The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples Interpersonal Research Lab InterpersonalResearch.com Patrick M. Markey & Charlotte N

The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples

Interpersonal Research LabInterpersonalResearch.com

Patrick M. Markey & Charlotte N. Markey

Healthy Development LabHealtyDevelopmentLab.com

Complementarity

• Interpersonal behaviors invite certain responses of another interactant.

Complementarity

• Leary/Carson’s (1969) definition:

– Opposite on dominance• Dominance induces submission and submission induces

control

– Same on warmth• Warmth induces warmth and coldness induces coldness

Carson’s Model of Complementarity

Gregarious-Extraverted

(NO)

Unassuming-Ingenuous

(JK)Unassured-Submissive

(HI)

Aloof-Introverted

(FG)

Cold-Hearted

(DE)

Arrogant-Calculating

(BC)

Assured-Dominant

(PA)

Warmth

Do

mina

nce

Warm-Agreeable

(LM)

Carson’s Model of Complementarity

1) Behavioral styles are interrelated in a predictable (complementary) manner.

2) When complementarity occurs between two people their relationships tend to be more stable, enduring, and satisfying (Kieser, 1996).


(NO)



(HI)

Aloof-Introverted

(FG)

Cold-Hearted

(DE)


(BC)

Assured-Dominant

(PA)

Warmth

Do

mina

nce

Warm-Agreeable

(LM)

Complementarity• During various dyadic interactions, this model predicts interpersonal warmth

and dominance (c.f., Locke & Sadler, 2007; Markey, Funder & Ozer, 2003; Sadler & Woody, 2003; Sadler, et al., 2009; Markey, Lowmaster, & Eichler, 2010; Markey & Kurtz, 2006; Ansell, Kurtz, & Markey, 2008).

• Predicts diverse relationship outcomes:– Therapy satisfaction (Tracey, 2004)– Closeness of friends (Yaughn & Nowicki, 1999)– Cooperative behavior among preschool children (McLeod & Nowicki, 1985)– Number of verbal exchanges (Nowicki & Manheim, 1991)– Marital divorce (Tracey, Ryan, & Jaschik-Herman, 2001)– Relationship satisfaction with strangers (Markey, et al., 2010)– Relationship satisfaction of roommates (Markey & Kurtz, 2006; Ansell, Kurtz,

&Markey, 2008)– Relationship satisfaction among heterosexual couples (Markey & Markey, 2007)

Heterosexual Couples vs. Lesbian CouplesVariable DifferenceLife Satisfaction NoneExpressiveness NonePerspective Taking NoneNeuroticism NoneExtraversion NoneAgreeableness NoneConscientiousness NoneDepression NoneHostility NoneAnxiety NoneImpulsiveness NoneVulnerability NoneAffective expression NoneIntimacy NoneRelationship Rewards NoneRelationship Investment NoneRelationship Match NoneRelationship Alternatives NonePositive Communication NoneArguing NoneConflict NoneSatisfaction NoneCommitment None

Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1998; 2001; 2004

Heterosexual Couples vs. Lesbian CouplesVariable DifferenceLife Satisfaction NoneExpressiveness NonePerspective Taking NoneNeuroticism NoneExtraversion NoneAgreeableness NoneConscientiousness NoneDepression NoneHostility NoneAnxiety NoneImpulsiveness NoneVulnerability NoneAffective expression NoneIntimacy NoneRelationship Rewards NoneRelationship Investment NoneRelationship Match NoneRelationship Alternatives NonePositive Communication NoneArguing NoneConflict NoneSatisfaction NoneCommitment NoneRelationship Equality Lesbian > HC / Moderate

Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1998; 2001; 2004

Aims of Current Study

• 1) What is the relation between an individual’s own behavioral style and her romantic partner’s behavioral style of relationship quality?

• 2) Are complementary behavioral styles present among lesbian couples?

• 3) Are complementary behavioral styles related to high levels of relationship quality in lesbian couples?

Participants

• 144 women (72 couples; M age = 33.40, SD = 10.20)

• All couples were in monogamous relationships for at least six months (M = 4.68 years, SD = 3.48)

Method

• Behavioral Style. Participants rated the behavioral style of their romantic partner using an informant version of the International Personality Item Pool–Interpersonal Circumplex (IPIP-IPC; Markey & Markey, 2009).

Measuring a participant’s behavioral style with a romantic partner

Person’s A behavioral style when interacting with person BPerson’s B behavioral style when interacting with person A

A B

Person A describes the interpersonal

style of person B

Person B describes theinterpersonal

style of person A

Method

• Relationship quality. Completed the Marital Interaction Scale (MIS; Braiker & Kelley, 1979).

• High score = romantic relationship is full of love and harmony.

• Low score indicates a participant reported that their relationship does not have much love and is conflict-ridden.

• Moderate agreement (r = .52, p < .01)

Circular Structure of Informant Reports

Correspondence Index = .97, p < .001

Complementarity

• Correspondence Index = .67, p < .01


(NO)



(HI)

Aloof-Introverted

(FG)

Cold-Hearted

(DE)


(BC)

Assured-Dominant

(PA)

Warmth

Do

mina

nce

Warm-Agreeable

(LM)

Warmth Dominance-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Intr

acla

ss r

*

Relationship Quality

• Actor-Partner Interdependence Model

Partner 1’s Dominance


Partner 1’s Relationship

Quality

Partner 2’s Relationships

Quality






Quality


Quality

Actor Effect

Actor Effect






Quality


Quality

Partner Effect

Partn

er Eff

ect



DominanceSimilarity




Quality


Quality

Actor-Partner Similarity Effect

Actor-Partner Similarity Effect

Warmth Similarity

Dominance Similarity

Partner 1’s Warmth





Quality


Quality

.30**

-.19*

.30**

-.19*

Actor Effect

Warmth Similarity







Quality


Quality

.26**-.36**

.26**

-.36**

Partner Effect

Warmth Similarity







Quality


Quality

.06

.31**

.31**

.06

Similarity Effect


• Lesbians who report loving and harmonious relationships tend to be:

• Warm = .30**• Dominant = -.19*

• Unassuming-Ingenuous (3280)


• Lesbians who report loving and harmonious relationships tend to have partners who are:

• Warm = .26**• Dominant = -.36**

• Unassuming-Ingenuous (3060)

Complementarity

• Do lesbian dyads complement each other at the level of behavioral style?

• Warmth– No relations found in terms of dyadic members warmth

• Dominance– Dyads tend to be composed on individuals dissimilar in

terms of dominance


• Lesbians who report loving and harmonious relationships tend to be similar to their partners in terms of dominance.

• Unhappy couples tend to contain one member who is dominant and one who is submissive.– Importance of equality in lesbian relationships

Level Behavioral exchanges during an interaction

Aggregate of behaviors during an interaction

Aggregate of behaviors across situations with a specific person

Aggregate of behaviors across situations and persons

What it is being assessed

Traditional definition

Behavioral tendency in situation 1

Behavioral style with person A

Personality trait

Compelentarity Best Ok Alright Not as good

Outcome level Satisfaction with a specific person during a given interaction

“How much did you enjoy this interaction?”

Satisfaction with a specific person during a given interaction


Satisfaction with a specific person across situations

“How much do you like this person?”

Satisfaction with various individuals across situations


Level Behavioral exchanges during an interaction

Aggregate of behaviors during an interaction

Aggregate of behaviors across situations with a specific person

Aggregate of behaviors across situations and persons

What it is being assessed

Traditional definition

Behavioral tendency in situation 1

Behavioral style with person A

Personality trait

Compelentarity Best Ok Alright Not as good

Outcome level Satisfaction with a specific person during a given interaction


Satisfaction with a specific person during a given interaction


Satisfaction with a specific person across situations


Satisfaction with various individuals across situations


Documents

The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples Interpersonal Research Lab InterpersonalResearch.com Patrick M. Markey & Charlotte N