Advertisement

Self-With-Other Representations

  • Daniel M. Ogilvie
  • Christopher J. Fleming
  • Greta E. Pennell
Part of the The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical Psychology book series (SSSC)

Abstract

There are two major divisions in psychology. One is occupied by descendants of 19th-century Leipzig and the other by descendants of 19th-century Vienna. Erdelyi, (1985) observed that this division has resulted in not one, but two, psychologies. He labeled one Apollonian and the other Dionysian. Apollonians (intellectual off-spring of Wundt in Leipzig) thrive in the laboratory where variables are fashioned to meet scientific standards. As this division is played out in personality psychology, the principal goal of Apollonians is to establish objective measures of behavior. Only things that can be observed, counted, or otherwise quantified fall within this province. Modern-day trait psychology falls mostly within this tradition. In contrast, Dionysians (intellectual descendants of Freud in Vienna) are “untrammeled by method” (Erdelyi, 1994, p. 670). Personality psychologists who resist being constricted by numbers and standard statistics argue that if one must postulate the operation of unconscious, unobservable, and nonrational mental processes in order to make headway in understanding the subjective worlds of individuals, so be it. Such inferences regarding psychodynamic forces operating behind the curtains of consciousness provide fuel for Apollonian outrage. They are premises for disparaging charges pertaining to illusive, chameleonlike sorts of data garnered as evidence for psychoanalytic models of the person. In their turn, Dionysians complain about the sparse, even trivial, content of findings that emanate from the positivistic labs of their counterparts.

Keywords

Feature Class Target Class High School Teacher Personality Psychologist Important People 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  2. Ashmore, R. D., & Ogilvie, D. M. (1989). Gender identity and social action. Research proposal funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  3. Ashmore, R. D., & Ogilvie, D. M. (1992). He's such a nice boy… when he's with his grandma: Gender and evaluation in self-with-other representations. In T. M. Brinthaupt & R. P. Lipka (Eds.), The self: Definitional and methodological issues (pp. 236–290). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  4. Atwood, G. E., & Stolorow, R. D. (1984). Structures of subjectivity: Explorations in psychoanalytic phenomenology. Hillside, NJ: Analytic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, J. M. (1973). Social and ethical interpretations in mental development. New York: Arno Press. (Original work published 1897)Google Scholar
  6. Barone, D. F., Maddux, J. E., & Snyder, C. R. (1997). Social cognitive psychology: History and current domains. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beebe, B., & Lachman, F. (1988). The contribution of mother-infant mutual influence to the origins of self- and object-representations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 5, 305–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Carlson, R. (1988). Exemplary lives: The uses of psychobiography for theory development. Journal of Personality, 56, 105–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner 's.Google Scholar
  13. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  14. De Boeck, P., & Rosenberg, S. (1988). Hierarchical Classes: Model and data analysis. Psychometrika, 53, 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erdelyi, M. H. (1985). Psychoanalysis: Freud's cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  16. Erdelyi, M. H. (1994). Commentary: Integrating a dissociation-prone psychology. Journal of Personality, 62, 699–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  18. Guntrip, H. (1971). Psychoanalytic theory, therapy. and the self. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Hermans, H. J. M., Kempen, H. J. G. & Van Loon, R. J. P. (1992). The dialogical self: Beyond individualism and rationalism. The American Psychologist, 47, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Kernberg, O. (1976). Object relations theory and clinical psychoanalysis. New York: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  23. Klein, M. (1948). Contributions to psychoanalysis 1921-1945. London: Hogarth.Google Scholar
  24. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of self. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  25. Labouvie-Vief, G. (1994). Psyche and eros. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell, S. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Modell, A. (1984). Psychoanalysis in a new context. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  30. Murray, H. A. (1940). What should psychologists do about psychoanalysis? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 35, 150–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ogilvie, D. M. (1992). Competing epistemologies. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 50–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ogilvie, D. M. (1994). The use of graphic representations of self dynamisms in clinical treatment. Crisis Intervention and Time-Limited Treatment, 1, 125–140. Google Scholar
  34. Ogilvie, D. M., & Ashmore, R. D. (1991). Self-with-other representation as a unit of analysis in self-concept research. In R. A. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self: Theoretical convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 282–314). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ogilvie, D. M., & Clark, M. D. (1992). The best and worst of it: Age and sex differences in self-discrepancy research. In R. P. Liopka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), Self-perspectives across the life span (pp. 186–222). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pennell, G. E., & Ogilvie, D. M. (1995). You and me as she and he: The meaning of gender-related concepts in other- and self-perceptions. Sex Roles, 33, 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenberg, S. (1988). Selfand others: Studies in social psychology and autobiography. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 57–95). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenberg, S., Van Michelen, I., & De Boeck, P. (1996). A hierarchical classes model: Theory and method with applications in psychology and psychopathology. In P. Arabie, L. J. Hubert, & G. De Soete (Eds.), Clustering and classification (pp. 123–155). River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  41. Tomkins, S. S. (1979). Script theory: Differential magnification of affects. In H. E. Horowitz & R. A. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 26. (pp. 201–236). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tomkins, S. S. (1987). Script theory. In J. Arnoff, A. I. Rabin, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), The emergence of personality (pp. 147–216). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The family and individual development. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  44. Wylie, R. (1974). The self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel M. Ogilvie
    • 1
  • Christopher J. Fleming
    • 1
  • Greta E. Pennell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRutgers, The State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations