THE TWO FACES OF CODEPENDENT RELATING: A RESEARCH-BASED PERSPECTIVE*

Paul H. Wright Katherine D. Wright

ABSTRACT: Using an overview of the controversial concept of codependency as a backdrop, the paper summarizes outcomes of a project devoted to developing and applying a technique for assessing codependent relating. Results support the clinically based contention that there is a pattern of relating in dysfunctional relationships that warrants the label "codependent," and that some (but not all) cases of such relating stem from a distinctive codependency personality syndrome. These results gave rise to a perspective that combines a relational process with a dispositional view of codependent relating, and proposes that codependency may be either endogenous (chronic) or exogenous (reactive).
KEY WORDS: alcoholics; codependency; ADF-C5.

By the mid-1980s, the concept of codependency had captured the serious attention of numerous therapists specializing in addictions
Paul H. Wright, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychology, Box 8380, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202; e-mail: pwright@ prairie.nodak.edu. Katherine D. Wright, Ph. D. is the proprietor of Katy Wright, Counseling, 1407 24th Avenue South, Suite 214, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201; e-mail: kwright@mail.med.und.nodak.edu. Reprint requests should be sent to the first author. *The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following Grand Forks, ND, counselors and their agencies for assistance in some of the data collection: John Hennesy, Northridge Counseling Centre, Inc.; Vicky Clark Loyland, United Recovery Center; Earl Feagins and Betty Hellerud, Northeast Human Service Center. The first author will gladly honor requests for a manual (Wright, 1998) that includes complete psychometric information and a comprehensive guide for using the ADF-C5.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 21(4), December 1999 1999 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

527

528
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

and family counseling and therapy. Interested counselor-theorists had concluded with near unanimity that codependency was a syndrome of internalized traits, self-perceptions, and relational styles resulting from an individual's having been reared in an alcoholic or similarly dysfunctional home. Codependents were identified as persons who, because of such characteristics, gravitated toward relationships with exploitative or abusive partners around whom they organized their lives and to whom they remained strongly committed despite the absence of any identifiable rewards or personal fulfillment for themselves. Proponents of this "dispositional" view had generated a sizable literature that was clinically based and largely popular rather than professional. Also by the mid-1980s, the codependency concept was beginning to draw strong critical fire, mostly on empirical grounds (see, e.g., Gierymski & Williams, 1986). It was, in addition, an easy target for heavy-handed satire (Miller, 1987; Weinberg, 1987). Although the criticisms were clearly a plea to abandon the codependency concept, we took them as a call to test some of the basic claims of the codependency theorists through systematic research. Therefore, we undertook a study that grew into a research program (Wright & Wright, 1990, 1991, 1995). The original goal of the project was to determine whether individuals identified as "dispositional" codependents would, in fact, respond "codependently" when the characteristics of those relationships were measured by a set of relevant criteria. Please note that our focus was on the characteristics of codependent relating rather than codependency as a syndrome of internalized traits and dispositions. The earliest phase of our project coincided with the beginning of a groundswell of interest in codependency by both supporters and detractors. Papers reporting efforts at controlled studies of codependency surfaced with increasing frequency. These studies, unlike our own approach, uniformly adopted a dispositional perspective (see Wright & Wright, 1995, pp. 117-120). Criticisms on empirical grounds also continued, and were joined by criticisms on conceptual, ideological, and cultural grounds (see Wright & Wright, 1995, pp. 121-123). In spite of its controversial nature, codependency remains of interest to appreciable numbers of research oriented practioners and scholars (Carson & Baker, 1994; Hinkin & Kahn, 1995; Loughead, Spurlock, & Ting, 1998; Springer, Britt, & Schlenker, 1998). As in the past, recent studies adopt a dispostional view and identify codependents by their responses to one of several self-report techniques that combine a variety of traits and dispostions into a single codependency score. Investigators attempt to establish the validity of the codependency concept

529
PAUL H. WRIGHT AND KATHERINE D. WRIGHT

by demonstrating either that codependency scores reliably differentiate between clinically or self-identified codependents and "normal" controls or that such scores correlate significantly with independent measures of personality or psychopathology presumed to be part of the "codependency syndrome," or both. Whereas studies of the foregoing kind generally yield the expected results, there are at least two reasons why they fall short of providing definitive support for a unique and specific codependency syndrome. First, it is not certain that the questionnaires themselves measure such a trait. They may, instead, measure global response tendencies such as "general negative affectivity" (Gotham & Sher, 1996 p. 34) or "a generalized tendency to respond to statements in a negative or pessimistic manner" (Wright & Wright, 1991, p. 444). Second, such studies rarely relate trait measures of codependency to assessments of actual relationships in which presumed codependents are involved. Morever, at least one study in which this rare step was taken failed to show the hypothesized relationship characteristics (Springer et al., 1998). Our own studies have centered on developing a self-report instrument for assessing an individual's tendency to respond in codependent ways to a specified partner. Simply put, our project consisted of creating a set of codependency scales and adding them to an established instrument for measuring relationships in general, i.e., the Acquaintance Description Form-F2 (ADF-F2: Lea, 1989; Wright, 1985; 1997; Wright & Conneran, 1989). Research on the C (for codependency) series of the ADF carried us through an original and three revisions before we arrived at the current version, which we labeled the ADF-C5. Collectively, work on the first four versions (see Wright & Wright, 1990, 1991, 1995) indicated that most, but not all, of the intended codependency scales differentiated between clinically identified codependent subjects and non-codependent controls, but a number of the standard ADF scales did so as well. In addition, principal components analyses yielded a three-factor structure that was stable across samples, and virtually identical for women and men. However, no single factor yielded significant loadings on all or most of the supposed codependency scales. Rather, some of the codependency scales loaded significantly on Factor II while others loaded significantly on Factor III. For reasons that will become clear in due course, we labeled the three factors, respectively, a Positive, Rewarding Relationship (PRR), Defensive and Overprotective Caretaking (DOPCT), and Commitment/Involvement (Com/Inv).

530
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

In addition to leading progressively to the composition of the ADF-C5, work on the first four versions of the codependent ADF culminated in a perspective on codependent relating that emphasized processes within developing and ongoing relationships and de-emphasized personal dispositions (Wright & Wright, 1995). However, recent data utilizing the ADF-C5 strongly suggests that a dispositional syndrome is a telling factor in some, but not all, instances of codependent relating. This outcome led us to revisit and amplify an earlier tentative proposal (Wright & Wright, 1991) that codependency may be either endogenous (chronic) or exogenous (reactive). In the following section we describe the composition and psychometric properties of the ADF-C5. We then present supplemental analyses leading us to our current perspective, and close with a discussion of that perspective, which combines a relational process with a dispositional view of codependent relating.

THE ADF-C5: COMPOSITION AND PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES

Composition The ADF-C5 consists of 85 statements relevant to the subject's relationship with her/his designated Target Person (TP). The 85 statements comprise 28 three-item scales plus one unscored filler item. The subject indicates the frequency or probability of occurrence of each statement on a 0-6 point continuum, yielding possible scores from 0 to 18 on each scale. Table 1 names and briefly describes each scale in terms of high scores. The scales are grouped according to assumed conceptual categories. The 14 scales that were originally intended to be measures of codependent relating are marked with a "C." The remaining 14 scales comprise the standard ADF-F2. Psychometric Properties Sample. Using recruitment methods that served well in our preliminary work, we were eventually able to accumulate data from 271 women and 240 men whom we classified as control subjects, and 72 women and 20 men whom we classified as "clinically identified codependents." Control subjects were solicited from the population at large through bulletin board notices, appeals to church and community groups, a local television billboard, and word of mouth advertis-

531

PAUL H. WRIGHT AND KATHERINE D. WRIGHT

TABLE 1 Names of ADF-C5 Scales and Capsule Descriptions in Terms of High Scores1 Relationship Commitment / Involvement Voluntary Interdependence: subject commits time to TP apart from external pressures/constraints. Activity Dependency: subject's pattern of interests/activities contingent upon those of TP. (C) Permanence: subject regards relationship binding in spite of changing life circumstances. Exaggerated Permanence: subject would/does maintain relationship in the face of extreme problems. (C) Exclusiveness: subject regards relationship as "strictly dyadic" for specified activities/interactions. Personalism and Emotional Quality of the Relationship Person-qua-Person: subject responds to TP with personalized interest and concern. Salience of Emotional Expression: subject regards emotional expression essential to relationship. Direct Benefits (Interpersonal Rewards) in the Relationship Utility Value: TP uses her/his time and resources to help subject meet needs or reach personal goals. Stimulation Value: subject regards TP interesting, stimulating, and favorably challenging. Ego Support Value: TP helps subject maintain an impression of self as competent and worthwhile. Self-affirmation Value: TP facilitates subject's recognition/expression of valued self- attributes. Security Value: TP is comfortable, safe, disinclined to betray trust or cause embarrassment. Tension / Strain in the Relationship (Maintenance Difficulty) Maintenance Difficulty Personal: relationship is troubled/strained due to TP's traits/mannerisms. Maintenance Difficulty Situational: relationship is troubled/ strained due to impersonal circumstances. Aborption of Self in the Relationship Worth Dependency: subject's self-worth is contingent on positive/complimentary responses from TP. (C)

532

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

TABLE 1 (Continued) Fear of Abandonment: subject is concerned that TP may precipitously end relationship. (C) Jealousy: subject feels deprived or threatened over TP's other close relationships. (C) Control and Responsibility in the Relationship Control Behavior: subject tries to maintain influence over TP, usually by indirect/manipulative means. (C) Control Anxiety: subject is uneasy if (s)he has too little or TP too much influence in the relationship. (C) Exaggerated Responsibility: subject sees own behavior as a key determinant of TP's life outcomes. (C) escue Orientation: subject sees self as a needed influence in keeping TP from a self-destructive lifestyle. (C) Change Orientation: subject sees self as a needed influence in fostering positive changes in TP's life. (C) Excitement/Challenge: subject regards problems/difficulties with TP a source of challenge/stimulation. (C) Denial Externalization of Blame: subject attributes TP's personal failings to extenuating circumstances. (C) Miscellaneous Measures Social Regulation: subject sees the relationship as predominantly influenced by social expectations. General Favorability: subject responds to TP in a globally positive or negative way. 2 Minimization of Difficulty: subject claims to regard relationship problems as minor or easily resolved. (C) 2 Unrealistic Positive Expectations: subject claims to expect positive changes in TP and the relationship. (C)
1 (C) indicates scales originally intended to be measures of codependent relating. These scales were originally part of an effort to measure codependent denial (see Wright, 1998).

ing announcing a study of "stressed and non-stressed relationships." Subjects in this group were not extensively screened, but were excluded from data analysis if their background information indicated that they were or ever had been in codependency counseling or that

533

PAUL H. WRIGHT AND KATHERINE D. WRIGHT

substance abuse was a serious problem with their Target Persons. Clinically identified codependents were individuals either awaiting or in the early stages of counseling due to problems with an alcohol- or drug-abusing spouse (or other strongly committed heterosexual partner) in a relationship of at least three years' duration. Given the likelihood that clients quickly learn codependency ideas and "buzz words," we tried to limit our sample to those who had been in counseling for a maximum of two sessions. Participants in this group were obtained through the cooperation of counselors and treatment centers in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and neighboring communities. Respondents ranged in age from 20 to 65 years. Eighty-two percent of them were married, and the remainder were involved in longstanding engagements or non-marital cohabitation. All of them had maintained their relationships for a minimum of three years. Although we did not appeal to university classes for volunteers, 10 percent of the respondents indicated that they were primarily students, mostly "older than average" returnees to college or vocational schools. Seventy-eight percent of the participants identified themselves as Caucasians, 20 percent as American Indians, and a trace (two or three of each) as African-Americans, Hispanics, or Asian-Americans. Preliminary analyses indicated that the clinically identified codependent and control samples did not differ appreciably on any of the demographic chracteristics. Each participant used the ADF-C5 to describe her/his relationship with her or his marital (or similar) partner in addition to providing demographic information and estimates of the kinds and degrees of stress in their relationships. In the later stages of data collection, 56 women and 56 men in this set also responded to a widely used measure of dispositional codependency, i.e., the Spann-Fischer Codependency Scale (SFCS: Fischer, Spann & Crawford, 1991). Reliability. We were not unduly concerned with achieving extremely high internal consistency, especially with so few items per scale (cf. Guilford, 1954; Rosenthal 1995), but did endeavor to develop scales with Cronbach's alpha coefficients at or above .60. We were mostly, but not entirely, successful in this. For women, 24 of the 28 alphas ranged from .60 to .87 and the remaining four from .56 to .59. For men, 21 of the alphas ranged from .62 to .81 and seven from .47 to .59. To establish the stability of the ADF-C5 scales over short periods of time, we calculated test-retest correlations based on responses from

534
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

a subset of 50 women and 43 men who returned for an unspecified second session between one and five days after the first testing. These correlations ranged from .76 to .96 for women and from .66 to .96 for men, indicating adequate stability of the scales over short periods of time. It is possible that these correlations were inflated by memory effects due to the short period between testings. We consider this unlikely, however, because of the suprise element in the retesting, the absence of any clear motivation to maintain consistency, the length and complexity of the instrument, and the variability of test-retest correlations across scales. Principal components analyses. Following our usual practice, we examined ADF-C5 scores of women and men separately by means of principal components analyses followed by the varimax rotation. The analysis for women yielded three factors with Eigenvalues of 9.77, 4.18, and 1.91. These factors accounted for 34.89, 14.93, and 6.84 percent of the variance. The analysis for men yielded three factors with Eigenvalues of 7.93, 4.14, and 1.87, accounting for 28.32, 15.67, and 6.69 percent of the variance. Table 2 lists factor loadings at or above .45 for the various scales. For both women and men, an examination of the pattern of loadings in light of definitions of the scales supports the usefulness of labeling the factors, respectively, a Positive, Rewarding Relationship (PRR), Defensive and Overprotective Caretaking (DOPCT), and Commitment/Involvement (Com/Inv). Only the Jealousy scale shows a noteworthy difference between sexes, loading more heavily on Com/Inv than DOPCT for women (.47 versus .35), and more heavily on DOPCT than Com/Inv for men (.51 versus .17). Whether this difference connotes appreciably different nuances in meaning in these factors for women and men is a matter for future consideration.

AN EXPLORATION OF CODEPENDENT RELATING AND DISPOSITIONS CODEPENDENCY

Purpose The factor structure of the ADF-C5 confirms that of preliminary versions, and suggests a three-factor model of codependent relating that closely parallels the clinical description of a codependent as a person who is "enmeshed" (high Com/Inv) as an "enabler" (high DOPCT) in a relationship devoid of identifiable rewards and personal

535

536
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

fulfillment (low PRR). Thus, in terms of the ADF-C5, a codependent relater would be an individual scoring low on Factor I while scoring high on both Factors II and III. Therefore, one purpose of the present analysis was to assess the relationship of the proposed factor pattern to participants' inclusion in the clinically defined codependent group. A second purpose was to estimate the relationship, if any, that exists between the three-factor model of codependent relating and dispositional codependency as measured by the Spann-Fischer Codependency Scale (SFCS). In a closely related third purpose, we examined the degree to which the SFCS differentiated between control and clinically identified codependent subjects.

ADF-C5 Factor Scores and Codependent versus Control Conditions

Using standardized factor values from our principal components analyses, we assigned each subject a PRR, DOPCT, and Com/Inv score. Alpha coefficients for these scores ranged from .62 to .88. Testretest correlations ranged from .89 to .98. We explored the relationship of these factor scores to inclusion in the codependent and control groups by means of regression analyses. To avoid the possibility of inflated significance levels due to the large control sample, we balanced the number of codependent and control subjects by randomly selecting 72 women and 20 men from among the controls. For women and men separately, we regressed subjects' three factor scores on their group classification, i.e. control (coded 1) versus codependent (coded 2). For women (n= 144), the correlations between codependent status and PRR, DOPCT, and Com/Inv were, respectively, -.36 (p<.001), .23 (p<.01), and -.07 (ns). The multiple correlation was .42, and the respective Betas were .35 (p<.001), .23 (p<01), and -.05 (ns). For men (n = 40), the correlations were, -.46 (p<.004), .51 (p<.001), and -.30 (ns). The multiple correlation was .62, and the Betas were -.33 (p<.025), .38 (p<.009), and -.16 (ns). Thus, clinically identified codependency was significantly related to a combination of low PRR and high DOPCT. High Com/Inv was nondiagnostic.

ADF-C5 Factor Scores and the SFCS

Whereas the ADF-C5 was designed to measure codependent relating within a specific relationship, the SFCS (Fischer et al., 1991)

537

PAUL H. WRIGHT AND KATHERINE D. WRIGHT

was designed to measure codependency as a dispositional concept. Fischer et al. define codependency as a traitlike "psychosocial condition that is manifested through a dysfunctional pattern of relating to others," i.e., an extreme focus outside of self, a lack of open expression of feelings, and attempts to derive a sense of self through relationships (Spann & Fischer, 1990, p. 27). The SFCS yields a single codependency score that combines measures of these three characteristics. Data on the development and testing of this instrument, including reliability and validity information, are available in Fischer and associates (1991). Because the SFCS and the ADF-C5 originated in the same body of clinical observations, there should be a demonstrable relationship between them. To examine the extent and nature of this relationship, we used PRR, DOPCT, and Com/Inv scores as predictors and SFCS scores as the criterion in regression analyses for the 56 women and 56 men who had responded to both instruments. For women, the correlations of SFCS scores with PRR, DOPCT, and Com/Inv were -.35 (p<.01), .39 (p>.005), and .34 (p<.02). The multiple correlation was .57 (p<.001), and the Betas were -.34 (p<.01), .28 (p<.02), and .28 (p<.02). For men, the corresponding correlations were -.47 (p<.001), .50 (p<.001), and .29 (p<.04). The multiple correlation was .70 (p<.001), and the Betas were - .39 (p<.001), .48 (p<.001), and .26 (p<.01). Thus, for both women and men, high scores on the SFCS were significantly related to low scores on PRR in combination with high scores on DOPCT and Com/Inv. Twelve women and 10 men in this subsample met our criterion as clinically identified codependents. Therefore, we calculated point biserial correlations to arrive at a tentative estimate of the relationship of SFCS scores to inclusion in the codependent versus control groups. The correlation for women was a significant but modest .31 (p<.02). The correlation for men was a non-significant .21.

Summary of Findings
Higher scores on the SFCS, a measure of dispositional codependency, were significantly associated with a profile of ADF-C5 factors that closely parallels the clinical description of codependent relating, i.e., enmeshment (high Com/Inv) as an enabler (high DOPCT) in an unrewarding relationship (low PRR). However, when tested against the criterion of involvement in codependency counseling, the SFCS differentiated between codependent relaters and control subjects only

538

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

modestly for woman and non-significantly for men. Finally, by this same criterion, copendent relating was signficantly associated with a combination of low PRR and high DOPCT, but not high Com/Inv.

DISCUSSION
From a strictly measurement standpoint, our results support the clinically-based consensus that there is a personality syndrome adding up to a predisposition to form and maintain codependent relationships. The total pattern of findings, however, suggests two conclusions that challenge the adequacy of a simple dispositional explanation for codependent relating. First, whereas some clinically defined codependents "measure out" as having a codependency trait, many do not. Second, whereas clinically defined codependents do tend to function as enablers for unrewarding partners, they do not, as a rule, organize their lives around those partners. In response to this pattern of outcomes, we modified our previous relational process perspective (Wright & Wright, 1995) by placing greater emphasis on individual differences in a proneness to become involved in codependent relating and reinstating our earlier distinction between endogenous and exogenous codependency (Wright & Wright, 1991). A summary of the perspective and its implications follows. Codependent Relating: Process and Proneness Viewed as a relational process, what we observe as codependent relating is the enactment of a situated identity (Alexander, 1990; Jackson, 1988), i.e., a personalized role the codependent acquires visa-vis a complementary situated identity assumed by the relational partner. Central to this process is the partners' reciprocated self-presentation and altercasting (see, e.g., McCall & Simon, 1978). Self-presentation refers to actions and attitudes of the subject (actor) that convey the situated identy she or he is motivated to maintain. Altercasting refers to actions and attitudes of the actor that convey the situated identity she or he is motivated to have her or his partner (alter) maintain. Formerly (Wright & Wright, 1995), we proposed that virtually anyone involved with an exploitative partner skilled at manipulative altercasting stood a good chance of becoming a codependent relater. We now think it probable that people differ in their vul-

539

PAUL H. WRIGHT AND KATHERINE D. WRIGHT

nerabilty to such manipulative altercasting, and therefore that a person is unlikely to become a codependent relater apart from a personal susceptibility or "proneness" to do so. We propose that there are two qualitatively different types of personal proneness giving rise to similar, but not identical, patterns of codependent relating. In conceptual terms, we propose that codependency may be either endogenous or exogenous. Endogenous codependency corresponds to the consensual "trait" view of codependency in general. Endogenous codependents are persons with a syndrome of dispositions of the kind tapped by the SFCS. They are not only vulnerable to becoming codependent relaters, they are likely to do so to the point of gravitating toward "codependentdependent" relationships, or encouraging their development (cf. Lyon & Greenberg, 1991). Moreover, according to our own findings as well as codependency "lore," they are likely to become enmeshed in those relationships. Numerous clinical observations and some systematic research (e.g., Gotham & Sher, 1996; Lyon & Greenberg, 1991; Fischer & Crawford, 1992; Fischer, Wampler, Lyness, & Thomas, 1992) support the proposition that endogenous codependency results from having been reared in an alcoholic or similarly dysfunctional family. This does not suggest that anyone reared in such a family will necessarily become an endogenous codependent. There are other outcomes that result from the same family experience (see, e.g., Fischer, Wampler, Lyness, & Thomas, 1992; Hogg & Frank, 1992). What it does suggest is that anyone who becomes an endogenous codependent is likely to have done so as a result of such experience. People who become exogenous codependents are "nice, normal" individuals whose socialization has emphasized attitudes and self-attributes like compassion, cooperativeness, self-forgetful caregiving, and concern for the well being of others. These persons do not necessarily come from dysfunctional families of origin. On the contrary, they will often have been reared in stable, supportive homes encouraging healthy interdependence and a genuinely communal orientation. Persons with such an orientation may never become involved with exploitative partners and therefore never become codependent relaters. On the other hand, if they should become so involved, they are vulnerable to being manipulated into enabling and caretaking roles vis a vis their respective partners or, to put it differently, into assuming situated identities as inordinately responsible caretakers. They are not, however, the kinds of codependent relaters we would

540

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

expect to organize their lives around their partners. In positive terms, they are people who, in spite of being overprotective caretakers in unrewarding relationships, have reasonably fulfilling lives apart from those relationship. IMPLICATIONS Specifying a distinction between exogenous and endogenous codependency is tantamount to proposing that codependent relating is often circumstantial and reactive rather than intrapersonal in origin. Whereas strong devotees of the dispositional view might argue that endogenous codependency is the only "true" codependency, we believe that the distinction has significant clinical implications. As a presenting problem, the dysfunctional pattern of relating might be quite similar for endogenous and exogenous codependents. However, the counseling experience of the second author suggests important differences in the way they respond to treatment and to life in general. Compared to exogenous codependents, endogenous codependents have a more difficult time changing behavior and relationship patterns in response to therapy. A large amount of time is spent on past problems from their homes of origin as well as present problems with contemporary relationships. Endogenous codependents are more likely to have been involved in repeated dysfunctional relationships, and to have become excessively absorbed in them. In contrast, exogenous codependents more readily change relational attitudes, behaviors, and self-perceptions in response to treatment, are less likely to have been involved in multiple dysfunctional relationships, and spend all or most of their therapeutic time on "here and now" problems with contemporary relationships and how to deal with them. Overall, the present perspective suggests two levels at which a differentiated rather than a global approach to the identification and treatment of codependency could prove useful. The first level would entail assessing whether codependency, as a presenting problem, was of the endogenous or exogenous type. The second would entail assessing the specific kinds of codependent behavior the client expressed in the relationship in question, and the degree to which she or he expressed them. There are undoubtedly a variety of interview schedules and other clinical tools for arriving at these assessments. We believe psychometrically inclined therapists would find

541

PAUL H. WRIGHT AND KATHERINE D. WRIGHT

the combined use of the SFCS and the ADF-C5 suitable for this purpose (see Wright, 1998). In any case, such a differentiated approach should facilitate counseling by bringing specific problems into clearer focus and hence giving direction for the formulation of treatment strategies.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUDING COMMENT As a by product rather than the primary goal of our project, the present perspective grew out of accumulated findings from research devoted to developing and refining the codependent ADF. It is a perspective that drew on the second author's experience in family counseling and the first author's experience with relationship theory and research, as well as continuing surveys of the codependency literature. Whereas we believe it lends coherence to our findings and to a variety of clinical observations, it lacks verification from studies focused on the perspective itself. One reasonable next step would be to assess the uniqueness of codependent relating as a relationship "pathology" by comparing clinically identified codependents with two other groups, i.e., respondents in certifiably non-distressed relationships and those in distressed relationships not involving chemically dependent, abusive or exploitative partners. Another would be to test the endogenous-exogenous distinction more directly by identifying yet another sample of codependent counselees and, along with SFCS scores, obtain their ADF-C5 responses not only to their "dependents," but to two or three other close relational partners as well. Hypothetically, the ADF-C5 factor profiles for endogenous codependents would indicate codependent relating with all of the partners they described whereas those for exogenous codependents would indicate codependent relating only for their primary partners. In sum, it is clear that a great deal of corroborative and clarifying work on the present perspective and on the issue of codependency in general remains to be done. When we initiated our project, we regarded codependency a potentially useful concept in need of more careful delineation. We continue to regard any time spent investigating this problem, and developing counseling strategies suitable for dealing with it, to be time well spent. We hope that the our current perspective will provide some useful leads toward this end.

542
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

REFERENCES
Alexander, C. N. (1990). Situated activity and identity formation. In M. Rosenberg & R. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 269-289). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Carson, A. T., & Baker, A. C. (1994). Psychological correlates of codependency in women. International Journal of the Addictions, 29, 395-407. Fischer, J. L., & Crawford, D. W. (1992). Codepedendency and parenting styles. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 352-363. Fischer, J. L., Spann, L., & Crawford, D. W. (1991). Measuring codependency. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 8, 87-100. Fischer, J. L., Wampler, R., Lyness, K., & Thomas, E. M. (1992). Offspring codependency: Blocking the impact of family of origin. Family Dynamics of Addiction Quarterly, 2, 20-32. Gierymski, T., & Williams, T. (1989). Codependency. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 18, 7-13. Gotham, H. J., & Sher, K. J. (1996). Do codependent traits involve more than basic dimensions of personality and psychopathology? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 34-39. Guilford, J. P. (1945). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hinkin, C. H., & Kahn, M. W. (1995). Psychological symptoms in spouses and adult children of alcoholics. International Journal of the Addictions, 30, 843861. Hogg, J. A., & Frank, M. L. (1992). Toward an interpersonal model of codependence and contradependence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 371-375. Jackson, J. M. (1988). Social psychology, past and present. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lea, M. (1989). Factors underlying friendship: An analysis of responses to the acquaintance description form in light of Wright's model of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 275-292. Loughead, T. Spurlock, V. L., & Ting, Y. (1998). Diagnostic indicators of codependence: An investigation using the MCMI-II. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20, 64-76. Lyon, D., & Greenberg, J. (1991). Evidence of codependency in women with an alcoholic parent: Helping out Mr. wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 435-439. McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Interactions and identities (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press. Miller, W. R. (1987). Adult cousins of alcoholics. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 1, 74-76. Rosenthal, R. M. (1995). Methodology. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 16-49). New York: McGraw-Hill. Spann, L., & Fischer, J. L. (1990). Identifying codependency. The Counselor, 8, 27. Springer, C. A., Britt, T. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1998). Codependency: Clarifying the construct. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 2, 141158. Weinberg, J. R. (1987). Adult pets of alcoholics: Another underserved population. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 4, 113. Wright, P. H. (1985). The acquaintance description form. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 39-62). London: Sage. Wright, P. H. (1997). A bare bones guide to the Acquaintance Description Form-F2. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Wright, P. H. (1998). A complete but very-few-frills guide to the "codependent" Acquaintance Description Form (ADF-C5). Unpublished manuscript, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

543

PAUL H. WRIGHT AND KATHERINE D. WRIGHT

Wright, P. H., & Conneran, P. J. (1989). Measuring strain in personal relationships: A refinement. Psychological Reports, 64, 1321-1322. Wright, P. H., & Wright, K. D. (1990). Measuring codependents' close relationships: A preliminary study. Journal of Substance Abuse, 2, 335-344. Wright, P. H., & Wright, K. D. (1991). Codependency: Addictive love, adjustive relating, or both? Contemporary Family Therapy, 13, 435-454. Wright, P. H., & Wright, K. D. (1995). Codependency: Personality syndrome or relational process? In S. Duck & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Confronting relationship challenges (pp. 109-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Copyright of Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.