Concepts of similarity and complementarity in romantic relationships

Concepts of semblance and complementarity in romantic kinshipsOnce upon a time, John met Jenny. They fell in love. They marital, had boorren and presumably will live jubilantly ever after. This is a common love story, and leads us to wonder why passel become attracted to apiece other. Is it because they be akin? Research (Byrne, 1971) has shown that people ar attracted to those immediately similar to them and this could lead to brotherhood. However, arguments for complementarity contend that opposites do indeed attract, and this fondness would to a fault lead to long-term relationship and marriage. Such views are further fortify by research uniform that of Shiota and L planeson (2007), which suggest that antonymous equates are more(prenominal) satisfied in the long run. Thus, this essay seeks to evaluate the concepts of simile and complementarity, analysing the relevant researches in the context of a romantic heterosexual relationship.Whilst there are many theories addicted on the process of partner selection, of feature interest is the recent effect of the popular notion that opposites attract. However, this idea is open to interpretation, because it is expected that if a couple is not alike, they would tend to have more conflict, which will reduce the quality of their relationship (Pieternel Dick, 2008). Felmlee (2001) has shown that relationships developed from attraction based on complementarity often end prematurely. N one and only(a)theless, there is also evidence escorting the complementary need possibleness (windlass, 1954), contending that for attraction and hence a happy marriage, there must be potential gratification of needs for virtually(prenominal) John and Jenny. An example of such need-gratification is when younger females tend to be more attracted to older 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 Winc hs hypothesis, and reasons for this will be discussed.Conversely, the contrasting thought to the concept of complementarity is the established scheme of similarity simply put, that birds of a feather flock together. agree to Hill, Rubin and Peplau (1976), there is a tendency for people who are similar in physical attractiveness, religion, education, age, and even height to be attracted to each other. However, there has been suggested that such tendencies may not exist, due to invalid interrogation procedures. This thought is suggested by research showing only small degrees of similarity between spouses mortalality in marriage (Eysenck, 1990), and in some reported studies (Antill, 1983 Peterson et al., 1989) no degree of similarity was observed, because couples are paired on a random basis. The theory of similaritys influence on ones attraction therefore needs examination in its methodological aspects and will be treated accordingly in this essay.Examination of equivalentity 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 keystoneground, and everyplaceall attitude towards life. According to Byrne (1971), this fag be pardoned through the theories of classical conditioning, and in particular, the idea of positive reinforcement. In a relationship consisting of two like-minded individuals, sharing the same viewpoint allows them to feel that their opinions are validated, and thereby their own confidence increases, enhancing the relationship.However, there is a distinction between the perceived and factual similarity. Many have argued that actual similarity is not as important as perceived similarity. A suggestion for this is that the individual experiences the positive reinforcement regardless of them believing that the similarity is ther e even though it is not (Montoya, Horton Kirchner, 2008). However, a possible flaw in this is that if only one partner experiences such feeling of similarity whilst the other does not, then the attraction may not exist. Nonetheless, there is also contradicting evidence of people whose actual similarity is low, scarce are still highly attracted to other, which support the idea of complementarity (Winch et al., 1954). This is important, as it reminds us that similarity is only a positive correlate to the process of attraction, and is not the absolute factor that determines the formation of a romantic relationship.Methodological Concerns in Measuring the Effects of Similarity in the Formation of AttractionIt has been shown in various recent researches post-dating Byrnes studies on attraction that whilst similarity exists in the formation of attraction, mate selection 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 basint. The reason for this put forward be attri simplyed to the methodologies use to measure the 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 setting and not in existing relationships.This criticism is the product made by the use of the bogus freaky, which gisted in artificial responses and lack of bionomical validity. The method originates from Byrnes studies in which given a set of characteristics similar to their own, the participants are asked if they will be attracted to an absent imaginary person unknown to them (Byrne, Clore Smeaton, 1986). This involves no fundamental interaction between the participant and the stranger, as well 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 vindicated-cut and minimises other external factors that could influence how much the stranger can be perceived as attractive to the participants. early(a) advantages to this method are that it is inexpensive and not really time consuming, and thus is viewed as more open for a wider pool of participants.Another technique is one that involves little to some interaction between the participants and the confederate or fellow participant in the context of a dyad relation. This can 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 the 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 real relations hip, its weakness is the sample is often small because of its exhaustive nature, expensive and time consuming. (Montoya, Horton Kirchner, 2008).Summary of Birds of a Feather Dont Always fly Farthest (Shiota Levenson, 2007)Given these concerns, it is interesting to see that the learn 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 probe that examines the effects of high level of similarity in the Big Five Personality on marriage satisfaction, which predicts the possible outcome in cost of a elongate trajectory that is then supported by the negative correlates or negative result. The authors discuss the significance of this result in price of different stages of marriage life, which contain different roles and responsibilities that will affect their satisfaction of marriage. For example, the first 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 social interactions. However, later in their mid-marriage life, when their passion has waned off, this will result in conflicts on issues like child rearing rather 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 propose a quick overview of some of the weaknesses in past studies. An example of this is the lack of distinction in examining the similarity of husband and wifes personalities as opposed to how an individuals personality office affect the marital satisfaction. Another is when past studies have chosen to only examine similarity in existing relationship in a cross-sectional 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 used to predict further development from the given twelve years study. Some limitations that have been self- place by the authors include the heathenish and generational effects that were resulted from the voluntary nature of the samples selection and also for the convenience of the research.More importantly, in their discussion, Shiota and Levenson (2007) have also explicitly referred to how complementary couples in terms of the Big Five personality may perhaps achieve higher(prenominal) level of marriage satisfaction. Their research also investigated on older couples who have been unite for at least thirty-five years and again, this show the decline in marriage satisfaction that occurs over time in couple who share a high level of similarity. However, as stated by the authors, this may not be true for other social domains of personality such as the superior/deferent trait that was tested in Winchs studies on complementarity. Nonetheless, the study provides the stepping-stone on the i nvestigation 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 different in their personality liking one another because they would fill in the gaps present in one anothers life. Formal definition for this term is borrowed from Winchs definition of need-complementarity in which an individual will be attracted to that person who gives the great promise of providing him or her with maximum need gratification (Winch et al., 1954, p. 242). Other terms used are complementary, an adjective used to describe how compatible two partners are even when they are different and complementariness, a noun that is used by Winch to refer to the degree in which two people can complement.Winchs Study and surmisal of Complementary Needs in Mate-SelectionWinch, Ktsanes and Ktsanes (1954) made a proposition, the theory of com plementary 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 married 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 deep down triangulation include a need-interview, which is to identify the type of need pairs present a 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 namely the choice of participants where they are clearly culturally biased towards the developed, Western views and the generational effects of participants involved.Winchs theory requir es that one of two conditions either token II or I must be met for complementarity between partners to exist. Type I is the difference in inspiration, where one partner will be highly expressive in a legitimate 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 amount of this need. Conversely, Type II is the difference in kind of the interactions between two individuals where both partners will be highly expressive but their needs are opposite to each other. 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 situations where both abasement-autonomy and abasement-hostility exist, which gives a different continuum that cannot be explained suffic iently by Type I. (Winch et al., 1954)Evaluation 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 despite 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. Therefore, since most replicated studies uses the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1953, as cited in Levinger, 1964), which is aimed for a general peer relations to test for the validity of Winchs theory of need-complementarity for married couples, the results are therefore considered to be inconclusive in regards to Winchs theory.Furthermore, Winchs theory has also been criticised f or insufficient explanation on the two types of complementarity. According to Levinger (1964), given the example of a hypothetical man who is average 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 problem by suggesting that if both partners express the same behaviour in equal amount and has the need for it in moderation then they would 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 development X to prove X. Levinger assumes that if there is a given situation where both partners express the same need in moderate quantity and it has also been shown that they co mplement with each others need, then they are showing complementarity. Nonetheless, Levinger acknowledges the loose 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 because 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 li mited 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 specialised 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 think to be used for testing general peer relations like friendship. Alternatively, we can also use the various circumflex models for interpersonal behaviour (Kiesler, 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 In terpersonal Circle.Empirical Research on the Complementarity HypothesisPerhaps 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 clear 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 mis leaders and ambiguous. If this is taken 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 seek 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 protest to strongly agree, Saint surveys twenty-eight 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 compl ementarity 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 change state 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 individualistic views and also, questions on whether the results and the conclusion drawn can be used for the general population. However, Saint clarifies this doubt by concluding that this study is a good indicator for complementaritys little impact on the Westerns selection of marriage. Thus, this gives the study its strength but still, it should be maintained that new(a) soc iety are slowly 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 of questionnaire. To some extent, it is a forced response despite the varying scale of agreeableness to a statement. Even if this assumption is wrong and that participants do not feel dependant 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. More importantly, there is al so 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 deuce-ace statements that result in a significant negative correlativity, which indicates the presence complementarity. They are when socialising I seek a high level of eye contact, using public transport is a stressful experience, and when socialising I will raise the level of my voice to make myself heard. Saint indicated earlier in his abduct 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 o r 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 bury the strengths 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, which engenders more bonny 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 coat and demographics. Moreover, changing the nature of the statements and increasing t he 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 have complementary needs. However, there is no definite 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 evaluation of Winchs concept, Levi nger (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 obvious 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 congruous 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 existi ng 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. New York Academic Press. diary ArticlesAntill, J. K. (1983). arouse role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social psychology , 45, 145-155.Aube, J., Koestner, R. (1995). Gender Characteristics and Relationship Adjustment Another Look at Similarity-Complementarity Hypotheses. Journal of Personality , 63, 879-904.Bowerman, C. E., Day, B. R. (1956). A 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. (2001). From appealing 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 . mental Review , 90, 185-214.Levinger, G. (1964). Note on Need Comp lementarity in Marriage. Psychological Bulletin , 61, 153-157.Lewis, J. R., Yancey, G. (1997). Racial and Nonracial Factors That Influence Spouse 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 Beget Hostility and Dominance, Submission? 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 Predic ts More Negative Marital Satisfaction Trajectories in long Marriages. Psychology and Aging , 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.