the complementarity of interpersonal styles among lesbian couples
DESCRIPTION
The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples. Patrick M. Markey & Charlotte N. Markey. Healthy Development Lab HealtyDevelopmentLab.com. Interpersonal Research Lab InterpersonalResearch.com. Complementarity. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples
Interpersonal Research LabInterpersonalResearch.com
Patrick M. Markey & Charlotte N. Markey
Healthy Development LabHealtyDevelopmentLab.com
![Page 2: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Complementarity
• Interpersonal behaviors invite certain responses of another interactant.
![Page 3: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
Dom
inance
Warm-Agreeable
(LM)
![Page 5: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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).
Gregarious-Extraverted
(NO)
Unassuming-Ingenuous
(JK)Unassured-Submissive
(HI)
Aloof-Introverted
(FG)
Cold-Hearted
(DE)
Arrogant-Calculating
(BC)
Assured-Dominant
(PA)
Warmth
Dom
inance
Warm-Agreeable
(LM)
![Page 6: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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)
![Page 7: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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?
![Page 10: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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)
![Page 11: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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).
![Page 12: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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)
![Page 14: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Circular Structure of Informant Reports
Correspondence Index = .97, p < .001
![Page 15: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Complementarity
• Correspondence Index = .67, p < .01
Gregarious-Extraverted
(NO)
Unassuming-Ingenuous
(JK)Unassured-Submissive
(HI)
Aloof-Introverted
(FG)
Cold-Hearted
(DE)
Arrogant-Calculating
(BC)
Assured-Dominant
(PA)
Warmth
Dom
inance
Warm-Agreeable
(LM)
Warmth Dominance-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Intr
acla
ss r
*
![Page 16: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Relationship Quality
• Actor-Partner Interdependence Model
Partner 1’s Dominance
Partner 2’s Dominance
Partner 1’s Relationship
Quality
Partner 2’s Relationships
Quality
![Page 17: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Relationship Quality
• Actor-Partner Interdependence Model
Partner 1’s Dominance
Partner 2’s Dominance
Partner 1’s Relationship
Quality
Partner 2’s Relationships
Quality
Actor Effect
Actor Effect
![Page 18: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Relationship Quality
• Actor-Partner Interdependence Model
Partner 1’s Dominance
Partner 2’s Dominance
Partner 1’s Relationship
Quality
Partner 2’s Relationships
Quality
Partner Effect
Partn
er Eff
ect
![Page 19: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Relationship Quality
• Actor-Partner Interdependence Model
DominanceSimilarity
Partner 1’s Dominance
Partner 2’s Dominance
Partner 1’s Relationship
Quality
Partner 2’s Relationships
Quality
Actor-Partner Similarity Effect
Actor-Partner Similarity Effect
![Page 20: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Warmth Similarity
Dominance Similarity
Partner 1’s Warmth
Partner 1’s Dominance
Partner 2’s Warmth
Partner 2’s Dominance
Partner 1’s Relationship
Quality
Partner 2’s Relationships
Quality
.30**
-.19*
.30**
-.19*
Actor Effect
![Page 21: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Warmth Similarity
Dominance Similarity
Partner 1’s Warmth
Partner 1’s Dominance
Partner 2’s Warmth
Partner 2’s Dominance
Partner 1’s Relationship
Quality
Partner 2’s Relationships
Quality
.26**-.36**
.26**
-.36**
Partner Effect
![Page 22: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Warmth Similarity
Dominance Similarity
Partner 1’s Warmth
Partner 1’s Dominance
Partner 2’s Warmth
Partner 2’s Dominance
Partner 1’s Relationship
Quality
Partner 2’s Relationships
Quality
.06
.31**
.31**
.06
Similarity Effect
![Page 23: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Relationship Quality
• Lesbians who report loving and harmonious relationships tend to be:
• Warm = .30**• Dominant = -.19*
• Unassuming-Ingenuous (3280)
![Page 24: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Relationship Quality
• Lesbians who report loving and harmonious relationships tend to have partners who are:
• Warm = .26**• Dominant = -.36**
• Unassuming-Ingenuous (3060)
![Page 25: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Relationship Quality
• 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
![Page 27: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
“How much did you enjoy this interaction?”
Satisfaction with a specific person across situations
“How much do you like this person?”
Satisfaction with various individuals across situations
“How much do you like this person?”
![Page 29: The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816720550346895ddba49a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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
“How much did you enjoy this interaction?”
Satisfaction with a specific person across situations
“How much do you like this person?”
Satisfaction with various individuals across situations
“How much do you like this person?”