value; and there are those who relegate it to a minor role or dismiss it
entirely . Communication between these two schools is like an exchangebetween a believer and an atheist: The fundamental premises are so dif -
ferent that neither can understand the other’s point of view. Like reli -
gion, the unconscious must in part at least be taken on faith. Once its
existence and importance are accepted, however, it seems to make senseof many phenomena.
Researchers who prefer interviews are generally believers in the un -
conscious; they prefer the interpretations of an outside observer be -
cause they are fundamentally skeptical of the utility of self-reports.
They assume that people are not only unaware of what is really goingon in the important parts of their being but they are also highly moti -
vated to remain unaware, since conflicts, anxieties, and unwelcome im -
pulses predominate in the unconscious. If survey after survey shows no
marked increase in depression or anxiety at the midlife (Lacy &Hendricks, 1980; Tamir, 1982), this is taken as clear evidence that sur-veys don’t measure the real state of mind of individuals.
Researchers who rely on consciousness as the focus of personality
are equally skepticical about the claims of interpreters. They point outthat hypotheses about the unconscious are often irrefutable: Nothingwe can do would disprove a dynamic interpretation. If, after severalhours of intense probing, an interviewer is unable to find any conflictsthat might give evidence of a midlife crisis, he or she can always con-clude that the turmoil and despair are repressed—in fact, this must bean extremely severe crisis if it is necessary to repress it so thoroughly!Dire predictions of a future crisis are likely to be made, and if anythingever goes wrong in the person’s life (as eventually something must), theprediction is trumpeted as proof of the theory .
By now , of course, it must be obvious to readers that our own bi -
ases favor conscious over unconscious processes and self-reports over
outside interpretations of personality . Yet we are not prepared to dismissentirely the contributions of a number of distinguished thinkers whohave written extensively on the development of personality in adult -
hood. In reviewing their positions, we will certainly point out all the
reasons we have for disputing many of their conclusions. But we willalso try to point out the areas of agreement and the large areas in whichtheir theories and research complement and enrich our own. As we willsee, the substance of their findings can often be retained when it ismodified or reinterpreted to make it consistent with the facts as weThe Personal Interview 167