Download Personality and Close Relationship Processes PDF

TitlePersonality and Close Relationship Processes
Author
LanguageEnglish
File Size2.7 MB
Total Pages259
Table of Contents
                            Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
PART I OVERVIEW
	1 Behaviorist foundations of the field of close relationships
PART II SELF AND PERSONALITY CONSTRUCTS AS REFLECTED IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIP PROCESSES
	2 The self as reflected in close relationship processes
	3 Traits as reflected in close relationship processes
	4 Values as reflected in close relationship processes
	5 Attitudes as reflected in close relationship processes
	6 Motives as reflected in close relationship processes
	7 Emotions as reflected in close relationship processes
PART III CONCLUSION
	8 Taking stock of the literature on personality and close relationship processes
References
Index
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

oa
si

s-
eb

l|R
sa

ll
es

|1
49

85
92

70
2

Page 2

PERSONALIT Y AND CLOSE REL ATIONSHIP PRO CESSES

Few observers of relationship dynamics would dispute the claim of interdepen-
dence theorists that a de� ning feature of close relationships is the extent to which
partners in� uence each other�s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. However, part-
ners do not behave simply in response to each other�s behavior; both partners in
a given relationship bring themselves�� indeed, their selves �� into the relationship
as well. Not only are individuals� selves enormously complex and rich in content,
but so too are the multitude of personality characteristics, including traits, values,
attitudes, motives, and emotions, that contribute to selves� richness. Gaines pro-
vides a major integration of research on personality with research on relationship
science and demonstrates how personality constructs can be readily incorporated
into the two most in� uential theories of close relationships:�attachment theory and
interdependence theory. � is study will be of value to scholars in the � elds of close
relationships, personality psychology, communication studies, and family studies.

Stanley O.�Gaines, Jr. (PhD, University of Texas at Austin, ����)�is the author of
Culture, Ethnicity, and Personal Relationship Processes (����), and has written or
co- written more than a hundred articles and book chapters, primarily in the � elds
of close relationships and ethnic studies. His specialty areas include cultural values
and ethnic identity; interpersonal traits and attachment styles; and exchange and
interdependence processes in close relationships. He has won numerous grants
and fellowships from such diverse sources as the Ford Foundation, Fulbright
Foundation, and American Psychological Foundation.

Page 129

Self and personality constructs112

Notwithstanding Fehr’s ( 2013 ) critique of the LAS (C. Hendrick & S.  S.
Hendrick, 1986 ), one could argue that the relationship specifi city of the eros
subscale does not make it less “attitudinal” than any other subscales within the
LAS. In fact, given that Allport ( 1937a ) viewed generalized attitudes as more
“trait- like” than he viewed more specifi c attitudes (Saucier, 2009 ), perhaps
specifi c attitudes toward love (e.g., eros) are more purely “attitudinal” than are
more generalized attitudes toward love (e.g., pragma). Nevertheless, Fehr raised
the possibility that the six love style subscales of the LAS vary in terms of gener-
alizability versus specifi city; such variability could help explain why eros, ludus,
and agape are related to relationship phenomena so frequently, whereas storge,
mania, and pragma are related to relationship phenomena so infrequently.

Relationship- specifi c love styles: problem solved,
or a further complication?

As C. Hendrick and S. S. Hendrick ( 2000 ) noted, following the publication
of their original LAS (C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick, 1986 ), they developed a
relationship- specifi c version of the LAS (C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick, 1990 ).
In principle, such a scale should eliminate the problem of variability concern-
ing the generalized- versus- specifi c nature of love style subscales. However,
Fehr ( 2013 ) suggested that the relationship- specifi c LAS might be more prob-
lematic than the original LAS, because all of the six love style subscales would
lack generalizability beyond the relationship pair or dyad.

As it turns out, the original LAS (C. Hendrick & S.  S. Hendrick, 1986 )
remains the most popular measure of love styles (Graham & Christiansen,
2009 ). If Fehr’s ( 2013 ) concerns about the relationship- specifi c version of the
LAS (C. Hendrick & S.  S. Hendrick, 1990 ) prove to be well founded, then
one might conclude that the enduring popularity of the original LAS is just
as well for relationship research. Alternatively, if attitudes and behavior are
most likely to covary when they are matched in terms of specifi city (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1998 ), then perhaps more research should be done on relationship-
specifi c love styles as correlates (and, preferably, as predictors) of relationship-
specifi c aspects of behavior.

The value– attitude complex revisited: links
between romanticism and attitudes

toward love

Romanticism: not just an attitude toward (romantic)
love, but a value in itself

In Chapter 4 , we encountered the value construct of romanticism , or indi-
viduals’ orientation toward the romantic relationship pairs or dyads within

Page 130

Attitudes as re� ected in close relationship processes 113

which they are partners (Gaines, 1997 ). Perhaps the best- known measure of
romanticism – namely, the Romantic Beliefs Scale (RBS; Sprecher & Metts,
1989 ) – tends to be described as a measure of attitudes toward romantic
love (Berscheid & Reis, 1998 ). However, Sprecher and Metts ( 1999 ) argued
that their RBS measures romanticism as a cultural value that is rooted
in Western ideology. In turn, the content of Sprecher and Metts’s RBS is
compatible with the content of other measures of romanticism, such as
Gaines and colleagues’ ( 1999 ) ten- item romanticism scale (see Gaines &
Liu,  2000 ).

Near the end of Chapter 4 , we referred to the concept of the “value– attitude
complex” as proposed by Rokeach ( 1973 ). If Sprecher and Metts ( 1989 ) and
Gaines et al. ( 1999b ), among others, were right concerning their conceptual-
ization and measurement of romanticism, then one should be able to identify
two or more attitudes that presumably are infl uenced by the value of romanti-
cism and that – along with romanticism – constitute part of a broader ideol-
ogy concerning romantic love (see Banaji & Hephetz, 2010 ). However, most
discussions of the value– attitude complex have not focused on links between
romanticism and specifi c attitudes.

Romanticism as a correlate of attitudes toward love

In their initial study using the RBS, Sprecher and Metts ( 1989 ) examined
correlations between romanticism and love styles (the latter of which were
measured via the original LAS; C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick, 1986 ) among a
very large sample of individuals within romantic relationships in the United
States. Romanticism was signifi cantly and positively correlated with eros and
agape, whereas romanticism was signifi cantly and negatively correlated with
ludus. Although Sprecher and Metts limited their interpretation of signifi -
cance to those correlations that were associated with probability levels below
0.01, the correlation between romanticism and mania (i.e., 0.20) yielded a
probability level below 0.05 and, hence, should be considered signifi cant and
positive.

Given the extent to which attitudes toward love (especially eros, ludus,
and agape) are associated with interdependence- related phenomena, one
might expect that love styles mediate the impact of romanticism on close
relationship processes. Such an expectation would be consistent with the
“Romanticism thesis” (Keltner & Lerner, 2010 ), which hints that individu-
als’ adoption of a romantic ideology is fueled by individuals’ experience of
love and permeates individuals’ values, attitudes, and behavior within the
content of human relationships in general (and, it stands to reason, certain
close relationships in particular). To date, however, no published empirical
study has addressed links among romanticism, attitudes toward love, and
interdependence phenomena.

Page 258

Index 241

self
accommodation in internal working models

of self and,   20 – 21
interdependence theory and,   19
transformation of motivation and,   22

self- actualization theory, 134 , 149 , 194 ,  195
self- affi rmation motives,   143

in interdependence processes,   148
individual diff erences versus similarities in

norms of,   148 – 50
self- concept clarity

commitment and,   29 – 30
self- consciousness private,   32 – 33
self- construal, 84 – 85 . See also independent self-

construal ; interdependent self- construal ;
relational self- construal

accommodation and,   36 – 37
Self- Construal Scale,   36
Western vs. non- Western,   35 – 36

self- control
accommodation and,   27 – 28

self- determination theory,   149
self- enhancement,   34
self- esteem

accommodation and, 24 – 25 ,  34
commitment and,   30 – 31
vs. narcissism,   27

self- expansion,   14
self- in- relation- to- others

interdependence theory and,   19
self- monitoring

accommodation and,   22 – 24
other- directedness and,   22 – 24

self- perception, xiii ,  33 ,  35
self- protection,   34
self- referential personality variables, xiii , 186 ,

See also dispositional self- control ;
narcissism

self- regulatory variables, 189 . See also
assessment ; locomotion

Michelangelo phenomenon and,   44
self- respect

accommodation and,   25 – 26
self- transcendence values,   86 – 87
sexuality, 132 – 33 ,  134 – 35

sexual jealousy,   176
Shaver, P.R., 8 , 11 , 14 , 20 , 21 , 123 ,  188
Shoda, Y., 94 ,  196
Simpson, J.A., 118 , 120 ,  164
Sinclair, L.,   37
Singelis, T.M.,   36 ,  38
social value orientations, 8 ,  9 ,  71

as consequences of value orientations,   95
as traits vs. values,   94
Kelley on,   94

social- cognitive theory,   196
socially prescribed perfectionism,   50
social- psychological theories of personality, 5 , 11 ,

28 , 42 , 47 , 52 , 70 , 108 , 134 , 136 , 138 , 142 , 145 ,
151 , 181 ,  197

spiritualism,   82 – 83
state anxiety, xv ,  166 – 67

interdependence processes and,   167
Sternberg, R.J., 156 – 58 ,  163 – 64
storge

as problematic construct,   105 – 7
commitment and,   101 – 4
defi ned,   101
rewards and costs and,   104 – 5

Strachman, A.,   130
succorance,   133

commitment and,   133
Sullivan, H.S., xii , xiii , 11 , 149 , 187 . See also

interpersonal theory (Sullivan)

Terman, L.M.,   66
Th ematic Apperception Test (TAT),   154
Th ibaut, J.W., 4 – 5 , 166 ,  187

need for power and,   139
Th omas, G.,   164
Th ye, S.R.,   167
time allocation,   116 – 17

attachment orientation
and,   116

trait theory, xiii ,  187
circumplexity of lower order personality traits

and,   62 – 64
factor- analytic trait theory, 53 ,  55 ,  57
McCrae and Costa’s version of,   xiii
social value orientations as traits vs.

values,   94
trait theory (Allport), 45 ,  70 – 71

idiographic approach to,   46
nomothetic approach to,   46

transformation of motivation,   7 ,  8
attachment theory and,   9
internal working models of self and,   22
links to specifi c theories and,   12
narcissism and,   26 – 27
need for future study of,   191
relational trust and,   13
self- affi rmation motives and,   148
self- esteem and,   24 – 25
self- respect and,   25 – 26
social value orientations and,   8

Triandis, H.C.,   80
Triangular Th eory of Love Scale,   163 – 64
Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire,   137
trust. See interpersonal trust ; relational trust
Trust Scale,   42

Page 259

Index242

value- attitude complex,   98
romanticism,   113

values, xiv , 71 , 187 . See also cultural values ;
human values ; interpersonal values ; social
value orientations

Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey’s
inventory of,   72

anxiety and,   86
measures of,   89
relational standards and,   96 – 97
self- transcendence values,   86 – 87

van Lange, P.A.M., 36 ,  140
Vangelisti, A.L., 96 – 97 ,  178

voice response,   7 ,  23
attachment orientation and,   117
other- directedness and,   22 ,  23

Weigel, D.J.,   160
we- orientations,   83 ,  84
Westbay, L.,   165
Wieselquist, J., 117 ,  118
Wiggins, J., xii , xiii , 12 , 187 ,  188

Yum, Y.O.,   36 – 37

Zhang, H.,   117
Zuroff , D.C., 70

Similer Documents