Biomedical subjects

Leonard M Horowitz

Publications and source records attributed to Leonard M Horowitz.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Interpersonal and noninterpersonal interactions, interpersonal motives, and the effect of frustrated motives.

A new circumplex model of interpersonal interaction emphasizes the motives that drive interpersonal behaviors and the negative affect (such as anger) that occurs when a strongly activated motive is frustrated. This study examined the model experimentally by varying conditions designed to activate and frustrate interpersonal motives. One hundred twenty-nine students engaged in text-based discussions using a computer. Three factors were varied: (a) activation of interpersonal motives--participants believed the interaction was interpersonal (with a human) or noninterpersonal (with a computer); (b) individual differences in motive activation--assertive and nonassertive participants were compared (strong vs. weak motive to influence others); and (c) level of frustration of activated motives--the "partner's" messages contained dominating or nondominating language. Participants who believed their interaction was interpersonal produced more interpersonal behaviors of various types. Assertive participants who interacted with a dominating and apparently human partner produced a disproportionate amount of hostility, indicating anger ascribed to frustrated motives.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: a revised circumplex model.

Circumplex models have organized interpersonal behavior along 2 orthogonal dimensions--communion (which emphasizes connection between people) and agency (which emphasizes one person's influence over the other). However, many empirical studies have disconfirmed certain predictions from these models. We therefore revised the model in 4 ways that highlight interpersonal motives. In our revision: (a) the negative pole of communion is indifference, not hostility; (b) a given behavior invites (not evokes) a desired reaction from the partner; (c) the complement of a behavior is a reaction that would satisfy the motive behind that behavior; (d) noncomplementary reactions induce negative affect. If the motive is unclear, the meaning of the behavior is ambiguous. This ambiguity helps explain failures in social support, miscommunications in everyday life, and features of most personality disorders. The model emphasizes measurable individual differences: Reactions that are complementary for one person need not be complementary for another.

Affect↗

PubMed2005

The relationship between interpersonal problems and the helping alliance.

Using data from a large longitudinal naturalistic study on course and outcome of psychotherapy, the present paper investigates the amount of interpersonal problems in an outpatient sample (N = 714) and the extent to which a patient's interpersonal problems determine the quality of the helping alliance. The results show that at the beginning of psychotherapy, subjects reported significant interpersonal distress on 2.43 of the eight IIP scales. Interpersonal problems were most prevalent in the octants "introverted," "submissive," "exploitable," and "overly nurturant." Furthermore, interpersonal problems were related to the helping alliance in different ways: "Too hostile" patients reported relatively poor initial helping alliance whereas "too friendly" patients rated more favorably the relationship to the therapist. However, interpersonal problems at intake did not predict the therapeutic alliance one-and-a-half years later. The results indicate that a poor initial helping alliance might be reversed during the course of treatment. Implications for future research and psychotherapeutic practice are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock jury deliberations.

The role of Need for Cognition (NC) in mock jury deliberations was examined. Study 1 showed that when groups of 4 (2 high and 2 low in NC) deliberated together, high-NCs spoke significantly longer than low-NCs and were perceived as more active and more persuasive. High-NCs were not, however, viewed as generating arguments that were more valid or more logical. In Study 2, participants deliberated in dyads with a confederate who delivered either strong or weak arguments against the participant's position. Contrary to expectation, low-NCs were more responsive to differences in argument quality. The findings suggest that, in mock jury deliberations, high-NCs are the active participators whereas low-NCs are the quiet contemplators. Implications for legal practice and policy are discussed.

Adult↗