Discussion: Neo-Psychoanalytic and Behavioral Personality Theories

American Psychological Association 2013 Convention Presentation

Empirical Evidence for the Heritability of Karen Horney’s Three Core Neurotic Trends

Alisa J. Estey University Of Colorado At Colorado Springs

[email protected]

Frederick L. Coolidge University Of Colorado At Colorado Springs

Daniel L. Segal University Of Colorado At Colorado Springs

Juliana Gottschling Saarland University

[email protected]

Frank M. Spinath Saarland University

Topics: 10.2 assessment/diagnosis; 35 Genetics/Genomics

In 1945, psychoanalyst Karen Horney proposed three relatively independent defense mechanisms helped children to cope

with a “basic anxiety,” and she labeled them core neurotic trends. Individuals using compliant trends solve the basic anxiety

by “moving toward” people. Her aggressive person “moves against” others, and her detached person “moves away” from

others. One of Horney’s contentions with Freud was his emphasis that the driving forces in neuroses were largely instinctual

in their nature. Horney believed neuroses were primarily caused by disturbed human relationships and were created by cultural

forces and childhood experiences. Horney never mentioned genetic influences or heritable influences upon her three trends. As

it has been proposed that all complex human behaviors may have at least some genetic influence (e.g., Johnson et al., 2009),

the purpose of this paper was to determine whether there are genetic influences upon Horney’s trends in an adult twin sample.

Coolidge (1998, 2001, 2004) operationalized Horney’s theory as the Horney-Coolidge Tridimensional Inventory (HCTI),

a 57-item questionnaire, answered on a scale ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 4 (nearly always). The present sample consisted

of 192 adults, 60 MZ twin pairs (10 male pairs and 50 female pairs) and 36 DZ twin pairs (4 male pairs and 20 female pairs,

12 opposite sex pairs), M age = 21.6 years (range 18 to 12 years; 40 men and 152 women). The research met APA ethical

standards.

Genetic analyses were based on the classic twin design which separates observed phenotypic variance into genetic

(additive [A] and nonadditive [D]) and environmental (shared [C] and nonshared [E]) model components. The contributions of

A, C, D, and E to the total variance were evaluated by comparing the nested models and full models (ACE or ADE). The

results are presented in Table 1 (best fitting models are marked in bold).

Overall, the best fitting model for each of the three HCTI dimensions included additive genetic and nonshared

environmental factors. These results do not invalidate Horney’s contention these neurotic trends were created by cultural

forces and childhood experiences, but the results suggest that unique cultural forces and unique childhood experiences may

have a more profound impact upon the development of neurotic trends than shared (with other siblings) environmental

influences. The results also suggest there are some genetic influences as well.

Table 1

Model fitting results and parameter estimates for the three HCTI scales

Parameters (95% CI)

a² c² / d² e²

Compliance

ADE .00 (.00;.24) .11 (.00;.26) .89 (.74;1.00)

DE .11 (.00;.26) .89 (.74;1.00)

AE .10 (.00;.25) .90 (.75;1.00)

E 1.00 (1.00;1.00)

Aggression

ADE .45 (.00;.56) .00 (.00;52) .55 (.44;.68)

DE .44 (.32;.55) .56 (.45;.69)

AE .45 (.32;.56) .55 (.44;.68)

E 1.00 (1.00;1.00)

Detachment

ACE .42 (.01;.55) .00 (.00;.33) .58 (.45;.74)

CE .31 (.18;.43) .69 (.57;.82)

AE .42 (.26;.55) 0.58 (.45;.74)

E 1.00 (1.00;1.00)

Note: a² = additive genetic effects; c²= shared environmental effects; d² = nonadditive genetic effects; e² = nonshared

environmental effects