This interview study of 27 friendship and 14 romantic pairs examined the dialectical unity of two contradictions: similarity/difference and positivity/negativity. Relationship partners were able to identify phenomena upon which they were similar and upon which they were different. In addition, partners identified phenomena upon which they were both similar and different. Partners were able to identify similarities and differences that were positively valenced in addition to those that were negatively valenced; also, partners identified similarities and differences that were both positive and negative. Similarities and differences involved five kinds of phenomena: personality, leisure pursuits, attitudes and beliefs, communication style, and demographic/family background. Similarities were positive because they were perceived to facilitate communication, provide pleasure/fun, and provide assistance/support. Differences were positive because they contributed to individual growth and the facilitation of communication. Similarities and differences were negative because they resulted in conflict or other challenges to communication.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 145–155 .
2.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. (2000). Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. In W. Ickes & S. Duck (Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships(pp. 109–128). New York: Wiley .
3.
Aron, A., Aron, E., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612 .
4.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press .
5.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication . Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112 .
6.
Berger, P., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of social reality . Diogenes, 46, 1–24 .
7.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1969). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .
8.
Bochner, A. P. (1991). On the paradigm that would not die. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 14(pp. 484–491). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
9.
Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., & Altman, I. (1998). Choice points for dialecticians: A dialectical–transactional perspective on close relationships. In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships(pp. 137–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
10.
Burleson, B. R. (1994). Friendship and similarities in social-cognitive and communication abilities: Social skill bases of interpersonal attraction in childhood . Personal Relationships, 1, 371–390 .
11.
Burleson, B. R., & Denton, W. H. (1992). A new look at similarity and attraction in marriage: Similarities in social-cognitive and communication skills as predictors of attraction and satisfaction . Communication Monographs, 59, 268–287 .
12.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press .
13.
Byrne, D., & Lamberth, J. (1971). Cognitive and reinforcement theories as complementary approaches to the study of attraction. In B. I. Murstein (Ed.), Theories of attraction and love(pp. 59–84). New York: Springer .
14.
Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Newbury Park: Sage .
15.
Conville, R. (1991). Relational transitions: The evolution of personal relationships. New York: Praeger .
16.
Cornforth, M. (1968). Materialism and the dialectical method. New York: International .
17.
Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
18.
Duck, S., & Barnes, M. K. (1992). Disagreeing about agreement: Reconciling differences about similarity . Communication Monographs, 59, 199–208 .
19.
Frazier, P. A., Byer, A. L., Fischer, A. R., Wright, D. M., & DeBord, K. A. (1996). Adult attachment style and partner choice: Correlational and experimental findings . Personal Relationships, 3, 117–136 .
20.
Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
21.
Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs . Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–168 .
22.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (1974). The social context of interpersonal attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction(pp. 61–78). New York: Academic Press .
23.
Kerckhoff, A. C., & Davis, K. E. (1962). Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection . American Sociological Review, 27, 295–303 .
24.
Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1973). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. Burr, R. Hill, F. Nye, & I. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Volume 1(pp. 268–294). New York: Free Press .
25.
Monsour, M. (1994). Similarities and dissimilarities in personal relationships: Constructing meaning and building intimacy through communication. In S. Duck (Ed.), Dynamics of relationships(pp. 112–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
26.
Neimeyer, R. A., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1983). Structural similarity and the acquaintance process . Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 146–154 .
27.
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston .
28.
Schutz, W. C. (1960). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston .
29.
Sillars, A. L. (1985). Interpersonal perception in relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships(pp. 227–305). New York: Springer .
30.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston .
31.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
32.
Sunnafrank, M. (1992). On debunking the attitude similarity myth . Communication Monographs, 59, 164–179 .
33.
Surra, C. A., & Longstreth, M. (1990). Similarity of outcomes, interdependence, and conflict in dating relationships . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1–16 .
34.
Tedlock, D., & Mannheim, B. (Eds.). (1995). The dialogic emergence of culture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press .
35.
VanLear, C. A. (1998). Dialectic empiricism: Science and relationship metaphors. In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships(pp. 109–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
36.
Werner, C., & Parmelee, P. (1979). Similarity of activity preferences among friends: Those who play together stay together . Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 62–66 .
37.
Winch, R. F. (1958). Mate selection: A study in complementary needs. New York: Harper and Row .
38.
Wood, J. T., Dendy, L. L., Dordek, E., Germany, M., & Varallo, S.M. (1994). Dialectic of difference: A thematic analysis of intimates’ meanings for differences. In K. Carter & M. Prisnell (Eds.), Interpretive approaches to interpersonal communication(pp. 115–136). New York: SUNY Press .
