Relational Competence Theory

L’Abate, Luciano; Cusinato, Mario; Maino, Eleonora; Colesso, Walter; Scilletta, Claudia

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5665-1

Cited by 58 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 262 publications

(332 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, it theorizes personality as having a relational nature: in fact, individuals develop their own personality through the interactions with intimate ones and throughout all the contexts they experience (Colesso, 2006a ). Third, according to this theorization, intimate relationships are defined as corresponding to all the stable, interdependent, and committed relationships, regardless of the biological linkages (Cusinato and Colesso, 2009 ; L'Abate et al, 2010 ; Cusinato, 2013 ). This makes the RCT very useful in a dynamic and ever-changing society similar to ours.…”

Section: The Relational Competence Theory and Relational Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the RCT aims to accomplish three functions, “ namely, understanding, predicting, and controlling individuals in their intimate relationships and other settings ” (L'Abate, 2005 , p. 14). Moreover, the RCT attempted to integrate both the categorical and dimensional approaches of relational styles (L'Abate et al, 2010 ). In fact, according to the RCT, intimate relationships are characterized by three different categories of styles, namely, the abusive-apathetic style (AA), the reactive-repetitive (RR) one, and the creative-conductive (CC) style, i.e., each person may show one of them as the main way of interacting with others (L'abate, 1983 ; L'Abate, 2005 ; L'abate and Cusinato, 2007 ).…”

Section: The Relational Competence Theory and Relational Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intergenerational Transmission of Relational Styles: Current Considerations

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Relational Competence Theory and Relational Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Relational Competence Theory and Relational Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intergenerational Transmission of Relational Styles: Current Considerations

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both instruments represent respectively two different relational models of Selfhood: one derived from Relational Competence Theory [3,4,5] and the other from the Elementary Pragmatic Model [1]. Both models underscore the relational nature of the self viewed from two different theoretical viewpoints.…”

Section: The Concurrent Validity Of Two Rela-tional Selfhood Models: a Pilot Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within this brief contextual and historical background in mind, we needed to consider two Selfrelated models that in spite of both being admittedly inferred, that is: based on self-report, paper-and-pencil questionnaires, were not orphans. They are indeed directly derived from two very concrete, specific, verified, and verifiable models: Selfhood in Relational Competence Theory [3][4][5]18] and from the Elementary Pragmatic Model (EPM) of De Giacomo [1,2,19].…”

Section: The Relevance Of Relational Selvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another important RCT Model12 about Priorities should correlate well with Self-full individuals but not the Selfish or Selfless ones (Cusinato & L'Abate, 2012 [3] L'Abate et al, 2010) [4]." For the HYVYS it would be important to see whether the ratio of positive to negative items would predict therapeutic outcome or correlate with other personality or relational instruments.…”

Section: Recommendations For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Concurrent Validity of Two Relational Selfhood Models: A Pilot Study

L’Abate

Fornaciari²,

Giacomo

et al. 2015

J. Psychol. Psychother.Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the concurrent validity of two instruments: the Self-Other Profile Chart (SOPC) derived from one model of Relational Competence Theory (RCT) and the How You View Your Self (HYVYS) derived from the Elementary Pragmatic Model (EPM). These two instruments were administered together with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Inventory (BPRI) to two samples of women and men with and without psychiatric diagnoses. Scores in both instruments demonstrated statistically significant test-retest reliabilities and correlated highly with scores on the BPRI. These results tend to support the concurrent validity of both instruments and add more evidence to the theoretical significance of the models they represent.

show abstract

Paradigms in Theory Construction

Guerra¹,

Capitelli²,

Longo³

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this edited volume is to expand on an early classifi cation of paradigms, theories, and models from a variety of contributors dedicated to each paradigm (L'Abate, 2009). Each contributor, in expanding on his/her favorite paradigm, implies or emphasizes her or his theoretical allegiance to the hegemonic importance of that paradigm over others. However, the wide range of paradigm available raises serious questions of whether one single paradigm can achieve such a superior position over others. Consequently, the major issue faced by such an embarrassment of paradigms raises the question on how one can choose one paradigm over others.In a previous publication (L'Abate, 2009) I discussed the role of paradigms, theories, and models trying to make sense of a confusing, uncritical matching of paradigms with theories, paradigms with models, and theories with models. From this publication came forth a classifi cation of paradigms that to my knowledge has not been attempted before, at least in psychology but, as we shall see, attempted frequently in other social science disciplines.Paradigms include theories. Theories include models. Models include dimensions, according to a hierarchical framework. However, what is a paradigm? Many defi nitions equate a paradigm with a model, making it very diffi cult to differentiate among the different components of the proposed classifi cation. Eventually, the best way I could defi ne a paradigm was as "one way to look at reality." Or "a systematic system of values." This way of looking consists of different components chosen to perceive reality according to individual criteria. Different value systems for different individuals. Whether there is a unique, supra-ordinate paradigm, besides evolution, is a question that remains to be answered by most contributors. Is there a supra-ordinate paradigm, and if there is one, how would that supra-ordinate paradigm be chosen?This classifi cation, therefore, begs the question: Which rules, if any, control, govern, or link one paradigm with a theory? Thus far, as far as I know, the only rule relating to the link between a paradigm and a theory, has been by proclamation: a theorist would swear allegiance to a particular paradigm. However, how a particular paradigm was chosen seems by personal preferences of the theorist. Could any other paradigm be chosen instead? Why one particular paradigm instead of another? One

show abstract

Relational Competence Theory

Cited by 58 publications

References 262 publications

Intergenerational Transmission of Relational Styles: Current Considerations

Intergenerational Transmission of Relational Styles: Current Considerations

The Concurrent Validity of Two Relational Selfhood Models: A Pilot Study

Paradigms in Theory Construction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About