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

Complementarity Interpersonal behaviors invite certain responses of another interactant.

Complementarity Leary/Carson’s (1969) definition: Opposite on dominance Dominance induces submission and submission induces control Same on warmth Warmth induces warmth and coldness induces coldness

Carson’s Model of Complementarity

Carson’s Model of Complementarity 1) Behavioral styles are interrelated in a predictable (complementary) manner. 2) When complementarity occurs between two people their relationships tend to be more stable, enduring, and satisfying (Kieser, 1996).

Complementarity During various dyadic interactions, this model predicts interpersonal warmth and dominance (c.f., Locke & Sadler, 2007; Markey, Funder & Ozer, 2003; Sadler & Woody, 2003; Sadler, et al., 2009; Markey, Lowmaster, & Eichler, 2010; Markey & Kurtz, 2006; Ansell, Kurtz, & Markey, 2008). Predicts diverse relationship outcomes: Therapy satisfaction (Tracey, 2004) Closeness of friends (Yaughn & Nowicki, 1999) Cooperative behavior among preschool children (McLeod & Nowicki, 1985) Number of verbal exchanges (Nowicki & Manheim, 1991) Marital divorce (Tracey, Ryan, & Jaschik-Herman, 2001) Relationship satisfaction with strangers (Markey, et al., 2010) Relationship satisfaction of roommates (Markey & Kurtz, 2006; Ansell, Kurtz, &Markey, 2008) Relationship satisfaction among heterosexual couples (Markey & Markey, 2007)

Heterosexual Couples vs. Lesbian Couples Variable Difference Life Satisfaction None Expressiveness Perspective Taking Neuroticism Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Depression Hostility Anxiety Impulsiveness Vulnerability Affective expression Intimacy Relationship Rewards Relationship Investment Relationship Match Relationship Alternatives Positive Communication Arguing Conflict Satisfaction Commitment Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1998; 2001; 2004

Heterosexual Couples vs. Lesbian Couples Variable Difference Life Satisfaction None Expressiveness Perspective Taking Neuroticism Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Depression Hostility Anxiety Impulsiveness Vulnerability Affective expression Intimacy Relationship Rewards Relationship Investment Relationship Match Relationship Alternatives Positive Communication Arguing Conflict Satisfaction Commitment Relationship Equality Lesbian > HC / Moderate Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1998; 2001; 2004

Aims of Current Study 1) What is the relation between an individual’s own behavioral style and her romantic partner’s behavioral style of relationship quality? 2) Are complementary behavioral styles present among lesbian couples? 3) Are complementary behavioral styles related to high levels of relationship quality in lesbian couples?

Participants 144 women (72 couples; M age = 33.40, SD = 10.20) All couples were in monogamous relationships for at least six months (M = 4.68 years, SD = 3.48)

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

Measuring a participant’s behavioral style with a romantic partner Person’s A behavioral style when interacting with person B Person’s B behavioral style when interacting with person A Person A describes the interpersonal style of person B Person B describes the interpersonal style of person A A B

Method Relationship quality. Completed the Marital Interaction Scale (MIS; Braiker & Kelley, 1979). High score = romantic relationship is full of love and harmony. Low score indicates a participant reported that their relationship does not have much love and is conflict-ridden. Moderate agreement (r = .52, p < .01)

Circular Structure of Informant Reports Correspondence Index = .97, p < .001

Complementarity Correspondence Index = .67, p < .01 *

Relationship Quality Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Partner 1’s Dominance Partner 1’s Relationship Quality Partner 2’s Dominance Partner 2’s Relationships Quality

Relationship Quality Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Partner 1’s Dominance Partner 1’s Relationship Quality Actor Effect Partner 2’s Dominance Partner 2’s Relationships Quality Actor Effect

Relationship Quality Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Partner 1’s Dominance Partner 1’s Relationship Quality Partner Effect Partner Effect Partner 2’s Dominance Partner 2’s Relationships Quality

Relationship Quality Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Partner 1’s Dominance Partner 1’s Relationship Quality Actor-Partner Similarity Effect Dominance Similarity Actor-Partner Similarity Effect Partner 2’s Dominance Partner 2’s Relationships Quality

Actor Effect Partner 1’s Warmth .30** -.19* Partner 1’s Relationship Quality Partner 1’s Dominance Warmth Similarity Dominance Similarity Partner 2’s Warmth Partner 2’s Relationships Quality -.19* Partner 2’s Dominance

Partner Effect Partner 1’s Warmth Partner 1’s Relationship Quality Partner 1’s Dominance .26** Warmth Similarity -.36** Dominance Similarity .26** Partner 2’s Warmth -.36** Partner 2’s Relationships Quality Partner 2’s Dominance

Similarity Effect Partner 1’s Warmth Partner 1’s Relationship Quality .06 Partner 1’s Dominance Warmth Similarity .31** Dominance Similarity .06 Partner 2’s Warmth .31** Partner 2’s Relationships Quality Partner 2’s Dominance

Relationship Quality Lesbians who report loving and harmonious relationships tend to be: Warm = .30** Dominant = -.19* Unassuming-Ingenuous (3280)

Relationship Quality Lesbians who report loving and harmonious relationships tend to have partners who are: Warm = .26** Dominant = -.36** Unassuming-Ingenuous (3060)

Complementarity Do lesbian dyads complement each other at the level of behavioral style? Warmth No relations found in terms of dyadic members warmth Dominance Dyads tend to be composed on individuals dissimilar in terms of dominance

Relationship Quality Lesbians who report loving and harmonious relationships tend to be similar to their partners in terms of dominance. Unhappy couples tend to contain one member who is dominant and one who is submissive. Importance of equality in lesbian relationships

Level Behavioral exchanges during an interaction Aggregate of behaviors during an interaction Aggregate of behaviors across situations with a specific person Aggregate of behaviors across situations and persons What it is being assessed Traditional definition Behavioral tendency in situation 1 Behavioral style with person A Personality trait Compelentarity Best Ok Alright Not as good Outcome level Satisfaction with a specific person during a given interaction “How much did you enjoy this interaction?” Satisfaction with a specific person across situations “How much do you like this person?” Satisfaction with various individuals across situations

Level Behavioral exchanges during an interaction Aggregate of behaviors during an interaction Aggregate of behaviors across situations with a specific person Aggregate of behaviors across situations and persons What it is being assessed Traditional definition Behavioral tendency in situation 1 Behavioral style with person A Personality trait Compelentarity Best Ok Alright Not as good Outcome level Satisfaction with a specific person during a given interaction “How much did you enjoy this interaction?” Satisfaction with a specific person across situations “How much do you like this person?” Satisfaction with various individuals across situations