The Complementarity of Interpersonal Styles among Lesbian Couples

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

2. Complementarity • Interpersonal behaviors invite certain responses of another interactant.

3. 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

4. Carson’s Model of Complementarity

5. 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).

6. 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)

7. Heterosexual Couples vs. Lesbian Couples Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1998; 2001; 2004

8. Heterosexual Couples vs. Lesbian Couples Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1998; 2001; 2004

9. 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?

10. 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)

11. 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).

12. 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

13. 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)

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

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

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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Actor Effect Partner 1’s Warmth .30** -.19* .30** 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

21. 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

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

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

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

25. 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

26. 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