Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy

Abstract

The Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy (CSIE) is a 32-item psychometric instrument developed by Kenneth D. Locke and Pamela Sadler to evaluate self-efficacy beliefs within interpersonal contexts. Rooted in the structural framework of the interpersonal circumplex (IPC) and Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory, the CSIE measures an individual’s subjective confidence in executing behaviors across the circular continuum of human social interaction. The instrument consists of eight 4-item scales corresponding to the octants of the IPC: Dominant/Agentic (PA), Competitive/Arrogant (BC), Cold/Distant (DE), Avoidant/Submissive (FG), Unassertive/Yielding (HI), Warm-Accepting (JK), Communal/Nurturing (LM), and Gregarious/Extroverted (NO). Each item is rated on an 11-point confidence scale ranging from 0 (I am not at all confident that…) to 10 (I am absolutely confident that…). Psychometric investigations demonstrate that the CSIE exhibits a robust circular structure conforming to circumplex properties, adequate internal consistency reliabilities across its 4-item octants, and strong convergent and discriminant validity with established measures such as the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) and the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV). The CSIE provides essential mathematical parameters via the Structural Summary Method—including overall elevation, vector amplitude, and angular displacement—which allow researchers and clinicians to assess generalized interpersonal confidence, interpersonal rigidity, and dominant behavioral orientations in dyadic, group, and therapeutic settings.

Keywords

Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy, CSIE, interpersonal circumplex, self-efficacy, agency, communion, structural summary method, interpersonal assessment, social cognitive theory, dyadic complementarity

Authors

The Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy was developed by Kenneth D. Locke, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at the University of Idaho, in collaboration with Pamela Sadler, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University.

• Kenneth D. Locke, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology and Communication, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. Dr. Locke is a leading researcher in interpersonal psychology, social comparison, social cognition, and circumplex psychometrics, having formulated both the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV) and the CSIE.
• Pamela Sadler, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada. Dr. Sadler is renowned for her empirical work on interpersonal complementarity, continuous-time behavioral observation, and dyadic interpersonal processes.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy is to provide an efficient, structurally valid self-report measure of confidence across the full spectrum of interpersonal behaviors defined by the orthogonal metaconcepts of agency (dominance vs. submission) and communion (warmth vs. hostility). While classical interpersonal assessment historically focused on behavioral traits (e.g., the Interpersonal Adjective Scales) or interpersonal distress and behavioral excess/inhibition (e.g., the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems), social-cognitive perspectives emphasize that interpersonal action is profoundly mediated by an individual’s domain-specific self-efficacy expectations.

Self-efficacy represents people’s convictions regarding their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce designated levels of performance. Prior to the development of the CSIE, interpersonal researchers lacked a dedicated circumplex instrument that captured efficacy expectations systematically. By providing an 8-octant circular inventory, the CSIE allows clinicians and researchers to:

• Differentiate between what an individual desires or values interpersonally (measured by the CSIV), what an individual actually struggles with (measured by the IIP), and what an individual feels capable of executing under varying relational pressures.
• Evaluate interpersonal competence profiles in clinical assessment, pinpointing specific behavioral domains where clients exhibit low self-efficacy (e.g., assertive self-expression, establishing boundaries, showing vulnerability, or managing conflict).
• Predict dyadic behavior and test interpersonal complementarity theory, which posits that agentic behaviors pull for reciprocal (opposite) agentic behaviors, whereas communal behaviors pull for symmetrical (similar) communal behaviors.
• Track therapeutic change and intervention efficacy in cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal psychotherapies, particularly when assessing increases in behavioral repertoire and overcoming interpersonal avoidance.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the CSIE is interpersonal self-efficacy, operationalized as an individual’s subjective certainty that they can execute specific agentic, communal, unagentic, and uncommunal behaviors when interacting with others. The construct is grounded in the two-dimensional coordinate system of the Interpersonal Circumplex:

By mapping these eight domains into geometric space, the CSIE permits the calculation of three structural summary parameters: (a) Elevation (the general baseline level of interpersonal confidence across all octants), (b) Vector Amplitude (the degree of distinctiveness or differentiated specificity in an individual’s efficacy profile), and (c) Angular Displacement (the specific interpersonal style in which efficacy is concentrated, represented as an angle between 0° and 360°).

Theoretical Framework

The Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy synthesizes two influential psychological paradigms: Harry Stack Sullivan’s and Timothy Leary’s interpersonal theory, and Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory.

1. The Interpersonal Circumplex (IPC)

The IPC originated from the work of the Kaiser Foundation research group led by Timothy Leary (1957) and was mathematically formalized by Jerry Wiggins (1979, 1996). The circumplex model posits that interpersonal dispositions are arranged circularly around two primary, orthogonal axes:

• Agency (Dominance vs. Submission): Pertaining to power, control, autonomy, status, and mastery.
• Communion (Affiliation vs. Hostility): Pertaining to warmth, connection, intimacy, union, and solidarity.

In a true circumplex structure, scales that are adjacent on the circle (e.g., PA and NO) correlate most strongly, scales separated by 90° (orthogonal) correlate near zero, and scales located 180° opposite one another (e.g., PA and HI; LM and DE) exhibit strong negative correlations. This circular ordering creates a continuous geometric representation of interpersonal life.

2. Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Efficacy

Bandura (1997) established that human adaptation and behavioral competence depend heavily on cognitive self-evaluation. Efficacy beliefs determine the goals people set for themselves, how much effort they expend, how long they persevere in the face of obstacles, and their resilience to adversity. Importantly, social cognitive theory distinguishes among three distinct constructs:

1. Values / Motives: What outcomes an individual considers desirable or seeks to attain (e.g., wanting closeness or seeking dominance).
2. Efficacy Expectations: The belief that one can successfully execute the necessary behaviors regardless of preference or outcome.
3. Outcome Expectations / Problems: The anticipated results of executing those actions and the difficulties experienced during interpersonal transactions.

Locke and Sadler (2007) recognized that an individual might highly value an interpersonal outcome (such as dominating an interaction or providing deep empathetic solace) while having low self-efficacy for the specific behaviors required to achieve it. Conversely, individuals may feel completely efficacious at being cold or aggressive, yet actively choose not to engage in those actions because of their values. The CSIE was designed to isolate self-efficacy expectations from values, thereby providing a clear empirical bridge between social cognition and interpersonal dynamic systems.

Validity

Extensive psychometric validation of the CSIE was established in Locke and Sadler’s (2007) foundational investigation involving undergraduate and adult community samples, supplemented by subsequent structural analyses (Locke, 2011).

Construct and Structural Validity

Using circular stochastic modeling and Hubert and Arabie’s correspondence index, the 8 scales of the CSIE have been confirmed to conform to a circular ordering in two-dimensional space:

• Adjacent scales exhibit high positive intercorrelations (mean r ≈ .40 to .65).
• Orthogonal scales (90° apart) exhibit correlations close to zero (mean r ≈ -.10 to .15).
• Opposing octants (180° apart) demonstrate substantial negative correlations (mean r ≈ -.35 to -.60).
• Circumplex goodness-of-fit coefficients ($R^2$) computed via trigonometric structural summary models consistently exceed .85, demonstrating that the scales capture a genuine circumplex space rather than an unconstrained multi-factor structure.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The convergent validity of the CSIE has been established through systematic cross-instrument comparisons:

• Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV): Octants on the CSIE correlate positively with their corresponding octants on the CSIV (e.g., agentic efficacy PA correlates with agentic values PA at r ≈ .50 to .60). However, the correlations are far from unity, demonstrating that interpersonal efficacy and interpersonal values are related yet distinct psychological constructs.
• Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-C): The CSIE demonstrates predictable inverse relationships with interpersonal problems. For instance, low efficacy in Communal (LM) behaviors is robustly associated with problems of social inhibition, coldness, and detachment on the IIP-C, whereas low efficacy in Agentic (PA) behaviors strongly corresponds to non-assertive and exploitable interpersonal problems.
• Five-Factor Model (FFM): The agentic axis of the CSIE (Agentic vector) correlates strongly with Extraversion ($r > .50$) and negatively with Neuroticism. The communal axis (Communal vector) correlates strongly with Agreeableness ($r > .55$).

Criterion and Behavioral Predictive Validity

Locke and Sadler (2007) validated the CSIE in dyadic interaction experiments where pairs of unacquainted participants engaged in collaborative and competitive tasks. Individual differences in the CSIE predicted:

• Behavioral Complementarity: Participants reporting high agentic efficacy successfully pulled for submissive behaviors in their partners, while participants reporting communal efficacy elicited reciprocal warmth, confirming the interpersonal complementarity theorem.
• Dyadic Affect: Mismatches between interpersonal values and interpersonal efficacy were associated with heightened subjective anxiety and dyadic dissatisfaction during interactions.

Reliability

Despite each octant subscale containing only four items—designed deliberately to maximize efficiency and minimize respondent burden—the CSIE displays solid internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

In the primary validation study by Locke and Sadler (2007, N = 367), Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients across the eight octant scales demonstrated acceptable to good reliability:

• PA (Agentic): $lpha = .82$
• BC (Competitive): $lpha = .78$
• DE (Cold/Distant): $lpha = .79$
• FG (Avoidant): $lpha = .72$
• HI (Submissive): $lpha = .70$
• JK (Yielding-Warm): $lpha = .74$
• LM (Communal): $lpha = .76$
• NO (Gregarious): $lpha = .80$

The composite orthogonal vector dimensions—calculated as weighted linear combinations of all 32 items—exhibit higher reliability coefficients, typically ranging between $lpha = .84$ and $.89$ for both the overall Agentic and Communal vectors.

Normative Parameter Distributions

Descriptive statistics from the normative undergraduate cohort reported by Locke & Sadler (2007, N = 367; 236 females, 131 males) provide baseline reference values across octants (rated 0–10):

• PA (+A): Total M = 7.23 (SD = 1.68); Females M = 7.14 (SD = 1.71); Males M = 7.33 (SD = 1.66)
• BC (+A-C): Total M = 6.44 (SD = 1.66); Females M = 6.24 (SD = 1.70); Males M = 6.65 (SD = 1.59)
• DE (-C): Total M = 6.93 (SD = 1.82); Females M = 6.75 (SD = 1.89); Males M = 7.14 (SD = 1.75)
• FG (-A-C): Total M = 7.24 (SD = 1.54); Females M = 7.16 (SD = 1.57); Males M = 7.35 (SD = 1.54)
• HI (-A): Total M = 7.31 (SD = 1.53); Females M = 7.29 (SD = 1.48); Males M = 7.34 (SD = 1.62)
• JK (-A+C): Total M = 8.51 (SD = 1.11); Females M = 8.64 (SD = 1.02); Males M = 8.37 (SD = 1.20)
• LM (+C): Total M = 7.90 (SD = 1.20); Females M = 8.07 (SD = 1.10); Males M = 7.65 (SD = 1.28)
• NO (+A+C): Total M = 7.30 (SD = 1.37); Females M = 7.27 (SD = 1.39); Males M = 7.33 (SD = 1.36)

Factor Analysis

Evaluating circumplex instruments requires structural analytic procedures tailored to circular representations rather than conventional independent simple-structure exploratory factor analysis (EFA) or standard confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Principal Components and Dimensionality

When the 32 items of the CSIE are subjected to unrotated principal components analysis:

• The first component represents a general elevation factor (response elevation / generalized efficacy), accounting for approximately 25%–35% of the total variance.
• The second and third components clearly reflect the orthogonal dimensions of Agency (Dominance vs. Submission) and Communion (Warmth vs. Hostility), accounting for an additional 20%–30% of variance.
• Subsequent eigenvalues drop markedly, confirming a two-dimensional circumplex space after controlling for general response elevation.

Circumplex Structure Verification (CIRCUM and Structural Equations)

Confirmatory circumplex modeling using Michael Browne’s CIRCUM software assesses whether an instrument meets three rigorous structural assumptions:

1. Circular Ordering: The octants follow the exact sequential sequence PA → BC → DE → FG → HI → JK → LM → NO.
2. Equal Angular Spacing: Each octant is separated by approximately 45° around the unit circle.
3. Equal Vector Lengths: Each octant is positioned at approximately equal distance from the origin (equal communalities).

Analyses reported in Locke (2011) demonstrate that the CSIE conforms well to equal spacing constraints. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) for the equal-spacing circumplex model is typically under .07, and the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) exceeds .93, confirming that the 8 octant scales capture a geometrically balanced circumplex structure.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy (CSIE)
• Author: Kenneth D. Locke, Ph.D. (with Pamela Sadler, Ph.D.)
• Administration Type: Self-report questionnaire (paper-and-pencil or computer-administered interactive assessment)
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (ages 16+)
• Total Number of Items: 32 items (4 items per octant)
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 7 minutes
• Item Stem: Every item is introduced with the common situational stem: “When I am with others, … I can [behavior]”
• Response Scale: 11-point Likert-type confidence scale (0 to 10), with anchors:
  • 0: I am not at all confident that…
  • 2–3: I am mildly confident that…
  • 5: I am moderately confident that…
  • 7–8: I am very confident that…
  • 10: I am absolutely confident that…
• Octant Subscale Item Allocations:
  • PA (+Agency): Items 04, 12, 20, 28
  • BC (+Agency, -Communion): Items 07, 15, 23, 31
  • DE (-Communion): Items 02, 10, 18, 26
  • FG (-Agency, -Communion): Items 05, 13, 21, 29
  • HI (-Agency): Items 08, 16, 24, 32
  • JK (-Agency, +Communion): Items 03, 11, 19, 27
  • LM (+Communion): Items 06, 14, 22, 30
  • NO (+Agency, +Communion): Items 01, 09, 17, 25
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Raw Octant Scores: Calculated as the arithmetic mean of the 4 items assigned to that octant (ranging from 0 to 10).
  • Agentic Vector (Y-axis): Calculated as: $\text{Agentic} = 0.25 \times [\text{PA} – \text{HI} + 0.707 \times (\text{BC} + \text{NO} – \text{FG} – \text{JK})]$
  • Communal Vector (X-axis): Calculated as: $\text{Communal} = 0.25 \times [\text{LM} – \text{DE} + 0.707 \times (\text{NO} + \text{JK} – \text{FG} – \text{BC})]$
  • Elevation (ELE): The mean of all 8 octant scores: $\text{ELE} = \text{Mean}(\text{PA}, \text{BC}, \text{DE}, \text{FG}, \text{HI}, \text{JK}, \text{LM}, \text{NO})$
  • Vector Length / Amplitude (AMP): The intensity/differentiation of interpersonal efficacy: $\text{AMP} = \sqrt{\text{Agentic}^2 + \text{Communal}^2}$
  • Angular Displacement (ANG): The dominant interpersonal style angle (in degrees, 0°–360°), derived from $\arctan(\text{Agentic} / \text{Communal})$.
  • Circumplex Fit ($R^2$): Proportion of variance explained by the circumplex profile: $R^2 = \frac{4 \times \text{AMP}^2}{\text{SStot}}$, indicating whether the individual’s profile conforms well to a sinusoidal circumplex curve.
  • Ipsatized Octant Scores: Computed by subtracting overall Elevation from each raw octant score (e.g., $i\text{PA} = \text{PA} – \text{ELE}$), removing individual differences in generalized response elevation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy was first published in 2007 by Kenneth D. Locke and Pamela Sadler in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

• Copyright Status: The copyright for the instrument and item text is retained by Dr. Kenneth D. Locke.
• Fee and Research Licensing: The CSIE is available free of charge for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research purposes. Researchers and students may use the instrument without formal permission, provided that appropriate citation is given to Locke & Sadler (2007).
• Clinical and Commercial Use: Commercial applications, inclusion in fee-for-service diagnostic platforms, or incorporation into commercial software require permission from the author.
• Author Contact & Resources: Dr. Locke provides computational syntax (SPSS, SAS, R) and circumplex profiling materials on his academic web resources hosted at the University of Idaho.

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Browne, M. W. (1992). Circumplex models for correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 57(4), 469–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294416
• Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2000). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems manual. The Psychological Corporation.
• Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press.
• Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7502_6
• Locke, K. D. (2011). Circumplex measures of interpersonal constructs. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 313–324). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118001868.ch19
• Locke, K. D., & Sadler, P. (2007). Self-efficacy, values, and complementarity in dyadic interactions: Integrating interpersonal and social-cognitive theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206293375
• Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395
• Wiggins, J. S. (1996). An informal history of the interpersonal circumplex tradition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6602_2
• Wright, A. G. C., Pincus, A. L., Conroy, D. E., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2009). Integrating methods to optimize circumplex description and evaluation of personality pathology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935696

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)