Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly

Volume 22, Number 3 • 2008

Sociotropy, Autonomy, and Self-Criticism

Are Three Distinguishable Dimensions of
Cognitive-Personality Vulnerability

Golan Shahar, PhD

Nirit Soffer, MA
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel

Eva Gilboa-Shechtman, PhD

Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Whereas both Blatt (1974) and Beck (1983) postulated the existence of two basic cognitive-
personality vulnerabilities to depression—sociotropic/anaclitic and autonomous/introjective—
recent research and theorizing suggest that self-criticism is a third dimension of vulnerability.
To examine the supposition that sociotropy, autonomy, and self-criticism constitute three dis-
tinct dimensions of vulnerability, we administered the Personal Style Inventory (PSI; Robins
et al., 1994), six items from the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt, D’Afflitti,
& Quinlan, 1976) and the Brief Symptoms Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) to
203 Israeli young adults. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) provided support for the hypoth-
esized three-factor solution. Regression analyses indicated that each of these dimensions was
associated with psychopathology. Findings encourage further integrative work in the field of
personality vulnerability.

Keywords: self-criticism; sociotropy; autonomy; personality vulnerability

T
he purpose of the present article is to propose, and provide an initial test to, an integrative
conceptualization of cognitive-personality vulnerability to depression and general psycho-
pathology. To that aim, we build on Blatt (1974) and Beck (1983), who identified two types
of cognitive-personality vulnerability dimensions that emphasize either interpersonal relatedness
or self-definition: the anaclitic-sociotropic dimension and the autonomous-introjective one (Beck,
1983; Blatt, 1974, 1995, 1998; Blatt & Shichman, 1983). While several measures have been used to
assess these dimensions, including the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ, Blatt, D’Afflitti,
& Quinlan, 1976), the Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale (SAS, Beck, Epstein, Harrison, & Emery, 1983),
and the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (Weissman & Beck, 1978), the Personal Style Inventory (PSI;
Robins et al., 1994) appears to be the most well suited for this task (for a recent review and data, see
Shahar, 2006). The PSI is a 48-item inventory that assesses six vulnerability domains: concerns
about what others think of self, excessive dependency, pleasing others, perfectionism/self-criticism,
need for control, and defensive separation. The first three domains comprise a sociotropy dimen-
sion, whereas the latter three domains comprise an autonomy dimension. Six validation studies

© 2008 Springer Publishing Company 219

DOI: 10.1891/0889-8391.22.3.219
220 Shahar et al.

were conducted with the PSI and were informed by guidelines for scale development and testing
described by prominent psychometricians (DeVellis, 1991; Nunnally, 1978). These studies evi-
denced excellent reliability and validity coefficients, and results of exploratory factor analysis were
consistent with the presence of the sociotropy and autonomy dimensions (see Robins et al., 1994).
It is important to note, however, that three recent studies raised questions regarding the
perfectionism/self-criticism subscale (PESC), which ostensibly “belongs” to the autonomy dimen-
sion. Bagby, Parker, Joffe, Schuller, and Gilchrist (1998) conducted confirmatory factor analysis
of the PSI in a large sample (N = 869) of nonclinical participants, as well as a smaller sample
(N = 101) of outpatients with major depression. These authors confirmed a second-order factor
structure of the PSI. The first order factor level was comprised of the six specific vulnerability
domains, and the second order factor level was comprised of the sociotropy and autonomy
dimensions. However, the PESC domain had statistically significant and equally strong loadings,
on both the sociotropy and autonomy dimensions, suggesting that it related to both. Hong and
Lee (2001), investigating 574 Korean college students, replicated the factor structure obtained by
Bagby et al. (1998), including the finding whereby PESC had loadings on both sociotropy and
autonomy dimensions. Hong and Lee (2001) observed that PESC relies on too few items (i.e.,
four items), and that most, if not all, of these items are not uniquely related to the autonomy
construct. Finally, Shahar (2006) administered the PSI to Israeli young adults, and found that the
PESC subscale has comparable loadings on sociotropy and autonomy, even after controlling for
the variance of this subscale that is shared by depressive symptoms.
One possible explanation for this emergent pattern of results is that self-criticism represents a
cognitive-personality construct that is conceptually and empirically distinct from both sociotropy
and autonomy. Conceptually, both sociotropy and autonomy scales appear to relate to the behav-
ioral and emotional functioning of two basic, evolutionarily significant subsystems or domains.
Sociotropy appears to be closely related to the attachment system, namely, to the system concerned
with close, intimate, and generally affiliative interpersonal relationship (Solomon, Golbert, &
Hasey, 2003). Autonomy seems to be associated with the social rank (status or dominance) system,
which concerns the way people interact within larger social structures, including peers, subor-
dinates, and superiors (Gilbert, 2006). In contrast, self-criticism appears to relate to a person’s
perceptions (i.e., cognitions or theory) of his or her shortcomings in both the attachment and the
status domain. For example, one can feel disappointed (or self-critical) with one’s functioning as
a partner (close-interpersonal) and as an employee (achievement of status), and both these types
of malfunctioning can be captured by not being able to forgive oneself for not fulfilling one’s
potential. If this is so, self-criticism items should load highly on both sociotropy and autonomy
dimensions on the one hand (because of the content overlap), while also forming a conceptually
distinct category, as indicated by emerging as a distinct factor (since it assesses one’s cognitive
stance towards one’s performance, rather than being part of the performance itself).
To address this possibility, we used data collected as part of a larger, two-wave study con-
cerning the relationship of dissociative tendencies, self-reported childhood trauma, psychological
symptoms, and life stress (Soffer & Shahar, 2008). In the first wave, data concerning dissociative
tendencies, self-reported childhood trauma, psychological symptoms (measured by the Brief
Symptom Inventory, BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983), and life stress were collected. Thus, this
assessment wave is not pertinent to the present article. Wave two took place 3 months after the
first wave, and included, besides the aforementioned measures, the PSI and six self-criticism
items from the DEQ. We focused on these latter measures, so as to examine the hypothesized
factor structure of cognitive-personality vulnerability. Also, we utilized participants’ scores on the
depression and general subscales of the BSI, whereby both served as the study outcomes. Finally,
because previous research suggested that cognitive-personality vulnerability might interact with
personality-congruent life stress to predict depression (e.g., Robins, 1995), we derived interper-
sonal and achievement stress indices from the life stress inventory and examined interactions
between these indices and the three cognitive-personality vulnerability factors, namely, socio-
tropy, autonomy, and self-criticism.
 Sociotropy, Autonomy, and Self-Criticism 221

The following hypotheses were tested:

H1: Sociotropy, autonomy, and self-criticism will form three distinguishable dimen-
sions of cognitive-personality vulnerability.
H2: Sociotropy, autonomy, and self-criticism will all be associated with participants’
depression and general psychopathology, either directly, or through their interaction
with personality congruent stress. Specifically, based on previous theory and research
(e.g., Robins, 1995), we expected an interaction between sociotropy and interpersonal
stress, and between autonomy and self-criticism and achievement-related stress.

METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Two hundred three introductory psychology undergraduates at the Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, as well as at Sapir and Achva colleges, served as our participants. They were initially (for
time 1 measurements of a larger study) contacted through ads placed on bulletin boards. Assess-
ments were conducted in groups of 20–30. Time 1 took place at the second month of school, and
time 2 (the relevant measurement for this study) was conducted 3 months later, during the first
month of the second semester. Participants were informed in advance of the existence of a second
wave. For each wave, participants received a 1-point course credit.
Of the initial 273 participants of time 1, 223 were female, 46 were male, and 4 unknown.
Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 33 (M = 23.5, SD = 1.79). Two hundred and fourteen par-
ticipants arrived at time 2 measurements, establishing an attrition rate of 22%. To examine the
impact of this attrition on the results obtained, we conducted a series of independent-sample
t-tests in which differences between participants dropping out (n = 59) and completers (n = 214)
in terms of all questionnaires administered in both measurements were tested. No statistically
significant differences were found, suggesting that attrition had little or no effect on the results
obtained. After excluding participants with missing data, the sample size left was N = 203, con-
stituted of 172 females and 31 males, still ranging in age from 17 to 33 (M = 23.6; SD = 1.86).

Measures
The Personal Style Inventory (PSI). The PSI (Robins et al., 1994) is a revised version of the
Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale (SAS; Beck et al., 1983). Robins et al. (1994) devised a multiscaled
measure of sociotropy and autonomy and represented both constructs via three subscales each.
Sociotropy was represented by “dependency” (DEPEN), “concern about what others think”
(CONCERN), and “pleasing others” (PLEASE). Autonomy was represented by “self-critical
perfectionism” (PESC), “need of control” (CONTROL), and “defensive separation” (SEPAR). In
the present study, we used the Hebrew version of the PSI, which is described in detail in Shahar
(2006). Cronbach’s alpha for the PSI subscales were as follows: Sociotropy: .90, Autonomy: .89,
CONCERN: .84, DEPEN: .67, PLEASE: .80, PESC: .66, CONTROL: .79, SEPAR: .80.
The Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ). The DEQ (Blatt et al., 1976) is a 66-item
scale devised to evaluate patterns of experiences that cause predisposition to depressive states and
is therefore appropriate for use with a nonclinical population. Items are presented in both posi-
tive and negative directions, and are rated on a seven-point scale. Principal component analysis
with varimax rotation of the DEQ yielded three orthogonal factors. The first factor, dependency,
reflects the wish to be cared for, loved, and protected. The second factor, self-criticism, taps onto
preoccupation with achievement and inferiority and guilt in the face of perceived failure to meet
standards. The third factor, efficacy, represents personal resilience and inner strength. The reliabil-
ity and validity of the DEQ have been established in numerous studies (e.g., Blatt et al., 1976).
As reported by Rudich, Lerman, Gurevitch, Wexler, and Shahar (2008), our group has
identified six DEQ items that have straightforward content validity in terms of measuring
222 Shahar et al.

self-criticism. These items are (a) Often I find that I do not live according to my standards or
ideals. (b) There is a significant gap between who I am today and who I would like to be. (c) I
tend not to be content with what I have. (d) I find it hard to accept my weaknesses. (e) I have a
tendency to be very self-critical. (f) I compare myself often to standards or goals. Using several
data sets, we found exceedingly strong correlations between the six-item measure and the original
self-criticism factor of the DEQ (rs > .80), as well as statistically significant correlations between
the six-item measure and depression and related constructs, correlations that are equivalent in
magnitude to the correlations between the original self-criticism factor of the DEQ and depres-
sion and related constructs. Moreover, the pattern of results obtained with the six-item measure
vis-à-vis its longitudinal prediction of depression and interaction with life stress is very similar
to the one obtained with the original self-criticism factor of the DEQ (Rudich et al., 2008). These
findings, coupled with recent reports regarding the predictive validity of other, very brief, mea-
sures of self-criticism (Cox, Fleet, & Stein, 2004; Sachs-Ericsson, Verona, Joiner, & Preacher, 2006)
warranted the use of this six-item measure in the present study. An adequate internal consistency
was found for the DEQ-SC6 in this study (Cronbach’s α = .80).
The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The BSI (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) is a 53-item
scale that was used to assess a broad range of psychopathological symptoms, including depres-
sion, anxiety, somatization, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility,
phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. The authors document high test–retest and
internal consistency reliabilities, and good evidence of convergent, discriminant, and construct
validity. In the present study, we used the BSI depression subscale and the BSI general scale at
time 2. Cronbach’s alpha for BSI-depression was .84. For the general BSI scale it was .96.
Inventory of Small Life Events (ISLE). The ISLE (Zautra, Guarnaccia, & Dohrenwend, 1986)
is a 178-item instrument, tailored specifically to measure small, routine stressful events as opposed
to major life changes. The ISLE has been found to have adequate reliability and validity. Out of the
full inventory, we focused on 96 negative events that were deemed particularly suitable to Israeli
young adults. Participants reported whether they experienced the putative event or not within the
last month. Consistent with previous theory and research (Priel & Shahar, 2000; Robins, 1995), we
computed two indices of personality-congruent stress. Interpersonal stress index was computed by
averaging subscales pertaining to love and marriage, family relationships, and social events. Likewise,
achievement-related stress was measured by averaging subscales pertaining to academics and work.

RESULTS
In Table 1 we present means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of PSI-DEPEN, PSI-
CONCERN, PSI-PLEASE, PSI-CONTROL, PSI-SEPAR, PSI-PESC, DEQ-SC6, BSI-depression
and the general scale, and interpersonal and achievement stress.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in order to test H1, whereby self-
criticism, as measured by PSI-PESC and DEQ-SC6, comprised a unique latent factor, distinguish-
able from sociotropy, measured by PSI-DEPEN, PSI-CONCERN, and PSI-PLEASE, and from
autonomy, measured by PSI-CONTROL and PSI-SEPAR. In the CFA model, the three latent
factors, that is, sociotropy, autonomy, and self-criticism, were allowed to correlate. To identify
the metric of the latent variables, their variances were fixed at “1.” Loadings on the respective
manifest indicators were constrained to equality, thus ensuring their equal contribution to the
variance of the latent variable.
Results of the CFA analysis yielded an inadequate model fit (Model 1: χ2[15] = 66.97, χ2/df =
4.46, p < .001, NNFI = .89, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .13). An inspection of the AMOS 7.0 modifica-
tion indices output suggested that this model might be improved considerably by specifying an
effect of the sociotropy latent variable on the defensive separation manifest indicator. When this
was done, the model was indeed improved (χ2 difference test = 23.21, df = 1, p < .001), and the
TABLE 1. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS AMONG THE EIGHT STUDY VARIABLES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. BSI-Depression 1.00
2. BSI-General .86*** 1.00
3. DEQ-SC6 .56*** .52*** 1.00
4. PSI-CONCERN .46*** .50*** .48*** 1.00
5. PSI-DEPEN .38*** .44*** .35*** .67*** 1.00
6. PSI-PLEASE .38*** .42*** .43*** .70*** .51*** 1.00
7. PSI-PESC .39*** .43*** .62*** .55*** .47*** .55*** 1.00
8. PSI-CONTROL .42*** .47*** .44*** .61*** .54*** .47*** .53*** 1.00
9. PSI-SEPAR .35*** .40*** .36*** .32*** .24*** .34*** .44*** .67*** 1.00
10. Interpersonal stress .35*** .42*** .27*** .23*** .19** .17* .17* .26*** .16* 1.00
11. Achievement stress .21** .25*** .19** .16* .09 .22*** .21** .20** .10 .40*** 1.00
M 0.93 0.76 4.01 25.51 28.70 36.73 15.31 25.07 36.61 11.35 8.01
SD 0.74 0.53 1.21 6.26 5.52 7.63 3.57 6.33 8.50 14.98 9.04
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
224 Shahar et al.

added loading was statistically significant (β = –.31, p < .001). Nevertheless, model fit was still
somewhat inadequate (Model 2: χ2[14] = 43.73, χ2/df = 3.12, p < .001, NNFI = .93, CFI = .95,
RMSEA = .10). Further inspection of the modification indices command of AMOS 7.0 has led us
to add an autocorrelation between the error variances of the CONTROL and PLEASE manifest
indicators. This autocorrelation was statistically significant (β = –.47, p < .001), and its addition
resulted in an acceptable model fit (Model 3: χ2[13] = 31.92, χ2/df = 2.45, p < .001, NNFI = .96,
CFI = .97, RMSEA = .08), a fit that was significantly better than the fit of the previous model (χ2
difference test = 11.81, df = 1, p < .001). We therefore deemed this model (i.e., Model 3) as the
final CFA model. In Table 2 we present its factor loadings, and in Table 3 we present correlations
between the three latent factors in this model. These correlations were not prohibitively high,
suggesting that the factors are distinct (r[self-criticism–sociotropy] = .73, r[self-criticism–autonomy] = .69,
r[sociotropy–autonomy] = .74; p < .001).
We then compared the previously described CFA model with a two-factor CFA model in which
sociotropy and autonomy served as the only latent factors, and in which PSI-PESC and DEQ-SC6
served as manifest indicators of autonomy. The fit of this two-factor model was very poor (χ2[16]
= 95.52, p < .001; χ2/df = 5.97; NNFI = .85, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .15) and was clearly inferior to
the fit of the three-factor CFA model (χ2 difference test = 64.60, df = 3, p < .001), suggesting that
the three-factor model provides a better description of cognitive-personality vulnerability.
Next, we constructed indices of sociotropy, autonomy, and self-criticism by standardizing
and averaging the manifest indicators of these factors. We then employed two hierarchical mul-
tiple regression analyses, the outcomes of which were time 2 levels of BSI-depression (Regres-
sion 1) and BSI-general scale (Regression 2). At Block 1 we entered sociotropy, autonomy, and
self-criticism indices, as well as the interpersonal and achievement stress indices. In Block 2 we
entered six two-way interactions between each of the three indices and the interpersonal and
achievement stress indices, respectively.
When BSI-depression was considered as an outcome, Block 1 accounted for 36% of the
outcome (R2 = .36, F[5,197] = 22.61, p < .001). Statistically significant associations involved the

TABLE 2. FACTOR LOADINGS OF THE FINAL CFA MODEL

Sociotropy Autonomy Self-Criticism
PSI-DEPEN .76*** — —
PSI-CONCERN .86*** — —
PSI-PLEASE .79*** — —
PSI-CONTROL — .90*** —
PSI-SEPAR –.31*** .95*** —
PSI-PESC — — .82***
DEQ-SC6 — — .76***
***p < .001.

TABLE 3. CORRELATIONS AMONG THE SOCIOTROPY, AUTONOMY, AND

SELF-CRITICISM LATENT FACTORS
Sociotropy Autonomy Self-Criticism
Sociotropy — — —
Autonomy .74*** — —
Self-criticism .73*** .69*** —
***p < .001.
 Sociotropy, Autonomy, and Self-Criticism 225

following: sociotropy (β = .17, p < .05), self-criticism (β = .30, p < .001), and interpersonal stress
(β = .20, p = .001). There was a nonsignificant trend with respect to autonomy (β = .12, p = .08).
Achievement stress was not associated with BSI-depression (β = .005, ns). Block 2 accounted for
an additional 2% of the variance of the outcome (R2 = .36, F[11,191] = 11.04, p < .001). Only one of
the two-way interactions was statistically significant, that of sociotropy with achievement-related
stress (β = .19, p < .05), which is contrary to previous theory and research (Priel & Shahar, 2000;
Robins, 1995). The pattern of this interaction was such that sociotropy predicted depression only
when achievement-related stress was high, but not when it was low.
When BSI-general was considered as an outcome, Block 1 accounted for 43% of the outcome
(R2 = .43, F[5,197] = 30.47, p < .001). Statistically significant associations were sociotropy (β = .23,
p = .001), autonomy (β = .16, p < .05), self-criticism (β = .22, p = .001), and interpersonal stress
(β = .26, p < .001). Achievement stress was not associated with the general BSI scale (β = .02,
ns). Block 2 added 2% to the variance of the outcome (R2 = .43, F[11,191] = 14.57, p < .001). There
was a trend toward statistical significance in the interaction between sociotropy and achievement
stress (β = .15, p = .051). The pattern of this interaction was identical to the one described above
for BSI-depression.

DISCUSSION
In a sample of 203 Israeli young adults, we tentatively confirmed a three-dimensional fac-
tor structure of cognitive-personality vulnerability, composed of sociotropy, autonomy, and
self-criticism. Specifically, each of these factors was shown to be related to specific manifest
indicators, and each of the factors independently predicted elevated levels of general psycho-
pathology. In addition, sociotropy and self-criticism were significantly associated with BSI-
depression, with the association between autonomy and BSI-depression reaching the level of
a trend (p = .08).
As noted by Shahar (2006), “one of the greatest impediments for progress in the field is
its relative fragmentation, manifested by different research groups drawing from different
theoretical orientations and relying on different measures of vulnerability in their attempts
to examine the role of personality in depression” (p. 196). Findings of the present study con-
stitute an initial step in addressing this fragmentation by providing an integrative descrip-
tion of cognitive-personality vulnerability. Specifically, whereas Blatt (1974, 1998) identified
the anaclitic-dependent and introjective–self-critical configurations as the hallmark of vul-
nerability, and Beck (1983) identified the sociotropic and autonomous dimensions as key
vulnerability factors, empirical findings pertaining to the associations between SAS/PSI
sociotropy–autonomy and DEQ dependency–self-criticism failed to demonstrate an empirical
overlap between the putative dimensions. Thus, whereas sociotropy was found to converge
with dependency, self-criticism did not converge with autonomy, and in fact its correlation
with sociotropy was equivalent in magnitude to the correlation with autonomy. The present
study points a way out of this quagmire by suggesting there are three, rather than two,
cognitive-personality dimensions: sociotropy–dependency, autonomy, and self-criticism.
The first two dimensions conform to the overarching notion in personality theory, whereby
an excessive focus on either relatedness/attachment or social ranking-status/self-definition
(Bakan, 1966; Gilbert, 2006; Helgeson, 1994; Horowitz, 2004; Leary, 1957) predispose indi-
viduals to psychopathology. The third dimension, self-criticism, appears to be a distinct
personality dimension reflecting a harsh and punitive self-evaluation, which might be col-
ored by either, or both, relational or self-definition themes (e.g., “I am not worth being cared
for” or “I achieved nothing in my life,” respectively).1 It seems likely that while the dimen-
sions of sociotropy and autonomy pertain to the particulars of individuals’ concerns with
226 Shahar et al.

and reactivity to specific interpersonal cues (e.g., abandonment or social put-down), self-
criticism represents a specific mode of emotion regulation following a disruption in one of
the central interpersonal domain.
In the present study, we did not find support for the hypothesized interaction between
cognitive-personality dimensions of vulnerability and personality congruent stress (Priel & Sha-
har, 2000; Robins, 1995). Thus, no support was found for interactions between sociotropy and
social stress and between autonomy and/or self-criticism and achievement stress. Instead, we
found that sociotropy interacted with achievement stress to predict elevated depressive symp-
toms and, in the level of a trend (p = .051), general psychopathology. Despite the gap between
our findings and previous ones, it should be noted that (a) previous studies have also demon-
strated null results regarding personality congruent stress (for review, see Shahar, 2001), (b) the
meaning of a stressful life event can hardly be determined by the investigator but is rather col-
ored by the individual’s personality. Thus, sociotropic individuals might be depressed in the face
of achievement stress because of their concern that failures might harm their attachments (e.g.,
friends, parents, wives, children will be disappointed in them), and (c) the entire field is now
focused more on the active effect of cognitive-personality vulnerability on stressful life events
rather than on the passive response of individuals to stress (see Shahar, 2001, 2006).
Limitations of the present study should be noted, and are currently being addressed by
us in ongoing research. These limitations include (a) the modest, albeit acceptable, fit of the
CFA model supporting the hypothesized three-factor solution, which was also obtained after
several post-hoc modifications, (b) the exclusive reliance on self-report measures, which
might inflate the associations among the study variables because of shared method variance,
(c) the cross-sectional nature of the study design, which seriously limits causal inferences,
and (d) our sample of unselected undergraduate students. In spite of these caveats, it seems
likely that a three-factor solution just might be the missing link, serving to integrate Blatt
(1974) and Beck’s (1983) prominent theories of cognitive-personality vulnerability.

NOTE
1. It is of note that Shahar (2008) recently found important differences between the correlates of PSI-
sociotropy and, more specifically, PSI-dependency, on the one hand, and DEQ-dependency on the other
hand. In a longitudinal study of Israeli undergraduates, this author showed that PSI-sociotropy and PSI-
dependency predicted a decrease in perceived social support over time, whereas DEQ-dependency predicted
an increase in perceived social support. As argued by Shahar (2008), this finding depicts DEQ-dependency
as a complex measure that includes both risk and resilience aspects of interpersonal dependency. In contrast,
PSI-sociotropy and PSI-dependency constitute straightforward measures of vulnerability. Accordingly,
whereas sociotropy and dependency do converge theoretically and empirically, the choice of measuring
these constructs is paramount, as different measures are likely to yield different findings.

REFERENCES
Bagby, M. R., Parker, J. D. A., Joffe, R. T., Schuller, D., & Gilchrist, E. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of
the Revised Personal Style Inventory (PSI). Assessment, 5, 31–43.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P. J. Clayton & J. E. Barrett (Eds.),
Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–290). New York: Raven.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Harrison, R. P., & Emery, G. (1983). Development of the sociotropy-autonomy scale:
A measure of personality factors in psychopathology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylva-
nia, Philadelphia.
Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 29, 107–157.
 Sociotropy, Autonomy, and Self-Criticism 227

Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of depression. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 50, 1003–1020.
Blatt, S. J. (1998). Contributions of psychoanalysis to the understanding and treatment of depression. Jour-
nal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 46, 723–752.
Blatt, S. J., D’Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 383–389.
Blatt, S. J., & Shichman, S. (1983). Two primary configurations of psychopathology. Psychoanalysis and
Contemporary Thought, 6, 187–254.
Cox, B. J., Fleet, C., & Stein, M. B. (2004). Self-criticism and social phobia in the US national comorbidity
survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 227–234.
Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductionary report. Psy-
chological Medicine, 13, 595–605.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gilbert, P. (2006). Evolution and depression: Issues and implications. Psychological Medicine, 36, 287–297.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explana-
tion. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428.
Hong, S., & Lee, M. (2001). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the revised Personal Style Inven-
tory: Evidence for the multidimensionality problem of perfectionism. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61, 421–432.
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Priel, B., & Shahar, G. (2000). Dependency, self-criticism, social context and distress: Comparing moderat-
ing and mediating models. Personality & Individual Differences, 28, 515–525.
Robins, C. J. (1995). Personality-event interaction models of depression. European Journal of Personality, 9, 367–378.
Robins, C. J., Ladd, J., Welkowitz, J., Blaney, P. H., Diaz, R., & Kutcher, G. (1994). The personality style
inventory: Preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277–300.
Rudich, Z., Lerman, S., Wexler, N., Gurevitch, B., & Shahar, G. (2008). Self-criticism is a stronger predictor
of physician’s evaluation of prognosis than pain severity and diagnosis. Journal of Pain, 9, 210–216.
Sachs-Ericsson, N., Verona, E., Joiner, T., & Preacher, K. J. (2006). Parental verbal abuse and the mediating
role of self-criticism in adult internalizing disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 93, 71–78.
Shahar, G. (2001). Personality, shame, and the breakdown of social ties: The voice of quantitative depression
research. Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 64, 229–238.
Shahar, G. (2006). An investigation of the perfectionism/self-criticism dimension of the Personal Styles
Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 185–200.
Shahar, G. (2008). What measure of interpersonal dependency predicts social support? Journal of Personality
Assessment, 90, 1–5.
Soffer, N., & Shahar, G. (2008). Individual differences in “Dissociations of the Night”: Role of psychological
symptoms and life stress in general sleep experiences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Solomon, L., Golbert, P., & Hasey, G. (2003). Evolved mechanisms in depression: The role and interaction
of attachment and social rank in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 74, 107–121.
Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978). Development and validation of the dysfunctional attitudes scale. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Convention, Toronto, Canada.
Zautra, A. J., Guarnaccia, C. A., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1986). Measuring small life events. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 14, 629–655.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Golan Shahar, PhD, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]