THE FIVE FACTORS OF PERSONALITY AND INTERPERSONAL ...

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.

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-factormodel 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 Twohundred
fifty-six subjects completed the NEO-PI (McCrae & Costa, 1985) and selfratings
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 selfreports
and spouse-ratings of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Six months later
self-raings were again obtained. Internal consistency for both self-report and spouseratings
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 selfreports
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 extroversionintroversion,
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 unassuredsubmissive
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 fromwhich 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 identifybehavioral
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, flirtatiousglances,
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 selfdisclose
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 selfdisclosure
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, selfesteem,
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), selfdisclosure
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 selfdisclosure
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

eluctantly 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 Ninetysix
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 empathicassertive
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 empathicassertive
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

esolve 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 selfreport
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

esults 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 selfratings
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 sexrole
orientation and relationship satisfaction Two domains fromthe 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 frequencyof 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

ated 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 fromthe
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

aters 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, selfconsciousness,
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 selfconsciousness
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

esearch 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
Deviation
Range
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
Race
Participant
Caucasian
Hispanic
African-American
Asian-American
Muhi-racial
Other
Partner
Caucasian
Hispanic
Afhcan-Amencan
Multiracial
Other
Education
Participant
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Partner
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate Student
Other
Relationship Status
Casually Dating
Steady Dating
Engaged
Cohabiting
Married
Freq
151
16
7
1
I
1
147
21
7
1
1
41
42
50
44
25
41
24
37
13
37
14
107
16
8
32
84
Percent
85.3
9.0
4.0
0.6
06
0,6
83.1
11.9
4.0
06
0.6
23.2
23.7
28.2
24.9
14.1
23.2
13,6
20.9
7.3
20.9
7.9
60.5
9,0
4.5
18 1

(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
Distal Factors
Agreeableness
Mean
46.34
Standard
Deviation
5.99
Possible
Score
Range
12-60
Actual
Score
Range
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-pointLikert 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 criterionrelated
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-pointLikert scale (I = "strongly
disagree," 5 = "strongly agree") the extent to which each item describes their
88

elationship 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-pointLikert 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-pointLikert scale the frequencyof 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 friendrelationship 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-pointLikert scale the ease of findingalternative 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

c
o
Vi
•*—>
en
-o
C
1/5
o
13
2
ex
CO
o
C3
c«
00
c
o
B
a
CA
c
-2
fc
o
u
—
«$
H
ON
00
vo
ir>
m
<
m
s
O
3
c«
^>
C
C
ID
O
ir>
C/5
U
o
O
13
S
•><
o
o
<
c
o
o
Vi
a>
-
o
c
O
u
t:
o
a,
o,
3
13
c
.9
o
B
w
oo'
3
t/!
o
on
ON
)_
o
c«
b
E
o
O
+->
3
o
c
_o
•

^
CN
-.16*
m
.19*
.29**
O
ON
O
.19*
*
•X- ON
1
o
CN
o
-.07
-.23**
-.02
o
o
.20**
.31**
.35**
.30**
-X-
NO rf —
O CN O
•X
•X
m CN
.15*
NO
o
O
15*
o
o
ON
O
.16*
.34**
•X
O
"^ r^ oo rj- in
o o o o o
^
O
NO
o
oo
o
cd
3
ON
00 m t--- ON vo
O -^ —< O O
.42**
.36**
.42**
c
o
-2

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

Table 5 Regressions of proximal factors on distal factors
Type of Regression
B
SEB
P
Emotional Support
Distal Factors
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
.13 .05
.11 .05
.19*
.15*
Conflict Resolution
Distal Factors
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
.25 .08
-.16 .05
.25***
-.23**
Assertion
Distal Factor
Neuroticism
-.13 .05
-.19*
Note. R^ = .07 for support regressio n (ps < .01). R^ = .15 for conflict regressioi n(ps< 001)
R2 = .04 for assertion regression (ps < .05)
*p

F=6.35, p

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

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

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

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

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

(beta=.22, p

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 frameworkto 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 tendermindedness
(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 riskedthat 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

elationships, 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 selfdisclosure
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 problemsolving
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, fijrtherstudies 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 longterm
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-factormodel and its
appHcations. Journal of PersonaHty, 60(2), 175-215.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S, & Levine, E. L. (1995). PersonaHty structure: A culturespecific
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 selfdisclosure
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
2 - Sophomore
3 - Junior
5 Where do you live''
1 - With parents
2 - In dorms on campus
4 - Senior
5 - Graduate student
6 - Other (Specifv' _
3 - Off campus (not yvith parents)
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
1 2 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
1 2 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
1 2 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
1 2 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
1 2 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
1 2 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 fromnow
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 frequentlyyour PARENT engages in
these behaviors in reference to your romantic relationship.
NEVER
ALWAYS
1 2 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
1 2 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 frequentiyyour BEST FRIEND
engages in these behaviors in reference to your romantic relationship
NEVER
ALWAYS
1 2 3 4 5
1 Seems pleased with the development of the relationship
2 Prevents or discourages other people fromhelping 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
1 2 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