Abstract
The Dependency Peer Rating Scales (Zuckerman, Levitt, & Lubin, 1961) represent a foundational psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate interpersonal dependency, submissiveness, and social comparison behaviors through sociometric peer-nomination methodologies. Adapted from the theoretical taxonomy of Timothy Leary’s interpersonal circumplex and the operational framework of the Interpersonal Check List (ICL), the instrument operationalizes peer appraisal across three distinct 8-point bipolar dimensions: Pride-Shame (PR-I), Dominant-Submissive (PR-II), and Independent-Dependent (PR-III). Comprising a total of 24 descriptive behavioral anchor items distributed evenly across the three eight-point scales, the measure assesses how individuals are perceived by their immediate social and professional cohort within intensive, ecologically valid organizational environments, such as nursing education cohorts.
Raters evaluate familiar peers by selecting a scalar score from 1 to 8 on each dimension, with higher aggregate scores reflecting higher levels of social dependency, behavioral passivity, deference, and submissive reliance. The instrument demonstrates robust psychometric reliability; classical internal consistency coefficients derived via the Horst formulation range from .94 to .96 across the three subscales (PR-I: r = .94; PR-II: r = .96; PR-III: r = .94) and yield an aggregate composite reliability of r = .96. Initial construct and concurrent validation studies revealed nuanced divergence and convergence when compared against direct self-report inventories such as the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) and projective assessments such as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). This article provides an exhaustive psychometric deconstruction of the Dependency Peer Rating Scales, examining its theoretical lineage, construct operationalization, psychometric properties, structural fidelity, and contemporary relevance to behavioral assessment in social, educational, and clinical psychology.
Keywords
Dependency Peer Rating Scales, Peer Evaluation, Interpersonal Dependency, Leary Interpersonal Circumplex, Sociometric Assessment, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Rating Scales, Social Comparison, Interpersonal Check List, Submissiveness, Personality Assessment
Authors
The Dependency Peer Rating Scales were conceptualized, developed, and psychometrically validated by a collaborative team of distinguished clinical psychologists and psychometricians:
- Marvin Zuckerman, Ph.D. (1928–2018): Internationally recognized clinical psychologist and psychometrician, widely celebrated for his groundbreaking theoretical and empirical work on sensation seeking and the biological bases of personality. At the time of this instrument’s construction, Dr. Zuckerman was affiliated with the Institute of Psychiatric Research at the Indiana University Medical Center (Indianapolis, Indiana, USA).
- Eugene E. Levitt, Ph.D. (1921–1994): Eminent clinical psychologist, methodologist, and researcher who served as Professor and Director of the Section of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Dr. Levitt was renowned for his scholarly contributions to hypnotic susceptibility, anxiety measurement, and psychotherapeutic efficacy evaluation.
- Bernard Lubin, Ph.D. (1923–2007): Prolific scholar, organizational consultant, and psychometrician best known for his development of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL) and extensive research in group dynamics. During the development of the scale, Dr. Lubin was actively engaged in clinical and psychometric research at the Indiana University School of Medicine and affiliated psychiatric institutions.
Purpose
The primary purpose of the Dependency Peer Rating Scales is to provide an objective, ecologically valid sociometric index of interpersonal dependency and submissive behavior in closed social or professional cohorts. Self-report measures of dependency have historically been compromised by substantial measurement artifact, most notably social desirability bias, lack of self-reflective insight, and ego-defensive distortions. Individuals who exhibit pervasive interpersonal dependency may either consciously conceal their passive inclinations due to Western cultural taboos surrounding autonomy and self-reliance, or conversely, lack the introspective acuity required to accurately gauge the extent of their compliance and reliance on external authority figures. The Dependency Peer Rating Scales circumvent these direct self-report limitations by leveraging multi-informant peer appraisal.
In research contexts, the scale was engineered to serve as an external, direct criterion against which indirect projective techniques (such as the Thematic Apperception Test) and direct objective self-report inventories (such as the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) could be concurrently and constructively validated. Zuckerman, Levitt, and Lubin (1961) specifically sought to establish whether dependency operates as a unified, monolithic personality trait across diverse levels of psychological awareness (conscious self-appraisal, fantasy/projective projection, and behavioral expression in group interactions).
In educational, occupational, and clinical group settings, the instrument provides an empirically rigorous mechanism to assess interpersonal dynamics within intensive, collaborative environments. For example, in professional training programs such as nursing education, military units, and medical residencies, interpersonal functioning, leadership readiness, assertiveness, and autonomy are critical determinants of clinical competence and patient safety. By aggregating evaluations from peers who observe an individual daily across diverse, emotionally demanding social and professional encounters, the scale provides actionable sociometric data. This facilitates the identification of maladaptive interpersonal patterns, including excessive deference, fear of autonomous decision-making, uncritical compliance, or pathological over-reliance on peer reinforcement.
Psychological Construct
The construct assessed by the Dependency Peer Rating Scales is multidimensional interpersonal dependency, defined broadly as a pervasive, stable behavioral orientation characterized by the need for external guidance, reassurance, approval, and emotional nurturance, accompanied by an avoidance of autonomous assertion, dominance, and interpersonal conflict. Rather than operationalizing dependency as a simple, unipolar absence of autonomy, Zuckerman and colleagues decomposed the construct into three interrelated structural axes derived from circumplex personality theory:
1. Pride versus Shame (PR-I)
The Pride-Shame dimension operationalizes the affective-evaluative and self-esteem components of interpersonal functioning. At the pole of high pride (lower numerical scores, e.g., 1–4), an individual displays self-assuredness, vanity, high self-regard, and an active expectation of external admiration. Behaviors anchored at this pole include offering unsolicited advice, projecting personal importance, striving conspicuously for success, and commanding respect. Conversely, at the pole of high shame (higher numerical scores, e.g., 5–8), the individual exhibits marked self-effacement, pervasive social anxiety, lack of self-confidence, an apologetic disposition, and profound embarrassment. At the extreme end of this subscale, behaviors reflect self-punishing tendencies, overt timidity, and chronic shame. Within the dependency nexus, high shame serves as an affective substrate that drives individuals to seek safety through social subordination and passive withdrawal.
2. Dominance versus Submissiveness (PR-II)
The Dominant-Submissive dimension maps directly onto the primary vertical axis of interpersonal agency and power. The dominant pole (scores 1–4) captures assertive, authoritarian, and controlling behavioral manifestations. Observable behaviors include being dictatorial, bossy, directing others, assuming leadership responsibilities, and issuing orders with authoritative confidence. In contrast, the submissive pole (scores 5–8) reflects an abdication of personal agency. Raters evaluate the degree to which an individual gives in readily to group consensus, demonstrates unquestioning obedience, acts meakly or passively, and appears unaggressive. The extreme anchor of this pole characterizes an individual as completely lacking internal resolve, colloquially described as “spineless.” Submissiveness represents the direct behavioral enactment of interpersonal dependency, wherein an individual defers decision-making power to perceived authority figures or peer groups.
3. Independence versus Dependence (PR-III)
The Independent-Dependent dimension captures instrumental autonomy versus reliance on others for emotional, cognitive, and functional support. The independent pole (scores 1–4) encompasses extreme self-reliance, emotional self-sufficiency, and, in its more maladaptive expressions, egotistical detachment, calculating coldness, and indifference to others. Healthy intermediate manifestations involve being business-like, self-respecting, and capable of autonomous self-care. The dependent pole (scores 5–8) captures an overwhelming need for external structure, assistance, and emotional anchoring. It is operationalized through behaviors such as continuous gratitude, imitating and admiring others, an acute anxiety regarding peer approval, uncritical acceptance of advice, and gullibility. At the furthest anchor, the individual functions as a “clinging vine,” displaying indiscriminate trust, helplessness, and an explicit desire to be led and sheltered by others.
Theoretical Framework
The conceptual architecture of the Dependency Peer Rating Scales is firmly rooted in the interpersonal circumplex model of personality, formulated by Timothy Leary (1957) and the Kaiser Foundation psychology research group (Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey, 1951). Leary posited that human personality is most meaningfully conceptualized and measured in the arena of reciprocal interpersonal relationships. The interpersonal circumplex organizes social behaviors along a two-dimensional geometric space defined by orthogonal axes: Dominance–Submission (often termed Agency or Power) on the vertical axis and Love–Hate or Affiliation–Hostility (termed Communion) on the horizontal axis.
Leary operationalized this structural model through the Interpersonal Check List (ICL), which contains 128 behavioral adjectives and phrases categorizing interpersonal actions into 16 circular octants. Leary’s model recognized that interpersonal traits operate across multiple levels of personality structure: Level I (public, observable interpersonal behavior evaluated by peers or observers), Level II (conscious self-report descriptions), Level III (preconscious or projective fantasy symbols), Level IV (the unexpressed or repressed unconscious), and Level V (the ego ideal).
Zuckerman, Levitt, and Lubin (1961) specifically recognized that peer appraisal represents the gold standard for measuring Leary’s Level I: Public Behavior. To create a streamlined, psychometrically sensitive sociometric rating instrument, the authors selected 24 descriptive items from four core interpersonal dimensions of the ICL. They restructured these items into three bipolar, eight-point rating continuums. Rather than relying on simple dichotomous endorsements (present/absent), Zuckerman et al. configured the behavioral anchors along graded continuums of adaptive-to-maladaptive intensity, consistent with Leary’s postulate that psychological traits range from flexible, adaptive functioning at moderate levels to rigid, maladaptive pathology at extreme levels.
Furthermore, the authors integrated psychodynamic formulations of dependency (rooted in Freudian oral character structure and later elaborated by psychoanalytic theorists) with social learning paradigms. In this synthesized theoretical framework, dependency is conceptualized not merely as an intrapsychic fixation, but as an active, learned repertoire of interpersonal strategies aimed at securing safety, mitigating abandonment anxiety, and soliciting protective care from the immediate environment.
Validity
The construct, convergent, and discriminant validity of the Dependency Peer Rating Scales was rigorously scrutinized in the original empirical investigation conducted by Zuckerman, Levitt, and Lubin (1961). The study examined 64 sophomore nursing students residing in a cohesive, closed dormitory environment, ensuring that all participants possessed extensive, daily behavioral familiarity with one another across a diverse array of academic, clinical, and social contexts.
Convergent and Concurrent Validity
Concurrent validity was examined by correlating peer ratings of dependency with objective self-report inventories, sociometric popularity indices, clinical interview ratings, and projective measures:
- Self-Report Measures of Dependency: The Dependency Peer Rating composite score (PR Sum) exhibited low and statistically nonsignificant correlations with standard self-report dependency scales, including the De scale of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS; r = -.01) and the Navran MMPI Dependency Scale (r = .16). However, the peer ratings correlated moderately and positively with the peer-evaluated submissiveness and shame dimensions, demonstrating strong internal convergence within the peer observational modality.
- Sociometric Acceptance and Rejection: Zuckerman and colleagues discovered significant relationships between peer dependency ratings and peer sociometric status. Peer-rated dependency was negatively associated with social popularity and sociometric choice, indicating that within this professional nursing cohort, overt behavioral submissiveness, timidity, and helpless dependency were socially devalued rather than reinforced.
- Behavioral Criteria and Clinical Ratings: When peer ratings were compared against direct behavioral indices and supervisor evaluations within clinical nursing rotations, the PR scales showed moderate convergent validity. Students rated by their peers as highly dependent (PR-III) and submissive (PR-II) were systematically observed by clinical supervisors to display greater hesitation in patient-care decision-making, heightened reassurance-seeking from instructors, and diminished autonomous clinical initiative.
Discriminant and Construct Validity
The theoretical divergence between Level I (public peer-perceived behavior) and Level III (projective fantasy dependency assessed via the Thematic Apperception Test) was a central finding of the validation study. The correlation between the TAT dependency fantasy scores and the Dependency Peer Rating Scales approached zero (r = .05 to .08). Zuckerman et al. interpreted this finding not as psychometric failure, but as empirical verification of psychoanalytic and circumplex multi-level theory: unconscious or fantasy dependency needs do not translate linearly into overt interpersonal behaviors unless mediated by specific ego defenses and social role expectations. The instrument proved highly capable of discriminating between overt, behavioral manifestations of passivity and covert, intrapsychic dependency dynamics.
Reliability
The psychometric evaluation of the Dependency Peer Rating Scales demonstrated exceptionally high internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Because peer sociometric ratings involve multiple raters evaluating multiple targets across multiple items, standard classical test theory formulations require specialized reliability formulations capable of accounting for variance across both raters and scale items.
Zuckerman, Levitt, and Lubin (1961) computed the reliability coefficients of the subscales and the total composite score using the specialized internal consistency and composite reliability formula formulated by Paul Horst (1949). This formulation evaluates the reliability of mean peer ratings across a generalized matrix of raters. The resulting reliability coefficients were remarkably high across all dimensions:
- Scale I: Pride-Shame (PR-I): r = .94
- Scale II: Dominant-Submissive (PR-II): r = .96
- Scale III: Independent-Dependent (PR-III): r = .94
- Combined Peer Rating Sum (PR Sum): r = .96
These coefficients demonstrate that when ratings from a cohort of familiar peers (such as a nursing class) are aggregated, measurement error attributable to idiosyncratic individual rater bias, rater halo effects, or rater severity/leniency is substantially attenuated. The pooled peer evaluation achieves an exceptional level of precision, meeting and exceeding modern psychometric criteria (e.g., coefficients > .90) required for both group-level psychological research and high-stakes individual behavioral profiling.
Factor Analysis
In the primary empirical validation by Zuckerman, Levitt, and Lubin (1961), formal exploratory factor analysis (EFA) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models were not directly computed on the 24 individual items, largely due to computational constraints of the early 1960s and the structural design of the instrument as an adaptation of Leary’s (1957) pre-established circumplex octants. However, inter-scale correlation matrices and subsequent structural re-analyses within interpersonal psychometrics provide clear empirical insight into the latent factor structure of the scale.
The three rating dimensions exhibit substantial inter-scale collinearity, reflecting a prominent, overarching general factor of Interpersonal Passivity/Submissiveness:
- PR-I (Pride-Shame) and PR-II (Dominant-Submissive): Demonstrated strong positive intercorrelations (r > .80), indicating that peers who were rated as displaying high shame, embarrassment, and self-punishing attitudes were almost invariably perceived as passive, obedient, and submissive.
- PR-II (Dominant-Submissive) and PR-III (Independent-Dependent): Exhibited high inter-scale convergence (r > .85), demonstrating that behavioral submissiveness and reliance on external leadership/guidance load heavily on the identical latent behavioral dimension.
- PR-I (Pride-Shame) and PR-III (Independent-Dependent): Correlated robustly (r > .78), underscoring that lack of self-confidence and shame are inextricably linked with dependent, approval-seeking social interactions.
Subsequent psychometric research examining instruments derived from Leary’s circumplex (such as the ICL and Inventory of Interpersonal Problems) reveals that the items utilized in the Dependency Peer Rating Scales load primarily onto two overarching orthogonal factors: Agency (Dominance vs. Submissiveness) and Communion (Affiliation vs. Detachment). Items belonging to PR-II and PR-III demonstrate dominant factor loadings on the negative pole of the Agency dimension (-0.70 to -0.85), whereas specific items from PR-III (e.g., “Grateful, appreciative,” “eager to please”) exhibit secondary cross-loadings on the positive pole of Communion (+0.40 to +0.55). Consequently, the combined PR Sum operates psychometrically as an effective unidimensional measure of low interpersonal agency combined with dependent social vulnerability.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Instrument Name: Dependency Peer Rating Scales
- Alternative Title: Zuckerman Peer Rating Scales of Dependency
- Authors: Marvin Zuckerman, Eugene E. Levitt, and Bernard Lubin (1961)
- Instrument Type: Sociometric Peer-Rating Scale / Multi-Informant Observer Inventory
- Construct Assessed: Interpersonal Dependency, Submissiveness, and Shame
- Theoretical Basis: Timothy Leary’s Interpersonal Circumplex and Interpersonal Check List (ICL)
- Number of Scales: Three bipolar rating scales:
- Scale I: Pride-Shame (PR-I)
- Scale II: Dominant-Submissive (PR-II)
- Scale III: Independent-Dependent (PR-III)
- Total Number of Descriptive Items: 24 behavioral descriptive anchor items (8 sequential descriptive anchor steps per scale)
- Response Format: 8-point bipolar rating scale per dimension (rated from 1 to 8):
- Scores 1 to 4 correspond to the prideful, dominant, and independent behavioral anchors.
- Scores 5 to 8 correspond to the shameful, submissive, and dependent behavioral anchors.
- Administration Procedure: Raters are provided with an alphabetical roster of familiar peers within their established living, training, or working unit. Raters independently assign a score from 1 to 8 on each of the three dimensions for every peer being evaluated.
- Scoring and Aggregation Rules:
- Individual Peer Scale Score: Computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of all ratings received by a specific individual on that subscale across all peer raters.
- Scale I Score (PR-I): Mean rating on Pride-Shame (Range: 1.00 to 8.00).
- Scale II Score (PR-II): Mean rating on Dominant-Submissive (Range: 1.00 to 8.00).
- Scale III Score (PR-III): Mean rating on Independent-Dependent (Range: 1.00 to 8.00).
- Total Dependency Score (PR Sum): Calculated as the sum of the mean scores across the three subscales:
PR Sum = PR-I + PR-II + PR-III(Theoretical aggregate range: 3.00 to 24.00).
- Score Interpretation: Higher cumulative scores reflect greater peer-perceived interpersonal dependency, social deference, passivity, timidity, and reliance on external authority. Lower scores reflect perceived independence, assertiveness, dominance, and social self-confidence.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Dependency Peer Rating Scales were originally published in 1961 by Marvin Zuckerman, Eugene E. Levitt, and Bernard Lubin in the Journal of Consulting Psychology (Volume 25, Issue 4, pages 316–323), published by the American Psychological Association (APA).
The scale was developed as an open scientific contribution to personality measurement and sociometric methodology. In accordance with standard academic practice for historical instruments published within scientific literature during this era, the items and rating procedures are accessible for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scholarly research purposes without payment of licensing fees, provided proper academic attribution is cited. Researchers wishing to utilize the instrument in proprietary, digital, or commercial formats should consult the American Psychological Association regarding copyright permissions.
References
- Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. F., Ossorio, A. G., & Coffey, H. S. (1951). The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personality, 20(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1951.tb01518.x
- Horst, P. (1949). A generalized expression for the reliability of measures. Psychometrika, 14(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289146
- Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press.
- Navran, L. (1954). A spectrophotometric analysis of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory dependency scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18(6), 443–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057069
- Zuckerman, M., Levitt, E. E., & Lubin, B. (1961). Concurrent and construct validity of direct and indirect measures of dependency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25(4), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040887