other hand, if one psychologist interviews a hundred men and if she
happens to believe that there is a midlife crisis, she may well accept thestories of the distressed and dismiss the others as defensive distortion.Of course, if she has other biases, she may reach other conclusionsequally inconsistent with the facts. The point is that interviewers arenot necessarily impartial observers. Clinicians are trained to see pathol -
ogy , and see it they will, even in the best-adjusted interviewees. Since
theorists have a vested interest in finding evidence for the ideas theyhave advanced, the “data” they find through interviews in support oftheir own ideas must be taken with a certain degree of skepticism.
There are some precautions that can be taken to avoid the intro -
duction of biases. For example, the interviews may be tape-recorded or
videotaped and two or more judges can then rate the subject on thevariables of interest. Agreement between them would be evidence thatthere is some basis in the interview for the inferences that were madeand would seem to be a minimum requirement for taking the study seri-ously . Even perfect agreement, however, would not necessarily meanmuch. For example, a subject who was extremely nervous during thesession might be characterized by both raters as anxious, although hisbehavior in the interview was unusual, the result of some temporaryand extraordinary circumstance.
Further, an interview is an interpersonal encounter. The inter-
viewer is not an uninvolved, dispassionate observer, but rather an activeparticipant. As any courtroom lawyer will tell you, people can be led tosay a great many things under the skillful questioning of an expert. Inour courts of law , we try to compensate for this suggestibility by allow -
ing a cross-examination in which a second lawyer, representing an op -
posite point of view , sees how far the testimony can be shifted in the
other direction. In psychological research, this method is never em -
ployed (although it might be worth a try). When an adult develop -
mentalist is looking for signs of a midlife crisis in a person, he must act
as his own opposing counsel, cross-examining the subject to test allpossibilities. Lawyers are not allowed to do this, since they are clearlymotivated to help their clients. Researchers, on the other hand, are pre -
sumed to be motivated only by a desire for truth.
The pros and cons of the interview method reflect the larger issue
that has always profoundly divided personality psychologists: the roleof the unconscious. There are those who believe in the unconscious asthe real heart of personality , the true source of action, meaning, and166 PERSONALITY IN ADULTHOOD