literature review_final draft

Running head: THE INTERACTION OF PERSONALITY AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS1

How We Chose Who We Do: The Interaction of Personality and Romantic Relationships

Sherri Wielgos

PSY 497

Fall 2013

Dr. Jeff Conte

San Diego State University

PERSONALITY AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS2

Introduction

Time and time again as human beings it is a mystery what draws and attracts us to

each other. The complicated phenomenon of selection, development and longevity of

romantic relationships is one that has been attempted to explain for decades. Attachment

styles, parental marital status and prior relationship history have all been examined as

possible predictors in romantic relationships. Equally important is the role of individual

development as human beings and their personality. Over years of research, empirical support

was given to the Five-Factor Model of Personality and now used in present research and

assessments. The Five-Factor Model is divided into the dimensions of Openness,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neurotism or Emotional Stability used

to explain separate entities of an individual’s personality. In the field of psychology it became

necessary to explore and further examine the relationship between personality and romantic

relationships. Overwhelming research has shown a relationship between the Five-Factor

Model and the workplace from day to day, yet little has been directly connected with intimate

relationships (Judge, Simon, Hurst & Kelly, 2013). Therefore, further investigation of other

research was needed in order to draw conclusions relating personality and romantic

relationships.

Several studies have shown that longest romantic relationship has a significant effect

(Noftle & Shaver, 2006) on the ideas surrounding relationships. Certain meta-analysis studies

have shown relationships between personality and family (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007) as

well as mix of perceptions and realistic expectations in intimate relationships. Attachment

styles, including attachment avoidance and anxiety, have been revealed to have a connection

with personality in addition to the quality of relationships (Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright &

Johnson, 2013) that are exemplified in interpersonal and social behavior. Additional

investigation on perceptions of interpersonal views in cross-sex friendships showed


individual’s views of attraction and similarity (Morrey, 2007). Collective research has

proven that personality and its development is complicated and elaborates (Donnellan,

Larsen-Rife & Conger, 2005) the link to romantic relationships. The selection and entrance

into a relationship both in online dating misrepresentation (Hall, Park, Song & Cody, 2010)

and the discussion of looking for mates with similarities in personality to their own (Markey

& Markey, 2007) are growing interests in the field of personality. However, most people

have ideal romantic partners that differ from their own personality (Figueredo, Sefeck &

Jones, 2006).

Connecting attachment styles, personality, non-intimate relationships and selection of

romantic partners provides support for the influence personality has on romantic

relationships. Together all of the research gives evidence for a relationship between

personality and romantic relationships. The current evaluation aims to combine these findings

and provide sufficient evidence in favor of a positive correlation between personality and

romantic relationships.

Attachment Styles and Personality

In the study done by Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright and Johnson (2013), the variables

under inspection were personality, attachment style, interpersonal competency and Facebook

use. The original hypothesis was, a structural model that “attachment directly and positively

impacting interpersonal competence and extraversion, and directly and negatively influencing

neuroticism,”(pg.120) this also implied indirect effects on the remainder of the FFM. Their

sample was 617 participants, with a mean age of 18.43 years and the majority of participants

being female. In order to study these specific variables they used the ECR-R, 36-item

questionnaire with 7-point Likert scale related to attachment, the BFI, 44-questions on a 5-

point Likert scale for the Five-Factor Model of Personality, the ICS, 40-questions related to


interpersonal competency and a small scale created to assess Facebook use for each

participant.

The results explained that younger adults with insecure attachment were low on

extraversion and high on neuroticism and therefore low on interpersonal competency.

However, those high in extraversion were also high in interpersonal competency and there

was not a significant relationship between neuroticism and interpersonal competency.

Attachment styles of insecurity were linked with low extraversion and high neuroticism; the

opposite was also true, those with secure attachment styles were high in extraversion and low

in neuroticism and then had better interpersonal competency and communication skills.

Given the age of the participants it was expected by researchers that throughout college they

would continue to develop more social behaviors and interpersonal skills as they completed

their degrees. These findings show that two of the five FFM traits interact with social and

interpersonal beliefs and behavior. Researchers encouraged others to study the relationships

between these variables in order to gain more understanding on individual human personality

and the interactions with interpersonal skills as they influence the development and longevity

of relationships.

Additional research by Haggerty, Blake, Maraine, Siefert and Blais (2010), examined

similar factors of interest: attachment styles, personality through the Five-Factor Model and

romantic relationships in addition to interpersonal distress, childhood memories and

alexithymia (difficulty with identification, description and expression of emotions). Several

hypotheses were created in this study, first, SOS-10 total scores (10-item Likert scale items

measuring psychological well-being and distress) would be negatively correlated with

insecure attachment styles, interpersonal problems and alexithymia (Haggerty, Blake,

Maraine, Siefert & Blais, 2010). In the second it was hypothesized that, SOS-10 scores

would be positively correlated with secure attachment, Emotional Stability, Extraversion,


Conscientiousness and Openness. The final hypothesis was that SOS-10 scores would be

associated with positive affect in recall of early childhood memories (Haggerty et al., 2010).

This study had 225 (undergraduate and graduate) students with 183 females and 42

male as participants. Each participant was given a packet of self reports including: SOS-10,

Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) examining attachment styles, Experiences in Close

Relationship Scale (ECR) aimed at specifically attachment styles of avoidance and anxiety,

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (IIR-32) looking at interpersonal behavior,

Big Five Inventory-54 (BFI-54) of personality and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-

20). Then participants were asked to recall an early childhood memory and report the

duration of their longest romantic relationship.

Independent t-tests on all measures showed no gender differences. The researchers

hypotheses were supported, SOS-10 scores were positively correlated with secure attachment

style, all five factors of personality dimensions, rating of childhood memories and length of

the participants’ longest romantic relationship (Haggerty et al., 2010). It was also shown that

the SOS-10 scores were negatively correlated with interpersonal behaviors through the IIP-32

with the exception of vindictive behaviors, preoccupied and dismissive attachment styles,

attachment anxiety and avoidance and total score of TAS-20. Further discussion on this study

explained that high scores on the SOS-10 was linked with decreased amount of interpersonal

distress, and increased development of secure attachments in addition, participants scored

high on extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability.

These participants also reported longer romantic relationships, however, the length may not

“be a good indicator of relationship quality” (Haggerty et al., 2010), because individuals

often stay in relationships longer than is healthy due to other factors. On the contrary, those

who scored lower on the SOS-10 showed more interpersonal conflict and insecure attachment

styles that manifest in their attention being more focused on abandonment and less on the


other important things in life. These individuals tended to be less agreeable, emotionally

stable and open to new experiences. This study highlights the relationships between

personality, psychological well-being, interpersonal behaviors and multiple factors that are

linked to functions within romantic relationships. Again it is evident that those scoring higher

on all personality factors of the FFM in were more psychologically stable and carried out

healthier interpersonal behaviors that were likely directly related to the longer length of

romantic relationships.

Research done by Noftle and Shaver (2006), involved multiple studies but for the

purposes of this review the focus will be on the first study that related attachment avoidance

and anxiety (ECR) with the Five-Factor Model of personality (BFI). The main hypothesis

looked at correlations between two dimensions, regression equations predicting attachment

anxiety and avoidance from the Big Five and correlations of anxiety and avoidance to each

BFI item (Noftle & Shaver, 2006). The participants involved in this study consisted of 8318

students from a West Coast university (5417 women and 2901 men) with 43% reporting

being single. Each participant was given a 44-item BFI assessment on personality and 36-

items on Experiences in Close Relationship scale (ECR) on attachment styles.

Results showed that there were no demographic differences given the large sample

size; the only notable differences were people who were not in a relationship during the time

of the study were more avoidant than those in a relationship. Also, men reported to be lower

on Neuroticism (or higher on Emotional Stability) than women. The attachment variables and

Big Five dimensions were significantly correlated, however the magnitude of the correlations

varied. As anticipated attachment anxiety was highly and positively correlated with

Neuroticism whereas avoidance was negatively correlated with Agreeableness. The

remaining Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientious were all moderately and

negatively correlated with both attachment variables and only a modest, negative correlation


with Openness. Further discussion explained that attachment anxiety is related with

Neuroticism and the self-disciplined aspects of Conscientiousness whereas avoidance is

associated with low Extraversion (high Introversion), distrustfulness and uncooperativeness

that is linked to low Agreeableness and the depression aspect of Neuroticism (Noftle &

Shaver, 2006). This study reinforces the previous study done by Haggerty et al., (2010), that

links the negative attachment styles of avoidance and anxiety with lower levels in the Five-

Factor Model items. It is necessary to draw the conclusion that people with higher reported

Extraversion, Agreeableness and Emotional Stability (low Neuroticism) would have higher

predictions of success in romantic or intimate relationships. They would also have healthier

behaviors following possible break ups in those intimate relationships.

Personality and non-intimate Relationships

The Five-Factor Model of personality has been used excessively in

Industrial/Organizational Psychology and extensive research has shown the connection

between personality and work place factors. In a study done by Judge et al., (2013), this idea

was expanded on in order to examine the relationship between work experiences and

personality. They developed hypotheses that predicted shifts in personality states with

situations that evoked an approach or avoidance orientation. They also investigated

similarities between social, affective and cognitive elements of the experience that related to

a given personality state (Judge et al., 2013). These were researched in the framework of next

day personality states after a situation presented itself.

There were 129 participants involved in the study from a variety of full-time

employment backgrounds including: finance, construction, health care, education, legal,

engineering, service and information technology. The study took place over two weeks

without any holidays. Each participant was asked to complete a survey at the end of each

workday, in addition to these daily surveys, they completed surveys that contained measures


of personality, citizenship behavior, intrinsic motivation, goal-setting motivation, and

interpersonal conflict. One assessment gauging the Big Five characteristics was given to

determine global personality traits. Out of the 150 participants invited, 129 of them started

the study, with a mean age of 33.48 years and the majority of them being female (73.4%). All

participants received a high school diploma and just over half (51.3%) had at least a

bachelor’s degree. Each participant had worked in his or her organization for an average of

4.89 years. By the end of the study 122 participants’ data was able to be used and assessed.

The results from this study showed a significant relationship between Extraversion,

Agreeableness, Openness and citizen behavior. As citizen behavior increased towards others

or the organization itself, there was an increase in Extraversion, Agreeableness and Openness

the following day. Interpersonal conflict did not affect Agreeableness; however, decreased

Agreeableness did have an effect on interpersonal conflict the following day. It was shown

that as interpersonal conflict increased, reported levels of Neuroticism also increased and

both influenced each other in a multidirectional relationship. Finally, there was no

relationship explained between interpersonal conflict and Extraversion in either direction.

The conclusions drawn from this study explain that the main effects of personality on next

day work experience are mutually reinforced (Judge et al., 2013) however, some short term

variance could have a later effect on long term personality development. More research was

recommended to examine how the effects of this short term variance might change

personality over a life span. Results from this study further enforce the effects of personality

and interactions with others, not specifically romantic relationships, but business and

colleague relationships.

A meta-analysis was conducted at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign by

Lodi-Smith and Roberts (2007) to gather previous research and analyze relationships between

personality traits with social investment in work, family, religion and volunteerism. For the


purposes of this literature review, the focus from this study is personality and the effects on

family investments. It was hypothesized that there would be positive associations with the

three trait domains of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability with all four

social investments. On top of this there was an expected difference between psychological

investment and demographic investment in each domain. There were 12 articles involving

family investment as it is related to personality. Family social investment variables included,

parenting investment, relationship commitments and marital status (Lodi-Smith & Roberts,

2007). Then psychological variables were looked as a parent’s investment in his or her child,

as an important investment quality in life. It was measured by knowledge and awareness of

children’s activities, interests and friends with acceptance of a parenting role. Demographic

variables included marital status or stability in relationships. The investment in maintaining

the relationship versus those who ended marriages was also looked at demographically

because of the lengths of relationships and general assessment of commitment to marriage

(Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007).

The analysis gave support to the hypothesis with a “95% confidence interval that

indicates that family social involvement significantly relates to Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability” (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007). Of these

Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability had a higher robust relationship than

Agreeableness did and due to relationships with other social investments in this study a

moderator relationship was suggested. It was then found that psychologically, family social

investment was more strongly related to Agreeableness and Emotional Stability and therefore

had a significant relationship. Both traits showed a higher relationship with psychological

investment than demographic investment and Conscientiousness was not found to be a

significant moderator for either. The discussion of these results conveyed that those who are

more Agreeable, Conscientious and Emotionally Stable are more likely to engage in social


investments (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007) and with social involvement it is expected that

individuals become more Agreeable, Conscientious and Emotionally Stable under the

socialization effect. The evaluation of psychological investment was a deeper and more

meaningful investment than demographic investment because it is evident in daily life that

people stay in relationships even if they are not longer invested in them due to convenience,

financial stability, prior history and personal values. It is necessary to note that specifically

social investments with family were positively related with Conscientiousness, Agreeableness

and Emotional Stability. Parent-child relationships are closer relationships than business or

colleague relationships it is evident that Five-Factor Personality traits are related to

investment and expression in interpersonal relationships.

Personality in Selection of Romantic Partners

A study done with cross-sex friends, (Morrey, 2007), it investigated the personal

judgments on relationships involving attraction-similarity. Multiple dimensions were

researched within this study: relationship satisfaction, perceived similarities and self-serving

perceptions. Morrey (2007) suggested that many of these opposite sex relationships are more

misunderstood than the general population believes and questioned if it was in fact a

friendship or a prelude to a romantic relationship. These are the following hypotheses, (1)

projection in terms of destiny and growth beliefs and disclosure and relationship relevant

traits, (2) the attraction-similarity hypothesis in terms of relationship beliefs and disclosure;

(3) the attraction-similarity model among cross-sex friendships and (4) whether individuals

make self- or relationship-serving attributions in cross-sex friendships (Morrey, 2007).

In the first study 120 participants of 60 female and male dyads were involved with an

average age of 19. 34 years. The requirement was that they had to known them for at least 3

months, were considered to be more of a friend than an acquaintance, they were not family

and someone with whom they had not dated before, the average length of friendship was


37.26 months. Measures were then taken on a relationship satisfaction via 7-item

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), perceived similarity on a 24-item Locus of Control

Scale, 8-iten destiny and growth scale, 10-disclosure items and finally a self-rated

assessment.

Results for the first study showed that the perceptions of the friendship did not match

the self ratings, reinforcing the variable of projection onto another person. It was discussed

that in cross-sex friendships there is more projection of similarity than actually is present.

In the second study, it was aimed to examine that higher attraction predicts greater

perceived similarity. Prior to Morrey’s (2007) research had only shown that relationship

satisfaction was predictive of similarity perceptions, and closeness is positively related with

satisfaction, therefore suggesting closeness may predict perceived similarity.

This study consisted of 227 students in mixed sex groups from 10-20 people, and the

average age of the participants was 18.78 years. However, men were significantly older with

an average age of 19.04 years in this study than women with an average age of 18.57 years.

Women also reported longer cross-sex relationships than men. Participants were asked to call

to mind a friend that they were not dating and had not previously dated and then used the

same materials from Study 1 with the addition of an Inclusion of Other in Self (IOS) scale to

best describe the closeness of friendship (Morrey, 2007).

From this study results concluded that large positive correlations between self-ratings

and perceptions of friends on all the measures (Morrey, 2007). There were two significant

difference between men and women, external locus of control (men r=.63, women r=.48,

Z=1.73, p<.05) and very supportive (men r=.80, women r=.54, Z=3.96, p<.001). The

conclusions drawn in this discussion showed that individuals perceived themselves as more

positively than their friend, a self-serving attribution; however, closeness did not predict

perceived similarity (Morrey, 2007).


The third study aimed to investigate the attribution-similarity model with the self

having fewer negative aspects than a friend. Study 3 included 148 participants in mixed sex

groups of 10-20 with an average age of 20.55 years and duration of cross-sex relationships of

44.21 months. The same measurements were used as in Study 2 with the addition of a 28-

item measure of conflict resolution behaviors.

Study 3 results showed no significant differences between men and women.

Regressions showed that satisfaction predicted perceived similarity of all traits excluding exit

and disclosure behaviors as well as voice behaviors. Satisfaction was also significantly

correlated with closeness ( r=.42, p<.01) and the length of relationship was significantly

related. This illustrated that again more positive attributes were given to the self over the

friend but contrary to the original hypothesis, self ratings indicated more negative conflict

behaviors (Morrey, 2007).

Final discussion over this entire study gives evidence to the development of intimate

relationships. It is evident that individuals perceive more similarity in intimate relationships

than are present, however, similarities may build over time and during the length of the

relationship as they adapt their emotions, values, verbal and social skills, but not personality.

This group of studies depicted that when it comes to the formation of relationships

individuals over attribute similarities, attraction is not a strong predictor and the development

of intimate relationships can lead to more similarities in couples but does not change an

individual’s personality.

Another study aimed to gather evidence that predict romantic relationships in young

adults. Donnellan, Larson-Rife and Conger (2005), developed the theory that individuals

differences in personality, in addition to experiences in their family of origin may affect the

competence of romantic relationships. By using an informant version of a personality test, the

researchers examine these two variables: (1) whether specific relationship interaction patterns


mediate links between personality traits and global evaluations of the relationship, and

individual differences in personality and (2) if experiences in the family of origin have

independent effects on relationships as their main hypothesis (Donnellan et al., 2005). The

sample used was a section of 500 adolescence students and their parents were also

interviewed, for 2 hours on two separate occasions with the second visit involving a

videotaping of the family interactions. This particular study has built off of previous studies

with multiple phases that took place years prior. Of the 290 studied with romantic partners,

246 couples were still in the same relationship five years later and of those this study was

derived. The average age that individuals met their partner was 18. 35 years. In the study

there was a videotaping that gave evidence for observed nurturing-involved parenting and

observed marital negativity. Then parents answered a 33-item Multidimensional Personality

Questionnaire Scale for their child during late adolescence. In addition to the observed

negative relationship interactions, relationship quality on a marriage quality index was also

evaluated.

The results derived from this study showed that the parent behavior had an effect on

early adult romantic relationships and that personality played a role in the romantic

relationships. It was shown that nurturing–involved parenting was positively correlated with

positive emotionality and constraint. In a five year span it was evident that the family of

origin influenced romantic relationships and behaviors in addition to the individual difference

brought about by personality. Links between positive emotionality (achievement, social

closeness, social potency and well-being) were all related with positive experiences within

romantic relationships. However, it was discussed that personality and developmental

influences do not explain everything about relationships and more research was needed in

this area. This particular study, while not examining romantic relationships through the Five-

Factor Model depicted similarities between what would be labeled as Agreeableness,


Extraversion, Conscientiousness and possibly Emotional Stability. The primary research was

conducted before the boom of the Big Five but still has links and gives more evidence that

personality directly influences the development, longevity and satisfaction within a romantic

relationship.

In a study done by Hall et al. (2010), the world of online dating was explored and how

likely it is for individuals to “misrepresent” themselves on dating profiles. The first set of

hypotheses involved gender differences and assumed that men were more likely to

misrepresent their personal assets (income, education, etc.) and relationship goals than

women. On the other hand, they proposed that women would more likely misrepresent their

age and weight more than men (Hall et al., 2010). The second grouping of hypotheses

involved the personality dimensions involved in misrepresentation, it was stated that

Neuroticism and Extraversion would positively impact misrepresentation and Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness and Openness would negatively impact misrepresentation. The researchers

were able to sample 5,020 participants with 74% of them being female, an average age of

39.8 years (range 18-96, SD=11.4) and 52% of them reported being single and never married.

Surveys were sent through the online dating site and included self-monitoring scales for

misrepresentation and FFM. Due to the large sample, Hall and his colleagues set the

significance level at p<.01. The results showed the following conclusions, between men and

women, men were significantly more likely to misrepresent their personal assets, personal

interests, personal attributes and age than women (Hall et al., 2010). Women were

significantly more likely to misrepresent their weight and there was no difference shown in

relationship goals or past relationship reports. As far as personality variables are concerned,

Neuroticism showed no significance in predicting misrepresentation; however, Extraversion

had mixed results. Extraversion showed to positively increase the misrepresentation of past

relationships but decrease the chance of them misrepresenting their personal interests. This


could likely have been due to covering up promiscuous sexual behavior and that they are

more likely to try new things and have exciting interests. Conscientiousness was linked a

decreased likelihood to misrepresent their personal assets, relationship goals and personal

interests. Agreeableness was shown to decrease misrepresentation on all fronts except weight

and Openness was linked with a decreased likelihood to misrepresent relationship goals and

personal interests (Hall et al., 2010). The “utility of FFM in explaining misrepresentation in

online dating depends on the topic,”(Hall et al., 2010), given it had the second largest

predictive effects on misrepresentation expect on weight. It goes to show that personality

traits reflect how individuals want themselves to be perceived by possible romantic partners

at the early stages of selection.

Additional research was done in the field of personality as it relates to an “ideal”

romantic partner in mate selection. Figueredo, Sefcek and Jones (2006), aimed to further

support the similarity theory (that individuals select mates similar to themselves) or the

complementarity theory (individuals select mates that dissimilar to them and tend to have

opposite characteristics). Their main hypothesis was that the “ideal romantic partner” would

have more similarities to the participants’ personality. The second hypothesis was that

relative mate-value (attractiveness to another person) would play a larger role in the actual

partner they chose over their “ideal romantic partner” (Figueredo et al., 2006). In the first

study looking at “ideal romantic partners,” participants were examined for differences

between individuals and gender. There were 104 participants from a large university, 81 were

female with an average age of 21 and the 23 males had an average age of 23. They were

asked to complete NEO-FFI on their ideal partner followed by a NEO-FFSELF inventory

voluntarily during a class lecture and told it would be used for future research. In this study

the results proved that participants “look” for mates similar to themselves on all personality

factors (Figueredo et al., 2006). There were no differences between gender and age.


Participants showed that they ideally select mates similar to them on all personality variables

(Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) and they look

for “ideal partners” to be slightly higher in Conscientiousness, Extraversion and

Agreeableness and lower in Neuroticism than themselves (Figueredo et al., 2006). This

further supports the positive associative theory and explains that individuals ideally look for a

mate close in similarity to themselves. Then a second study was done to examine the actual

romantic partners individuals choose to support the complementarity theory. This time 161

undergraduates were studied, 119 were female, 30 male and 12 did not select a gender. Of

these participants 87% reported currently being involved in a romantic relationship and those

that were not were asked to report on their most recent relationship. In addition to the

personality inventories given in the first study, this time for their actual partner, they were

also given a mate-value inventory to determine the importance of mate attraction. While

“individuals have ideal romantic partners that have personalities that match their own,” they

“did not seem to have actual romantic partners who matched themselves on personality

traits,” (Figueredo et al., 2006). While their ideal partners are slightly higher in three traits,

lower in Neuroticism, relatively the same in Openness, and significantly higher in mate-value

or attraction, they reported that their actual partners were lower in Openness and Neuroticism

than the participant and the same in MVI (mate-value inventory). While participants were not

matched with their ideal personality they were matched with their relative mate value or

attractiveness, leaving the thought that while they may want a person similar to themselves

other mate-value may override their preference (Figueredo et al., 2006). This study gives

more evidence that while many individuals believe they would select a mate similar to their

personality they actually select mates that seem to compliment their peersonality differences

and are at the same attractiveness level.


In a similar study looking at the ideal partner selection and comparing to actual

partners was done by Markey and Markey (2007) was done and added the factor of

relationship experiences. In the first study to examine romantic ideals, 169 undergraduate

who were seeking romantic partners were sampled. One hundred and three of them were

female and 66 were male. In groups of two to six they were given multiple questionnaires, a

self-rated personality (IAS-R), filler questionnaires and a personality of romantic ideal

(edited version of the IAS-R). The results showed that both females and males fit the

similarity theory of data (Markey & Markey, 2007). They seek ideal partners that are the

same in warmth and dominance respectively (Markey & Markey, 2007). In the second study,

a sample of 212 participants (106 heterosexual couples) that had been in a romantic

relationship for at least a year were assessed, of these couples 30 couples were married, 34

cohabitating and 42 exclusively dating but not living together. In separate lab rooms they

were asked to answer honestly on the self-rated personality and relationship quality inventory

(15-items from the Marital Interaction Scale) to evaluate love, conflict and level of agreement

on relationship quality. The results determined all couples fit in the high, moderate or low

relationship quality groups; all groups had significant results (Markey & Markey, 2007). It

was proposed then that those high in quality would be more complementary. This supports

couples “with high relationship quality display significantly higher amount of complementary

between individuals than couples with low relationship quality,” (Markey & Markey, 2007).

These high relationship quality couples showed more dissimilarity in dominance and warmth

thus making them more complementary. While similarity best describes personalities of

actual romantic couples, even though they are not as similar as ideal romantic partners, it

showed that the model of complementary best predicted romantic obtainment (Markey and

Markey, 2007). These studies reinforce the idea that individuals seek mates or partners that


are more similar to them than the partners they actually obtain. It also reported that some

differences in personality lead to a higher relationship quality.

Summary and Future Directions

Given all of the research on attachment styles, non-intimate relationships, selection of

romantic partners, personality and romantic relationships it is clear that there are trends

present within the interactions of all these variables. First, that FFM traits interact with social

and interpersonal beliefs and behaviors; with increasing scores it shows individuals are more

psychologically stable and have healthier interpersonal behaviors which can lead to longer

romantic relationships. It also has been shown that the FFM traits affect interactions with

others in business relationships as well as the investment and expression in other

interpersonal relationships. Second, certain personality traits in the FFM are linked with more

success in relationships Third, all five personality traits reflect how individuals want to be

perceived during the selection process and most people ideally seek and want someone

similar in personality. However, the trend appears that it is not similar mates that people

choose but rather mates that compliment each other’s personalities. There is some evidence

that similarities present themselves over time during romantic relationships but these

differences are found to lead to a higher relationship quality. Finally, it is evident that the

dimensions of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism

influence the development, longevity and satisfaction in romantic relationships.

While there is significant evidence that personality plays a role in romantic

relationships there are still many areas where more research needs to be done. It has been

shown a relationship exists but there is more room for research in the area of personality and

interpersonal skills as it relates to development and length of relationships. The direction of

this interaction is still relatively undetermined; does personality influence the development

and length of a relationship? Or does the development and length of a relationship influence


the personality development and change over time? Questions like these still remain

unanswered in the field, especially with understanding how romantic relationships promote

change in personality over time or further enforce individuals’ relatively stable personality

traits. This is also connected with the possibility of couples becoming more similar over time.

With evidence showing that people choose ideal partners that are more similar to them, the

positive associative theory is supported and reinforces the saying “birds of a feather flock

together”. However, it then needs to be explained how individuals get from their ideal partner

to the actual partner they have, what factors change or influence the selection? It is possible

that the available mates do not include their “ideal partner” or that pure attraction over

compensates. On the other hand, it could be that during selection people portray different

personality traits than they actually have and their real personality comes out the longer the

romantic relationship persists. It is also possible that the investment in a long term romantic

relationship, like marriage, encourages the increase of certain personality traits and similarity

between partners. Within the couple this could be necessary in order to maintain and preserve

the relationship. However, as explained earlier, complimentary personalities and differences

show a higher relationship quality. Research is lacking in the areas of personality assimilation

over time, and what accounts for differences between individual’s ideal partner and their

actual partner. Future research can aim to answer some of these questions and open-ended

areas in the field of personality as it relates to romantic relationships.


References

Dollenan, B. M., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history and

competence in early adult relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88(3) 562-576. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.562.

Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., & Jones, D. N. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality.

Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 431-441.

DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.004.

Hagerty, G., Blake, M., Naraine, M., Siefert, C., & Blais, M. A. (2010). Construct validity of

the Schwartz-Outcome scale-10: comparisons of interpersonal distress, adult

attachment, alexithymia, the five-factor model, romantic relationship length and

ratings of childhood memories. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 17, 44-50.

DOI: 10.1002/cpp.643.

Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misinterpretation of online

dating: the effects of gender, self-monitoring and personality traits. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships 27(1), 117-135. DOI: 10.1177/0265407509349633.

Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. D. (2013). The interrelationships

among attachment style, personality traits, interpersonal competency and facebook

use. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 2(2), 117-131. DOI: 10.1037/a0030946.

Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2013). What I experience yesterday is

who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual

variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1-

25. DOI: 10.1037/a0034485.

Lodi-Smith, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Social investment and personality: a meta-analysis

of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion and


volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(68), 68-88. DOI:

10.1177/1088868306294590.

Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and

relationship experience: the complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic

partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517-533. DOI:

10.1177/0265407507079241.

Morrey, M. M., (2007). The attraction-similarity hypothesis among cross-sex friends;

relationship satisfaction, perceived similarities and self-serving perceptions. Journal

of Social and Personality Relationships 24 (1), 117-140. DOI:

10.1177/0265407507072615.

Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality

traits: associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of

Research in Personality, 40, 179-208. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003.

literature review_final draft

Documents

individuals personality

interaction of personality

field of personality

influence personality

personality figueredo

factor model of personality

nonintimate relationships

intimate relationships