J., Eisenhart, E. A., & Languirand, M. A.
(2002). Construct validity of the Relationship Profile Test: Links with at-

tachment, identity, relatedness, and affect. Assessment, 9, 373–381.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental
Health Grant MH63723–01A1 to Robert F. Bornstein. We
thank Robert Rosenthal for his statistical advice.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment:
A Theoretical review of the infant–mother relationship. Child Develop-
ment, 40, 969–1025.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psy-
chologist, 44, 709–716.
Alden, L. E. (1989). Short-term structured treatment for avoidant personal-
ity disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 756–764.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Baille, A. J., & Lampe, L. A. (1998). Avoidant personality disorder: Empiri-
cal support for DSM–IV revision. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12,
23–30.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for in-
terpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Beck, A. T., & Freeman, A. (1990). Cognitive therapy of the personality dis-
orders. New York: Guilford.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personal-
ity disorders. New York: Guilford.
Birtchnell, J. (1987). Attachment-detachment, directiveness-receptiveness:
A system for classifying interpersonal attitudes and behavior. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 60, 17–27.
Birtchnell, J. (1996). Detachment. In C. G. Costello (Ed.), Personality char-
acteristics of the personality disordered (pp. 173–205). New York: Wiley.
Blatt, S. J., & Ford, R. Q. (1994). Therapeutic change: An object relations
perspective. New York: Plenum.
Blatt, S. J., & Homann, E. (1992). Parent–child interaction in the etiology of de-
pendent and self-critical depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 47–91.
Blatt, S. J., & Schichman, S. (1983). Two primary configurations of
psychopathology. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 6,
187–254.
Bornstein, R. F., & Languirand, M. A. (2003). Healthy dependency. New
York: Newmarket Press.
Bornstein, R. F., Languirand, M. A., Geiselman, K. J., Creighton, J. A.,
West, M. A., Gallagher, H. A., et al. (2003). Construct validity of the Rela-
tionship Profile Test: A self-report measure of dependency-detachment.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 64–74.
Bornstein, R. F., Riggs, J. M., Hill, E. L., & Calabrese, C. (1996). Activity,
passivity, self-denigration, and self-enhancement: Toward an
interactionist model of interpersonal dependency. Journal of Personality,
64, 637–673.
Bornstein, R. F., Rossner, S. C., Hill, E. L., & Stepanian, M. L. (1994). Face
validity and fakability of objective and projective measures of depend-
ency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 363–386.
Brems, C., & Johnson, M. E. (1990). Re-examination of the Bem Sex Role
Inventory: The Interpersonal BSRI. Journal of Personality Assessment,
55, 484–498.
Cadbury, S. (1991). The concept of dependence as developed by Birtchnell:
A critical evaluation. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 64,
237–251.
Clark, K. E., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy sup-
port in parent–child relationships: Links to children’s socioemotional
orientation and peer relationships. Developmental Psychology, 36,
485–498.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Colgan, P. (1987). Treatment of dependency disorders in men: Toward a bal-
ance of identity and intimacy. Journal of Chemical Dependency Treat-
ment, 1, 205–227.
Coolidge, F. L., Thedy, L. L., & Jang, K. J. (2001). Heritability of personal-
ity disorders in childhood: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Per-
sonality Disorders, 15, 33–40.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The rela-
tional-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and
gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York:
Wiley.
Dwairy, M. (2002). Foundations of psychosocial dynamic personality the-
ory of collective people. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 343–360.
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Funda-
mental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430–445.
Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality mea-
sures: The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 63, 105–118.
 RPT GENDER EFFECTS
Head, S. B., Baker, J. D., & Williamson, D. A. (1991). Family environment
characteristics and dependent personality disorder. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 5, 256–263.
Heiss, G. E., Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1996). Five scales in search
of a construct: Exploring continued attachment to parents in college stu-
dents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 102–115.
Hetherington, A. (1999). The development of trust and dependency in an in-
dividual through the lifespan and its influence on group dynamics. Social
Science International, 15, 1–10.
Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Klerman, G. L., Gough, H. G., Barrett, J., Korchin, S.
J., & Chodoff, P. (1977). A measure of interpersonal dependency. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 41, 610–618.
Kantor, M. (1993). Distancing. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kobayashi, J. S. (1989). Depathologizing dependency: Two perspectives.
Psychiatric Annals, 19, 653–658.
Lang-Takac, E., & Osterweil, Z. (1992). Separateness and connectedness:
Differences between the genders. Sex Roles, 27, 277–289.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The Social
Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 06:42 14 November 2014
Connectedness and Social Assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 42, 232–241.
Lenney, E. (1991). Sex roles: The measurement of masculinity, femininity,
and androgyny. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman
(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp.
573–660). New York: Academic.
Lindsay, K. A., Sankis, L. M., & Widiger, T. A. (2000). Gender bias in
self-report personality disorder inventories. Journal of Personality Disor-
ders, 14, 218–232.
Livesley, W. J. (Ed.). (1995). The DSM–IV personality disorders. New
York: Guilford.
Millon, T. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM–IV and beyond. New
York: Wiley.
Morey, L. C., Warner, M. B., & Boggs, C. D. (2002). Gender bias in the per-
sonality disorders criteria: An investigation of five bias indicators. Jour-
nal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 55–65.
Neki, J. S. (1976). An examination of the cultural relativism of dependence
as a dynamic of social and therapeutic relationships. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 49, 1–10.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Neill, R. M., & Bornstein, R. F. (1996). Dependency and alexithymia in
psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 184,
302–306.
Overholser, J. C. (1996). The dependent personality and interpersonal prob-
lems. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 184, 8–16.
Overholser, J. C., & Fine, M. A. (1994). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of
excessive interpersonal dependency: A four-stage psychotherapy model.
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 8, 55–70.
Paris, J. (1998). Working with traits: Psychotherapy of personality disor-
ders. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (1995). The three faces of interpersonal de-
pendency: Structural analysis of self-report dependency measures. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 744–758.
113
Pincus, A. L., & Wilson, K. R. (2001). Interpersonal variability in dependent
personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 223–251.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev.
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect
sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Rude, S. S., & Burnham, B. L. (1995). Connectedness and neediness: Fac-
tors of the DEQ and SAS dependency scales. Cognitive Therapy and Re-
search, 19, 323–340.
Sanfilipo, M. P. (1994). Masculinity, femininity, and subjective experiences
of depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 144–157.
Sato, T. (2001). Autonomy and relatedness in psychopathology and treat-
ment: A cross-cultural formulation. Genetic, Social, and General Psy-
chology Monographs, 127, 89–127.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent
self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.
Sprock, J., Crosby, J. P., & Nielsen, B. A. (2001). Effects of sex and sex roles
on the perceived maladaptiveness of DSM–IV personality disorder symp-
toms. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15, 41–59.
Sundin, E., Armelius, B. C., & Nilsson, T. (1994). Reliability studies of
scales of psychological capacities: A new method to assess psychological
change. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 17, 591–615.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement error in “Big Five Fac-
tors” personality assessment: Reliability generalization across studies and
measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 224–235.
Wang, C. L., Bristol, T., Mowen, J. C., & Chakraborty, G. (2000). Alterna-
tive modes of self-construal: Dimensions of connectedness-separateness
and advertising appeals to the cultural and gender-specific self. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 9, 107–115.
Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separateness-connectedness
self-schema. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 185–207.
Watson, P. J., Biderman, M. D., & Boyd, C. (1989). Androgeny as synthetic
narcissism. Sex Roles, 21, 175–207.
Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999). Revising and assessing Axis II: Toward an
empirically based and clinically useful classification of personality disor-
ders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 273–285.
Widiger, T. A., & Spitzer, R. L. (1991). Sex bias in the diagnosis of personal-
ity disorders: Conceptual and methodological issues. Clinical Psychology
Review, 11, 1–22.
Robert F. Bornstein
Department of Psychology
Box 407
Gettysburg College
Gettysburg, PA 17325
E-mail: bbornste@gettysburg.edu
Received April 16, 2003
Revised June 11, 2003