The features that characterize normal personality styles
1 Motivating styles are most closely akin to concepts such as need, drive, affect, and emotion in that they pertain to the strivings and goals that spur and guide the organism; that is, the purposes and ends that stir them into one or another course of behavior. The aims of motivation refl ect strivings for survival, which I see as composed of three elements, those I have referred to previously as “existence,” “adaptation,” and “replication” (Millon, 1990). In a manner akin to Freud (1915), these three elements are organized as bipolarities, each of which comprise two contrasting scales. At one extreme of the fi rst bipolarity is a motivation-based scale pertaining to the existential aim of strengthening one’s life or reinforcing one’s capacity to survive (phrased as pleasure-enhancing); at the other extreme is an emotion-based scale that refl ects the need to protect one’s survival against lifethreatening events (referred to as pain-avoiding). The second of the motivating aim bipolarities relates to adaptation, that is, methods by which one operates in one’s environment to enhance and preserve life. One end of this bipolarity represents tendencies to actively and energetically alter the conditions of one’s life, (termed actively modifying); the other end represents the inclination to passively accept in a neutral and nonresponsive manner ones’ life circumstances as they are given (referred to as passively accommodating). The third bipolarity comprising the motivating domain also differentiates two scales; one scale represents those who seek to realize and fulfi ll their own potentials before those of others (spoken of as self-indulging), as contrasted to those who are disposed to value the fortunes and potentials of relatives and companions to a greater degree than their own (called other-nurturing).
2 The second group of bipolarity scales relates to thinking styles, incorporating both the sources employed to gather knowledge about life, and the manner in which this information is transformed. In a manner akin to Jung (1923), four bipolarities, the constructs they reflect, and the eight scales developed to represent them comprise this section of the MIPS. Here we are looking at contrasting “modes of cognizing”, differences among people, first, in what they attend to in order to experience and learn about life and, second, what they habitually do to make this knowledge meaningful and useful to themselves. The first two of these bipolarities refer to the information sources to which attention and perception are drawn to provide cognitions. One pair of scales contrasts individuals who are disposed to look outward or external-to-self for information, inspiration, and guidance (termed externally focused ), versus those inclined to turn inward or internal-to-self (referred to as internally focused ). The second pair of scales contrasts predilections for direct observational experiences of a tangible, material, and concrete nature (labeled realistic-sensing) with those geared more toward inferences regarding phenomena of an intangible, ambiguous, symbolic, and abstract character (named imaginative-intuiting). The second set of thinking style bipolarities relate to processes of transformation; that is, ways inwhich information and experiences, once apprehended and incorporated, are subsequently evaluated and reconstructed mentally. The fi rst pair of the transformation scales differentiates processes based essentially on intellect, logic, reason, and objectivity (entitled thought-guided ) from those which depend on affective empathy, personal values, sentiment, and subjectivity (designated feeling-guided ). The second of the transformational scales are likewise divided into a bipolar pairing. At one end are reconstruction modes that transform new information so as to make it assimilate to preconceived formal, tradition-bound, well-standardized, and conventionally structured schemas (called conservationseeking); at the other bipolar scale are represented inclinations to avoid cognitive preconceptions, to distance from what is already known and to originate new ideas in an informal, open-minded, spontaneous, individualistic, and often imaginative manner (termed innovation-seeking).
3 The third group of bipolar scales represents behaving styles, reflecting how individuals prefer to relate to and conduct their transactions with others. These styles of social behavior derive in part from the interplay of the person’s distinctive pattern of motivating styles and thinking styles. Five bipolarities have been constructed to represent contrasting styles of interpersonal behaviors; in a broader context these styles of behavior may be considered to be located at the normal end of a spectrum continuum that shades progressively into the more problematic or abnormal personality disorders recorded in the DSM, Axis II. The fi rst pair of scales in this, the third section of MIPS-R, pertains to a bipolar dimension characterized by contrasting degrees of sociability. At one bipolar end are those persons whose high scale scores suggest that they relate to others in a socially distant, disengaged, affectless, and coolly indifferent manner (termed asocialwithdrawing); on the other high scale end are those who seek to be engaged, are lively, talkative, and actively engaged interpersonally (called gregarious-outgoing). The second polarity pair relates to ones’ comfort and poise in social settings; it contrasts those who tend to be uncertain and fearful, are unsure of their personal worth, and are inclined to feel insecure and to withdraw socially (named anxious–hesitating), with those who are socially comfortable and self-possessed, as well as bold and decisive in their relationships (entitled confi dent-asserting). The third pairing relates to contrasting degrees of conventionality and social deference; it differentiates those who are disinclined more than most to adhere to public standards, cultural mores, and organizational regulations, act autonomously and insist on functioning socially on their own terms (labeled unconventionaldissenting), as compared to those who are notably tradition-bound, socially compliant and responsible, respectful of authority, as well as appropriately diligent and reliable (termed dutiful-conforming). Facets of the interpersonal dimension of dominance–submission are tapped in the fourth polarity. High on one polar scale are those who are not only docile but also self-demeaning, diffi dent, overly modest, and self-depriving (designated submissive-yielding), as compared to those who, beyond being overbearing and arrogant, are also willful, ambitious, forceful, and power-seeking (termed dominant-controlling). The fi fth and fi nal set of polarities pertains to features of a dimension of social negativism versus social congeniality. The former is seen among those who are dissatisfi ed with both themselves and others, who are generally displeased with the status quo, and tend to be resentfuland oppositional (designated dissatisfi ed- complaining); they contrast with those who are helpful and compromising, not only considerate of others, but also highly obliging, and willingly adapting their behaviors to accord with the wishes of others (named cooperative-agreeing). As noted, scales refl ecting several “character styles” associated with constructive and positive orientations will be added to the forthcoming revision of the MIPS.
1 Motivating styles are most closely akin to concepts such as need, drive, affect, and emotion in that they pertain to the strivings and goals that spur and guide the organism; that is, the purposes and ends that stir them into one or another course of behavior. The aims of motivation refl ect strivings for survival, which I see as composed of three elements, those I have referred to previously as “existence,” “adaptation,” and “replication” (Millon, 1990). In a manner akin to Freud (1915), these three elements are organized as bipolarities, each of which comprise two contrasting scales. At one extreme of the fi rst bipolarity is a motivation-based scale pertaining to the existential aim of strengthening one’s life or reinforcing one’s capacity to survive (phrased as pleasure-enhancing); at the other extreme is an emotion-based scale that refl ects the need to protect one’s survival against lifethreatening events (referred to as pain-avoiding). The second of the motivating aim bipolarities relates to adaptation, that is, methods by which one operates in one’s environment to enhance and preserve life. One end of this bipolarity represents tendencies to actively and energetically alter the conditions of one’s life, (termed actively modifying); the other end represents the inclination to passively accept in a neutral and nonresponsive manner ones’ life circumstances as they are given (referred to as passively accommodating). The third bipolarity comprising the motivating domain also differentiates two scales; one scale represents those who seek to realize and fulfi ll their own potentials before those of others (spoken of as self-indulging), as contrasted to those who are disposed to value the fortunes and potentials of relatives and companions to a greater degree than their own (called other-nurturing).
2 The second group of bipolarity scales relates to thinking styles, incorporating both the sources employed to gather knowledge about life, and the manner in which this information is transformed. In a manner akin to Jung (1923), four bipolarities, the constructs they reflect, and the eight scales developed to represent them comprise this section of the MIPS. Here we are looking at contrasting “modes of cognizing”, differences among people, first, in what they attend to in order to experience and learn about life and, second, what they habitually do to make this knowledge meaningful and useful to themselves. The first two of these bipolarities refer to the information sources to which attention and perception are drawn to provide cognitions. One pair of scales contrasts individuals who are disposed to look outward or external-to-self for information, inspiration, and guidance (termed externally focused ), versus those inclined to turn inward or internal-to-self (referred to as internally focused ). The second pair of scales contrasts predilections for direct observational experiences of a tangible, material, and concrete nature (labeled realistic-sensing) with those geared more toward inferences regarding phenomena of an intangible, ambiguous, symbolic, and abstract character (named imaginative-intuiting). The second set of thinking style bipolarities relate to processes of transformation; that is, ways inwhich information and experiences, once apprehended and incorporated, are subsequently evaluated and reconstructed mentally. The fi rst pair of the transformation scales differentiates processes based essentially on intellect, logic, reason, and objectivity (entitled thought-guided ) from those which depend on affective empathy, personal values, sentiment, and subjectivity (designated feeling-guided ). The second of the transformational scales are likewise divided into a bipolar pairing. At one end are reconstruction modes that transform new information so as to make it assimilate to preconceived formal, tradition-bound, well-standardized, and conventionally structured schemas (called conservationseeking); at the other bipolar scale are represented inclinations to avoid cognitive preconceptions, to distance from what is already known and to originate new ideas in an informal, open-minded, spontaneous, individualistic, and often imaginative manner (termed innovation-seeking).
3 The third group of bipolar scales represents behaving styles, reflecting how individuals prefer to relate to and conduct their transactions with others. These styles of social behavior derive in part from the interplay of the person’s distinctive pattern of motivating styles and thinking styles. Five bipolarities have been constructed to represent contrasting styles of interpersonal behaviors; in a broader context these styles of behavior may be considered to be located at the normal end of a spectrum continuum that shades progressively into the more problematic or abnormal personality disorders recorded in the DSM, Axis II. The fi rst pair of scales in this, the third section of MIPS-R, pertains to a bipolar dimension characterized by contrasting degrees of sociability. At one bipolar end are those persons whose high scale scores suggest that they relate to others in a socially distant, disengaged, affectless, and coolly indifferent manner (termed asocialwithdrawing); on the other high scale end are those who seek to be engaged, are lively, talkative, and actively engaged interpersonally (called gregarious-outgoing). The second polarity pair relates to ones’ comfort and poise in social settings; it contrasts those who tend to be uncertain and fearful, are unsure of their personal worth, and are inclined to feel insecure and to withdraw socially (named anxious–hesitating), with those who are socially comfortable and self-possessed, as well as bold and decisive in their relationships (entitled confi dent-asserting). The third pairing relates to contrasting degrees of conventionality and social deference; it differentiates those who are disinclined more than most to adhere to public standards, cultural mores, and organizational regulations, act autonomously and insist on functioning socially on their own terms (labeled unconventionaldissenting), as compared to those who are notably tradition-bound, socially compliant and responsible, respectful of authority, as well as appropriately diligent and reliable (termed dutiful-conforming). Facets of the interpersonal dimension of dominance–submission are tapped in the fourth polarity. High on one polar scale are those who are not only docile but also self-demeaning, diffi dent, overly modest, and self-depriving (designated submissive-yielding), as compared to those who, beyond being overbearing and arrogant, are also willful, ambitious, forceful, and power-seeking (termed dominant-controlling). The fi fth and fi nal set of polarities pertains to features of a dimension of social negativism versus social congeniality. The former is seen among those who are dissatisfi ed with both themselves and others, who are generally displeased with the status quo, and tend to be resentfuland oppositional (designated dissatisfi ed- complaining); they contrast with those who are helpful and compromising, not only considerate of others, but also highly obliging, and willingly adapting their behaviors to accord with the wishes of others (named cooperative-agreeing). As noted, scales refl ecting several “character styles” associated with constructive and positive orientations will be added to the forthcoming revision of the MIPS.
No comments:
Post a Comment