Shiva G. Ghaed and Linda C. Gallo. SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology San Diego State University

Transcription

1 DISTINCTIONS GHAED AMONG AND AGENCY, GALLOCOMMUNION JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 86(1), Copyright 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Distinctions Among Agency, Communion, and Unmitigated Agency and Communion According to the Interpersonal Circumplex, Five-Factor Model, and Social-Emotional Correlates Shiva G. Ghaed and Linda C. Gallo SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology San Diego State University In this study, we examined common measures of agency (AG), communion (CM), and unmitigated agency (UA) and unmitigated communion (UC) using the interpersonal circumplex and Five-factor models (FFM) as conceptual frameworks. AG aligned with interpersonal dominance in circumplex space and related positively to conscientiousness and inversely to neuroticism. CM corresponded with interpersonal affiliation and related positively to conscientiousness. UA was consistent with hostile-dominance and related to lower conscientiousness and higher neuroticism. UC related to friendly submission but was not strongly represented in the circumplex and did not relate to the FFM. Each construct showed distinct social-emotional correlates. These findings support the convergent and divergent properties of the constructs but suggest that additional attention to the conceptual definition and measurement of UC is warranted. The fundamental traits of agency (AG) and communion (CM), originally described by Bakan (1966), underlie many aspects of social behavior, motives, and goals (Helgeson, 1994; Horowitz, 2004; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). These constructs are considered to reflect stereotypical, socially desirable male and female gender-role characteristics (i.e., masculinity and femininity ; Lippa, 1995). Thus, AG refers to socially instrumental traits such as dominance and achievement, whereas CM captures expressive characteristics including interpersonal relatedness and caring (Fritz, 2000; Lippa, 1995). AG and CM have distinct, positive implications for social functioning, health, and well-being (Helgeson, 1994; Helgson & Fritz, 1999). For example, CM generally shows a small to moderate association with positive social outcomes, whereas AG shows a moderate relationship with emotional adjustment and self-esteem (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Helgeson, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1998, 1999; Lippa, 1995). More recently, researchers have begun to examine the deleterious implications of the unmitigated variants of these constructs. Unmitigated agency (UA; AG that is not mitigated by CM) and unmitigated communion (UC; CM that is not mitigated by AG) capture the maladaptive or socially undesirable features of gender-stereotyped traits (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). In general, UC predicts imbalanced relationships and interpersonal problems of submission and overinvolvement, whereas UA predicts a confrontational interactional style and excessive interpersonal control (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000). Both traits also show small to moderate relationships with hostility and anger (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Fritz, Nagurney, & Helgeson, 2003; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000). More important, limited research to date has examined the correlates of AG, CM, UA, and UC within a single methodological framework, impeding possible conclusions about their convergent and divergent properties (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). Our primary purpose in this study was to examine common measurements of AG, CM, UA, and UC using the interpersonal circumplex model (Wiggins, 1996) and Fivefactor model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992) of personality and social behavior as the primary context for validation. The circumplex is a fundamental tool of interpersonal theory (Pincus & Ansell, 2003) that captures social variables in a common conceptual space (Gurtman, 1991, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1989; Wiggins, 1996). The circumplex (Figure 1) consists of two major dimensions friendliness versus hostility and dominance versus submissiveness (Kiesler, 1996). The FFM posits that five broad trait dimensions (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, openness) encompass most or all stable individual differences (McCrae & Costa, 1989, 2003; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). Two of the FFM dimensions extraversion and agreeableness are rotational variants (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996) of the dominance and affiliation circumplex dimensions, respectively. These dimensions, along with the remaining factors of the FFM, can be measured via the Inter-

2 78 GHAED AND GALLO FIGURE 1 The interpersonal circumplex: Horizontal axis is hostility versus friendliness. Vertical axis is dominance versus submissiveness. The eight octant scales are identified around the outside (with usual notation in parenthesis). Additional descriptors are noted within the octants. personal Adjectives Scales, Revised for the Big Five (IASR B5; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). In prior research, this well-established nomological net has been shown to be a useful framework through which to examine and validate socially relevant constructs and their assessments (Gallo & Smith, 1998, 1999; Gallo, Smith, & Ruiz, 2003; Ruiz, Smith, & Rhodewalt, 2001). In this study, we used the IASR B5 (and a circumplex-based assessment of interpersonal problems; Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990) as a unifying framework through which to capture the interpersonal and intrapersonal features of the AG, CM, UA, and UC traits. Prior research has shown that AG relates very closely to the vertical (i.e., dominance) circumplex axis and congruently to extraversion in the FFM (Lippa, 1995, 2001; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985, 1991). AG also shows a large, inverse association with neuroticism and a smaller positive relationship with openness to experience (Helgeson & Fritz, 2000; Lippa, 1995). CM is closely related to the horizontal axis of the circumplex, or to agreeableness in the FFM (Lippa, 1995, 2001; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985, 1991), and shows a smaller positive association with conscientiousness (Lippa, 1995). AG and CM are also moderately associated with domineering and vindictive, and exploitable and overly nurturant interpersonal problems, respectively (Lippa, 1995). Research on the relationships between UA and UC and interpersonal traits and problems is more limited. One prior study (Wiggins & Broughton, 1985) examined the relationship between the UA and the Interpersonal Adjectives Scale (IAS; Wiggins, 1979) and found a strong positive correlation with the Agentic-and-Uncommunal scale and a strong negative correlation with the Unagentic-and-Communal scale. Helgeson and Fritz (1999) associated UA with hostiledominant interpersonal problems and UC with submissive problems. No prior study, however, has simultaneously described all four traits in relation to the FFM or has demonstrated their relative locations in interpersonal space. Thus, our primary purpose in this study was to clarify patterns of association within this well-validated nomological net. Evidence that AG, CM, UA, and UC have distinctive social-emotional correlates would provide further evidence of their divergent validity and unique predictive utility in relation to health and well-being. Our secondary purpose in this research was therefore to further distinguish among the constructs according to (a) social adjustment, (b) hostility and related constructs, (c) adult attachment, and (d) emotional distress. Although some of these associations have been examined in prior research (e.g., Bartz & Lydon, 2004; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000), our study provides an important opportunity for replication and expands on prior research by examining all four traits simultaneously. Furthermore, our analytic strategy explicitly tests the implications of each construct while controlling for the three other constructs to contribute a more comprehensive understanding of their unique correlates. Consistent with interpersonal theory and prior research (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000; Lippa, 1995; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985, 1991), we predicted that AG would correspond with dominance in circumplex space and would relate to lower neuroticism and higher conscientiousness in the FFM and that CM would correspond to the affiliation circumplex axis and would relate positively to extraversion and conscientiousness. We expected that UA would reflect a blend of hostility and dominance within both circumplex frameworks and would predict lower conscientiousness and higher neuroticism. Prior research suggested that UC cannot be easily conceptualized in the FFM framework aside from its shared association with CM (Helgeson & Fritz, 1998). To the extent that this trait would be captured by the circumplex, we expected it to correlate with affiliation (i.e., because of the positive orientation toward others) and submissiveness (i.e., due to lack of self-focus or attention to one s own needs), particularly interpersonal problems in these domains. Based on prior research and theory (e.g., Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Helgeson, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000; Lippa, 1995), we predicted no association between AG and social adjustment; an inverse association between AG and emotional distress; and given the independent nature of high-ag persons, an inverse association with anxious attachment. We anticipated that AG would predict more assertive and adaptive aspects of hostility (i.e., verbal aggression, constructive use of anger). We predicted that CM would predict better social adjustment. We predicted no association between CM and emotional distress but expected that this construct might predict lower aggression and destructive use of anger and lower avoidant attachment. We anticipated that

3 DISTINCTIONS AMONG AGENCY, COMMUNION 79 UA would predict worse social and emotional adjustment; maladaptive cognitive, behavioral, and affective aspects of hostility; and higher avoidant attachment. We expected that higher UC would predict social conflict, psychological distress, and hostility and anger but not aggressive behaviors. We anticipated a positive association between UC and anxious attachment. We also performed analyses examining the associations among the four traits in an attempt to replicate relationships that have been previously observed or predicted by theory (e.g., Bakan, 1966; Helgeson, 1994; Spence, Helmreich, & Holahan, 1979; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974). Most prior research (for review, see Helgeson & Fritz, 1999) has suggested that AG and CM are unrelated and that CM and UC, and AG and UA are positively related. In general, UA is inversely associated with CM and UC, whereas UC is inversely associated with UA and AG. We predicted a similar pattern of associations in this investigation. Divergent findings have been identified (Twenge, 1997), but research has shown that women typically score higher on measures of CM and UC, whereas men obtain higher scores on AG and UA (Helgeson, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). Also, these variables may account, in part, for sex differences in psychological and physical health (Helgeson, 1994). We therefore accounted for sex in all analyses to isolate the effects of the trait variables. Theory and research generally has suggested that the implications of AG, CM, UA, and UC should be similar for men and women (Helgeson, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). We therefore examined Sex Trait interaction effects but did not formulate specific predictions. METHOD Participants and Procedure A total of 197 participants comprised the original sample; however, due to missing data, we omitted 5 participants from these analyses. The participants were San Diego State University (SDSU) undergraduates (133 women and 59 men) who were tested in small groups. Participants were enrolled in introductory psychology classes, and they received course credit for completing the study. They ranged in age from 17 to 42 years (M = 19.6, SD = 2.7). The ethnicity of the participants was as follows: 57.8% White, 21.9% Hispanic/Latino, 15.1% Asian and/or Asian American, 4.7% Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 3.6% Black and/or African American, and 2.6% Native American (participants could report more than one race/ethnicity). The research protocol was approved by the SDSU Institutional Review Board. Measures EPAQ. We administered three scales from the Extended Version of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (EPAQ; Spence et al., 1979) to measure AG, CM, and UA. Each subscale is composed of eight items rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to5(very much). The EPAQ is widely used and has been well validated. Previous research has demonstrated adequate internal consistencies ranging from.7 to.8 and high test retest reliabilities (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Helgeson, 1993, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1998). In this sample, internal consistencies ranged between α =.75 and α =.79. UCS. The EPAQ includes a measure of Unmitigated Communion Scale (UCS), but the reliability and construct validity of this scale have been questioned (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998). Thus, we examined UC using the UCS developed by Fritz and Helgeson. The UCS is an eight-item scale on which participants state the extent to which statements are selfdescriptive on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to5(very much). The UCS was originally created for use with cardiac patients (Helgeson, 1993) and was subsequently revised to allow for generalizability to other populations (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998). Previous research has demonstrated adequate internal consistencies ranging from.7 to.8 and high test retest reliability (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Helgeson & Fritz, 1996). Internal consistency for our sample was acceptable at α =.66. IASR B5. IASR B5 (Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990) consists of 124 adjectives for which respondents indicate degree of self-accuracy on an 8-point scale. Octant scores for the interpersonal circumplex are derived from participants responses to 64 of the adjectives. These scores describe all possible intersections of the two primary axes of the interpersonal circumplex (see Figure 1). Factor scores for affiliation and dominance are created through weighted linear combination of scores on the octant scales. We used these factor scores, rather than the octant scores, for analysis in this study. The dominance vector score is closely related to the extraversion of the individual, and the affiliation vector corresponds to assessment of an individual s agreeableness. Three additional 20-item balanced scales measure the FFM traits of openness to experience, neuroticism, and conscientiousness (Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). The IASR B5 octant and FFM scales have strong construct validity and internal consistency (e.g., Kiesler, 1991; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990; Wiggins & Broughton, 1991; Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988). In this sample, internal consistencies ranged from α =.70 to α =.92 for the circumplex scales, and reliabilities for neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness were α =.88, α =.84, and α =.92, respectively. IIP C. The original 127-item Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) was developed by Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, and Ureno (1988) and adapted shortly thereafter for the interpersonal circumplex (Alden et al., 1990). The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumflex

4 80 GHAED AND GALLO (IIP C) consists of 64 items that assess eight interpersonal problem domains on the dimensions of affiliation and dominance as follows: Domineering, Vindictive, Cold, Socially Avoidant, Nonassertive, Exploitable, Overly Nurturant, and Intrusive. Participants indicate whether interpersonal problems are an issue for them using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not a bit) to 5(extremely). The IIP C octant scales have demonstrated adequate internal consistency, ranging from α =.72 to.82, and good circumplex structure. The IIP C has also demonstrated convergent validity with a measure of interpersonal dispositions (Alden et al., 1990). In this sample, internal consistencies for the eight interpersonal domains ranged from α=.74 to α=.86. In this study, we used affiliation and dominance factor scores through weighted linear combination of scores on the octant scales. The dominance vector score is related to the domineering axis, and the affiliation vector is related to the overly nurturant axis. ISEL. The original Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL; Cohen & Hoberman, 1983) is a 48-item measure that assesses the perception that help or support would be available if required. In this study, we used a 12-item short form that measures appraisal support (i.e., perceived availability of a confidant), tangible support (i.e., material aid), and belonging support (i.e., affiliation with a social group). The ISEL has been shown to have satisfactory validity and reliability (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983; Heitzmann & Kaplan, 1988). In this study, internal consistencies for the subscales were α =.81 (appraisal), α =.69 (belonging), and α =.55 (tangible). TENSE. The revised, 21-item Test of Negative Social Exchange (TENSE; Finch, Okun, Pool, & Ruehlman, 1999; Ruehlman & Karoly, 1991) was used to examine the frequency with which an individual is faced with anger, insensitivity, and interference from others. The subscales are strongly intercorrelated (r =.79 to.85), and they load on a higher order factor reflecting generalized social conflict, which has been shown to predict emotional well-being (Finch et al., 1999). Hence, Finch et al. recommended using the total score in research. The TENSE has demonstrated construct validity in the form of associations with measures of social functioning and distress (Finch et al., 1999; Ruehlman & Karoly, 1991). The total scale exhibited an internal consistency of α =.96 in this sample. AQ. The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992) consists of 29 items that assess physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger (i.e., hostile affect), and hostility (i.e., hostile cognition). Each item is ranked on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me)to5(extremely characteristic of me). Buss and Perry reported subscale internal consistencies ranging from α=.72 to α=.85. Construct validity has also been supported in prior research (Buss & Perry, 1992; Gallo & Smith, 1998). In this study, internal consistencies for this measure ranged from α =.72 to α =.83. ABVS. The Anger Behavior Verbal Scale (ABVS; Chambers & Davidson, 1999) consists of 24 items that differentiate an individual s interpersonal motivation for using anger. Three subscales assess tendency to express anger constructively (Constructive Anger), destructively (destructive justification; Destructive Anger), and to ruminate about anger after it is expressed (Destructive Rumination). Individuals who express anger in a constructive manner wish to understand the other person s point of view and resolve the problem, whereas those who express anger destructively wish to prove that they are right or persuade others to their point of view. These scales have been shown to have high levels of internal consistency, divergent and convergent validity (Chambers & Davidson, 1999), and to predict differential health outcomes (e.g., Davidson, MacGregor, Stuhr, Dixon, & MacLean, 2000). For our sample, internal consistencies for this scale were as follows: constructive anger, α =.86; verbal justification, α =.83; and verbal rumination, α =.74. ECRM R. The Experiences in Close Relationships Measure, Revised (ECRM R) consists of 36 items that assess the underlying dimensions of adult attachment style (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000): anxiety (fear of abandonment or loss of love and desire for intense closeness), and avoidance (comfort with interpersonal closeness and depending on others). Items are ranked on a 7- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating a more anxious or avoidant attachment style, respectively. The ECRM R has been shown to have excellent psychometric properties (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Internal consistencies for the original scales were both greater than.90, and test retest reliabilities of at least.60 have been reported for an 8-week period (Brennan et al., 1998). In this sample, internal consistencies were estimated at α =.92 and α =.94, for anxious and avoidant attachment, respectively. CES D. Depressive symptoms were measured with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES D; Radloff, 1977), a widely used, 20-item assessment of the severity of depressive symptoms experienced in the past week. Items are assessed on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (rarely or none of the time)to4(most or all of the time). The scale has shown high internal consistency, test retest reliability, and convergent validity (Radloff, 1977). In this study, internal consistency was α =.90. Trait Anxiety scale. The trait version of the widely used Spielberger Anxiety scale (Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh, 1999) was administered to determine participants usual level of anxiety. This scale has 20 items that describe the extent to which the respondent typically experiences anxiety on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to4(almost always). The scale is highly reliable and valid (Spielberger et al., 1999), and in this study, coefficient alpha was estimated at.88.

5 DISTINCTIONS AMONG AGENCY, COMMUNION 81 Data Analysis We tested associations among AG, CM, UA, and UC via a series of univariate general linear modeling (GLM) analyses. We included sex as a fixed, between subjects factor; we included the trait variables as continuous main effects (i.e., covariates in GLM), and we tested all two-way interactions. Because we included all effects simultaneously, these analyses reveal the extent to which each construct was uniquely associated with the other constructs. We then used procedures outlined by Wiggins and Broughton (1991) to project AG, CM, UA, and UC into circumplex space as defined by the trait and interpersonal problems circumplex instruments. We calculated Pearson product moment correlations to illustrate the association between each scale and the factor scales for the horizontal (i.e., friendliness vs. hostility, cold vs. overly nurturant) and vertical (i.e., dominance vs. submission, domineering vs. nonassertive) circumplex axes. These coefficients indicate the location of the variable on the x-axis (x = r vx ) and y-axis (y = r vy ), with the origin defined by r = 0 and the positive or negative pole defined by r = ± 1. The vector length of the variable defines the degree to which it is interpersonal in nature and is equivalent to the multiple correlation of the scale with the x and y factor scores, or r =(x 2 + y 2 ) ½. Traits with vector lengths of at least.30 have significant interpersonal content (Gurtman, 1991). Finally, the angle or displacement of the variable from the x-axis is equal to q = tan 1 (y/x). We tested associations between AG, CM, and UA and UC and the full FFM, and the social-emotional variables through a series of multivariate GLM analyses. Dependent variable sets were as follows: (a) FFM scales (affiliation and dominance vector scores, neuroticism, conscientiousness, openness to experience), (b) generalized social adjustment (ISEL subscales and TENSE total score), (c) hostility and interpersonal utilization of anger (AQ and ABVS subscales), (d) emotional distress (CESD and trait anxiety scale scores), and (e) adult attachment orientation (anxiety and avoidance scales of the ECRM R). We included the four gender relevant constructs, sex, and the two-way Trait Sex interactions to simultaneously test the unique effect of each predictor. When multivariate effects were at least marginally significant, we also examined univariate tests examining individual dependent variables. In all cases, we accounted for missing data on a pairwise basis so that degrees of freedom vary slightly across analyses. An alpha level of.05 was considered statistically significant and.10 was considered marginally significant. Descriptive Statistics RESULTS Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and gender comparisons for all variables in this study. As shown, men reported greater UA, openness, physical and verbal aggression, and destructive anger justification and lesser CM, UC, affiliation, conscientiousness, neuroticism, appraisal and tangible social support, and depression when compared with women. Contrary to some prior research, we did not find a sex difference for AG or for interpersonal dominance in this study. Associations Among AG, CM, and UA and UC Results from the univariate GLM analyses examining the associations among AG, CM, UA, and UC are summarized in Table 2. None of the analyses revealed significant main effects of sex or Sex Trait interaction effects (all ps >.10). Thus, sex differences were not observed when other traits were accounted for, and associations among the constructs were similar for men and women. UA and CM were significantly positively related to AG. In addition, contrary to theoretical predictions, AG and CM were correlated. CM related positively to AG and inversely to UA and positively (but more weakly) to UC. As predicted, UA was positively associated with AG and related inversely to CM as well as UC (but more weakly). UC related positively to CM and weakly and inversely to UA, consistent with previous research, but did not relate to AG as expected. Interpersonal Circumplex In initial univariate GLM analyses, we examined whether the associations between the trait variables and the horizontal and vertical axis vector scores from the IASR B5 and the IIP C differed for men and women. No significant interaction effects emerged for the IIP C scales or in relation to the dominance axis of the trait circumplex (all ps >.10). However, the analysis for the IASR B5 affiliation axis revealed marginally significant Sex AG, F(1, 182) = 2.97, p <.10 and Sex UA, F(1, 182) = 3.12, p <.10 effects. Hence, we conducted sex-specific analyses projecting the scales into trait circumplex space. We conducted full sample analyses for the interpersonal problems circumplex. As shown in Figure 2, AG corresponded approximately with dominance in the trait circumplex but was skewed slightly toward hostility for men and toward affiliation for women. Also as hypothesized, CM was closely linked to the friendly pole of the horizontal axis for both men and women. UA was placed in the hostile dominant quadrant but was associated with greater hostility for women than for men. For both men and women, UC fell in the friendly submissive quadrant of the trait circumplex. In all cases, vector lengths suggested that the constructs contained significant interpersonal content. As depicted in Figure 3, AG corresponded approximately with the domineering vertical axis in the interpersonal problems circumplex but was skewed slightly toward Cold. AG related less closely to dominant interpersonal problems as expected. UA aligned approximately with the vindictive octant, which reflected both cold and domineering interpersonal problems. CM and UC corresponded with overnurturance on the horizontal axis. Contrary to predic-

6 82 GHAED AND GALLO tions, UC was only weakly related to interpersonal problems, whereas the vector length for CM was longer. FFM Neither the main effect for sex nor the Sex Trait interaction effects were statistically significant in the multivariate analyses for the FFM (all ps >.10). The AG, F(5, 178) = 31.18, p <.0001; UA, F(5, 178) = 13.83, p <.0001; and CM, F(5, 178) = 9.90, p <.0001 multivariate effects were significant, and therefore, univariate tests were examined for these predictors. UC did not relate significantly to the FFM traits, F(5, 178) = Table 3 shows the results of the univariate analyses. AG had a large, positive association with dominance (i.e., extraversion) and smaller positive and inverse associations with conscientiousness and neuroticism, respectively. CM was strongly positively related to affiliation and more weakly but significantly related to conscientiousness. UA showed moderate inverse associations with affiliation and conscientiousness and smaller positive associations with dominance and neuroticism. Social-Emotional Implications of AG, CM, UA, and UC Overall social functioning. The analysis for social adjustment showed significant multivariate effects for AG, F(4, 176)=6.67,p<.0001andUA,F(4,176)=3.12,p<.05.Theef- TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for the EPAQ, UCS, and IASR B5, Presented for the Total Sample and for Men and Women Separately All Subjects a Men b Women c Measure Items Scale Range M SD M SD M SD t(1, 192) d EPAQ Agency 8 1a to 5b Communion 8 1a to 5b ** 0.46 Unmitigated Agency 8 1a to 5b ** 0.39 UCS: Unmitigated Communion 8 1c to 5d * 0.31 IASR B5 Affiliation 32 1e to 8f *** 0.75 Dominance 32 1e to 8f Conscientiousness 20 1e to 8f ** 0.46 Neuroticism 20 1e to 8f * 0.39 Openness 20 1e to 8f * 0.32 IIP C Domineering 8 1a to 5f Overly Nurturant 8 1a to 5f ** 0.44 ISEL Appraisal Support 4 1g to 4h ** 0.45 Belonging Support 4 1g to 4h Tangible Support 4 1g to 4h ** 0.39 TENSE Social Conflict 21 0a to 9i AQ Physical Aggression 9 1e to 5f *** 1.10 Verbal Aggression 5 1e to 5f ** 0.46 Angry Affect 7 1e to 5f Hostile Cognition 8 1e to 5f ABVS Constructive Anger 12 1j to 4k Destructive, Justification 6 1j to 4k * 0.31 Destructive, Rumination 5 1j to 4k ECRM R Anxious Attachment 18 1c to 7d Avoidant Attachment 18 1c to 7d CES D: Depression 20 1l to4m * 0.33 Speilberger: Anxiety 20 1j to 4k Note. t test compares outcomes for men and women. Affilation and Dominance from the IASR B5 and Domineering and Overly Nurturant from the IIP C are computed from weighted composites of orthogonal scales. EPAQ = Extended Version of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire; UCS = Unmitigated Communion Scale; IASP B5 = Interpersonal Adjective Scales, Revised for the Big Five; IIP C = Inventory of the Interpersonal Problem Circumflex; ISEL = Interpersonal Support Evaluation List; TENSE = Test of Negative Social Exchange; AQ = Aggression Questionnaire; ABVS = Anger Behavior Verbal Scale; ECRM R = Experiences in Close Relationships Measure, Revised; CES D = Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; a = not at all; b = very; c = strongly disagree;d=strongly agree;e=extremely inaccurate or not at all like me;f=extremely accurate;g=definitely false;h=definitely true;i=frequently;j=almost never; k = almost always; l = rarely or none of the time; m = most, all of the time. a N = 192. b n = 59. c n = 133. *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

7 DISTINCTIONS AMONG AGENCY, COMMUNION 83 TABLE 2 Univariate General Linear Modeling Analyses Examining the Associations Between AG, CM, and UA and UC and Each of the Remaining Gender-Relevant Constructs Predictors AG UA CM UC Outcome F Test(1, 182) η F Test(1, 182) η F Test(1, 182) η F Test(1, 182) η AG 14.50*** *** UA 14.37*** *** **.14 CM 12.03*** *** **.22 UC * **.17 Note. Effect size is represented as η, which is calculated as η= (SS effect /SS corrected total ) 1/2, and represents the unique association between each predictor and outcome. Signs are depicted to illustrate the direction of effects. AG = agency; UA = unmitigated agency; CM = communion; UC = unmitigated communion; SS = sum of squares. *p <.10. **p <.05. ***p <.001. FIGURE 2 Projection of agency (AG), communion (CM), and unmitigated agency (UA) and unmitigated communion (UC) into interpersonal circumplex space using the Interpersonal Adjectives Scales, Revised for the Big Five for men (filled) and women (open). Outer circle indicates r ± 1. Inner circle indicates r ±.5. Center of circle indicates r = 0. PA = domineering; NO = intrusive; LM = overly nurturant; JK = exploitable; HI = nonassertive; FG = socially avoidant; DE = cold; BC = vindictive; VL = vector length; A = agency; C = communion. Statistics for men were as follows: for AG, r x =.12, r y =.67, VL A =.68, A A = 79.48; for UA, r x =.47, r y =.30, VL UA =.56, A UA = 32.16; for CM, r x =.53, r y =.11, VL C =.54, A C = 11.71; for UC, r x =.25, r y =.14, VL UC =.29, A UC = Statistics for women were as follows: for AG, r x =.06, r y =.62, VL A =.63, A A = 84.32; for UA, r x =.60, r y =.26, VL UA =.65, A UA = 23.52; for CM, r x =.59, r y =.07, VL C =.59, A C = 6.47; for UC, r x =.22, r y =.15, VL UC =.26, A UC = Inner circle represents a VL of.5, whereas poles represent a VL of 1 (left pole of the horizontal axis, lower pole of the vertical axis) and +1 (right pole of the horizontal axis, upper pole of the vertical axis), respectively. fect for CM approached significance, F(4, 176) = 2.35, p =.06. Contrary to predictions, the effect for UC was nonsignificant, F(4,176)=0.69.AsignificantSex UAinteractioneffectalso emerged in this analysis, F(4, 176) = 3.04, p <.05. Neither the main effect of sex nor any of the other interaction effects were statistically significant (ps >.10). Univariate tests for AG and UA are shown in Table 4. Contrary to predictions, AG was significantly positively associated with all aspects of perceived social support, with medium to large effect sizes. UA was significantly inversely associated with belonging support only, with a moderate effect size magnitude. Individuals who scored higher on the CM scale reported greater appraisal support, but the effect was small. In sex-specific follow-up analyses, the multivariate association between UA social functioning was only marginally statistically significant for men, F(4, 51) = 2.17, p <.10 but was statistically significant for women, F(4, 122) = 3.85, p <.01. For women, univariate analyses showed a significant, inverse association between UA and belonging, F(1, 129) = 4.62, p <.05, η=.18 and tangible support, F(1, 129) = 6.10, p <.05, η=.20; and a positive association with conflict, F(1, 129) = 9.94, p <.01, η =.27. Hostility and interpersonal anger motives. Multivariate main effects emerged for AG, F(7, 175) = 8.47, p <.0001; UA, F(7, 175) = 7.32, p <.0001; CM, F(7, 175) = 3.04, p <.01; and UC, F(7, 175) = 2.19, p <.05. In addition, the Sex UA effect was statistically significant, F(7, 175) = 2.11, p <.05. Univariate findings for trait main effects are shown in Table 4. Consistent with predictions, AG was positively associated with verbal aggression and constructive motives for anger and inversely associated with hostility and the tendency to ruminate about anger. Effect sizes were generally of moderate magnitude. CM showed a small, inverse association with verbal aggression. UA showed moderate to large significant associations with all hostility scales. Specifically, individuals with higher UA reported greater aggression, angry affect, hostile cognition, and more destructive, less constructive use of anger. UC was weakly to moderately associated with hostile cognition and destructive anger justification and rumination. Sex-specific analyses to examine the Sex UA interaction effect showed that the multivariate effect was nonsignificant in men, F(7, 48) = 1.36, and statistically significant in women, F(7, 121) = 11.45, p < Univariate tests for women

8 84 GHAED AND GALLO showed significant, moderate to large associations between UA and all outcomes. UA related positively to physical aggression, F(1, 131) = 6.53, p <.05, η=.22 and verbal aggression, F(1, 131) = 16.78, p <.0001, η =.31; angry affect, F(1, 131) = 39.63, p <.0001, η=.49; hostile cognition, F(1, 131) = 28.76, p <.0001, η =.42; destructive anger justification, F(1, 131) = 31.24, p <.0001, η =.44; and rumination, F(1, 131) = 39.63, p <.0001, η=.46; and inversely to constructive anger, F(1, 131) = 9.52, p <.01, η =.26. FIGURE 3 Projection of agency (AG), communion (CM), and unmitigated agency (UA) and unmitigated communion (UC) into interpersonal circumplex space using Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumflex for the total sample. Outer circle indicates r ± 1. Inner circle indicates r ±.5. Center of circle indicates r =0.VL= vector length; A = agency; C = communion. Statistics were as follows: for AG, r x =.02, r y =.31, VL A =.31, A A = 87.06; for UA, r x =.37, r y =.38, VL UA =.53, A UA = 45.61; for CM, r x =.40, r y =.13, VL C =.42, A C = 18.00; for UC, r x =.22, r y =.10, VL UC =.24, A UC = Inner circle represents a VL of.5, whereas poles represent a VL of 1 (left pole of the horizontal axis, lower pole of the vertical axis) and +1 (right pole of the horizontal axis, upper pole of the vertical axis), respectively. Adult attachment style. Significant multivariate effects emerged in relation to attachment for AG, F(2, 180) = 14.63, p <.0001; UA, F(2, 180) = 4.95, p <.01; and CM, F(2, 180) = 13.83, p <.0001; and a marginally significant effect was observed for UC, F(2, 180) = 2.68, p <.10. Neither the sex nor the Sex Trait variable interaction effects were statistically significant. The univariate tests are shown in Table 4. As predicted, AG showed a strong inverse association with anxious attachment, whereas CM showed a strong inverse association with avoidant attachment. Unexpected, positive associations were observed between UA and anxious attachment and UC and avoidant attachment. Emotional distress. Significant multivariate effects emerged for AG, F(2, 181) = 34.42, p <.0001; UA, F(2, 181) = 4.73, p =.01; and the Sex UA interaction, F(2, 181) = 3.23, p <.05. The effect for UC was marginally significant, F(2, 181) = 2.70, p <.10. Neither the CM main effect, F(2, 181) = 0.59, nor any of the other effects involving sex were significant. Table 4 depicts results for univariate tests for trait main effects. AG showed strong, inverse associations with both depression and anxiety, whereas UA evidenced small to moderate positive relationships with these constructs. Individuals with higher UC tended to report greater emotional distress, but the effect sizes were small. Sex-specific analyses showed that the UA multivariate effect for emotional distress was nonsignificant in men, F(2, 53) = 0.34, and significant in women, F(2, 127) = 11.38, p < In women, UA was significantly positively related to depression, F(1, 132) = 10.18, p <.01, η =.26 and anxiety, F(1, 132) = 22.89, p <.0001, η=.35. DISCUSSION Our goal in this study was to validate and differentiate among the EPAQ measurements of AG, CM, UA, and the UCS assessment of UC using the interpersonal circumplex and FFM TABLE 3 Univariate Tests From the Multivariate General Linear Modeling Analyses Examining the Associations Between AG, CM, and UA and the Five-Factor Model Scales Predictors AG CM UA Outcome F Test η F Test η F Test η Five-factor model Affiliation **** ****.30 Dominance 92.32**** **.14 Conscientiousness 25.66**** ** ***.20 Neuroticism 43.89**** ****.26 Openness * *.14 Note. Effect size is represented as η, which is calculated as η= (SS effect /SS corrected total ) 1/2, and represents the unique association between each predictor and outcome. Signs are depicted to illustrate the direction of effects. AG = agency; CM = communion; UA = unmigitgated agency; SS = sum of squares. *p <.10. ** p <.05. ***p <.01. ****p <.001.

9 DISTINCTIONS AMONG AGENCY, COMMUNION 85 TABLE 4 Univariate Tests From the Multivariate General Linear Modeling Analyses Examining the Associations Between AG, CM, and UA, and UC and the Additional Measures of Social-Emotional Functioning Predictors AG CM UA UC Outcome F Test η F Test η F Test η F Test η Overall social functioning Appraisal support 8.00*** ** Belonging support 25.55**** ***.20 Tangible support 4.48** * Social conflict *.14 Hostility/interpersonal utilization of anger Physical aggression *** Verbal aggression 14.18**** ** **** *.10 Angry affect **** Hostile cognition 18.12**** **** **.14 Constructive anger 5.59*** *** Destructive, justification **** ****.17 Destructive, rumination 10.58**** * **** ***.20 Attachment orientation Anxious attachment 28.66**** *** *.10 Avoidant attachment **** **.30 Emotional distress Depression 23.12**** ** **.14 Anxiety 68.46**** *** *.10 Note. Effect size is represented as η, which is calculated as η= (SS effect /SS corrected total ) 1/2, and represents the unique association between each predictor and outcome. Signs are depicted to illustrate the direction of effects. AG = agency; CM = communion; UA = unmitigated agency; UC = unmitigated communion; SS = sum of squares. *p <.10. **p <.05. ***p <.01. ****p <.001. as primary methodological and conceptual tools. In addition, we attempted to provide further information about the divergent properties of these variables in relation to theoretically relevant social-emotional correlates. Our effort to replicate previous associations among the trait constructs and to examine sex differences among these constructs revealed some surprising results. Contrary to previous research (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999), men and women did not differ in levels of AG, although men scored higher on UA and lower on CM and UC than women. We also found that AG and CM were correlated after controlling for other constructs and gender. More important, it has been suggested that sex differences on agency have dissipated over the years (Twenge, 1997). The four constructs were generally well represented and occupied distinct locations in interpersonal circumplex space. As expected, AG and CM were closely aligned with the dominant and friendly axes, respectively, with greater representation in the trait than in the interpersonal problems circumplex. UA was projected into the hostile-dominant quadrant of both circumplex structures, and UC reflected friendly submission in the trait circumplex. The vector length was relatively small for UC relative to the other constructs; and furthermore, this trait was not well represented in the interpersonal problems circumplex. Findings regarding representation of the constructs in circumplex space were generally consistent with those of prior studies (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999; Lippa, 1995; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985). In summary, whereas AG and CM largely reflected single dimensions of interpersonal behavior and were better represented in the trait than in the problems circumplex, the unmitigated versions of these constructs reflected blends of interpersonal affiliation and dominance. Consistent with predictions, an examination of the complete FFM sharpened the distinctions among the four constructs. AG and CM were both associated with higher conscientiousness; but higher AG also predicted lower neuroticism, whereas CM did not relate to this dimension. Furthermore, AG related to dominance, or extraversion, whereas CM did not. A positive association was observed between CM and extraversion in prior research (Helgeson & Frtiz, 1998), but this may reflect the distinct versions of the FFM utilized or the fact that our analytic strategy specifically examined the unique relationship between each trait variable and the FFM (i.e., independent of other traits and sex). We also found further distinctions between AG and CM from their unmitigated counterparts when the full FFM was considered. Specifically, although both AG and UA related positively to dominance, they were distinguished by their contrasting relationships with neuroticism and conscientiousness. Moreover, whereas CM related positively to conscientiousness as well as agreeableness, UC did not relate significantly to the FFM scales. Given that the FFM is considered a broad nomological net that can describe diverse

10 86 GHAED AND GALLO lower order intrapersonally and interpersonally relevant trait constructs (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 2003), the lack of association between the UC and FFM is surprising and suggests that further exploration of this construct or its assessment may be warranted. Analyses concerning social-emotional correlates showed that individuals with higher AG were less hostile and emotionally distressed and lower in anxious attachment than their lower AG counterparts. AG also predicted verbal aggression and constructive use of anger, consistent with the dominant nature of persons high in AG. Contrary to most (Helgeson, 1994) but not all (Saragovi, Koestner, Di Dio, & Aube, 1997) prior research, AG also showed moderate to large associations with the perceived support scales. In aggregate, the set of social-emotional correlates observed in this study combined with prior research (Helgeson, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999) draw a picture of agentic individuals as independent, assertive, well adjusted, and embedded in a supportive social network. Communal persons were low in verbal aggression and avoidant attachment and unlikely to show hostile interpersonal problems, although they tended to be overly nurturant. However, CM showed a weaker and less consistent pattern of associations with measures of social functioning than expected. Overall, these findings and those from prior studies (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Helgeson, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1998, 1999) suggest that communal persons are comfortable with social relationships and unlikely to experience problems when in those relationships, and they are also somewhat more likely to have support available when compared with their less communal counterparts. Certainly, this pattern of social-emotional correlates is adaptive on the whole and distinct from that observed in relation to AG. Findings for UA were largely as predicted and consistent with prior research (Fritz et al., 2003; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000). Individuals high in UA reported interpersonal problems related to hostile-dominant behaviors. They are characteristically physically and verbally aggressive, use anger in destructive ways, tend to experience more social conflict, and do not perceive themselves as belonging to a social group. They also show poor emotional adjustment as revealed by elevated levels of depression, anxiety, anger, and hostility. Overall, the findings in this study combined with prior research (Fritz et al., 2003; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000) suggest that people high in UA are emotionally distressed, difficult, hostile, and aggressive people who suffer the consequences of their behavior through poor social support. Yet, they may desire social closeness and fear being abandoned by others. This social-emotional pattern is distinct from low CM, which did not relate to emotional distress or to many aspects of anger and hostility, and differs from high AG in terms of the positive association with anxious attachment, greater interpersonal problems, and highly destructive use of anger. The gender differences in the implications of UA for social-emotional functioning deserve additional comment. These differences are contrary to the theoretical model advanced by Helgeson (1994), which suggests that of AG, CM, UA, and UC should operate similarly regardless of sex. We found that in general, UA appeared to be more detrimental for women than for men in regard to social functioning, hostility and related constructs, and emotional distress. Perhaps this discrepancy reflects the fact that high UA characteristics may be considered especially socially undesirable in women given their gender-atypical nature. Although the small sample size for men may have influenced these findings, gender differences in this realm deserve additional attention in the future. We also note that especially in women, UA showed particularly consistent and large associations with the various scales measuring anger, hostility, and aggression. To some degree, this calls into question the extent to which UA has divergent validity from these constructs. Prior studies have observed only small to moderate associations between UA and anger and hostility; however, the conceptualization and measurement of the hostility construct in this study was more complete than in prior studies (e.g., Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). Additional research is therefore recommended to establish the degree to which UA is distinct from hostility and related constructs with well-established social and physical risk implications (Gallo & Matthews, 2003; Smith, Glazer, Ruiz, & Gallo, 2004), particularly in women. In contrast to the other gender-relevant traits, UC showed a less marked and less theoretically consistent pattern of associations with relevant social-emotional constructs. For example, associations with interpersonal problems were smaller than expected, and UC did not predict generalized social functioning. Individuals with greater UC reported greater emotional distress, hostile cognition, and anger rumination. Interestingly, they also evidenced more destructive motives for using anger in interpersonal contexts and a trend toward greater verbal aggression, which seems surprising given their primary focus on others and maintaining relationships. We also identified an unexpected positive association between UC and avoidant attachment and an expected trend toward higher anxious attachment. This pattern is consistent with the fearful-avoidant attachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), which reflects the tendency to avoid close relationships due to fear of mistreatment or rejection (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Overall, these findings and those from prior research (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Fritz et al., 2003; Helgeson & Fritz, 1998, 2000) suggest that individuals high in UC are angry and emotionally distressed, and they may have mixed feelings about interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, UC can be contrasted from high CM in terms of the association with interpersonal submission and from low agency by associations with distress, anger, and hostility. The results of this study also suggest that additional attention to the conceptual or operational definition of UCS may be warranted. Although the internal consistency of the UCS was relatively low (although acceptable) in this sample, mea-