{n “title”: “Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI)”,n “excerpt”: “An authoritative academic review of the Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI) and its revised iteration (SUPI-R), examining its theoretical foundations in the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT) method, psychometric properties, and clinical utility in evaluating dynamic insight into interpersonal patterns.”,n “slug”: “self-understanding-rating-scale-supi”,n “categories”: [n “Psychological Assessment”,n “Psychometrics”,n “Psychotherapy Process Research”,n “Interpersonal Psychology”n ],n “tags”: [n “SUPI”,n “SUPI-R”,n “Self-Understanding”,n “CCRT”,n “Interpersonal Patterns”,n “Dynamic Insight”,n “Psychodynamic Psychotherapy”,n “Psychometrics”,n “Luborsky”,n “Connolly Gibbons”n ],n “seo_title”: “Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI): Psychometric Profile & Clinical Guide”,n “seo_description”: “Explore the comprehensive psychometric analysis of the Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI / SUPI-R), assessing dynamic insight into interpersonal patterns, CCRT constructs, validity, and scoring.”,n “focus_keyword”: “Self-Understanding Rating Scale”,n “content”: “
1. Abstract
\n
The Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI), along with its psychometrically refined successor, the Self-Understanding of Interpersonal Patterns – Revised (SUPI-R), is a specialized assessment instrument developed to operationalize and quantify a patient’s dynamic insight into their recurrent, maladaptive interpersonal conflicts. Rooted empirically in Lester Luborsky’s Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT) framework, the SUPI translates complex psychodynamic and interpersonal constructs into measurable dimensions of cognitive, affective, and relational self-awareness. The instrument presents a standardized catalog of 28 core interpersonal pattern statements—derived from the most frequent clinical manifestations of relational conflicts involving components of primary Wishes (W), anticipated or perceived Responses from Others (RO), and internal or behavioral Responses of the Self (RS). Each endorsed pattern is assessed using a hierarchical, progressive rating continuum that traces the evolution of dynamic self-understanding: starting from the complete absence of situational awareness, advancing through recognition of the pattern across multiple relationships, tracing developmental and genetic origins in past attachment experiences, acknowledging personal agency and responsibility in recreating the pattern, and culminating in real-time reflective functioning and behavioral flexibility in the moment. Psychometric evaluations across clinical and non-clinical cohorts indicate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .82 to .91 for total insight and composite dimensions), acceptable test-retest reliability ($r = .74$ to $.85$), and excellent convergent validity with established measures such as the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) and observer-rated CCRT scales. The SUPI represents a pivotal methodological bridge between quantitative psychometrics and psychodynamic process research, providing clinicians and researchers with an empirically validated metric to evaluate therapeutic change, mentalization, and relational insight.
\n\n
2. Keywords
\n
Self-Understanding Rating Scale, SUPI, SUPI-R, Core Conflictual Relationship Theme, CCRT, dynamic insight, interpersonal patterns, reflective functioning, psychodynamic psychotherapy, Luborsky, psychological assessment, relational schemas.
\n\n
3. Authors
\n
The original development and formal psychometric validation of the Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI) and its revised operationalizations were spearheaded by a consortium of leading psychotherapy process researchers and clinical psychometricians:
\n
- \n
- Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons, Ph.D. – Center for Psychotherapy Research, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
- Paul Crits-Christoph, Ph.D. – Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry, Director of the Center for Psychotherapy Research, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
- John Kurtz, Ph.D. – Department of Psychology, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, USA.
- Stephen F. Butler, Ph.D. – Inflexxion, Inc., and Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
- Richard C. Shelton, M.D. – Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
- Steven D. Hollon, Ph.D. – Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
- Jacques P. Barber, Ph.D., ABPP – The Derner School of Psychology, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, and Center for Psychotherapy Research, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
- Sara Baker, M.A. – Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
- Michael E. Thase, M.D. – Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, USA.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Correspondence regarding the instrument, scoring rubrics, and clinical implementation should be addressed to the Center for Psychotherapy Research, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, 6th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
\n\n
4. Purpose
\n
The primary clinical and research objective of the Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI) is to systematically operationalize, quantify, and track changes in dynamic insight—specifically the degree to which an individual comprehends the repetitive, cyclical maladaptive interpersonal patterns that govern their relationships and psychological distress. While the acquisition of self-understanding has historically formed the bedrock of psychoanalytic, psychodynamic, and interpersonal therapeutic traditions, empirical psychotherapy research long struggled with the lack of reliable, standardized self-report and observer-based tools capable of capturing the subtle, progressive stages of therapeutic insight.
\n\n
In traditional clinical trials, insight was often treated as an all-or-nothing cognitive phenomenon or conflated with general intellectualization. The SUPI was constructed to overcome these methodological limitations by providing a fine-grained, dimensional measurement tool designed for both naturalistic clinical practice and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Specifically, the instrument serves three fundamental purposes:
\n
- \n
- Process-Outcome Mediation: In psychodynamic and relational psychotherapy research, the SUPI enables investigators to test the central theoretical proposition that gains in self-understanding mediate symptomatic improvement, reduction in personality pathology, and long-term interpersonal functioning.
- Case Formulation and Baseline Diagnostic Profiling: In clinical practice, the 28 core pattern items allow the clinician to construct a standardized map of the patient’s dominant relational conflicts. By evaluating the baseline level of awareness for each pattern, therapists can pinpoint whether an individual is completely unaware of their defensive maneuvers, recognizes patterns intellectually but externalizes blame, or possesses historical awareness without the capacity for real-time behavioral modulation.
- Tracking Intra-Therapeutic Micro-Gains: Because the scale separates the endorsement of an interpersonal problem from the structural level of understanding applied to that problem, it can detect intra-individual cognitive and dynamic maturation. A patient might continue to experience an underlying relational wish or fear (e.g., fear of abandonment), yet show dramatic therapeutic progress by shifting from an unreflective stance (Level a/b) to an integrated, agentic understanding accompanied by real-time perspective taking (Level f/g).
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
5. Psychological Construct
\n
The central construct measured by the SUPI is dynamic self-understanding of interpersonal patterns. This construct diverges fundamentally from static self-esteem, self-consciousness, or purely intellectual self-knowledge. Within contemporary psychodynamics and empirical relational science, dynamic self-understanding is defined as the structural capacity of an individual to observe, mentalize, and emotionally comprehend how their internal psychological needs, unconscious expectations, and past attachment models shape their repetitive interpersonal enactments.
\n\n
The construct is grounded in the structural triad of Luborsky’s CCRT model, which organizes relational episodes into three functional components:
\n
- \n
- Wish (W): The primary instinctual, emotional, or attachment-based yearning the individual experiences toward another person (e.g., \”I need someone to take care of me,\” \”I feel the need to guide others,\” \”I want to be respected\”).
- Response from Other (RO): The anticipated, perceived, or actual behavior of the relational partner in reaction to the wish (e.g., rejecting, abandoning, taking over, putting down, ignoring).
- Response of Self (RS): The affective, cognitive, and behavioral reaction of the individual to the perceived response of the other (e.g., feeling hurt, closing off, withdrawing defensively, complying compulsively, attacking).
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Critically, the SUPI evaluates self-understanding not as a monolithic trait, but as a hierarchical developmental trajectory encompassing several distinct cognitive-affective milestones:
\n\n
Level 1: Unawareness and Relationship-Specific Externalization
\n
At the lowest tier of insight, the individual experiences recurrent relational friction or subjective distress but perceives each episode as an isolated, random occurrence wholly caused by the external partner’s idiosyncrasies or flaws. The cyclical nature of the pattern remains entirely unconscious.
\n\n
Level 2: Recognition of Recurrent Multi-Person Patterns
\n
The individual achieves horizontal or cross-situational generalization. They can identify that identical interpersonal crises (e.g., feeling abandoned, becoming defensive, placating others) recur across divergent social domains—with romantic partners, friends, colleagues, and family members. However, the psychological mechanisms driving this recurrence remain opaque.
\n\n
Level 3: Genetic/Historical Understanding
\n
The individual develops vertical or temporal insight, drawing meaningful causal links between current relational expectations and formative childhood or early attachment experiences (e.g., recognizing that one’s compulsive urge to \”save\” partners stems from having to parent a depressed caregiver in childhood).
\n\n
Level 4: Agency, Personal Responsibility, and In-the-Moment Mentalization
\n
The highest developmental stages captured by the SUPI-R involve acknowledging personal agency—recognizing that one actively selects, provokes, or projects expectations onto relational contexts—and exhibiting real-time reflective functioning. Here, the individual recognizes the activation of the maladaptive schema in the moment it unfolds and exercises cognitive and emotional flexibility to consider alternative behavioral pathways.
\n\n
6. Theoretical Framework
\n
The conceptual framework underpinning the SUPI synthesizes three major intellectual traditions within clinical psychology: the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT) method developed by Lester Luborsky, the Cyclical Maladaptive Pattern (CMP) paradigm formulated by Hans Strupp and Jeffrey Binder, and contemporary Attachment and Mentalization Theory advanced by Peter Fonagy and Mary Target.
\n\n
Luborsky (1984, 1990) established the CCRT as an objective, empirical method for decoding psychoanalytic transcripts. By analyzing relationship episodes (REs) narrated by patients during clinical sessions, independent judges could extract recurrent patterns of Wishes, Responses from the Other, and Responses of the Self. Luborsky hypothesized that expressive psychoanalytic psychotherapy exerts its curative effect by expanding the patient’s CCRT-related insight—enabling them to move from blind reenactment (acting out) to conscious mastery and structural personality change. The SUPI was conceived to translate this labor-intensive, observer-rated narrative scoring system into an accessible, highly structured assessment format that directly captures the patient’s phenomenological perspective.
\n\n
Concurrently, the Cyclical Maladaptive Pattern (CMP) model of Time-Limited Dynamic Psychotherapy (TLDP; Strupp & Binder, 1984) posited that patients enter therapy trapped in self-perpetuating, vicious interpersonal feedback loops: rigid negative expectations lead to dysfunctional overt behaviors, which elicit confirming hostile or dismissive responses from others, thereby reinforcing the patient’s original maladaptive schemas. True therapeutic progress demands that the patient comprehend their own active role within this cycle.
\n\n
Finally, modern versions of the SUPI (particularly the SUPI-R) integrate constructs from cognitive psychology and mentalization theory. By assessing whether a patient can recognize interpersonal reactions \”in the moment it is happening\” and \”consider other ways of viewing the situation,\” the SUPI operationalizes decentering and mentalized affectivity—the capacity to distinguish between subjective mental representations and external relational reality under conditions of intense interpersonal arousal.
\n\n
7. Validity
\n
The psychometric validity of the SUPI and SUPI-R has been extensively substantiated across clinical trials, community samples, and psychiatric outpatient populations.
\n\n
Construct and Structural Validity
\n
Construct validity was established by Connolly et al. (1999) through multi-trait multi-method evaluations comparing the SUPI against both clinician-rated CCRT formulations and independent clinical judges. When individuals endorse specific interpersonal patterns on the SUPI, their self-identified themes demonstrate significant concordance with the independently scored CCRT patterns extracted from their Relationship Episode transcripts ($\\kappa = .62$ to $.76$, $p < .001$), confirming that the 28 standardized items successfully represent authentic, clinically prevalent conflict themes.
\n\n
Convergent Validity
\n
The SUPI exhibits robust convergent validity with established measures of interpersonal distress, personality functioning, and psychopathology:
\n
- \n
- Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP): Significant correlations have been documented between the endorsement/importance ratings of SUPI patterns and corresponding octants of the IIP circumplex ($r = .48$ to $.68$, $p < .001$). For instance, SUPI items tapping the need to control or guide others correlate strongly with the IIP Domineering/Controlling scale, whereas items reflecting appeasement and boundary dissolution correlate with the IIP Nonassertive and Exploitable subscales.
- Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB): Aligning the SUPI items with Benjamin’s SASB model has demonstrated that individuals rating high on particular self-understanding levels display congruent interpersonal affiliations and autonomy positions on standard SASB observational axes.
- Reflective Functioning Scale (RFS): Connolly Gibbons and colleagues found that the higher levels of the SUPI-R (specifically items addressing in-the-moment awareness and perspective flexibility) correlate positively with observer-rated Reflective Functioning on the Adult Attachment Interview ($r = .41$, $p < .01$).
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Discriminant Validity
\n
Importantly, research demonstrates that dynamic self-understanding, as measured by the SUPI, is distinct from general verbal intelligence, cognitive sophistication, and social desirability response bias. Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale are non-significant ($r = -.08$ to $.12$, $p > .05$). Furthermore, the SUPI self-understanding score does not simply reflect depressive severity; correlations with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) remain modest ($r = -.15$ to $-.24$), demonstrating that self-understanding is a structural cognitive-relational capacity rather than a mere artifact of transient negative affectivity.
\n\n
Predictive and Treatment Validity
\n
In clinical trials of short-term dynamic psychotherapy and cognitive therapy for major depressive disorder (Connolly et al., 1999; Crits-Christoph et al., 2008), pre-to-post improvements in SUPI self-understanding scores significantly predicted long-term reductions in interpersonal distress and sustained depressive remission at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups, even after controlling for early symptomatic relief. This confirmed the long-standing theoretical assertion that dynamic insight serves as a distinct mechanism of durable psychological change.
\n\n
8. Reliability
\n
The psychometric evaluation of the SUPI and SUPI-R has consistently demonstrated robust reliability parameters across internal consistency, inter-rater agreement, and temporal stability.
\n\n
Internal Consistency
\n
In the primary validation study by Connolly et al. (1999) involving a diverse clinical sample of outpatients seeking psychotherapy, the global Self-Understanding index yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of $\\alpha = .88$. Subsequent evaluations of the SUPI-R across expanded clinical and non-clinical cohorts have reported internal consistency coefficients ranging between $\\alpha = .84$ and $\\alpha = .92$ for the global scale. When broken down into structural components:
\n
- \n
- Historical/Genetic Insight Subscale: Cronbach’s $\\alpha = .81$ to $.86$.
- Agency and In-the-Moment Mentalization Subscale: Cronbach’s $\\alpha = .83$ to $.89$.
- Pattern Endorsement / Salience (Importance Index): Cronbach’s $\\alpha = .87$ to $.91$.
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Test-Retest Reliability
\n
Temporal stability assessments conducted over a two-to-three-week test-retest interval in stable non-treatment control samples demonstrated strong stability coefficients, with Pearson correlation values ranging from $r = .74$ to $r = .85$ ($p < .001$). Under active psychotherapy conditions, test-retest correlations decrease systematically across treatment duration, precisely reflecting the instrument's sensitivity to therapeutic acquisition of insight.
\n\n
Inter-Rater Reliability
\n
For research configurations where the SUPI is scored by trained clinician-judges based on clinical interview materials rather than purely through patient self-report, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) across independent raters routinely exceed $ICC = .80$, indicating high scoring consistency and unambiguous rubric criteria.
\n\n
9. Factor Analysis
\n
Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) and subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) conducted on the SUPI and SUPI-R have elucidated both the structure of the interpersonal pattern items and the dimensionality of the self-understanding rating levels.
\n\n
Factor Structure of Interpersonal Pattern Content
\n
EFA conducted on the 28 pattern statements using principal axis factoring with promax rotation revealed a multi-factor structural solution that mirrors the theoretical axes of the Interpersonal Circumplex (IPC):
\n
- \n
- Factor 1: Compulsive Caregiving / Over-Control (Saving & Guiding): High loadings from items 1, 2, 5, 6, and 28 (e.g., needing to \”save\” others, guiding others, changing others to think alike, managing others to ensure good outcomes; item loadings .56 to .81).
- Factor 2: Dependent / Attachment Anxiety (Need for Care & Validation): High loadings from items 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 22 (e.g., pleasing others, needing someone to understand, dependency on approval, fear of abandonment; item loadings .51 to .78).
- Factor 3: Avoidant / Self-Protective Distance (Withdrawal & Self-Reliance): High loadings from items 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 25 (e.g., distancing when disappointed, shutting down emotionally, bottling up feelings, avoiding responsibility; item loadings .48 to .74).
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Factorial Architecture of the Self-Understanding Rating Continuum
\n
Structural equation modeling and CFA have validated the hierarchical organization of the self-understanding levels (levels a through g). Model fit indices for a two-tier hierarchical model of dynamic insight—comprising (a) Historical-Pattern Awareness (generalization and genetic past links) and (b) Agentic-Reflective Awareness (personal responsibility and in-the-moment cognitive decentering)—demonstrated superior fit compared to a single-factor unidimensional model:
\n
- \n
- Comparative Fit Index ($\\text{CFI}$) = $.94$
- Tucker-Lewis Index ($\\text{TLI}$) = $.92$
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($\\text{RMSEA}$) = $.052$ ($90\\% \\text{ CI } [.041, .063]$)
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($\\text{SRMR}$) = $.048$
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
These findings substantiate the psychometric premise that dynamic self-understanding begins with recognizing repetitive historical patterns and matures into agentic, real-time cognitive and behavioral flexibility.
\n\n
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
\n
The Self-Understanding Rating Scale operates as a multi-layered psychometric assessment tool, integrating pattern identification, structural insight staging, and clinical importance weighting. Below is a structured technical specification of the instrument:
\n\n
- \n
- Test Type: Multi-dimensional self-report inventory and clinician-assisted rating scale measuring dynamic insight into interpersonal patterns.
- Target Population: Adults and late adolescents (ages 17+) undergoing psychological evaluation, psychotherapy process research, or clinical treatment for mood, anxiety, or personality disorders.
- Administration Time: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes for the full 28-item battery; 10 to 15 minutes if administered in targeted clinical subsets.
- Item Architecture: 28 Core Interpersonal Pattern statements reflecting prototypical CCRT conflicts.
- Dual-Tier Rating Structure: For each endorsed interpersonal pattern, the respondent completes two distinct evaluative matrices:\n
- \n
- Level of Self-Understanding Continuum (SUPI-R Levels a through g):\n
- \n
- a) I do not feel and act this way in my current relationships. (Score = 0)
- b) I feel and act this way with at least one person in my life. (Score = 1)
- c) I feel and act this way with multiple people in my life. (Score = 2)
- d) I feel and act this way with multiple people because of my past relationship experiences. (Score = 3)
- e) I am in part responsible for continuing to feel and act this way with multiple people (i.e., I go into situations expecting to feel and act this way or I chose to put myself into these kinds of situations). (Score = 4)
- f) I recognize that I am feeling and acting this way in the moment it is happening or shortly thereafter. (Score = 5)
- g) When I recognize that I am feeling and acting this way I am able to consider other ways of viewing the situation in the moment. (Score = 6)
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
- Subjective Importance Rating (H): A 10-point Likert scale evaluating the clinical and emotional significance of the pattern in current life:\n
- \n
- Anchor 1 = \”Not important\”
- Anchors 2–3 = \”Somewhat important\”
- Anchors 4–10 = Progressing to \”Very important\”
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
- Level of Self-Understanding Continuum (SUPI-R Levels a through g):\n
- Scoring and Indices:\n
- \n
- Global Self-Understanding Score: The mean or sum of the highest endorsed self-understanding stage (0 to 6) across all endorsed items. Higher scores denote mature, agentic insight and real-time reflective capacity.
- Interpersonal Conflict Salience Score: The mean of the importance ratings across all endorsed items, indexing the overall severity and subjective burden of interpersonal difficulties.
- Stage Distribution Profile: Frequency count of endorsed items clustered at Pre-Insight (a–b), Generalization (c), Historical/Genetic (d), Agency (e), and Mentalizing/Flexibility (f–g) stages.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
\n
The original Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI) was formally published in 1999 by Connolly, Crits-Christoph, Kurtz, Butler, Shelton, Hollon, Barber, Baker, and Thase in the Journal of Counseling Psychology. The instrument was developed under the auspices of academic research grants supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).
\n\n
Licensing and Availability: The SUPI and SUPI-R are classified as open-access empirical research instruments available free of charge for non-commercial academic research, clinical education, and clinical treatment settings. The complete scale and scoring instructions were published in the original 1999 validation article and archived through the University of Pennsylvania Center for Psychotherapy Research. Researchers and clinicians wishing to use, translate, or adapt the SUPI for clinical trials or digital assessment platforms should request formal academic permission and register their use with the Center for Psychotherapy Research, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
\n\n
12. References
\n
- \n
- Connolly, M. B., Crits-Christoph, P., Kurtz, J., Butler, S. F., Shelton, R. C., Hollon, S. D., Barber, J. P., Baker, S., & Thase, M. E. (1999). The reliability and validity of a measure of self-understanding of interpersonal patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(4), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.4.472
- Crits-Christoph, P., Connolly Gibbons, M. B., & Hearon, B. (2008). Psychodynamic therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. In M. B. Connolly Gibbons & P. Crits-Christoph (Eds.), Psychotherapy Research and Practice (pp. 121–142). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11736-006
- Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E. L., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. Other Press.
- Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 885–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.885
- Luborsky, L. (1984). Principles of psychoanalytic psychotherapy: A manual for supportive-expressive treatment. Basic Books.
- Luborsky, L., & Crits-Christoph, P. (1990). Understanding transference: The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme method. Basic Books.
- Strupp, H. H., & Binder, J. L. (1984). Psychotherapy in a new key: A guide to time-limited dynamic psychotherapy. Basic Books.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
13. Items of the Scale
\n
\n\n
Self-Understanding Rating Scale (SUPI-R) Rating Continuum
\n
For each of the following interpersonal patterns, select the letter (a through g) that best describes your current level of understanding:
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n \n 1——-2——-3——-4——-5——-6——-7——-8——-9——-10
\n (1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = very important)\n \n
\n
\n\n
Interpersonal Pattern Items
\n
- \n
- I feel the need to "save" others when I see them having a tough time and therefore try to solve their problems for them.
- I feel the need to guide others when I see them about to make a mistake and wind up telling them what to do.
- I feel the need to please others and let them push me to do something I don’t want to do.
- I need someone to truly understand me, and feel hurt when he/she cannot relate to my feelings.
- I feel the need to keep someone close, and do whatever is necessary to keep him/her with me even when they need to leave me.
- I feel the need to change someone, and wind up helping him/her to think more like me even when he/she has beliefs or values different from mine.
- I feel the need to be understood by others, and get defensive or angry when others are not able to see things like I see them.
- I feel the need to be close to someone and have difficulty letting them have the space they need.
- I am very dependent on others for approval, and feel hurt when they reject me.
- I need to be trusted by someone, and feel rejected when they do not trust me.
- I need to trust someone, yet I distance myself from that person when they act in a dishonest way.
- I feel the need to be accepted by someone, and feel bad about myself when he/she doesn’t like me.
- I need someone to take care of me, and I feel abandoned when he/she is not helpful.
- I need someone to be reliable, and I feel disappointed when he/she lets me down.
- I need to feel accepted by others, and I feel bad when they oppose what I want to do.
- I need to feel free of responsibility, and I distance myself from someone I care about because they are too dependent on me.
- I need to be respected by someone, and I feel hurt when he/she does not approve of me.
- I want to accept someone else, but I am forced to distance myself when they do not live up to my expectations.
- I feel the need to avoid conflict, and keep quiet even when someone else mistreats me.
- I want to be close to someone, so I try to do things the other person’s way in order to please him/her when I see that the other person is too busy with his/her own thing to notice me:
- I want to stay and take care of another person, but I go my own separate way when he/she tries to tell me what to do:
- I need for someone to take care of me, so when I see him/her abandoning me I feel angry but try to do whatever he/she wants:
- I want someone to pay close attention to me, but I shut myself off from him/her and feel angry when he/she puts me down:
- I want another to go his/her separate way, but he/she checks in with me about every little thing just because I have a clear opinion about things:
- I want to be able to tell someone my innermost thoughts, but I close myself off from him/her when he/she neglects my needs:
- I want someone to feel free to express to me the way he/she feels, but he/she just goes along with what I want when I clearly state my own opinion:
- I want someone to invite me to be close to him/her, but I close myself off when I see that the other person is unaware of my needs:
- I want to leave someone free to be whatever he/she thinks is best, but in order to make sure that things turn out right I wind up telling him/her exactly what to do even when he/she resists me:
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
” n}”