Department of PsychologyUniversity of Stirling

April 1999

BSc (Hons) Psychology Research Project

Sociotropy/Autonomy and their Relationship to Repression:Towards “Coping-friendly” Personality Styles

Written by:Ioannis G. Malliaris

Supervised by:Professor Kevin G. Power

1

Dedicated to my father…

Who early in my life taught me to love academia

my father (who) moved through dooms of lovethrough sames of am through haves of give,

singing each morning out of each nightmy father moved through depths of height...1

1 …the interested reader should see the appendix section for the full text of this poem by e. e. cummings

2

Acknowledgments

This is probably the most difficult part of my research project. It is not difficult because I donot know how to thank people. It is simply that there are too many people I feel grateful to for helpingme in one way or another to conduct this piece of work. And yes, I have to admit that I caught my selfwriting up an outline for this section. My outline remained a mental one, but led to me to think thatthere are two buckets worthy of my thanks, namely an academic and a personal one. Of course, like allsocial science concepts these are “interrelated” and they exist in a “context”. They are transactionalvariables of my mind and heart…

To begin with my academic bucket, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor KevinPower, for his continuous emotional support throught out the year. Although his busy schedule did notleave us much time to work on my project, his hopeful spirit towards my research endeavours helpedme to overcome unexpected obstacles and eventually finish my dissertation. I am also sure that he isglad everything is over. There will be no more of Yanni’s questions, problems, and solutionspressuring his mind.

Another person I would like to thank, is UCLA’S Iron Lady . I am refering of course, toProfessor Constance Hammen who introduced me to the emotional and intriguing field of Affectivedisorders. Without her intellectual contribution this project would not have been conceived in firstplace. I also feel grateful to her for providing to me an excelent academic model by being both a greatteacher and an excellent researcher. Be assured naïve reader that words like that have little value toher. I can only thank her by conducting good research, and one day becoming an excellent academicmyself.

There are of course so many people in my academic bucket I wish to express my gratefulnessbut lack of space prohibits the expresion of my thankful desires. Professor Ivar Lovaas, ProfessorSteve Lopez, Dr. Karel Gijbers, George Matsopoulos, George Papakonstandinou, Daniel Gorney, andTheofano Megalokonomou, among many others, belong to my “thankful academic domain”. Theyhave all inspired me by being outstanding teachers and beloved human beings. As a spoilt student Icouldn’t have asked for a better academic bucket. Yet, there is always space for more teachers.

To turn to my personal bucket, my father, George Malliaris is one of the protagonists.Whereas Professor Hammen’s contribution fed my “mind”, he fed my “heart” for this project. Lack ofknowledge, professional irresponsibility, and life circumstances have caused him much suffering.However, despite all he faced and still has to face I do not feel that he ever failed to love me. Noillness can take away the great person that he is. No matter what the final outcome be, our relationshipwill continue to inspire my work and make my academic activities and life meaningful.

My uncle, Nikos Malliaris would be the one to dedicate this project if it wasn’t my father.Over the last few years his moral and financial support have helped me enormously. We are bothnatural born Stoics, unlike my Lotus eater father. We are both obsessed with our work, some times tosuch an extent that there is little time or personal skills to communicate on a personal level. “Togetherwe hold and alone we achieve” right now comes in my mind. I am truly grateful to him for the“Together” part.

Ioannis Malliaris…no, no, I wouldn’t be thanking myself, my grandfather that is. He isanother person in my personal bucket worthy of my thanks. Professor Hammen was teaching me aboutthe “intergenerational process of stress” and when I was thinking about my grandfather thisphenomenon was transformed into the “intergenerational process of wisdom”. It is also wisdom, notonly stress, that has an intergenerational character. This is certainly an area in need of research.

Electra Sachtaridou certainly deserves a full paragraph. She has suffered a lot through out thisacademic year. Her cry for love was standing desperate against my need for work. I want to thank herfor her love and understanding. To thank her for bringing peace to my anger, and love to my heart.When I needed to talk to someone she always listened. Of course, it is difficult to thank her withoutthanking her flat, the 5.5.2 flat. This consists of all different kinds of beautiful Greek women. She is avital part of them, and they can’t do without each other. This is too much “interpersonal relatedness”for my “Autonomic” stomach to digest but despite our differences there is a common ground ofunderstanding and acceptance that has helped me a lot.

Last but not least, many thanks to Niki and Danai Markoyanni, Chi-ah Chung, AlanNagamoto, Jane Sulahian, Nike Dorrer, The Valsami family and The Gorney family. All of themcertainly deserve full paragraphs…

3

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Abstract - Introduction 4 - 5

1.1 Personality, Stressful Life Events and Psychological risk 6

1.1a Personality Vulnerability models: A. T. Beck and Psychodynamic Fellows 6

1.1b Empirical Evidence: Testing the Vulnerability and Congruence Hypotheses in Clinical and Non-Clinical Populations

7

1.1c Critical Summary: Present Problems and Future Directions 10

1.2 Integrating Personality Vulnerability Models with Coping Strategies 11

1.2a Sociotropy/Autonomy & Coping: The Repressive Coping Strategy 11

1.2b Towards “Coping-friendly” Personality styles: Predictions 14

Chapter 2: Method 16

2.1 Participants and Procedure 16

2.2 Measures 17

2.3 Design 19

Chapter 3: Results 21

3.1 Descriptive statistics: Personality, Coping, and SR-Depression/Anxiety 21

3.2 Demographic differences: Gender & Nationality 21

3.3 Group differences: Personality, Coping & Depression Groups 22

3.4 Relationships: Sociotropy/Autonomy, Repression, & Depressive Severity 24

Chapter 4: Discussion 26

4.1 Predictions: Analysis Of Results 26

4.2.1 Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression (1) 264.2.2 Repression and Self-Reported Depression (2) 274.2.3 Sociotropy/Autonomy and Social Desirability (3) 284.2.4 Sociotropy/Autonomy and Self-Reported Depression/Anxiety (4) 294.2.5 Sociotropy/Autonomy and Demographic characteristics (5) 30

4.3 Critical Discussion:Repressive Defenses, Their Role in Sociotropy/Autonomy,And Implications in the Personality Vulnerability Model

31

4.4 Further Methodological and Conceptual Issues: The Role of Anxiety 34

4.5 Concluding remarks: Summary, Limitations, and Future Directions 35

References 38

Chapter 5: Appendix 41

5.1 Table 1:Correlations between Sociotropy/Autonomy and their Subfactors 42

5.2 Table 2:Variables, Criteria & Procedures 43

5.3 Questionnaire: Personality and Coping Study (PSI-II)

4

Abstract

Investigated in a non-clinical student population the role of Repressive defenses in A. T.

Beck’s (1983) Personality Styles of Sociotropy and Autonomy. Among a wider set of

hypotheses it was predicted that Sociotropy would be characterized by a Repressive Coping

Strategy, whereas the opposite should hold true for Autonomy. To test the research

hypotheses 122 university students were assessed on measures of Personality (Personal Style

Inventory-II), Coping (Weinberger, 1979 method), Social Desirability (MC), Anxiety, and

Self-Reported Depression (BDI). The results provided partial support for the research

hypotheses. Initially, both styles yielded significant negative correlations with Repression

(Soc r=-0.32 , Aut r=-0.50). Partial correlations though, revealed that Anxiety played a

critical role in the pattern of relationships between Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression.

When the effects of Anxiety were controlled, Sociotropy yielded a low positive but

significant correlation with Repression (r=0.24), whereas Autonomy retained its negative

relationship (r= -0.28). The results are discussed within the Personality Vulnerability model

of Affective disorders advanced by Cognitive and Psychodynamic theorists. Emphasis is

placed on understanding the intrapersonal and interpersonal Coping strategies of Sociotropic

and Autonomic individuals. Finally, the pernicious role and the conceptual and

methodological implications of Repressive defenses are discussed with reference to the

affective vulnerability framework.

Keywords: Personality, Sociotropy, Autonomy, Coping, Repression, AffectiveVulnerability, affective disorders, Social Desirability, Anxiety

5

Introduction

In recent years there has been an increasing appreciation about the role of personality and

cognitive factors in affective disorders. Similar attention has been given to the detrimental role of

stress and to negative life events implicated in the course of these disorders. In the past both lines of

research faced considerable problems when they were called to explain how either vulnerable

personalities/cognitive structures or stress alone could account for the negative course of individuals

with emotional difficulties. However, the development of the Diathesis-Stress model of

psychopathology has offered a meaningful framework for integrating personality, cognitive, and stress

variables. Investigators from different theoretical perspectives have, over the years, developed

personality frameworks postulated to confer vulnerability to individuals at risk for affective illness.

Empirical evidence has accumulated to support the view that personality plays a diathesis role in the

course of both unipolar and bipolar conditions. However, such personality vulnerability models are far

from complete and there are still many areas in need of development. The important role of coping

strategies in moderating the impact of stress represents one future challenge for these models.

The present research project is a preliminary attempt to explore empirically the relationship

between personality and coping. The focus will be on Beck’s (1983) and Weinberger’s et al.(1979)

Personality and Coping frameworks, respectively. The discussion will begin by presenting Beck’s

Personality styles and will acknowledge its theoretical convergence with other psychoanalytically

oriented personality frameworks. A special emphasis will be placed on longitudinal studies that have

documented the vulnerability role of these personality styles in both clinical and non-clinical

populations. Then the discussion will turn to Weinberger’s model and specifically focus on the

Repressive coping strategy. A brief analysis will consider the development and role of Repression and

the reasons that justify its potential implication in the Personality Vulnerability model. Finally, the

paper will outline a set of predictions regarding the exploration of the discussed personality and

coping models.

6

1.1 Personality, Stressful Life Events and Psychological risk

1.1a Personality Vulnerability models: A. T. Beck and Psychodynamic Fellows

Beck (1983), working from a Cognitive-Behavioral perspective, formulated two personality

styles and hypothesized that they can serve as general predisposing factors in the etiology, symptom

pattern, and response to treatment in depression and possibly a range of other disorders. He

distinguished between the personality styles of Sociotropy and Autonomy. The

Sociotropy/Autonomy distinction can best be seen as a dimension that assesses basic underlying self

and value systems. In particular, Sociotropy describes the degree to which one defines self worth in

terms of interpersonal relationships, whereas Autonomy describes the degree to which one derives self

worth from personal life achievements. In Beck’s words: “Sociotropy refers to the person’s investment

in positive interchange with other people. It includes passive-receptive wishes (such as acceptance,

intimacy, support, understanding) and narcissistic wishes (such as admiration, prestige, status)”. On

the other hand, according to Beck “Autonomy refers to the person’s investment in preserving and

increasing his independence, mobility, and personal rights; freedom of choice, action, and expression;

protection of his domain; and attaining meaningful goals” (Beck, 1983 p. 272).

He further hypothesized that the individual’s dominant personality style defines major

vulnerability domains. Hence, negative life events that are congruent to a Sociotropic style

(interpersonal events/Sociotropic domain) will be more likely to precipitate depressions in these

persons. On the other hand, achievement events will be more meaningful to Autonomic individuals

and thus will have a greater likelihood to precipitate their depressions (congruence hypothesis). In

general, either extreme orientation (Sociotropic or Autonomic) should predispose one to a greater

danger to experience depression following a negative life event (general vulnerability hypothesis).

Further, he noted that an individual is likely to have a dominant personality style, although his/her

personality mode is likely to change depending upon the current life circumstances. This latter point is

what mostly distinguishes Beck’s model from other psychodynamic approaches that treat similar

personality structures as being consistent and underlying themes of one’s personality. Yet, this

criticized potential of change and his emphasis on the present is consistent with Beck’s Cognitive-

Behavioral orientation that places greater emphasis on situational factors. Finally, Beck’s model

discusses issues of differential symptomatology, and response to psychotherapeutic treatment, but

these aspects of the model hitherto have received less attention and are not pertinent to this study.

7

However, it is important to acknowledge that conceptually similar personality models have

been developed within the psychoanalytic school. Blatt (1983), Arieti and Bemporad (1978, 1980),

and Bowlby (1980), have been the main theorists to advance personality models that confer

vulnerability to depression. Blatt has discussed the Dependent and Self-Critical personalities and has

emphasized the role of defenses and early life experiences. On the other hand, Arieti and Bemporad’s

theory distinguishes between Dominant-Other and Dominant-Goal personalities, and stresses the

role of interpersonal relationships in relation to personality development and vulnerability. Finally,

Bowlby’s analysis of individuals prone to depression distinguishes between characters with anxious

ambivalent relationships, others with compulsive care-giving tendencies, and those who seek to

assert independence from affectional ties. His framework is based on his attachment theory, and thus

considers early parent-child relationships responsible for the creation of the observed vulnerability to

depression. Beck’s and Blatt’s approaches are more relevant to the present study. As it will be

discussed later, Blatt’s ego psychology perspective considers issues of defense mechanisms, and thus

is relevant to any empirical explorations of Coping strategies implicated in these personality styles (for

a review of the models see Blatt & Maroudas, 1992).

1.1b Empirical Evidence: Testing the Vulnerability and Congruence Hypotheses In Clinical and Non-Clinical Populations

A number of studies have investigated Beck’s vulnerability hypothesis and the evidence

generated so far is promising. The general vulnerability role of Sociotropy and Autonomy in Affective

disorders has been well documented. The studies conducted have examined both clinical and non-

clinical populations.

Hammen and colleagues (1989) examined the link between Sociotropy/Autonomy and

stressful life events in groups of remitted patients with unipolar and bipolar disorders within a 6-month

longitudinal design. It was assumed that stressful life events would have a maximum negative impact

when they would be “meaningful” to the Self. Thus, they hypothesized that individuals with a

Sociotropic personality style would demonstrate onset and exarcebation of symptoms after occurrence

of negative interpersonal events. Likewise, the condition of individuals with an Autonomic style

would deteriorate after negative achievement events. Their hypotheses were confirmed for the

unipolar group, but not for the Bipolar one. Greater and more specific vulnerability (congruent) was

observed for the Autonomic individuals with increased achievement stress. Possible confounding

8

variables, such as medication compliance, illness history, and total stress levels were controlled.

Hence, Sociotropy/Autonomy and congruent life events remained the only crucial variable for

predicting symptom onset and exarcebation of affective pathology (depressive).

A later study by Hammen et al. (1990) focused solely on the course of unipolar patients. The

group was categorized within the Sociotropy/Autonomy dimension, and periodic assessments of life

events and symptom status were made for a 2-year period. It was hypothesized that negative life

events congruent to personality style would affect the severity of symptoms. Again it was assumed

that such events would pose threats to the Self. The findings were in line with their hypothesis. Worst

symptom status was found in cases were life-events matched the individual’s dominant personality

style. Hammen and colleagues (1992) examined the influence of Sociotropy/Autonomy in a group of

bipolar patients. In their previous study (Hammen et al., 1989) neither style was found significant in

the onset or course of the disorder. However, this time a longer duration of study (approximately 2

years) was employed. Their data showed that individuals with a Sociotropic style had higher symptom

severity than autonomic ones. This time the Sociotropic style was found to affect the course of the

disorder in a negative way.

Another longitudinal study by Segal and colleagues (1992) was set to examine the

vulnerability and congruence hypothesis in a large group of remitted unipolar depressives. Their study,

in a similar manner to Hammen’s studies, attempted to test the model on a high-risk group (remitted

patients). They assessed relapse rates over 1 year in association with personality styles and negative

life events. In contrast to the previous studies, their results provided general support for the model.

Subjects with Self-Critical motivations (Autonomic) relapsed more often following an achievement

event than interpersonal related events. However, this specific matching was not observed for

Dependent (Sociotropic) individuals. Nevertheless, negative life events predicted relapse irrespective

of their domain.

9

Is the model applicable to other disorders or is it only relevant to affective disorders?

This question and the vulnerability and congruent hypotheses were examined in 2 cross-sectional

studies by Robins et al. (1990). The first study was set to replicate Hammen’s (1989) study and

contained 2 clinical groups. They examined the hypotheses in a large group of depressives and also in

a group of inpatient Non-depressed schizophrenics. This time the specific congruence effect was

observed for the Sociotropic individuals. On the other hand, the data from the Autonomous subjects

did not support the general vulnerability hypothesis or the specific congruent event matching.

However, the general vulnerability effect was observed only in the Depressive group. The

Sociotropy/Autonomy dimensions were not applicable to Non-Depressed Schizophrenics. Thus, the

investigators concluded that the vulnerability model is possibly applicable to clinical populations with

affective disorders only. The second study examined the applicability of the model in groups of

dysphoric and nondysphoric students. This time they found modest support for the model. Again, high

Sociotropy was related to greater levels of depression following negative interpersonal events, but the

predicted effects for the Autonomic students were not observed. Neither vulnerability nor specific

congruence effects were found in the non-dysphoric group.

Is the model applicable to non-clinical populations? Would Sociotropic or Autonomic

styles have their general or specific vulnerability roles in people with no prior history of affective

episodes? Both Beck’s and Blatt’s models have proposed that the vulnerability pertains to a continuum

of depressive affect from mild to more extreme clinical cases (Blatt & Maroudas, 1992). Empirical

studies have pursued this question and some support for the general model has been documented (see

previous study - Robins, 1990 study 2). However, the results are again mixed about the specific

congruence (personality - congruent event) hypothesis.

One of the first studies to integrate and examine the issue of cognitive vulnerability and stress

in a non-clinical population was conducted by Hammen et al. (1985). They examined the

Sociotropy/Autonomy dimensions from a self-schema information processing perspective in

association with stressful life-events and depression. The study employed a longitudinal design and a

large group of students was followed for a period of 4 months. Their Self-schema approach

distinguished between Dependent Schematics (Sociotropy) and Self-Critical Schematics (Autonomy).

Consistent with the vulnerability and congruence hypothesis, they predicted that Dependent and Self-

Critical Schematics would become depressed or would experience elevated levels of depression

10

following a schema-congruent negative event (social and achievement). Life events and Depression

were assessed by a combination of self-report (questionnaires) and interview methods, which

interestingly enough yielded different results. Students characterized by Dependent schemas reported

results consistent with the general vulnerability and specific congruence hypotheses. The same was

true for Self-Critical students, although achievement events had a modest impact. On the other hand,

the self-reported method for assessing life events (questionnaires) found the dependent schematics to

be at risk following any type of negative event, whereas no association between event type and

depression was found for Self-Critical Schematics.

Other studies have provided similar general support for the general vulnerability hypotheses in

non-clinical populations, but have also generated considerable mixed results regarding the specific

congruence hypotheses (Robins et al., 1988, 1995, see Robins 1995 for a review).

1.1c Critical Summary: Present Problems and Future Directions

In summary, one can argue that the aforementioned studies demonstrate that either Sociotropic

or Autonomic self-discrepancy indicates a general vulnerability for affective disorders, especially

when the variable of Stress is involved. The issue of specific congruence has generated mixed results,

but serves to highlight a number of important problems in this research area.

First, assessing whether an event is Sociotropic or Autonomic is a complex matter, and the

current life event measures have not been designed to measure the “domain match” of each event. For

instance, an event that would probably be judged as Sociotropic (i.e. a fight with a family member) is

likely to have autonomic aspects attached to it (the fight might disrupt some goals and plans of an

Autonomic individual). This is probably one of the reasons why longitudinal studies that have used

structured interview methods to assess the incidence and the type of life events, have yielded greater

support for the specific congruence hypothesis (see Hammen’s studies). It is also the case that the

assessment of the constructs of Sociotropy and Autonomy is far from complete. Apart from the

theoretical conceptual differences among the frameworks of the main theorists discussed above, there

are also empirical complications. There are several instruments designed to measure these constructs,

and the studies reported herein have used their own theoretically preferred instrument. Also, there

have been criticisms regarding the reliability of self-report measures in the assessment of these

personality dimensions (Coyne & Whiffen, 1995). Other methods such as behavioral interviews, or

11

information from close friends increase the chances of correct measurement. Hammen’s (1985) study

illustrates these issues (eg. Different results among interview and self-report measures) and also

provides a starting point for assessing the personality constructs of Sociotropy and Autonomy with

methods other than Self-report instruments (eg. Behavioral interviews). The ideal would be to use a

combination of these strategies to measure such complex constructs (for further critical discussions see

Hammen et al., 1985; Robins, 1995; Segal et al., 1992; Coyne & Whiffen, 1995).

Finally, most of the investigators in the area have continuously stressed the unexplored role of

coping strategies, event perceptions, social support resources, chronic and episodic stressors, family

environment and familial risk history and so forth. These represent areas that have the potential to

advance the model by revealing the role of other critical variables.

1.2 Integrating Personality Vulnerability Models with Coping Strategies

1.2a Sociotropy/Autonomy & Coping: The Repressive Coping Strategy

It might be that individuals with highly developed Sociotropic or Autonomic styles also have

other specific and static characteristics which possibly make their responses to negative life events or

even their own illnesses (chronic stressor) maladaptive. Different coping strategies might also be

responsible for the different results obtained by interview and self-report methods. Blatt’s (1990)

personality framework considers theoretical issues of defense mechanisms, and thus provides a

starting point for considering the role of coping strategies in Sociotropy and Autonomy. In one of the

most recent formulations of his theory he discusses two fundamental personality configurations that he

considers essential for personality development and general psychopathology (not only affective

disorders). These are the personality configurations of Interpersonal relatedness (Dependency) and

Self-definition (Self-Criticism). In his discussion of the underlying characteristics of these

configurations, he proposed that each have their own class of defenses. A distinction is made between

avoidant defenses (eg. Repression, denial) and counteractive ones (eg. Overcompensation,

intellectualization). The former are hypothesized to be characteristic of individuals concerned with

issues of Interpersonal relatedness, whereas the latter underline individuals preoccupied with issues of

Self-definition. These personality configurations are, as the author also notes, conceptually similar to

Beck’s cognitive formulation of Sociotropy (interpersonal relatedness) and Autonomy (self-

definition). Hence, one adhering to a cognitive perspective might assume that Sociotropy and

12

Autonomy would also be characterized by similar coping strategies (defense mechanisms). For the

purposes of this paper the focus will be on the coping strategy of Repression.

Traditionally, Freud considered the notion of Repression as one of the primary ego defense

mechanisms whose purpose was to protect the Self from the stress produced by internal and external

realities. In Freud’s own words: “The essence of Repression lies simply in turning something away

and keeping it at a distance from the conscious” (1915, as cited in Erdelyi, 1990). However, it is not

until recently that Freud’s notion is becoming subject to vigorous empirical investigation. Over the

years, Repression has been redefined and many attempts towards its systematic measurement have

been made.

In a landmark study Weinberger and Schwartz (1979) devised an operational definition of

Repression, which has since become the standard in classifying groups characterized by a repressive

coping style. Repressors were operationally defined as persons with low scores on a self-report

anxiety scale and high scores on a social desirability and defensiveness scale. Three more categories

were defined; Truly Low Anxious (low anxiety-low defensiveness), High Anxious (high anxiety-low

defensiveness), and Defensive high anxious (high anxiety-high defensiveness). The groups were then

tested under a phrase association task developed in order to measure physiological and behavioral

stress. Apart from the self-report stress measure (subjective) a wide number of objective stress

measures were employed (physiological and behavioral). The findings of the study supported the

investigators’ predictions and provided preliminary support for the construct validity of the repressive

coping style. When compared to the other groups, individuals with a repressive coping style (low-

anxiety, high defensiveness), especially the low anxious, were found to experience significantly

greater levels of stress (comparable to the high anxious) as measured by objective methods. However,

they reported lower levels of stress than any other group. Thus, one observes a dissociation between

subjective and objective measures of stress. It is important to note that the dissociation is not due to

self-presentational strategies. Other studies have found that a process of self-deception takes place. In

addition, Repressors have been found to avoid negative affect and to be particularly resistant to

negative information. All such characteristics predispose them to physical and mental health risks and

also make them unsuitable for particular types of psychotherapy (see Weinberger, 1990 for a general

overview).

13

Other investigators have also articulated cognitive definitions of repression. Erdeleyi (1990, p.

4) has described Repression as an “intentional not thinking” or “intentional forgetting”, whereas

more recently Brewin (1997, p. 152) described it as “a decrease in the level of activation and hence

the accessibility of a specific representation in memory, produced by an active inhibitory process”.

Definitions of the latter kind are particularly well suited for understanding the cognitive mechanisms

of the repressive coping style, and indeed some initial efforts towards this direction have been made

(Myers et al., 1998).

However, Weinberger’s et al. (1979) Coping framework represents the most advanced method

to date for identifying Repressive defenses. The reasons for its suitability are also theoretical. His

coping framework is based on a strong psychoanalytic foundation. On the other hand, its empirical

nature provides one with the tools to measure the complex concept of Repression and to shed light on

the role of Repressive defenses in Beck’s Personality model. Likewise, Beck’s personality styles

evidence great theoretical convergence with psychodynamic theories of personality. Furthermore, the

construct validity of the Sociotropic and Autonomic personalities derives not only from Beck’s

Cognitive theory but also from Blatt’s dynamic perspective. This matter is also acknowledged by the

authors responsible for designing the most recent measurement scale of Sociotropy and Autonomy

(Personal Style Inventory-Revised, Robins et al., 1994). It follows that proper measurement of these

concepts should recognize the role of coping strategies highlighted by these theorists. Otherwise, the

construct validity of these styles is limited and requires revisions. Blatt has examined the intrapersonal

dimensions of these styles by considering the role of defense mechanisms. His model places a

considerable emphasis on Repression, which he sees as a central mechanism in individuals

characterized by Dependent (Sociotropic) personalities. Thus, the main aim of the present project was

to examine the presence and role of Repression in these personality styles. The following section

outlines the expected relationships between the main variables implicated in these personality and

coping models.

14

1.2b Towards “Coping-friendly” Personality styles: Predictions

The main premise of this investigation pertains to the relationship between the personality

styles of Sociotropy/Autonomy and the coping strategy of Repression. Other secondary variables

considered were Self-Reported Depression, Anxiety, and Social Desirability. Finally, Demographic

characteristics such as Gender and Nationality were also studied in relation to personality styles and

coping strategies. The predictions unfold under the following categories:

1. Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression

2. Repression and Self-Reported Depression

3. Sociotropy/Autonomy and Social Desirability

4. Sociotropy/Autonomy and Self-Reported Depression/Anxiety

1. With regards to Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression, it is expected that:

1a. A Sociotropic personality style will be characterized by a Repressive coping strategy

Hence, at this stage of the empirical investigation, Sociotropic individuals should evidence higher

levels of Repression and a positive correlation between Sociotropy and Repression is expected.

1b. An Autonomic personality style will be characterized by Non-Repressive coping

strategies

Hence, Autonomic individuals should demonstrate low levels of Repression and a weak or negative

correlation between Autonomy and Repression is also expected.

In light of Repression as a coping strategy potentially implicated in the personality styles of

Sociotropy/Autonomy, a new set of hypotheses may be generated with regards to aspects of affective

vulnerability.

2. With regards to Repression and Self-Reported Depression, it is expected that:

2a. A Repressive coping strategy should lead to lower levels of Self-Reported Depression

or no SR-depression at all.

Hence, the lowest levels of Depressive severity should be reported by Repressive individuals and a

negative correlation should be evidenced between Repression and Self-reported Depression.

15

3. With regards to Sociotropy/Autonomy and Social Desirability, it is expected that:

3a. A Sociotropic style should want to appear Socially Desirable

It follows that Sociotropic individuals will report higher levels of Social Desirability and Sociotropy

and Social Desirability should be correlated with each other in a positive direction.

3b. An Autonomic style should have limited concerns about Social Desirability

Thus, Autonomic individuals should report low levels of Social Desirability, and a negative

correlation between Autonomy and Social Desirability should be demonstrated.

4. Finally with regards to Sociotropy/Autonomy and Self-Reported Depression (and Anxiety), it

is expected that:

4a. Both styles should predispose one to depression/depressive affect and thus maintain

their documented vulnerability role in affective disorders.

Hence, both Sociotropy and Autonomy should correlate positively with measures of self-reported

depression. However, as noted by Robins (1994) the correlations should not be high enough to suggest

that the personality styles are measuring depressive states. The same path of logic applies to their

relationship with Self-report measures of Anxiety. As Coyne and Whiffen (1995) have argued the

ideal personality vulnerability model should measure personality characteristics rather than

pathological states.

The above predictions were tested on a group of university students. Standardized scales

administered in the form of a questionnaire were employed in order to provide the necessary

measurements. Analysis of the results adopted both Categorical and Dimensional perspectives. The

main goals of the project were to test the above predictions, and to provide empirical evidence

regarding the role of Repressive defenses in the Sociotropy/Autonomy model.

16

Method

2.1 Participants and Procedure

One hundred and twenty two (122) subjects participated in this study. All were students

pursuing undergraduate studies at the University of Stirling in Scotland. There were 48 males (39.3%)

and 74 females (60.7%) with a mean age of 24 years. Other demographic measurements revealed that

79 students (63.8%) had a British nationality, whereas the remaining 43 (35.2%) were from

International backgrounds. The considerably large International group reflects the University’s diverse

and multicultural student population and therefore provided an opportunity to examine potential

cultural differences. All participants were either selected at random from the university residences or

via the Psychology Department’s subject panel. The latter group of students participated for course

credit.

Initially, the potential participants were informed orally regarding the nature of the study and

then were given a questionnaire along with a letter of introduction. The letter informed the participants

that the current project is concerned with certain psychological aspects of personality styles and

coping strategies. Additionally, it was explained that their participation is voluntary and confidential.

The issue of their confidentiality and anonymity was further emphasized by stressing the fact that the

project adhered to the regulations of the Data Protection Act (DPA). Also, they were informed that the

Psychology Department’s Ethics committee had approved the project. The letter of introduction served

as a consent form. Completion of the questionnaire indicated that the participants understood the

nature of the study and gave their consent to participate. Finally, upon completion of the questionnaire

they were advised to return it to the investigator either by the university’s internal mail or directly to

the psychology office. Participants were encouraged to contact the researcher should they require

additional information.

17

2.2 Measures

The study employed self-report standardized measures. Three broad variables were of interest

and the scales selected were aimed at operationalizing and measuring these variables. These were:

1. Personality Style, 2. Coping Strategy, and 3. Self-Reported Depressive severity. Other

secondary variables that resulted from the measures were Social Desirability and Anxiety.

The Personal Style Inventory-II was used to provide the measures of the participants’

personality style. This is a Likert scale and its items are scored on a continuum from 1 to 6 (Strongly

Disagree to Strongly Agree). It contains a total of 48-items. There are two main personality styles: a.

Sociotropy and b. Autonomy (24-items each). The cumulative score of three sub-factors, namely: 1.

Concern About What Others Think, 2. Dependency, 3. Pleasing others, make up the total score of

Sociotropy. Some representative statements are: “I am very sensitive to criticism by others”(1), “I find

it difficult to be separated from people I love”(2), “I often put other people’s needs before my own”

(3). Likewise, Autonomy is calculated from the cumulative score of 3 other sub-factors: 1.

Perfectionism/Self-Criticism, 2. Need for Control, 3. Defensive Separation. Examples of statements

measuring the concept of Autonomy include: “ It bothers me when I feel that I am only average and

ordinary” (1), “I resent it when people try to direct my behaviour or activities” (2), “I tend to keep

other people at a distance” (3). The PSI-R(revised) is the most recently developed measure of

Sociotropy and Autonomy, and has corrected many empirical and theoretical errors found in previous

measures of Sociotropy and Autonomy. The scale has been validated in groups of patients affected

with depression, demographically matched controls, and college students (Robins et al., 1994).

The Bendig Manifest Anxiety scale (B-MAS) was initially developed to measure clinical anxiety

in psychiatric patients (Buss et al., 1955). This study used the short form version of the scale. There

are 20 items that assess anxiety. The items are scored either as True or False, and some of them are

scored negatively. Some typical items include: “I find it difficult to keep my mind on a task or job” or

“I am usually calm and not easily upset”. The items are worded in such a way that they provide a trait

measure of anxiety. Also, some items are scored negatively, which eliminates a response bias towards

True or False answers. There is evidence that the scale is a reliable measure of anxiety with good

psychometric properties (Buss et al., 1955; Bendig, 1956).

The Marlowe and Crowne Social Desirability scale (MC) is a widely used inventory

originally constructed to measure social desirability in self-reports. It is often used in psychometric

18

studies concerned with the development of measurement scales and inventories in order to control for

social desirability effects. However, it has been recognized that the MC also measures “disapproval

avoidance”, “proneness to dissimulation”, and “defensiveness” (self-restraint) in social relationships.

People with high scores on MC present themselves in an overly positive way and, as some evidence

suggest, they are doing so in a self-deceptive manner (Weinberger, 1994). It has a True or False format

and it contains 33 items, some of which are also scored negatively. Statements such as “I have never

intensely disliked anyone” and “There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone” are

representative of the scale. Several studies have validated the MC scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964,

Cosentino & Kahn, 1967).

A combined form of the Bendig Manifest Anxiety scale (B-MAS) and the Marlowe and

Crowne Social Desirability scale (MC) were used to operationalize the variable of Coping Strategy.

Weinberger’s et al. (1979) method was adopted. This approach results in a taxonomy of 4 groups, each

postulated to represent different coping strategies. There are people who report low anxiety and high

defensiveness (Low-MAS -- High MC, Repressors), others who score low on anxiety and low on

defensiveness (Low-MAS -- Low-MC, Truly Low Anxious), those who score high on anxiety and

low on defensiveness (High-MAS – Low MC, High Anxious), and finally people who report both

high anxiety and high defensiveness (High-MAS – High MC, Defensive High Anxious).

Finally, the Short form Beck Depression Inventory was administered in order to measure

self-reported depressive severity. The BDI is one of the most widely used measures of depression, and

it is particularly valuable for screening purposes. The Short form version contains only 13 out of the

21 original items, but nevertheless it has value as a self-report measure of depression. Its items map

characteristics of depression such as affective state (e.g. item 1: Sadness), cognitive state (e.g. item 2:

Pessimism), Behavioral state (e.g. item 8: Social withdrawal), Physical state (e.g. item 12:

Fatiguability), and so forth. Each item contains 4 statements that reflect the total experienced severity

of their item. For instance the “Guilt” item (6) contains the following statements: “I don’t feel

particularly guilty, I feel bad or unworthy a good part of the time, I feel quite guilty, I feel as though I

am very bad or worthless”. The first statement provides a 0 score for the “Guilt” item, whereas the last

statement gives the maximum score (3) that an item can take. Hence, each item can give a score from

0 to 3, which provides a total score range of 0-39. There is evidence to believe that the short form

version is a good measure of Depressive severity (Lightfoot & Oliver, 1985).

19

2.3 Design

A cross-sectional design was employed. It was of interest to see whether categorical and

dimensional approaches would yield similar results. Hence, two classes of variables were constructed.

The assessment of group differences required categorical variables, whereas the assessment of

relationships necessitated dimensional variables.

Categorical Variables: The following procedures were followed in order to construct the

categorical variables. First, there was a variable designating the personality style of each participant.

If the Sociotropy score was greater than the Autonomy score, then the individual would be classified

as “Sociotropic”, and vice versa. However, if the scores on the two factors were equal then the

individual was classified as “Mixed”, and was omitted.

A second categorical variable was constructed for the classification of Coping style. The

Weinberger et al. (1979) method provides 4 groups each characterized by their own coping strategies.

However, as the interest of this project was centred on the Repressive coping style, a distinction was

made between Repressors and a composite group of Non-Repressors. Hence, individuals who scored

low on the anxiety measure (MAS<8) and high on the social desirability scale (MC>17) were

classified as “Repressors”, whereas all others were identified as “Non-Repressors”. The classification

criteria were adopted from Myers et al. (1998).

Finally, depressive severity was also classified into 2 groups. Individuals who scored 7 or

higher on the BDI were classified as experiencing some depression (Depressives), whereas the

remaining subjects were put into a group of Non-Depressives.

Other categorical variables of interest included gender (male, female) and nationality (British,

International).

Dimensional Variables: With regards to the dimensional variables of the study only

Repression requires special discussion. The scales used to measure Sociotropy, Autonomy and

Depressive severity provide these variables in a dimensional form. However, a new procedure was

used to provide a variable that would reflect the degree to which an individual is repressive or not.

First, the Z-scores of the MAS and the MC were calculated in order to standardize their values. Then,

the standardized anxiety score was subtracted from the standardized social desirability score and then

the result was multiplied by -1 in order to change the negative sign of Repressive values. Thus, the

higher the score on the Repressive variable, the more Repressive the individual. It should be

20

emphasized that although this procedure has a rational basis, the author has found no other studies that

have used a similar technique. The literature on the Repressive coping style put forward by

Weinberger et al. (1979) treats the Repressive coping style as a group that one either belongs to or not.

Table 2 in the appendix, summarizes the categorical and dimensional variables considered in

this study and provides the procedures and criteria used to construct them.

21

Results

3.1 Descriptive statistics: Personality, Coping, and SR-Depression/Anxiety

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and the ranges among the measures of

personality, coping (Repression, Social Desirability), and SR-Depression/Anxiety. The mean scores of

Sociotropy and Autonomy were 91.33 and 84.15, respectively. Thus, the group as a whole was more

Sociotropic. Further, the BDI mean was 4.27, a rather low score that suggests low levels of depressive

severity in the group. The anxiety measure (MAS) gave a low 8.77 mean score, whereas the average

Social desirability level was moderately high (16.21). Finally, the mean score on Repression was

approximately 0 (-5.4687E-1). These results are comparable to the normative data provided by Robins

et al. (1994), Crowne and Marlowe (1964), and Cosentino and Kahn (1967). To summarize, the

descriptive statistics revealed a rather Sociotropic group with minimal depressive severity and anxiety,

not repressive, but with moderate social desirability and defensive levels. Comparisons between the

present results and previous normative data suggest no important differences.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics: Personality, Coping, and SR-Depression/AnxietyDescriptive data. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges among measures ofPersonality, Coping, Social Desirability and SR-Depression/Anxiety

Measure M SD Range Minimum MaximumSociotropy 91.3361 17.0835 93.00 41.00 134.00Autonomy 84.1557 16.5555 92.00 32.00 124.00BDI 4.2705 4.7413 22.00 .00 22.00MAS 8.7787 4.9801 20.00 .00 20.00MC 16.2131 5.8199 29.00 1.00 30.00Repression 0* 1.6438 7.71 -4.09 3.62N=122 (non-clinical population, university students), *-5.4687E-16,BDI= Beck Depression Inventory (short form), MAS= Manifest Anxiety Scale,MC= Marlowe and Crowne Social Desirability Scale

3.2 Demographic differences: Gender & Nationality

It was of interest to see whether the participants’ responses differed in terms of their

demographic characteristics. Therefore independent sample t-tests were performed to evaluate gender

and nationality group differences on Sociotropy/Autonomy (PSI), Repression (B-MAS-MC), self-

reported Depressive Severity (BDI), Manifest Anxiety (B-MAS), and Social Desirability (MC). There

were 48 males and 74 females. Seventy-nine (79) students were British and the other 43 were

International ones. With regards to gender, the only significant differences emerged on the measures

of Sociotropy and Anxiety. Female participants were found to be more Sociotropic and Anxious. On

average, females scored significantly higher on Sociotropy ( t(120)= -2.956, p= 0.004 ) than males.

22

Further, they reported more anxiety than males, and the difference was also statistically significant

(t(120) = -2.645, p=0.009). They also had higher BDI scores and interestingly enough their mean

scores on Repression and Social Desirability were smaller than the respective male scores.

Nevertheless, none of these differences were significant. Nationality seemed to be less important than

gender as a demographic variable. Both British and International students were similar across almost

all measures. However, the personality style of the participants was sensitive to cultural differences.

International students were found to be considerably and significantly more Autonomous than British

students (t(120)=-2.201 , p= 0.030). On the other hand, British students had higher scores on

Sociotropy but the difference was not significant.

3.3 Group differences: Personality, Coping & Depression Groups

Table 2 provides all the mean score values, standard deviations, and significance levels of all

the measures across the Personality, Coping, and Depression groups.

Personality Group: There were many more participants who classified as Sociotropic (82)

than Autonomic (40). Sociotropic individuals reported higher levels of depressive severity and anxiety

than their Autonomous counterparts but t-tests revealed that the differences were not significant. With

regards to Repression the Autonomic group had a negative mean score, whereas the Sociotropic group

yielded a positive average. Thus, Sociotropic individuals were more Repressive, however, the

difference was not significant too. The only significant difference emerged in the case of Social

desirability where the Sociotropic persons reported a higher mean score (t(120)=3.367,p=0.001) than

Autonomic individuals.

Coping Group: The Coping Style group contained 84 persons classified as Non-Repressives,

and the remaining 38 as Repressives. Interestingly enough all the differences between group means

were highly significant at 1% level. Participants characterized by a Repressive coping style were

significantly less Sociotropic and Autonomic than the rest who were characterized by other coping

strategies (Non-Repressives). However, the Repressors reported higher Sociotropic scores than

Autonomic Scores and both results were lower than their respective group mean values. Additionally,

Repressors reported almost no depressive severity, whereas the mean BDI score of Non-Repressors

was higher, indicating some levels of depression. Finally, by virtue of their operational definition

(Low Mas – High MC) Repressors were found to be less anxious and more socially desirable than

Non-Repressors. Of course, they also scored much higher on Repression than the rest.

23

Depression Group: Finally, the Depressive severity group consisted of 101 participants

classified as having “No depression” (BDI<8), and 21 who were classified as having “Some

depression” (BDI>7). Those who had some depression, in general, reported higher scores on both

Sociotropy and Autonomy factors than those with no depression. Also the depressives were more

Sociotropic than Autonomic and the difference was significant (t(120)=-3.379 , p=0.001). Of course,

they evidenced higher Depression mean scores, and were characterized by greater anxiety levels

(t(120)=-4.371, p=0.001). On the other hand, they appeared less Socially Desirable (t(120)=3.511,

p=0.001) and less repressive (t(120)=4.940, p=0.001) than individuals from the “No Depression”

group.

Table 2. Group differences: Personality, Coping & Depression GroupsMeans and Standard Deviations among measures of Sociotropy/Autonomy, Repression, SR-Depression,Anxiety, and Social Desirability across Demographic, Personality, Coping, and Depression groups

Group Measure Sociotropy Autonomy Repression BDI MAS MCMales(48)a

85.8b

(17.5)c85.8(17.2)

0.3(1.7)

4(5.1)

7.3(5.2)

16.3(6.8)Gender Females

(74)95.9**

(15.9)83.0(16.1)

-0.2(1.5)

4.4(4.4)

9.7**(4.5)

16.1(5)

British(79)

92.8(18.3)

81.7(15.8)

0(1.7)

4.7(5.3)

8.7(5.3)

15.7(6.2)

Nationality International(43)

88.5(14.3)

88.5*(17.1)

0.14(1.4)

3.3(3.2)

8.8(4.2)

17.1(4.8)

Sociotropic(82)

97.1***(14.7)

79.1(14.1)

0.11(1.5)

4.5(5)

9.2(4.7)

17.4***(5.1)Personality Autonomic

(40)79.5(15.5)

94.5***(16.3)

-0.23(1.7)

3.7(4)

7.8(5.2)

13.7(6.4)

Repressive(84)

83.8(17.9)

74.1(15.4)

1.86***(0.9)

1.2(1.7)

4(2.4)

21.5***(3.8)

Coping Non-Repressives(38)

94.7***(15.6)

88.7***(15)

-0.84(1.8)

5.6***(5)

10.9***(4.3)

13.8(4.8)

Depressives(21)

102.3***(12.9)

95.7***(13)

-1.47***(1.07)

12.8***(4.3)

12.8***(4.2)

12.3(5.2)

Depression Non-Depressives(101)

89(17)

81.7(16.2)

0.3(1.57)

2.4(2.2)

7.9(4.7)

17***(5.6)

N=122, BDI= Beck Depression Inventory, MAS= Manifest Anxiety Scale, MC= Marlow and CrowneSocial Desirability scale. ** Difference is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *** Difference issignificant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed), a= number of subjects, b= mean scores, c= standard deviations

24

3.4 Relationships: Sociotropy/Autonomy, Repression, & Depressive Severity

Correlational analyses were performed to evaluate the strength of the relationships between

the main variables implicated in these aspects of personality and coping. Both Sociotropy and

Autonomy correlated negatively with Repression. Autonomy had the highest negative correlation,

although both correlations were significant. On the other hand, both Sociotropy and Autonomy were

positively related to depressive severity. The strength of the association between personality and

depressive severity was greater for Sociotropy. Sociotropy and Autonomy yielded a low positive

association with each other, which was nevertheless significant. A similar pattern was observed

between personality and anxiety. Both styles were positively related to the anxiety measure, and

Sociotropy had the strongest relationship. Autonomy was negatively related to social desirability,

whereas Sociotropy yielded no correlation at all.

Furthermore, the higher one’s depressive severity, the less likely he was to be characterized by

a repressive coping style. The BDI and Repression gave a significantly high negative correlation with

each other. Another negative correlation was observed between the BDI and Social desirability. The

more depressed one was, the lower his social desirability levels would be on the MC scale. In contrast,

depressive severity was highly correlated with anxiety in a positive direction. Anxiety increased along

with depression. A summary of all the correlations is provided in table 3.

Table 3. Relationships: Sociotropy/Autonomy, Repression, & Depressive SeverityCorrelations, Means and Standard Deviations among measures of Personality, Coping, and SR-DepressionMeasure Autonomy BDI MAS MC Repression M SDSociotropy .248** .385** .537** .002 -.325** 91.33 17.08Autonomy .289** .433** -.388** -.500** 84.15 16.55BDI .551** -.290** -.512** 4.27 4.74MAS -.351** -.822** 8.77 4.98MC .822** 16.21 5.81Repression 0a 1.64N=122, BDI= Beck Depression Inventory, MAS= Manifest Anxiety Scale, MC= Marlow and CrowneSocial Desirability scale. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, a. -4.1269E-16

Additional correlational analyses were performed in order to take into consideration the 6

subfactors that characterize Sociotropy and Autonomy. As expected, both personality styles correlated

quite well with their subfactors. All the results were significant at 1% level. However, there was a

rather strong positive association between Perfectionism/Self-Criticism, an Autonomic factor, and

Sociotropy. Another Autonomic factor (Need for Control) was also positively related to Sociotropy.

Similar unexpected positive correlations were observed between two Sociotropic factors (Concern

about what others think, Pleasing others) and Autonomy. These unexpected results explain the positive

25

correlation observed between Sociotropy and Autonomy. Out of all the subfactors, “Pleasing Others”

gave the highest positive correlation with Depressive severity and Anxiety. In the case of the

Autonomic subfactors Perfectionism/Self-Criticism and Need for Control evidenced the highest

positive correlations with Depressive severity and Anxiety, respectively. Table 1 in the appendix,

provides in detail the relationships of Sociotropy/Autonomy with their subfactors, and highlights the

problematic correlations.

The positive correlation between Sociotropy and Autonomy, Sociotropy and

Perfectionism/Self-Criticism, as well as the high positive relationship between both styles and

Anxiety/Depressive severity make it difficult to see which variable is responsible for each relationship

or pattern of relationships. Therefore, partial correlations were used in order to control for the effects

of other variables, especially the ones considered problematic in the pattern of relationships between

Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression.

Table 4 shows the exact values of the partial correlations that controlled for Anxiety. When

controlling for the effects of Autonomy, the relationship between Sociotropy and Repression remained

significantly negative, yet the strength of their association decreased considerably. However,

additional partial correlation analyses revealed that anxiety was the critical variable. Indeed, when the

statistical analysis controlled for the effects of Anxiety, then a completely different pattern of

relationships emerged. Sociotropy evidenced a moderate but significant positive correlation with

Repression. The previous positive correlation of Sociotropy with Depressive severity disappeared. On

the other hand, Autonomy retained its significant negative correlation with Repression. Hence, the

variable of anxiety seems to play a significant role in the relationships between aspects of personality

and coping.

Table 4. Relationships: Sociotropy/Autonomy, Repression, & Depressive SeverityPartial Correlations among measures of Sociotropy, Repression, and SR-Depression;Controlling for Anxiety (MAS)Measures Autonomy Repression SR-Depression M SDSociotropy .02 .24** .13 91.33 17.08Autonomy -.28** .06 84.15 16.55Repression -.12 .00 1.64SR-Depression 4.27 4.74N=119, (M & SD N=122) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

26

Discussion

This study attempted to explore empirically the relationship between personality and coping.

The investigation involved Beck’s (1983) Personality Vulnerability model and Weinberger’s et al.

(1974) Coping framework. It was hoped that by examining the role of coping in the personality styles

of Sociotropy and Autonomy their documented function to predispose one to affective disturbance

would be better understood. Although Weinberger’s Coping framework defines four groups, the

present interest was in the Coping strategy of Repression. Other variables examined were Self-

Reported Depression, Anxiety and Social Desirability. Of secondary interest were factors such as

Gender and Nationality. The study began with two general questions. First it asked: What is the

relationship between Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression? And secondly: If a relationship is

demonstrated then what would it mean? What would the potential methodological and

conceptual implications of Repressive defenses in the Personality vulnerability model be? The

first question prompted the generic and specific predictions between the variables implicated in

aspects of personality and coping outlined earlier in the introduction. On the other hand, the second

question provided a meaningful framework for guiding this investigation. It is important to address the

first question before considering anything else.

4.1 Predictions: Analysis of results

4.2.1 Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression (1)

It was predicted that Sociotropy would be positively related to Repression, whereas

Autonomy would evidence a negative relationship (1a, 1b). However, the initial bivariate correlations

indicated that both styles were negatively correlated with Repression, although Autonomy’s

correlation was greater. In contrast, Categorical analysis indicated that Sociotropic individuals had

higher mean levels of Repressive coping than their Autonomic counterparts. However, this difference

was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, further analyses revealed some problematic

relationships between certain variables. These were a significant positive correlation between the two

personality styles, a high positive correlation between Self-Criticism (An Autonomic factor) and

Sociotropy, and finally a high positive correlation between Anxiety and the two personality styles (all

significant). These findings suggested that it is possible that some of the above variables would

27

influence the relationship of Sociotropy with Repression. Indeed, when partial correlations controlling

for the effects of anxiety were performed, Sociotropy demonstrated a modest but significant positive

correlation with Repression. In contrast, Autonomy retained its negative relationship with Repression,

and the result was equally significant. Hence, it can be argued that Repression is one of the Coping

strategies that characterizes Sociotropic individuals and distinguishes them from Autonomic ones in

general. However, the data shows more clearly that Autonomy is characterized by Non-Repressive

coping strategies. This finding is consistent with Blatt’s (1990) theoretical notion that individuals

characterized by Sociotropic-like personalities (eg. Dependent, Interpersonal relatedness) are more

likely to use avoidant defense mechanisms such a Repression and Denial (avoidant defenses), whereas

Autonomic individuals are likely to employ other more mature mechanisms (reactive defenses). Other

psychodynamic theorists have also considered the repressive defenses to be characteristic of

Sociotropic-like personalities (Lewis, 1990; Singer & Bonnano, 1990).

Indeed, a strategy of “intentional forgetting” for managing stressful and negative events is

probably more useful for achieving harmony in individuals who invest themselves and derive their self

worth from relationships. Initially, preoccupation and perseverance over negative events might

increase peer attention but in the long run it would disrupt their relationships. On the other hand,

individuals who are preoccupied with personal achievements and place greater value on their goals

than their relationships, a Repressive coping strategy would most likely be a disadvantage. Such

individuals are probably more prone and better equipped to concern themselves with painful and

negative events (ego threatening information), as such events, despite their impact, might provide

them with opportunities to better themselves. What would really be the prospective value of ignoring

potential threatening information for a person, with a competitive character, who sets goals and makes

plans in order to achieve?

4.2.2 Repression and Self-Reported Depression (2)

It was also expected that a Repressive coping strategy should lead to lower levels of Self-

Reported Depression (2a). As anticipated, individuals who classified as Repressive reported

significantly lower levels of Depression (almost no depression) than their Non-Repressive

counterparts. Additionally, a high negative correlation was obtained between Repression and Self-

Reported Depression. Given the fact that usually anxiety measures are strongly correlated with

measures of depression, which was also the case in the present study (MAS and BDI, r=0.551), then

28

this finding should not be surprising at all. However, when Repression is seen in relation to the

personality styles of Sociotropy and Autonomy, then one can begin to imagine its potential

implications in the measurement of clinical states, life events, stress and consequently the testing of

the Personality Vulnerability model. This issue deserves greater attention and thus it will be discussed

more extensively at a later point.

4.2.3 Sociotropy/Autonomy and Social Desirability (3)

It was further expected that Sociotropy would be associated with higher levels of Social

Desirability, whereas the opposite should hold true for Autonomy (3a, 3b). Such a finding would also

be consistent with the theoretical constructs of Sociotropy and Autonomy. Sociotropic individuals

should be more concerned about the social evaluations of others and thus should endorse statements

that are related to social desirability. On the other hand, Autonomic individuals should be little

concerned about issues of social desirability, as such matters would interfere with their achievement

needs. However, mixed results were obtained from the analysis of the data. The mean scores of Social

desirability were significantly higher for Sociotropic individuals in comparison to Autonomic

individuals. On the other hand, both Sociotropy and Autonomy were negatively correlated with Social

desirability. Although both correlations were significant, Autonomy’s negative association with Social

Desirability was even greater. However, when the effects of Anxiety were controlled (partial

correlation) Sociotropy correlated positively with Social Desirability, whereas Autonomy kept its

initial negative correlation. Thus, there is mixed support for the predictions concerning Sociotropy.

The dimensional approach clearly disconfirms the prediction that Sociotropy would be positively

associated with Social Desirability. On the other hand, when the effects of Anxiety were controlled the

initial hypotheses were confirmed. For once again the variable of Anxiety seems to play an important

role.

Interestingly enough, a consistent finding has been obtained by the investigators who designed

the Personal Style Inventory (Robins et al., 1994). They used the Marlowe and Crowne scale (MC –

Social Desirability) with its traditional purpose in mind. They administered the MC scale in order to

eliminate any potential social desirability response biases in the items used for measuring the

constructs of Sociotropy and Autonomy. In their studies, Social Desirability (MC) correlated

negatively with Autonomy and yielded no correlation with Sociotropy. Although they have noted the

incompatibility of such results with the construct validity of Sociotropy, no attention has been paid to

29

the fact that the MC is also useful in measuring repressive defenses. Hence, from the point of view of

this study their attempts to eliminate Sociotropic items that correlate positively with the MC limits the

construct validity of Sociotropy in two ways. First Social desirability per se is not taken into account,

and secondly the role of Repressive defenses in Sociotropy as postulated by psychodynamic theorists

becomes more difficult to be documented empirically.

4.2.4 Sociotropy/Autonomy and Self-Reported Depression/Anxiety (4)

As far as the variables of Sociotropy/Autonomy and Self-Reported Depression are concerned

it was anticipated that both styles should predispose one to Depression and consequently should

demonstrate a positive correlation with the BDI (4a). Indeed, the results supported this prediction.

Both styles evidenced low positive correlations with Self-reported Depression, yet both results were

statistically significant. Sociotropic individuals obtained higher mean BDI scores than Autonomic

individuals but the differences were not significant. On the other hand, Sociotropy demonstrated a

higher correlation with Self-Reported Depression (r=0.38) than Autonomy (r= 0.28). Exactly the same

pattern of relationships was evidenced between Sociotropy/Autonomy and Anxiety. The only noted

difference that distinguishes the two is the higher correlations obtained in the case of Anxiety. Again

Sociotropy was shown to have a stronger association with Anxiety (r=0.53) than Autonomy (r=0.43).

These findings suggest that both styles are more likely to experience depression and anxiety as

measured by self-report methods. Greater risk is observed for Sociotropy both for depression and

anxiety.

Similar cross-sectional studies have reported consistent results. Alden and Bieling (1996) have

obtained somewhat similar results among measures of Sociotropy/Autonomy2 and Self-Reported

Depression (BDI). In their study both Sociotropy and Autonomy were positively correlated with the

BDI. For Sociotropy the reported correlation was 0.46, whereas for Autonomy it was 0.44, and both

results were significant. Their reported correlations were somewhat higher than the ones reported here,

but this is probably because they used the long version of BDI and their sample consisted of female

students only. Robins et al. (1994) reported lower positive correlations between Sociotropy/Autonomy

and Self-Reported Depression (BDI). Sociotropy yielded a positive correlation of 0.20 (p<0.01),

whereas Autonomy demonstrated a higher correlation of 0.27 (p<0.001). Their sample contained male

2 As measured by the Personal Style Inventory-first version (Robins et al., 1990)

30

and female students, so the higher correlations reported in Alden and Bieling (1996) were most likely

a result of the effect produced by their female subjects.

It seems that no other studies using the Personal Style Inventory have examined the

relationships of PSI-Sociotropy/Autonomy with Anxiety. Thus, exact figures consistent (or

inconsistent) with the current data cannot be reported. However, Alford and Gerrity (1995) have

reported similar high positive correlations between Sociotropy3 and Anxiety, although no such

relationship was found for Autonomy. It is difficult to compare results across studies in a precise

manner, as there are several instruments used to assess the constructs of Sociotropy and Autonomy,

and not many studies have yet been conducted using the Personal Style Inventory. This study,

however, provides further normative results for the Personal Style Inventory deriving from a non-

clinical student population.

4.2.5 Sociotropy/Autonomy and Demographic characteristics

In line with Beck’s (1983) theoretical assumptions females dominated the Sociotropy group

and scored significantly higher on Sociotropy, whereas more males classified as Autonomic and

obtained higher Autonomy scores. The interesting finding though emerged in the case of Nationality

differences. Despite the fact that British and International students scored in a similar manner across

the majority of measures, there were differences with regards to their Personality style. International

students were significantly more Autonomic than their British counterparts. These differences were

not due to a greater proportion of male international participants, as the two groups were comparable

across gender. Again no other studies have reported any cultural differences within the personality

dimensions of Sociotropy and Autonomy. The most reasonable explanation for this finding is that

probably the international group was biased towards Autonomy. That is, it would take an Autonomic

character to leave one’s home country, for whatever reasons, in order to pursue studies in a foreign

university and country.

4.3 Critical Discussion: Repressive Defenses, Their Role in Sociotropy/Autonomy, And Implications in the Personality Vulnerability Model

Hopefully, by this time a case for the role of Repressive defenses in the Personality styles of

Sociotropy and Autonomy has been made. Repressive defenses have been studied on their own right,

and there are many aspects of this line of research that could inform in a useful manner the research

31

pertaining to the Personality Vulnerability model. The implications of Repressive defenses in self-

report behavior of clinical states as well as the experience and report of negative life events is one

aspect that merits discussion. Also, it is even more sensitive to consider the risks that a vulnerable

personality structure in conjunction with a Repressive coping style might entail, especially for high-

risk (affective) persons.

To date there have been no studies to examine directly the issue of self-report behavior of

Sociotropic and Autonomic individuals, so the following discussion should be taken with caution.

There have been suggestions that the cognitive style, perceptions, and coping strategies of these

personality styles may influence the way they report either significant life events or clinical states

(symptoms, episodes so on) (Robins, 1995). A Repressive coping mode then is likely to lead one to

report fewer negative life events, and also fewer symptoms, thereby seriously complicating the testing

of the Personality vulnerability model. Indeed, studies that have investigated the memory processes of

Repressors support the aforementioned notion.

A number of studies by Penelope Davis and her associates have examined the effects of

Repressive processes on the recall of personal, real-life, emotional experiences. One representative

study by Davis and Schwartz (1987) tested the hypothesis that Repressors would be less able than

others to recall personal, real-life experiences associated with negative affect. Repressors were

identified using the Weinberger et al. (1979) method and were compared across groups of Low

Anxious and High Anxious persons. They employed a free recall procedure of childhood memories

which included 6 recall conditions mapping different emotions (eg. General, Happy, Sad, Anger, Fear,

Wonder). As it was anticipated the Repressors recalled significantly fewer negative memories than the

other groups across all conditions. Other subsequent studies have tested the notion (under a number of

different memory designs) that Repression will affect the memory and recall of negative emotional

experiences mostly pertaining to the Self (vs. Other), and have yielded consistent results. The general

conclusion that comes out of these studies is that Repressors possess such memories but they find it

difficult to retrieve them. That is, the memories are available but for some reason are not accessible.

(Davis and Schwarz, 1987; Davis, 1987; Davis, 1990 for a general overview).

More recently a study by Myers, Brewin, and Power (1998) addressed the notion of retrieval

failure and also the possibility that Repression is underlined by an active cognitive mechanism. They

3 Sociotropy was measured using a previous Sociotropy/Autonomy scale

32

employed a modified Directed Forgetting paradigm4 and found that Repressors possess an enhanced

capacity for retrieval inhibition for negatively valanced words but not for positive ones. In other

words, Repressors have a special ability to inhibit the recall of negative information at the time of

retrieval, and this ability does not generalize to other positive information. The above finding is

consistent with Brewin’s (1997) cognitive definition of Repression, which postulates that Repression

operates as an active continuous memory process whose aim is to inhibit specific representations (eg.

Possibly ego threatening representations).

Hence, there is indirect evidence to support the notion that Repressive defenses are likely to

interfere with the Self-Report behavior of either Sociotropic or Autonomic individuals. Going from the

laboratory environment to the clinical assessment setting entails some risk, but such analogues may

provide some preliminary ideas as to what problems personality vulnerability research may encounter.

How likely is it that a Sociotropic individual characterized by Repressive defenses will report

accurately affective symptoms or negative life events? Also, would such a style pose a threat or act as

a stress buffer? In this study both Sociotropic and Autonomic Repressors yielded considerably lower

scores on Sociotropy and Autonomy than their respective group mean average. So one can rightly

argue that the risk is indeed reduced.

Also, other research has indicated that Repressors deal with negative events by using

attributional biases that emphasize the external, unstable, and specific causes of such events (Gomes &

Weinberger, 1986). On the other hand, an opposite attributional bias that places an emphasis on the

internal, stable, and global causes of negative life events has been suggested as a risk factor for

Depression (Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale, 1978; Peterson and Seligman, 1984). To add to that,

a ruminative coping style has also been proposed to be a risk factor for affective relapse (Nolen-

Hoeksema, 1998), and such a coping style is indeed quite different from the Repressive one.

So how could Repressive defenses add to the affective vulnerability already conferred by

Sociotropic (or to a lesser extent Autonomic) styles? Most of the work regarding the risks conferred by

Repressive defenses has been concerned with psychosomatic problems, impaired immune system

functioning, and cancer (Schwartz, 1990 p.420-422). Little is known yet about the effects of

Repressive defenses on psychological problems, which of course have a physiological basis too.

(Singer and Bonnano, 1990 p. 460-463). Also, the observed dissociation between subjective and

4 Generally, in a directed forgetting paradigm subjects are instructed to forget certain words (in this case negative/positive

33

objective measures of stress reported earlier in Weinberger et al. (1979) study has now been verified

by other investigations (Asendorf and Scherer, 1983; Levenson and Mades, 1980). The data point to

the same direction, that is individuals characterized by Repressive defenses physiologically are just as

reactive to stress as chronically distressed people (high anxious group). They possibly have developed

the right cognitive/affective strategies for not knowing themselves and consequently they prevent the

instruments of researchers from knowing too.

From a methodological point of view, Repressive defenses will more likely confound cross-

sectional studies that rely on Self-Report measures of affective disturbance and life events.

Longitudinal studies that rely on similar self-report instruments are also likely to be confounded. For

instance, Sociotropic negative events as well as affective symptoms and episodes, are after all

personal, real-life, emotional experiences, which are related to one’s Self. As mentioned earlier, such a

group would be particularly vulnerable and most likely would go unidentified by the present self-

report screening methods.

Most importantly though, the persistent use of Repressive defenses of Sociotropic individuals

creates a host of problems for themselves. How probable is it that they will seek help and/or

information related to their affective disorder? Even if they do seek help and information, then what

are the chances that such information will be absorbed constructively? Also, if they find themselves in

a dysfunctional relationship how likely is it that they will recognize it as a source of stress and

motivate themselves to terminate it? If not dysfunctional relationships, then what about dysfunctional

families? Familial affective disturbance is by now a widely recognized phenomenon. It is not just one

family member that is likely to suffer from an affective disorder. Affective or other forms of

psychopathology in parents of children with affective disorders is unfortunately a reality (Hammen et

al., 1990; Weissman et al., 1997). In that case, how likely is it that they will acknowledge such

circumstances and act accordingly to minimize the stress generated by their parents? How likely is it

that they will maintain a harmful dependency that will perpetuate the stressors in their life?

As Weinberger (1990) has noted, the persistent use of repressive defenses leads to

maladaptive emotion-focused coping, and counteracts the development of problem-focused coping

and problem solving skills. Hence, the consequences of such a vulnerable personality structure

(Sociotropy) and a Repressive style match can be understood properly in the long term. Even well

valanced words) across different conditions and then they are unexpectedly asked to recall the Forget-words

34

designed longitudinal studies (usually spanning 1 to 2 years) may not be able to document such long

term psychological risks. It would take considerably longer time spans to demonstrate any potential

maladaptive effects of Repressive defenses on psychological health (see Vaillant’s longitudinal study,

1977 The Grant Study). However, these are questions that cannot be answered here. Further empirical

investigations are needed to address such pressing matters.

4.4 Further Methodological and Conceptual Issues: The Role of Anxiety

Statistical analyses revealed that the variable of Anxiety played an important role in a range of

relationships between the variables of interest herein. As noted earlier in the results and this section,

Sociotropy yielded a significant positive relationship with Repression but only when the effects of

Anxiety were controlled. In doing so, the variable of Repression achieved an equal value with Social

Desirability. Hence, Social Desirability became the measure of Repression. This represents a

methodological problem, which suggests that possibly other methods for operationalizing Repression

should be sought in future investigations. Such methods should remain unaffected by self-report

measures of Anxiety. However, the high positive associations of Anxiety with Sociotropy and

Autonomy highlight another problem. They indicate that many of the items selected to measure the

personality characteristics of these two constructs also measure anxiety. As critics in the area have

noted, vulnerable personalities, ideally, should not correlate with clinical measures. A step towards

that direction has already been taken in the most recent Sociotropy/Autonomy inventory (Personal

Style Inventory-Revised, Robins et al., 1994), whereby the two personality constructs correlate only

moderately with Self-Reported Depression (BDI). However, the present study reveals that this is not

the case for other clinical variables like anxiety. Highly anxious individuals are vulnerable to Stress

anyway by virtue of their anxiety.

However, further statistical analysis looking at the role of Anxiety revealed some other more

positive findings. Self-Criticism, an Autonomic factor, has emerged as a problematic variable in the

area, as it correlates strongly with Sociotropy (r=0.473 p=0.001, in this study). Additionally,

Sociotropy and Autonomy usually evidence a low positive correlation with each other, which is

however significant (r=0.248 p=0.006, in this study). When the effects of Anxiety were controlled,

these problematic relationships disappeared. Hence, one can speculate that Sociotropic and Autonomic

items that correlate highly with Anxiety are responsible for these methodological problems. Perhaps,

35

by eliminating such items some of these problems would be resolved. It should be noted that only

partial correlations that controlled for the effects of Anxiety could account for these drastic changes in

the relationships discussed above. Partial correlations that controlled for the effects of BDI did not

reveal any significant changes.

4.5 Concluding remarks: Summary, Limitations, and Future Directions

In conclusion, the primary purpose of this investigation was to explore empirically the role of

Repressive defenses in the Personality styles of Sociotropy and Autonomy. The data indicated that

Sociotropic individuals are more likely to rely on Repressive defenses, although the association

between Sociotropy and Repression was a modest one. It was more evident that Autonomic

individuals were more likely to rely on Non-Repressive coping strategies. This was clearly supported

both by categorical and dimensional analysis. Also, the investigation provided an opportunity to

explore other relationships with clinical variables such as Self-Reported Depression and Anxiety. Both

Personality styles maintained their assumed vulnerability role (at least at a descriptive level) by

correlating highly with these clinical variables. Anxiety played a key role in moderating the

relationships between Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression. Last, Sociotropy and Autonomy were

also examined in relation to demographic variables such as Gender and Nationality. Females were

significantly more Sociotropic than males, whereas International students yielded higher scores on

Autonomy than British ones.

The cross-sectional design of the project represents one of its most important limitations.

Although, it served its explorative purpose it leaves a lot to be desired regarding the causal utility of

the documented relationships. Sociotropy was indeed positively correlated to Repression, but whether

the latter coping strategy increases the vulnerability role of Sociotropy cannot be answered here.

Likewise the presence of Non-Repressive defenses in Autonomy is a favourable finding which

suggests an intrapersonal strength on their behalf. Also, the strong associations between

Sociotropy/Autonomy and Self-reported Depression/Anxiety indicate increased vulnerability to

negative life events. Yet, all these relationships no matter how informative they might be, have little

predictive validity. Other limitations include the problems noted among measures of

Sociotropy/Autonomy and Repression. The discussion about the role of Anxiety highlighted these

36

methodological limitations, but also indicated some positive findings that resulted from such

difficulties.

Additionally, the data collected in this study can provide useful information about the other

coping strategies employed by persons with Sociotropic and Autonomic styles. It would be interesting

to explore the relationships between Autonomy/Sociotropy and the remaining Truly Low Anxious,

High Anxious, and Defensive High Anxious groups. In this study these groups served as the

composite Non-Repressive group. There is also further data to explore in greater detail the cultural

differences across the dimensions of Sociotropy and Autonomy. Presently due to space and time

limitations, all the non-British cultures were collapsed across one category (International). A final

investigation could involve the exploration of different BDI factors (Cognitive, Somatic, so on) with

the personality styles of Sociotropy and Autonomy. Beck (1983) has also proposed that these

personalities differ in their symptom presentation, with Sociotropic persons demonstrating Reactive

Depressions, and Autonomic individuals Endogenous features (Personality Specificity hypothesis).

However, the short form version of BDI used here would be weak tool in testing such research

questions. Clinical structured interviews would be a better way to examine Beck’s symptom

specificity hypothesis.

Finally, it would be worthwhile to test the predictive utility of such “Coping-Friendly”

Personality Styles within a longitudinal design. Under such different methodological conditions,

additional measures usually included in the research testing the Personality Vulnerability and

Congruence hypotheses should be studied. Such additional variables would be life events, stress, and

clinical history. A combination of Self-Report and Interview methods for assessing the frequency and

type (Sociotropic/Autonomic) of life events similar to Hammen’s (1985) would be ideal. It would

provide an opportunity to test the notion discussed earlier that Repressive defenses will interfere with

the reporting of negative information.

A broader understanding of Coping strategies should also be incorporated. The present

examination of Coping is limited by its intrapersonal bias. Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) Coping

framework could be utilized to better understand the coping strategies of Sociotropic and Autonomic

individuals. Of course, such research questions should also be tested in Clinical populations,

preferably remitted unipolar and bipolar patients. The presence of Repressive defenses, at least from a

theoretical point of view, should be intensified in such high risk groups. The study of Coping

37

strategies in such vulnerable personality styles in relation to life events and stress in affective high-risk

groups would help one to understand what factors contribute to affective relapse and what factors

possibly promote resilience to stress and sustain affective well being.

In closing this research endeavour, let us remember the wise words of George Vaillant (1977):

“Defenses can become the critical variables that determine whether environmental stress produces

madness or pearls”. Perhaps in our study of psychopathology, it is worthwhile to maintain a hopeful

spirit by considering that we as active human agents, as much as we possess the ability to perpetuate

stress and consequently sustain human disorder (engage in a process of “Stress-Generation”5), we

also possess the capacity to overcome the ill effects of environmental adversity, to sail against all

odds, and at the end prevail (engage in a process of “Stress-Resolution”).

5 see Hammen (1991)

38

References

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned Helplessness inHumans: Critique and Reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87 (1): p. 49-74

Alden, L. E., Bieling, P. J. (1996). Interpersonal convergence of personality constructs in dynamicAnd cognitive models of depression. Journal of Research in Personality. 30 (1): p. 60-75

Alford, B. A., Gerrity, D. M. (1995). The specificity of sociotropy-autonomy personality dimensionsto depression vs. anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 51 (2): p. 190-195

Arieti S., & Bemporad J. (1978). Severe and mild depression: The psychotherapeutic approach. NewYork: Basic Books

Arieti S., & Bemporad J. (1980). The psychological organization of depression. American Journal ofPsychiatry. 137, pp: 1360-1365

Asendorf, J. B., & Scherer, K. R. (1983). The discrepant repressor: Differentiation between lowanxiety, high anxiety, and repression of anxiety by autonomic-facial-verbal patterns ofbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 18: 133-37

Beck A., (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In treatment of depression: Oldcontroversies and new approaches, ed. P. J. Clayton and J. E. Barrett, pp. 265-290. NewYork: Raven.

Beck A., Epstein N., Harrison R., (1983). Cognitions, attitudes and personality dimensions indepression. British Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy. 1 (1), pp. 1-16

Bendig A. (1956). The development of a short form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal ofConsulting Psychology. 20, pp. 384

Blatt S., (1990). Interpersonal relatedness and Self-definition: Two personality configurations andtheir implications for psychopathology and psychotherapy. Book chapter in Singer J. (1990).Repression and dissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, and health.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Blatt, S. J., & Maroudas, C. (1992). Convergences among psychoanalytic and cognitive-behavioraltheories of depression. Psychoanalytic Psychology. 9 (2): p. 157-190

Blatt, S. J., & Shichman, S. (1983). Two primary configurations of psychopathology. Psychoanalysisand Contemporary Thought. 6, 187-254

Bonanno G. A., Singer J. L. (1990). Repressive Personality style: Theoretical and methodologicalimplications for health and pathology. Book chapter in Singer J. (1990). Repression anddissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, and health. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Volume 3. Loss, separation and depression. New York:Basic Books

Brewin C., (1997). Clinical and experimental approaches to understanding repression. Book chapterIn Lindsay S. (1997). Recollections of trauma: Scientific evidence and clinical practice.Plenum Press, New York.

Cosentino, F., & Kahn, M. (1967). Further normative and comparative data on the RepressionSensitization and Social Desirability scales. Psychological reports. 20, pp: 959-962

Coyne J. C., Whiffen V. E. (1995) Issues in personality as diathesis for depression: The case ofsociotropy-dependency and autonomy-self-criticism. Psychological Bulletin. 118 (3): p. 358-378

39

Crowne D., & Marlowe D., (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. NewYork: Willey.

Davis P. J. (1990). Repression and the In accessibility of emotional memories. In Singer J. (1990).Repression and dissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, andhealth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Davis, P. J. (1987). Repression and the inaccessibility of affective memories. Journal of Personality &Social Psychology. 53 (3): p. 585-593

Davis, P. J., Schwartz, G. E. (1987). Repression and the inaccessibility of affective memories. Journalof Personality & Social Psychology. 52 (1): p. 155-162

Erdleyi M., (1990). Repression, reconstruction, and defense: History and integration of thepsychoanalytic and experimental frameworks. In Singer J. (1990). Repression anddissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, and health. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Gomes, M. E., & Weinberger D. A. (1986). Attributional biases: Distinctions among depressive,defensive, and efficacious styles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, Washington, D.C., August

Hammen, C. (1991) Generation of stress in the course of unipolar depression. Journal of AbnormalPsychology. 100 (4): p. 555-561

Hammen C., Ellicott A., Gitlin M., (1990). Vulnerability to specific life events and prediction ofcourse of disorder in unipolar depressed patients. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,21 (4), p. 377-388

Hammen C., Ellicott A., Gitlin M., (1992). Stressors and Sociotropy/Autonomy: A longitudinal studyof their relationship to the course of bipolar disorder. Cognitive Therapy & Research. 16 (4),pp. 409-418

Hammen C., Ellicott A., Gitlin M., Jamison K., (1989). Sociotropy/Autonomy and vulnerability tospecific life events in patients with unipolar depression and bipolar disorders. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology. 98 (2), pp. 154-160

Hammen C., Marks T., Mayol A., DeMayo R. (1985). Depressive self-schemas, life stress, andvulnerability to depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 94 (3): p. 308-319

Hammen, C., Burge, D., Burney, E., Adrian, C. (1990). Longitudinal study of diagnoses in children ofwomen with unipolar and bipolar affective disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry. 47 (12):p. 1112-1117

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S., (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer

Levenson, R. W., & Mades L. L. (1980). Physiological response, facial expression, and trait anxiety:Two methods for improving consistency. Paper presented at the Society forPsychophysiological Research, Vancouver, British Columbia, October

Lewis H. B. (1990). Shame, Repression, Field Dependence, and psychopathology. In Singer J. (1990).Repression and dissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, andhealth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lightfoot S. L., Oliver J. M., (1985) The Beck Inventory: Psychometric properties in universitystudents. Journal of Personality Assessment 49 (4): p. 434-436

Myers L., Brewin C., Power M., (1998). Repressive coping and the directed forgetting of emotionalmaterial. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 107 (1), pp. 141-148

40

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). The other end of the continuum: The costs of rumination. PsychologicalInquiry. 9 (3): p. 216-219

Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory andevidence. Psychological Review. 91 (3): p. 347-374

Robins C. J. (1990). Congruence of personality and life events in depression. Journal of AbnormalPsychology. 99 (4): p. 393-397

Robins C. J. (1995). Personality-event interaction models of depression. European Journal ofPersonality. 9 (5): p. 367-378

Robins C. J., Block P., (1988). Personal vulnerability, life events, and depressive symptoms: A test ofa specific interactional model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 54 (5): p. 847-852

Robins C. J., Block P., Peselow E. D. (1990). Cognition and life events in major depression: A test ofthe mediation and interaction hypotheses. Cognitive Therapy & Research. 14 (3): p. 299-313

Robins C. J., Ladd J. W., Joan B., Paul H., and others (1994). The Personal Style Inventory:Preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal ofPsychopathology & Behavioral Assessment. 16 (4): p. 277-300

Schwartz G. E. (1990). Psychobiology of repression and health: A systems approach. In Singer J.(1990). Repression and dissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology,and health. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Segal Z. V., Shaw B. F., Vella D. D., Katz R. (1992). Cognitive and life stress predictors of relapse inremitted unipolar depressed patients: Test of the congruency hypothesis. Journal of AbnormalPsychology. 101 (1): p. 26-36

Vaillant, George E. (1977). Adaptation to life. 1st ed. Boston Little, Brown

Weinberger D. A., & Davidson M. N.(1994). Styles of inhibiting emotional expression:Distinguishing repressive coping from impression management. Journal of Personality. 62(4): p. 587-613

Weinberger D., (1990). The construct validity of the repressive coping style. In Singer J. (1990).Repression and dissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, andhealth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Weinberger D., Schwartz G., Davidson R., (1979). Low-anxious, high-anxious, and repressive copingstyles: Psychometric patterns and behavioral and physiological responses to stress. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology. 88 (4), pp. 369-380

Weissman, M. M., Warner, V., Wickramaratne, P., Moreau, D., Olfson, M. (1997). Offspring ofdepressed parents: 10 years later. Archives of General Psychiatry. 54 (10): p. 932-940

41

Appendix

Contents:

5.1 Table 1:Correlations between Sociotropy/Autonomy and their Subfactors

5.2 Table 2:Variables, Criteria & Procedures

5.3 Questionnaire: Personality and Coping Study

Introduction letter and Consent FormSection A: Demographics;Section B: Personal Style Inventory;Section C: Manifest Anxiety Scale & Marlowe and Crowne Social Desirability Scale(Combined, Repression);Section D: Beck Depression Inventory (Short Form);

42

Table 1. Correlations between Sociotropy/Autonomy and their SubfactorsMeans, Standard Deviations, and Zero order Correlations among measures of Sociotropy/Autonomy, and theirSub-factorsMeasures Autonomy S1 S2 S3 A1 A2 A3 M SDSociotropy .248** .863** .750** .884** .473** .295** .039 91.33 17.08Autonomy .229* .085 .282** .614** .869** .901** 84.17 16.55Concern about whatothers think .495** .673** .502** .242** .028 25.87 6.36

Dependency .461** .216* .228* -.093 27.16 5.92Pleasing Others .446** .265** .129 38.29 8.08Perfectionism/Self-Criticism .488** .325** 14.97 3.95

Need for Control .640** 28.12 6.30Defensive Separation 41.05 9.59N=122, S1= Concern about what others think, S2= Dependency, S3= Pleasing others, A1= Perfectionism/Self-Criticism, A2= Need for Control, A3= Defensive Separation. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level,** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

43

Table 2:Variables, Criteria & Procedures

Variable Type/Range Procedure Variable Type/Range Procedure

Personality

Group

Sociotropic

Autonomic

Mixed

Sociotropic:

Soc>Aut

Autonomic:

Aut>Soc

Mixed:

Soc=Aut (omitted)

Personality Sociotropy

Autonomy

24-144

Coping

Group

Repressive

Non-Repressive

Repressors:

MAS <= 8 , MC >= 17

Non-Repressors:

MAS > 8 , MC <17

(Remaining values)

Repression (ZMAS-ZMC)*(-1)

Depression

Group

No Depression

Some Depression

Depressives:

BDI >= 7

Non-Depressives:

BDI < 7

Self-

Reported

Depression

0-39

Gender Male

Female

Demographics

section

MAS 0-20

Categorical

Nationality British

International

Demographics

section

Dimensional

MC 0-33

continued…

this motionless forgetful whereturned at his glance to shining here;

that if (so timid air is firm)under his eyes would stir and squirm

newly as from unburried whichfloats the first who, his april touch

drove sleeping selves to swarm their fateswoke dreamers to their ghostly roots

and should some why completely weepmy father’s fingers brought her sleep:

vainly no smallest voice might cryfor he could feel mountains grow.

Lifting the valleys of the seamy father moved through griefs of joy;

praising a forehead called moonsinging desire into begin

joy was his song and joy so purea heart of star by him could steerand pure so now and now so yes

the wrists of twilight would rejoice

keen as midsummer’s keen beyondconceiving mind of sun will stand,

so strictly (over utmost himso hugely) stood my father’s dream

his flesh was flesh his blood was blood:no hungry man but wished him food;no cripple wouldn’t creep one mile

uphill to only see him smile.

Scorning the pomp of must and shallmy father moved through dooms of feel;

his anger was as right as rainhis pity was as green as grain

septembering arms of year extendless humbly wealth to foe and friend

than he to foolish and to wiseoffered immeasurable is

proudly and (by octobering flamebeckoned) as earth will downward climb,

so naked for immortal workhis shoulders marched against the dark

his sorrow was as true as bread:no liar looked him in the head;if every friend became his foe

he’d laugh and build a word with snow.

2

My father moved through theys of we,Singing each new leaf out of each tree(and every child was sure that springdance when she heard my father sing)

then let men kill which cannot share,let blood and flesh be mud and mire,scheming imagine, passion willed,

freedom a drug that’s bought and sold

giving to steal and cruel kinda heart to fear, to doubt a mind,

to differ a disease of same,conform the pinnacle of am

through dull were all we taste as bright,bitter all utterly thing sweet,

maggoty minus and dumb deathall we inherit, all bequeath

and nothing quite so least as truth-I say though hate were why men breathe-

because my father lived his soullove is the whole and more than all

e. e. cummings