Interpersonal Check List (ICL)

Abstract

The Interpersonal Check List (ICL) is a seminal psychometric assessment instrument developed by Rolfe LaForge, Robert F. Suczek, and Timothy Leary (1955, 1957) as part of the Kaiser Foundation Research Project in Oakland, California. Designed to capture human relational styles and personality pathology through an interpersonal lens, the instrument operationalizes interpersonal circumplex theory. The ICL comprises 128 items (words or short descriptive phrases) that assess self-descriptions and perceptions of significant others across a two-dimensional geometric space defined by orthogonal axes: Dominance–Submission (vertical control/agency axis) and Love–Hate (horizontal affiliation/communion axis). These items map systematically into 16 specific interpersonal categories, which are conventionally clustered into eight octants (AP, BC, DE, FG, HI, JK, LM, and NO) and graduated across four empirical intensity tiers ranging from adaptive flexibility (Level 1) to rigid, maladaptive pathology (Level 4). Employing a dichotomous endorsement response format (checked vs. unchecked), the checklist yields both octant-level raw and standardized scores, alongside trigonometric vector scores representing an individual’s overall interpersonal profile, vector length, and angular placement. Psychometric evaluations across diverse clinical, non-clinical, and cross-cultural cohorts consistently confirm satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ranging between .70 and .86 for octant composites and > .88 for circular dimensional axes), high test-retest reliability (.73 to .84), and structural validity supporting circular ordering. The ICL serves as a foundational historical and contemporary instrument in clinical diagnosis, marital and dyadic assessment, psychotherapy outcome evaluation, and group dynamics research.

Keywords

Interpersonal Check List, ICL, Interpersonal Circumplex, Timothy Leary, Dominance-Submission, Love-Hate, Interpersonal Diagnosis, Rolfe LaForge, Octant Scores, Dyadic Assessment, Complementarity, Personality Assessment

Authors

The Interpersonal Check List was designed, calibrated, and validated by research psychologists affiliated with the Permanente Foundation Hospital and the Kaiser Foundation Research Project in Oakland, California:

• Rolfe LaForge, Ph.D.: Quantitative psychometrician and statistical methodologist, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Oakland, CA, and later faculty member at the University of Hawaii.
• Robert F. Suczek, Ph.D.: Clinical psychologist and researcher, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Oakland, CA; specialist in group psychotherapy dynamics and psychological measurement.
• Timothy F. Leary, Ph.D.: Director of Clinical Research and Psychology at the Kaiser Foundation Hospital (1954–1959); subsequently Lecturer in Clinical Psychology at Harvard University; principal conceptual architect of the multi-level system of interpersonal personality diagnosis.
• Hubert S. Coffey, Ph.D. (Collaborating Investigator): Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley; co-developer of the social group therapy models underpinning interpersonal assessment.
• Mervin B. Freedman, Ph.D. (Collaborating Investigator): Research Associate, Kaiser Foundation Project; contributor to early circular taxonomies of interpersonal interactions.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Interpersonal Check List is to provide an objective, empirical, and mathematically structured measurement of human interpersonal interactions, behavioral tendencies, and self-other perceptual schemas. Developed during the 1950s within the context of the Kaiser Foundation Research Project, the ICL was engineered to overcome the limitations of subjective psychiatric taxonomies and fragmented psychometric inventories of the era. Grounded in the premise that personality manifests primarily, if not exclusively, within social and relational matrices, the ICL quantifies both the style and the intensity of interpersonal maneuvers individuals employ to reduce anxiety, elicit reciprocal behaviors, and maintain self-esteem.

In clinical practice, the ICL was designed as the central objective component of Leary’s five-tier system of interpersonal diagnosis. These diagnostic levels encompass: Level I (public interpersonal behavior as observed by trained clinicians), Level II (conscious self-description and descriptions of significant figures), Level III (preconscious fantasies and projective imagery, typically elicited through the Thematic Apperception Test), Level IV (the unexpressed or repressed unconscious), and Level V (the ego ideal and values system). The ICL is predominantly deployed at Level II and Level V, allowing clinicians to contrast an individual’s self-rating (Level II: “How I see myself”) against their ideal self-rating (Level V: “How I want to be”), spouse or partner ratings (Level II: “How my spouse sees me” or “How I see my spouse”), and parental evaluations. Discrepancies between these interpersonal vectors yield critical diagnostic indices regarding interpersonal rigidity, perceptual distortion, defensive projection, and marital or familial misalignment.

In research contexts, the ICL provides an operational bridge between social psychology, group dynamics, and personality assessment. It is widely employed in evaluating psychotherapy outcomes, tracing how therapeutic interventions soften maladaptive, extreme interpersonal maneuvers (e.g., Level 4 autocratic or spineless behaviors) into flexible, adaptive expressions (e.g., Level 1 or 2 leadership or modesty). Furthermore, the scale serves as an empirical tool to test interpersonal complementarity hypotheses—the principle that interpersonal behaviors reliably invite or compel specific reciprocal responses from interactional partners (e.g., hostility eliciting hostility; dominance pulling submission).

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the ICL is interpersonal behavior, conceptualized as a continuous, circular structural continuum defined by two orthogonal axes: Dominance vs. Submission (also termed Agency, Control, Status, or Power) and Love vs. Hate (also termed Affiliation, Warmth, Communion, or Nurturance). The circumplex geometry dictates that traits located close together on the perimeter of the circle correlate highly, traits separated by a 90-degree angle are theoretically orthogonal (uncorrelated), and traits positioned opposite one another (180 degrees) correlate negatively.

The ICL divides this 360-degree interpersonal space into 16 discrete sub-categories, designated by the letters A through P. In empirical practice, these 16 sub-categories are paired into eight octants, each capturing a distinctive interpersonal operational mode, comprising 16 items distributed across four graduated levels of behavioral intensity:

• Octant AP (Managerial–Autocratic / Dominant): Captures behaviors oriented toward control, direction, and executive authority. At adaptive levels (Intensity 1–2), it manifests as competent leadership, responsibility, and commanding confidence. At extreme, rigid levels (Intensity 3–4), it degenerates into bossy, dominating, dictatorial, and pompously dogmatic behavior.
• Octant BC (Competitive–Exploitive / Dominant-Hostile): Represents self-reliance, independence, and competitive drive. Low-intensity variants include healthy self-respect and ambition. High-intensity expressions involve ruthless self-seeking, shrewd manipulation, narcissistic arrogance, and exploitative aloofness.
• Octant DE (Blunt–Aggressive / Pure Hostile): Reflects assertiveness, directness, and critical discernment at adaptive levels. When exaggerated into extreme levels, it produces destructive cynicism, sarcasm, punitive anger, cruelty, and unprovoked interpersonal aggression.
• Octant FG (Skeptical–Distrustful / Submissive-Hostile): Characterizes cautious discernment, skepticism, and self-protection. At pathological intensities, it hardens into bitter grievance, paranoid hypervigilance, chronic resentment, alienation, and radical refusal to trust others.
• Octant HI (Modest–Self-Effacing / Pure Submissive): Encompasses humility, emotional reserve, and the capacity for self-criticism. Pathological intensification produces spineless submissiveness, disabling shame, severe self-punishment, complete passivity, and debilitating timidity.
• Octant JK (Docile–Dependent / Submissive-Affiliate): Involves trust, respect for authority, and cooperation. At maladaptive thresholds, it deteriorates into clinging dependency, helpless compliance, an inability to make independent choices, and blind gullibility.
• Octant LM (Cooperative–Overconventional / Affiliate): Manifests as warmth, friendliness, agreeableness, and sociability. In its extreme manifestation, it transforms into desperate approval-seeking, compulsive agreeableness, artificial effusiveness, and an inability to tolerate conflict or negative affect.
• Octant NO (Responsible–Overgenerous / Dominant-Affiliate): Captures helpfulness, nurturing care, empathy, and social responsibility. At extreme pathology, it manifests as intrusive overprotectiveness, martyrdom, smothering paternalism, and unconditional self-sacrifice that disempowers others.

A cardinal feature of the construct is the intensity dimension. The 128 items are intentionally stratified into four tiers of behavioral extremity: Level 1 (mild, minimally descriptive), Level 2 (moderate, typical adaptive functioning), Level 3 (marked, rigid, problematic behavior), and Level 4 (extreme, symptomatic, decompensated interpersonal maneuvers). Thus, the ICL measures not merely the thematic content of interpersonal orientation, but also its structural flexibility versus rigidity.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the ICL is rooted in the interpersonal school of psychoanalysis pioneered by Harry Stack Sullivan, particularly his Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry (1953). Sullivan asserted that personality is not a static, intrapsychic structure trapped within the skull, but the relatively enduring pattern of recurrent interpersonal situations that characterize human life. According to Sullivan, all human behavior is governed by two fundamental master motives: the pursuit of satisfaction (biological and emotional needs) and the pursuit of security (protection against anxiety and maintenance of self-esteem). Interpersonal maneuvers serve as security operations designed to avoid anxiety and navigate relational tensions.

Timothy Leary and his colleagues at the Kaiser Foundation formalized Sullivan’s clinical insights into an explicit, geometric, psychometric paradigm known as the Interpersonal Circumplex (IPC). Leary (1957) postulated that human interaction can be modeled along a continuum of circular order, organized symmetrically around the intersecting orthogonal axes of Power/Status (Vertical: Dominance vs. Submission) and Affiliation/Love (Horizontal: Hostility vs. Affection). This theoretical matrix provides several critical postulates:

1. The Principle of Circular Continuum: Interpersonal behaviors exist in continuous structural relationship to one another. There are no discrete categorical breaks; neighboring behavioral modes blend into each other, while polar opposites represent behavioral antitheses.
2. The Principle of Complementarity: Interpersonal behaviors systematically invite, pull, or elicit predictable reciprocal interpersonal responses from others. Leary posited that on the vertical axis (Dominance–Submission), behaviors pull for their opposite (dominance invites submission; submission elicits dominance). On the horizontal axis (Love–Hate), behaviors pull for their equivalent (hostility breeds hostility; warmth elicits warmth).
3. The Concept of Interpersonal Reflex: Interpersonal maneuvers are largely automated behavioral habits triggered instantaneously in interpersonal encounters to manage anxiety.
4. Pathology as Rigidity and Extremity: Normal, healthy personality functioning is defined by interpersonal flexibility—the psychological capacity to access any octant of the circumplex as situational demands require. Psychological disorder or personality dysfunction is defined by two quantifiable deviations: (a) constricted behavioral range (inability to shift octants across diverse contexts), and (b) extreme intensity (reliance on Level 3 and 4 items).

The theoretical framework of the ICL subsequently laid the empirical groundwork for modern interpersonal psychology, directly influencing the circular structural models of Jerry Wiggins (Interpersonal Adjective Scales; IAS) and Leonard Horowitz (Inventory of Interpersonal Problems; IIP).

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Interpersonal Check List have been exhaustively evaluated over decades of empirical inquiry:

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity in circumplex instruments requires verification that the correlation matrix among the subscales adheres to a circumfluent pattern: correlations should be highest between adjacent octants, decrease monotonically as the angular distance approaches 90 degrees, and reach their negative minimum at 180 degrees (opposite octants). Early validation studies by LaForge and Suczek (1955) and Leary (1957) demonstrated that the ICL subscales conformed robustly to this circular ordering. Subsequent structural equation modeling and circular stochastic curve evaluations (e.g., Wiggins, 1982; Paddock & Nowicki, 1986) confirmed that while some octants display slight psychometric distortion (often due to social desirability variations between Hostile and Affiliative octants), the underlying two-dimensional circumplex structure remains fundamentally sound.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating the ICL’s summary vectors (Dominance and Love) with established clinical and personality inventories:

• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI): Leary (1957) demonstrated that elevations in Octants DE (Blunt-Aggressive) and FG (Skeptical-Distrustful) correlate strongly with MMPI Scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviate, r = .48 to .62) and Scale 6 (Paranoia, r = .45 to .58). Conversely, Octants HI (Modest-Self-Effacing) and JK (Docile-Dependent) correlate positively with Scale 2 (Depression, r = .52) and Scale 7 (Psychasthenia, r = .56).
• Five-Factor Model of Personality (FFM): Modern comparative analyses map the horizontal Love–Hate axis cleanly onto FFM Agreeableness (r > .65) and the vertical Dominance–Submission axis directly onto FFM Extraversion/Assertiveness (r > .60), demonstrating clear theoretical convergence with modern lexical taxonomies.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

The ICL possesses well-documented predictive validity in clinical dyads and group therapy dynamics. DuHamel (1970) demonstrated that marital discord in substance-abusing populations can be accurately predicted by tracking reciprocal disconfirmations between self-ratings and spouse-ratings on the ICL, showing that extreme mismatches in Octants AP and JK strongly predict marital dissolution. Similarly, outcome studies in group psychotherapy demonstrate that successful treatment correlates with a marked reduction in Level 3 and 4 item endorsements and a migration of scores toward balanced central vector norms.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Interpersonal Check List has been examined across non-clinical college cohorts, psychiatric outpatients, and institutionalized populations:

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α and Kuder-Richardson Formula 20) for the individual 16-item octant scales range from acceptable to strong across diverse administrations:

• Octant AP (Managerial–Autocratic): α = .78 to .84
• Octant BC (Competitive–Exploitive): α = .72 to .80
• Octant DE (Blunt–Aggressive): α = .75 to .83
• Octant FG (Skeptical–Distrustful): α = .70 to .79
• Octant HI (Modest–Self-Effacing): α = .74 to .82
• Octant JK (Docile–Dependent): α = .73 to .81
• Octant LM (Cooperative–Overconventional): α = .77 to .85
• Octant NO (Responsible–Overgenerous): α = .76 to .86

When collapsed into the composite orthogonal axes of Dominance (DOM) and Love (LOV) using weighted trigonometric scoring algorithms, the resulting dimensional indices demonstrate exceptional internal consistency, typically yielding reliability coefficients between .88 and .93.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability metrics confirm that the ICL captures stable interpersonal traits rather than fleeting mood states. Over intervals of one to four weeks, test-retest reliability coefficients for octant scales range from .73 to .84 in non-clinical adult samples. Over longer intervals (six months to one year in longitudinal community cohorts), stability coefficients remain moderate to high (.65 to .75), reflecting enduring interpersonal styles. Test-retest correlations for Level II self-descriptions are slightly higher than those for other-evaluations (e.g., rating a peer or spouse), which are more susceptible to recent relational events.

Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses have scrutinized the latent dimensionality of the 128 ICL items. Early principal component analyses conducted by LaForge and Suczek (1955), as well as subsequent re-analyses by Wiggins (1982) and act-frequency researchers, consistently yield two massive, unrotated principal factors that account for the vast majority of common variance (typically between 45% and 60% of total variance):

• Factor I: Dominance vs. Submission: Highly loaded on the positive pole by items from Octant AP (e.g., “Dominating”, “Able to give orders”, “Good leader”) and on the negative pole by items from Octant HI (e.g., “Spineless”, “Passive and unaggressive”, “Lacks self-confidence”). Factor loadings on this axis frequently exceed .70.
• Factor II: Love vs. Hate (Affiliation): Highly loaded on the positive pole by items from Octants LM and NO (e.g., “Warm”, “Friendly”, “Kind and reassuring”) and on the negative pole by items from Octants DE and FG (e.g., “Cruel and unkind”, “Hardhearted”, “Distrusts everybody”). Factor loadings consistently reach .65 to .78.

In modern confirmatory factor analysis and circumplex structural evaluations (e.g., using Browne’s CIRCUM software for circular stochastic modeling), researchers test the hypothesis that the 8 octant correlation matrices fit an exact circulant matrix where correlations are a Fourier cosine function of the angular distance separating them. Results generally indicate acceptable circumplex fit indices (RMSEA ≈ .06 to .08; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90), confirming that the items conform systematically to a two-dimensional disk rather than discrete, uncoupled hierarchical clusters.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Objective interpersonal self-report and multi-target rating checklist; circumplex personality inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized digital assessment. Self-administered or administered across interpersonal targets (e.g., Self, Ideal Self, Mother, Father, Spouse/Partner).
• Number of Items: 128 items (words and short descriptive interpersonal phrases).
• Structure:
  • 16 Interpersonal Categories (A through P), each containing 8 items.
  • 8 Octants (AP, BC, DE, FG, HI, JK, LM, NO), each containing 16 items.
  • 4 Intensity Levels: Level 1 (mild/adaptive, 1 item per category), Level 2 (moderate/adaptive, 3 items per category), Level 3 (marked/problematic, 3 items per category), Level 4 (extreme/pathological, 1 item per category).
• Response Scale: Dichotomous checklist format. The respondent reads each item and places a checkmark (✓) next to items that describe the target individual (or self), leaving items blank if they do not apply.
• Scoring Rules:
  • Raw Octant Scores: Calculated by summing the number of endorsed items (0 to 16) within each of the 8 octants.
  • Intensity Scores: Calculated by summing item endorsements across Intensity Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to measure overall behavioral rigidity and extremity.
  • Summary Vector Formulas: The circular coordinates for Dominance (DOM) and Love (LOV) are derived using standard trigonometric weighting formulas:
    
    DOM = AP - HI + 0.707 × (BC + NO - FG - JK)

LOV = LM - DE + 0.707 × (NO + JK - BC - FG)
  • Vector Length and Angle: The participant’s overall interpersonal orientation angle (θ) is calculated as arctan(DOM / LOV) (adjusted for quadrant), and the vector length (rigidity/crystallization of interpersonal style) is computed as √(DOM² + LOV²).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Interpersonal Check List was developed between 1954 and 1955 and formally published in empirical form by Rolfe LaForge and Robert F. Suczek in 1955, followed by comprehensive theoretical and clinical operationalization in Timothy Leary’s 1957 volume, Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality (published by The Ronald Press Company). Because the instrument was originally developed under research grants funded by the Kaiser Foundation and the U.S. Public Health Service and published in academic literature without restrictive commercial copyright locks, the classic 128-item ICL has resided predominantly in the academic and public research domain for historical and scholarly investigation. Researchers and clinicians may utilize the instrument for scholarly, educational, and non-commercial empirical research purposes without payment of licensing royalties, provided appropriate academic attribution is rendered to LaForge, Suczek, and Leary (1955, 1957). Commercial assessments and modern derivatives (such as copyrighted circumplex revisions like the IAS-R or IIP) remain under specific commercial licensing agreements with their respective test publishers.

References

• DuHamel, T. R. (1970). The interpersonal perceptions, interactions, and marital adjustment of hospitalized alcoholic males and their wives (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts Amherst. ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1537/
• Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 885–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.885
• LaForge, R., & Suczek, R. F. (1955). The interpersonal dimension of personality: III. An interpersonal check list. Journal of Personality, 24(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1955.tb01176.x
• LaForge, R., Leary, T. F., Naboisek, H., Coffey, H. S., & Freedman, M. B. (1954). The interpersonal dimension of personality: II. An objective study of repression. Journal of Personality, 23(2), 129–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb02344.x
• Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press.
• Leary, T. F., & Coffey, H. S. (1955). Interpersonal diagnosis: Some problems of methodology and validation. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047326
• Paddock, J. R., & Nowicki, S. (1986). An examination of the circumplex model of interpersonal behavior in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5002_5
• Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1969). Measures of social psychological attitudes. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/isrpub/pdf/Measuresofsocialpsychologicalattitudes_2928_.PDF
• Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 183–221). John Wiley & Sons.

Items of the Scale