The Interpersonal Adjectives Scales-Revised (IASR: Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988) is a taxonomy of 64 adjectives, each descriptive of an interpersonal trait (e.g., "crafty"; "cheerful"; "iron-hearted"). Generally used as a self-report measure, these adjectives are rated for how accurately they describe a subject, on a 1 (Very Inaccurate) to 8 (Very Accurate) scale. They are then combined to form eight scales that equidistantly span the circumference of the interpersonal circle, ordered around the dimensions of control and affiliation. Recently, an expanded version of these scales has become available that additionally measures the three dimensions of the Big Five factors of personality unaccounted for by the Interpersonal Circle: neuroticism, openness to experience and conscientiousness. This newer version, called the IASR-B5, presents no changes in the interpersonal scales from its predecessor, the IASR. For the current discussion, the interpersonal scales will be referred to as the IASR.

The IASR is notable because it is the first interpersonal measure to demonstrate empirically a clear circumplex structure among its scales (Wiggins, 1979; Wiggins et al., 1981). Wiggins and Broughton (1985) correlated the IASR with a large number of other self-report personality measures, finding an expected circular pattern of relationship between the external measures and IASR scales. Gifford and O'Connor (1987) and Gifford (1991), using the IASR, demonstrated that nonverbal, molecular interpersonal behaviors, in the form of action-reaction sequences, relate to one another as predicted by the interpersonal circle. In addition to providing additional data regarding concurrent validity, these studies by Gifford and colleagues addressed a serious earlier criticism levelled at the IASR by Jackson and Helms (1979). They charged that the correlational pattern among the IASR scales, as well as that among the IASR and external scales, did not reflect the actual relationships among these variables; instead the observed circular pattern of correlations was caused by stylistic responding of subjects. In other words, they argued that the circle structure found in IASR scales is nothing more than an artifact of response bias. Gifford's work, mentioned above, is important in that it shows that the circumplex structure is not merely representative of some cognitive structure related to personality traits, but, rather, is a valid representation of the relationship among the interpersonal behaviors of individuals.

Another criticism of the IAS comes from the observation that the circumplexity of the IAS scales is achieved by creating bipolar scales (e.g., Gregarious-Extraverted vs. Aloof-Introverted) that include traits that are semantic opposites (e.g., 'Arrogant-Calculating' traits of crafty, sly and cunning are contrasted with uncrafty, unsly and uncunning in the polar opposite trait of Unassuming-Ingenuous), but in which one pole is of dubious 'real world' descriptiveness. The current study sought to address this weakness and further test the overlap between the Big Five dimensions of Extraversion and Agreeableness and the interpersonal circumplex dimensions of control and affiliation. .

This being the case, the IASR has been proven useful in defining, from an interpersonal perspective, the DSM-III-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) personality disorders (Wiggins & Pincus, 1989; Wiggins & Pincus, 1992b). It has been used to evaluate the interpersonal content of a number of traditional personality scales (Wiggins & Broughton, 1991), including the Adjective Check List, Beck Depression Inventory, Bem Sex Role Inventory, California Psychological Inventory, Hogan Personality Inventory, NEO Personality Inventory and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, to name a few. Finally, the IASR has also been used as self-report measure of personality to study interpersonal complementarity in dyads (Bluhm, Widiger, & Miele, 1990).