THE FIVE FACTORS OF PERSONALITY AND INTERPERSONAL
COMPETENCE: A TEST OF THE CONTEXTUAL MODEL
by
SHAUNA HUGHES FRISBIE, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved
August, 1998 /
•X CoQ. <^
1998 Shauna Hughes Frisbie ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincere thanks to my committee chairperson, Jacki Fitzpatrick, for the many hours she devoted to this project. She provided needed direction and was a source of consistent support throughout. I admire her dedication to this field of study and her students, as well as the respect she has for others. Over the course of writing this thesis, her editing proved invaluable I would also like to thank my committee members, Duane
Crawford and Du Feng, for their feedback throughout this project Both were readily available for consuhation and provided generously of their expertise I am grateful to each of these individuals for making this a unique learning experience
This would not have seen completion without the love and support given to me by my family. My husband, Gary Michael Frisbie, has done everything in his power to make our time together exceptional. I am blessed by his unconditional love, as well as his humor and perspective on life. Thanks to our children, Zane, Sonnet, and Nash for understanding when schedules were overbooked and for bringing so much laughter and joy to my life. There are many paths in life that do not include children, none of which I would choose Lastly, I say thanks to my mother. Patsy Pierce Hughes, for her quiet acceptance and the things she has taught me about what is important in life She has been my "safety net" for as long as I can remember
11
rwfv TABLE OF CONTEXTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iv LIST OF TABLES v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Hypotheses 9 n. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11 The Five Factor Model 11 Interpersonal Competence 3 5 Personality and Interpersonal Competence 63 The Contextual Model 73 in METHOD 83 Participants 83 Measures 85 Procedure 92 IV. RESULTS 93 Prehminary Analysis 93 HypothesisTesting and Supplementary Analyses 96 V DISCUSSION 105 Strengths and Weaknesses 105 Interpretation of Findings 110 Future Directions 116 REFERENCES 120 APPENDIX 134
111 ABSTRACT
This study utilized the contextual model to examine the relationship betvv een distal (five factor personality traits), proximal (interpersonal competence beha\ iors), and relationship quality (satisfaction, liking) factors in romantic relationships. The respondents (n = 177 females) completed a questionnaire packet to assess each of the factors. The results indicated that none of the distal or proximal factors were related to satisfaction. Further analyses indicated that agreeableness and neuroticism (personality traits) contributed to conflict resolution (interpersonal competence). Additionally, three interpersonal competence behaviors were significantly associated with liking for the romantic partner. Conscientiousness (personality trait) was a significant predictor of liking, even after controlling for other distal and proximal factors. Overall, these findings indicated that both distal factors (as represented by personality traits) and proximal factors (as represented by interpersonal competence) affect relationship quality This study also highlighted the utility of the contextual model in studying romantic relationships.
IV LIST OF TABLES
1 Demographic characteristics of sample 84
2. Distribution of scores for the distal, proximal, and relationship
quality measures 87
3. Correlations among distal factors, proximal factors, and satisfaction 94
4 Correlations among the distal factors, proximal factors, and
relationship quality factors 95
5. Regressions of proximal factors on distal factors 97
6. Regressions of liking on the distal factors 99
7. Regressions of liking on the proximal factors 101
8. Hierarchical regression of distal and proximal factors 103
H '. ' . .1' s CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
According to Duck (1991), close relationships, more than any other factor, are the basis for personal happiness. These relationships provide a sense of belonging, worth, and closeness, as well as instrumental and emotional support Indeed, the absence of satisfying relationships has been linked to numerous problems, including suicide, depression, and family violence (Duck, 1991) As love and romance first develop in young adulthood, romantic relationships become extremely important (Cate & Lloyd, 1992) In fact. patterns of interaction that first appear in premarital relationships may be precursors to relationship processes deemed important for marital quality (eg . ability to resolve conflict) Thus, further study of relational characteristics is vital to the understanding of romantic relationship quality (eg. Cate & Lloyd, 1992)
Past research on romantic relationships has followed two divergent paths One line of research has focused on the role of individual differences in close relationship outcomes This type of research has examined individual differences in personalit>' traits, beliefs, and emotions For example, research has shown that characteristics such as neuroticism, dysfunctional beliefs, and expressiveness are related to satisfaction in romantic relationships (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988, Kelly & Conley. 1987, Kurdek.
1991b) The other line of research has looked at how interpersonal behaviors are associated with relationship outcomes The study of such behaviors is important because relationships do not just happen, they must be initiated, developed, and maintained over time (Duck, 1991). For instance, research has confirmed the influence of self-disclosure
(Vera & Betz, 1992), emotional support (Barker & Lemle, 1984), and conflict resolution
(Noller et al., 1994) upon satisfaction. Both lines of research have contributed to our understanding of romantic relationships.
Despite these contributions, there has been little effort to combine research on individual and interpersonal factors in romantic relationships (Kelly & Conley, 1987). The study of each type of factor in isolation has resulted in an oversimplification of close relationship processes and a failure to fully account for differences in relationship qualit>
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1988; Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1990). Thus, more integrative research is necessary to understand the multiple factors that influence relationship quality
To overcome the limitations of past research, Bradbury and Fincham (1988) proposed the contextual model to describe how both personality and interpersonal behaviors affect satisfaction in close relationships. According to the model, there are two primary contexts which influence relationship quality. The distal context reflects personality traits, relationship beliefs, and moods. These distal factors help to create a relationship paradigm through which all relationship information/events are processed
(Cate, Koval, Lloyd, & Wilson, 1995)
In contrast, the proximal context was initially identified as the immediate thoughts and emotions a partner experiences during relationship events (Bradbury & Fincham,
1989) Fletcher and Fitness (1990) expanded the definition to include "the immediate setting, the behavior of each partner, and the related flux of affect and cognition during a particular interaction episode" (p 464) This expanded definition highlights the importance of interpersonal behaviors in close relationships
According to Bradbury and Fincham (1988), the focal point of the contextual model is on the relationship between the distal context, the proximal context, and relationship quality The contextual model has the advantage of simultaneously considering how both the proximal and distal variables influence relationship outcomes, as well as the opportunity to examine relations between the contexts Proponents of this model suggest that elements in both contexts impact how partners view their relationship
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1991).
Several studies have used the contextual model as a framework for examining relationship quality. Empirical support has been provided for the influence of both distal and proximal factors on relationship satisfaction and stability. For example, the distal factors of dysfunctional romantic behefs, affect, expressiveness, and support satisfaction, as well as the proximal factors of attributions have been consistently shown to influence marital quality (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988, 1992: Fincham & Bradbury, 1989. Kurdek,
1991a, 1991b, 1993) Although the contextual model has been used primarily to study marital relationships, Kurdek (1991c, 1992) has applied it to homosexual couples as well and determined that these distal and proximal factors similarly influence relationship quality. Overall, these studies support the premise that both distal and proximal factors are related to relationship quality
There are also several hmitations to these studies For example, there has been a lack of consistency in the classification of factors More specifically, relationship quality has been classified as a distal factor (Fletcher & Fitness, 1990). a proximal faaor (Kurdek.
1993), and an outcome factor (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988) Additionally, there has beer. an overemphasis on the distal context Researchers have either tested only the distal context (eg . Kurdek, 1991a) or have examined several distal factors and only one proximal factor (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1989) In spite of this anention to the distal context, few personalit\' traits have been examined
Although fewer in number, several studies ha\'e included proximal factors, but have focused almost exclusively on attributions (eg . Fincham & Bradbur\-. 1989) Lasth. prior work based on the contextual model has primarily examined married and gay/lesbian couples. Little research from the contextual model has examined premarital heterosexual relationships One such study by Fletcher and Fitness (1990) identified linkages between distal and proximal factors, but more research in needed to adequately test the contextual model in premarital relationships.
Prior research can be improved upon in several ways First, the present study extended pre\ious work based on the contextual model by furthering our understanding of premarital relationships Although premarital relationships ha\ e received much attention in recent years, there is a lack of such research based on the contextual model The present study should further our knowledge of the utility of this model in understanding romantic relationships
Second, our understanding of the distal context may be enhanced b\ examining more global personalitv' features. According to Bradburv' and Fincham (1989), the importance of the elements in the distal context abides in their capacity to influence the proximal context, which in turn affects relationship outcomes Thus, further stud\ of the
contextual model should include distal factors likely to be central to relationship
functioning The Five Factor Model of personalit> reflects personal charactenstics that
meet this criterion These five factors are extraversion. neuroticism. agreeableness.
conscientiousness, and openness Researchers ha\ e argued that there are two distinct
advantages to utilizing these factors: (a) they represent the basic dimensions of
personality (eg,, Goldberg, 1990): and (b) they are presumed to influence relational
behaviors (e.g.. Buss, 1992). These personality' factors further our knowledge of the distal
context b\ vielding information about individual variables that are likely to influence
relationship beha\aors and outcomes For example, Thome (1987) found that extrovens
interact with others to estabhsh common ground, and Kelly and Conley (1987) identified
extraversion as a personalitv' trait that is related to marital satisfaction
The third way to improve upon past research is to expand the proximal context
beyond attributions We may increase our knowledge of the proximal context by
examining behaviors that are likely to influence relationship outcomes Social competence
behaviors may reflect this context because they are necessarv- to maintain relationships
(Campbell, Steflfen, & Langmeyer. 1981) The research has identified five basic elements
of social competence: initiation, self-disclosure, emotional support, assertion, and conflict
resolution Initiation is necessary to launching premarital relationships, but it is not \ital to the maintenance of ongoing relationships and may become a dormant behavior
(Twentyman, Boland. & McFall, 1981) The other social competence behaviors may contribute to relationship maintenance, as studies have shown that these beha\iors influence relationship outcomes (Burhmester. Furman, Wittenberg. & Reis. 1988) For example, self-disclosure and conflict resolution skills positi\ ely impact relationship satisfaction (Noller et al, 1994, Vera & Betz, 1992) and stability (Gottman. 1993.
Sprecher, 1987). Emotional support has also been positively related to satisfaction
(Johnson et al., 1993) and assertion has been directly related to likability (Kern &
Paquette, 1992) Although the research emphasizes the significance of these variables for relationship outcomes, it is unclear how they interact with personality variables to influence relationship quality
In addition to expanding the distal and proximal contexts, Bradburv and Fincham
(1988) state that researchers should pay greater attention to determining how factors in the distal and proximal contexts are related to one another and to relationship qualit\
They assert that elements in the distal context may be indirectly related to relationship satisfaction, as the proximal context mediates this relationship That is, the distal context affects satisfaction through its influence on the proximal context The individual and interpersonal factors included in this study were chosen because of their relevance to relationship satisfaction Global personality factors which influence behavioral interactions should be pertinent to satisfaction For instance, individuals who are high in agreeableness may be more likely to engage in relationship maintenance behaviors (i e , self-disclosure and conflict resolution) that positively impact satisfaction In contrast, neuroticism is likely to be negatively related to such maintenance behaviors and thus should be inversely related to satisfaction Bradbury and Fincham (1988), state that future tests of the contextual model should examine these hnkages among the distal, proximal, and outcome
variables in more detail
Consistent with Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation would be supported if
(a) the distal factors are related to satisfaction, (b) the distal factors are related to the
proximal factors, and (c) the proximal factors are related to satisfaction The distal factors
selected for inclusion in this study, the Five Factor Model of personality, have been
extensively assessed, but their impact on personal relationships has not been given much
attention. There is some initial evidence that highlights their importance in relationship
functioning: for example, Kurdek (1993) reported that the personality traits of
neuroticism and conscientiousness influence relationship quality
Other researchers have examined the relationship between personality traits and
interpersonal behaviors. For example, extraversion has been shown to be positively
related to initiation (Simpson et al., 1993), as well as assertion and self-disclosure
(Burhmester et al, 1988). Aspects of agreeableness (i e , warmth, empathy) have been
positively associated with emotional support (Hill, 1991) and conflict resolution
(Buhrmester et al., 1988). Although there has been little research on the role of
conscientiousness in relationships, Sternberg and Soriano (1984) found a positive
association between this trait and conflict resolution Bouchard, Lalonde, and Gagnon
(1988) found a positive relationship between conscientiousness and assertion, and between
openness and self-disclosure Neuroticism has been shown to be negatively related to
several social competence behaviors, such as assertion (Olinger, Shaw, & Kuiper, 1987), conflict resolution (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995), and emotional support (Gruen, Gwadz. & Morrobel, 1994). Bradbury and Fincham (1991) argued that such linkages are consistent with the contextual model. In reviewing Kelly and Conley's (1987) stud\, they asserted that negative affect (representing the distal context) may influence behavior and how it is perceived (representing the proximal context).
The relationship between some of the proximal factors and satisfaction has been tested previously. Satisfaction has been positively associated with self-disclosure (Vera &
Bets, 1992), emotional support (Barker & Lemle, 1984), and conflict resolution (Noller et al, 1994). Relatively less is known about assertion: past research has indicated that assertion has been associated with both positive and negative evaluations of partners, but no studies could be identified that examined its association with relationship quality
Further study may help clarify how the proximal factors contribute to satisfaction
In sum, the present study will expand upon previous studies of premarital relationships by examining the role of individual and interpersonal factors in romantic relationships. The influence of the distal factors of extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness upon the proximal factors of self-disclosure, emotional support, assertiveness, and conflict resolution will be assessed. Additionally, this study will assess the influence of the distal and proximal factors upon satisfaction.
8 Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested in the present study:
1. The first set of hypotheses focuses on the relationship between the distal
(i.e., personality factors) and proximal factors (i.e , interpersonal behaviors)
la. Agreeableness will be positively associated with emotional support,
self-disclosure, and conflict resolution
lb. Extraversion will be positively related to self-disclosure and
assertiveness.
Ic. Conscientiousness will be positively associated with assertion and
conflict resolution.
Id. Openness will be positively related to self-disclosure
le, Neuroticism will be negatively associated with self-disclosure,
emotional support, assertion, and conflict resolution
2. The second set of hypotheses focuses on the relationship between the distal
context (i.e., personality factors) and satisfaction
2a. Agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, and opeimess will be
positively related to satisfaction.
2b. Neuroticism will be negatively associated with satisfaction.
3. The third hypothesis focuses on the relationship between the proximal context
(i.e., interpersonal behaviors) and satisfaction
3a. Self-disclosure, emotional support, assertion, and conflict resolution
will be positively related to satisfaction 4 The last hypothesis focuses on the relationship between the distal factors. proximal factors and satisfaction
4a. The distal factors will be indirectly related to satisfaction The
relationship between the distal factors and satisfaction will be mediated b>
the proximal factors
10 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter summarizes the literature on the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality and interpersonal competence in intimate relationships It begins with a review of the history of the lexical and psychometric approaches to studying the FFM
Current research on the Five Factor Model of personality is also discussed This is followed by a review of the domains of interpersonal competence relevant to intimate relationships. The association between the Five Factor Model of personality and interpersonal competence is reviewed. Lastly, the contextual model is discussed, accompanied by a review of research based on this model and how it may be applied to the current study.
The Five Factor Model
Factor Descriptions
According to the Five Factor Model (FFM), there are five basic dimensions of personality, under which all other personality traits are subsumed The factors are neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness
Agreeableness reflects a willingness to be pleasant and accomodating (Graziano,
Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). According to Costa, McCrae, and Dye (1991), agreeableness reflects ahruism, compliance, straightforwardness, modesty, and
11 tendermindedness This trait facilitates the development of social attitudes (Costa et al,
1991) More specifically, Kentle (1994) suggests that agreeableness promotes concern for others in personal relationships
Conscientiousness combines inhibition that holds impulsive behavior in check and a proactive dimension that organizes and directs behavior toward achievement (Costa et al., 1991) According to McCrae and Costa (1987), conscientious individuals are ambitious and hard-working. Conscientiousness is reflected by competence, order, dutifiilness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation (Costa et al., 1991)
Extraverted individuals exhibit a preference for social interaction and activity
(McCrae, 1990). Extraversion is reflected by warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions (Costa et al, 1991) Watson and
Clark (1992) proposed that positive affect is the core of extraversion just as negative affect is the core of neuroticism.
Neuroticism represents the cognitive and behavioral styles of experiencing distress Chronic negative affect is the hallmark of neuroticism. Other characteristics include low self-esteem, irrational thinking, and ineffective coping behavior (McCrae &
Costa, 1987). Anxiety, hostility, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability reflect neuroticism as well (Costa et al 1991)
Openness is typified by receptiveness to new ideas, approaches, and experiences
(McCrae, 1990). McCrae and John (1992) include aesthetic sensitivity, need for variety, and unconventional attitudes in their description of openness. This affects both internal
12 experience and interpersonal interactions (McCrae, 1995). According to McCrae (1996). openness promotes flexible, egalitarian interactions
The Lexical Approach
The five-factormode l of personality (FFM) has evolved over the past several decades from two divergent lines of research, the lexical approach and the psychometric approach. The lexical approach focuses upon the examination of personality traits exhibited within the natural language of a cuhure. Natural language is created by laypersons, and reflects the basic way in which they understand individual characteristics
According to Cattell (1943, cited in Van Heck, Perugini, Caprara, & Froger, 1994), the most important personality descriptors are a central component of natural language
These descriptors are developed and integrated as trait terms in the evolution of language over time (McCrae & John, 1992). As language becomes more complex, muhiple descriptors may develop to describe similar or identical traits (Saucier & Goldberg,
1996). The goal of lexical research is to identify the major personality traits that underlie the many descriptors within natural language (McCrae & John, 1992)
Systematic research on the lexical analysis of personality was first undertaken by
Cattell. Cattell (1946, cited in McCrae & John, 1992) created synonym clusters of personality terms generated from approximately 2080 trait terms identified in the natural language (e.g., dictionaries). He reduced the terms to 35 bipolar pairs of terms and subjects then rated the degree to which the trait terms accurately described their
13 personalities. Cattell conducted factor analysis on the variables generated from the ratings, from which he identified the 16 personality factor (16PF) structure (Digman.
1990)
Although Cattell's work fostered an identification of some basic traits, there were several weaknesses to his early research. For example, Digman (1990) argued that too many factors were identified, some factors were poorly defined, and 10 of the 16 factors were not consistently confirmed across studies. Subsequent lexical research was designed to address these issues
The next major contribution to the lexical study of personality was made by
Tupes and Christal (1961). According to Digman (1990), Tupes and Christal (1961) conducted the first meta-analysis of lexical studies The resuhs of their research identified a five-factor solution of personality traits. According to Digman (1990), their work "marks the beginning of a serious interest in the five-factor model" (p 9)
The Five Factor Model was supported by independent studies of other researchers of that time. For example, Norman (1967, cited in Briggs, 1992), utilized a method similar to Cattell (1946) and generated an original pool of 2800 trait terms, reduced these terms to 75 semantic categories, and identified a five-factor solution from subject ratings
Smith (1967) also identified five factors from research utilizing self and peer ratings of personal characteristics. Across these studies, the following factors were consistently identified: (a) extroversion, (b) agreeableness, (c) conscientiousness, (d) emotional
14 stability, and (e) culture McCrae and Costa (1985) later relabeled the fifth factor as opeimess to define a broader concept than originally represented by culture
Despite the empirical gains in personology from the 1940s to the early 1960s, the lexical approach fell out of favor for the next two decades According to Digman (1990), there were several issues that promoted a dismissive attitude towards personality research. Specifically, there was an increased emphasis on behaviorism and the study of interpersonal events rather than intrapersonal phenomenon Also, the trait approach was criticized as superficial and offering little to explain actual behavior.
Digman (1990) argued that personologists "rediscovered" the Five Factor Model in the early 1980s. Researchers utilized the lexical approach to identify common personality factors across a wide range of trait terms Peabody (1987) generated a list of
57 traits and their antonyms based on natural language lists previously reported in the literature. Four student judges then rated the degree to which other adjectives were similar to each trait and factor analyses were performed to identify variables that represent each group of adjectives The resuhs of the factor analysis generally supported the FFM, ahhough extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness received relatively stronger support than the other two factors
In a follow-up study, Peabody and Goldberg (1989) examined the similarity of self and peer ratings of the 57 trait adjectives. Two groups of college students (Sample 1, n = 157, Sample 2, n = 126) rated the extent to which the adjectives accurately described themselves, liked peers, and disliked peers. Five factors emerged from all samples, but
15 self-ratings were more internally consistent than peer ratings As in the previous stud\. agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion received stronger support than emotional stability or culture
Further support for the five factor structure was obtained by Goldberg (1990) in a series of three studies. In the first study, 187 college students rated themselves on approximately 1700 trait terms based on Norman's (1967) original 2800 terms These were then aggregated into 75 scale scores for each subject and the adjective clusters were subjected to ten different factor analytic procedures. The five factors emerged in each of the procedures.
The second study examined the similarity of self and peer ratings among four groups of college students (712 subjects). Two groups rated the extent to which the traits accurately described themselves, two groups rated the extent to which the traits accurately described peers. All the subjects rated 133 trait variables which were identified from the first study. The resuhs indicated that the five factor model emerged as the best fit across the samples. In the last study, Goldberg (1990) utilized a similar procedure to evaluate a reduced list of 100 trait variables. The factor analysis again revealed the five factor solution was the best fit Goldberg (1990) concluded that the five factor model of personality is robust and valid.
There is additional evidence that the FFM can be utilized to explain personality differences among subjects in various age groups For example, Digman and Takemoto-
Chock (1981) conducted a study to examine the consistency of the model across several
16 samples of aduhs and children They conducted a meta-analysis of data from seven studies and completed a factor analysis on each of the data sets The FFM was consistently confirmed Based on the robustness of the model, Digman and Takemoto-
Chock (1981) stated that "regardless of whether teachers rate children, officer candidates rate one another, college students rate one another, or clinical staff members rate graduate trainees, the resuhs are pretty much the same" (p. 164)
Cross-cultural Lexical Research
Together, the five factors are viewed as fundamental dimensions of personality across age groups and gender. From the lexical approach, it follows that the most important personality descriptors will develop in the natural language of cultures to describe important individual differences Evidence that these personality traits are universal across languages and cultures will provide further support for the generalizability of the FFM (John, 1990)
Digman and Inouye (1986) examined teacher ratings of 499 Hawaiian children to determine if the five factors are sufficient to account for individual differences in the
Hawaiian culture The analysis revealed five factors were a good fit for this sample
Digman and Inouye (1986) concluded that the five factor model provides a "stable framework" in which all verbal descriptions of personality can be found (p 120)
Noller, Law, and Comrey (1987) evaluated 669 Australians on three divergent measures of personality The purpose of this study was to determine whether
17 questionnaires that were designed outside of the five factor tradition would reveal similarities to the FFM. The Australian sample provided self-reports comparable to those previously obtained in the United States. In factor analysis, the five robust factors of personality were again identified as the best fit for the resuhs. The five factors were evident as major dimensions of personality traits in the Australian culture
In a follow-up study Boyle (1989) reanalyzed the Noller et al. (1987) data set using an oblique factor rotation method rather than the orthogonal method utilized by
Noller et al (1987). According to Hair, Anderson, and Tatham (1987), oblique factor solutions are assumed to be more realistic than orthogonal factor solutions because the latter assumes that the variables are uncorrelated with one another. In contrast, oblique rotation methods assume that most variables are correlated The analyses were run twice, once with 33 scales and then with 25 of the original scales. In both oblique analyses, the five factors emerged as the best fit. The five personality dimensions were again evident in the Austrahan culture based on measures designed outside of the five factor tradition
Cross-cultural generalizability was also investigated by Church and Katigbak
(1989) in a three part study. In prior studies, 461 Filipino college students had generated personality descriptors in both English and Tagalog, the native dialect. For the first study, these descriptors were then compared to an existing classification of English trait terms developed in the United States (i.e., Peabody, 1987) Resuhs indicated that the
Enghsh and Tagalog personality descriptors are similar to Peabody's (1987) personality descriptors. Further, all five factors were represented in the Filipino college students'
18 personality descriptors. In the second study, peer nominations were then obtained for the personality characteristics identified in the first study. Although there was less differentiation among the five factors in peer ratings, the resuhs were somewhat
consistent with self-ratings. The resuhs of this study highlight the importance of
examining internal (self) and external (other) perceptions of personality
Church and Katigbak (1989) next elicited Philippine self-reports of behavior
incidents. The use of reported incidents of actual behavior would determine if the five
factors of personality could be identified in non-Western behavior First, 466 subjects
related incidents in which they observed good or poor psychological functioning in
themselves or others. The incidents were then sorted into categories based on content and
the personality characteristics associated with the incident. Next, 692 students completed
self-report measures of the categories. When factor analyzed, four factors were
represented in the Philippine personality dimensions A distinct Agreeableness factor
was not evident, but was part of the Extroversion factor Church and Katigbak (1989)
asserted that ahhough there are unique concepts in each of these languages, the five
factors adequately represent the personality domains in the non-Western culture of the
Philippines.
Narayanan, Menon, and Levine (1995) examined the personality characteristics of
Indian students in a two part study. In the first study, subjects (many of whom were bilingual) initially generated desirable and undesirable personality descriptors which included both English and Hindi words The Hindi words were then translated into
19 English and a second group of subjects rated the degree to which the 40 most frequently mentioned descriptors described themselves. Factor analysis revealed that the five factors were present in the Indian culture The largest factors were agreeableness and
conscientiousness
In the second study, another sample described two incidents involving either themselves or others that revealed some aspect of personality Again since many of these
subjects were bilingual, responses were in both English and Hindi The responses were
translated into English and classified into categories of personality characteristics by
student raters. Finally, different raters were given the five factor names and directed to
classify the categories of personality characteristics into the five factors where
appropriate. Resuhs indicated that the largest number of incidents were classified under
the factors of conscientiousness and agreeableness All five factors were represented by
the classifications with only a small number of incidents that did not fit into one of the
factors. Narayanan et al, (1995) concluded that the five factor structure was evident in
the Indian culture.
Another type of cross-cultural research has utilized non-English speaking subjects to determine if the five factors are present in languages other than English De Raad and
Hoskens (1990) obtained a list of over 80,000 nouns from a database of Dutch words
From this list, Dutch-speaking Belgian raters and Dutch raters reduced the list to 755
personality descriptive nouns. Next, 200 Dutch-speaking Belgian subjects and 200 Dutch
subjects rated themselves and their partners on the list of nouns Upon factor analysis.
20 the five factors were identified in all four samples. In these two sub-culturally different samples of subjects, the Five Factor Model was still rather robust
Borkenau and Ostendorf (1990) also conducted research to determine whether the
Five Factor Model of personality traits could be identified in a German population Two- hundred fifty-six subjects completed the NEO-PI (McCrae & Costa, 1985) and self- ratings on adjective scales proposed by Norman (1963). Subjects were also rated on the adjective scales by three peers. For all measures, factor analyses revealed the five factor solution as the best fit. Comparisons across the three methods of measurement revealed similar trait factors in the personality inventory scales, the adjective scale self-ratings, and the peer ratings on adjective scales. According to Borkenau and Ostendorf (1990), the Five Factor Model of personality is evident in the German language
Yang and Bond (1990) examined the relation between indigenous personality descriptors and those imported from other cultures. Over 2000 Chinese students rated two targets (father, mother, teacher, neighbor, friend, or self) on both the Chinese personality trait adjectives and rating scales translated from English. Factor analyses for both scales revealed five factors, but when comparing the scales, only four of the Chinese factors could be accounted for by various combinations of the imported personality descriptors. Agreeableness corresponded most closely whh the Chinese measures of social orientation and self-control Emotional Stability corresponded to competence and optimism. There was also correspondence between culture and competence, and extraversion and expressiveness. Conscientiousness was not identified in the Chinese
21 factors The authors concluded that among these Chinese subjects, fi\ e dimensions of personality are evident and future research should address the patterns of relations between indigenous and imported personality descriptors
In sum, cross-cultural and cross-laneuage research suggests that the FFM can be replicated in other cultures. The five factors have been identified in English-speaking
Hawaiian and Australian cultures, as well as IXitch, Filipino. Indian, and German
languages A similar structure was identified in the Chinese language, but
correspondence between this model and the FFM was not as strong
Natural language has pro\aded researchers with a broad range of personality traits
that can be grouped into five domains. These five factors of personality based on natural
language encompass individual characteristics in both self and peer ratings across various
age groups The Five Factor Model of personality was also the basis for another t>pe of
personality research
Psychometric Approach
A second approach which emphasized psychometrics was pursued in studying the
Five Factor Model of personality Psychometrics is an objective process of assessment of
individual characteristics These characteristics are defined and a hst of items believed to
describe the constructs is created (Barclay, 1991) This psychometric approach focuses
on accurately measuring the five traits
->'> When creating a new scale, it is necessary to assess its reliability and validity
Internal consistency is one form of reliability, it refers to the mean of the intercorrelations among all of the test hems. The more consistent the correlations, the higher the reliability of the measure (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Measurement validity is the degree that an instrument measures what it is expected to measure (Carmines & Zeller,
1979). According to Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991), to show construct validity a variable should correlate highly with conceptually similar variables (convergent validity), but should correlate less whh variables that are conceptually unrelated (divergent validity)
A pattern of consistent findings across a number of studies is necessary for construct validation (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).
Costa and McCrae (1980) have utilized the psychometric approach to develop a new measure of the five factors of personality. Based on the previous lexical research, they initially generated a questionnaire that assessed neuroticism, extraversion, and openness, and later added subscales which measure conscientiousness and agreeableness
This final form of the questionnaire is referred to as the NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI; Costa i& McCrae, 1985)
According to Briggs (1992), Costa and McCrae have extensively tested the psychometric properties of the NEO-PI. They utilized factor analyses to assess the internal structure of each subscale. Additionally, they examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale by assessing its relationship to other personality measures. According to Briggs (1992), Costa and McCrae's "primary goals were to
23 (a) assess the five-factor model as faithfully as possible; and (b) maximize the convergent and discriminant validity of their factor domains" (p. 274).
To assess the Five Factor Model, McCrae and Costa (1983) first obtained self- reports and spouse-ratings of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Six months later self-raings were again obtained. Internal consistency for both self-report and spouse- ratings ranged from .85 to .93. Additionally, retest rehability for self-reports of the three domains ranged from .86 to .91. McCrae and Costa (1983) concluded that the internal structure of these three factors was consistent across self-reports and spouse-ratings
After the development of the NEO-PI, McCrae and Costa began to research the relationship between the five factors and other personality assessment instruments
(McCrae, 1989). Subjects for this endeavor were part of the Bahimore Longitudinal
Study of Aging (BLSA). This sample consisted of men and women, 21-96 years old
Spouses, friends, and neighbors were also included to provide peer ratings of the BLSA subjects. Unless otherwise noted in the following review of McCrae and Costa's research, subjects were part of the BLSA.
McCrae and Costa (1985) examined the correspondence between lexical and psychometric methods of personality assessment They administered Goldberg's (1983)
40-item adjective checklist and an additional, broader 40-hem checklist they created for this study to 459 BLSA subjects who had previously completed self-ratings on the NEO-
PI. Over 200 spouses also completed peer ratings on the NEO-PI. From factor analyses emerged the Five Factor Model from Goldberg's adjective list as well as a combined 80-
24 item adjective list. McCrae and Costa (1985) examined the correlations among the lexical factors and the self and peer ratings on the NEO-PI The adjective measures and the NEO-PI self-report measures of neuroticism, extraversion, and opeimess were positively correlated. Convergent correlations above .50 were also obtained between the adjective measures and NEO-PI spouse ratings on the extraversion, neuroticism, and openness factors. The resuhs indicated that the NEO-PI factors corresponded well to factors developed from the lexical trah tradition
A later study again examined the correspondence of the five factors between lexical and psychometric measures of personality across observers. McCrae and Costa
(1987) added two subscales to assess agreeableness and conscientiousness to the NEO-PI
Internal consistency for agreeableness was .89 for within peer-rating and .56 for within self-raings. McCrae and Costa (1987) stated that the low internal consistency of self- reports was due to the inclusion of only 10 items in the self-report scale and to lower average interitem correlations Internal consistency for Conscientiousness was 91 for within peer-ratings and .84 for within self-ratings. When these scales were combined with the neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness scales, then factor analyzed, the five factors emerged This analysis provided support for the validity of the NEO-PI
McCrae and Costa (1987) then administered the revised measure and adjective lists to more than 1000 peers of the BLSA sample and requested they rate the subjects on these personaHty scales. According to McCrae and Costa (1987), convergent validity would be evident if there were agreement across observers and instruments The resuhs
25 indicate that there were moderately strong correlations across the lexical measures and
NEO-PI measures of the five factors. The authors concluded that convergent correlations were always larger than discriminant correlations, providing support for construct validity across observers and instruments
In the first of two pilot studies, Costa, McCrae, and Dye (1991) added 152 hems to supplement the agreeableness and conscientiousness factors and obtained self-ratings of BLSA participants on the new scale. They then executed a series of analyses to select the best hems for these two factors Items that were weakly correlated with the intended factors were eliminated and factor analyses were conducted for the agreeableness and conscientiousness factors separately. The resuhing scales consisted of the original items and 60 of the new trial hems. Internal consistency for self-ratings on the new scale was
.88 for agreeableness and .92 for conscientiousness. The second pilot study included revisions to the neuroticism, extraversion, and openness scales Out of 24 new trial hems, ten showed better convergent and discriminant validhy with the NEO-PI scales than previous hems and improved the factor structure of the scales. Therefore, these ten new hems replaced ten weaker NEO items. Whh these adjustments to the five scales, the
NEO-PIR (Revised) was complete
The revised NEO-PI (NEO-PIR) was then completed by 1539 subjects employed by a large corporation These subjects were younger, more racially diverse, and had less formal educations than the BLSA participants on which the NEO-PI was developed.
Upon factor analyses, all five factors were evident The median convergent correlation
26 was .72 and the largest divergent correlation was .34 In addhion, internal consistency ranged from .86 to .92 for the five factors. Costa et al (1991) concluded that the factor structure of the NEO-PIR is robust because h was developed from a large bod> of research based on the Five Factor Model of personality.
Costa and McCrae (1995) also examined how the Eysenck (1975, 1991) personaHty scales are associated with the revised NEO-PI (NEO-PIR) The Eysenck
PersonaHty Questionnaire (EPQ) and the Eysenck PersonaHty Profiler (EPP) both assess neuroticism, extraversion, and psychoticism. Subjects completed self-ratings on the
NEO-PIR, EPQ, and EPP. The results indicated that there was strong evidence for construct validhy of the neuroticism and extraversion factors across the three measures
The Eysenck and NEO-PIR measures of neuroticism were poshively correlated For extraversion, Eysenck measures were poshively correlated whh the NEO-PIR
There was also strong evidence for discriminant validhy between unrelated constructs Costa and McCrae (1995) reported that NEO-PER measures of conscientiousness and agreeableness revealed moderate negative correlations with the
Eysenck measure of psychoticism. Discriminant validhy was also supported by the negative association of Eysenck's neuroficism scale and extraversion Although the
Eysenck scales do not provide a complete measure of the five factors, the extraversion and neuroticism factors match well Costa and McCrae (1995) argue that the negative relationship between the EPI psychoticism and agreeableness and conscientiousness
27 suggests that the latter two measures are better indicators of personaHty differences in normal individuals
The NEO-PI was compared whh the Myers-Briggs T>pe Indicator (MBTI) of personality assessment (McCrae & Costa, 1989a) The MBTI assesses extroversion- introversion, sensing-intuhion, thinking-feeling, and judgement-percepfion The relationship of the MBTI's scales and the NEO-PI was assessed using self-reports and peer ratings of personaHty for over 150 subjects. Each of the four indices of the MBTI correlated highly whh one of the five factors. Self-ratings on the NEO-PI's extraversion, were negatively correlated with MBTI's introversion for both men and women
Likewise, NEO-PI self-ratings of conscientiousness were negatively correlated with
MBTI's perception. Positive correlations were obtained between NEO-PI self-ratings of openness and MBTI measures of intuhion. NEO-PI self-ratings on agreeableness were poshively correlated whh MBTI measures of feeling Correlafions between NEO-PI neuroticism and MBTI measures were low with the exception of a poshive correlation between neuroticism and feeling for women According to McCrae and Costa (1989a), the lower correlations with neuroticism were expected since the MBTI was developed from Jungian philosophy which views each personality type as equally worthwhile, while neuroficism has negative connotations The researchers contend that the MBTI omits information that could be important to those interested in personaHty assessment They also state that the NEO-PI gives a more detailed account of personality than the MBTI
28 Another study conducted by McCrae and Costa (1989b) looked at the relationship between the NEO-PI and the revised Wiggin's Interpersonal Adjecfive Scales (lAS-R)
The lAS-R is intended to include only personality traits related to interpersonal interactions and should therefore only correspond to a portion of the more comprehensive
NEO-PI. After factor analysis, the lAS-R scales loaded predominately on the extraversion and agreeableness factors. NEO-PI extraversion was poshively correlated whh lAS-R assured-dominant, warm-agreeable, and gregarious-extraverted dimensions, and was negatively correlated whh cold-hearted, aloof-introverted, and unassured- submissive dimensions. NEO-PI agreeableness was poshively correlated whh lAS-R unassuming-ingenuous and warm-agreeable dimensions; and negatively correlated with assured-dominate, arrogant-calculating, and cold-hearted dimensions. McCrae and Costa
(1989b) concluded that the FFM and Wiggin's interpersonal model "appear to be complementary models of personaHty" (p. 593), but the Five Factor Model provides a larger framework from which to view personaHty.
In order to determine the relationship between personaHty assessment based on clinical judgements and the NEO-PI, McCrae, Costa, and Busch (1986) examined the relationship of the California Q-Set (CQS) and the five factors Subjects were assessed on interviewer and self-ratings on the CQS, peer, spouse, and self-ratings on the NEO-PI, and peer and self-ratings on the 80-hem adjective scale. The measures were administered over a five year period from 1980-1985. Upon factor analysis of the CQS, the Five
Factor Model emerged Subsequent comparisons between the NEO-PI self-reports and
29 the CQS factors revealed convergent correlations for neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Divergent correlations were smaller than convergent correlations. Addhionally, a clear pattern of convergent and discriminant validity was found between interviewer and self-ratings on the CQS, the NEO-PI. and the adjective scales. It was concluded that construct validity was obtained for all five factors across instruments, observers, and time
To further test the comprehensiveness of the Five Factor Model of personaHty,
Costa and McCrae (1988) examined the association between the NEO-PI and the
Personality Research Form (PRF) The PRF focuses on individual differences in needs based on the motivational concepts of Murray (1938, ched in Costa and McCrae, 1988)
Correlations between the two measures indicated that the NEO-PI is a comprehensive measure of personality. All five domains of personality were evident in the PRF
Neuroticism correlated highly with the PRF measures of the need for social recognition, need for sympathy, and defensiveness. In contrast, neuroticism was negatively related to autonomy. Extraversion was poshively related to PRF measures of the need for affiliation, attention, and fun Individuals high in openness scored higher in the PRF measures of need for intellectual stimulation, change, aesthetic experiences, and adventure. Agreeableness was negatively related to the PRF measure of aggression, and poshively related to PRF measures of nurturance and self-effacement Conscientious individuals were high in the need for achievement and order Conscientiousness was inversely related to impulsivhy as well Costa and McCrae (1988) concluded that needs.
30 as measured by the PRF, can be viewed as motivational trahs which are part of a larger structure of traits accommodated by the Five Factor Model
In a two part follow-up study. Piedmont, McCrae, and Costa (1991) examined the correspondence between the FFM and Murray's needs as measured by the Adjective
Check List (ACL) In the first study, 420 college students completed measures of John's
(1990) estabhshed markers of the five factors based on ACL adjectives and standard
ACL scales. After the measures were factor analyzed, the five factors were evident in the markers and at one least factor was identified in each ACL scale. These results were ver>' similar to those reported for the PRF need scales (Costa & McCrae, 1988) In the second study, BLSA subjects completed two measures of the FFM (adjective and the NEO-PI) and the ACL Spouse and peer ratings on the NEO-PI were also available Joint factor analyses revealed the robustness of the FFM across raters and instruments
Correspondence between the ACL scales and the five factors replicated the resuhs from the first study. Further, correlations between the NEO-PI self, spouse, and peer ratings were consistent. According to Piedmont, McCrae, and Costa (1991) the ACL can be interpreted within the framework of the Five Factor Model of personaHty
In sum, although these scales were designed to measure diverse personaHty attributes, there appears to be considerable overlap in the trahs they measure (McCrae &
John, 1992) According to McCrae (1989), the five factors appear to be inherent in a variety of systems for personaHty description including Cattell's 16 factors, Eysenck's
"big three," Murray's 20 needs, and Jung's temperaments. The five factors represent
31 much of the information one might use to describe an individual's personality .As such, the FFM seeks to identify' the common patterns of individual differences
Supporters of the FFM contend that the five factors are not meant to provide an exhaustive descripfion of personality, but to represent the highest hierarchical level of trait description Facets or traits within each of the factors provide for more detailed descriptions (John, 1990) Consistent evidence for addhional factors to be included in the model has not emerged. Empirical analyses have shown that all five factors (not more or less) are needed (McCrae & Costa, 1987; Digman, 1989, Borkenau & Ostendorf 1990,
Goldberg, 1990)
The Five Factors' Role in Relationship (^ality
Relationship quality is likely influenced by numerous factors. .According to Kelly and Conley (1987), there are two major theoretical perspectives on relationship compatibility From the first perspective, the personality characteristics of the two partners make the relationship stable and satisfy ing or unstable and unsatisfying The second perspective concerns the interpersonal behavior of the partners Dysfunctional behavioral exchanges are thought to negafively impact relafionship quahty Kelly and
Conley (1987) argue that these two perspectives are interrelated The patterns of communication evident in relationships are likely products of the personality characteristics of the partners. Thus, h seems plausible that these patterns influence relationship quality
32 Longitudinal studies provide insight into these relationships and their outcomes
Kelly and Conley (1987) followed 300 couples from their engagements in the 1930s until
1980 to determine which personaHty characteristics were important predictors of marital
compatibilhy (i.e., stability and satisfaction). Interviewer and peer ratings were obtained for neuroticism, social extraversion, impulse control, and agreeableness The personality
traits measured by peer ratings were the strongest predictors of compatibility, accounting
for more than half of the variance. Neuroticism of both spouses was high in the divorced
group and the married, dissatisfied group. Husband impulsiveness was also a predictor of
divorce. Low social extraversion and low agreeableness of the husbands was
characteristic of the stably married but dissatisfied group. Kelly and Conley (1987)
concluded that many of the disrupted patterns of communication and behavior exchange
noted m disturbed couples may be viewed as the outgrowths of the personaHty
characteristics of the partners
Russell and Wells (1994) also examined the association between personaHty and the quality of marriage. Based on Kelly and Conley's (1987) conclusion that inhial
neuroticism was related to lower marhal satisfaction decades later, h was expected that the psychoticism, neuroticism, and extraversion of both partners would affect the quality of marriage. Utilizing a causal modeling procedure, the researchers determined that neuroficism has an indirect influence on marital quality Initially, neuroticism negatively influenced the partners' qualhy of marriage, rather than impacting the respondent's own relationship quality Russell and Wells (1994) concluded that the marital quality
33 experienced by one partner appears to impact the other's perception of marital quality over time.
Strengths and Weaknesses of FFM Research
The Five Factor Model of personaHty has been extensively studied There are several significant strengths of this research which support the FFM premise First, longitudinal and cross-observer studies have revealed that the five factors are enduring trahs. The traits have been similarly assessed by different raters and are stable across time (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Second, the five factors have been identified in the natural language of laypersons and in psychometric measures generated by social scientists. The trahs account for aU the major variables identified by the studies of trait terms in natural language (John, Anglehner, & Ostendorf, 1988) Likewise, the factors are found in many of the instruments which operationalize the classic theories of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992b) Third, evidence that the five factors can be identified in various languages and cuhures has been obtained Cross-cultural studies of the FFM have been conducted whh English-speaking individuals (Noller et al. 1987,
Boyle, 1989) and in other languages (De Raad & Hoskens. 1990, Yang & Bond, 1990)
The five factors were evident across these studies Lastly, the five factors have been identified various age groups Some of these include teacher ratings of children (Digman
& Inouye, 1986), college students (Goldberg, 1990), and young and old adults (Costa etal., 1991)
34 The major weakness of this line of research Hes primarily in the scarcity of studies
that have explored how the five factors are related to close relationship dynamics and
outcomes It has only been since the 1980s that research has begun to examine
applications of the FFM to interpersonal and relationship studies In fact, only two
studies could be located which examine how the five factors influence relationship
quality. Much more of this type of research is needed before we more fully understand
how trahs affect personal relationships.
Interpersonal Competence
Interpersonal competence reflects social skills and knowledge that enhance the
quality of personal relationships Competence is conceptualized as a muhifaceted
construct that reflects diverse social skills required to initiate and maintain relationships
over time. Competence promotes an individual's capachy to interact effectively across
relationships and social situations (Campbell, Steffen, & Langmeyer, 1981)
Interpersonal competence affects not only social satisfaction, but other aspects of life
functioning For example, individuals who are less socially skilled are more likely to
have difficulty maintaining personal relationships and to experience greater loneliness
(Sphzberg & Hurt, 1987). Kaczmarek, Backlund, and Biemer (1990) further argued that relationship failure is related to decreased life satisfaction, academic performance, and
psychological well-being
35 In contrast, social competence is associated with a more active social life, including frequent dating and popularity (Asher, 1983, Twentyman, Boland, & McFall,
1981). Marital adjustment has also been shown to be related to interpersonal competence
(Filsinger & Wilson, 1983). Competent individuals are more likely to establish relationships that provide support during stressful events (Gottlieb, 1985) Boyum and
Parke (1995) stated that "social competence is important for obtaining and maintaining social and academic success, and for mental heahh and personal adjustment" (p 593)
According to Buhrmester (1996), individuals utilize social skills to create relationship conditions that fulfill their psychological needs and expectations For example, extraverted individuals may engage in greater self-disclosure in order to maintain close relationships that fulfill the need for self-expression Given the significant consequences of social competence, h seems critical to examine how social competence can promote well-being. Five dimensions that are central to interpersonal competence are inhiation, self-disclosure, assertiveness, conflict resolution, and emotional support
(Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988, Sphzberg, 1990, Vera & Betz, 1992,
Rubin & Martin, 1994).
Inhiation
Inhiation reflects behaviors designed to start a relationship These behaviors include meeting, becoming better acquainted, suggesting future activities, and presenting a good first impression Consistent whh cuhural norms concerning heterosexual
36 interactions, men report higher inhiation competence than women in romantic relationships, but there are no gender differences in inhiation of friendship (Buhrmester et al 1988). Inhiation competence is a necessary, but not sufficient condhion to establishing relationships. That is, inhiation skills are central to generating social interactions, but other social skills (e.g., conflict resolution) may be essenfial to maintaining relationships over time (Buhrmester et al., 1988)
DiLorenzo et al. (1990) conducted a study to examine effective inhiation behaviors. Forty female college students rated audiotaped interactions of males in mixed sex dyads for likabilhy, effectiveness, social skills, similarly to self, and desire for future interaction. In each interaction, the male demonstrated one of two inhiation strategies
(other enhancement or poshive self-presentations), and the female confederate responded with ehher discouragement or encouragement behaviors. Regardless of the inhiation strategy used, males who were encouraged by the confederate were rated as more effective. If the males were inhially discouraged, they were rated as more effective, likable, and skilled if they demonstrated other enhancement strategies DiLorenzo et al
(1990) concluded that both specific inhiation skills as well as adaptability and responsiveness to the partner are central to effective inhiation
Twentyman, Boland, and McFall (1981) examined heterosocial skills in college males in a four-part study. In the first two studies, subjects completed dating frequency questionnaires and were identified as ehher minimal or frequent daters Randomly selected subjects from each group were scheduled for further assessment Upon arrival at
37 the research session, the subjects were left alone with a female confederate and observ ed for small talk inhiation (naturalistic conversation) Next, the subjects were instructed to enter a room and talk whh the confederate (dh-ected conversafion) Subjects then participated in a telephone role play whh the confederate to demonstrate their inhiation techniques (role play conversation) The subjects' telephone conversations whh the female confederate were recorded and later coded for success in obtaining a date The subjects also completed measures of dating patterns, typical responses to dating situations, perceived skill in the above situations, and awareness of behavioral cues a female might use to indicate interest or disinterest in a male Resuhs indicated that frequent daters were more likely than minimal daters to inhiate conversation and identify- behavioral cues of a woman's interest. Minimal daters rated themselves as less socially skilled and less likely to attempt interaction than frequent daters Minimal daters were also less successful in obtaining dates if the female confederate inhially declined In contrast, frequent daters were more likely to suggest ahematives for the date
In the third study, males rated the effectiveness of different strategies for approaching females and how likely they would be to use each strategv' Straightforward approaches were rated as more effective than generic openers (a slick line) or concealed requests for help In the fourth study, males read descriptions of interactions with women and were given the opportunhy to (a) avoid the interaction or (b) participate in a similar interaction If the subject chose an interaction, self-ratings of anxiety and observer ratings of anxiety, skill, and attractiveness were obtained Minimal daters were much
38 more likely to avoid initiation interactions than frequent daters However, among subjects that pursued interactions, there were no significant differences in self-rated or observer-rated anxiety, skill, and attractiveness for frequent and minimal daters
Twentyman et al. (1981) concluded that the greatest difference between frequent and minimal daters was that frequent daters had more confidence in their inhiating competence.
Berger and Bell (1988) conducted a study to examine how loneliness and shyness impact the effectiveness of males' strategies in requesting dates In this study, subjects completed measures of loneliness and shyness, as weH as open-ended questions concerning how they would obtain a date with a female acquaintance Their responses to the open-ended questions were rated for effectiveness based on the likelihood of obtaining a date. The strategies that were rated as the most effective were more detailed and complex than the ineffective strategies The effective strategies also included ahemate plans to be employed if they were inhially rejected They further reported that loneliness and shyness were poshively related to the generation of ineffective dating strategies. Berger and Bell (1988) concluded that loneliness and shyness were especially detrimental to males, as they are socialized to act as romantic inhiators When these characteristics inhibh inhiation, men may be less successful at pursuing intimate relationships
Riggio and Friedman (1986) examined the impact of extraversion, social skills, and nonverbal behavior on initial impressions Subjects were videotaped attempting to
39 express various emotions whh facial expressions and explaining the procedures they employed. They were rated for nonverbal behavior and likabilhy The subjects also completed questionnaires that assessed extraversion and social skills Extraversion and social skills were poshively related to likability for both males and females Women's facial expressiveness and men's fluency and outward directed body movements were positively related to social skill and extraversion as well The authors concluded that individuals who are successful at inhiating dating relationships may be adept at perceiving encouraging cues from opposhe-sex individuals
The relationship between nonverbal behavior, personality, and initiation competence was also examined by Simpson, Gangestad, and Biek (1993) According to
Simpson et al. (1993), nonverbal cues in romantic inhiation settings include nondominance, affiliation, and interest in continuing the interaction. In this study, subjects were videotaped as they responded to an opposhe sex interviewer's questions about inhiating dating relationships. The subjects were told that the interviewer would choose one individual for a date based on their answers to the questions The videotapes then were rated for nonverbal behavior The subjects also completed a self-report personaHty measure of extraversion. Resuhs indicated that nonverbal cues that facilhate romantic relationship inhiation include leaning forward, head tihing, flirtatious glances, smiling, and laughing. Extraverted individuals were more skilled at using nonverbal cues to convey interest and to make favorable impressions on others Simpson et al (1993)
40 concluded that individuals high in extraversion were more competent at initiating romantic relationships through the use of nonverbal behavior
Self-disclosure
According to Taylor and Altman (1987), self-disclosure is a vhal component of safisfying relationships. Self-disclosure refers to the sharing of personal information to other people (Chelune, Suhan, & Williams, 1980). It is a crucial modalhy of communication among relationship partners and the primary process by which intimacy and closeness are achieved (Hendrick, 1981; Taylor & Ahman, 1987) Self-disclosure also serves to decrease psychological distance between relationship partners (Jourard,
1971).
Chelune, Sultan, and Williams (1980) investigated how willingness to self- disclose and disclosure flexibility are related to loneliness Female subjects completed questionnaires which assessed loneliness, social introversion, and frequency of social activities. The subjects also completed the Self-Disclosure Situation Survey (SDSS,
Chelune, 1976). This survey assessed willingness to self-disclose across 20 social situations. In addhion to this willingness score, subjects were also given a flexibility score that reflects the deviation of willingness from SDSS norms That is, greater flexibility represents less appropriate self-disclosure Further, the subjects were observed and recorded while interacting with a male confederate. Observer and self-ratings of social skills were obtained following the interaction The resuhs indicated that greater
41 willingness to disclose was inversely related to loneliness Greater willingness was also poshively related to observer, but not self-ratings, of social skills Disclosure flexibility was negatively related to social activhy Moderate disclosers with low flexibility were more socially active and less lonely than highly flexible disclosers Chelune et al (1980) suggested that competent disclosers are more responsive to norms and social cues, which promote more appropriate self-disclosure.
Prager, Fuller, and (jonzalez (1989) examined the function of self-disclosure in social interaction In the first of two studies, subjects were instructed to write a paragraph about a personal matter they would be willing to disclose whh either a stranger or a significant other (close fnend or romantic partner) Reasons for the self-disclosure were also obtained and responses were rated, based on the degree of intimacy. Resuhs indicated that self-expression, self-clarification, and social validation were the most frequent functions of self-disclosure in close relationships The most intimate types of disclosure in close relationships were for the purposes of clarification and expression
The authors concluded that the reasons for self-disclosure were influenced by the type of relationship and the intimacy level at which the individual disclosed
In the second study, subjects kept 14 daily records of all social interactions that included self-disclosures Subjects also reported reasons for disclosure, intimacy of the disclosure, satisfaction whh interaction, and feelings of closeness whh the disclosure recipient. Resuhs indicated that the most intimate disclosures were made to romantic partners and the most frequent reason for these disclosures was self-expression This
42 type of self-disclosure was also associated with feelings of closeness and satisfaction for the discloser. According to Prager et al. (1989), these resuhs highlight the role of self- disclosure in the creation of intimacy and closeness
Berg and McQuinn (1986) examined how interpersonal processes early in relationship functioning, including self-disclosure, influence later functioning and stabilhy. Thirty-eight couples completed quesfionnaires at a four-month interval The questionnaires assessed self-disclosure, investments, relational processes (love, conflict, ambivalence, and maintenance), and satisfaction. The results indicated that compared to stable couples, dissolved couples were characterized by less self-disclosure and lower perceived rewards early in their relationships Self-disclosure was poshively related to the frequency of relationship rewards at both time points. Continuing daters also exhibited greater love and maintenance at both time points The authors concluded that early relationship characteristics, such as self-disclosure, determine if the relationship progresses toward increased closeness or dissolution
Vera and Betz (1992) examined the association of emotional self-disclosure, self- esteem, and relationship satisfaction in 200 college students in exclusive dating relationships. Subjects completed self-report measures and the resuhs indicated that females had higher levels of emofional self-disclosure than males, but did not differ from males in self-esteem or relationship satisfaction For women, self-esteem was poshively related to self-disclosure. For both males and females, relationship satisfaction was
43 poshively associated whh self-disclosure. According to Vera and Betz (1992), self- disclosure appears to be a strong predictor of relationship qualhy for college students
Sprecher (1987) examined how affection for a dating partner is influenced by disclosure given and received, and how disclosure affects relationship stabilhy Fift} couples completed self-report measures of self-disclosure and affection and were contacted four years later to determine relationship status Ahhough women reported disclosing more than men, both sexes reported moderate to high levels of disclosure to their partner. Couples that remained together over four years had higher levels of self- disclosure initially. Perceived partner disclosure was more strongly related to affection than actual disclosure Further, males' perceptions of received disclosure was poshively related to relationship stabilhy. Sprecher (1987) stated that received disclosure, actual or perceived, is rewarding in that it makes the recipient feel loved, trusted, and needed.
These rewards appear to poshively impact relationship stabilhy.
Self-disclosure is also an important component of satisfying marital relationships
Rosenfeld and Bowen (1991) evaluated 928 couples to determine how self-disclosure of both spouses influenced satisfaction. Subjects completed questionnaires of marital safisfaction and disclosure of spouse and self Resuhs indicated that for both husbands and wives, self and spouse disclosure were positively related to marhal satisfaction. High disclosers reported the greatest satisfaction and low disclosers reported the least safisfaction. Rosenfeld and Bowen (1991) concluded that the highest level of marital satisfaction occurs when both spouses are mutually disclosive.
44 Emotional Support
Emotional support is the expression of compassion, sympathy, and concern for another individual (Jung, 1987) Emotional support competence has been associated with being warm and senshive (Buhrmester et al., 1988) Barbee et al (1993) stated that a partner who is competent in providing emotional support allows their partner to feel loved and valued, which can improve the relationship. According to Dunkel-Schetter and
Skokan (1990), characteristics of the support provider, support recipient, and the relationship influence support attempts.
Jung (1988) examined the condhions under which providers would offer support
In the first study, subjects rated the degree to which a person deserved their fate, whether support was likely to be helpful, and their likelihood of providing support in four problem vignettes. Resuhs indicated that subjects feh that others were more deserving of their fate if they were responsible for the problem and made little effort to solve h. Support was perceived to be more helpful when the individual was responsible for the problem and made a greater effort to solve h. Jung (1988) argued that subjects may have considered low responsibilhy problems as situations that were uncontrollable by the person. Hence, support may be perceived to be more helpful when the subject had high responsibilhy for creating the problem Interesfingly. willingness to provide support was not related to the degree of personal responsibilhy
In the second study, subjects completed questionnaires concerning recent incidents in which they eagerly provided social support and incidents in which they
45 reluctantly provided support. The questionnaires assessed deservedness of fate, level of effort to solve the problem, past reciprocal support from the person in need, and cost of the support to the provider. Resuhs indicated that reluctant support was related to lower ratings of effort and higher ratings of fate In contrast, when support was eagerlv provided, cost to the provider was lower and reciprochy was higher. Jung (1988) concluded that support willingness is dependent upon the relationship context in w hich it occurs.
Hill (1991) examined the personal characteristics of individuals in need of emotional support and potential support providers. It was hypothesized that individuals with strong affiliative needs would be more willing to solicit emotional support when their partner was warm and empathetic. Subjects completed questionnaires that assessed their affiliative needs, interpersonal warmth, and empathy towards others The subjects were then given information about the expressiveness of a potential support provider
(e.g., warmth and empathy) and were given the option of engaging in a mutual support interaction. The subjects rated the degree to which they would be willing to discuss a problem whh the described support provider, but were debriefed before actual interactions occurred. The resuhs revealed that the expressiveness of the potential support provider influenced whether emofional support was requested When the support provider was perceived to be warm and empathetic, the subjects were more willing to participate in a support interaction This was especially true when the support seeker was high in affiliative needs. It appears that emotionally supportive interactions are most
46 likely to be desired if they have the potential of being highly rewarding According to
Hill (1991), an ideal support provider is characterized by expressive personaHty attributes, such as warmth, compassion, and perspective-taking
In an earlier study. Barker and Lemle (1984) assessed 53 couples' informal helping interactions. During audiotaped interactions regarding a problem, each partner participated as both the discloser and the support provider. Raters conducted an analysis of the content (e.g., interpretive statements) and affective tone (e.g., empathic) of partner statements during the interactions. Subjects also completed a measure of relationship satisfaction and partner helpfulness. Barker and Lemle (1984) found that support providers most often used statements of support, such as seeking information about their partner's problem, communicating their view of the problem, and providing instructions on how to resolve the problem Nonjudgemental, understanding support providers were rated as more helpful by their partners. Further, these support providers were more satisfied whh their relationships. Barker and Lemle (1984) asserted that the qualhy of the emotional support is an important element of relationship satisfaction.
Johnson, Hobfoll, and Zalcberg-Linetzy (1993) examined how social support knowledge and behavior influence intimacy and satisfaction Forty-one couples completed questionnaires that assessed their relationship intimacy, as well as knowledge of helpfiil and unhelpfiil ways of communicafing support to a distressed partner or friend
The subjects then wrote short descriptions of a recent problem their partner experienced and how they attempted to help Each partner then rated their safisfaction whh the
47 spouse's support behavior Johnson et al. (1993) determined that knowledge of how to communicate social support and perform support behaviors is associated whh greater intimacy in the relationship. Support satisfaction was poshively associated whh intimacy, but not significantly related to actual support behavior According to Johnson et al. (1993), intimacy in relafionships is associated with knowledge of how to communicate emotional support Such support may promote relationship fijnctioning and qualhy.
Gruen, Gwadz, and Morrobel (1994) assessed the emotional support of 34 couples during a conflict resolution task. The couples also completed measures of depression and emotional response during the conflict. The resuhs indicated that emotional support was poshively related to feeling pleased and happy for both partners Conflict resolution attempts linked with supportive statements appear to enhance poshive feelings for both partners. Further, poshive emotional responses were inversely related to depressive symptoms for females The authors concluded that emotional support has a beneficial effect in interpersonal relationships by enhancing the qualhy of their partner's emotional experiences
Assertiveness
Assertion is a compliance gaining strategy in which one partner directly expresses personal rights, opinions, or displeasure with their partner's behavior (Buhrmester et al,
1988, Noller, Feeney Bonnell, & Callan, 1994) Assertion skills are thought to enhance
48 self-esteem, self-confidence, interpersonal relationships, and personal fulfillment
(Delamater & McNamara, 1986). Lewis and Gallois (1984) stated that as relationships progress, individuals may become more willing to assert negative feelings and more accepting of negative assertion. In romantic relationships, as in other t\pes of relationships, assertiveness can facilhate relationship maintenance
Hull and Schroeder (1979) assessed reactivity to assertiveness In this study. 84 subjects were given a script to initiate a series of conflictual role plays and then instructed to react spontaneously to the confederates. Confederates responded to each inhiate in one of three ways: assertively, unassertively, or aggressively Subjects' reactions to the confederate were rated for conflict resolution (acquiescence to confederates' goal) and pleasantness. Following each role play, the subjects then rated the confederates' behavior
(e.g., fairness, friendliness). The resuhs indicated that confederates' unassertive behavior was described as pleasant, but did not resuh in conflict resolution In contrast, confederate aggression was described negafively, but resuhed in conflict resolution
Confederate assertion also resuhed in resolution of conflict and was described in both negative (dominant, unsympathetic) and poshive (fair, friendly) terms Hull and
Schroeder (1979) stated that assertive behavior is effective, but engenders mixed responses from interaction partners. Thus, assertion was viewed more favorably than aggression, though h was not without risk
Kelly, Kern, Kirkley, Patterson, and Keane (1980) explored reactions to assertive/unassertive behaviors as well. Subjects (n = 258) viewed a videotape of a
49 confederate behaving assertively or unassertively in response to an interpersonal conflict
The subjects then rated the confederate on 26 personality traits Kelly et al (1980) conducted factor analysis on the traits and identified two key dimensions likabilhy and achievement Compared to unassertive confederates, assertive confederates were rated as higher on achievement, but lower on likabilhy Both male and female subjects rated female assertive confederates as less likeable than male assertive confederates The researchers concluded that assertion may negatively impact evaluations of likability One implication of such research is that if individuals fear being disliked, they may not respond assertively to unreasonable behavior Kelly et al. (1980) stated that this appears to be especially true for females, who may inhibh assertive behavior in response to societal expectations Such lack of assertion may fail to prohibh displeasing interpersonal events and have negative implications for relationship functioning
Wildman (1986) examined whether the negative effects of assertion are mhigated when subjects are exposed to a larger repertoire of an individual's social skills Subjects viewed videotapes of confederates interacting in ehher (a) two negative assertive, (b) four negative assertive, or (c) four mixed (two negative assertive and two commendatory/ conversational) vignettes. The subjects then evaluated the confederates' interpersonal skills Wildman (1986) found that, compared to negatively assertive confederates, confederates in mixed vignettes were rated as kinder and less bad-natured The addhion of commendatory/conversational comments resulted in more favorable interpersonal ratings. Wildman (1986) concluded that perceptions of negafive assertion behavior are
50 colored by other information about an individual's behavior More specifically, view ing an individual engaging in poshive social interactions appears to mhigate the negative impact of assertion.
Lowe and Storm (1986) examined whether the adverse effects of assertion would be reduced if the subject had more information about the assertor's personality Ninety- six subjects viewed one of six videotapes in which confederate affectivhy and assertiveness were manipulated. Confederates initially displayed one of two affective styles (warm/friendly or distant/reserved), which was followed by one of three assertive responses (passive, assertive, or empathic-assertive) to unreasonable demands
Following the videotape, subjects completed evaluations of confederate attractiveness and effectiveness. The resuhs indicated that across all three assertive responses, warm individuals were rated as more attractive and sympathetic than distant individuals In examining assertiveness, passive individuals were rated as more considerate and likeable, but less respected and appropriate than ehher assertive condition Lowe and Storm
(1986) stated that the negative effects of assertion appear to be reduced when addhional information about the assertor's personality is known.
Lewis and Gallois (1984) hypothesized that perceptions of negative assertion would be influenced by relationship context Subjects listened to 12 audiotaped vignettes which portrayed a friend or stranger engaging in three types of negative assertion:
(a) expression of negative affect, (b) refusal, and (c) disagreement Measures of social skill, likabilhy, appropriateness of response, and respect for the assertor were completed
51 as well In general, subjects were more accepting of friends' negative assertion Results indicated that friends were rated as more likeable than strangers on all three assertive interactions. Compared to refusal assertion, friends were rated higher on appropriateness, skill, respect, and likability when they engaged in disagreement assertion Disagreement and negative affect whh strangers were rated more negatively than refusals from strangers. Lewis and Gallois (1984) explained these resuhs by stating that consensus is important in early stages of relationships and disagreement by strangers is less easily tolerated. Thus negative assertion may promote termination in the early stages of relationship development. If, however, relationships are maintained over time, then negative assertion by friends may be more acceptable, as it is viewed whhin the context of multiple interactions.
Zollo, Heimberg, and Becker (1985) examined whether self-assertiveness influences perceptions of others' assertive behavior Based on responses to a conflict resolution measure, subjects were assigned to ehher a high assertiveness or low assertiveness group. The subjects in each group observed videotapes of confederates exhibhing assertive, unassertive, and empathic-assertive behaviors in response to unreasonable requests by acquaintances. The subjects then rated confederate attractiveness and expected consequences of assertiveness The resuhs indicated that there were some similarities in high and low assertive group perceptions Across both groups, assertive confederates were rated as the least likeable Subjects expected assertive confederates to experience more positive social consequences than unassertive
52 confederates, but more negative social and personal consequences than empathic- assertive confederates. In contrast, empathic-assertive responses were rated the most favorably Empathic and unassertive confederates were rated as equally likeable, but empathic confederates were rated as more competent
Further examination indicated that there were some group differences in perceptions of assertiveness More specifically, high assertive subjects rated empathic- assertive and assertive confederates as more likable High assertive subjects also expected more positive consequences to empathic-assertion, and more negative consequences to nonassertion. Overall, empathic-assertive responses appear to temper the negative effects of assertiveness, which enhances poshive appraisals of the confederates. Zollo, Heimberg, and Becker (1985) concluded that self-assertiveness does influence perceptions of others' assertive behavior.
Defichs in assertion skills have a negative impact on individual and relationship functioning. For example, Olinger, Shaw, and Kuiper (1987) examined the relationship between unassertiveness, dysfunctional attitudes (eg, excessive approval seeking), and depression in a group of 89 college students In this sample, depression and assertion defichs were posifively related. Individuals whh dysfijnctional attitudes were less assertive in interpersonal conflicts, even when depression was controlled Olinger et al
(1987) suggested that nonassertive individuals often have an excessive need for approval from others that interferes whh relational dynamics. More specifically, such individuals are likely to experience discomfort when behaving assertively, and thus fail to adequately
53 resolve interpersonal conflicts. The researchers concluded that these dysfunctional attitudes influence assertion skills in ways that hinder normal interpersonal relationships
Lohr, Nix, Dunbar, and Mosesso (1984) examined the relationship between females' assertive behavior and irrational beliefs. Subjects (n = 146) completed self- report measures of assertive behavior and irrational beliefs. Two months later, subjects participated in verbal role plays which were coded for assertive behavior. Results showed that irrational beliefs were unrelated to self-reported assertion, but poshively associated whh observer-reported unassertive behavior in the role plays. An examination of the beliefs subscales indicated that demand for approval and dependency were poshively related to unassertive behavior. Lohr et al., (1984) stated that irrational beliefs may influence how individuals appraise interpersonal conflict More specifically, individuals whh greater needs for approval and dependency may exaggerate the significance of conflict, which inhibhs their use of assertive behaviors in personal relationships.
The consequences of negative assertion on long-term relationships were examined by Kern and Paquette (1992). Participants were 50 pairs of female undergraduate roommates who evaluated their own negative assertion and their roommates' negative assertion and interpersonal competence. One roommate from each pair was randomly selected as subjects and then participated in a role-play assessment that was coded for negative assertion. Resuhs indicated that the subject's own negative assertion level was poshively related to roommates' perception of likabilhy and competence Although these
54 results cannot be generalized to opposhe sex relationships, Kern and Paquette (1992) concluded that as relationships develop, negative assertion was necessary to effectivelv communicate feelings and desires This type of behavior appears to facilhate relationship maintenance
Conflict Resolution
Conflict denotes a disagreement between individual viewpoints (Lloyd & Cate,
1985) Sillars and Weisberg (1987) asserted that conflict provides couples whh an opportunity for "revitalization, problem solving, and reaffirmation of then- relationship"
(p 147). Conflict resolution strategies are attempts to reconcile differing viewpoints
The abilhy to express differences and negofiate conflict is a principal aspect of poshive communication (Lloyd, 1987). Satisfactory conflict resolution is likely to occur when the parties involved behave in ways that express warmth, sensitivity, and nondominance
(Buhrmester et al, 1988). According to Covey and Dengerink (1984), conflict resolution skills may be necessary to maintaining relationships over time
In order to examine the developmental course of conflict in premarhal relationships, Lloyd and Cate (1985) interviewed 97 individuals who had recently been involved in the breakup of a romantic relationship. Subjects completed a timeline detailing the stages of their relationship (from casual dating to dissolution) Conflict, love, maintenance, and ambivalence were assessed retrospectively Over time, conflict increased as the relationship developed and plateaued as individuals became more
55 ambivalent about the future of the relationship. According to Lloyd and Cate (1985), this pattern is expected because as the relationship becomes more committed, negotiation about relationship issues increase in importance If however, conflict is intense and remains unresolved, the couple may not be able to maintain a committed relafionship
Lloyd and Cate (1985) concluded that conflict resolution allows relationship partners to successfully negotiate differences and convey information to one another, inadequate resolution may contribute to relationship dissolution
In another study, 25 couples completed daily conflict records for 14 days to assess the frequency, intensity, resolution, and stability of conflicts (Lloyd, 1987) The subjects also completed measures of relationship quality and communication qualhy. For males, the perceived stabilhy of partner-initiated conflict was related to low relationship quality, and greater use of negotiation tactics was related to fewer disagreements and less conflict stabilhy For females, the most important determinant of relationship quality was the number of conflicts; more conflicts were associated with less satisfaction and commhment. Resolution of self-inhiated conflicts was poshively related to females' ratings of relationship satisfaction as well Further, negotiation was associated whh fewer conflicts and greater resolution. More conflicts and less resolution was associated whh greater manipulafion. Lloyd (1987) concluded that stable and unresolved conflict is detrimental to relationship qualhy, but resolution skills (such as negotiation and compromise) enhance conflict management.
56 Lloyd (1990) contacted the same couples three years later to assess how conflict influenced relationship stabilhy. Compared to stable relationships, partners in dissolved relationships reported greater conflict stability at time 1 Further, females in dissolved relationships had reported less conflict resolufion three years earlier Lloyd (1990) concluded that when the same conflicts are repeated with little resolution, relationships suffer in quality and endurance
Rusbuh, Johnson, and Morrow (1986a) examined the determinants and consequences of two constructive responses and two destructive responses to relationship conflict. Subjects (n = 130 individuals) were currently involved in a serious relationship
The subjects completed an open-ended questionnaire about responses to a recent problem incident, these responses were then coded for exh, neglect, voice, and loyalty
Subjects also completed measures of relationship satisfaction prior to the incident, immediate consequences of their response, and subsequent satisfaction and commhment
Resuhs indicated that neglect and exit were associated whh lower prior satisfaction, poorer consequences, and lower subsequent satisfaction and commhment In contrast, voice was related to greater prior satisfaction, more poshive consequences and greater subsequent satisfaction. Loyahy was associated with poshive consequences as well The researchers concluded that responses of voice, loyalty, exh, and neglect are differentially related to relationship characteristics and outcomes
In another study Rusbuh, Johnson, and Morrow (1986b) examined how couple conflict patterns influence relationship distress Sixty-eight dafing couples completed
57 questionnaires to assess self-reported behaviors, perceptions of partner behaviors, and response to partner behaviors during discussion of a relationship problem Four types of response behaviors were assessed: voice, loyalty, exh, and neglect The subjects also completed measures of distress. Resuhs indicated that couple distress was positively associated with self-reported destructive behaviors, such as exit and neglect (jreater distress was also reported when partners attribute destructive problem-solving behaviors to one another Further, couple distress is exacerbated when individuals react with exit or neglect to partner's destructive behaviors Rusbuh et al. (1986b) concluded that although relationships benefit when perceptions of partner behavior are poshive (eg, voice, loyalty), destructive behaviors have a greater impact on relationship functioning These destructive behaviors interfere whh effective resolution of conflict.
Noller et al. (1994) utilized a longitudinal design to assess the impact of conflict on satisfaction and communication The couples completed questionnaires to assess relationship satisfaction and conflict patterns shortly before marriage and again over the first two years of marriage. The couples were also videotaped twice discussing a current relationship problem. The spouse who had selected the problem then viewed the videotape and idenfified the conflict resolution strategies they employed in the session
Coders viewed the tapes as well and created a typology of resolution strategies: reasoning, assertion, partner support, coercion, manipulation, and avoidance Resuhs indicated that poshive, functional behaviors were more likely to promote satisfaction and successful conflict resolution over time In general, relationship safisfaction was
58 poshively related to discussing and negotiating strategies and negatively related to avoidance and whhdrawal strategies The highly satisfied couples were characterized by tactics such as expressing then- grievances to one another and taking part in mutual discussions of the issues. These poshive conflict resolution strategies were evident before marriage and continued during the first two years of marriage
In contrast, "destructive communication patterns which cause problems later in marriage are present before marriage, whether these are due to the personaHt\ characteristics of the individuals or to the dynamics of the relationship between them"
(NoHer et al, 1994, p. 244). In this sample, those couples lower in satisfaction described themselves as engaging in tactics such as avoidance, whhdrawal, and whhholding. There was little involvement in discussing and negotiating issues as well. According to Noller et al. (1994), such aversive conflict behaviors (e.g., coercion, manipulation) are destructive to relationships
Gottman and Levenson (1992) conducted a longitudinal study to determine marital conflict resolufion processes predicfive of later dissolution Sixty-nine couple inhially completed measures in which they rated the severity of marital problems and then selected a problem that was a continuing source of disagreement in their own marriage. The subjects were videotaped while discussing their problem and the tapes were coded for poshive and negative speaker behaviors If both the husband and wife displayed more poshive than negative behaviors, the couple was defined as regulated
Couples were considered nonregulated if at least one member displayed more negative
59 than positive speaker behaviors. Each spouse returned several days later to view the videotape and provide a self-report of their affect and satisfaction Gottman and
Levenson (1992) found that nonregulated couples engaged in more conflict,
defensiveness, anger, and withdrawal than regulated couples. Nonregulated couples also
rated their interactions as more negative and had lower levels of satisfaction at both
times.
Four years later, at least one spouse from each couple returned to complete
measures of marital satisfaction and status. Over the four-year period, nonregulated
couples were more likely than regulated couples to separate, consider divorce, and
actually divorce. Gottman and Levenson (1992) concluded that nonregulated couples'
tendencies to initiate and react more aversively during conflicts may play a role in the
increased likelihood of marhal dissolution.
Gottman (1993) conducted further analysis to examine the roles of conflict
engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marhal interaction. In addition to the
procedure previously described, valence of listener behaviors were also coded Resuhs
indicated that three types of stable couples (volatiles, avoiders, validators) could be
identified from problem-solving behavior, affect, and persuasion attempts Two types of
unstable couples (hostile, hostile/detached) were also identified Gottman (1993) asserted
that the main difference between stable and unstable couples is the balance of poshive
and negative behaviors during conflict. Although the three types of stable couples vary
in conflict styles, they all maintained a 5:1 rafio of poshive to negative behaviors In
60 contrast, unstable couples were characterized by higher levels of conflict and negative behaviors. Unstable couples also had a lower ratio of poshive/negative behaviors They were more prone to marhal dissolution than stable couples over time as well Gottman
(1993) concluded that negativhy was dysfunctional only when not adequately balanced by poshive couple exchanges. This imbalance appears to impair the successfial resolution of conflict.
Sternberg and Dobson (1987) examined consistency in styles of conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships. In the fkst study, 40 students described three recent conflicts, and actual and ideal conflict resolution tactics. They also rated the degree to which their actual and ideal resolution styles represented seven methods of conflict resolution. The subjects completed intellectual and personaHty measures as well
Subjects were highly consistent in their choice of real and ideal conflict resolution methods. Sternberg and Dobson (1987) found no clear relationship between personal characteristics and styles of conflict resolution.
In the second study, subjects described four recent conflicts and the resolution methods used The authors extended the list of conflict resolution methods to 16 and the subjects then rated the extent to which the methods were applicable to resolution of the four conflicts. The subjects also indicated how they would resolve eight hypothetical conflicts and which of the 16 methods best described the style of resolution they would employ. Sternberg and Dobson (1987) found consistent patterns of resolution styles across real and hypothetical situations. They reported that subjects more often based
61 their choice of resolution method on situational specifics than then- relationship to others
The researchers stated that individuals use a larger repertoire of conflict resolution styles than was evidem in the first study Similar to the research on inhiation, this repertoire may allow them to utilize a variety of resolution tactics if the first efforts are unsuccessful. One implication of such research is that individuals with greater conflict repertoires may be more socially skilled.
Sternberg and Soriano (1984) explored whether individuals exhibh consistent styles of conflict resolution and how styles are related to personality characteristics
Subjects read nine conflict situations and rated the desirabilhy of seven modes of resolution. The modes represented ehher conflict-mhigating or intensifying styles of resolution The subjects also completed measures of intellect and personality Sternberg and Soriano (1984) found that individuals exhibh cross-situational consistency in their preferred styles of conflict resolution Higher reasoning abilhy was poshively associated whh conflict-mhigating styles of resolution. The personaHty characteristics of deference, abasement, and order were posifively related to conflict-mhigating styles as well In contrast, conflict-intensifying styles were poshively associated whh needs for autonomy and change. Sternberg and Soriano (1984) concluded that personal characteristics influence conflict resolution styles, which have important implications for relationship quality
62 Personality and Interpersonal Competence
Individual differences in personality ha\ e been hvpothesized to influence relationship satisfaction through their impact on behaviors and partner's perceptions of those behav iors. According to this perspective, personality influences interpersonal competence, which in turn influences satisfaction (Davis & Oathout. 1987). Filsinger and Wilson (1983) stated that most of the research on interpersonal competence has appropriately examined couple interaction characteristics, but individual factors (such as personality) should not be ignored.
In the first of three studies, Buhrmester et al. (1988) examined how the five domains of interpersonal competence are related to personal characteristics and patterns of social interaction Subjects (n = 422) completed the Interpersonal Competence
Questionnaire (ICQ), which assesses competence in inhiafion, self-disclosure, negativ e assertion, emotional support, and conflict resolution Subjects also completed measures of dating skill, interpersonal activifies (eg, frequency of dating), social skill (eg. emofional expression), loneliness, depression, and emofional well-being Resuhs revealed that interpersonal competence was negatively related to the avoidance of social interaction Frequency of dating, dating skill, and emofional well-being were positively related to interpersonal competence. Additionally, both self-disclosure and emotional support competence were related to senshivhy towards others This type of sensitivhy is comparable to the Agreeableness dimension of the FFM Lastly, conflict resolution was negatively related to manipulation and emotional expression Further, interpersonally
63 competent individuals reported less depression and loneliness These inhial results suggest that negative affectivhy is inversely related to social competence
In the second study, Buhrmester et al. (1988) examined self and roommate perceptions of interpersonal competence The degree to which competence is associated whh personality characteristics and social adjustment was also examined Subjects
(n = 138) completed the ICQ as well as measures of loneliness, sex role orientation, and social self-esteem. Roommates also rated the subjects on social self-esteem, sex role orientation, and competence. The resuhs indicated that roommate ratings of interpersonal competence were negatively related to self-reported ratings of loneliness Competence was also associated with both roommate and self-rated percepfions of social self-esteem
Competence in emotional support and disclosure was associated whh expressiveness as well Instrumentalness was poshively associated with competence in inhiation and assertiveness Both sex role orientations were poshively related to conflict management competence. According to Buhrmester et al. (1988), this could explain why prior research has found that both masculinhy and femininity are conducive to social competence.
In the thh-d study, Buhrmester et al (1988) investigated perceptions of interpersonal competence in established friendships and whh new acquaintances.
Subjects (n = 151) were assigned to an unacquainted same sex partner and instructed to interact to become better acquainted. Both partners then rated themselves and their partners on the ICQ They also rated their satisfaction whh the interaction and their
64 partner's personaHty (e.g., extraversion, warmth). Friends of the subjects also rated the subject on the ICQ, personaHty, and satisfaction with the friendship Buhrmester et al
(1988) found that friend ratings of interpersonal competence were more similar to self- ratings than were acquaintance ratings. Although acquaintance ratings of interaction satisfaction were dependent on subject's inhiation competence, friendship satisfaction was related to subject's competence in emotional support, self-disclosure, conflict resolution, and inhiation
Buhrmester et al. (1988) also found that personality characteristics were associated with interpersonal competence. For example, extraversion was positively associated whh initiation, assertion, and self-disclosure. Warmth and senshivity were positively associated with self-disclosure, as well as competence in providing emotional
support and resolving conflicts. According to Buhrmester et al (1988), the type and
stage of the relationships determine which domains of interpersonal competence and personaHty characteristics are most important. Inifiation and disclosure competence appear to be more valuable in earlier stages of relafionships, emotional support and conflict management seem necessary to maintain relationships once they have been established Hence, extraversion, warmth, and senshivhy are valuable personaHty characteristics early in relationships. As relationships become established, warmth and senshivity facilhate relationship maintenance, and extraversion is no longer of primarv importance
65 This idea was elaborated on by Lamke, Sollie, Durbin, and Fitzpatrick (1994)
Subjects and a dafing partner completed the ICQ, as well as measures of their own sex- role orientation and relationship satisfaction Two domains from the ICQ (self-disclosure and emotional support) were summed to measure expressive competence Likewise, instrumental competence was assessed by summing the ICQ measures of initiation and negative assertion. Lamke et al. (1994) found that self-rated femininhy was poshively related to expressive competence and self-rated masculinhy was poshively related to instrumental competence. Expressive behaviors were associated whh greater satisfaction in dating relationships. In addition, instrumental competence increased relationship satisfaction by positively influencing expressive competence. It appears that competence in some domains may foster the development and use of competence in other domains
According to Lamke et al. (1994), these resuhs point to the influence of individual differences on the development and maintenance of relationships. Specifically, the relationship between femininhy and satisfaction was mediated by interpersonal competence.
In order to determine how empathy facilitates interpersonal competence, 264 student couples completed measures of empathy, personal distress, social behavior, and relationship satisfaction in a study conducted by Davis and Oathout (1987). Each subject also rated both self and partner frequency of poshive (e.g., warmth) and negative (e.g., insenshivhy) interpersonal behaviors Resuhs indicated that empathy was poshively associated with self-reports of prosocial behaviors In contrast, personal distress was
66 negatively associated whh prosocial behaviors Self-reports and partner perceptions of behavior were similar. Perceptions of a partner as warm and possessing a positive outlook were predictive of relationship satisfaction. The researcher concluded that empathv appeared to influence relationship satisfaction by impacting behaviors Empathic individuals appear to engage in more prosocial behaviors and are perceived in a positive manner by their partner, which promotes satisfaction.
Bolger and Zuckerman (1995) examined links between neuroticism and interpersonal conflict. Using a 14-day diary, subjects recorded all instances of interpersonal conflicts, coping strategies, and negative affect. Subjects high in neuroticism reported more interpersonal conflicts and more affective distress than subjects low in neuroticism. High neuroticism was also associated with self-control and confrontation in response to interpersonal conflict. These responses were related to greater anger the next day. These coping responses, along whh escape-avoidance, were also poshively related to negafive affect According to Bolger and Zuckerman (1995), subjects high in neuroticism experience more conflicts due to their chronic negative affect Hence, ineffective coping strategies and negative affect heighten interpersonal problems.
Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Hair (1996) examined how agreeableness influences patterns of conflict resolution. In the first of a two-part study, subjects completed Goldberg's (1992) measure of the FFM and rated the effectiveness of resolution strategies for 10 conflict vignettes. The researchers only reported how
67 agreeableness was associated with conflict management More specifically, results indicated that all subjects rated negotiation and disengagement as better choices for conflict resolution than power assertion Compared to low agreeableness respondents, those who scored high on agreeableness more frequently rated power assertion tactics as an ineffective conflict resolution strategy.
In the second study, subjects were paired by agreeableness scores (high-high, low-low, high-low). Partners were videotaped during two tasks designed to elich conflict and each subject then rated the perceived amount of conflict in the interaction The subjects also rated theh- partner's likabilhy and desirabilhy. Observer ratings of agreeableness and conflict resolution strategies were also obtained The researchers found that elicited and self-perceived conflict was greatest when both partners were low in agreeableness. Further, agreeableness was negatively related to power assertion strategies for males In contrast, when both partners were high in agreeableness, perceived conflict was lower and the individuals rated their partners as more likeable and socially desirable, (jraziano et al. (1996) concluded that agreeableness may enable certain individuals to control anger and negative affect in ways that enhance conflict resolution Agreeable individuals appear motivated to maintain poshive relations whh others. They view others in a positive manner and react to conflict whh prosocial resolution tacfics. These skills appear to be important to relationship maintenance
The relationship between assertion and personaHty was examined by Bouchard,
Lalonde, and Gagnon (1988) Subjects completed measures of assertiveness and were
68 rated by peers on assertiveness and the five factors of personaHty Resuhs revealed a positive association between extraversion and peer and self-ratings of assertion. Further, subjects who were rated by peers as competent in negative assertion were also rated as less agreeable Negative assertion competence was poshively related to conscientiousness Finally, expression of feeling was poshively related to openness The researchers stated that these results provide evidence for a relationship between various aspects of assertion and personaHty
Buss (1992) sought to identify manipulation tactics across relationship types
(spouse, parents, and friends) In addhion, he attempted to identify links between the five major personaHty dimensions and the usage of manipulation tactics Self-report assessments of Goldberg's (1983) personaHty measure and manipulation tactics were completed by 107 couples The partners provided assessments of their spouse's personaHty characteristics and manipulation tactics The subjects were then interviewed and rated on personaHty dimensions The resuhs revealed that personaHty affects the use manipulative behaviors Specifically, extraversion was poshively correlated with coercion, responsibilhy, and invocation and negatively correlated with debasement
Agreeableness was poshively correlated with pleasure and induction and negatively correlated with coercion and silent treatment, conscientiousness was poshively related to the use of reason and neuroficism correlated poshively with regression Openness was negatively related to the use of social comparison
69 The resuhs of this study generalized across sexes, relationship types, and data sources, which affords some evidence for the interacfive implications of the FFM
According to Buss (1992), these resuhs highlight the influence of personality on interactions between husbands and wives Persons married to spouses low on agreeableness may be more Hkely to be subjected to coercion (yelling, demanding, and criticism) from their spouses. Likewise, those married to spouses high on neuroticism can expect regression (pouting, sulking and whining) and coercion from theh' spouses
Spouses who use reason score high on agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness
Buss (1992) argued that these links between personality and manipulation tactics emphasize the centrality of the five major personaHty dimensions for close relationships
Shaver and Brennan (1992) examined how personaHty and attachment styles influence relationship outcomes Univershy students first completed the NEO-PI and two attachment measures Eight months later, measures of relationship status were obtained from all subjects. At fime 2, those subjects who were currently involved in a romantic relationship completed measures of relationship length, satisfaction, and commhment
Resuhs indicated that the secure attachment style was poshively related to extraversion and agreeableness Insecure attachment style was poshively related to neuroticism
Extraversion and openness correlated poshively with being involved in a relationship
Neuroticism and openness were negatively associated with relationship length
Relationship satisfaction and commhment were also negatively related to neuroticism
70 These results support the premise that personaHty trahs influence relationship quality and stability over time.
The relationship between personaHty and behavioral responses to stress was examined by Watson and Hubbard (1996). Subjects completed the NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI), which is a shortened version of the NEO-PIR The subjects also completed measures of coping responses. Coping is important to relationship functioning because h reflects behaviors aimed at managing, regulating, and preserving relationships during stressful periods (O'Brien & DeLongis, 1996). Resuhs indicated that coping responses were related to personality characteristics. Specifically, neuroticism was associated with passive and ineffective forms of coping. Persons high in neuroticism reported that they respond to stress whh denial, venting negative feelings, disengagement,
£md giving up. These individuals were unlikely to accept the situation or learn from the experience In contrast, conscientiousness was poshively related to persistent and active problem-focused coping and unrelated to problem disengagement. Extraverted individuals sought social support and used their stress experience as an opportunity for growth. Agreeableness and openness were related to planful problem solving and using stress experiences as an opportunhy for growth. According to Watson and Hubbard
(1996), these resuhs demonstrate the relations between personaHty and behavior
O'Brien and DeLongis (1996) examined the relationship between personaHty and coping responses in both work and interpersonal relationships. Subjects completed a measure of general coping, coping in specific relationships (i.e., close, acquaintance.
71 work), and the NEO-FFI. Resuhs indicated that neuroticism was poshively related to escape-avoidance and negatively related to planful problem-solving and accepting responsibility. Extraversion was poshively related to support seeking and negatively related to accepting responsibilhy Openness was poshively associated with affirmative reappraisals of situations and negafively associated whh escape-avoidance
Agreeableness was posifively associated whh support seeking and negatively associated with confrontation. Conscientiousness was poshively related to empathic responses and negatively related to accepting responsibility and escape-avoidance
There were differences in coping responses associated whh three personaHty factors in specific relationships. According to O'Brien and DeLongis (1996). individuals high in neuroticism reported less empathic responses in close relationships than in other types of relationships. Opeimess was positively related to more empathic responding in close and acquaintance relationships than in work relationships Lastly, conscientiousness was positively related to more planful problem solving in work relationships than in close or acquaintance relationships
O'Brien and DeLongis (1996) concluded that these differences highlight the importance of differentiafing between relationship type when examining how personaHty characteristics influence behavior. For example, individuals higher in neuroticism do not necessarily lack the abilhy to be empathic, but find it more difficuh to engage in this type of behavior when interacting whh someone close This type of behavior appears to be used to distance oneself from the partner, which negatively influences relationship
72 maintenance O'Brien and DeLongis (1996) argued that future research should look not only at how personality impacts behaviors, but also the relationship between behav iors and outcomes
Recent research supports linkages between various aspects of personality and interpersonal competence. This research, however, lacks a clear theoretical model to explain the process of influence The contextual model is one such framework that may elucidate this process.
The Contextual Model
According to Bradbury and Fincham (1987), understanding close relationships requires a consideration of individual factors and how they impact relationship fijnctioning. To this end, they created the contextual model to describe how such factors contribute to relational outcomes. They assert that most previous models of close relationships tend to focus on either personaHty or behavioral variables while the contextual model has the advantage of considering both simuhaneously More specifically, the contextual model suggests that both global individual difference factors and specific cognhions/behaviors contribute to patterns of interactions These interaction patterns in turn influence spouse's evaluations of the marriage over time (Bradbury &
Fincham, 1989)
Bradbury and Fincham (1987) discussed two contexts that influence relationship qualhy. The distal context refers to psychological variables that influence the processing
73 of partner behavior. These include personaHty traits, relationship beliefs, and moods
These dimensions of the distal context contribute to a relational orientation, through which all interpersonal events whh the partner are processed The proximal context inhially included the thoughts and feelings experienced during an interaction, but was expanded by Fletcher and Fhness (1990) to include interpersonal behaviors This expansion of the proximal context was important because behavioral events contribute to evaluations of marital quality as well (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1989)
The contextual model has received empirical support in several studies In one such study, Bradbury and Fincham (1988) hypothesized that marital satisfaction is related to the distal and proximal variables that influence processing and responses to partner behavior. Married partners (n = 39 couples) completed questionnaires about marital satisfaction, the distal factors of sex roles and dysfunctional relationship beliefs, and the proximal factor of causal and responsibilhy attributions for relationship disagreements
Resuhs indicated that femininhy of both husband and wife was poshively related to satisfaction. Dysfunctional beliefs and responsibilhy attributions were negatively related to satisfaction. Further, the results indicated that the distal and proximal factors had a dh-ect effect on safisfaction and mediation did not occur Bradbury and Fincham (1988) concluded that both distal and proximal factors make unique contributions to marital qualhy.
Fincham and Bradbury (1989) further tested the contextual model among married couples Subjects (n = 43 couples) completed questionnaires which assessed relationship
74 satisfaction, distal factors (perspective taking, dysfunctional beliefs, and attributional complexhy), and proximal factors (causal attributions and self-disclosure) The results indicated that dysfunctional relationship behefs and attributional complexhy were
significant predictors of causal attributions for relationship difficuhies Causal
attributions that the spouse was responsible for conflict was negatively related to
satisfaction. Self-disclosure was poshively related to marital satisfaction The test of
indirect effects indicated that wives' self-disclosure mediated the association between wives' attributions and husbands' satisfaction as well According to Fincham and
Bradbury (1989), the contextual model is useful in understanding how distal factors
influence proximal factors and how together these factors impact relationship qualhy.
More specifically, h appears that individual differences influence the processing and
communication of information in close relationships.
Fletcher and Fhness (1990) further examined how distal and proximal factors
influence relationship qualhy They assessed the distal factors of relationship qualhy and
depression and the proximal factors of verbal behaviors, nonverbal behaviors, cognhions,
and affect during interactions Thirty-eight dating couples inhially completed measures
of relationship quality and depression and were then videotaped discussing issues they had identified as relationship problems Each partner then viewed the videotape
separately and recorded (on audiotape) specific cognitions and affect regarding the interaction. They also rated the valence of the videotaped verbal and nonverbal behaviors
of both themselves and their partners. The audiotapes and videotapes were also coded by
75 raters on the valence of verbal behaviors, nonverbal behaviors, cognitions, and affect
Results indicated that the distal factor of relationship quality was dh-ectly related to the proximal factors of poshive nonverbal behavior and poshive cognhions Another distal factor, depression, was inversely related to positive nonverbal behavior Fletcher and
Fhness (1990) concluded that the linkages between the distal and proximal factors highlight the importance of including both contexts in relationship assessments
Kurdek (1991a) examined distal factors that impacted marhal quality and stabilhy. Shortly after marriage and again one year later, subjects (n = 353 couples) completed measures of marital adjustment and the distal factors of dyadic attachment, personal autonomy, motives for being in the relationship, dysfunctional beliefs, expressiveness, social support, and psychological distress. At Time 1, marhal qualhy was posifively related to greater attachment, intrinsic motives, and support satisfaction, as well as less distress In addhion, changes in distal factors over the year predicted changes in marhal qualhy. Couples who had separated by Time 2 had greater dysfunctional beliefs, psychological distress, and external relationship motives at Time 1 These couples were also less satisfied whh social support. Kurdek (1991a) argued that the distal factors create the context in which marhal behaviors are processed Although such behaviors were not measured in the present study, both distal and behavioral factors should be examined in future research (Kurdek, 1991a)
In a three-year longitudinal study, Kurdek (1991b) again examined how distal factors influence marhal distress. Subjects (n = 310 couples) were assessed shortly after
76 marriage and then annually for three years At each time, they completed measures of marital adjustment and the distal factors of dysfunctional beliefs, expressiveness. safisfaction whh social support, and negafive affectivity Resuhs indicated that for both spouses, increases in marital distress were related to increases in dysfunctional beliefs as weU as decreases in support satisfaction and expressiveness For wives only, increases in marhal distress were also related to increases in negative affectivity This finding is not surprising given the fact that the affective balance in romantic relationships is often regulated by the female (e.g., Gottman & Levenson, 1992) Kurdek (1991b) concluded that these distal factors appear to influence relationship quality over time
Kurdek (1991c) again focused on distal factors in a study of homosexual relationships. Subjects (n = 126 gay/lesbian couples) completed measures of satisfaction with social support, expressiveness, dysfunctional relationship beliefs, self- consciousness, and relationship satisfaction Resuhs indicated that relationship satisfaction was poshively related to support safisfaction and expressiveness In contrast, relationship satisfaction was negatively associated whh dysfunctional beliefs and self- consciousness Kurdek (1991c) asserted that past research has verified the relationship between satisfaction and contextual factors in heterosexual couples By using gav and lesbian subjects, this study provided further evidence for this relationship and confirms the existence of general processes that regulate close relationships.
In a longitudinal study of gay and lesbian couples, Kurdek (1992) examined how both proximal and distal factors influence relationship satisfaction and stability Subjects
77 (n = 92 couples) completed measures of the proximal factor (dysfunctional relationship beliefs), the distal factors (expressiveness, satisfaction whh social support, and negative affectivhy), and relationship satisfaction and stabilhy annually for four years Results indicated that negafive affectivhy was inversely related to relationship satisfaction and stabilhy. Increases in satisfaction over the four-year period were related to parallel decreases in dysfunctional beliefs regarding the relationship In addhion, discrepancies between partners' scores on support satisfaction and expressiveness were smaller for those partners who became more satisfied whh their relationship over the course of the study. According to Kurdek (1992), both distal and proximal factors appear to influence relationship outcomes
In the first of a two-part study, Bradbury and Fincham (1992) examined the contextual model and how attributions for problems are related to behavioral interactions and marital satisfaction. Subjects (n = 47 couples) completed measures of satisfaction, common marital problems, and attributions for marhal problems Each couple was then videotaped discussing one problem they identified as difficuh and the tapes were coded for problem-solving behaviors. Results indicated that low satisfaction w as related to attributing marital problems to the spouse and to global and stable causes More specifically, these couples were likely to view their partner as worthy of blame and of behaving intentionally whh selfish motivation Poor problem-solving behaviors were also exhibhed by those couples whh maladaptive attributions and low satisfaction This
78 study indicated that spouses' attributions are related to behaviors and evaluations of the marriage
In the second study. Bradbury and Fincham (1992) investigated how attributions for marital problems were related to the interpersonal behaviors of each spouse Fortv couples foUowed the same procedure as in Study 1 In addhion, each speaking turn on the videotapes was coded for avoidant, positive, or negative behaviors The researchers found that husbands who exhibhed fewer positive and more negative and avoidant behaviors reported lower marital satisfaction For both spouses, negative behavior was directly related to attributing marital problems to the partner and to global and stable causes, as well as viewing the partner's behavior as intentional and selfish Wiv es exhibited negative responses to negative partner behavior when maladaptive attributions were present. In contrast, wives responded to negative behavior with avoidant and positive responses when attributions were more benign or adaptive Bradbury and
Fincham (1992) concluded that this study provided further support for the contextual model and, in particular, for the relations between attributions and responses to partner behavior.
Kurdek (1993) examined how both distal and proximal factors influence marhal dissolution in a longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Subjects (n = 351 couples) were assessed inhially and then annually for four years. If the couple divorced during this time, data was obtained up through the year of the divorce Questionnaires included measures of distal factors (the five factors of personality, dysfiinctional beliefs, and
79 satisfaction whh social support) and proximal factors (marhal satisfaction, faith in the marriage, autonomy, attachment, and motives for being in the marriage) Kurdek found that both distal and proximal variables were risk factors for marhal dissolution
Specifically, the distal factors of high neuroticism and dysfunctional beliefs, and low conscientiousness and support satisfaction were associated whh greater risk of divorce
Proximal risk factors included low satisfaction, low fahh, low attachment, few intrinsic motives, and more external motives for marriage. Kurdek (1993) concluded that marital dissolution is determined by both distal and proximal factors
Together, these studies provide empirical support for the contextual model and the role of distal and proximal factors in relationship outcomes. There are, however, several discrepancies among the studies in regard to the classification of factors For example,
Kurdek (1991a, 1991b, 1991c), Bradbury and Fincham (1988), and Fincham and
Bradbury (1989) classified dysfunctional relationship beliefs as a distal factor, but later
Kurdek (1992) examined h as a proximal factor. Likewise, relationship qualhy has been examined as a distal factor (Fletcher & Fhness, 1990) and a proximal factor (Kurdek,
1993), ahhough other researchers have identified h as an outcome variable. Another problem has been the emphasis placed on distal factors. In several studies, Kurdek
(1991a, 1991b, 1991c) examined only the distal context, which ignores the impact of the proximal context on relationship qualhy Even whh this emphasis on the distal context, few personaHty trahs have been examined.
80 Other studies have acknowledged both contexts, but included several distal factors and only a single proximal factor in their analysis (e.g. Bradbury & Fincham,
1988). Investigations of the proximal context have primarily focused on attributions
(e.g., Fincham & Bradbury, 1989), few behaviors have been included in these analyses
Lastly, there has been a reluctance to identify factors as either distal or proximal even when studies are clearly based on the contextual model (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham,
1992).
In spite of these inconsistencies, h is evident that both contexts make unique contributions to relationship outcomes. According to Bradbury and Fincham (1988), the contextual model can be refined by examining how the distal and proximal factors influence close relationships In particular, they suggest that individual differences in personaHty are reflected by interpersonal behaviors, which impact relationship quality
Overall, relatively few studies have tested mediation, and the resuhs to date have been inconsistent ((Bradbury & Fincham, 1988, 1989). This study further clarified the contextual model by examining how distal (i.e., personality) and proximal
(i.e., interpersonal behaviors) factors influence relationship satisfaction
In sum, ahhough there has been a considerable amount of research that has validated the Five Factor Model of personaHty, few studies have examined how these factors influence relationship dynamics and outcomes Key interpersonal competence behaviors have also been identified and there has been a significant amount of research that has examined how these behaviors influence outcomes Further, there has been little
81 research on the relationship between interpersonal competence behaviors and personality, and much of this research has been atheoretical Therefore, the contextual model may be useful in explaining how both personality and interpersonal behaviors contribute to relationship satisfaction. The present study examined these linkages in more detail
82 CHAPTER m
METHOD
Participants
Participants were soliched through verbal presentations to undergraduate classes at Texas Tech Univershy. Students who were currently or had previously been in a romantic relationship were given the opportunhy to complete the questionnaire Because the current study focused on ongoing dynamics of romantic relationships, only those participants who were currently in romantic relationships were selected for inclusion in tesfing of the hypotheses. A total of 204 (177 females & 27 males) were currently in romantic relationships. The number of male participants was too small to examine gender differences or draw any meaningftil conclusions about men's relationships, so they were deleted from further analysis.
The final sample was composed of women in romantic relationships The demographic characteristics of this sample are outHned in Table 1. The majorhy of respondents were Caucasian (85%), nine percent were Hispanic, four percent were
African-American, and less than 2% represented other racial groups A similar pattern of racial characteristics was reported about the respondents' partners The mean age of the respondents was 21.5 years and the mean age reported for their partners was 23 1 years
The majority of respondents indicated that they were in serious romantic relationships
83 Table 1. Demographic characteristics of sample
Mean Standard Range Deviation
Age of Participant 21.51 4.29 18-50
Relationship Length (in months) 29.23 33.18 1-265
Partner Age 23.06 5.26 18-55
Freq Percent Race Participant Caucasian 151 85.3 Hispanic 16 9.0 African-American 7 4.0 Asian-American 1 0.6 Muhi-racial I 06 Other 1 0,6 Partner Caucasian 147 83.1 Hispanic 21 11.9 Afhcan-Amencan 7 4.0 Multiracial 1 06 Other 1 0.6 Education Participant Freshman 41 23.2 Sophomore 42 23.7 Junior 50 28.2 Senior 44 24.9 Partner Freshman 25 14.1 Sophomore 41 23.2 Junior 24 13,6 Senior 37 20.9 Graduate Student 13 7.3 Other 37 20.9 Relationship Status Casually Dating 14 7.9 Steady Dating 107 60.5 Engaged 16 9,0 Cohabiting 8 4.5 Married 32 18 1
84 (steady dating=61%, engaged=9%, cohabhing=5%, and married=18°/o) The mean length of the relationships was 29,2 months
Measures
Demographic Questionnaire
A demographic questionnaire was designed for this study Respondents indicated their gender, age, race/ethnichy, educational level, relationship status, relationship length. and housing status The participants also identified the gender, age, educational level, and race/ethnicity of their partners.
Five Factor Model of PersonaHty
The Five Factor Model of Personality was assessed whh the NEO Five Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI, Costa & McCrae, 1992a) The NEO-FFI is a shortened version of the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PIR, Costa & McCrae, 1992a) and consists of 60 hems which assess (a) neuroticism, (b) extraversion, (c) agreeableness.
(d) conscientiousness, and (e) openness. Each personality trait was measured by a 12- hem subscale (e.g., for agreeableness, "I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate'")
Respondents rated on a five-point Likert scale the extent to which each hem describes them (1 = "strongly disagree," 5 = "strongly agree") A score for each personality trait was obtained by summing the subscale hems
85 The distribution of scores for each of the measures is displayed in Table 2
In the current study, the subscales demonstrated adequate internal consistency
(agreeableness, r=.73: conscientiousness, r=.77, extraversion, r= 81, neuroticism.
r=.84, openness, r= 72) This is consistent with resuhs reported by Watson and
Hubbard (1996) for the subscales (coefficient alphas = 78-87) The N'EO-FFI is
also a valid measure of personaHty. Costa and McCrae (1992a) reported high
correlations between the NEO-FFI and corresponding trait scales on the NEO-PIR
(r = .77-94). The NEO-PIR has been extensively tested and concurrent validhy
with other personality measures (e.g., Eysenck's Personality Scales. 1975. 1991:
Wiggin's Interpersonal Adjective Scales, McCrae & Costa, 1989b: California Q-
Set, McCrae et al. 1986) has been supported.
Interpersonal Competence
Interpersonal competence was assessed with the Interpersonal Competence
(Questionnaire (ICQ, Buhrmester et al., 1988). This measure was designed to assess
college students' interpersonal competence in close friendships and romantic
relationships. The 40-hem questionnaire consists of eight hems for each of the five
domains. As inhiation was not assessed in the present study, 32 hems of the scale were utilized to assess (a) self-disclosure, (b) assertion of displeasure, (c) emotional support,
and (d) conflict management Each hem of the ICQ describes an interpersonal behavior
(e.g., for emofional support, "I engaged in sensitive listening with a close companion who
86 Table 2. Distribution of scores for the distal, proximal, and relationship quality measures.
Factor Mean Standard Possible Actual Deviation Score Score Range Range Distal Factors Agreeableness 46.34 5.99 12-60 29-59
Conscientiousness 45.72 5.88 12-60 31-60
Extraversion 45.25 6.74 12-60 27-60
Neuroticism 33.80 8.01 12-60 13-54
Openness 37.42 6.45 12-60 23-55
Proximal Factors Assertion 32.31 5.29 8-40 16-40
Conflict Resolution 27.16 5.82 8-40 9-39
Self-disclosure 32.67 5.31 8-40 14-40
Emotional Support 34.59 4.07 8-40 23-40
Outcome Factors Satisfaction 12.77 2.60 3-15 3-15
Love 51.14 7.66 13-65 24-63
Liking 53,94 8.22 13-65 23-65
Commhment 32.93 4.91 7-35 14-35
87 was upset"). The respondents indicated on a five-pointLiker t scale their competence in handling the situation whh then- romantic partners (1 = "I am poor at this,'" 5 = I am extremely good at this"). A score for each of the domains was obtained by summing the subscale items.
These four subscales had adequate internal consistency in the present sample
(r=.82-.85). Buhrmester et al. (1988) reported adequate internal consistency for the subscales (r=.77-.86) in past research. Evidence for the validhy of the ICQ has also been obtained. The ICQ was positively related to the Dating and Assertiveness Questionnaire and negatively related to the Social Reticence Scale (Buhrmester et al., 1988)
Satisfaction
Satisfaction was assessed by the Kansas Marhal Satisfaction Scale (KMSS,
Schumm et al, 1986). The scale is composed of three items Schumm et al (1985) reported the scale has high internal consistency (coefficient alpha = 96) and criterion- related validhy based on the scale's abilhy to differentiate distressed from nondistressed wives. Concurrent validhy has also been reported. According to Schumm et al (1986), the KMSS is significantly correlated whh two other measures of marital adjustment
(i.e , Qualhy Marriage Index, Dyadic Adjustment Scale). The hems were modified in the present study to describe a romanfic relationship (e.g., "I am satisfied whh my relationship"). The respondents indicated on a five-point Likert scale (I = "strongly disagree," 5 = "strongly agree") the extent to which each item describes their
88 relationship The hems were summed to provide a relationship satisfaction score
Internal consistency of the scale was acceptable for the present study (r= 95)
Addhional Measures
Although not outlined in the hypotheses, the following factors were assessed for further analysis at a later date
Commhment
Commhment was assessed whh the Lund Commhment Scale (1985) The scale consists of nine hems that assess the respondents' degree of commhment to their relationship (e.g., "How conmiitted are you to your relationship") The respondents indicated on a five-pointLiker t scale (1 = "strongly disagree," 5 = "strongly agree") the extent to which each item describes their relationship. The hems were summed to obtain a commhment score Winn, Crawford, and Fischer (1991) reported high internal consistency for the scale (alpha = .95). In the current study, two items were removed to enhance internal consistency (alpha=.83, seven hem scale)
Love
Rubin's (1970) love and liking scale was used to assess love and liking for the relationship partner. This is a 26-item scale, half of the hems measure romantic love
(e.g., "I would do most anything for my partner") and half of the hems assess liking
89 (eg, "My partner is one of the most likeable people I know'"). The respondents indicated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree." 5 = "strongly agree") the extent to which they agreed whh each item. A total score was obtained for the subscales by summing the hems
Both subscales have adequate internal consistency in the present study
(love, r=.84, liking, r=.91) There is evidence for the validhy of both scales .•\ccording to Kurdek and Schmitt (1986), Hking is negatively related to relationship ahernatives and positively related to relationship attachment Validity of the love scale was supported by its ability to discriminate casual dating couples from exclusive dating, engaged, and married couples (Dion & Dion, 1976) Further, the love scale was significantly correlated with reports of being in love and the likelihood of marriage (Rubin, 1970)
Relationship Beliefs
The Relationship Beliefs Inventory (RBI, Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) was used to assess dysfunctional beliefs concerning close relationships Each hem of the RBI describes a specific relationship belief (eg , "If your partner expresses disagreement with your ideas, s/he probably does not think highly of you") According to Eidelson and
Epstein (1982), the scales have adequate internal consistency (disagreement is destructive, alpha =81, partners cannot change, alpha = 76) Evidence for the validity of the RBI has also been obtained The RBI is poshively correlated with the Irrational
90 Beliefs Test (Eiedlson & Epstein, 1982) and the Maudsley Marhal (Questionnaire [a measure of marhal maladjustment] (Emmelkamp, Krol, Sanderman, & Ruphan, 1987)
For the present study, the two subscales that reflect relationship assumptions w ere included (disagreement is destructive, partners caimot change) The hems were modified to reflect behefs concerning the respondent's current relationship. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale the extent to which they endorse each belief statement (1 = "strongly disagree," 5 = "strongly agree"). A single summarv- relationship assumptions score was created by summing the hems
Social Exchange Measures
Respondents were asked to identify the parent and best friend who has the most influence on their dating relationship and provide information about each person's age, gender, relationship to the respondent, and length of the relationship They were asked to complete the KMSS again, in reference to each of these network members The Social
Support and Hindrance Inventory (SSHI, Ruehlman & Wolchik, 1988) was used to assess social support and social interference from the exchange network Ruehlman and
Wolchik (1988) report adequate internal consistency for the support and interference scales (coefficient alpha = .88 and .85, respectively) Validhy for the scale has also been reported. Support is poshively correlated whh well-being, hindrance is inversely related to well-being, but positively related to stress (Ruehlman & Wolchik, 1988). The hems were specified in the present study to reflect support (eg, "seems pleased with the
91 development of the relationship") and interference (e.g., "makes me feel worse when I feel discouraged about the relationship") for the romantic relationship Respondents indicated on a five-pointLiker t scale the frequency of the network member "s behavior
(1 = "never," 5 = "always"). A score for each type of network response was created b\ summing the subscale hems.
The quality of the best available ahemative to the best friendrelationshi p was assessed using six items fromRusbuh' s (1983) social exchange scale (eg, "Compared to your most important person, how appeahng are your alternative relationships''")
Respondents indicated on a five-pointLiker t scale the ease of findingalternativ e network members (1 = "not at aU," 5 = "extremely"). A single ahernative score was created by summing the hems. Rusbuh (1983) reported adequate internal consistency (alpha = 85).
In the present study, an additional four hems were added to this scale
Procedure
The study was announced in classes and students who met the study criteria
(currently or previously in romantic relationships) were asked to participate
Participation was voluntary, those students who did not meet the crheria or did not wish to participate were dismissed before administration of the questionnaire Adequate time to complete the questionnaire was allowed during class Upon completion, the respondents returned the questionnaire to the investigator.
92 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Preliminarv Analvses
To assess the strength of association between the distal factors, proximal factors, and satisfaction, Pearson product-moment correlations were conducted This analysis was necessary to identify (a) the distal factors that were significantly related to both the proximal factors and satisfaction and (b) the proximal factors that were significantly related to satisfaction. Only those factors that met both of these crheria would be utilized in hypothesis testing. The correlation matrix is displayed in Table 3. The resuhs indicated that none of the proximal or distal factors are significantly related to satisfaction. Therefore, none of the hypotheses that addressed satisfaction could be tested.
To determine if the factors were related to any dimension of relationship qualhy, the cortelations were repeated to examine the association of the distal and proximal factors to three other outcome factors (commhment, loving, and liking). The correlation matrix is displayed in Table 4. The resuhs indicated that some of the distal (personality) and proximal (competence) factors were related to love, commitment, and liking As the broadest range of factors were related to liking, all further analyses were conducted with liking treated as the outcome factor As Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) suggested that liking is an indication of relationship quality, h seemed reasonable to utilize this factor in the supplementary analyses.
93 00 O O
-.0 4 o -.0 8 -.0 4 -.0 5 o
•X- * 00 m ON * ON O
.17 * o o 1
00
18 * O
00 21* * 22* * o o en
—
.31* * o o -.29* * .
vo m ON 00 c O -.0 6 -.19 * o o Vi ir> CD O O •*—> -.1 0 1 en * -o * C -.26* * 1/5 -.26* * * •X- o 00
m (N 17 * 13
2 o C3 c« 00 c o aB CA c Vi o t: c o c a, -2 C/5 C/5 o, 3 C U o 3 3 )_ C/2 C O s Vi fc • ^^ o o t/! o c o o •«-> c« O a> 13 _o c u O o c« •<—' v' o 0) ^> o -<—> c b o u a > C Di 0) "o C o .9 •X- «_ 13 en •X- tin c 3 ID c o E o ">< CO — S O B o O U O •>< < on O C/3 «$ +-> o w 3 v" -^ CN u O H m ir> oo' ON o 94 -X- m o o NO rf — r^ O o .19 * O CN O -.16 * -.0 7 -.23* * -.0 2 o * •X •X- •X CN ON ON CN O m CN .19 * .29* * .20* * .31* * .35* * 1 o .30* * •X NO o ON O 15 * o O .15 * o .16 * o .34* * O "^ r^ oo rj- in NO oo ^ O o o o o o o o 00 m t--- ON vo cd ON O -^ —< O O .42* * 3 .36* * .42* * •X- •X- in O 00 .21* * .18 * .22* * .37* * c -.0 8 o o -2 •X- -.29* * o a in ON 00 o VO O *-o» -.0 6 -.19 * o X •X- S * a, CN -.26* * -.26* * i' U. o o 17 * m 28* * 13 ••-' CN CN 00 c o B en C en O C 1/3 en en en 3 u S ^ 3 u. 1 O O c c CA c o E O +-» -f-< _o o t en .e»n en O E Licd- Q -5 c c^ cd v' o _0 71 ^ O en o 01 U 00 •X- o <»^ "^ ^ O S Trt ti S *-n -o E en > c •X- D en fd u, C3 in 13 H C ±2 3 CX g < U W c/5 00 o Ui . . . . 3 O — CN m Q <— ' UCN rWn -Z^ mO AH NO t^ 00 ON o •X- 95 Hypothesis Testing and Supplementarv .\nalyses The first hypothesis stated that the distal (personality) factors were associated whh the proximal (interpersonal competence) factors To test this hypothesis, the distal and proximal factors that were significantly related to each other and liking were selected for a series of regressions The correlational analysis indicated that agreeableness and conscientiousness were poshively related to emotional support (r= 21 and 18, respectively, p<.05), agreeableness and neuroticism were related to conflict resolution (r=.31 and -.29, respectively, p<.01), and neuroticism was negatively related to assertion (r=-. 19, p<.05). As the preliminary analysis indicated that extraversion and openness were not related to both competence behaviors and liking, these factors were not included in further analyses, consistent whh Baron and Kenny's (1986) model for mediation testing Therefore, the associations between agreeableness (hypothesis la). conscientiousness (hypothesis Ic), and neuroticism (hypothesis le) were tested Consistent whh Baron and Kenny (1986), a proximal factor was regressed on each distal factor separately. The resuhs of the regressions are displayed in Table 5 The first regression indicated that agreeableness accounted for 4% of the variance in emotional support (R2adj.= 04, F=7.90, p<.01) In the next regression, conscientiousness accounted for 3% of the variance in emotional support (R^adj.=.03, F=5.68, p< 02) The third regression indicated that agreeableness accounted for 10° o of the variance in conflict resolution (R2adj.= 09, F=18 89, p <.001) In the fourth regression, neuroticism accounted for 9% of the variance in conflict resolution (R^adj = 08, F=16 26. p<.001) In the last regression, neuroticism accounted for 4% of the variance m assertion (R'adj.= 03. 96 Table 5 Regressions of proximal factors on distal factors Type of Regression B SEB P Emotional Support Distal Factors Agreeableness .13 .05 .19* Conscientiousness .11 .05 .15* Conflict Resolution Distal Factors Agreeableness .25 .08 .25*** Neuroticism -.16 .05 -.23** Assertion Distal Factor Neuroticism -.13 .05 -.19* Note. R^ = .07 for support regressio n (ps < .01). R^ = .15 for conflict regressioin(ps < 001) R2 = .04 for assertion regression (ps < .05) *p<.05, **p<.01, •**p<.001. 97 F=6.35, p<,01). In these regressions, two of the distal factors (agreeableness and neuroticism) accounted for a sizeable amount of the variation in conflict resolution Thus, the first set of hypotheses was partially supported The second hypothesis stated that the distal factors would be related to satisfaction. As this set could not be tested, the distal factors that were significantly related to liking and the proximal factors were selected for a series of regressions to assess the distal-quality linkages. As shown in the correlational matrix in Table 4, liking was related to agreeableness (r=.19, p<.05), conscientiousness (r=.29, p< 01), and neuroticism (r=-. 19, p<.05); openness and extraversion were not included in any flirt her analyses. A regression equation was completed, in which all three distal factors were entered together. The resuhs of the regressions are displayed in Table 6 Collectively, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in liking (R2=. 12, R2adj.=. 10, F=7.60, p<.001). An examination of beta values indicated that conscientiousness was the only distal factor significantly related to liking (beta=.25, p<.001). Analysis of the squared semi-partial correlations indicated that neuroticism and agreeableness accounted for less than three percent of the unique variance in liking, but conscientiousness accounted for six percent of unique variance This suggested that conscientiousness played the most significant role in liking. These resuhs are consistent with the expected associations outlined in the second set of hypotheses 98 Table 6. Regression of liking on the distal factors. Distal Factors B SE B Agreeableness .19 .10 .14 Conscientiousness .35 .10 25*** Neuroticism -.10 .08 -09 Note. R^=12(ps<.00I) ***p<.001. 99 The third hypothesis stated that the proximal factors were related to satisfaction This hypothesis could not be tested, but the association between competence factors and liking was examined The proximal factors that were significantly related to the distal factors and liking were selected for inclusion in the analyses As reported in Table 4, liking was poshively associated whh assertion (r= 20. p< 01), conflict resolution (r= 31. p<.01). and emotional support (r=.35, p< 01); self-disclosure was excluded from any further analysis Consistent with Baron and Kenny (1986), a regression was conducted in which liking was regressed on all three proximal factors. The resuhs of the regression are displayed in Table 7 Collectively, assertion, conflict resolution, and emotional support accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in liking (R'= 16, R^adj = 15, F=l 1.15, p<.001) Conflict resolution and emotional support were significantly related to liking (beta= 21. p<.001; beta=.23, p<.001, respectively) .An analysis of the squared semi-partial correlations indicated that the three factors account for less than eight percent of unique variance in liking, suggesting that there is a substantial degree of shared variance This is not surprising, as all three factors represent dimensions of interpersonal competence These findings are supportive of the expected associations described in the third set of hypotheses The fourth h>pothesis stated that the relationship between the distal factors and satisfaction would be mediated by the proximal factors .\lthough this relationship could not be tested, mediation in the distal factors-liking relationship was examined The distal and proximal factors that were significantly related one another and to liking were 100 Table 7 Regression of liking on the proximal factors Proximal Factors B SE B Assertion .13 .12 09 Conflict Resolution .29 .11 .21** Emotional Support 47 .16 .23 ** Note. R^ = .16(ps<.00iy **P<.01. 101 included in a regression. In order to test for mediation, a forced entry two-step regression was conducted In the first step, liking was regressed on the proximal factors of assertion, conflict resolution, and emotional support The distal factors of agreeableness. conscientiousness, and neuroticism were entered as a block in the second step of the regression According to Baron and Kenny (1996), mediation would be supported if a previously significant relation between the distal factors and liking were no longer significant when the proximal factors were entered into the regression. The resuhs are reported in Table 8. The proximal factors accounted for 16°o of the variance in liking in the first step (R2adj.=. 15, F=l 1.15, p<.001). The distal factors accounted for an addhional 6% of the variance in liking (F change=4.14, p<.01) Taken together, the distal and proximal factors accounted for 22% of the variance in liking (R^adj =. 19). An analysis of the beta values indicated that conscientiousness was significantly related to liking after the proximal factors were controlled, and mediation was not supported. These findings are not consistent with the fourth hypothesis. To determine the unique contribution of conscientiousness in predicting liking, a stepwise regression was performed. In the first step, liking was regressed on agreeableness, neuroticism, assertion, conflict resolution, and emotional support After these factors were controlled, conscientiousness was entered into the equation to determine how much of the variance could be attributed to conscientiousness after controlling for the other distal and proximal factors The results indicated that 21% of the variance in liking was accounted for by the factors entered in the first step (R^= 19, F=10,29, p<.001). Conscientiousness was a significant predictor of liking 102 Table 8 Hierarchical regression of distal and proximal factors Regression on Hking B SE B P Stepl Proximal Factors Assertion .10 .12 .07 Conflict Resolution .25 11 .18' Emotional Support .40 .16 20' Step 2 Distal Factors Agreeableness .01 .10 .06 Conscientiousness .30 .10 22** Neuroticism .00 .08 -.04 Note R2 = .16 for Step 1; AR^ = .06 for Step 2 (ps<.01) *P<.05. **p<.01. 103 (beta=.22, p<.01), accounting for an addhional 5% of the variance in liking (F change=l 18, p<.001). These resuhs suggest that conscientiousness contributed unique variance to liking after controlling for the distal and proximal factors Hence, conscientiousness was directly related to liking, and mediation between these two factors was not supported. In sum, h appears that personality characteristics, namely agreeableness and neuroticism, make a significant contribution to conflict resolution Further, the distal factor of conscientiousness and the proximal factors of conflict resolution and emotional support make significant contributions to Hking for romantic partners These findings provide some support for Bradbury and Fincham's (1988) argument that both distal and proximal factors influence relationship qualhy The mediating relationship suggested in the contextual model was not supported Rather, h appears that the factors assessed in the present study make unique and dh-ect contributions to relationship outcomes 104 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This study examined the linkages between personality factors, interpersonal competence behaviors, and relationship quality. Prior studies have examined these factors in isolation, but relatively few have explored the associations between these factors This study enhances our understanding of romantic relationships by examining the contribution of both distal and proximal factors simuhaneously. Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths The first strength of this study was the inclusion of both personaHty and interpersonal competence factors. Much of the prior research on romantic relationships has looked at how ehher individual differences or interpersonal behaviors influence relationship outcomes (Kelly & Conley, 1987). The resuhs of this study indicated that both individual (i.e., conscientiousness) and interpersonal factors (i.e., emotional support) affect liking. This highlights the importance of mutual consideration of distal and proximal factors. A second strength was the use of the contextual model as a frameworkt o guide the research. Much of the past research on romantic relationships has been atheoretical in nature (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988) The contextual model provided a rationale for selection of the factors to be examined as well as a way to understand indirect 105 (mediating) effects This promoted the examination of linkages between personality, interpersonal behavior, and relationship quality Another strength of this study was the utilization of the Five Factor Model of PersonaHty to assess the distal context. Extensive research has been conducted to create and validate this model (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), but few studies have previously examined this model in relation to romantic relationships This study expanded upon prior research by enhancing our understanding of how personaHty factors are related to interpersonal behaviors. It also provided information concerning how these personality trahs contribute to relationship quality. The fourth strength lies in the examination of muhiple interpersonal behaviors Although self-disclosure and conflict resolution have been the focus of numerous studies (Gottman, 1993; Sprecher, 1987), assertion and emotional support have received relatively little attention in the romantic relationship literature. As these two behaviors are considered important dimensions of interpersonal competence (Buhrmester et al., 1988), h seemed important to assess how they affect romantic relationships This study broadened our understanding of these interpersonal behaviors in relation to personality and relationship quality. Weaknesses Although this study had several strengths, there were also some weaknesses that warrant discussion. First, this study examined a limhed range of distal factors Ahhough the Five Factor Inventory has received considerable support as a reliable and valid measure, h is a global measure that was designed to measure personaHty at the highest 106 hierarchical level (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, Watson & Hubbard, 1996). This may have resuhed in a limited view of the role of personaHty in romantic relationships Additional assessment of more specific domains of personality, such as impulsiveness and tender mindedness (Costa & McCrae, 1992), would provide addhional insight into these relationships. Other types of distal factors could also be examined For example, past research has indicated that affective states such as mood and depression are associated with relationship qualhy (Forgas, Levinger, & Moylan, 1994; Sprecher, 1986), although their association whh interpersonal competence has received relatively less attention The range of interpersonal behaviors measured in this study was somewhat limhed as well; only four interpersonal competence behaviors were examined More specifically, the respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they are able to handle a typical situation in their romantic relationship ("Being a good and senshive listener when your partner is upset"). This type of general question was appropriate to the time/space limhations of this study, but risked that the respondents would make generalizations or interpretations about the questions that may not be represented in the same way in more detailed assessments (Converse & Presser, 1990). In addhion, other proximal behaviors could be examined For instance, past research has indicated that negatively valenced behaviors (e.g., criticism, complaining, and manipulation) influence relationship satisfaction (Huston & Vangelisti, 1991, Lloyd, 1987) Clearly, further assessment would broaden our knowledge of the types of behaviors that are important to relationship functioning A third weakness is reflected in limhations of the sample The participants were college undergraduates This is an appropriate sample in which to examine romantic 107 relationships, as relationship development is one of the prominent events of young aduhhood Research, however, has shown that there are differential associations between emotional behaviors and satisfaction among younger and older couples (Carstensen, Gottman, & Levenson, 1995) It is possible that the influence of personaHty or the dynamics of interpersonal behaviors differ across stages of aduhhood and such changes would not be identified in the present study. The sample was also limhed in its representation of racial/ethnic groups The subjects were predominately Causasion, only 15% of the subjects were from other racial groups As noted by Oggins, Veroff, and Leber (1993), there exist racial differences in relationship interactions (e.g., frequency of self-disclosure and disagreement), and such differences may influence relationship quality. The relative contribution of such behaviors in racially diverse samples could not be examined in the present study Similarly, this study was not able to examine gender differences. Because the number of male subjects was limhed, they were eliminated from the analyses Since past research has shown gender differences exist in distal and proximal factors (Fincham & Bradbury. 1989), h is important to examine both males and females The lack of male respondents prohibhed such an examination. Fourth, a self-report method was utilized for this study This seemed the most appropriate means of gathering the data for this sample, but there are some inherent risks (e.g., misinterpretation, memory distortion) of this method To limh these risks, the following steps were taken: (a) specific instructions were given for each section of the questionnaire, and (b) an investigator or assistant was available during all data collection times to answer any respondent quesfions 108 Finally, the measure of satisfaction may not have adequately assessed this dimension of relationship qualhy. The scale had high internal consistency and past research has indicated that h is a valid measure (Schumm et al., 1985) It is puzzling that satisfaction was unrelated to any personality or interpersonal competence factors in the present study. This is inconsistent with other studies that have indicated that such factors do affect relationship satisfaction (Kelly & Conley, 1987, Noller et al. 1994. Russell & Wells, 1994, Vera & Betz, 1992). One possible explanation for the resuhs of the current study is that the range of satisfaction scores was too restricted to capture the association between predictor variables and this outcome factor The majority of respondents (75.1%) had a satisfaction score within the range 12-15 on a 15-point scale Thus, the satisfaction score reached a ceiling effect which made any meaningftil analysis difficult Given that past research supports the premise that satisfaction should be affected by distal and proximal factors, further consideration of the satisfaction measure seems warranted. For example, the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) is a brief (three hem) unidimensional measure of satisfaction. It is possible that a lengthier measure of safisfaction that assesses muhiple dimensions of satisfaction, such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, would have more accurately assessed the variation in satisfaction Addhionally, the high face validity of the KMSS may have contributed to a response bias Since h is obvious what the scale is measuring, h is possible that the participants responded in a socially desirable manner and inflated their reports of relationship satisfaction. Alternatively, h is possible that the participants accurately reported their level of satisfaction, the study may reflect a self-selection bias in which individuals that are highly satisfied may have been more willing to participate in the study On the other 109 hand, such respondent bias may have been Hmhed as no one who was given the opportunity to participate in the study declined to do so .Also, the broader range and distribution of scores on the other measures of relationship qualhy would indicate that any such bias was Hmited to the measure of satisfaction Clearly further analysis of relationship satisfaction is warramed, and the resuhs of this study should be considered with these limitations in mind Interpretation of the Findings The first hypothesis stated that the distal (personality) factors would be related to the proximal (interpersonal competence) factors Specifically, h was hypothesized that agreeableness would be poshively related to emotional support, self-disclosure, and conflict resolution (hypothesis la) This hypothesis was partially supported, agreeableness was positively associated with emotional support and conflict resolution, but not related to self-disclosure Past research has indicated that aspects of agreeableness are related to both of these interpersonal behaviors (Hill, 1991: Buhrmester et al, 1988) It is reasonable to assume that agreeable persons engage in behaviors such as emotional support and conflict resolution in order to maintain a poshive emotional climate in their relationships (Kentle, 1994) It also seemed appropriate to expect agreeable individuals to self-disclose for the same reasons, but this trait was unrelated to self-disclosure One possible explanation is that agreeable people may not perceive that self-disclosure is a primary means to achieve then- relational goals, or that these goals can be more easily achieved for them through other relational behaviors, such as emotional support Alternatively, h is possible that intimate self-disclosure (eg., "I let my partner know the 110 "real" me, "I told my partner about the things that secretly make me anxious or afraid'") may present a risk of unpleasant social interactions, which would be contrarv' to agreeableness The first hypothesis also stated that extraversion would be poshively related to self- disclosure and assertiveness (hypothesis lb). As extraversion did not meet the condhions for testing mediation, this factor was excluded from the regression analyses The preliminary correlational analysis indicated that extraversion was poshively related to self-disclosure, but unrelated to assertion. Past research has indicated that extraversion is associated with both of these behaviors (Buhrmester et al, 1988) Extraverted individuals would be expected to prefer social interaction (McCrae, 1990), and thus would have a tendency to self-disclose to theh* partner It is unclear why extraversion was unrelated to assertion because extraverted individuals are often assertive and gregarious (Costa et al, 1991), It may be that the global measure of personaHty used in this study did not tap the assertive dimensions of extraversion. There was also an unpredicted positive association between extraversion and emotional support This finding was not expected, but one possible explanation may be that extraverted individuals value warmth and positive emotions and engage in emotional support to facilhate these relational characteristics Another of the first set of hypotheses stated that conscientiousness would be poshively associated whh assertion and conflict resolution (hypothesis Ic) This hypothesis was not supported Although there has been relatively little research on the role of conscientiousness in relationships, h has been linked to assertion and conflict resolution (Bouchard et al ,1988, Sternberg & Soriano, 1984) It is unclear why this 111 study failed to support prior research. One possible explanation is that as assertion and and conflict resolution are associated with addressing relationship problems, it is feasible that conscientious women engage in preventive activhies, such as whhholding relational irritafion (e.g.. Cloven & Roloflf, 1994) which may reduce the importance of more interventive behaviors (e.g., conflict resolution). An unpredicted finding emerged, in that conscientiousness was positively associated whh emotional support If the preventive component of relational functioning is accurate, then h makes sense that conscientious individuals might be highly attuned to their partner' emotional states and respond accordingly by providing support The first set of hypotheses also stated that openness would be poshively related to self-disclosure (hypothesis Id). As openness did not meet the condhion for testing mediation, this factor was excluded from the regression analyses Openness has been typified as receptiveness to new ideas and experiences (McCrae. 1990), therefore h seemed likely that more open individuals would engage in more disclosure about these experiences. A previous study supported this hypothesis (Bouchard et al, 1988), but a similar pattern was not evident in this research One possible explanation is that the current study failed to assess adequately the specific dimensions of self-disclosure that are associated with openness Another possibilhy is that openness is more strongly related to disclosure receipt than disclosure provision. For example, open individuals may be more interested in learning about other's experiences than sharing their own viewpoints. Further, since the respondents in the current study had been in relationships for a mean of 2.5 years, h is possible that openness may have had its greatest impact early in the relationship and hs association with self-disclosure is less relevant at this stage 112 For example, openness may be more critical in attraction and inhiation when partners are first sharing personal information or engaging in novel experiences together If relational interactions become routine, then openness may be played out in other areas of the individual's Hfe. The last of the first set of hypotheses (le) stated that neuroticism would be negatively associated whh self-disclosure, emotional support, assertion, and conflict resolution. This hypothesis was partially supported, neuroticism was negatively related to assertion and conflict resolution, but unrelated to self-disclosure and emotional support. The associations with assertion and conflict are consistent with past research (e.g., Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995, Olinger et al, 1987). It seems reasonable to expect that individuals who are anxious and hostile would engage in less effective problem- solving strategies. It was somewhat surprising that neuroticism was not inversely related to disclosure or support It seemed reasonable that more neurotic individuals would engage in less disclosure whh their partners. One possible explanation is that the measure of disclosure failed to adequately distinguish the types of disclosure exhibhed in relationships. For example, neuroticism may be associated whh greater rates of negatively valenced self-disclosure, but unrelated to prosocial disclosure and the competence measure failed to assess disclosure valence Similarly, this characteristic may be unrelated to emotional support because neurotic individuals may be focused on their own emotional experiences and are either (a) less able to detect their partners needs for emotional support, or (b) less willing/able to respond to such needs The second set of hypotheses stated that the distal factors would be associated with satisfaction The first of these hypotheses stated that agreeableness, extraversion, 113 conscientiousness, and openness would be poshively related to satisfaction (hypothesis 2a) These hypotheses could not be tested with the outcome of satisfaction Supplementary analysis was conducted to assess the association between these factors and liking, as such relationships would be consistent with the premise of this hypothesis Liking was poshively associated whh agreeableness and conscientiousness, but unrelated to extraversion and openness. The association whh agreeableness is consistent with past research indicating that this trait contributes to relationship qualhy (Kelly &. Conley, 1987). In contrast, there has been little research on conscientiousness and relationship qualhy. It seems reasonable to expect that conscientious individuals would put a great deal of effort into maintaining the relationship or meeting their partners' needs, which may contribute to their liking for their partner. For instance, extraverts may seek to create a relational context which allows them to express assertiveness and gregariousness (i.e., Costa & McCrae, 1992), but these relational processes may focus on their own needs and promote little consideration for their partners. In this context, extraversion may have little association whh evaluations of partner liking Alternatively, extraversion may play a more prominent role in relationship formation, but this may become less important as the relationship develops The fact that openness was unrelated to liking makes sense when viewed in the context of openness to new ideas and experiences which would seem to have little impact on liking of a relationship partner The second set of hypotheses also stated that neuroticism would be negatively associated whh satisfaction (hypothesis 2b); this hypothesis could not be tested The relationship between neuroticism and another dimension of quality, namely liking, was 114 examined Neuroticism was negatively associated with liking, which was consistent whh past research (Kurdek, 1993). Given the negative affective states associated with neuroticism, h is not surprising that this trait would be associated with less liking for the partner. The third hypothesis stated that the proximal factors would be related to satisfaction. Since this hypothesis could not be tested with satisfaction, the relations between liking and the proximal factors was examined Consistent with the hypothesis, the resuhs indicated that the dimensions of interpersonal competence (emotional support, conflict resolution, and assertion) were poshively related to liking Given that these are prosocial behaviors that may contribute to the relational environment, it makes sense that they would be related to liking Further, individuals that like their partners may be more motivated to engage in positively-valenced behaviors The fourth hypothesis stated that the distal factors would be indirectly related to satisfaction, and that this relationship would be mediated by the proximal factors Since this hypothesis could not be tested with satisfaction, liking was utilized as an assessment of relationship quality. In this analysis, the distal factor of conscientiousness was directly related to liking, even after the proximal factors were controlled, the proximal factors did not mediate the relationship between conscientiousness and liking This is consistent with prior research which indicated that conscientiousness influences relationship qualhy (Kurdek, 1993), but h was somewhat surprising that the proximal factors did not significantly affect this relationship This may speak to the strength of the association between conscientiousness and liking Perhaps conscientious individuals are rather particular in their selection of relationship partners and liking is a reflection of their 115 efforts to create and maintain a gratifying relationship This affection for the partner may be independent of their utilization of prosocial behaviors Alternatively, the conscientiousness-liking relationship may be mediated by maintenance behaviors, but those particular behaviors were not assessed in this study. The other distal factors, agreeableness and neuroticism, did not demonstrate independent effects after controlling the proximal factors These factors accounted for relatively little variance in liking when entered independently Therefore, the effects may simply be too small to examine adequately whether mediation by the proximal factors does in fact exist. In sum, the resuhs of this study indicated that elements in the distal and proximal contexts were related to one another and to liking for the partner More importantly, the distal factor of conscientiousness was directly related to liking (rather than indirectly related, as was presumed). This suggests that there may be other additional elements at work in this relationship that were not tested, or perhaps the contextual model is in need to further refinement Clearly, further research is needed to elucidate the interactions between the contexts. Future Directions First, a more heterogeneous sample might provide information concerning how demographic characteristics influence the relations between personaHty, interpersonal competence, and relationship quality For example, past research has found that gender differences in interpersonal behaviors such as self-disclosure influence relationship quality (Sprecher, 1987). Such differences could not be examined in the present study 116 Future research should examine how these factors are associated in both men and women's relationships. Raciayethnic diversity would also increase the heterogenehy of the sample. Although there are some personaHty differences across cultures (Vang & Bond, 1990), few studies have examined how racial and ethnic differences in personality relate to the other domains Further study should examine how well the contextual model explains the contributions of distal and proximal factors to relationship quality across cultural groups. Second, age is another aspect of the sample that would benefit from more diverse representation. Perhaps older individuals employ a different set of interpersonal competence behaviors than younger persons Addhionally, these behaviors may be differentially valued across the lifespan of romantic relationship development Therefore, fijrther studies should examine these interpersonal dimensions across a broader range of relationships. Third, muhimethod studies would allow for a broader and perhaps more detailed perspective on personality traits and interpersonal competence behaviors. Data obtained from partners would provide a more complete perspective on the relationship dynamics between romantic partners. Other types of data collection may also increase our understanding of relationship functioning. For example, interviews would enable researchers to gather a more detailed description of how respondents perceive their personal traits or interpersonal behaviors influence relationship qualhy than can be obtained by a brief questionnaire. Likewise, observations of partner interactions would increase the information gained, as researcher could examine differences in outsider (raters) and insider (relationship partners) perspectives on the relational exchanges Further, daily or event-based assessment of interpersonal behaviors would provide the 117 addhional benefit of allowing researchers to track small discrete changes in competence behaviors that occur in relational interactions. Lastly, future research should conduct repeated assessment over time [longitudinal research] to examine relative changes in the contributions of distal and proximal factors to relationship quality It would also be informative to examine a broader range of distal factors A more detailed measure of personality may distinguish between the global trahs measured in this study and other personality characteristics that are important to relationship functioning It is also likely that other distal factors, such as mood states or relational beliefs (Forgas et al, 1994, Baucom et al., 1996), affect behaviors and romantic outcomes These types of distal factors likely contribute to a relationship paradigm from which behaviors are processed. Future research should include a wide range of personal factors to determine how the distal context influences behavior and relationship quality. The proximal context could also be expanded by including other types of behavior It seems appropriate to expect that negative behaviors, such as whining or criticism, impact relationship fimctioning as well (Huston & Vangelisti, 1991) It would also be prudent to include such variables as attributions. According to Fincham and Bradbury (1989), these transient thoughts and feelings are likely to be a function of specific interpersonal events and influence subsequent relational dynamics Such research would enhance our understanding of the proximal context and how h influences other relationship factors. Finally, future research may be enhanced by the utilization of other conceptual models. For example, symbolic interactionism might guide studies of the generation of relational paradigms that affect relationship functioning (eg., Knudson, 1985) Similarly, 118 developmental theory would help us to understand the relative contribution of personaHty characteristics and interpersonal behaviors to relationship progressions (Levinger, 1983) In sum, this study has made a contribution to the understanding of romantic relationships It has clarified how personality and interpersonal competence are related to liking of the partner. This study suggests that conscientiousness is directly related to liking. Addhionally, interpersonal competence behaviors are related to liking, but do not mediate the relationship between personality and liking for this sample Further testing of the contextual model will likely heighten our comprehension of the linkages between distal, proximal, and outcome factors 119 REFERENCES Asher, S R (1983) Social competence and peer status Recent advances and future dh-ections Child Development, 54. 1427-1434 Barbee. A P . Cunningham. M R , Winstead, B A , Deriega, \' J . Gulley. M R . Yankeelov. PA. and Druen, P B (1993) Effects of gender role expectations or. the social support process Journal of Social Issues. 49, 175-189 Barclay. J R (1991) Psychological assessment .A. theory and systems approach Malabar. FL: Krieger Publishing Co. Barker, C, & Lemle. R. (1984) The helping process in couples American Journal of Community Psychology, 12(3). 321-336. Baron, R M , & Kermy. D. A (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6). 1173-1182 Baucom, D. K., Epstein, N , Rankin, L. A. & Burnett, C K (1996) .Assessing relationship standards The Inventory of Specific Relationship Standards Journal of Family Psychology. 10. "2-88, Berg, J. H. & Mc()uinn, R. D (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and noncontinuing dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50(5). 942-95^2 Berger. C R . & Bell, R A. (1988) Plans and the initiation of social relationships Human Communication Research. 15(2). 217-235 Bolger. N . & Zuckerman, A (1995) A framework for studying personaHty in the stress process Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 890-902 Borkenau, P , & Ostendorf, F (1990) Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis a study on the 5-factor model of personally Personality and Individual Differences. 11(5). 515-524 Bouchard, M . Lalonde, F , & Gagnon, M. (1988) The construct validity of assertion Contributions of four assessment procedures and Norman's personality factors Journal of Personalitv, 56(4). 763-783. 120 Boyle, G. J (1989) Re-examination of the major personality-tvpe faaors in the Cattell. Comrey, and Eysenck Scales Were the factor solution by Noller et al optimaP Personality and Individual Differences, 10(12). 1289-1299 Boyum, L A , & Parke, R. D (1995) The role of family emotional expressiveness in the development of children's social competence Journal of Marriage and the Family. 57. 593-608 Bradbury, T N . & Fincham, F d (1987) Affect and cognition in close relationships Towards and integrative model Cognition and Emotion. 1, 59-87. Bradbur>'. T N , & Fincham, F D (1988) Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework Journal of Personality and Social Psychology-, 54(4). 713-721 Bradbury, T. N . & Fincham, F D (1989) Behavior and satisfaction in marriage Prospective mediating processes Review^ of PersonaHty and Social Psychology. 10, 119-143 Bradbur>', T. N , & Fincham, F D (1991) A contextual model for advancing the study of marital interaction In G J O Fletcher & F D Fincham (Eds ). Cognition in close relationships (pp 127-147) Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum Bradbury. T N . & Fincham, F D. (1992) Attributions and behavior in marital interaction Journal of Personality and Social Psychology-. 63(4). 613-628 Bradbury-. T. N . & Fincham, F D (1993) Assessing dysfunctional cognhion in marriage: A reconsideration of the Relationship Belief Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 5(1). 92-101 Briggs, S R (1992) .Assessing the Five-Factor Model of personaHty description Journal of Personality. 60(2). 253-293 Buhrmester, D (1996) Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental contexts of early adolescent friendship In W M Bukowski. A F Newcomb, and W W Hartup (Eds ). The company they keep Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp 158-185) Cambridge University Press Buhrmester. D.. Furman, W . Wittenberg, M T . & Reis. H T (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoev. 55(6). 991-1008 - tatj Buss, D M (1992) Manipulation in close relationships Five personality factors in interactional context Journal of Personalhv. 60, 477-499 121 Campbell, M . Steffen, J J.. & Langmeyer, D (1981) Psychological androgvnv and social competence Psychological Reports, 48. 611-614 Carmines, E G. & ZeHer, R A. (1979) Rehabilitv' and validhy assessment In J L Sullivan (Series Ed ). C^ianthative applications in the social sciences, series no 07-017 Newbury Park, CA: Sage Carsten, 1 L . Gottman, J M., & Levenson, R W (1995) Emotional behavior in long- term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 140-149 Cate, R. M . & Lloyd, S. (1992) Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Cate, R. M.. Koval, J . Lloyd, S. A., & Wilson, G (1995) .Assessment of relationship thinking in dating relationships Personal Relationships. 2. 77-95 Cattell, R. B. (1946) The description and measurement of personality Yonkers, NY World Book. Chelune, G. J (976) The Self-Disclosure Situation Survey: A new approach to measuring self-disclosure Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology. 6. 111- 112 Chelune, G J , Sultan, F. E.. & WiUiams, C. L. (1980) Loneliness, self-disclosure, and interpersonal effectiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 27(5). 462-468 Church, A T, & Katigbak, M. S. (1989). Internal, external, and self-report structure of personaHty in a non-western culture: An investigation of cross-language and cross-cultural generalizabilhy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 857-872, Cloven, D , & Roloff, M, e, (1994) A developmental model of decisions to withhold relational irrhations in romantic relationships Personal Relationships, 1. 143-164 Converse, J M., & Presser. S. (1990) Survey questions: Handcrafting the Standardized C^jestionnaire Newbury- Park, CA Sage. Costa, P, T . & McCrae, R R (1976) Age differences in personaHty structure A cluster analytic approach Journal of Gerontology, 31, 564-570. Costa, P T , & McCrae, R. R (1980) Still stable after all these years Personality as a key to some issues in aduhhood and old age. In P B Baltes & O G Brim Jr (Eds ). Life span development and behavior (Vol 3) New York: .Academic 1 ^'> Costa, P T , iS: McCrae, R R (1985) The N'EO Personalitv Inventory Manual Form S and Form R Odessa, FL: Psychological .Assessment Resources Costa, P T , & McCrae, R R. (1988) From catalog to classification Murray's needs and the Five-Factor Model Journal of Personalhv and Social Psvcholoev, 55(2). 25S- 265. Costa, P T , & McCrae, R R (1992a) Revised NTO Personality Inventory (NTO-PIR) and NTO Five-Factor Inventory- (NTO-FFI) professional manual Odessa. FL Psychological Assessment Resources Costa, P, T., & McCrae. R. R. (1992b) Four ways five factors are basic PersonaHty and Individual Differences, 13(6). 653-665 Costa, P T., & McCrae. R R (1995) Primary traits of Eysenck's P-E-N System Three and five-factor solutions. Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology-. 69(2). 308-317. Costa, P T . McCrae, R R., & Dye. D A. (1991) Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the N'EO Personality Inventory PersonaHty and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898 Covey. M. K.. & Dengerink, H A (1984). Development and validation of a measure of heterosocial conflict resolution ability (Relational Behaviors Survey) Behavioral .Assessment. 6. 323-332 Davis, M H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships: Empathy and relational competence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2). 397-410. Delamater. R. J . & McNamara, J. R. (1986) The social impact of assertiveness Behavior Modification, 10(2). 139-158 De Raad, B. & Hoskens, M (1990) Personahty-descriptive nouns European Journal of Personality, 4, 131-140 Digman, J M (1989. November). Factor redux: Re-analvses of studies of child personality. In O P John (Chair). The Big Five Historical perspective and current research symposium conducted at the annual meeting to the Society for Muhivariate Experimental Psychology, Honolulu Digman, J M (1990) Personality structure Emergence of the five-factor model .Annual Review of Psychology, 41. 417-440 123 Digman, J. M, & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50(1), 116-123 Digman, J. M, & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personaHty: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies Muhivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149-170. DiLorenzo, T M., Edelstein, B A , Carr, W. T., Pbert. L , Heiden, L , & Selby, \' C (1990). A functional assessment of heterosocial initiation behaviors in aduhs Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 12(1), 67-79 Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1976). Love, liking and trust in heterosexual relationships PersonaHty and Social Psychology Bullefin, 2, 191-206 Duck, S. (1991). Understanding relationships New York: Guilford Press Dunkel-Schetter, C, & Skokan, L. A. (1990). Determinants of social support provision in personal relationships Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 437-450 Eidelson, R. J, & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognhionand relationship maladjustment Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal of Consuhing and Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 715-720. Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Krol, B., Sanderman, R., & Ruphan, M (1987). The assessment of relationship beliefs in a marital context. Personalhy and Individual Differences, 8, 775-780. Eysenck, H. J, & Eysenck, S B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University Press. Eysenck, H. J, & Eysenck, S. B. G (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego: EdlTS Filsinger, E. E , & Wilson, M R. (1983). Social anxiety and marhal adjustment Family Relations, 32, 513-519. Fincham, F. D , & Bradbury, T N. (1989). The impact of attributions in marriage: An individual difference analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 69-85. Fletcher, G. O, & Fhness, J. (1990) Occurrent social cognition in close relationship interaction: The role of proximal and distal variables Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 59(3), 464-474. 124 Forgas, J , Levinger, G., & Moylan, S (1994) Feeling good and feeling close Affective influences on the perception of intimate relationships Personal Relationships, 1. 165-184. Goldberg, L. R. (1983, June). The magic number five, plus or minus two: Some conjectures on the dimensionalhy of personaHty descriptions Paper presented at a research seminar, Gerontology Research Center, Bahimore, MD Goldberg, L. R (1990). An ahemative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. Gottlieb, B. H. (1985). Social support and the study of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 351-375 Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples Journal of Consuhing and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6-15 Gottman, J. M, & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and heahh. Journal of Personalhy and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221-233. (jraziano, W. G, Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E C. (1996) Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820-835. Gruen, R. J., Gwadz, M., & Morrobel, D (1994) Support, criticism, emotion, and depressive symptoms: Ciender differences in the stress-depression relationship Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 619-624 Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Muhivariate data analysis (2nd ed ) New York: MacMillan Hendrick. S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marhal satisfaction Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1150-1159. Hill, C. A. (1991). Seeking emotional support: The influence of affiliative need and partner warmth. Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 60( 1). 112-121 Hull, D. B, & Schroeder, H E. (1979) Some interpersonal effects of assertion, nonassertion, and aggression Behavior Therapy, 10, 20-28 125 Hutson, T L., & Vangelisti, A L. (1991) Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study Journal of Personalhy and Social Psychology, 61(5), 721-733 John, O. P. (1990). The "Big five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires In L Pervin (Ed), Handbook of personaHty theory and research (pp. 66-100) New York Guilford John, O. P., Anglehner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988) The lexical approach to personalhy A historical review of trait taxonomic research European Journal of PersonaHty, 2, 171-203. Johnson, J. H., Butcher, J N., NuU, C, & Johnson, K. N (1984) Replicated hem level factor analysis of the full MMPI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 105-114. Johnson, R., Hobfoll, S. E, & Zalcberg-Linetzy, A. (1993) Social support knowledge and behavior and relational intimacy: A dyadic study Journal of Family Psychology, 6(3), 266-277. Jourard, S. M. (1971). The transparent self Self-disclosure and well-being Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand. Jung, J. (1987) Toward a social psychology of social support Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 57-83. Jung, J. (1988) Social support providers: Why do they help*^ Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9(3), 231-240. Kaczmarek, P., Backlund, B , & Biemer, P (1990). The Dynamics of ending a romantic relationship: An empirical assessment of grief in college students Journal of College Student Development, 31, 319-324 Kelly, E. L. (1940). A 36-trah personality rating scale Journal of Psychology, 9, 97-102 Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J J. (1987) Personality and compatibilhy: a prospective analysis of marhal stabilhy and marhal satisfaction Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 52, 27-40 Kelly, J. A , Kern, J. M , Kirkley, B G., Patterson, J. N., & Keane, T M (1980). Reactions to assertive versus unassertive behavior: Differential effects for males and females and implications for assertiveness training Behavior Therapy, 11, 670-682 126 Kentle, R. L (1994) An examination of five personality factors Personalhv and Individual Differences, 16. 793-798 Kern, J M., & Paquette, R. J (1992) Reactions to assertion in "controlled" naturalistic relationships Perceptions of likabilhy and competencv Behavior Modification. 16(3), 372-386. Knudson, R. (1985) Marital compatibility and mutual identity confirmation In W Ickes (Ed), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp 233-251) New York Springer-\'erlag. Kurdek, L. A. (1991a). Marital stabilhy and changes in marhal quality in newlywed couples: A test of the contextual model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 27-48 Kurdek, L. A. (1991b) Predictors of increases in marital distress in newlywed couples A 3-year prospective longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology-, 2^(4), 62""- 636 Kurdek, L. A (1991c) Correlates of relationship satisfaction in cohavhing gay and lesbian couples: Integration of contextual, investment, and problem-solving models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 910-922 Kurdek, L. A. (1992) Relationship stabilhy and relationship satisfaction in cohabhing gay and lesbian couples: A prospective longitudinal test of the contextual and interdependence models Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 125- 142. Kurdek, L. A (1993). Predicting marhal dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 64(2), 221-242, Kurdek, L, A, & Schmitt, J P. (1986) Relationship qualhy of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabhing. and gay and lesbian relationships Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(4). 711-720. Lamke, L.K . Sollie, D. L . Durbin. R G . & Fitzpatrick. J A. (1994) Masculinity, femininity, and relationship satisfaction: The mediating role of interpersonal competence Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 535-554 Levinger, G (1983) Development and change In H Kelley. E Berscheid, .A Christensen, J Harvey, T Huston, G Levinger, E McClintock, L Peplau, & D Peterson (Eds ), Close relationships (pp 315-359) New York W H Freeman 127 Lewis, P N , & Gallois. C (1984) Disagreements, refusals, or negative feelings Perception of negatively assertive messages from fiiends and strangers Beha\ior Therapy, 15,353-368 ' Lloyd. S. (1987). Conflict in premarital relationships Differential perception of males and females Familv Relations, 36, 290-294 Lloyd, S (1990) A behavioral self-report technique for assessing conflict in close relationships Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 7, 265-272 Lloyd, S , & Cate, R (1985) The developmental course of conflict in dissolution of premarital relationships Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2. 179-194 Lohr, J. M . Nix. J.. Dunbar. D . & Mosesso, L (1984). The relationship of assertive behavior in women and a validated measure of hrational beliefs Cognhive Therapy and Research, 8(3), 287-297. Lowe, M R , & Storm, M. .A (1986) Being assertive or being liked A genuine dilemma Behavior Modification, 10(4). 371-390. Lund. M (1985) The development of investment and commhment scales for predicting continuity of personal relationships Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2.3-23. McCrae. R R (1989) Why I advocate the five-factor model Joint analyses of the NTO- PI and other instruments In D M Buss & N Cantor (Eds ). Personalitv psychology^: Recent trends and emerging direction (pp 237-245) New York Springer-\'erlag McCrae. R R. (1996) Social consequences of experiential openness Psychological Bulletin, 120(3). 323-337 McCrae. R. R.. & Costa, P T (1985) Updating Norman's "Adequate Taxonomy" Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 710-721 McCrae, R R , & Costa, P T.. Jr (1987) Validation of the five-factor model of personaHty across instruments and observers Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1). 81-90 McCrae, R R , & Costa, P T (1989a) Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model of personality Journal of Personalitv. 57(1). r-40 128 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989b). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggin's circumplex and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personalhy and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586-595. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P, T. (1990). Personality in aduhhood. New York Guilford Press McCrae, R. R., Costa, P T., & Busch, C. M (1986) Evaluating comprehensiveness in personaHty systems: The California Q-Set and the Five-Factor Model Journal of PersonaHty, 54(2), 430-446. McCrae, R. R, & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its appHcations. Journal of PersonaHty, 60(2), 175-215. Narayanan, L., Menon, S, & Levine, E. L. (1995). PersonaHty structure: A culture- specific examination of the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personalhy Assessment, 64(1), 51-62. Noller, P., Feeney, J., Bonnell, D, & Callan, V. (1994). A longitudinal study of conflict in early marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 233-252. Noller, P., Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personaHty factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 775-782. Norman, W T. (1963). Toward and adequate taxonomy of personalhy attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personaHty ratings Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trah descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a univershy population Ann Arbor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan O'Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problems-, emotion-, and relationship-focused coping: The role of the big five personality factors Journal of Personalhy, 64(4), 775-813 Oggins, J., Veroff, J., & Leber, D (1993) Perceptions of marital interaction: Among black and whhe newlyweds Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 494-511. 129 Olinger, L. J., Shaw, R. F., & Kuiper, N. A (1987) Nonassertiveness. dysfiinctional attitudes, and mild levels of depression. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 19(1), 40-49 Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative trah adjectives. Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 52(1), 59-71. Peabody, D, & Goldberg, L. R (1989) Some determinants of factor structure from personality-trait descriptors Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3). 552-567. Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R , & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adjective Check List scales and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-63" Prager, K. J., Fuller, D. O., Gonzalez, A. S. (1989). The function of self-disclosure in social interaction. Journal of Social Behavior and PersonaHty, 4(5), 563-580 Riggio, R C, & Friedman, H. S. (1986). Impression formation: The role of expressive behavior. Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 50(2), 421-427 Rosenfeld, L. B, & Bowen, G. L. (1991). Marital disclosure and marital satisfaction Direct-effect versus interaction-effect models Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 69-84. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Rubin, R. B , & Martin, MM. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 33-44 Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 265-273 Ruehlman, L S , & Wolchik, S A (1988) Personal goals and interpersonal support and hindrance as factors in psychological distress and well-being Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 293-301. Rusbuh, C. E. (1983) A longitudinal test of the investment model The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commhment in heterosexual involvements Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101-117 Rusbuh, C. E , Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D (1986a) Determinants and consequences of exh, voice, loyahy, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements. Human Relafions, 39(1), 45-63 130 Rusbuh, C. E . Johnson, D J., & Morrow. G D (1986b) Impact of couple panems of problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholoev. 50(4). 744-753 1 w kc-i Russell, R J H., & WeHs. P A (1994), Personality- and qualhy of marriage British Journal of Psycholog>-, 85, 161-168 Saucier. G . & Goldberg, L. R (1996) Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English personality- adjectives. European Journal of Personalhy. 10(1). 61-77. Schumm, W R., .Anderson, S. A. Benigas, J E . McCutchen, MB. Griffin. C L . Morris, J E . & Race, G. S (1985) Criterion-related validhy of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports, 56. 719-722 Schumm, W R , Paff-Bergen, L, A.. Hatch, R C . Obiorah. F C . Copeland, J M . Meens. L. D . & Bugaighis, M A (1986) Concurrent and discriminant validhy of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381-387 Shaver, P R., & Brennan, K. .A (1992) Attachment styles and the "Big Five" personaHty traits: Their connection whh each other and with romantic relationship outcomes Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 536-545 Sihars, A. & Weisberg, J (1987) Conflict as a social skill In M Roloff and G .Nfiller (Eds ). Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp 140-171) Newburv'Park. CA Sage Simpson, J. .A , Gangestad, S W . & Biek, M (1993) Personality and nonverbal behavior: .An Ethological perspective of relationship inhiation Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 29. 434-461. Smhh, G -M (1967). Usefulness of peer ratings of personality in educafional research Educational and Psvcholoaical Measurement. 27, 967-984 Spitzberg. B. H (1990) The construct validhy of trah-based measures of interpersonal competence Communication Research Reports, 7(2), 107-115 Sphzberg, B H . & Hurt, H T (1987) The relafionship of interpersonal competence and skills to reported loneliness across time Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(2). 157-172 Sprecher, S (1986) The relation between inequity and emotions in close relationships Social Psychologv Quarteriy. 49, 309-321 131 Sprecher, S. (1987) The effects of self-disclosure given and received on affection for an intimate partner and stability of the relationship Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 115-127 Sternberg, R. J., & Dobson, D M (1987) Resolving interpersonal conflicts An analysis of stylistic consistency Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52(4). 7Q4- 812, Sternberg, R, J, & Soriano, L. J. (1984) Styles of conflict resolution Journal of Personalhy and Social Psychology, 47(1), 115-126 Taylor. D.. & Altman, I (1987) Communication in interpersonal relationships In M Roloff & G. Miller (Eds), Interpersonal processes New directions in communication research (pp 257-277) Newbury Park. CA: Sage Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences ("absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibilhy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268-277. Thome, A. (1987) The press of personality: A study of conversations between introverts and extroverts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53. 718-726 Tupes, E C, & Christal, R E, (1961) Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Tech, Rep No, 61-97) Lackland Air Force Base, TX US Air Force. Twentyman, C, Boland, T., & McFall, R M (1981) Heterosocial avoidance in college males Behavior Modification, 5(4). 523-552 Van Heck, G., Perugini, M., Caprata, G . & Froger. J (1994) The Big Five as tendencies in situations Personality and Individual Differences. 16(5), 715-731 Vera, E. M , & Betz, N E (1992) Relationships of self-regard and affective self- disclosure to relationship satisfaction in college students Journal of College Student Development, 33, 422-430 Watson, D , & Clark, L. A. (1992) On trahs and temperament: General and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the Five-Factor .Model Journal of PersonaHty, 60(2), 441-476 Watson, D.. & Hubbard, B (1996) Adaptational st>'le and disposhional structure Coping in the context of the Five-Factor Model Journal of Personality. 64(4). 737-774 132 Wildman, B. G. (1986) Perception of refusal assertion Behavior .Modification, 10(4), 472-486. Winn, K. I., Crawford, D. W . & Fischer. J (1991) Equity and commhment in romance versus friendship. Journal of Social Behavior and Personalhv. 6(2), 301-314 Yang, K , & Bond, M. H (1990). Exploring implich personaHty theories whh indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of PersonaHty and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1087-1095. Zollo, L. J., Heimberg, R G., & Becker, R. E (1985) Evaluations and consequences of assertive behavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 16(4), 295-301 133 APPENDIX 134 Subject We would like you to answer the following questions about yourself Your answers are i anonymous so no one will know how you responded There are no right or wTong answers, so please be as honest and accurate as possible. If a question is confusing or vou are not sure of your answer, please answer the best you can or ask the investigator for more information Please place the number that corresponds to your answer in the space | provided to the left of each question or fill in the blank Thank you ! 1. How old are you'' 2 Are you a male or a female'^ 1 - Male 2 - Female 3. What is your racial^ethnic background'' 1 - WTihe/Caucasian 5 - American Indian/Nativ e .American 2 - Asian-American 6 - Multiracial 3 - Hispanic/Mexican-American 7 - Other (Specify ) 4 - Black/African-American 4 What is your educational leveP 1 - Freshman 4 - Senior 2 - Sophomore 5 - Graduate student 3 - Junior 6 - Other (Specifv' _ 5 Where do you live'' 1 - With parents 3 - Off campus (not yvith parents) 2 - In dorms on campus 4 - Liv e with romantic partner 5 - Other (Specify ) 6. Are you currently in a romantic relationship'' 1 - Yes " 2 - No If YES, please go to page 2 and answer (Questions 7-12 If NO. please go to page 3 and answer (Questions 13-19 135 IF YOU ARE IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP please answer the following questions about your current romantic relationship partner 7 How long have you been in your current romantic relationship'' years months 8. What is your relationship status with your current romantic relationship partner'' 1 - Casually dating (not exclusive) 4 - Cohabiting 2 - Steady dating (exclusive) 5 - Married 3 - Engaged 6 - Other (Specify ) 9. How old is your current romantic relationship partner'' 10. Is your partner a male or a female'' 1 - Male 2 - Female 11. What is your partner's racial/ethnic background'' 1 - White/Caucasian 5 - American Indian/Native American 2 - Asian-American 6 - Muhiracial 3 - Hispanic/Mexican-American 7 - Other (Specify ) 4 - Black/African-American 12. What is your partner's educational leveP 1 - Freshman 4 - Senior 2 - Sophomore 5 - Graduate student 3 - Junior 6 - Other (Specify ) Please skip to page 4. 136 IF YOU ARE NOT IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP please answer these questions about your most recent relationship 13. How long did the relationship last' vears months 14. How many months ago did your relationship end'' 15 What was your relationship status with your romantic relationship partner when your relationship ended'' 1 - Casually dating (not exclusive) 4 - Cohabhing 2 - Steady dating (exclusive) 5 - Married 3 - Engaged 6 - Other (Specify 16. How old was your romantic relationship partner when your relationship ended'' 17. Is your past partner a male or a female'' 1 - Male 2 - Female 18. What is your past partner's racial/ethnic background'' 1 - White/Caucasian 5 - American Indian'^Native .American 2 - Asian-American 6 - Muhh-acial 3 - Hispanic/Mexican-American 7 - Other (Specify ) 4 - Black/African-American 19 What was your partner's educational level at the time your relationship ended'' 1 - Freshman 4 - Senior 2 - Sophomore 5 - Graduate student 3 - Junior 6 - Other (Specify ) Please go to page 4 137 We would like you to answer the following questions about YOURSELF Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 12 3 4 5 1.1 am not a worrier. 2.1 like to have a lot of people around me 3.1 don't like to waste my time daydreaming. 4 I try to be courteous to everyone I meet 5.1 keep my belongings clean and neat. 6.1 often feel inferior to others 7.1 laugh easily. 8. Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to h. 9.1 often get into arguments with my family and coworkers. 10. I'm pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time 11. When I'm under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I'm going to pieces. 12.1 don't consider myself especially "lighthearted". 13. I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature. 14 Some people think I am selfish and egotistical. 15. I am not a very methodical person. 16. I rarely feel lonely or blue. 17. I really enjoy talking to people. 18 I believe letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and mislead them. 19. I would rather cooperate with others than compete whh them 20. I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously 21. I often feel tense and jittery 22. I like to be where the action is. 23. Poetry has little or no effect on me 24. I tend to be cynical and skeptical of others' intentions. 25. I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion 26. Sometimes I feel completely worthless 27. I usually prefer to do things alone 28. I often try new and foreign foods 29. I believe that most people will take advantage of you if you let them 30. I waste a lot of time before settling down to work. 31 I rarely feel fearftal or anxious 32. I often feel as if I'm bursting whh energy 33. I seldom nofice the moods or feelings that different environments produce 34. Most people I know like me 35.1 work hard to accomplish my goals 138 STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 12 3 4 5 36.1 often get angry at the way people treat me 37.1 am a cheerful, high-spirited person. 38. I believe we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. 39. Some people think of me as cold and calculating 40. When I make a commhment, I can always be counted on to follow through 41. Too often, when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up 42. I am not a cheerful optimist. 43. Sometimes when I am reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a chill or wave of excitement. 44 I'm hard-headed and tough-minded in my attitudes 45. Sometimes I'm not as dependable or reliable as I should be. 46.1 am seldom sad or depressed. 47. My life is fast-paced. 48. I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the human condhion. 49. I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate. 50. I am a productive person who always gets the job done 51.1 often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems 52. I am a very active person. 53. I have a lot of intellectual curiosity. 54. If I don't like people, I let them know h. 55. I never seem to be able to get organized. 56. At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide. 57. I would rather go my own way than be a leader of others 58. I often enjoy playing whh theories or abstract ideas 59. If necessary, I am willing to manipulate people to get what I want 60. I strive for excellence in everything I do 139 IF YOU ARE CLURENTLY IN A ROM.ANTIC RELATIONSHIP, answer all of the foHowing questions in reference to this relationship IF YOU ARE NOT CLURENTLY IN A RO.M.ANTIC RELATIONSHIP, answer all of the following questions in reference to your most recent romantic relationship Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 12 3 4 5 I. If your partner expresses disagreement with your ideas, s^e probably does not think highly of you 2. Damages done early in a relationship probably cannot be reversed 3. I cannot accept h when my partner disagrees with me 4 My partner does not seem capable of behaving other than s he does now 5 I take it as a personal insuh when my partner disagrees with an important idea of mine 6 A partner can learn to become more responsive to his/lier partner's needs 7. I like h when my partner presents views different from mine 8 Just because my partner has acted in ways that upset me does not mean that slie will do so in the future 9 I get very upset when my partner and I caimot see things the same way 10 .A partner who hurts you badly once probably will hurt you again 11. I carmot tolerate h when my partner argues with me 12 If my partner wants to change. I believe that sTie can do h 13. When my partner and I disagree, I feel like our relationship is falling apart 14 If you don't Hke the way a relationship is going, you can make h better 15 I do not doubt my partner's feelings for me when we argue 16 I do not expect my partner to be able to change Below are descriptions of behaviors that are typical of romantic relationships Please indicate how well you handle these situations in your romantic relationship I AM POOR I AM EXTREMELY .AT TFflS GOOD .AT THIS 12 3 4 5 I. Telling your partner you dont like a certain way s he has been treating you 2 Revealing something intimate about yourself while talking with your partner 3 Being able to admh that you might be yvrong when a disagreement with your partner begins to build into a serious fight 4 Helping your partner work through their thoughts and feeling about a major life decision, for example, a career choice 5 Saying "no'" when your partner asks you to do something you do not want to do. 140 I AM POOR I .AM EXTREMELY .AT THIS GOOD AT THIS 12 3 4 5 6 Confidmg in your partner and letting him her see your softer, more senshive side 7. Being able to put begrudging (resentful) feelings aside when having a fight with your partner 8. Being able to patiently and senshively listen to your partner "let off steam"" about outside problems s/he is going through. 9. Turning down a request by your partner that is unreasonable 10. TelHng your partner things about yourself that youre ashamed of 11. When having a conflict with your partner, really listening to his her complaints and trying not to "read'" his/her mind 12 Helping your partner get to the heart of a problem s'he is experiencing 13. Standing up for your rights when your partner is neglecting you or being inconsiderate 14 Letting your partner know the "real" you 15 Being able to take your partner's perspective in a fight and really understand his/her point . 16. Helping your partner cope with family or roommate problems 17 Telling your partner that s/he is doing something that embarrasses you 18. Letting down your protective "outer shell" and trusting your partner 19. Refraining from saying things that might cause a disagreement with your partner to turn into a big fight. 20. Being a good and senshive listener when your partner is upset 21. Confronting your partner when s/he has broken a promise 22. Telling your partner about the things that secretly make you anxious or afraid 23. Being able to work through a specific problem whh your partner without resorting to global accusations ("You always do that") 24 Being able to say and do things to support your partner when s he is feeling down 25 Telling your partner that s/he has done something to hurt your feelings 26. Telling your partner how much you appreciate and care for him/her 27. When angry with your partner, being able to accept that s/he has a valid point of view even if you don't agree yvith that view 28 Being able to show genuine empathetic concern when your partner needs to talk about a problem (which may or may not interest you) 29 Telling your partner sTie has done something that made you angry 30, Knowing how to move a conversation with your partner beyond superficial talk in order to really get to know each other 31 Not exploding at your partner (even when h is justified) in order to avoid a damaging fight 32 When your partner needs help and support, being able to give advice in ways that are received well 141 Please answer the following questions about your relationship by indicating the extent to which you agree whh each statement. STRONGLY STRONGLY' DISAGREE AGREE 1 2 3 4 5 1.1 am satisfied with my relationship. 2.1 am satisfied with my partner in her/his role as my partner. 3.1 am satisfied whh my relationship with my partner Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement about your relationship partner. STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 1 2 3 4 5 1. If s/he were feeling badly, my first duty would be to cheer him/her up 2.1 feel that I can confide in him/her about virtually everything. 3 I find h easy to ignore his/her faults. 4 I would do almost anything for him/her. 5. I feel very possessive toward him/her. 6. If I could never be with him/her, I would feel miserable 7. If I were lonely, my first thought would be to seek himy'her out. 8. One of my primary concerns is his/her welfare 9. I would forgive him/her for practically anything. 10. I feel responsible for his/her well-being 11. When I am whh him/her, I spend a good deal of time just looking at him'her 12. I would greatly enjoy being confided in by him/her. 13. It would be hard for me to get along whhout him/her 14. When I am whh him/her, we are almost always in the same mood 15. I think that s/he is unusually well adjusted. 16.1 would highly recommend him/her for a responsible job 17. In my opinion, s/he is an exceptionally mature person. 18. I have great confidence in his/her good judgement 19. Most people would react very favorably to him/her after a brief acquaintance 20. I think that s/he and I are quhe similar to each other 21.1 would vote for him/her is a class or group election 22. I think that s/he is one of those people who quickly wins respect. 23. I feel that s/he is an extremely intelligent person 24 S/he is one of the most likable people I know 25. S/he is the sort of person whom I myself would like to be 26. It seems to me that h is very easy for him/her to gain admiration 142 Please answer the following questions about your relationship by indicating to the extent to which you agree with each statement STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 12 3 4 5 1 It is likely that my current relationship will be permanent 2.1 am attracted to other potential partners or a single lifestyle 3. It is likely that my partner and I will be together six months from now 4. Ending my relationship would be troubling to me personally 5. A potential partner would have to be extremely attractive for me to pursue a new relationship. 6 I am likely to pursue another relationship or single life in the future 7. I feel obligated to continue this relationship 8. In my opinion, my partner is committed to this relationship 9. In my opinion, my partner is Hkely to continue this relationship Next, we are interested in how PARENTS impact your romantic relationship Please begin by thinking about the PARENT who currently has the most impact on your romantic relationship (good or bad). Please provide the following information about this PARENT: What is this parent's relationship to you'' 1- Father 3- Stepfather 2- Mother 4- Stepmother 5- Other (Specify How old is this parent'' How many days in a typical month do you have contact with this PARENT'' (0 to 31 days) Think about this PARENT as you respond to the following statements about how s/he influences your romantic relationship Rate how frequentlyyou r PARENT engages in these behaviors in reference to your romantic relationship. NEVER ALWAYS 12 3 4 5 1, Seems pleased whh the development of the relationship 2 Prevents or discourages other people from helping me in this relationship 3. Shows that s/he thinks I am doing a good job in the relationship 4 S/he uses resources (eg., money or materials) that I need for my relationship 5 Helps me to think about different ways to achieve my goal in the relationship 143 NT\^R ALWAYS 12 3 4 5 6 (jives misleading advice or information. 7 Shows that s/he thinks I will fail in the relationship 8. Shares my enthusiasm about the relationship 9. Tries to help me whh my relationship and makes mistakes 10. Shows that s/he hopes I will succeed whh the relationship 11. Helps me to evaluate the effort Ive aheady put into the relationship 12. Makes me feel worse when I feel discouraged about the relationship 13. Understands my feelings about the relationship 14. Shows that s/he thinks the relationship isn't important 15. Comforts me when I feel bad about the relationship 16. Makes so many demands on me that I have less time or energy- to devote to my relationship. 17. Criticizes my efforts in the relationship. 18. Makes fewer demands on me so 1 can concentrate on my relationship 19. Wastes time when s/he helps me whh my relationship 20. Shows faith that the relationship will succeed Please answer the following questions about your relationship whh your P.ARENT EXTREMELY EXTREMELY NEGATFVE POSITFVE 1 2 3 4 5 1 All things considered, how would you describe your contributions to your relationship whh your PARENT'' 2. All things considered, how would you describe your PARENT'S contributions to your relationship'' 3. All things considered, how would you describe your outcomes from your relationship whh your PARENT'' 4. All things considered, how would you describe your PARENT'S outcomes from your relationship'' Please answer the following questions about your relationship whh your PARENT by indicating the extent to which you agree with each statement STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 1 2 3 4 5 1. I am satisfied whh my relationship 2 1 am satisfied whh this person in her/his role as my PARENT 3. I am satisfied whh my relationship with my P.ARENT 144 Next, we are interested in how your BEST FRIEND impacts vour romantic relationship Choose the BEST FRIEND that has the most influence on your romantic relationship (good or bad) To qualify as a BEST FRIEND for this study, this person cannot be vour romantic partner, but s/he must be a person whh whom you have a strong relationship and regular contact. Please provide the following information about this BEST FRIEND How long have you known this BEST FRIEND'' years months Is this BEST FRIEND a male or a female'' 1-Male 2-Female How old is this BEST FRIEND'' How many days in a typical month do you have contact with this BEST FRIENT)' (Oto31 days) Think about this BEST FRIEND as you respond to the following statements about how s/he influences your romantic relationship Rate how frequentiy your BEST FRIEND engages in these behaviors in reference to your romantic relationship NEVER ALWAYS 12 3 4 5 1 Seems pleased with the development of the relationship 2 Prevents or discourages other people fromhelpin g me in this relationship 3. Shows that s/he thinks I am doing a good job in the relationship 4. S/he uses resources (eg, money or materials) that I need for my relationship 5. Helps me to think about different ways to achieve my goal in the relationship 6. (jives misleading advice or information 7. Shows that s/he thinks I will fail in the relationship. 8. Shares my enthusiasm about the relationship 9. Tries to help me whh my relationship and makes mistakes 10. Shows that s/he hopes I will succeed whh the relationship 11. Helps me to evaluate the effort I've already put into the relationship 12. Makes me feel worse when I feel discouraged about the relationship 13. Understands my feelings about the relationship 14. Shows that s/he thinks the relationship isn't important 15. Comforts me when I feel bad about the relationship 16. Makes so many demands on me that I have less time or energy to devote to my relationship 17. Criticizes my efforts in the relationship 18 Makes fewer demands on me so I can concentrate on my relationship 19. Wastes time when s/he helps me whh my relationship 20. Shows fahh that the relationship will succeed 145 Please answer the following questions about your relationship with your BEST FRIEND EXTREMELY EXTREMELY NEGATIVE POSITTVE 1 2 3 4 5 1 All things considered, how would you describe your contributions to your relationship whh your BEST FRIEND'' 2. All things considered, how would you describe your BEST FRIEND'S contributions to your relationship'' 3. All things considered, how would you describe your outcomes from vour relationship whh your BEST FRIEND'' 4. All things considered, how would you describe your BEST FRIENTD'S outcomes from your relationship'' Please answer the following questions about your relationship whh your BEST FRIEND by indicating the extent to which you agree with each statement STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 1 2 3 4 5 1 I am satisfied whh my relationship. 2. I am satisfied whh this person in her/his role as my BEST FRIEND 3. I am satisfied whh my relationship with my BEST FRIEND Sometimes people other than your BEST FRIEND can affect your romantic relationship When responding to the following questions, think about others who impact your romantic relationship NONE MAN^ 1 2 3 4 5 1. Compared to your relationship whh your BEST FRIEND, how many other people in your life can offer a similar kind of relationships 2 Compared to your relationship with your BEST FRIEND, how many others could provide a similar amount of support'' 3 Compared to your relationship whh your BEST FRIEND, how many others could provide a similar amount of hassles'' 146 NOT AT ALL EXTREMELY 1 2 3 4 5 4 Compared to your relafionship with your BEST FRIENT). how appealing are your ahemative relationships'' 5 Compared to your relationship with your BEST FRIENT). how difficuh would it be to replace him/her whh someone'' 6. How important is h that you receive support for your romantic relationship from someone'' 7. How happy are you when you do not receive support for your romantic relationship from someone'' 8. In general, how appealing are your alternatives to your BEST FRIENT) (another person or being alone)'' 9. If you had to. how difficuh would h be to replace your BEST FRIENT)^ BEST FRIEND ALTERN.ATI\TS MITCH BETTER MLCH BETTER 12 3 4 5 10. All things considered, how do your alternatives compare to your current relationship whh your BEST FRIENT)^ Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire Please take a minute and review your answers to be sure that they are accurate and complete 147 PERMISSION TO COPY In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement. Agree (Permission is granted.) Student's Signature Date Disagree (Permission is not granted.) Student's Signature Date