Orality as a factor in interpersonal yielding.

Abstract

The results of two separate studies are reported. In the first, 30 undergraduate male subjects, designated high-oral on the basis of the number of oral and dependent Rorschach responses provided, were individually paired with 30 loworal subjects, and were asked to reach a consensus regarding a neutral topic on which they had previously disagreed. In contrast to earlier studies on orality and group conformity, the low-oral subjects deferred to the judgment of the high-oral subjects in 20 out of 30 dyads, X 2 (1,JV = 30) = 3.33,p < .10. A replication of the original study on a new sample of 20 high-oral and 20 low-oral subjects, confirmed our original findings (binomial test, p = .02).X 2 (1,JV= 30) One of the central tenets of psychoanalytic theory is the belief that behavior is driven by a primary set of needs that operate across a variety of situations. Freud (1908) observed that "one very often meets a type of character in which certain traits are very strongly marked, while at the same time one's attention is arrested by the behavior of these persons in regard to a certain bodily function" (p. 169). Not only does Freud make explicit his belief that people are characterized by distinctive personality constellations -or character typesbut he also suggests that these types are tied to bodily functions and body organs. The experiment reported in this article is part of a series of investigations of the interpersonal characteristics of one such personality type -the oral character. Previous studies have documented the ability of those with oral personality traits to perceive accurately strangers and roommates (Masling, Johnson, & Saturansky, 1974) as well as therapists (Masling,

Dependent personality disorder in the DSM-IV and beyond.

“…Two DSM‐IV DPD symptoms (Symptoms 3 and 4) are contradicted by the results of relevant empirical studies. Contrary to Symptom 3, studies show that under certain conditions (e.g., when competing with a peer for the attention or approval of an authority figure) dependent persons express disagreement quite vociferously (Bornstein, Masling, & Poynton, 1987; Bornstein, Paggs, et al, 1996). Contrary to Symptom 4, studies indicate that dependent people initiate certain kinds of projects and activities with no prompting whatsoever from others.…”

Beyond passivity: Dependency as a risk factor for intimate partner violence

“…As several writers have noted, this emphasis on passivity in interpersonal dependency and DPD is problematic in that research suggests a central goal for a dependent person is to maximize the probability of obtaining and maintaining support from potential caregivers; the strategies used to obtain this support can vary depending on the situation. For example, Bornstein et al (1987) found in an Asch-type conformity experiment that college students who scored high on dependency were not likely to yield to a fellow participant in a taperecorded debate; a post-experiment questionnaire revealed that the main reason for this unwillingness to yield was that the dependent students wanted to impress the experimenter. Other studies have shown that dependent college students actively seek help from professors and advisors to maximize academic performance (Bornstein & Kennedy, 1994), and that in inpatient and outpatient settings dependency is associated with increases in medication prescriptions and consultations (O'Neill & Bornstein, 2001).…”

Activity, Passivity, Self‐Denigration, and Self‐Promotion: Toward an Interactionist Model of Interpersonal Dependency

“…The results obtained by Masling et al (1968) and Bornstein et al (1987) have two important implications for understanding the interpersonal dynamics of dependency. First, these findings suggest that pleasing authority figures is more important to the dependent person than getting along with peers.…”

“…One study in this area (Bornstein et al, 1987) obtained the opposite results (i.e., an inverse relationship between dependency and yielding). In this experiment, dyads consisting of one dependent and one nondependent participant were asked to reach a consensus decision regarding a topic on which they had previously disagreed.…”

“…For example, level of dependency predicts risk for psychopathology (Masling & Schwartz, 1979) and risk for physical illness in normal and clinical populations. Dependency also affects people's interpersonal perceptions and behaviors, both in dyads and in larger social groups (Bornstein, Masling, & Poynton, 1987). Moreover, dependency is an important predictor of various patient-related behaviors exhibited in medical settings (e.g., cooperativeness and compliance during treatment; Greenberg & Bornstein, 1989).…”