Concepts of similarity and complementarity in romantic relationships

Concepts of simile and plump forarity in romantic relationshipsOnce upon a magazine, bottom met Jenny. They fell in love. They marry, had children and presumably pass on live happily incessantly after. This is a common love story, and leads us to wonder why mickle become deplumateed to each other(a). Is it beca design they atomic number 18 a the resembling? Research (Byrne, 1971) has shown that people ar attracted to those immediately identical to them and this could lead to marri grow. However, arguments for complementarity contend that opposites do indeed attract, and this friendship would excessively lead to commodious-term relationship and trade union. Such views atomic number 18 merely reinforced by research like that of Shiota and Levenson (2007), which suggest that complementary par exclusivelyels be to a greater extent satisfied in the long run. Thus, this essay take toks to evaluate the concepts of analogy and complementarity, analysing the releva nt researches in the context of a romantic heterosexual relationship.Whilst thither are many theories given on the process of mate pickaxe, of exceptional interest is the youthful emergence of the popular nonion that opposites attract. However, this idea is easy to interpretation, beca persona it is expected that if a couple is not alike, they would tend to develop much conflict, which leave reduce the quality of their relationship (Pieternel Dick, 2008). Felmlee (2001) has shown that relationships developed from attractiveness establish on complementarity often end prematurely. N unmatchablethe little, at that place is also evidence livelihood the complementary bespeak supposition ( pull, 1954), contending that for draw play and at that placefore a gifted wedding ceremony, at that place must(prenominal) be potential gratification of call for for twain John and Jenny. An example of much(prenominal) requisite-gratification is when younger females tend to be more attracted to obsoleteer males who are financially stable (Eagly Wood, 1999, as cited in Pieternel Dick, 2008). Nevertheless, there has not been enough support in recent findings for draws hypothesis, and reasons for this will be discussed.Conversely, the contrasting thought to the concept of complementarity is the established guess of likeness plain put, that birds of a feather flock together. According to Hill, Rubin and Peplau (1976), there is a inclining for people who are mistakable in physical attractiveness, religion, education, age, and even summit meeting to be attracted to each other. However, there has been suggested that much(prenominal) tendencies may not exist, delinquent to invalid rendering procedures. This thought is suggested by research showing precisely small degrees of similarity between spouses mortalality in marriage (Eysenck, 1990), and in rough reported studies (Antill, 1983 Peterson et al., 1989) no degree of similarity was observed, bec ause couples are polar on a random keister. The theory of similaritys influence on ones love therefore needs examination in its modeological aspects and will be treated accordingly in this essay.Examination of Similarity and its theory in Romantic RelationshipsSummary of Similarity and its theorySimilarity, the more accepted theory, suggests that we will be more romantically attracted to people who are similar to us in aspects like physical attractiveness, intelligence, socio-economic background, and overall attitude towards life. According to Byrne (1971), this provide be explained through and through the theories of classical conditioning, and in particular, the idea of positive reinforcement. In a relationship consisting of devil like-minded individuals, sharing the like stand slake allows them to timber that their opinions are validated, and thereby their own confidence increases, enhancing the relationship.However, there is a distinction between the perceive and auth entic similarity. Many have argued that actual similarity is not as grievous as perceived similarity. A suggestion for this is that the individual experiences the positive reinforcement regardless of them believing that the similarity is there even though it is not (Montoya, Horton Kirchner, 2008). However, a possible dent in this is that if only if one accessory experiences such(prenominal) feeling of similarity whilst the other does not, then the regard may not exist. Nonetheless, there is also contradicting evidence of people whose actual similarity is low, but are still extremely attracted to another(prenominal), which support the idea of complementarity (Winch et al., 1954). This is fundamental, as it reminds us that similarity is only a positive correlate to the process of attraction, and is not the absolute compute that determines the formation of a romantic relationship.Methodological Concerns in Measuring the effectuate of Similarity in the Formation of Attractio nIt has been shown in conf employ recent researches post-dating Byrnes studies on attraction that whilst similarity exists in the formation of attraction, mate extract still operates on a random basis (Antill, 1983 Peterson et al., 1989) or at most, according to Eysenck (1990), the presence of similarity is only lightly signifi tailt. The reason for this dissolve be attributed to the methodologies use to measure the soulal effects of attraction. Such is the claim by the meta-analysis conducted by Montoya, Horton and Kirchner (2008), where they concluded that whilst similarity does lead to attraction, this occur mainly in a laboratory deviseting and not in brisk relationships.This reproval is the product do by the use of the bogus stranger, which resulted in faux responses and lack of ecological validity. The method originates from Byrnes studies in which given a set of characteristics similar to their own, the thespians are asked if they will be attracted to an absent im aginary person un cognise to them (Byrne, Clore Smeaton, 1986). This involves no interaction between the participant and the stranger, as hygienic as requiring the assistance of a third person called a confederate, a trained interviewer. While the technique has been heavily criticised, its focus on attraction is clear-cut and minimises other external factors that could influence how much the stranger stomach be perceived as attractive to the participants. Other advantages to this method are that it is inexpensive and not very time consuming, and thus is viewed as more open for a wider pool of participants. some other technique is one that involves minor to some interaction between the participants and the confederate or fellow participant in the context of a dyad relation. This potful last from a few minutes to several hours. However, there have been some contradicting evidences (Dryer Horowitz, 1997) produced through the use of this method, which some has criticised because t he nature of the exchange that involves mainly shallow and polite niceties. A final method that has been in favour recently is the use of couples in an existing relationship. Whilst this is a strong method in that it examines the attraction that then result in a material relationship, its namby-pambyness is the warning is often small because of its exhaustive nature, expensive and time consuming. (Montoya, Horton Kirchner, 2008).Summary of Birds of a Feather Dont Always cut down Farthest (Shiota Levenson, 2007)Given these concerns, it is interesting to see that the study of Shiota and Levenson (2007) proposes the alternative for the concept of similarity in the context of marital satisfaction as opposed to attraction. It is a longitudinal study that examines the effects of high take of similarity in the Big Five constitution on marriage satisfaction, which predicts the possible outcome in legal injury of a linear trajectory that is then supported by the disallow correlat es or negative result. The authors discuss the signifi thronece of this result in terms of varied stages of marriage life, which contain diverse roles and responsibilities that will affect their satisfaction of marriage. For example, the startle stage is explained as the newlyweds who still try to please their partner and therefore, their similar personalities will then be important for their daily friendly interactions. However, by and by in their mid-marriage life, when their passion has waned off, this will result in conflicts on issues like child rearing earlier than agreement because spouses competing with each other in similar performance domains and clashing when attempting to complete the same task (Shiota Levenson, 2007, p. 672).In addition, the authors also provide a quick overview of some of the weaknesses in knightly studies. An example of this is the lack of distinction in examining the similarity of husband and wifes personalities as opposed to how an individu als disposition might affect the marital satisfaction. some other is when gone studies have chosen to only examine similarity in existing relationship in a cross-section(a) view. The author improved the studys method by conducting a long term study but at the same time, also provide a linear trajectory that can be utilise to predict further development from the given dozen years study. Some limitations that have been self- place by the authors include the cultural and generational effects that were resulted from the voluntary nature of the samples selection and also for the convenience of the research.to a greater extent importantly, in their discussion, Shiota and Levenson (2007) have also explicitly referred to how complementary couples in terms of the Big Five disposition may perhaps achieve higher(prenominal)(prenominal) level of marriage satisfaction. Their research also check up ond on older couples who have been espouse for at least thirty-five years and again, this s how the downslope in marriage satisfaction that occurs over time in couple who share a high level of similarity. However, as express by the authors, this may not be true for other social domains of personality such as the dominant/deferent trait that was tested in Winchs studies on complementarity. Nonetheless, the study provides the stepping-stone on the investigation of the concept of complementarity that will be discussed as followed.Examination of Complementarity and its theory in Romantic RelationshipsDefining complementarityIn this essay, complementarity can be understood as people who are dissimilar in their personality liking one another because they would fill in the gaps present in one anothers life. Formal commentary for this term is borrowed from Winchs exposition of need-complementarity in which an individual will be attracted to that person who gives the greatest declare of providing him or her with maximum need gratification (Winch et al., 1954, p. 242). Other t erms used are complementary, an adjective used to describe how compatible two partners are even when they are various and complementariness, a noun that is used by Winch to refer to the degree in which two people can complement.Winchs regard and Theory of Complementary reads in Mate-SelectionWinch, Ktsanes and Ktsanes (1954) made a proposition, the theory of complementary needs in mate-selection that supports the idea of opposites attract. This is made after Winch has conducted a study that involves twenty-five, 19 to 26 years old, white, middle-class, childless unify couples who had been married for less than two years, and in which at least one member of each couple was an undergraduate student (Winch et al., p. 245). He uses triangulation to investigate his supported hypothesis, which is people marry based on their complementary needs. The different methods that Winch has used within triangulation include a need-interview, which is to identify the slip of need pairs present a compositors case history interview of participants, and TAT, an eight-card thematic apperception test (Winch et al., p. 244). However, there are possible limitations within Winchs method videlicet the choice of participants where they are clearly culturally biased towards the developed, Western views and the generational effects of participants involved.Winchs theory requires that one of two conditions either Type II or I must be met for complementarity between partners to exist. Type I is the difference in intensity, where one partner will be highly expressive in a certain need-pattern but the other partner will be very low in expressing the same pattern. For instance, a person who needs to be dominant in their relationship will complement with someone who have a very small nub of this need. Conversely, Type II is the difference in kind of the interactions between two individuals where some(prenominal) partners will be highly expressive but their needs are opposite to each ot her. An example is a person whose need to be dominant complements with a person who has the need to be deferent. It is important that there are two types of complementary needs because in the case of abasement as one of the need pair, there are moorages where both abasement-autonomy and abasement-hostility exist, which gives a different continuum that cannot be explained sufficiently by Type I. (Winch et al., 1954) military rank of Winchs Need ComplementarityOne of the weaknesses in Winchs study (Winch et al., 1954) is the lack of evidence in which there has not been enough proof to support his theory notwithstanding numerous attempts being made (Bowerman Day, 1956 Schellenberg Bee, 1960). However, Levinger (1964) attempts to justify these discrepancies by explaining that there are different needs for different level of relationship as identified by Winch when he postulates his theory, i.e. a married couples needs to complement differ from two friends needs to complement. at th at placefore, since most replicated studies uses the Edwards Personal Preference scroll (Edwards, 1953, as cited in Levinger, 1964), which is aimed for a usual peer relations to test for the validity of Winchs theory of need-complementarity for married couples, the results are therefore considered to be ludicrous in regards to Winchs theory.Furthermore, Winchs theory has also been criticised for insufficient explanation on the two types of complementarity. According to Levinger (1964), given the example of a hypothetical man who is clean in both intensity and kind in his needs, it would not be possible for him to meet a complementary partner because both the conditions stated for Type I and Type II required a person to be on either end of the spectrum in the intensity of the personality traits. However, Levinger offers a solution to this enigma by suggesting that if both partners express the same demeanour in equal amount and has the need for it in reasonableness then they wo uld complement as well as be similar to each other. Nevertheless, Levingers seemingly logical explanation of his suggestion is questionable because he based his assumption yet on another hypothetical example, which is like using X to prove X. Levinger assumes that if there is a given situation where both partners express the same need in moderate metre and it has also been shown that they complement with each others need, then they are showing complementarity. Nonetheless, Levinger ack straightawayledges the lax footing of his hypothesis and suggest that it should be tested for empirical evidence.Another weakness in Winch et al. (1954)s theory that has also been stated by Levinger (1964) is that Winch does not give clear guidelines to determine how a need would complement or be similar to another. Rather, Winch only gives examples of need-complementary pairs such as dominance-deference and nurturance-succorance. This lack of clarification may question the validity of the theory be cause it would be difficult to replicate the study using different complementary-need pairs such as practicality-impracticality, which can be a possible need pair. Nonetheless, this problem of deciding the criteria for which characteristic complements another, as offered by Levinger can be inferred by Schutzs theory of need compatibility (Schutz, 1958, as cited in Levinger, 1964). Even though it is modified to only Type I in Winchs theory but it provides the basis for complementarity where, for two people, person A and B, to complement one another in a relationship, person A should express the same amount of particularised need that person B wants to receive and vice versa. Nonetheless, Edwards (1953, as cited in Levinger, 1964) points out that Schutzs method would be difficult to test in married couples because it was intended to be used for testing general peer relations like friendship. Alternatively, we can also use the various circumflex models for interpersonal behaviour (Ki esler, 1982 Wiggins, 1982, as cited in Orford, 1986) to determine the possible complementary need pairs. However, similar to the criticism of Schutzs way, these models were composed for the purpose of non-romantic relationships such as friendship and family interactions rather than the romantically-natured relationship between married couples, which might demand a different kind of structuring in Kieslers Interpersonal Circle.Empirical Research on the Complementarity schemePerhaps the main weakness in conducting researches to support the complementarity hypothesis in married couples is that there is the lack of clear criteria to determine what is considered as complementarity or more specific to Winchs (1954) study, the conditions required to form the complementary need pairs. This is important because complementarity is often simplified down to the loosely used phrase of opposites attract for ease when explaining to the general population. This is troublesome because there is no c lear definition of what is considered as opposites or how can a certain thing attracts another thing. For example, it is assumed that the general population of men are attracted to the opposite gender, which is women, demonstrating the complementariness. However, how can we explain the similar attraction between men and men, also known as homosexuality? This is where the definition of complementarity can be misleading and ambiguous. If this is interpreted back to the studies conducted to find support for the complementarity hypothesis, we can see that this confusion on what complements and what does not in a romantic relationship reflected in the methods of various studies, in particular the one followed below.Review of Complementarity in marital relationships ( saint, 1994)A somewhat recent study conducted by Saint (1994) aims to examine support for the theory of complementarity as a factor in mate selection for marriage. Using a questionnaire that contains nine statements, which the participants have to choose on a scale of nine from strongly disagree to strongly agree, Saint surveys xxviii couples who have been married for an average of twenty years. According to Saint, the mean age in the study for men are forty-seven years old and for women, it is forty-two years old and they are located in Oxford, England. Saint has concluded that result does not have enough support for the complementarity hypothesis.There are many weaknesses in the method that Saint (1994) uses to source participants. By using the method of door-to-door solicitation, there is an implication that the participants are surd in local area since it is unlikely that the researchers will travel long distance to recruit participants. This assumption is supported when Saint states the geographical demographics of participants are suburbs of Oxford and nearby village. This small and narrow geographical population sampling can suggest a high degree of cultural bias in which there is a tendency to focus on the western laissez-faire(a) views and also, questions on whether the results and the cultivation drawn can be used for the general population. However, Saint clarifies this doubt by concluding that this study is a veracious indicator for complementaritys little impact on the Westerns selection of marriage. Thus, this gives the study its potentiality but still, it should be maintained that modern society are slow changing and integrating both the Western and Eastern views (Zhuang, 2004). Therefore, the study cannot be used exclusively to explain that complementarity is not very influential in ones selection for marriage, regardless whether it is from an Eastern or Westerns viewpoint. An example is interracial marriage (Lewis, Yancey Bletzer, 1998), which would be possible fifty years ago but now is a common occurrence in our society.Saint (1994) comments on the weak support of his study for the complementarity hypothesis, which can be reflected back to the design o f questionnaire. To some extent, it is a forced response despite the varying scale of amenity to a statement. Even if this assumption is wrong and that participants do not feel restricted in their response, the scale of nine levels is still a weakness in Saints method. This is because given such a range for different responses there is only a small sample of twenty-eight couples. to a greater extent importantly, there is also the scarcity in the numbers of statements that can be used ascertain the reliability of answers and given the big range of at least eighteen different responses between couples, the only logical conclusion would be that the results would be statistically insignificant.When summarising the results, Saint gave three statements that result in a significant negative correlation, which indicates the presence complementarity. They are when socialising I seek a high level of eye contact, using public lift is a stressful experience, and when socialising I will raise t he level of my voice to make myself heard. Saint indicated earlier in his abstract in that he aims to investigate complementarity within the social domain of social dominance, social confidence and communication initiation. Whilst there are presence of these elements embedded in each statement but the relevance to married couple is not substantial, i.e. anyone can do the questionnaire whether with their friends or family members, and the chance to obtain a negative correlation is still probable. This indicates that these statements are not valid for testing and therefore, questions Saints conclusion that complementarity have little influence on mate selection for marriage.Yet, we must not forget the efficacys in the design of Saints (1994) study. One such strength is how individuals (husband and wife) have to work independently to complete the questionnaire. This increases the confidentiality of the answers because there are less comparisons and attempts to modify ones answer, whic h engenders more honest responses obtained from participants and reliable information. Furthermore, questionnaires are economical when compared to other types of measurements like interview, easy to control and is replicable to confirm the findings. Thus, if this study is to be repeated, improvements could be made on the sample size and demographics. Moreover, changing the nature of the statements and increase the number of statements to increase the reliability of the response could also help in seeking support for certain trends in participants answers.Hence, from the studies of Winch (1954) though not so much of Saint (1994), it can be said that complementarity do exist in married couples. However, further investigations need to be made to confirm the claim that complementarity increases marital satisfaction over time.ConclusionIt has been implicitly suggested throughout the essay that attraction is linked with similarity and couples have higher marital satisfaction when they hav e complementary needs. However, there is no defined conclusion that this is the case. Criticisms of Winchs theory demonstrate the uncertainty and lack of clarification in certain aspects of his concept of need-complementarity. An example of this is the undefined need pairs such as dominance/deference, which later affects later studies like that of Saint (1994). However, in his military rank of Winchs concept, Levinger (1964) also explain that the replicated studies that did not support Winchs theory is not conclusive either because the method used is more suitable for testing non-romantic dyadic relationship.Likewise, the concept of similarity leading onto attraction may seem apparent and indeed there are numerous studies to support this hypothesis. However, the majority of them use the method of a bogus stranger to determine the effects of attraction. In addition, the use of partners in existing relationships was not common because of limited time and resource. This lead to the conclusion in that perhaps similarity leading to attraction is only valid in laboratory environment and not real life situations.In both cases, the main problem that prevents proper investigation of the issue lies in both the methodological and theoretical aspect of the studies. A possible suggestion for improvements could be to have longitudinal researches instead of cross-sectional that involve couples in existing relationships. This is the biggest obstacle for researchers because of limited budget and time. Another is to increase the sample size theoretically by doing a meta-analysis of all the studies conducted over the years. In addition, more accurate and fitting instrument could also be developed to measure the degree of similarity or complementarity such as a revised version of Edwards Preference Schedule that is targeting romantic relationship and not general peer relationships.ReferenceBooksByrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. tonic York Academic Press.journal Artic lesAntill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. ledger of Personality and Social Psychology , 45, 145-155.Aube, J., Koestner, R. (1995). Gender Characteristics and Relationship adaption Another Look at Similarity-Complementarity Hypotheses. Journal of Personality , 63, 879-904.Bowerman, C. E., Day, B. R. (1956). A mental test of the Theory of Complementary Needs As Applied to Couples During Courtship. American sociological Review , 21, 602-605.Byrne, D., Clore, L. G., Smeaton, G. (1986). The Attraction Hypothesis Do Similar Attitudes Affect Anything? Journal of Pereonalily and Social Psychology , 51, 1167-1170.Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. (2008). Do People Know What They Want A Similar or Complementary Partner? Evolutionary Psychology , 6, 595-602.Dryer, C. D., Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When Do Opposites Attract? Interpersonal Complementarity Versus Similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72, 592-603.Felmlee, D. H. (200 1). From openhearted to appalling Disenchantment with a romantic partner. Sociological Perspectives , 44, 263-280.Hill, C. T., Rubin, A., Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues , 32, 147-168.Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle A Taxonomy for Complementarity in Human Transactions . Psychological Review , 90, 185-214.Levinger, G. (1964). Note on Need Complementarity in Marriage. Psychological Bulletin , 61, 153-157.Lewis, J. R., Yancey, G. (1997). Racial and Nonracial Factors That Influence partner Choice in Black/White Marriages . Journal of Black Studies , 28, 60-78.Montoya, M. R., Horton, R. S., Kirchner, J. (2008). perceived similarity Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 25, 889-922.Orford, J. (1986). The Rules of Interpersonal Complementarity Does Hostility bring Hostility and Dominance, Submi ssion? Psychological Review , 93, 365-377.Saint, D. J. (1994). Complementarity in marital relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology , 134, 701-703.Schellenberg, J. A., Bee, L. S. (1960). A Re-Examination of the Theory of Complementary Needs in Mate Selection. Marriage and Family Living , 22, 227-232 .Shiota, M. N., Levenson, R. W. (2007). Birds of a Feather Dont Always Fly Farthest Similarity in Big Five Personality Predicts More Negative Marital Satisfaction Trajectories in Long-Term Marriages. Psychology and ripening , 22, 666-675.Winch, R. F., Ktsanes, T., Ktsanes, V. (1954). The Theory of Complementary Needs in Mate-Selection An Analytic and Descriptive Study. American Sociological Review , 19, 241-249.Zhuang, X. (2004). We or I? Collectivism-Individualism in Chinese and American Values. Sociology. University of Victoria.