adlerian personality priorities: psychological and attitudinal differences

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT � FALL 1998 � VOLUME 76 467

Adlerian Personality Priorities: Psychological andAttitudinal Differences

Jeffrey S. Ashby, Terry Kottman, and Kenneth G. Rice

Jeffrey S. Ashby is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Psychological Services at Georgia State University, Atlanta. TerryKottman is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling, and Postsecondary Education at the University ofNorthern Iowa, Cedar Falls. Kenneth G. Rice is an associate professor in the Department of Counseling , Educational Psychology and SpecialEducation at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Jeffrey S. Ashby, Department ofCounseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Alfred Adler�s Individual Psychology contin-ues to be recognized by counselors as a popu-lar theoretical orientation (Smith, 1982).According to Adler (1931/1958, 1956), oneof the most important elements in conceptu-

alizing clients and their difficulties is the concept of life-style. Kefir (1981) defined lifestyle as �the apperceptive waysone looks at oneself and the external world, and how onemoves behaviorally through life toward an idealized goal ofsuperiority� (p. 402). Lifestyle characterizes everything thatthe client thinks, feels, and does. �His [or her] thoughts, ac-tions and wishes seize upon definite symbols and conformto definite patterns. The life style is comparable to a charac-teristic theme in a piece of music. It brings the rhythm ofrecurrence into our lives� (Dreikurs, 1989, p. 44). Adleriancounselors believe that understanding clients� lifestyles andhelping clients acquire insight into their lifestyles are keycomponents in the therapeutic process.

Within the practice of individual psychology, there aremany strategies for gathering information that can fosterthe counselor�s understanding of the client�s lifestyle(Eckstein & Baruth, 1996; Powers & Griffith, 1987; Shulman& Mosak, 1988; Wheeler, Kern, & Curlette, 1991). One ofthe more recently developed approaches to understandinglifestyle, personality priorities, was originated by Kefir (1971)and further developed by Pew (1974), Brown (1976), Dewey(1991), and Langenfeld and Main (1983).

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF PERSONALITY PRIORITIES

Kefir (1971, 1981) originally posited the idea of personalitypriorities as a way of expanding the counselor�s understand-ing of the client and his or her lifestyle. She stated that

after working for several years with the basic Adlerian tool of thelife style, I found that uncovering it does not show the therapist orthe client the individual�s mode of behaviors but only one�s per-ception of the self, one�s outlook on life and the way in whichother people are perceived. (Kefir, 1981, p. 402)

Kefir believed that an understanding of lifestyle must in-clude both the individual�s convictions about how he or sheacquires belonging, significance, and a sense of mastery andthe behavior based on those convictions. To understand bothof these components of the client�s lifestyle, she developedthe complimentary concepts of priorities and impasse. Kefirviewed personality priorities as avoidance strategies, meth-ods of moving away from a perceived traumatic event (animpasse) and achieving a sense of mastery over chaos andfear. Her list of personality priorities included the control-ler, the pleaser, the morally superior, and the avoider (Kefir,1981). Kefir believed that the primary way of understandinga person�s personality and changing his or her behaviorpatterns was to understand what that person wished to avoid.In this topology, the controller wishes to avoid being ridi-culed or humiliated; the pleaser wishes to avoid rejection;

This study investigated the relationship between Adlerian personality priorities (pleasing, achieving, outdoing, detaching,avoiding) and several selected psychological and attitudinal variables theoretically linked to those priorities. Two hundred sixty-two undergraduate students completed measures of personality pr iority, locus of control, social interest, self-esteem, anddysfunctional attitudes. Results revealed significant differences between the various personality priorities on measures of self-esteem, social interest, internal locus of control, and dysfunctional attitudes. These findings lend empirical suppor t for the use ofpersonality priorities as a tool for conceptualizing clients. Implications for counseling practice and future research on personalitypriorities are presented.

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT � FALL 1998 � VOLUME 76468

A s h b y , K o t t m a n , a n d R i c e

the morally superior person wishes to avoid anonymity andmeaninglessness; and the avoider wishes to avoid stress.

Pew (1974) used the term number one priority to de-scribe a similar concept. He defined the number one prior-ity of a person as �a manifestation of our self-created, self-consistent style of living, a theme which runs through all ofour human transactions� (Pew, 1976, p. 1). According to thisdefinition, a personality priority is a person�s characteristicway of thinking about situations and interacting with oth-ers. Although Pew (1976) acknowledged that one element ofthe number one priority is the need to avoid a negativestate (moving from a felt minus to a felt plus), he also be-lieved that there was another more positive aspect to diag-nosing personality priorities�looking for the most impor-tant element in the person�s quest for belonging. He labeledthe priorities control, pleasing, superiority, and comfort.

Brown (1976) and Dewey (1991) elaborated on the ideasposited by Kefir (1971, 1981) and Pew (1974, 1976), suggest-ing that each of the priorities grew from the pursuit of onespecific goal: for pleasing, pleasing others; for superiority, main-taining superiority over others; for comfort, attaining a senseof comfort; for control, maintaining control (either over oth-ers or over self). For each of these goals, Brown, Pew, andDewey enumerated assets, factors persons wish to avoid bypursuing the goal, and liabilities. They emphasized that ev-ery goal has all three of these elements, which makes thegoals equally desirable and undesirable. Brown (1976) madea distinction between the psychological goal (the personal-ity priority) and the maintenance mechanism, which is thebehavior individuals use to move toward that goal. She sug-gested that individuals may select different strategies fromother priorities to attain the predominant goal toward whichthey strive. However, they are always in pursuit of a primarygoal, no matter what behaviors they use to move toward thegoal. For example, individuals who want to control othersmay use pleasing strategies by appearing to be accommodat-ing to others in order to get them to acquiesce to whateverthey want to do. According to both Brown and Dewey, whenindividuals feel that they are not able to move toward theirprimary goals, they frequently believe that this �block� con-stitutes a personal crisis.

MEASURING PERSONALITY PRIORITIES

Langenfeld and Main (1983), citing the growing use of per-sonality priorities in clinical settings and the lack of em-pirical support of the theory, developed an instrument tomeasure personality priorities, The Langenfeld Inventory ofPersonality Priorities (LIPP). Their purpose in designing thisinstrument was to explore the validity of the theoreticalconstructs of personality priorities. A factor analysis of thedata collected from 801 participants (university students)yielded five factors (or priorities), rather than the four fac-tors predicted by the theoretical literature. These factorswere Pleasing, Achieving, Outdoing, Detaching, and Avoid-ing. According to the analysis by Langenfeld and Main andfurther analysis by Britzman and Main (1990), the Pleasing,

Achieving, and Outdoing factors all involve movement to-ward a goal (e.g., personal achievements) and the Avoidingand Detaching factors involve movement away from a con-dition they wish to avoid (e.g., discomfort).

Pleasing

The Pleasing personality type revolves around the desire to�make others happy� (Langenfeld & Main, 1983, p. 47) andthe desire to be accepted by others (Britzman & Henkin,1992). Individuals whose goal is pleasing may be excessivelysensitized to the expectations of others, putting the needs ofothers before their own. They frequently indulge in �mindreading� to avoid displeasing others, which might lead torejection. These individuals work hard to keep relationshipspeaceful, cooperative, and friendly (Britzman & Henkin,1992; Evans & Bozarth, 1986).

Achieving

The Achieving personality type revolves around the striv-ing for superiority (Britzman & Henkin, 1992; Evans &Bozarth, 1986; Langenfeld & Main, 1983) through person-ally satisfying accomplishments. Individuals whose goal isachieving are self-responsible and self-confident, using theirown personal standards, rather than those of others. Accord-ing to the factor analysis conducted by Langenfeld and Main,achieving individuals do not tend to be competitive with orcritical of others. They focus on work and accomplishmentrather than on feelings and personal relationships. These in-dividuals tend to be responsible, organized, hardworking,intelligent, and self-motivated, with a strongly developedsense of right and wrong (Evans & Bozarth, 1986).

Outdoing

The Outdoing personality type revolves around striving forsuperiority by outdoing others (Britzman & Henkin, 1992;Evans & Bozarth, 1986; Langenfeld & Main, 1983). Indi-viduals whose goal is outdoing are competitive and criticalof others. They may want to control others and situationsto be �better� than other people, or they may want to sur-pass the accomplishments of other people. These individu-als may be bossy, analytical, and manipulative in their at-tempts to avoid their own feelings of inferiority. They areeasily annoyed and spend a great deal of their energy tryingto impress other people.

Detaching

The Detaching personality type revolves around strivingfor control of self (Britzman & Henkin, 1992; Evans &Bozarth, 1986; Langenfeld & Main, 1983). Individuals whosegoal is detaching tend to try to avoid others and suppressemotions. Detaching individuals tend to have pessimisticattitudes toward relationships. They seem to believe thatinteracting with others is potentially embarrassing and un-comfortable, so they protect themselves by avoiding physi-


A l d e r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y P r i o r i t i e s

cal and emotional contact with others. They also protectthemselves by avoiding attention, interpersonal risk-taking,and self-disclosure. By detaching and maintaining a high levelof self-control, these individuals believe that they can keepthemselves safe. They do not like surprises and seldom en-gage in spontaneous activities.

Avoiding

The Avoiding personality type revolves around avoiding per-ceived threats of emotional and physical discomfort and pos-sibly stressful situations (Britzman & Henkin, 1992; Evans &Bozarth, 1986; Langenfeld & Main, 1983). These individualsare easily hurt (emotionally and physically), and they go togreat lengths to avoid potentially hurtful situations or in-volvement, frequently by doing nothing at all. In their pur-suit of the avoidance of pain, these individuals are emotion-ally expressive, sometimes to the point of hypersensitivityand sentimentality. Because they want to avoid pain at allcosts, they also avoid having to do anything with other peoplewho might be in pain to protect themselves from sufferingvicariously. Avoiding individuals tend to be unwilling to ex-perience frustration or engage in behavior that involves put-ting forth effort. They prefer living in relaxed, easygoing situ-ations, without having a great deal of work to accomplish.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Despite the growing clinical use of personality prioritiesamong counselors and an increasing number of anecdotal ar-ticles describing the use of personality priorities in the thera-peutic process (e.g., Bitter, 1993; Britzman & Henkin, 1992;Holden, 1991; Ward, 1979), few researchers have conductedempirical investigations of this construct (Britzman & Main,1990; DeLaet & Wise, 1986; Evans & Bozarth, 1986; Main &Oliver, 1988, Topf, 1984). We could find no research thatexamined the differences between individuals with specificpersonality priorities. This study was designed to investigatethe differences between groups of individuals with specificpersonality priorities in several distinct areas (self-esteem,social interest, locus of control, and dysfunctional attitudes).

METHOD

Participants

Two hundred and sixty two undergraduate college studentsrecruited from undergraduate psychology courses partici-pated in this study. This sample consisted of 180 womenand 79 men (3 participants did not report their sex), with amean age of 22 years (minimum 17, maximum 66). Thesample was predominantly Caucasian (94%).

Variables

The variables measured in this study were personality pri-orities (measured by the Langenfeld Inventory of Personal-ity Priorities), social interest (measured by the Social Inter-

est Scale), cognitive distortions (measured by the Dysfunc-tional Attitude Scale), and self-esteem (measured by theRosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory).

Personality priority. The Langenfeld Inventory of Person-ality Priorities (LIPP; Langenfeld & Main, 1983) was devel-oped to measure personality priority constructs. The scalehas five subscales and 75 total items rated on a 6-pointLikert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Thesubscales are Pleasing (15 items), Achieving (15 items), Out-doing (15 items), Detaching (15 items), and Avoiding (15items). Langenfeld and Main reported content validity forthe scales and a 2-week test�retest reliability of .94. Indi-viduals received a score for each scale and were assigned apersonality priority based on the scale with the highest score.Cronbach�s coefficient alphas for the subscales in this sampleranged from .68 to .83.

Social interest. The Scale for Social Interest (SIS; J. Crandall,1991) is a 15-item scale with 9 buffer items (items not usedin scoring) designed to measure the Adlerian construct ofsocial interest, �which means �identification with human-ity,� a �feeling of community,� or �belonging to life�� (Manaster& Corsini, 1982 p. 14). Social interest is considered to be aprerequisite for positive mental health. On the SIS, indi-viduals must choose between pairs of personal characteris-tics or traits, indicating the trait they value more highly. J.Crandall provided convergent and divergent validity for thescale and reported a split-half reliability of .77 and a 5-week test�retest reliability of .82. Cronbach�s coefficientalpha for this sample was .72.

Locus of control. The Internal�External Locus of ControlScale (Levenson, 1974) is designed to measure internal lo-cus of control (IN) and two types of external locus of con-trol: external control by powerful others (PO) and externalcontrol by chance (CH). The scale has 24 items to whichindividuals respond on a 6-point Likert scale from stronglyagree to strongly disagree. Levenson reported results of anexploratory factor analysis supporting the structure of thethree factors. Levenson also reported split-half reliabilitiesof .62 (IN), .66 (PO), and .64 (CH). Test�retest reliabilitiesfor a 1-week period were .64 (IN), .74 (PO), and .78 (CH).Cronbach�s coefficient alpha for this sample were .75 (IN),.76 (PO), and .61 (CH).

Dysfunctional attitudes. The Dysfunctional Attitude Scale(DAS; Weissman & Beck, 1978) is a 40-item instrumentdesigned to measure cognitive distortions. The DAS wasconstructed to measure seven major areas: approval, love,achievement, perfectionism, entitlement, omnipotence, andautonomy. Although the author suggested that clinicians mayexamine subscales, the overall score is considered the keymeasure. Weissman and Beck reported internal consistencyreliabilities of .84 and .92 and 8-week test�retest reliabilitiesof .80 and .84. Support for the DAS�s concurrent validityincludes significant correlations with other measures of de-pressive-distortions (Weissman & Beck, 1978). Cronbach�scoefficient alpha for this sample was .83.

Self-Esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory(Rosenberg, 1965) measures general self-esteem (e.g., �I feel



I have a number of good qualities� �I feel I do not have muchto be proud of�) The scale consists of 10 statements re-sponded to on a Likert scale, with half of the items wordedpositively and half negatively. Goldsmith (1986) and R.Crandall (1973) reported adequate reliability for the in-strument. Rosenberg (1965, 1979) and Goldsmith (1986)have offered support for the measure�s validity by estab-lishing negative correlations with depression, anxiety, anddogmatism. Goldsmith conducted confirmatory factor analy-ses and concluded that the Rosenberg �when used with somepopulations [in which age did not vary substantially] . . .seems to measure a single dimension of global attitude to-ward the self� (p. 263). Cronbach�s coefficient alpha for thissample was .76.

Procedure

Participants received a packet containing a demographic sheet,the LIPP (Langenfeld & Main, 1983), the SIS (J. Crandall, 1991),Levenson�s (1974) Locus of Control Scale, the DAS ( Weissman& Beck, 1978), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory(Rosenberg, 1965). All participants volunteered, and some re-ceived extra credit for their participation. Each of these instru-ments was a self-report measure that participants completedindividually, either during class time or outside of class.

RESULTS

In this sample, individuals with an Achieving personalitypriority (those whose highest scores were on the Achievingsubscale of the LIPP) constituted 22.9% (n = 60) of thetotal population. Those with an Outdoing personality pri-ority (highest subscale score on the LIPP was Outdoing)

constituted 30.5% (n = 80) of the total population, whereas thosewith a Pleasing personality priority made up 22.1% (n = 58). In-dividuals with an Avoiding personality priority made up 11.1%(n = 29) of the total, and individuals with a Detaching person-ality priority made up 2.7% (n = 7). Twenty-eight of the 262total had missing data that prevented their classificationinto a personality priority. Correlations for all of the mea-sures are reported in Table 1.

Data were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysisof variance (MANOVA). The between-subjects factor wasPersonality Priority (Achieving, Outdoing, Pleasing, Avoid-ing, and Detaching). The dependent variables were self-esteem, social interest, dysfunctional attitudes, external lo-cus of control�powerful others, internal locus of control, andexternal locus of control�chance. The multivariate analysisstrategy followed the recommendations of Stevens (1986)who suggested that an initial significant multivariate maineffect be followed by all pairwise multivariate tests (HotellingT2 statistics) to determine which pairs of groups differ onthe set of variables. Stevens recommended an experimentwisealpha of .15 that maintains adequate power and keeps somecontrol over alpha. Thus, for 10 pairwise analyses, alpha wouldbe adjusted to .15/10, or .015 to maintain a reasonableexperimentwise alpha level and to sustain adequate power.Significant T2 were then followed by six individual depen-dent variable tests using Tukey�s procedure. These tests wouldbe conducted at alpha of .025 (.15/6) to maintain theexperimentwise alpha level at .15. Listwise deletion of miss-ing data was used for these analyses. The means and standarddeviations for the dependent variables appear in Table 2.

The one-way multivariate test for personality priority wassignificant, Pillai�Bartlett trace (24,888) = 0.27, p < .001.Four of the subsequent 10 multivariate t tests were signifi-

1. Pleasing2. Achieving3. Outdoing4. Detaching5. Avoiding6. Social Interest

Scale7. Dysfunctional

Attitudes Scale8. Self-Esteem9. Internal Locus

10. External Chance11. External Others

—.24**.05.06.56**

.14*

.33**–.27**

.11

.16**

.22**

—.44**

–.19**.14*

.04

.04

.22**

.46**–.12*–.07

—.05.04

–.18**

.23**

.03

.45**

.10

.14*

—–.19**

–.27**

.42**–.37**–.18**

.24**

.32**

—

.11

.15*–.26**

.05

.14*

.19**

—

–.15*.18**.04

–.15*–.20**

—–.49**

.02

.33**

.49**

—.24**

–.35**–.38**

—–.07–.09

—.65** —

*p # .05. **p # .01.

TABLE 1

Correlations for Scores on the Lang enfeld Inventory of Personality Priorities (Pleasing, Achieving,Outdoing, Detaching, Avoiding), Social Interest Scale, Locus of Control Scale (Internal Locus, External Chance,

External Others), Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Self-Esteem)

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



cant at p < .015: Achieving versus Outdoing (T2 = 23.05, p< .002), Outdoing versus Pleasing (T2 = 19.81, p < .006),Achieving versus Pleasing (T2 = 34.03, p < .001), Achievingversus Detaching (T2 = 31.02, p < .001), and Achieving ver-sus Detaching (T2 = 31.02, p < .001). Tukey�s procedure wasused to examine differences between these groups on theindividual dependent variables. Critical values for signifi-cance were adjusted for unequal group sizes.

Significantly higher social interest scores were observedfor the Achieving group when compared with the Outdoinggroup, F (1, 136) = 13.07, p < .001. None of the other de-pendent variables evidenced significant group differencesbetween the Achieving and Outdoing participants. In theOutdoing versus Pleasing group comparisons, the only sig-nificant differences emerged for self-esteem, with the Out-doing group yielding higher scores than the Pleasing group,F (1, 135) = 9.95, p < .002. Two significant differencesemerged in the comparison between Achieving and Pleas-ing. The Achieving participants had higher self-esteem scoresand lower scores on the Dysfunctional Attitudes scale thanthe Pleasing group, F (1, 113) = 27.98, p < .001, and F (1,113) = 15.18, p < .001, respectively. Three significant dif-ferences emerged when comparing the Achieving and De-taching groups. Achieving participants had higher scores onself-esteem and internal locus of control, and lower scoreson the DAS when compared with the Detaching group, F (1,63) = 13.55, p < .001, F (1, 63) = 10.29, p < .002, and F (1,63) = 12.03, p < .001, respectively.

In summary, individuals with Achieving personality pri-orities had higher self-esteem than individuals with Pleas-ing personality priorities and individuals with Detachingpersonality priorities. They also had higher social interestthan individuals with Outdoing personality priorities andfewer dysfunctional attitudes than those with Pleasing per-sonality priorities and those with Detaching personality pri-orities. They also had greater internal locus of control thanindividuals with Detaching personality priorities. Individu-als with Outdoing personality priorities had higher self-esteem than those with Pleasing personality priorities.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study lend support for the theoreticalconstruct of personality priorities. Although significant dif-ferences were found among the various personality priori-ties on several measures, several of the personality priori-ties were significantly correlated with one another. Thesecorrelations are consistent with the theoretical descriptionsof the priorities. For instance, Achieving was positively cor-related with Outdoing. This would make theoretical sense,because each of these groups strives to gain their signifi-cance through their accomplishments. Pleasing was also sig-nificantly correlated with Avoiding. One possible explana-tion of this is that individuals whose personality priority isAvoiding, to escape from feelings of discomfort or stress,may try to please others because not pleasing others couldpotentially cause discomfort and stress.

Personality priority types were significantly different onself-esteem, social interest, internal locus of control, anddysfunctional attitudes. In general, these differences wereconsistent with the theoretical descriptions of each of thepersonality priorities.

Pleasing

Individuals whose highest personality priority type wasPleasing had lower levels of self-esteem and higher levels ofdysfunctional attitudes than individuals with Achieving per-sonality priorities. They also had lower levels of self-esteemthan individuals with Outdoing personality priorities. Thefact that individuals with Pleasing personality priorities hadcomparatively lower levels of self-esteem than those withAchieving and Outdoing personality priorities and compara-tively greater levels of dysfunctional attitudes seems to fitwith the theoretical description of feeling that one�s accep-tance by others depends primarily on pleasing them and�making� them happy. This style of gaining significance seemsconsistent with cognitive distortions measured by the DASand with lack of positive self-esteem as measured by theRosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory.

TABLE 2

Means and Standard Deviations for Social Interest Scale (SIS), Locus of Control Scale, DysfunctionalAttitudes Scale (DAS), and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory

Personality Priority

Internal Locus

M SD

SIS

M SD

External Chance

M SD

External Others

M SD

DAS

M SD

RosenbergSelf-Esteem

Inventory

M SD

Locus of Control Scale

AchievingOutdoingPleasingAvoidingDetachingEntire Sample

10.989.29

10.4210.82

9.0010.17

2.273.003.512.603.653.02

35.7134.6833.2133.3729.7134.27

4.505.094.613.886.084.85

23.7025.2526.5624.9328.7125.25

6.005.835.874.695.315.82

22.8124.4425.4624.1529.1424.39

6.115.255.255.254.415.56

134.86143.19150.04139.44163.57142.97

19.4819.8322.2117.5829.8221.32

31.5229.9027.4228.6726.7129.45

3.264.264.904.323.304.44



Achieving

Individuals whose highest personality priority type wasAchieving had higher levels of self-esteem and lower levelsof dysfunctional attitudes than those with Pleasing personal-ity priorities. They also had higher levels of self-esteem, greaterinternal locus of control, and lower levels of dysfunctionalattitudes than those with Detaching personality priorities.Last, they had a higher level of social interest than individu-als with Outdoing personality priorities. These findings sup-port the theoretical description of Achieving individuals asusing their own personal standards to judge their accom-plishments, which is consistent with lower levels of dysfunc-tional attitudes and accompanying cognitive distortions. Thisstyle of positive striving is also consistent with higher levelsof self-esteem, internal locus of control, and social interest.

Outdoing

Individuals whose highest personality priority type wasOutdoing had higher levels of self-esteem than those withPleasing personality priorities. They had lower levels of so-cial interest than those with Achieving personality priori-ties. The theoretical description of Outdoing individualssuggests that these individuals believe that they are �better�than others. This seems to fit with their relatively high lev-els of self-esteem as compared with pleasers, who believethat their worth depends on the evaluation of others. Be-cause these individuals are also described as extremely com-petitive, lacking in cooperative spirit, and needing to outdoothers, it is not surprising that they were found to havelower levels of social interest than individuals with theAchieving personality priority who usually seem to gainsignificance by being cooperative rather than competitive.

Detaching

Individuals whose highest personality priority type wasDetaching had lower levels of self-esteem and internal lo-cus of control and higher levels of dysfunctional attitudesthan those with the Achieving personality priority. Giventhe theoretical description of individuals with Detachingpersonality priorities as striving, above all else, for controlof self, their comparatively lower level of internal locus ofcontrol is somewhat surprising. However, referring to Kefir�s(1981) idea that personality priorities represent the �feltminus� that individuals are striving to overcome, it makessense that individuals who are striving for self-control maybe doing so because they feel that they are not in control ofthemselves and they need to work at being in control.

Their higher level of dysfunctional attitudes also seemsto be congruent with the theoretical description of theseindividuals as believing that they can control the world byexhibiting extreme self-control. The idea that a person cancontrol the world by striving to maintain extreme self-control seems to be a rather obvious cognitive distortion,which may lead to lower self-esteem as they strive unsuc-cessfully to control the world.

Avoiding

No significant differences were found between persons withthe Avoiding personality priority and any other group onany of the variables. The theoretical description of Avoidingindividuals suggests that they avoid discomfort and stress-ful situations. An avoidance of extremes in most or all areasof life, indicative of the Avoiding personality priority, mayhave contributed to the lack of significant differences fromthe other personality priorities.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Although the findings of this study are consistent with theinformation found in the literature on personality priori-ties, readers should bear in mind that there were severallimitations of this study. The sample size was large enoughto yield statistically significant findings, but the populationwas a relatively homogeneous group. The sample was drawnfrom a largely Caucasian population of college students. Thiswould mean that generalization of the results of the studyto the general population should be done with caution.

Another limitation is the small number of participantswhose personality priority was Detaching. Although therewere enough participants in this category to make the ap-propriate statistical analysis, the lack of individuals who fitinto the Detaching priority may also limit generalizability.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELORS

As a schema for helping to conceptualize clients and theirstruggles, the concept of personality priorities can be anextremely useful tool for counselors. In the early stages ofthe therapeutic relationship, counselors can use the LIPP toassess clients� personality priorities. This will help counse-lors gain a deeper understanding of clients� beliefs aboutthemselves, others, and the world and how their behaviorreflects those beliefs. This information can give counselorsclues about the clients� assets and areas of vulnerability. Itcan also help counselors devise treatment plans for clients,based on capitalizing on clients� strengths and remediatingpotential weaknesses. With some clients, it might be helpfulto discuss their personality priorities with them, using theinformation about typical patterns of beliefs and behaviorsto help them better understand themselves.

Specifically, these results point to potential strengths andliabilities for clients with different personality priorities.Counselors working with individuals with Pleasing person-ality priorities will need to work with these clients to en-hance their levels of self-esteem. Counselors need to be awareof these clients� propensity for cognitive distortions as mea-sured by the DAS.

Counselors working with individuals with Achieving per-sonality priorities will find numerous strengths from which todraw. These clients are likely to have high self-esteem, an in-ternal locus of control, high social interest, and few cognitive



distortions as measured by the DAS. Counselors can empha-size the various strengths of these clients and help them chan-nel their need for accomplishment by helping them focus onprojects that they would perceive as making a contribution.

When working with individuals with Outdoing personal-ity priorities, counselors will be able to help clients capital-ize on their strength in the area of self-esteem. They willneed to work on enhancing these clients� social interest byencouraging them to connect to other people in a cooperativerather than a competitive manner. Although the instrumentsin this study did not measure general mental health, Adlerbelieved that social interest could be used as an indicator ofmental health�the higher the level of social interest, themore emotionally healthy the person. If this is the case, itwould make sense that counselors consider the relatively lowlevel of social interest among individuals with Outdoingpersonality priorities to be indicative of the need to work onstrengthening the general mental health of these individuals.

Individuals with Detaching personality priorities seem tohave few strengths in the areas measured by this study. There-fore, counselors working with these individuals will need tofocus primarily on remediating areas of concern. These clientsshould be helped to find ways to enhance their self-esteem.Counselors need to be aware of Detaching clients� tendencytoward cognitive distortions and low level of internal locusof control and work with them on these areas.

Because the study did not yield any statistically signifi-cant differences related to individuals with Avoiding person-ality priorities, it is difficult to make recommendations forworking with these individuals. The lack of strengths andweaknesses may suggest that these individuals, in their striv-ing to avoid uncomfortable situations, may not demonstrateany characteristics that would make them stand out in agroup. If this avoidance of discomfort is a consistent pattern, itmay also follow that these individuals would tend to avoidentering into counseling relationships that, in the pursuit ofgrowth and movement toward increased self-awareness andmental health, might produce a certain amount of discomfortin clients.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

On the basis of the lack of empirical studies devoted to thedifferences between individuals with specific personality pri-orities, we intended this study to be exploratory in nature.Having found that there do seem to be distinctions betweenthe five groups of personality priorities, we suggest that futureresearch continue to explore these distinctions in several areasthat might include depression, stress, coping strategies, self-efficacy, interpersonal behavior patterns, anxiety,assertiveness, perceived social support, and life satisfaction.

Other studies focusing on Adlerian constructs that mightprove helpful in understanding lifestyle and in designing in-tervention strategies could focus on exploring the differ-ences between individuals with the various personality pri-orities on perceived birth order, inferiority, and early recol-lections. Comparing the personality priority typology delin-

eated by Langenfeld and Main (1983) with other Adleriantypologies, such as those developed by Kern (1986) andWheeler, Curlette, and Kern (1993), might also be helpful inestablishing empirical support for Adlerian constructs and inproviding more information for clinicians working from anAdlerian perspective.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study lend support to the Adlerian theo-retical construct of personality priorities. The results haveprovided information that suggests that using personalitypriorities as a way of understanding people can be a usefulschema for counselors in conceptualizing clients. Assessingclients� personality priorities can help counselors anticipateclients� strengths and weaknesses and generate appropriatetherapeutic goals for clients. Personality priorities seem tobe a rich area for future research.

REFERENCES

Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (H. Ansbacher& R. Ansbacher, Eds.) New York: Basic Books.

Adler, A. (1958). What life should mean to you. New York: PutnamCapricorn. (Original work published 1931)

Bitter, J. (1993). Communication styles, personality priorities, and socialinterest: Strategies for helping couples build a life together. IndividualPsychology, 49, 330�350.

Britzman, M., & Henkin, A. (1992). Wellness and personality priorities:The utilization of Adlerian encouragement strategies. Individual Psy-chology, 48, 195�202.

Britzman, M., & Main, F. (1990). Wellness and personality priorities.Individual Psychology, 46, 43�50.

Brown, J. (1976). Practical applications of the personality priorities: Aguide for counselors. Clinton, MD: B & F Associates.

Crandall, J. (1991). A scale for social interest. Individual Psychology, 47,106�114.

Crandall, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and related con-cepts. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of socialpsychological attitudes (pp. 45�167). Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Press.

DeLaet, T., & Wise, S. (1986). The development and validation of thePersonality Priorities Inventory for Adolescents. Educational and Psy-chological Measurement, 46, 455�459.

Dewey, E. (1991). Basic applications of Adlerian psychology for self-understanding and human relations (2nd ed.). Coral Springs, FL: CMTI.

Dreikurs, R. (1989). Fundamentals of Adlerian psychology . Chicago:Adler School of Professional Psychology.

Eckstein, D., & Baruth, L. (1996). The theory and practice of life-styleassessment (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Evans, T., & Bozarth, J. (1986). Pairing of personality priorities in mar-riage. Individual Psychology, 42, 59�64.

Goldsmith, R. E. (1986). Dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-EsteemScale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 253�264.

Holden, J. (1991). The most frequent personality priorities pairings in mar-riage and marriage counseling. Individual Psychology, 47, 392�398.

Kefir, N. (1971, July). Priorities: A different approach to life style andneurosis. Paper presented at ICASSI, Tel-Aviv, Israel.

Kefir, N. (1981). Impasse/priority therapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Hand-book of innovative psychotherapies (pp. 400�415). New York: Wiley.

Kern, R. (1986). Lifestyle scale. Coral Springs, FL: CMTI.Langenfeld, S., & Main, F. (1983). Personality priorities: A factor analytic

study. Individual Psychology, 39, 40�51.Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within



the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assess-ment, 38, 377�383.

Main, F., & Oliver, R. (1988). Complementary, symmetrical, and paral-lel personality priorities as indicators of marital adjustment. Indi-vidual Psychology, 44, 324�332.

Manaster, G., & Corsini, R. (1982). Individual psychology: Theory andpractice. Chicago: Adler School of Professional Psychology.

Pew, W. (1974, June). The number one priority. Paper presented at the22nd annual meeting of the North American Society of Adlerian Psy-chology, Chicago.

Pew, W. (1976). The number one priority. Monograph: InternationalAssociation of Individual Psychology. Munich, Germany: Interna-tional Association of Individual Psychology.

Powers, R., & Griffith, J. (1987). Understanding life style: The psychoclarityprocess. Chicago: Americas Institute of Adlerian Studies.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.Shulman, B., & Mosak, H. (1988). Manual for life style assessment.

Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.Smith, D. (1982). Trends in counseling and psychotherapy. American

Psychologist, 37, 802�809.Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Topf, D. W. (1984). Personality priorities and marital adjustment. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, Vermillion.Ward, D. (1979). Implications of personality priority assessment for the

counseling process. The Individual Psychologist, 16(2), 2�16.Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978, August�September). Development

and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale: A preliminaryinvestigation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Wheeler, M., Curlette, W., & Kern, R. (1993). BASIS-S inventory. High-lands, NC: TRT.

Wheeler, M., Kern, R., & Curlette, W. (1991). Life-style can be measured.Individual Psychology, 47, 229�240.

adlerian personality priorities: psychological and attitudinal differences

Documents