Advertisement

Model11: Selfhood

  • Luciano L’Abate
  • Mario Cusinato
  • Eleonora Maino
  • Walter Colesso
  • Claudia Scilletta
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to expand on a model of Selfhood defined by how a sense of importance is attributed, expressed, bestowed, and shared with self and intimate others. This sense of importance is asserted by showing care, concern, compassion, and consideration to self and to intimate others according to four relational propensities: (1) Selfulness, when care, compassion, consideration, and concern are expressed positively toward self while including also needs and wants of intimate others (“We both win.”); (2) Selfishness, when care, compassion, consideration, and concern are expressed positively toward self but negatively toward others and at the cost of others (“I win, you lose.”); (3) Selflessness, when care, compassion, consideration, and concern are expressed positively toward others and negatively toward self (“You win, I lose.”); and (4) No-Self, when care, compassion, consideration, and concern are not expressed in any way, are denied, or are expressed negatively toward self and others, as seen, for instance, in extreme incompetence, where there is a strong denial of being incompetent paired with a strong aversion to receiving and benefiting from professional help and medication (“No one wins, we both lose.”).

Keywords

Intimate Relationship Relational Aggression Strong Denial Fearful Attachment Partner Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Amadori, S. (1999). Modalità di attaccamento e posizioni selfhood nei genitori e nei figli adulti-giovani [Attachment modalities and selfhood positions of parents and their young-adult children]. Non-published degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Bandini, T., Gatti, U., Marugo, M. I., & Verde, A. (1991). Criminologia. Il contributo della ricerca alla conoscenza del crimine e della reazione sociale [Criminology. The contribution of research to knowledge of crime and social reaction]. Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  4. Bartol, K. M. (1999). Gender influences on performance evaluation. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 165–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bidoli, G. (2006). Contributo alla validità concorrente del TRD5. Applicazione a 30 coppie sposate con figli adolescenti [Contribution to RDT-5 concurrent validity: Application to 30 married couplet with adolescents]. Non-published degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  6. Bowes-Sperry, L., & Tata, J. (1999). A multiperspective framework of sexual harassment. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 263–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butterfield, D. A., & Grinnell, J. P. (1999). ‘Re-Viewing’ gender, leadership, and managerial behavior: Do three decades of research tell us anything? Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 223–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carattoni, S. (1997). L’importanza di sé e relazioni familiari: indagine su adolescenti e genitori [Self-importance and family relationships: Inquiring adolescents and their parents]. Non-published degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  9. Carli, L., & Eagly, A. (1999). Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, C. L., & Lewis, S. (1999). Gender and the changing nature of work. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 37–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corrigan, P. W. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59, 614–625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cusinato, M., & L’Abate, L. (2005a). The Dyadic Relationships Test: Creation and validation of a model-derived, visual-verbal instrument to evaluate couple relationships. Part I. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cusinato, M., & L’Abate, L. (2005b). The Dyadic Relationships Test: Creation and validation of a model-derived, visual-verbal instrument to evaluate couple relationships. Part II. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cusinato, M., & Pastore, M. (2001). Uno strumento di valutazione dell’importanza di sé e di altri: Analisi delle strutture tassonomiche in prospettiva evolutiva [An instrument to evaluate self-importance: Taxonomic structure analyses at developmental perspective]. Età Evolutiva: Rivista di Scienze dello Sviluppo, 69, 5–18.Google Scholar
  15. Davidson, M. J., & Fielden, S. (1999). Stress and the working woman. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 413–426). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Ambrosi, F. (2003). Prova di competenza relazionale in donne con reazione depressiva di breve durata [Relational competence test of women with short-lived depression]. Degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  17. Fenili, S. (2002). Competenza relazionale e credito relazionale: Ricerca con 60 coppie di coniugi giovani senza figli [Relational competence and optimistic attitude. Research study with 60 married couples without children]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  18. Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and culture of gender in organizations. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 17–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiske, A. P. (2004a). Four models of constituting relationships: Consubstantial assumptions; space, magnitude, time, and force; Concrete procedures; Abstract symbolisms. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 61–146). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  20. Fiske, A. P. (2004b). Relational models theory 2.0. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 3–25). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  21. Fontana, A. (1996). Tempo di prevenzione. Applicazioni del programma strutturato di intimità coniugale [Prevention time: Structural program application of marital intimacy]. Degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  22. Frattini, C. (1994). Test di relazione diadica. Contributo alla costruzione e validazione [Dyadic Relationship Test. Contribution to creation and validation]. Non-published degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  23. Gagliostro, M. (1994). Contributo alla costruzione e validazione del test di relazione diadica. Uno strumento per la valutazione della relazione coniugale [Contribution for creating and validating the Dyadic Relationship Test, an evaluation instrument of marital relationship]. Non-published degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  24. Gaiotto, C. (1997). Modello di sé e Importanza di sé: due modelli a confronto [Self-model and self-importance: Comparing two models]. Non-published degree thesis, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  25. Giordano, C. (1996). Stili relazionali e negoziazione: Studio sulla relazione diadica [Relational styles and negotiation: Study of dyadic relationships]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.Google Scholar
  26. Graves, L. M. (1999). Gender bias in interviewers’ evaluations of applicants. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gutek, B. A., Cherry, B., & Groth, M. (1999). Gender and service delivery. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 47–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1999). Affermative action: History, effects, and attitudes. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 429–452). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korabik, K. (1999). Sex and gender in the new millennium. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. L’Abate, L. (1992a). Excessive spending. In L. L’Abate, J. E. Farrar, & D. A. Serritella (Eds.), Handbook of differential treatments for addictions (pp. 253–270). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  32. L’Abate, L. (1992b). Programmed writing: A self-administered approach with individuals, couples, and families. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  33. L’Abate, L. (1997a). Distance writing and computer-assisted training. In R. S. Sauber (Ed.), Managed mental health care: Major diagnostic and treatment approaches (pp. 133–163). Bristol, PA: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  34. L’Abate, L. (1997b). The self in the family: Toward a classification of personality, criminality, and psychopathology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. L’Abate, L. (2003). Family psychology III: Theory-building, theory-testing, and psychological interventions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  36. L’Abate, L. (2005). Personality in intimate relationships: Socialization and psychopathology. New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  37. L’Abate, L., & Cusinato, M. (2007). Linking theory with practice: Theory-derived interventions in prevention and psychotherapy. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15, 318–327.Google Scholar
  38. L’Abate, L., & De Giacomo, P. (2003). Intimate relationships and how to improve them: Integrating theoretical models with preventive and psychotherapeutic applications. Newport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. L’Abate, L., Lambert, R. G., & Schenck, P. (2001). Testing a relational model of psychopathology with the MMPI-2. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Powell.Google Scholar
  41. Lindaver, P. (1998). Le persone in relazione: Tre modelli a confronto [People in relationships: Comparing three models]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarietà, Ricerca, 3, 101–114.Google Scholar
  42. Lobel, S. A. (1999). Impact of diversity and work-life initiatives in organizations. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 453–474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Longhin, L. (2003). Competenza relazionale di psicotici [Relational competence of psychotics]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.Google Scholar
  44. Maino, E., & Fara, D. (2000). Personal communication. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Beyond psychotherapy: Programmed writing and structured computer-assisted interventions (pp. 198–201). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  45. Maino, E., Talpone, U., Basile, E., Fara, D., Seassaro, U., & Molteni, M. (1999). La valutazione di variabili relazionali in famiglie con portatori di handicap [Relational variables of families with handicapped children]. Paper presented at VII International Conference of Family Education, Abano Terme (Italy), 14–17 April, 1999.Google Scholar
  46. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moore, D. P. (1999). Women entrepreneurs: Approching a new millennium. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 371–389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mosca, L. (2004). Cardiology patient page. Heart disease prevention in women. American Heart Association. Circulation, 109, 158–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nolen-Hoecksema, S. (2004). Gender differences in risk factors and consequences for alcohol use and problems. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 981–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patel, J. D., Bach, P. B., & Kris, M. G. (2004). Lung cancer in US women: A contemporary epidemic. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association., 291, 1763–1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Post, S. G. (Ed.). (2007). Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Powell, G. N. (1999a). Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. ix–xx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Powell, G. N. (Ed.). (1999b). Handbook of gender & work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Ragins, B. R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and research agenda for the next decade. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 347–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reed, R., McMahan, O., & L’Abate, L. (2001). Workbooks and psychotherapy with incarcerated felons. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Distance writing and computer-assisted interventions in psychiatry and mental health (pp. 157–167). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  56. Roos, P. A., & Gatta, M. L. (1999). The gender gap in earnings: Trends, explanations, and prospects. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 95–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Salvo, R. (1998). La teoria dell’attaccamento nello studio delle relazioni di coppia [Attachment theory for studying couple relationships]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  58. Scilletta, C. (2002). Versione computerizzata della prova di competenza relazionale; Esplorazione delle opportunità teoriche e pratiche [Computerized version of relational competence: Exploration of the theoretical and practical opportunities]. Degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar
  59. Seeman, M. V. (Ed.). (1995). Gender and psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychologial Association.Google Scholar
  60. Segatto, B., & Chiovatti, B. (2000). Modelli di attaccamento e stili relazionali di coppia: Indagine empirica su un campione di giovani coppie e dei loro genitori [Attachment models and couple relational styles]. Famiglia, Interdisciplinarità, Ricerca, 5, 185–199.Google Scholar
  61. Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1999). Gender and careers: Present experiences and emerging trends. Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 307–324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tanner, L. (2004, September 26). Male–female health differences go deeper than once thought. American Journal and Constitution, 2.Google Scholar
  65. Tolbert, P., Graham, M., & Andrews, A. (1999). Group gender composition and work group relations: Theories, evidence, and issues. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 179–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Trebo, V. (2008). La resilienza in studenti altoatesini: Riflessione scritta per potenziare le risorse del sé [Resilience in Southtyrolian students: Written reflections to improve self resources]. Degree thesis, University of Padova, Padua.Google Scholar
  67. Zanardini, C. (2006). Prova di competenza relazionale di popolazione criminale [Relational competence of the criminal population]. Unpublished degree dissertation, University of Padua, Padua.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciano L’Abate
    • 1
  • Mario Cusinato
    • 2
  • Eleonora Maino
    • 3
  • Walter Colesso
    • 2
  • Claudia Scilletta
    • 4
  1. 1.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.University of PaduaPaduaItaly
  3. 3.Scientific Institute Eugenio MedeaBosisio PariniItaly
  4. 4.MilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations