Transformations and the Development of Beliefs about Relationships

Transcription

1 Transformations and the Development of Beliefs about Relationships Catherine A. Surra, Melissa A. Curran, and Christine R. Gray The University of Texas at Austin Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research, Madison, WI, July 23, 2004

2 A central motivation for contemporary romantic relationships To share enjoyment of everyday activities

3 Purpose of paper How does enjoyment, measured as the extent to which partners like everyday activities, affect interpersonal attitudes and beliefs

4 Two Theories a. Compatibility theory b. Interdependence theory

5 Compatibility of Activity Preferences a. Information about partners activity preferences is easy for individuals to obtain b. Interaction will be more rewarding when they both prefer activities that they do together c. Similarity should be rewarding in its own right validates self-identify of each partner simplifies behavioral choices

6 Compatibility Hypothesis Greater similarity of preferences will be associated with: More positive beliefs about the relationship (e.g., more satisfaction, commitment, trust) More positive interpersonal attitudes toward the relationship (e.g., love)

7 Interdependence Theory What happens when partners have dissimilar preferences for the same behavioral choice? a. Transformation of preferences b. Positive beliefs develop as individuals observe the partner transforming or not

8 Interdependence Hypothesis The more individuals transform their dissimilar preferences when making behavioral choices, the more positive will be their partners relational beliefs

9 Within-person expectations a. Transforming own preferences will be associated with less positive attitudes and beliefs about the relationship b. Greater levels of transforming will be associated with more positive relationship beliefs

10 Sample a. Random digit dialing of households in greater Austin, Texas b. 464 individuals, or 232 couples, between ages of 19 and 35 years, never been married, and dating someone of opposite sex c. Mean length of relationship = 27 months 8% of the sample casually dating 48% seriously dating 44% privately or publicly engaged

11 Procedure Phase 1: Face to face long interview Respondents rated preferences for performing: 33 leisure activities (e.g., playing video games, going out to eat at a restaurant) 15 affectional activities (e.g., talk about work or school, make out, make love) 11 task activities (e.g., clean house, cook or make a meal, manage money) Completed questionnaires describing the relationship

12 Procedure, cont. Phase 2: 7 short monthly interviews Month 2: Diaries of activities performed with partner Phase 3: Monthly interview and long interview

13 Relationship variables (Phase 1) Passionate love scale (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986) Friendship-based love scale (Grote & Frieze, 1994) Trust that partner is honest and benevolent (Larzelere & Huston, 1980) Belongingness (Braiker & Kelley, 1979) Commitment (purged measure based on Rusbult, 1980)

14 Activity preferences, diary data, and transformations Cluster analysis on activity preferences: Affectional or talking Sexual Task Noncompetitive leisure Competitive leisure

15 Table 1 Procedure for Creating Groups of Transformers Activity performance Potential to transform High Low None or low transformers No need to transform High Strong transformers No need to transform Note. Ns in each group range from 22 to 141, and vary by activity type.

16 Compatibility Hypothesis Individuals who have similar preferences, or no need to transform, will report more positive interpersonal attitudes and beliefs than strong or weak transformers

17 Table 2 Compatibility Theory: Within-Person Hypothesis for Men Summary of ANOVAs testing No Need versus and Strong Transformers for Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs Affectional Sexual Task Noncompetitive Competitive Belongingness Passionate Love Friendship Based Love Strong Strong Strong Honesty Benevolence Satisfaction Global Commitment Strong Bolded cells are consistent with the hypothesis. Italicized cells are inconsistent with the hypothesis. + Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

18 Table 3 Compatibility Theory: Within-Person Hypothesis for Women Summary of ANOVAs testing No Need versus and Strong Transformers for Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs Belongingness Passionate Love Friendship Based Love Honesty Benevolence Satisfaction Global Commitment Affectional No Need + Sexual Task No Need + Noncompetitive Competitive > No Need Bolded cells are consistent with the hypothesis. Italicized cells are inconsistent with the hypothesis. + Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

19 Interdependence Hypothesis: Within-Couple The more individuals transform their dissimilar preferences when making behavioral choices, the more positive will be their partners relational beliefs

20 Table 4 Interdependence Theory: Within-Couple Hypothesis Summary of ANOVAs testing Strong versus and No Need Transformers for Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs Belongingness Passionate Love Friendship Based Love Honesty Benevolence Satisfaction Global Commitment Affectional No Need No Need + Sexual No Need + + No Need + Task Noncompetitive Competitive Bolded cells are consistent with the hypothesis. Italicized cells are inconsistent with the hypothesis. + Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

21 Table 5 Interdependence Theory: Within-Couple Hypothesis Summary of ANOVAs testing Strong versus and No Need Transformers for Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs Belongingness Passionate Love Friendship Based Love Honesty Benevolence Satisfaction Global Commitment Affectional No Need No Need + No Need + Sexual Task Noncompetitive Competitive No Need + Bolded cells are consistent with the hypothesis. Italicized cells are inconsistent with the hypothesis. + Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

22 Interdependence: Expectations for Within-Person Effects Relationship beliefs will be less positive for strong transformers Relationship beliefs will be more positive for strong transformers

23 Table 6 Interdependence Theory: Within-Person Hypothesis for Men Summary of ANOVAs testing Strong versus and No Need Transformers for Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs Affectional Sexual Task Competitive Noncompetitive Belongingness Strong Passionate Strong Love Friendship Strong Based Love Honesty Benevolence Satisfaction Global Commitment + Strong Italicized cells are inconsistent with the first hypothesis. Bolded cells are consistent with the second hypothesis. + Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

24 Table 7 Interdependence Theory: Within-Person Hypothesis for Women Summary of ANOVAs testing Strong versus and No Need Transformers for Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs Belongingness Affectional Sexual Task Noncompetitive Competitive Passionate Love Friendship Based Love Honesty Benevolence Satisfaction Global Commitment No Need + No Need + No Need Italicized cells are inconsistent with the first expectation. Bolded cells are consistent with the second expectation. + Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons..

25 Compatibility Theory: Within-Couple Effects How does being paired with a partner who has no need to transform relate to interpersonal attitudes and beliefs

26 Table 8 Compatibility Theory: Within-Couple Effects Summary of ANOVAs testing No Need versus and Strong Transformers for Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs Affectional Sexual Task Noncompetitive Competitive Belongingness Passionate Love Friendship Based Love Honesty Benevolence Satisfaction Global Commitment No Need No Need No Need + No Need + + Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

27 Table 9 Compatibility Theory: Within-Couple Effects Summary of ANOVAs testing No Need versus and Strong Transformers for Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs Belongingness Passionate Love Friendship Based Love Honesty Benevolence Satisfaction Global Commitment Affectional No Need No Need + Sexual No Need + + No Need Task Noncompetitive > No Need + Competitive + Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

28 Conclusions Strong and consistent support for compatibility theory, but stronger for men than women Similarity of preferences lays groundwork for interaction that is pleasant and agreeable to the partners, validates individuals self-identities, and aids in formation of mutual identification as a couple Results for men were especially strong across all relationship beliefs and activity domains, except sexual Role of activity preferences in the quality of men s relationships

29 Interdependence theory: Support consistent, but less pervasive, than for compatibility theory Domains fundamental to the internal functioning of relationships: affectional and sexual Positive beliefs appear to motivate transformations, and somewhat more so for men than women

30 Interdependence theory: Support consistent, but less pervasive, than for compatibility theory Domains fundamental to the internal functioning of relationship: affectional and sexual Positive beliefs appear to motivate transformations, and somewhat more so for men than women

31 Interdependence theory: Support consistent, but less pervasive, than for compatibility theory, cont. Under what conditions does making transformations reinforce positive beliefs above and beyond what is achieved by mere compatibility? (Strong vs. no need) Is making transformations costly for men or women? No for women, and possibly for men

32 How does compatibility theory stack up against interdependence theory? Individuals transformations more important than similarity for formation of partners beliefs Compatibility has value for the individual No need to transform is far superior to weakly transforming For men, sometimes having no need to transform is superior to having to give up