Dominant behavior has been related to lower quality romantic relationships. The present study examined two processes through which dominant behavior affects the quality of romantic relationships: (1) the extent to which the partner’s dominance increases the person’s negative affect by thwarting the person’s sense of autonomy and (2) the degree to which the person’s negative affect in reaction to the partner’s dominant behavior affects relationship satisfaction. Using an event-contingent recording (ECR) methodology, 92 cohabiting couples reported their dominant behavior, negative affect, and autonomy in interactions with each other during 20 days. Relationship satisfaction was measured at the end of the ECR period. The results indicated that when a partner engages in dominant behavior, the person experiences greater negative affect in part due to a sense of thwarted autonomy and that greater negative affective reaction in association with the partner’s dominant behavior is related to lower relationship satisfaction in the person.
BradburyT. N.CampbellS. M.FinchamF. D. (1995). Longitudinal and behavioral analysis of masculinity and femininity in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 328–341. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.328
2.
BradburyT. N.FinchamF. D. (1991). A contextual model for advancing the study of marital interaction. In FletcherG. J. O.FinchamF. D. (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 127–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
CarsonR. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
4.
CôtéS.MoskowitzD.ZuroffD. C. (2012). Social relationships and intraindividual variability in interpersonal behavior: Correlates of interpersonal spin. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholology, 102, 646–659. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025313
5.
CundiffJ. M.SmithT. W.ButnerJ.CritchfieldK. L.Nealey-MooreJ. (2015). Affiliation and control in marital interaction: Interpersonal complementarity is present but is not associated with affect or relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 35–51. doi:10.1177/0146167214557002
6.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
7.
EhrensaftM. K.Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ.HeymanR. E.O’LearyK. D.LawrenceE. (1999). Feeling controlled in marriage: A phenomenon specific to physically aggressive couples?Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 20–32. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.1.20
8.
FilsingerE. E.ThomaS. J. (1988). Behavioral antecedents of relationship stability and adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 785–795. doi:10.2307/352647
9.
Gray-LittleB.BaucomD. H.HambyS. L. (1996). Marital power, marital adjustment, and therapy outcome. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 292–303. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.292.
10.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2013). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19, 72–91. doi:10.1037/a0032138
11.
GottmanJ. M. (1990). How marriages change. In PattersonG. R. (Ed.), Depression and aggression in family interaction (pp. 75–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
GottmanJ. M.CoanJ.CarrereS.SwansonC. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 5–22. doi:10.2307/353438
13.
Gray-LittleB. (1982). Marital quality and power processes among black couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 633–646. doi:10.2307/351585
14.
Gray-LittleB.BurksN. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 513–538. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.93.3.513
15.
HeaveyC. L.ChristensenA.MalamuthN. M. (1995). The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 797–801. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.797
16.
HorowitzL. M.RosenbergS. E.BaerB. A.UreñoG.VillaseñorV. S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885–892. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.885
17.
HorowitzL. M.WilsonK. R.TuranB.ZolotsevP.ConstantinoM. J.HendersonL. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67–86. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_4
18.
JamesA. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178. doi:10.1037/h0077714
19.
KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075
20.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
KieslerD. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185
22.
LarsenR. J.DienerE. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In ClarkM. S. (Ed.), Emotion (pp. 25–59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
LawrenceE.BarryR. A.BrockR. L.BundeM.LangerA.RoE.…DzankovicS. (2011). The relationship quality interview: Evidence of reliability, convergent and divergent validity, and incremental utility. Psychological Assessment, 23, 44–63. doi:10.1037/a0021096
24.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
MoskowitzD. S. (1994). Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 921–933. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.921
26.
MoskowitzD. S.RussellJ. J.SadikajG.SuttonR. (2009). Measuring people intensively. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne; Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 50, 131–140. doi:10.1037/a0016625
27.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2014). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
28.
OrfordJ. (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity: Does hostility beget hostility and dominance, submission?Psychological Review, 93, 365–377. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.365
29.
PincusA. L.AnsellE. B. (2003). Interpersonal theory of personality. In MillonT.WeinerI. B. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 209–229). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
30.
SadikajG.MoskowitzD. S.ZuroffD. C. (In Press). Intrapersonal variability in interpersonal perception in romantic relationships: Biases and accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.011
31.
SadikajG.RappaportL. M.MoskowitzD. S.ZuroffD. C.KoestnerR.PowersT. (2015a). Consequences of interpersonal spin on couple-relevant goal progress and relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychololgy, 109, 722–737. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000043
32.
SadikajG.MoskowitzD. S.ZuroffD. C. (2015b). Felt security in daily interactions as a mediator of the effect of attachment on relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 29, 187–200. doi: 10.1002/per.1988
33.
SadikajG.MoskowitzD. S.ZuroffD. C. (2015c). Intrapersonal variability in negative affect as a moderator of accuracy and bias in interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29, 468–485. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2015.29.4.468
34.
SanfordK. (2010). Perceived threat and perceived neglect: Couples’ underlying concerns during conflict. Psychological Assessment, 22, 288–297. doi:10.1037/a0018706
35.
SatorraA.BentlerP. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
36.
SnyderD. K.HeymanR. E.HaynesS. N. (2005). Evidence-based approaches to assessing couple distress. Psychological Assessment, 17, 288–307. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.288
37.
SpanierG. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 15–28. doi:10.2307/350547
38.
Ting-ToomeyS. (1984). Perceived decision: Making power and marital adjustment. Communication Research Reports, 1, 15–20.
39.
WanicR.KulikJ. (2011). Toward an understanding of gender differences in the impact of marital conflict on health. Sex Roles, 65, 297–312. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9968-6
40.
WhismanM. A.JacobsonN. S. (1990). Power, marital satisfaction, and response to marital therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 202–212. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.4.2.202
41.
WigginsJ. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395
42.
WigginsJ. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In GroveD. C. W. M. (Ed.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 1: Matters of public interest; Vol. 2: Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
43.
WilliamsM.Tiedens (2015). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 165–197. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
