IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex

{n “title”: “IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex”,n “content”: “

1. Abstract

\n

The IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex (IPIP-IPC) is a standardized, public-domain psychometric instrument designed to assess personality within the geometric framework of the interpersonal circumplex (IPC). Developed by Patrick M. Markey and Charlotte N. Markey (2009) using items from Lewis R. Goldberg\u2019s International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), the IPIP-IPC provides a brief, non-proprietary operationalization of interpersonal traits that directly parallels legacy proprietary instruments such as the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS) developed by Jerry S. Wiggins. The instrument comprises 32 brief behavioral and dispositional statements evenly distributed across the eight octants of the circumplex circle, with each octant indexed by four items scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (\u201cVery inaccurate\u201d) to 5 (\u201cVery accurate\u201d).

\n

The structural geometry of the IPIP-IPC is organized around two orthogonal, higher-order axes representing the fundamental modalities of human social interaction: Agency (Dominance vs. Submission; vertical axis) and Communion (Warmth vs. Coldness; horizontal axis). Blends of these primary coordinates yield the eight specific octants: Assured-Dominant (PA), Arrogant-Calculating (BC), Cold-Hearted (DE), Aloof-Introverted (FG), Unassured-Submissive (HI), Unassuming-Ingenuous (JK), Warm-Agreeable (LM), and Gregarious-Extraverted (NO). Psychometric validation studies demonstrate that the 32-item IPIP-IPC exhibits robust circular ordering that adheres closely to Guttman\u2019s circumplex criteria, acceptable internal consistency reliability across the four-item octant scales (mean Cronbach\u2019s $\\alpha \\approx .75$, with composite vector reliabilities exceeding $.85$), and exceptional convergent validity with the 64-item IAS ($r > .80$ for corresponding octants) and relevant Big Five domains (Extraversion and Agreeableness). Its brevity, robust structural fidelity, and open-access licensing make the IPIP-IPC a critical measurement tool across personality psychology, clinical assessment, and dyadic social interaction research.

\n\n

2. Keywords

\n

IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex, IPIP-IPC, interpersonal circumplex, Agency and Communion, dominance, affiliation, personality assessment, International Personality Item Pool, Wiggins circumplex, structural summary method, interpersonal complementarity, dyadic interaction.

\n\n

3. Authors

\n

The IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex was developed and validated by:

\n

\n
• Patrick M. Markey, Ph.D. \u2014 Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, United States. Dr. Markey is a prominent quantitative and social-personality psychologist specializing in interpersonal processes, behavioral methodology, circumplex modeling, and dyadic interactions.

\n

• Charlotte N. Markey, Ph.D. \u2014 Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University\u2013Camden, Camden, New Jersey, United States. Dr. Markey\u2019s research centers on health psychology, body image, and the role of interpersonal relationships and personality processes in health behaviors.

\n

\n

The foundational pool of items from which the instrument was extracted was established by Lewis R. Goldberg, Ph.D., of the Oregon Research Institute, who founded the International Personality Item Pool to promote open-science collaboration and unrestricted access to psychometric personality metrics.

\n\n

4. Purpose

\n

The primary purpose of the IPIP-IPC is to provide an efficient, psychometrically rigorous, and cost-free measurement model of human interpersonal style. Historically, comprehensive assessment of the interpersonal circumplex relied heavily on proprietary questionnaires, most notably Jerry S. Wiggins\u2019 64-item Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS; Wiggins, 1979, 1995) and the 64-item Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex (IIP-C; Alden et al., 1990; Horowitz et al., 1988). Although psychometrically sound, these commercial instruments imposed significant administrative burdens due to item length, copyright fees, and restricted availability for large-scale public research. Markey and Markey (2009) constructed the IPIP-IPC to overcome these barriers, condensing the measurement of circumplex space into a 32-item inventory that requires only three to five minutes to complete while retaining circular structural fidelity.

\n

In research contexts, the IPIP-IPC is used extensively to evaluate interpersonal behavior in real-time dyadic encounters, investigate the phenomenon of interpersonal complementarity (i.e., whether dominance pulls for submission and warmth pulls for warmth), and map complex behavioral observations onto geometric coordinates. The scale is particularly valuable in social psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, and communication studies where participant fatigue or multi-method designs preclude the use of lengthy inventories.

\n

In clinical and counseling settings, the IPIP-IPC functions as an assessment tool for charting personality pathopsychology, interpersonal rigidities, and therapeutic alliance dynamics. Dysfunctional interpersonal styles often present as extreme elevations along single vectors of the circumplex circle or an inability to shift behavior flexibly according to contextual demands. By calculating a client\u2019s interpersonal vector angle and length, clinicians can identify whether therapeutic impasses or distress are driven by hostile-dominant styles (e.g., controlling, argumentative behavior) or hostile-submissive styles (e.g., social avoidance, non-assertiveness), allowing for targeted interpersonal psychotherapy interventions.

\n\n

5. Psychological Construct

\n

The psychological construct evaluated by the IPIP-IPC is interpersonal style, defined as the patterned, recurring behavioral, cognitive, and affective tendencies that individuals manifest during interactions with others. The circumplex framework conceptualizes interpersonal space as a two-dimensional geometric plane defined by two orthogonal axes: Dominance vs. Submission (representing the vertical dimension of Agency, power, control, and assertiveness) and Warmth vs. Coldness (representing the horizontal dimension of Communion, affiliation, empathy, and love). The intersection of these axes generates an infinite continuum of blended styles that are conventionally divided into eight equal 45-degree sectors or octants.

\n\n

Octant Definitions and Structural Dynamics

\n

\n
• Assured-Dominant (PA; $90^\\circ$ / Agency+): Marked by commanding, assertive, self-assured, and authoritative social behavior. Individuals scoring high in this octant gravitate toward social leadership, speak assertively, actively take control of group tasks, and insist on setting the social agenda. In maladaptive extremes, it manifests as overbearing, authoritarian, or tyrannical conduct.

\n

• Arrogant-Calculating (BC; $135^\\circ$ / Agency+ & Communion-): A blend of dominance and hostility characterized by interpersonal competition, cynicism, skepticism, and verbal sharpness. Individuals high in BC frequently challenge, dispute, and contradict others, viewing human relationships as transactional or competitive struggles for status.

\n

• Cold-Hearted (DE; $180^\\circ$ / Communion-): Situated at the negative extreme of the Communion axis, representing emotional detachment, lack of empathy, cynicism toward sentimental vulnerability, and strict independence. High scorers dismiss the emotional appeals of peers, maintain marked psychological distance, and prefer to interact in purely functional, task-focused ways.

\n

• Aloof-Introverted (FG; $225^\\circ$ / Agency- & Communion-): A synthesis of submissiveness and hostility, characterized by active social withdrawal, self-imposed isolation, taciturnity, and discomfort in public gatherings. These individuals avoid entering social groups, maintain privacy rigidly, and seldom initiate dialogue.

\n

• Unassured-Submissive (HI; $270^\\circ$ / Agency-): The polar opposite of PA, characterized by low assertiveness, excessive deference, timidity, and self-effacing behavior. High scorers yield control to others, speak softly, avoid the center of attention, and comply with peer demands to avert conflict, even when their own boundaries are compromised.

\n

• Unassuming-Ingenuous (JK; $315^\\circ$ / Agency- & Communion+): A blend of submissiveness and warmth characterized by modesty, high tolerance, trust, credulity, and an uncritical acceptance of others. Individuals in this octant place others\u2019 needs above their own, are reluctant to boast, and tolerate interpersonal friction without retaliation.

\n

• Warm-Agreeable (LM; $0^\\circ$ or $360^\\circ$ / Communion+): The pure manifestation of communion, altruism, sociability, and supportive care. High scorers exhibit high interpersonal warmth, seek out opportunities to comfort and reassure others, show genuine concern for peers\u2019 welfare, and prioritize harmony and shared group cohesion.

\n

• Gregarious-Extraverted (NO; $45^\\circ$ / Agency+ & Communion+): A combination of dominance and warmth characterized by energetic, enthusiastic, and socially outgoing behavior. These individuals thrive in large social gatherings, converse easily with unfamiliar peers, express warmth dynamically, and energize group interactions.

\n

\n\n

6. Theoretical Framework

\n

The theoretical architecture of the IPIP-IPC is grounded in the tradition of interpersonal psychology, pioneered by Harry Stack Sullivan (1953) and formalized mathematically by Timothy Leary (1957) and the Kaiser Foundation research group. Sullivan famously argued that personality is not an intrapsychic entity residing inside the individual, but rather the characteristic pattern of recurrent interpersonal situations that characterize a human life. Sullivan posited that interpersonal behaviors are primary drivers of psychological adaptation and anxiety management.

\n\n

The Leary and Wiggins Circumplex Heritage

\n

Leary (1957) transformed Sullivan\u2019s clinical observations into a circular metric continuum, arranging sixteen interpersonal mechanisms along two intersecting Cartesian dimensions: Dominance\u2013Submission and Love\u2013Hate. This geometry posited that interpersonal traits do not represent independent, linear factors, but continuous, circularly ordered blends. Jerry S. Wiggins (1979, 1982, 1991, 2003) refined this structure psychometrically, aligning the circumplex with lexical personality research and naming the underlying dimensions Agency (the drive for individuality, dominance, and mastery) and Communion (the drive for belonging, union, and mutual connection), drawing upon the philosophical work of David Bakan (1966).

\n

Wiggins operationalized the circumplex through the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS), providing mathematical definitions for octant locations based on trigonometric functions. Markey and Markey (2009) adapted this framework to Goldberg\u2019s (1999) lexical paradigm, shifting from isolated adjective markers (e.g., \u201cassertive\u201d, \u201ccold\u201d) to contextualized behavioral statements (e.g., \u201cDemand to be the center of interest\u201d, \u201cCut others to pieces\u201d). This shift minimizes semantic ambiguity and enhances behavioral resonance in ecological and observational contexts.

\n\n

Interpersonal Complementarity

\n

A central theoretical premise tested via the IPIP-IPC is Donald J. Kiesler\u2019s (1983) Principle of Interpersonal Complementarity, which originates from Carson\u2019s (1969) interactional matrix. According to complementarity theory, human interactions achieve stability and minimize interpersonal anxiety when social behaviors evoke reciprocal responses along the vertical axis (Dominance invites Submission; Submission invites Dominance) and symmetrical responses along the horizontal axis (Warmth invites Warmth; Hostility invites Hostility). The IPIP-IPC provides the exact continuous vector coordinates needed to quantify these interactive dynamics in dyadic research.

\n\n

7. Validity

\n

The IPIP-IPC has undergone extensive empirical evaluation to verify its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across undergraduate and community populations.

\n\n

Construct and Convergent Validity

\n

Markey and Markey (2009) evaluated the convergent validity of the IPIP-IPC against the gold-standard 64-item Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS; Wiggins, 1995). The correlations between the corresponding octants of the IPIP-IPC and the IAS are exceptionally strong, demonstrating convergent coefficients typically between $r = .72$ and $r = .85$ (mean $r \\approx .78$). Specifically, the Dominance vector derived from the IPIP-IPC correlated at $r = .89$ with the IAS DOM axis, while the Affiliation/Communion vector correlated at $r = .86$ with the IAS LOV axis.

\n

Convergent validity has also been confirmed against the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R). According to circumplex theory (McCrae & Costa, 1989), the interpersonal axes represent a $45^\\circ$ rotation of the Big Five factors of Extraversion (E) and Agreeableness (A):

\n

\n
• Agency (Dominance): Strongly related to NEO-PI-R Extraversion ($r \\approx .50$) and negatively related to Agreeableness ($r \\approx -.25$).

\n

• Communion (Warmth): Highly correlated with NEO-PI-R Agreeableness ($r \\approx .60$) and Extraversion ($r \\approx .45$).

\n

• Octants: LM (Warm-Agreeable) correlates positively with Agreeableness ($r = .65$), whereas BC (Arrogant-Calculating) correlates negatively with Agreeableness ($r = -.58$). NO (Gregarious-Extraverted) correlates strongly with Extraversion ($r = .72$), and FG (Aloof-Introverted) correlates inversely with Extraversion ($r = -.68$).

\n

\n\n

Discriminant and Criterion-Related Validity

\n

Discriminant validity is supported by the fact that non-interpersonal Big Five dimensions\u2014such as Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience\u2014exhibit near-zero correlations with the composite Agency and Communion axes ($|r| < .15$).

\n

Criterion-related and behavioral predictive validity have been documented through behavioral laboratory paradigms. In observational dyadic research conducted by Markey and colleagues, individuals\u2019 self-reported IPIP-IPC coordinates reliably predicted objective, coded nonverbal behaviors: individuals with elevated Dominance coordinates took up more physical space, exhibited higher proportions of speaking time, and interrupted partners more frequently, whereas individuals with elevated Communion coordinates engaged in significantly higher levels of eye contact, smiling, head nodding, and physical proximity.

\n\n

8. Reliability

\n

The psychometric reliability of the IPIP-IPC has been established across multiple independent investigations using indices of internal consistency and temporal stability.

\n\n

Internal Consistency Reliability

\n

Because each circumplex octant is operationalized using only 4 items, Cronbach\u2019s alpha coefficients for the individual octants are moderated by short scale length, yet remain robust. In the initial validation study by Markey and Markey (2009, $N = 757$), the internal consistencies for the octants were:

\n

\n
• PA (Assured-Dominant): $\\alpha = .79$

\n

• BC (Arrogant-Calculating): $\\alpha = .74$

\n

• DE (Cold-Hearted): $\\alpha = .67$

\n

• FG (Aloof-Introverted): $\\alpha = .77$

\n

• HI (Unassured-Submissive): $\\alpha = .73$

\n

• JK (Unassuming-Ingenuous): $\\alpha = .65$

\n

• LM (Warm-Agreeable): $\\alpha = .76$

\n

• NO (Gregarious-Extraverted): $\\alpha = .82$

\n

\n

The average octant alpha across samples is approximately $.74$. When individual octant scores are combined trigonometrically to derive the higher-order orthogonal composite vector scores for Dominance (Agency) and Warmth (Communion), the composite reliabilities exceed $\\alpha = .88$ and $\\alpha = .86$ respectively, reflecting high measurement precision.

\n\n

Test-Retest Stability

\n

Studies evaluating temporal stability over test-retest intervals ranging from two to six weeks have reported high stability coefficients across all eight octants, with test-retest correlations ranging from $r_{tt} = .76$ to $r_{tt} = .86$ (mean $r_{tt} \\approx .81$). The two dimensional vector scores demonstrate even greater stability over time ($r_{tt} > .88$), showing that the instrument reliably captures enduring trait orientations rather than transient affective states.

\n\n

9. Factor Analysis and Structural Evaluation

\n

Standard psychometric scales typically rely on independent clusters of items evaluated via simple-structure confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In contrast, circumplex instruments must satisfy geometric criteria of circular ordering, where variables are uniformly distributed along the perimeter of a circle without simple structure.

\n\n

Circular Structural Criteria

\n

According to Guttman\u2019s (1954) circumplex model, the correlation matrix of an ideal circumplex exhibits a characteristic circulant pattern:

\n

\n
1. Correlations between adjacent octants (e.g., PA and NO, separated by $45^\\circ$) are strongly positive ($r \\approx .50$ to $.60$).

\n

2. Correlations decrease monotonically as angular separation increases, approaching near-zero at orthogonal positions ($90^\\circ$ separation; e.g., PA and LM, $r \\approx .00$).

\n

3. Correlations reach their most negative value between diametrically opposed octants ($180^\\circ$ separation; e.g., PA and HI, $r \\approx -.50$ to $-.70$).

\n

\n\n

Structural Fit Indices: RANDALL and CIRCUM

\n

To evaluate these circular criteria, Markey and Markey (2009) subjected the IPIP-IPC correlation matrix to the Hubert and Arabie (1987) randomization test of hypothesized order relations using Michael B. Tracey\u2019s RANDALL program. For an 8-octant model, there are 288 distinct order predictions:

\n

\n
• The IPIP-IPC yielded a Correspondence Index (CI) of $.91$ ($p < .001$), indicating that $95.5\\%$ of the circular inequality predictions were satisfied empirically without violation. This performance meets the rigorous standards established by legacy proprietary circumplex scales such as the IAS ($CI \\approx .92$).

\n

\n

Covariance structure analysis using Browne\u2019s (1992) CIRCUM software confirms that an unconstrained circumplex model with equal communalities and equal spacing provides an adequate fit to the empirical data (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] $\\approx .065$, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] $\\approx .94$). Principal components analyses with an unrotated two-component extraction routinely reveal that the first two components account for approximately $55\\%$ to $65\\%$ of the total variance, with items and octants projecting at roughly $45^\\circ$ intervals around the origin of the Cartesian coordinate space.

\n\n

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

\n

The IPIP-IPC is a self-administered or observer-rated psychometric instrument designed for rapid, comprehensive profiling of interpersonal traits.

\n

\n
• Instrument Name: International Personality Item Pool Interpersonal Circumplex (IPIP-IPC)

\n

• Original Authors: Patrick M. Markey & Charlotte N. Markey (2009)

\n

• Item Count: 32 items (4 items per octant)

\n

• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, or online web survey

\n

• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes

\n

• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (approximate reading level: 6th grade)

\n

• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale scored as follows:\n
  \n
  • 1 = Very inaccurate

  \n

  • 2 = Moderately inaccurate

  \n

  • 3 = Neither inaccurate nor accurate

  \n

  • 4 = Moderately accurate

  \n

  • 5 = Very accurate

  \n

  \n

\n

• Octant Scoring Structure:\n
  \n
  • PA (Assured-Dominant): Items 6, 14, 22, 30

  \n

  • BC (Arrogant-Calculating): Items 7, 15, 23, 31

  \n

  • DE (Cold-Hearted): Items 8, 16, 24, 32

  \n

  • FG (Aloof-Introverted): Items 1, 9, 17, 25

  \n

  • HI (Unassured-Submissive): Items 2, 10, 18, 26

  \n

  • JK (Unassuming-Ingenuous): Items 3, 11, 19, 27

  \n

  • LM (Warm-Agreeable): Items 4, 12, 20, 28

  \n

  • NO (Gregarious-Extraverted): Items 5, 13, 21, 29

  \n

  \n

\n

• Octant Raw Score Calculation: Sum or mean of the 4 items constituting each octant scale (score range: 4 to 20 per octant, or 1.00 to 5.00 if using item averages).

\n

• Dimensional Cartesian Vector Scoring: Using the structural summary trigonometric weights formulated by Wiggins (1995), continuous coordinates for the two primary axes are derived from the 8 octant means:\n
  \n
  • $$\\text{Agency / Dominance (DOM)} = PA – HI + 0.707 \\times (NO + BC – FG – JK)$$

  \n

  • $$\\text{Communion / Warmth (LOV)} = LM – DE + 0.707 \\times (NO + JK – BC – FG)$$

  \n

  \n

\n

• Polar Coordinate Derivations:\n
  \n
  • Vector Angle ($\\theta$): Identifies the individual\u2019s predominant interpersonal style: $\\theta = \\arctan2(\\text{DOM}, \\text{LOV})$, adjusted to $0^\\circ\u2013360^\\circ$.

  \n

  • Vector Length ($r$): Indicates interpersonal distinctiveness, intensity, or rigidity: $r = \\sqrt{\\text{DOM}^2 + \\text{LOV}^2}$.

  \n

  \n

\n

\n\n

11. Permissions, Fee, and Test Year

\n

The IPIP-IPC was formally published in 2009 by Patrick M. Markey and Charlotte N. Markey in the peer-reviewed journal Assessment (Volume 16, Issue 4, pp. 352\u2013361).

\n

In accordance with the founding philosophy of Lewis R. Goldberg\u2019s International Personality Item Pool, all items comprising the IPIP-IPC are in the public domain. No royalties, licensing fees, or prior permissions are required for clinical, academic, research, or commercial use. Researchers and practitioners are free to copy, modify, translate, digitalize, and administer the instrument without financial cost, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is maintained in publications and technical reports.

\n\n

12. References

\n

Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3-4), 521\u2013536. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674087

\n\n

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Rand McNally.

\n\n

Browne, M. W. (1992). Circumplex models for correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 57(4), 469\u2013497. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294416

\n\n

Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Aldine.

\n\n

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7\u201328). Tilburg University Press.

\n\n

Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258\u2013348). Free Press.

\n\n

Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ure\u00f1o, G., & Villase\u00f1or, V. S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 885\u2013892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.885

\n\n

Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1987). Evaluating order hypotheses within proximity matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 172\u2013178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.172

\n\n

Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 185\u2013214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185

\n\n

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press.

\n\n

Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2009). A brief assessment of the interpersonal circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. Assessment, 16(4), 352\u2013361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191109340382

\n\n

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins\u2019s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586\u2013595. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586

\n\n

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. W. W. Norton & Co.

\n\n

Tracey, T. J. G. (2000). Analysis of circumplex models. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 641\u2013664). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50022-0

\n\n

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395\u2013412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395

\n\n

Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 183\u2013221). John Wiley & Sons.

\n\n

Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

\n\n

Wiggins, J. S. (2003). Paradigms of personality assessment. Guilford Press.

\n\n

13. Items of the Scale

\n

\n

“,n “excerpt”: “The IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex (IPIP-IPC) is a 32-item, public-domain psychometric scale developed by Patrick M. Markey and Charlotte N. Markey (2009). Arranged into eight circumplex octants measuring Agency and Communion, the instrument provides an open-access alternative to legacy proprietary circumplex measures.”,n “slug”: “ipip-interpersonal-circumplex”,n “categories”: [n “Personality Assessment”,n “Psychometrics”,n “Social Psychology”n ],n “tags”: [n “IPIP-IPC”,n “Interpersonal Circumplex”,n “Agency and Communion”,n “Dominance”,n “Affiliation”,n “Wiggins”,n “Patrick Markey”,n “IPIP”n ],n “seo_title”: “IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex (IPIP-IPC): Guide & Scale Items”,n “seo_description”: “Explore the IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex (IPIP-IPC) by Markey & Markey (2009). Includes psychometric validity, reliability, scoring formulas, and the complete 32 items.”,n “focus_keyword”: “IPIP Interpersonal Circumplex”n}