Transformations and the Development

of Beliefs about Relationships

Catherine A. Surra, Melissa A. Curran, and

Christine R. Gray

The University of Texas at Austin

Paper presented at the meeting of the International

Association for Relationship Research,

Madison, WI, July 23, 2004

A central motivation for

contemporary romantic

relationships

To share enjoyment of

everyday activities

Purpose of paper

� How does enjoyment, measured as

the extent to which partners like

everyday activities, affect

interpersonal attitudes and beliefs

Two Theories

a. Compatibility theory

b. Interdependence theory

Compatibility of Activity

Preferencesa. Information about partners’ activity preferences is

easy for individuals to obtain

b. Interaction will be more rewarding when they

both prefer activities that they do together

c. Similarity should be rewarding in its own

right

� validates self-identify of each partner

� simplifies behavioral choices

Compatibility Hypothesis

� Greater similarity of preferences will be

associated with:

� More positive beliefs about the relationship

(e.g., more satisfaction, commitment, trust)

� More positive interpersonal attitudes toward

the relationship (e.g., love)

Interdependence Theory

� What happens when partners have dissimilar preferences for the same behavioral choice?

a. Transformation of preferences

b. Positive beliefs develop as individuals observe the partner transforming or not

Interdependence Hypothesis

� The more individuals transform their

dissimilar preferences when making

behavioral choices, the more positive

will be their partners’ relational beliefs

Within-person expectations

a. Transforming own preferences will be associated with less positive attitudes and beliefs about the relationship

b. Greater levels of transforming will be associated with more positive relationship beliefs

Sample

a. Random digit dialing of households in greater Austin, Texas

b. 464 individuals, or 232 couples, between ages of 19 and 35 years, never been married, and dating someone of opposite sex

c. Mean length of relationship = 27 months

8% of the sample casually dating

48% seriously dating

44% privately or publicly engaged

Procedure

Phase 1: Face to face long interview

� Respondents rated preferences for performing:

� 33 leisure activities (e.g., playing video games, going out to eat at a restaurant)

� 15 affectional activities (e.g., talk about work or school, make out, make love)

� 11 task activities (e.g., clean house, cook or make a meal, manage money)

� Completed questionnaires describing the relationship

Procedure, cont.

Phase 2:

� 7 short monthly interviews

� Month 2: Diaries of activities

performed with partner

Phase 3:

� Monthly interview and long interview

Relationship variables (Phase 1)

� Passionate love scale (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986)

� Friendship-based love scale (Grote & Frieze,

1994)

� Trust that partner is honest and benevolent

(Larzelere & Huston, 1980)

� Belongingness (Braiker & Kelley, 1979)

� Commitment (purged measure based on Rusbult,

1980)

Activity preferences, diary data,

and transformations

� Cluster analysis on activity preferences:

� Affectional or talking

� Sexual

� Task

� Noncompetitive leisure

� Competitive leisure

Table 1

Procedure for Creating Groups of Transformers

Activity performance

Potential to

transform

None or low

High

High

Weak

transformers

Strong

transformers

Low

No need to

transform

No need to

transform

Note. Ns in each group range from 22 to 141, and vary by activity type.

Compatibility Hypothesis

Individuals who have similar

preferences, or no need to transform,

will report more positive interpersonal

attitudes and beliefs than strong

or weak transformers

Table 2

Compatibility Theory: Within-Person Hypothesis for Men

Summary of ANOVAs testing Male No Need versus Weak and Strong Transformers for

Male Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs

Male

Affectional

Male

Sexual

Male

Task

Male

Non-

competitive

Male

Competitive

Male

Belongingness No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Strong

No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Weak

Male

Passionate

Love

No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Strong

No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Weak

Male

Friendship

Based Love

No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Strong

No Need >

Weak +

No Need >

Weak +

No Need >

Weak +

Male Honesty No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Strong

Male

Benevolence No Need >

Weak

Male

Satisfaction No Need >

Weak

Male Global

Commitment No Need >

Weak

Bolded cells are consistent with the hypothesis.

Italicized cells are inconsistent with the hypothesis.

+ Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

Table 3

Compatibility Theory: Within-Person Hypothesis for Women

Summary of ANOVAs testing Female No Need versus Weak and Strong Transformers for

Female Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs

Female

Affectional

Female

Sexual

Female

Task

Female

Non-

competitive

Female

Competitive

Female

Belongingness No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Weak

Female

Passionate

Love

No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Weak

Weak >

No Need

Female

Friendship

Based Love

No Need >

Weak

Female

Honesty

Female

Benevolence

Strong >

No Need +

Strong >

No Need +

Female

Satisfaction

Female Global

Commitment No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Weak

Bolded cells are consistent with the hypothesis.

Italicized cells are inconsistent with the hypothesis.

+ Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

Interdependence Hypothesis:

Within-Couple� The more individuals transform their

dissimilar preferences when making

behavioral choices, the more positive

will be their partners’ relational beliefs

Table 4

Interdependence Theory: Within-Couple Hypothesis

Summary of ANOVAs testing Male Strong versus Weak and No Need Transformers for

Female Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs

Male

Affectional

Male

Sexual

Male

Task

Male

Non-

competitive

Male

Competitive

Female

Belongingness

Female

Passionate

Love

Strong >

No Need +

Female

Friendship

Based Love

Female

Honesty

Female

Benevolence

Strong >

Weak

Strong >

Weak +

Female

Satisfaction Strong >

Weak

Strong >

No Need

Strong >

Weak

Strong >

No Need

Female Global

Commitment Strong >

No Need +

Strong >

Weak +

Bolded cells are consistent with the hypothesis.

Italicized cells are inconsistent with the hypothesis.

+ Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

Table 5

Interdependence Theory: Within-Couple Hypothesis

Summary of ANOVAs testing Female Strong versus Weak and No Need Transformers for

Male Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs

Female

Affectional

Female

Sexual

Female

Task

Female

Non-

competitive

Female

Competitive

Male

Belongingness Strong >

Weak

Strong >

No Need

Male

Passionate

Love

Strong >

Weak

Strong >

No Need

Male

Friendship

Based Love

Strong >

Weak +

Strong >

No Need +

Male Honesty

Male

Benevolence

Strong >

No Need +

Male

Satisfaction

Male Global

Commitment

Bolded cells are consistent with the hypothesis.

Italicized cells are inconsistent with the hypothesis.

+ Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

Interdependence: Expectations

for Within-Person Effects

� Relationship beliefs will be less positive for strong transformers

� Relationship beliefs will be more positive for strong transformers

Table 6

Interdependence Theory: Within-Person Hypothesis for Men

Summary of ANOVAs testing Male Strong versus Weak and No Need Transformers for

Male Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs

Male

Affectional

Male

Sexual

Male

Task

Male

Competitive

Male

Non-

competitive

Male

Belongingness

No Need >

Strong

Strong >

Weak

Strong >

Weak

Strong >

Weak

Male

Passionate

Love

No Need >

Strong

Strong >

Weak

Strong >

Weak

Male

Friendship

Based Love

No Need >

Strong

Strong >

Weak +

Male Honesty Strong >

Weak

No Need >

Strong

Male

Benevolence

Male

Satisfaction

Strong >

Weak

Male Global

Commitment Strong >

Weak

Strong >

Weak

Italicized cells are inconsistent with the first hypothesis.

Bolded cells are consistent with the second hypothesis.

+ Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

Table 7

Interdependence Theory: Within-Person Hypothesis for Women

Summary of ANOVAs testing Female Strong versus Weak and No Need Transformers for

Female Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs

Female

Affectional

Female

Sexual

Female

Task

Female

Non-

competitive

Female

Competitive

Female

Belongingness Strong >

Weak

Strong >

Weak

Female

Passionate

Love

Strong >

Weak

Strong >

No Need

Female

Friendship

Based Love

Female Honesty

Female

Benevolence Strong >

No Need +

Strong >

No Need +

Female

Satisfaction

Female Global

Commitment Strong >

Weak

Strong >

Weak

Italicized cells are inconsistent with the first expectation.

Bolded cells are consistent with the second expectation.

+ Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons..

Compatibility Theory:

Within-Couple Effects� How does being paired with a partner who

has no need to transform relate to

interpersonal attitudes and beliefs

Table 8

Compatibility Theory: Within-Couple Effects

Summary of ANOVAs testing Female No Need versus Weak and Strong Transformers for

Male Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs

Female

Affectional

Female

Sexual

Female

Task

Female

Noncompetitive

Female

Competitive

Male

Belongingness

Strong >

No Need

Male

Passionate

Love

Strong >

No Need

Male

Friendship

Based Love

Strong >

No Need +

Male Honesty

Male

Benevolence

Strong >

No Need +

Male

Satisfaction

Male Global

Commitment

+ Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

Table 9

Compatibility Theory: Within-Couple Effects

Summary of ANOVAs testing Male No Need versus Weak and Strong Transformers for

Female Interpersonal Attitudes and Beliefs

Male

Affectional

Male

Sexual

Male

Task

Male

Non-

competitive

Male

Competitive

Female

Belongingness

Female

Passionate

Love

Strong >

No Need +

Female

Friendship

Based Love

Female

Honesty

Weak >

No Need +

Female

Benevolence

No Need >

Weak

No Need >

Weak +

Female

Satisfaction

Strong >

No Need

Strong >

No Need

Female Global

Commitment

Strong >

No Need +

+ Omnibus F marginally significant, but contrast is significant in planned comparisons.

Conclusions� Strong and consistent support for compatibility

theory, but stronger for men than women

� Similarity of preferences lays groundwork for interaction that is pleasant and agreeable to the partners, validates individuals’ self-identities, and aids in formation of mutual identification as a couple

� Results for men were especially strong across all relationship beliefs and activity domains, except sexual

� Role of activity preferences in the quality of men’s relationships

Interdependence theory: Support

consistent, but less pervasive, than

for compatibility theory

� Domains fundamental to the internal functioning

of relationships: affectional and sexual

� Positive beliefs appear to motivate

transformations, and somewhat more so for men

than women

Interdependence theory: Support

consistent, but less pervasive, than

for compatibility theory

� Domains fundamental to the internal

functioning of relationship: affectional and

sexual

� Positive beliefs appear to motivate

transformations, and somewhat more so for

men than women

Interdependence theory: Support

consistent, but less pervasive, than

for compatibility theory, cont.

� Under what conditions does making

transformations reinforce positive beliefs

above and beyond what is achieved by

mere compatibility? (Strong vs. no need)

� Is making transformations costly for men

or women? No for women, and possibly

for men

How does compatibility theory

stack up against

interdependence theory?

� Individuals’ transformations more important than similarity for formation of partners’ beliefs

� Compatibility has value for the individual

� No need to transform is far superior to weakly transforming

� For men, sometimes having no need to transform is superior to having to give up