The votes have been cast and counted, and our new Vice-President is Ken Locke. My congratulations to Ken. Ken is a founding member of SITAR and has been active in its lead-ership. Ken’s election to his new position as Vice President left a vacancy on the Executive Council (EC). Pam Sadler has graciously agreed to fill the position of Member-at-Large. Pam has been very active in SITAR as editor of the News-letter. We are confident they she will provide good advice in her capacity as Member-at-Large. Ken and Pam will be working with Krista Trobst (Past-President), Terry Tracey (President-elect), Steve Strack (Executive Officer), Marc Fournier (Member-at-Large), Lynne Henderson (Member-at-Large), and Lindsay Ayearst (Graduate Student Representa-tive) on the Executive Council.

We had a very successful meet-ing in Montreal. The keynote address was provided by Lorna Smith Benjamin. There were stimulating presentations on a variety of topics. One excellent feature of our meeting is the smooth integration of graduate students who can obtain feed-back about their work both formally after talks and during the poster session, and infor-mally through access to active researchers.

One goal of my presidency is to further the diversity of top-ics related to interpersonal structure and processes that are represented in our discus-sions. We are very active in the areas of personality structure, personality process, psycho-therapy process, psychopa-thology, dyadic processes, and dysfunctional interpersonal interactions. There are other

areas that are perti-nent. For example, we could also be discussing interper-

sonal processes in groups lar-ger than dyads, the neurosci-ence of interpersonal interac-tions, and interpersonal proc-esses affecting health.

Let’s think about starting dia-logues with our colleagues whose work is on the edge of what we think of as interper-sonal structure and process. I encourage you to invite a col-league to submit a presentation to our annual meeting who has never attended previously. I encourage you to organize symposia on novel topics for the meeting. Identify a col-league whose work could be enriched by the addition of

Meet SITAR’s New Vice President Kenneth Locke received his Ph.D. in Personal-ity/Social Psychol-ogy from

Stanford University in 1989. After teaching at the State Uni-versity of New York at Purchase for two years, he completed post-doctoral training in clinical psychology and became a li-censed psychologist. In 1996, Ken resumed full-time academic

Past President Krista Trobst, Ph.D. Psychology Department York University 4700 Keele Street Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 CANADA ktrobst@aol.com President Debbie Moskowitz, Ph.D. Psychology Department McGill University 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue Montreal, QC H3A 1B1 CANADA dsm@ego.psych.mcgill.ca President-Elect Terence J. G. Tracey , Ph.D. 446J Payne Hall, MC 0611 Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-0611 ttracey@asu.edu Vice President Kenneth Locke, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Student Health, Room 204 University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-3043 klocke@uidaho.edu Executive Officer Stephen Strack, Ph.D. VA Ambulatory Care Center 351 East Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 snstrack@aol.com Members-at-Large Marc Fournier, Ph.D. University of Toronto fournier@utsc.utoronto.ca Lynne Henderson, Ph.D. Stanford University lynne@psych.stanford.edu Pamela Sadler, Ph.D. Wilfrid Laurier University psadler@wlu.ca Graduate Student Representative Lindsay Ayearst York University layearst@yorku.ca

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

SITAR Newsletter

President’s Message Debbie Moskowitz

S o c i e t y f o r I n t e r p e r s o n a l

T h e o r y a n d R e s e a r c h

[continued on page 4]

employment as an assistant professor at the University of Idaho, where he was promoted to the ranks of associate pro-fessor in 2000 and professor in 2004.

Ken has conducted a number of studies examining the utility of interpersonal circumplex models for describing and treating psychopathology. He is especially interested in inte-grating interpersonal and so-cial-cognitive approaches, and has developed measures of interpersonal efficacy expectan-

cies and interpersonal values. Ken has also published several studies showing that the basic interpersonal motives of agency and communion can help elucidate the causes and consequences of social com-parisons.

Ken has found his involvement with SITAR to be both person-ally and professionally fulfilling, and he looks forward to help-ing SITAR continue to provide a stimulating and nurturing home for interpersonal theo-rists and researchers.

October 2005

Volume 6, Issue 1

SITAR NEWSLETT ER

Much of my career has been devoted to the study of self-presentation. Under this broad rubric, my efforts have focused on two specific topics -- socially desirable

responding and self-enhancement. Although not originally conceived in this context, my understanding of these topics has recently benefited from a re-construal in terms of agency and communion.

Research Program 1: The Structure of Self-Enhancement

Taylor and Brown (1988) provoked many personality psychologists by suggesting that positive illusions are both commonplace and adaptive in nature. Couched in social psychologi-cal terms, their claims about positive illusions seemed to recapitulate long-standing debates about the adaptive-ness of defense mechanisms. One type of positive illusion, namely, self-enhancement, was defined as overly-positive self-perceptions. When meas-ured at a trait level, the notion that self-enhancement is adaptive was hotly disputed by a number of personality reseachers (Colvin, Block, Funder, 1995; John & Robins, 1994; Paulhus, 1998).

These conflicting conclusions appear to have arisen from differing opera-tionalizations of self-enhancement. Taylor and her colleagues preferred a social comparison method. Here, par-ticipants are asked to compare them-selves to similar others: For example, are you (1) below average, (2) average, or (3) above average? A participant’s answers are then summed across a variety of characteristics. Thus indi-viduals who claim to be above average across a variety of traits score highest on the social comparison index of self-enhancement.

In contrast, critics preferred to opera-tionalize self-enhancement with a dis-crepancy formula (e.g., John & Robins, 1994). This method indexes the de-gree of departure from reality by com-paring an individual’s self-rating with a more objective criterion: e.g. peer-ratings, IQ test. Larger departures across a wider variety of traits yield the highest scores on self-

enhancement (Colvin et al., 1995). Research with objective outcome meas-ures revealed the differential outcomes for the two operationalizations of self-enhancement. The social comparison operationalization tends to yield adap-tive outcomes whereas the discrepancy operationalization yields maladaptive outcomes (Taylor et al., 2003; Kurt & Paulhus, 2005).

Uncovering the Structure

Along with a colleague, Oliver John, I investigated the structure of self-enhancement. Put another way, the question was “How many kinds of self-enhancement are there?” The answer required assessment of a large sample of individuals with both self- and ob-server-ratings. To include a broad set of traits, we mquoteseasured the Big Five traits as well as intelligence. Self-enhancement scores were calculated for each of these six dimensions and submitted to a factor analysis (Paulhus & John, 1998). The results showed a clear two factor structure. The discrepancies for Intelligence, Ex-traversion and Openness to Experience appeared on the first factor. The dis-crepancies for Conscientiousness, and, especially, Agreeableness, appeared on the second factor. With the guidance of Wiggins and Trapnell (1996), we were able to interpret these factors as agen-tic and communal in nature.

Consider the first cluster of traits: Ex-traversion represents an energetic, dominant engagement with people and life in general. Openness to Experience includes elements of independent thought, curiosity, and creativity. Along with intelligence, these elements sug-gest an active striving to manipulate the environment, that is, agency.

Consider the second cluster of traits. Agreeableness represents the coopera-tive, helpfulness that maintains group harmony. Conscientiousness is also relevant – but only the dutifulness com-ponent. Overall, individuals scoring high on this factor tend to sacrifice their

own needs for those of the group: In other words, they capture the tradi-tional notion of communal tendencies.

Research Program 2: The Structure of Socially Desirable Responding

Socially desirable responding is the ten-dency to give desirable, as opposed to accurate answers on questionnaires. Until recently, many assessors assumed that such a tendency could be scored on one dimension; A closer look re-vealed two clear dimensions (Paulhus, 1991). They appeared to represent two forms of exaggerated positivity, namely, self-deceptive enhancement and impression management. These subscales could be scored separately using my Balanced Inventory of Desir-able Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1998).

Evidence has accumulated for the con-vergent and discriminant validity of both subscales. Each correlates with

similar constructs and predicts relevant behav-ior. The two dimensions respond quite differently to faking manipulations. For example, instructions to “respond in a socially desirable fashion” affects scores on the impression management scale but not the self-deception scale.

A turning point in understanding the two subscales came with further re-search on instructional manipulation (Paulhus, 2002). It turns out that SDE can also be manipulated by instructions such as “exaggerate your intelligence” or “fake brave”. Hence SDE is not entirely self-deceptive. The Impression Management scale, on the other hand, remains present in datasets where impression management was mini-mized. Then what distinguishes the two factors?

A re-examination of the two sets of items revealed that they refer to differ-ent kinds of psychological content. SDE is a confound of self-deceptive tenden-cies with agentic content. IM, on the other hand, confounds impression management with communal content. To unconfound these scales, I wrote new sets of items to create four scales -- both agentic and communal versions of both self-deception and impression

Agentic and Communal Factors in Self-Serving Self-Descriptions by Delroy L. Paulhus

Page 2

[continued on page 4]

“SDE is a confound of self-deceptive tendencies with agentic content. IM, on the

other hand, confounds impression management with communal content.”

VOLUM E 6, ISSUE 1 Page 3

Scenes From SITAR’s Eighth Annual Meeting in Montreal, June 19-20, 2005

Using SASB Observational Coding to Differentiate Families with High and Low Potential for Child Abuse Authors(s): Elizabeth A. Skowron, Ph.D. & Aaron L. Pincus, Ph.D. Affiliation: Pennsylvania State Univer-sity Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB; Benjamin, 1974, 1996; Pincus & Benjamin, 2004) is complex model of interpersonal and intrapsychic function-ing which can be operationalized via both self-report (Intrex Questionnaires; Benjamin 2000) and observer coding (Benjamin & Cushing, 2000) assessment methodologies. The current study util-ized the SASB observer coding system and associated software to evaluate differential interpersonal functioning in families identified as at high risk and at low risk for potential child abuse. Video-tapes of 17 families engaged in a series of interaction tasks were SASB coded

for both interpersonal process and con-tent. SASB coding generates several types of data at multiple levels of analy-sis, including basic descriptions of inter-personal process and content, analysis of complex interpersonal messages, and sequential analysis of behavior using Markov chains. This poster will describe differences between high risk and low risk family interactions utilizing the full range of SASB coding parameters and methods. Interpersonal Complementarity in the Workplace Author(s): Anne-Marie Turcotte-Tremblay, Moon-ho Ringo Ho & Debbie S. Moskowitz Affiliation: McGill University This study examines the influence of the workplace environment on interpersonal behaviour. Past research on interper-sonal behaviour developed the principle

of complementarity. The traditional interpersonal circumplex model pre-dicts that, on the agency dimension, dominance pulls submission while sub-mission pulls dominance. In contrast, on the communal axis, it is supposed that quarrelsomeness elicits quarrelsome-ness while agreeableness begets agree-ableness. Nevertheless, as noted by numerous critics (Kiesler, 1983; Orford, 1986), the complementarity principle lacks consideration of other possible moderating variables. The present study compares the impact of the working versus non-working environment on interpersonal complementarity. Within the working environment, we further examine the effect of a partner’s status (supervisor/co-worker/supervisee) in an interaction on complementarity. Results show that workplace environment and status have differential impact on com-plementarity on the agentic and com-munal dimensions.

[continued on page 4]

Selected Abstracts of Posters Presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting in Montreal, QC, 2005

Outgoing president, Krista Trobst, hands the gavel over to the new president, Debbie Moskowitz.

Outgoing president, Krista Trobst, hands thank you plaque to past presi-dent, Lynn Alden.

A night out on the town in Montreal. From left: Marc Fournier, Ken Locke, Steve Strack, Krista Trobst, and Terry Tracey.

Attendees enjoy a talk in the meeting room at the hotel.

Candace Peterson, Mark Gapen, and Zhen-feng Ma enjoying the poster session.

Martin Grosse Holtforth (top right) discusses morning session with Len Horowitz, Scott Acton (top left), and colleagues.

SITAR NEWSLETT ER

interpersonal structure and processes. We could have some novel presenta-tions or dyadic presentations which would be considered works in pro-gress. For example, we could schedule a talk by one of your colleagues whose work could but has not yet involved the examination of interpersonal proc-esses followed by a theoretical talk by you on how this topic area would be enriched and extended by examining interpersonal structure and processes. Additional suggestions for alternative types of presentations would be wel-comed by myself or Terry Tracey who is the program chair.

Our next meeting will be held in Phila-delphia on Friday May 19 and Saturday May 20, 2006. Start discussing and planning now to contribute to the diversity of intellectual ideas at our next meeting.

President’s Message (cont.)

Paulhus (cont.) management (Paulhus, 2002). Sub-squent validation showed that the two impression management scales could be manipulated by appropriate instructions but that the self-deceptive versions could not. Suffice it to say that the clarification of agentic and comunal content was the critical step in creating a more useful set of measures of so-cially desirable responding.

Implications

These two research programs have a common theme, viz., the measurement of self-serving distortions in reporting personality traits. Although neither research program was initally pursued in the context of agentic and communal factors, the pivotal role of the two axes now appears undeniable. In both cases, the human tendency to give self-serving self-descriptions operates independ-ently on agentic and communal con-tent.

Consistent with recent interpersonal theorists, I assume that these two dis-tortion factors derive from the broader influence of agency and communion on human values, traits, and motivation (e.g., Horowitz, 2004; Pincus & Ansell, 2003; Wiggins, 1991). One possible sequence of these manifestations was suggested by Paulhus and John (1998): Agentic and communal values beget two motives, which beget two trait factors (dominance and nurturance). According to this model, the sequence is initiated by the transmission of agen-tic and communal values via the sociali-zation process (Trapnell & Paulhus, 2003). Children in Western societies are encouraged to seek personal achievement as well as to help others declared to be within their social group. Of course, the distinctiveness of agency and communion is made clear in Western societies as are the tradeoffs necessary to balance these two socially desirable values.

If the influence of agency and commun-ion is so strong, then why does human personality typically emerge in five dimensions? One possibility is that agency and communion are only rele-vant to the two interpersonal factors in the Big Five -- extraversion and agree-ableness. Another reconciliation sug-gests that agentic and communal facets are contained within each of the five factors (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). A third possibility is that the five-factors of genetic variance are re-shaped, though not entirely over-written, by two socialization factors (Jang et al.,

1998; Paulhus & John, 1998). Depending on the context and level of measure-ment, assessment will reveal two or five factors. The distortion evident in self-descriptions is one of those context effects. When people are asked to de-scribe themselves under conditions of high demand for positive self-presentation, then the five dimensions of personality will be distorted by two over-riding values of agency and com-munion. Hence, the two clusters of traits become more apparent (Paulhus & John, 1998). Looming large or merely latent, the interpersonal axes never recede entirely.

References Colvin, C.R., Block, J., & Funder, D.C. (1995). Overly

positive self-evaluations and personality: Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1152-1162.

Horowitz, L.M. (2004). The interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

John, O.P., & Robins, R.W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206-219.

Kurt, A., & Paulhus, D.L. (2005). Moderators of the adaptiveness of self-enhancement: Operationalization, domain, and outcome measure. Manuscript under review.

Jang, K.L., McCrae, R.R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W.J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 74, 1556-1565.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-60). San Diego: Aca-demic Press.

Paulhus, D.L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. Braun, D. N. Jack-son, & D.E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp.67-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Paulhus, D.L., & John, O.P. (1998). Egoistic and moralis-tic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1025-1060.

Pincus, A.L., & Ansell, E.B. (2003). Interpersonal theory of personality. In T. Millon & M.J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychol-ogy (Vol. 5: pp. 209-229). New York: Wiley.

Robins, R.W., & John, O.P. (1997). The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on the accuracy of self-perceptions. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

Taylor, S.E., Lerner, J.S., Sherman, D.K., Sage, R.M., & McDowell, N.K. (2003). Portrait of the self-enhancer: Well adjusted and well liked or malad-justed and friendless? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 165-176.

Trapnell, P.D., & Paulhus, D.L. (2003). Agentic and Communal Values (ACV) scale. Unpublished instru-ment, University of Winnipeg.

Wiggins, J.S., & Trapnell, P.D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personal-ity: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88-162). New York: Guilford.

Wiggins, J.S. (1991). Agency and communion as con-ceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti & W.M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl (Vol. 2; pp. 89-113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

The Impact of Alliance Styles on Objective Group Performance Author(s): Michelle Leybman, Allison Kelly, Emily Martin & David Zuroff Affiliation: McGill University This study examined the impact of alliance styles, defined as individual differences in approaching cooperative relationships, on objective group per-formance. Based on evolutionary psy-chology, alliance styles were concep-tualized in terms of two dimensions, the tendency to focus on equitable building of alliances, and the focus on hardnosed management of alliances. Multiple regression analyses sup-ported the hypothesis that alliances styles were related to objective group performance. It was found that a group’s mean level of hardnosed man-agement predicted objective perform-ance. Objective performance was also predicted by an interaction between a group’s mean level of promotion of benefits and the group’s mean level of ruthless self-advancement. Specifically, groups that were high in equitable building and low in ruthless self-advancement performed well, whereas groups that were high in equitable building and high in ruthless self-advancement were worse off.

Poster Abstracts (cont.)

Page 4

Acton, G. S., & Zodda, J. J. (2005). Classification of psychopathology: Goals and methods in an empirical approach. Theory & Psychology, 15, 373-399.

Acton, G. S., Kunz, J. D., Wilson, M., & Hall, S. M. (2005). The construct of internalization: Conceptualization, measurement, and pre-diction of smoking treatment outcome. Psychological Medicine, 35, 395-408.

Acton, G. S., & Revelle, W. (2004). Evaluation of ten psychometric criteria for circumplex structure. Methods of Psychological Research, 9, 1-27.

Auerbach, S. M., Kiesler, D. J., Wartella, J., Rausch, S., Ward, K. R., & Ivatury, R. (2005). Optimism, satisfaction with needs met, interpersonal perceptions of the healthcare team and emotional distress in family mem-bers during critical care hospitalization. American Journal of Critical Care, 14, 202-210.

Blatt, S.J., & Zuroff, D.C. (2005). Empirical evaluation of the assumptions in identifying evidence based treatments in mental health. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 459‑486.

Conroy, D. & Pincus, A.L.(in press). A compari-son of mean partialling and dual-hypothesis testing to evaluate stereotype effects when assessing profile similarity. Journal of Personal-ity Assessment.

D’Antono, B., Moskowitz, D. S., Miner, C., & Russell J. (2005). Gender and communal trait differences in the relations among social behaviour, affect arousal, and cardiac autonomic control. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 28, 267-279.

De Boeck, P., Wilson, M., & Acton, G. S. (2005). A conceptual and psychometric framework for distinguishing categories and dimensions. Psychological Review, 112, 129-158.

Erickson, T.E., & Pincus, A.L. (2005). Using Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB) measures of social perception to give inter-personal meaning to symptoms: Anxiety as an exemplar. Assessment, 12, 243-254.

Glidden‑Tracey, C. E. (2005). Counseling and therapy with clients who abuse alcohol or other drugs: An integrative approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goodyear, R. K., Tracey, T. J. G., Claiborn, C. D., Lichtenberg, J. W., & Wampold, B. E. (2005). Ideographic Concept mapping in counseling psychology research: Conceptual overview, methodology, and an illustration. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 236-242.

Gurtman, M. B. (2004). Relational measures in psychotherapy research on process and outcome: A commentary on the studies. Journal of Personality Assessment. 83, 248-255 [invited commentary].

Haddy, C., Strack, S., & Choca, J.P. (2005). Linking personality disorders and clinical syndromes on the MCMI-III. Journal of Per-sonality Assessment, 84, 193-204.

Hofsess, C. & Tracey, T. J. G. (2005). The interpersonal circumplex as a model of interpersonal capabilities. Journal of Personal-ity Assessment, 84, 137-148.

VOLUM E 6, ISSUE 1 Page 5

Perhaps setting up a student listserv would be a good idea? This would allow me to collect your opinions on a variety of matters without having to contact the entire listserv. Further, it would provide an avenue for students to discuss matters amongst themselves that are important to students (e.g., practicum issues, internships, coping with graduate school, etc). I’d be inter-ested to hear your thoughts about this.

I’d also like to encourage you to con-tact me if you have any ideas about how I can best serve you and make use of my role. Although this spot in the newsletter has provided me with an opportunity to introduce myself to you, I also think it could be a perfect place for others to introduce them-selves. Perhaps we could have a small

spot in the newsletter titled “Student’s Corner” where every issue a different stu-dent, or a group of students from the same lab, could write a small piece introduc-ing themselves to the mem-bership and telling us a bit about who they are and what they are up to. We are a

diverse group, all at different stages of our education, and all with similar, but clearly different, research interests that I think others would be interested in hearing about. If you would like to put a small piece together for the next newsletter, please be sure to be in touch (layearst@yorku.ca)!

I tried to collect information from many of you (including number of years you’ve been a member, number of annual meetings you have attended and presented at, current level of study, supervisor, research interests, etc) but the response rate was low. I think this may partly be due to the fact that I sent the request out with very short notice and September just tends to be a crazy month for students. I will continue to collect this information from those who are willing to provide it and will use it to put something together for the next newsletter. Until then, good luck with your studies and best wishes for a productive academic session.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

In Press and Recently Pub-lished Work by SITAR Members

[continued on page 6]

My name is Lindsay Ayearst and I have been honored to serve as the gradu-ate student repre-sentative on the Executive Council (EC) of SITAR since June 2003. Although

I have spoken to many of you at our annual conference, I thought it was about time that I formally introduce myself to the members. A full 23% of SITAR’s membership is made of up students. Not only do students make up a significant proportion of the soci-ety’s membership, they also are very well represented at the annual meet-ings, presenting both posters and pa-pers. It is for this reason, I believe, that the EC decided that graduate students deserve a voice in how SITAR is oper-ated.

Although I have held this position since 2003, the role of the graduate student representative has not been well de-fined as of yet. So far, I have been most involved in the organization of the annual conference. I have helped organize the 2002 meet-ing in Toronto, the 2003 meeting in Vancouver, and the 2004 meeting in Toronto. Currently, Anthony Ruocco (another student member of SITAR) and I have been very busy making ar-rangements for our upcoming meeting in Philadelphia. Having said this, being the event planner for the annual meet-ing is not necessarily the job of the graduate student representative.

My main responsibility, as I see it, is to make sure that our voice is heard on the EC. When decisions are being made about the future of the organiza-tion, membership dues, registration costs, etc, I try to provide an opinion that I believe is most in line with a student perspective in general (as op-posed to my own personal opinion). As such, when issues come up I would love to be able to draw upon the stu-dent members for feedback so that I can be sure that I am truly represent-ing the student members’ opinions.

Greetings from Your Graduate Student Representative

SITAR: Mission, Aims, and Activities The Society is an international, multidisciplinary, scientific association devoted to inter-personal theory and research. By encouraging systematic theory and empirical re-search, it seeks to clarify the processes and mechanisms of interpersonal interactions that explain interpersonal and intrapersonal phenomena of normal and abnormal psy-chology.

The goals of the Society are (1) to encourage the development of this research, (2) to foster the communication, understanding, and application of research findings, and (3) to enhance the scientific and social value of this research.

The activities of the Society include: (1) regular meetings for the communication of current research ideas, methods, and findings; (2) discussion of work in progress; (3) maintenance of an inventory of data and data-gathering resources available for use by members of the Society; and (4) facilitation of collaborative research.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER WANTED—Steve Strack has notified the Executive Council of his desire to step down from the job of Executive Officer (EO) as soon as a replace-ment can be found. As outlined in the By Laws, the EO serves in a number of impor-tant roles. Among these are: (1) Serve as the Secretary-Treasurer General of the Soci-ety; (2) serve as member of the Executive Council; (3) supervise the timely collection and circulation of minutes of the annual session of the Convention and of Executive Council meetings; (4) maintain the official records of the Society; (5) receive, manage, and disburse the funds of the Society; and (6) handle legal correspondence concerning SITAR’s incorporation and tax exempt status. Interested persons are encouraged to contact Steve Strack as soon as possible to dis-cuss the position and their qualifications. Steve may be reached at snstrack@aol.com

NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

2020 Fremont Avenue

P.O. Box 608 South Pasadena, CA 91031-0608

Phone/FAX: 626-441-0614

Newsletter e-mail: psadler@wlu.ca

Listserve: sitar-l@venus.vcu.edu

Web Site: www.vcu.edu/sitar

S o c i e t y f o r I n t e r p e r s o n a l

T h e o r y a n d R e s e a r c h

SITAR

Recent Work by SITAR Members (continued from p. 5) Kiesler, D. J., & Auerbach, S. M. (in press). Optimal

matches of patient preferences for information, decision making and interpersonal behavior: Evidence, models, and interventions. Patient Edu-cation and Counseling.

Lackner, J. M., & Gurtman, M. B. (2005). Patterns of interpersonal problems in irritable bowel syn-drome patients: A circumplex analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 523-532.

Lackner, J. M., & Gurtman, M. B. (2004). Pain catas-trophizing and interpersonal problems: A circum-plex analysis of the communal coping model. Pain, 110, 597-604.

Locke, K.D. (in press). What predicts well-being: a consistent self-concept or a desirable self-concept? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.

Locke, K.D. (2005). Connecting the horizontal di-mension of social comparison with self-worth and self-confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 795-803.

Lockwood, P., Marshall, T., & Sadler, P. (2005). Promoting success or preventing failure: Cultural differences in motivation by positive and negative role models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-tin, 31, 379-392.

Mongrain, M. & Leather, F. (in press). Self-criticism and dependence predict the recurrence of major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Mongrain, M. & Blackburn, S. (in press). Cognitive vulnerability and lifetime risk for major depres-sion in graduate students. Cognitive Therapy and Research.

Moskowitz, D. S. (in press). Unfolding interpersonal behavior. Journal of Personality.

Moskowitz, D. S., & Young, S. N (in press). Ecologi-

cal momentary assessment: What it is and why it is a method of the future in clinical psychophar-macology. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience.

Moskowitz, D.S., & Zuroff, D.C. (2005). Robust predictors of flux, pulse, and spin. Journal of Re-search in Personality, 39, 130‑147.

Moskowitz, D.S., & Zuroff, D.C. (2005). Assessing interpersonal perceptions using the interpersonal grid. Psychological Assessment., 17, 218‑230.

Pegg, P. O., Auerbach, S. M., Seel, R. T., Buenaver, L. F., Kiesler, D. J., & Plybon, L. E. (in press). The impact of patient-centered information on pa-tients’ treatment satisfaction and outcomes in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology.

Pincus, A.L. (2005). A contemporary integrative interpersonal theory of personality disorders. In J. Clarkin & M.Lenzenweger (Eds.), Major theories of personality disorder (2nd Ed.) (pp. 282-331). New York: Guilford.

Pincus, A.L. (2005). The interpersonal nexus of personality disorders. In S. Strack (Ed.), Handbook of personology and psychopathology (pp. 120-139). New York: Wiley.

Pincus, A.L. (2005). Book Review: N. McWilliams (2004). Psychoanalytic psychotherapy: A practitio-ners guide. Psychologist-Psychoanalyst, 25, 25-27. Washington, DC: APA Division 39.

Pincus, A.L. (in press). The schizotypy of Willy Wonka. PsyCritiques.

Pincus, A.L., & Gurtman, M.B. (in press). Interper-sonal theory and the interpersonal circumplex: Evolving perspectives on normal and abnormal personality. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating nor-mal and abnormal personality (2nd Ed.). New York:

Springer. Strack, S. (2005). Combined use of the PACL and

MCMI-III to assess normal range personality styles. In R.J. Craig (Ed.), New directions in interpret-ing the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (pp. 94-128). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Strack, S. (Ed.) (in press). Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (2nd ed). New York: Springer.

Strack, S., & Kinder, B.N. (Eds.) (in press). Pioneers of personality science: Autobiographical perspec-tives. New York: Springer.

Sturman, E. & Mongrain, M. (2005). Self‑Criticism and Major Depression: An evolutionary frame-work. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 1‑16.

Tracey, T. J. G. (in press). Interpersonal rigidity and complementarity. Journal of Research in Personality.

Woody, E., & Sadler, P. (2005). Structural equation models for interchangeable dyads: Being the same makes a difference. Psychological Methods, 10, 139-158.

Young, S. N., & Moskowitz, D. S. (in press). Sero-tonin and affiliative behavior. Brain and Behavioral Sciences.

Zuroff, D.C., Santor, D.A., & Mongrain, M. (2005). Dependency, self‑criticism, and maladjustment. In J.S. Auerbach, K.J. Levy, and C.E. Schaffer (Eds.), Relatedness, Self‑definition and mental representa-tion: Essays in honor of Sidney J. Blatt. (pp 75‑90). Brunner‑Routledge: London.

Zuroff, D.C., & Blatt, S.J. (in press). The therapeutic relationship in the brief treatment of depression: Contributions to clinical improvement and en-hanced adaptive capacities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.