Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorAlloy, Lauren B.
dc.creatorCogswell, Peter Alex
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-05T16:09:37Z
dc.date.available2020-11-05T16:09:37Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.other864884263
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/3646
dc.description.abstractProponents of self-report and projective assessment traditions have approached the assessment of interpersonal dependency quite differently, in ways that are only recently becoming more aligned. The present study aimed to address the increasing convergence between the two sides, administering both self-report measures and a newly developed implicit measure of dependency in an attempt to characterize more precisely the relations between these seemingly disparate approaches. The study was moderately successful in validating the implicit measure using criteria proposed by two independent groups (Asendorpf, Banse, & Mucke, 2002; Bornstein, 2002). The implicit measure was found to be reliable, orthogonal to two self-report dependency instruments, and predictive of external criteria such as other personality constructs and past depression. This success, however, was hampered by the study's inability to replicate prior findings using a task assessing help-seeking, identified as a behavioral indicator of dependency. All implicit and self-report dependency indices were unrelated to all measures of help-seeking, which prevented any further analyses; potential explanations for the failure of this task are proposed in the Discussion. This study also provided an examination of dissociations between participants' scores on self-report and implicit measures of dependency, and has implications for the significance of such dissociations. That is, the possibility that dissociations themselves are pathological was not supported, and it was found that dissociations between self-report and implicit dependency scores were associated with different patterns of responding on a broadband personality instrument. Finally, the present study offered additional evidence for the relation between dependency and depressive sypmtomatology, and further identified implicit dependency as contributing unique variance in the prediction of past major depressive episodes.
dc.format.extent70 pages
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherTemple University. Libraries
dc.relation.ispartofTheses and Dissertations
dc.rightsIN COPYRIGHT- This Rights Statement can be used for an Item that is in copyright. Using this statement implies that the organization making this Item available has determined that the Item is in copyright and either is the rights-holder, has obtained permission from the rights-holder(s) to make their Work(s) available, or makes the Item available under an exception or limitation to copyright (including Fair Use) that entitles it to make the Item available.
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectPsychology, Clinical
dc.subjectPsychology, Personality
dc.titleExplicitly rejecting an implicit dichotomy: An integration of two contrasting approaches to assessing dependency
dc.typeText
dc.type.genreThesis/Dissertation
dc.contributor.committeememberKarpinski, Andrew
dc.contributor.committeememberFauber, Robert L.
dc.contributor.committeememberBornstein, Robert F.
dc.contributor.committeememberOverton, Willis F.
dc.contributor.committeememberDrabick, Deborah A.
dc.description.departmentCounseling Psychology
dc.relation.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/3628
dc.ada.noteFor Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
dc.description.degreePh.D.
refterms.dateFOA2020-11-05T16:09:38Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
umi-temple-1010.pdf
Size:
214.2Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record