Psychodynamic Approaches to Treating Antagonism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Psychodynamic Approaches to Treating Antagonism Christopher J. Hopwood, University of California, Davis Robert F. Bornstein, Adelphi University For D. Lynam and J. Miller (Eds.) Antagonism as a Personality Trait. Elsevier. Psychodynamic Treatment of Antagonism 2 Although trait and psychodynamic approaches to personality have taken adversarial positions at times (e.g, McWilliams, 2012), we see them as complementary (Wiggins, 2003). Trait psychology supplements complex psychodynamic theories with an evidence-based model of individual differences that can be used to generate reliable assessment methods useful for testing dynamic hypotheses about personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. Psychodynamic theories enrich descriptive trait approaches, enhance their clinical utility, provide a coherent framework for interpreting multimethod assessment data, and generate testable hypotheses about mechanisms underlying personality processes (see Hopwood & Bornstein, 2014; Hopwood, Zimmermann, Pincus, & Krueger, 2015). In this chapter we take a step toward integrating these complementary theoretical perspectives with respect to assessing and treating antagonism. We first describe similarities and differences between trait and psychodynamic conceptualizations of antagonism, with a focus on the specific features of the psychodynamic perspective that can augment a trait perspective. We then illustrate these features in describing principles of psychodynamic psychotherapy for antagonism. Trait and Psychodynamic Models of Personality The primary method for discerning the organization of different elements of personality from a trait perspective has involved some form of covariance analysis (e.g., factor analysis). This method assumes that there are linear relations among different attributes that can be parsimoniously summarized in terms of associations with relatively broad concepts. For instance, a relative consensus has emerged among personality psychologists that personality traits can be summarized, at a broad level of abstraction, in terms of five factors (John & Srivastava, 1999). Antagonism can be regarded as one pole of one of those five factors (the other pole being Agreeableness). The large body of literature showing similar structural models based on other types of data and analytic methods (Harkness, Reynolds, & Lilienfeld, 2017) supports Psychodynamic Treatment of Antagonism 3 the use of covariance modeling to identify and organize personality units into a coherent structure. In these sorts of models traits such as antagonism are regarded as dimensional, in the sense that individuals do not “have” (or “not have”) particular traits, but rather all individuals can be ranked according to their standing on a given trait dimension. Maladaptive functioning is generally albeit imperfectly associated with extreme levels of these traits, as when, for example, too much—or too little—extraversion leads to interpersonal difficulties (see Williams & Simms, 2018). Evidence in favor of the dimensionality principle comes from the finding that no personality trait or disorder has been found to be purely categorical in direct tests (Arntz et al., 2009) and that conceptualizing personality traits dimensionally increases their assessment reliability and validity (Markon, Chmielewski, & Miller, 2011). Covariance analyses of normal and maladaptive personality dimensions yields a hierarchical model with broad traits at the top and increasingly narrow traits at the bottom. Antagonism is a relatively broad trait that can be split into aspects involving the behavioral predispositions of rudeness and callousness (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). These aspects can be further divided into more specific trait facets like immodesty, impoliteness, cruelty, and dishonesty. Conceptualizing traits hierarchically has two principle advantages. First, this allows for the empirical synthesis and integration of disparate trait models into an integrative whole. Second, hierarchies are clinically useful in that they provide a framework for clinicians to conceptualize patients’ personalities in terms of a level of specificity that suits the situation (Kotov et al., 2017). Although covariance analysis has played a less important role in the development of psychodynamic models of personality, there is nothing inherently incompatible between these approaches and psychodynamic thinking. There are also major dimensions of functioning in psychodynamic models of personality structure. For example, Kernberg (1984) suggested that individuals with PDs vary according to how organized their personality is and how extraverted Psychodynamic Treatment of Antagonism 4 they are. Within these broad dimensions are more specific features, like the defenses and object relational configurations that distinguish patients with better or poorer personality organization, or who are more or less extraverted. Although antagonism has not been posited as a major organizing dimension in psychodynamic models, it plays a role in the underlying dynamics of many PD subtypes, and can be integrated with psychodynamic thinking relatively easily. For instance, dependency and histrionic personality configurations typically involve low antagonism whereas psychopathic and narcissistic personality configurations involve relatively high antagonism. This is not to say that these configurations can be understood merely as low or high levels of this—or any—trait; psychodynamic theory has a lot to say about the dynamics of PDs beyond trait dispositions (see Lingiardi & McWilliams, 2017). Differences in emphasis notwithstanding, trait and psychodynamic models do share the assumption that a trait like antagonism is descriptive of such personalities at a relatively broad level of abstraction. Psychodynamic theory further assumes that underlying—often hidden—elements of a broad trait like antagonism will help distinguish individuals in a way that is empirically sound and clinically useful (e.g., reliance on more malignant vs. higher-level defenses). In this respect psychodynamic frameworks implicitly adopt a hierarchical model for conceptualizing people. This convergence provides a basis for integrating trait and psychodynamic models of antagonistic behavior. From both perspectives, people can be organized in terms of the general and specific features associated with antagonism, and this will have important prognostic and therapeutic implications. However, there are also some important ways in which psychodynamic theory differs from, and can enhance, a trait perspective on antagonism. Dynamics A wide range of psychodynamic conceptualizations of personality exist, and though all share an emphasis on unconscious processes and defensive self-deception, these models often have substantially different assumptions about origins, taxonomy, and treatment (Bornstein, 2003; Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983; Pine, 1990). Across different psychodynamic models, Psychodynamic Treatment of Antagonism 5 behavior is presumed to be determined in the sense that people are assumed to be perpetually trying to achieve something of which may might not be fully—or even partially—aware (Schafer, 1976). Whatever people are trying to do is always in reference to some object – people try to do something to, for, or with some other thing. That thing is typically another person, a representation of another person (real or imagined), or a non-person which nevertheless has some person-like qualities (e.g., can be loved or hated). Thus, personality from a psychodynamic perspective is understood in terms of dynamic patterns of self in relation to other (Luyten & Blatt, 2013; Kernberg, 1995). This connection between self and other is invariably colored by some affective experience. From a psychodynamic perspective, both self and other can have antagonistic qualities, but those qualities are understood in terms of what a person is trying to achieve with respect to some other (as opposed to a description of a general behavioral tendency). Interactions with important early caregivers provide a template for how future relationships may be expected to develop in terms of relatively stable configurations of self- other-affect. These internal working models (or scripts) help individuals navigate their social worlds and are thus generally helpful. Consistencies in such patterns reflect a general personality configuration, and symptoms arise when this configuration does not work in some manner (e.g., when the configuration leads to interpersonal conflict or intrapsychic distress). Figure 1 depicts four configurations that eventuate in different expressions of Antagonism, to illustrate how individual differences in personality configuration can be integrated with a trait perspective. The first is a sadistic prototype, in which the other is experienced as neglectful, which makes the person angry, who is cruel in response. This person differs from the prototypical psychopath, for whom others’ neglect represents an opportunity for poised manipulation. In contrast, the narcissistic prototype describes a person provoked by other’s expressions of dominance, who reacts with immodest behavior. Finally, the passive- aggressive person will tend to interpret others’ domineering behavior as both reflecting and Psychodynamic Treatment of Antagonism 6 reinforcing their own powerlessness, and react by subtly undermining the other’s authority. In both trait and psychodynamic models, these different personality prototypes can be distinguished by underlying dispositions,