Literature Review_final draft

Running head: THE INTERACTION OF PERSONALITY AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 1
How We Chose Who We Do: The Interaction of Personality and Romantic Relationships
Sherri Wielgos
PSY 497
Fall 2013
Dr. Jeff Conte
San Diego State University

PERSONALITY AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 2
Introduction
Time and time again as human beings it is a mystery what draws and attracts us to
each other. The complicated phenomenon of selection, development and longevity of
romantic relationships is one that has been attempted to explain for decades. Attachment
styles, parental marital status and prior relationship history have all been examined as
possible predictors in romantic relationships. Equally important is the role of individual
development as human beings and their personality. Over years of research, empirical support
was given to the Five-Factor Model of Personality and now used in present research and
assessments. The Five-Factor Model is divided into the dimensions of Openness,
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neurotism or Emotional Stability used
to explain separate entities of an individual’s personality. In the field of psychology it became
necessary to explore and further examine the relationship between personality and romantic
relationships. Overwhelming research has shown a relationship between the Five-Factor
Model and the workplace from day to day, yet little has been directly connected with intimate
relationships (Judge, Simon, Hurst & Kelly, 2013). Therefore, further investigation of other
research was needed in order to draw conclusions relating personality and romantic
relationships.
Several studies have shown that longest romantic relationship has a significant effect
(Noftle & Shaver, 2006) on the ideas surrounding relationships. Certain meta-analysis studies
have shown relationships between personality and family (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007) as
well as mix of perceptions and realistic expectations in intimate relationships. Attachment
styles, including attachment avoidance and anxiety, have been revealed to have a connection
with personality in addition to the quality of relationships (Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright &
Johnson, 2013) that are exemplified in interpersonal and social behavior. Additional
investigation on perceptions of interpersonal views in cross-sex friendships showed

individual’s views of attraction and similarity (Morrey, 2007). Collective research has
proven that personality and its development is complicated and elaborates (Donnellan,
Larsen-Rife & Conger, 2005) the link to romantic relationships. The selection and entrance
into a relationship both in online dating misrepresentation (Hall, Park, Song & Cody, 2010)
and the discussion of looking for mates with similarities in personality to their own (Markey
& Markey, 2007) are growing interests in the field of personality. However, most people
have ideal romantic partners that differ from their own personality (Figueredo, Sefeck &
Jones, 2006).
Connecting attachment styles, personality, non-intimate relationships and selection of
romantic partners provides support for the influence personality has on romantic
relationships. Together all of the research gives evidence for a relationship between
personality and romantic relationships. The current evaluation aims to combine these findings
and provide sufficient evidence in favor of a positive correlation between personality and
romantic relationships.
Attachment Styles and Personality
In the study done by Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright and Johnson (2013), the variables
under inspection were personality, attachment style, interpersonal competency and Facebook
use. The original hypothesis was, a structural model that “attachment directly and positively
impacting interpersonal competence and extraversion, and directly and negatively influencing
neuroticism,”(pg.120) this also implied indirect effects on the remainder of the FFM. Their
sample was 617 participants, with a mean age of 18.43 years and the majority of participants
being female. In order to study these specific variables they used the ECR-R, 36-item
questionnaire with 7-point Likert scale related to attachment, the BFI, 44-questions on a 5-
point Likert scale for the Five-Factor Model of Personality, the ICS, 40-questions related to

interpersonal competency and a small scale created to assess Facebook use for each
participant.
The results explained that younger adults with insecure attachment were low on
extraversion and high on neuroticism and therefore low on interpersonal competency.
However, those high in extraversion were also high in interpersonal competency and there
was not a significant relationship between neuroticism and interpersonal competency.
Attachment styles of insecurity were linked with low extraversion and high neuroticism; the
opposite was also true, those with secure attachment styles were high in extraversion and low
in neuroticism and then had better interpersonal competency and communication skills.
Given the age of the participants it was expected by researchers that throughout college they
would continue to develop more social behaviors and interpersonal skills as they completed
their degrees. These findings show that two of the five FFM traits interact with social and
interpersonal beliefs and behavior. Researchers encouraged others to study the relationships
between these variables in order to gain more understanding on individual human personality
and the interactions with interpersonal skills as they influence the development and longevity
of relationships.
Additional research by Haggerty, Blake, Maraine, Siefert and Blais (2010), examined
similar factors of interest: attachment styles, personality through the Five-Factor Model and
romantic relationships in addition to interpersonal distress, childhood memories and
alexithymia (difficulty with identification, description and expression of emotions). Several
hypotheses were created in this study, first, SOS-10 total scores (10-item Likert scale items
measuring psychological well-being and distress) would be negatively correlated with
insecure attachment styles, interpersonal problems and alexithymia (Haggerty, Blake,
Maraine, Siefert & Blais, 2010). In the second it was hypothesized that, SOS-10 scores
would be positively correlated with secure attachment, Emotional Stability, Extraversion,

Conscientiousness and Openness. The final hypothesis was that SOS-10 scores would be
associated with positive affect in recall of early childhood memories (Haggerty et al., 2010).
This study had 225 (undergraduate and graduate) students with 183 females and 42
male as participants. Each participant was given a packet of self reports including: SOS-10,
Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) examining attachment styles, Experiences in Close
Relationship Scale (ECR) aimed at specifically attachment styles of avoidance and anxiety,
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (IIR-32) looking at interpersonal behavior,
Big Five Inventory-54 (BFI-54) of personality and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-
20). Then participants were asked to recall an early childhood memory and report the
duration of their longest romantic relationship.
Independent t-tests on all measures showed no gender differences. The researchers
hypotheses were supported, SOS-10 scores were positively correlated with secure attachment
style, all five factors of personality dimensions, rating of childhood memories and length of
the participants’ longest romantic relationship (Haggerty et al., 2010). It was also shown that
the SOS-10 scores were negatively correlated with interpersonal behaviors through the IIP-32
with the exception of vindictive behaviors, preoccupied and dismissive attachment styles,
attachment anxiety and avoidance and total score of TAS-20. Further discussion on this study
explained that high scores on the SOS-10 was linked with decreased amount of interpersonal
distress, and increased development of secure attachments in addition, participants scored
high on extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability.
These participants also reported longer romantic relationships, however, the length may not
“be a good indicator of relationship quality” (Haggerty et al., 2010), because individuals
often stay in relationships longer than is healthy due to other factors. On the contrary, those
who scored lower on the SOS-10 showed more interpersonal conflict and insecure attachment
styles that manifest in their attention being more focused on abandonment and less on the

other important things in life. These individuals tended to be less agreeable, emotionally
stable and open to new experiences. This study highlights the relationships between
personality, psychological well-being, interpersonal behaviors and multiple factors that are
linked to functions within romantic relationships. Again it is evident that those scoring higher
on all personality factors of the FFM in were more psychologically stable and carried out
healthier interpersonal behaviors that were likely directly related to the longer length of
romantic relationships.
Research done by Noftle and Shaver (2006), involved multiple studies but for the
purposes of this review the focus will be on the first study that related attachment avoidance
and anxiety (ECR) with the Five-Factor Model of personality (BFI). The main hypothesis
looked at correlations between two dimensions, regression equations predicting attachment
anxiety and avoidance from the Big Five and correlations of anxiety and avoidance to each
BFI item (Noftle & Shaver, 2006). The participants involved in this study consisted of 8318
students from a West Coast university (5417 women and 2901 men) with 43% reporting
being single. Each participant was given a 44-item BFI assessment on personality and 36-
items on Experiences in Close Relationship scale (ECR) on attachment styles.
Results showed that there were no demographic differences given the large sample
size; the only notable differences were people who were not in a relationship during the time
of the study were more avoidant than those in a relationship. Also, men reported to be lower
on Neuroticism (or higher on Emotional Stability) than women. The attachment variables and
Big Five dimensions were significantly correlated, however the magnitude of the correlations
varied. As anticipated attachment anxiety was highly and positively correlated with
Neuroticism whereas avoidance was negatively correlated with Agreeableness. The
remaining Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientious were all moderately and
negatively correlated with both attachment variables and only a modest, negative correlation

with Openness. Further discussion explained that attachment anxiety is related with
Neuroticism and the self-disciplined aspects of Conscientiousness whereas avoidance is
associated with low Extraversion (high Introversion), distrustfulness and uncooperativeness
that is linked to low Agreeableness and the depression aspect of Neuroticism (Noftle &
Shaver, 2006). This study reinforces the previous study done by Haggerty et al., (2010), that
links the negative attachment styles of avoidance and anxiety with lower levels in the Five-
Factor Model items. It is necessary to draw the conclusion that people with higher reported
Extraversion, Agreeableness and Emotional Stability (low Neuroticism) would have higher
predictions of success in romantic or intimate relationships. They would also have healthier
behaviors following possible break ups in those intimate relationships.
Personality and non-intimate Relationships
The Five-Factor Model of personality has been used excessively in
Industrial/Organizational Psychology and extensive research has shown the connection
between personality and work place factors. In a study done by Judge et al., (2013), this idea
was expanded on in order to examine the relationship between work experiences and
personality. They developed hypotheses that predicted shifts in personality states with
situations that evoked an approach or avoidance orientation. They also investigated
similarities between social, affective and cognitive elements of the experience that related to
a given personality state (Judge et al., 2013). These were researched in the framework of next
day personality states after a situation presented itself.
There were 129 participants involved in the study from a variety of full-time
employment backgrounds including: finance, construction, health care, education, legal,
engineering, service and information technology. The study took place over two weeks
without any holidays. Each participant was asked to complete a survey at the end of each
workday, in addition to these daily surveys, they completed surveys that contained measures

of personality, citizenship behavior, intrinsic motivation, goal-setting motivation, and
interpersonal conflict. One assessment gauging the Big Five characteristics was given to
determine global personality traits. Out of the 150 participants invited, 129 of them started
the study, with a mean age of 33.48 years and the majority of them being female (73.4%). All
participants received a high school diploma and just over half (51.3%) had at least a
bachelor’s degree. Each participant had worked in his or her organization for an average of
4.89 years. By the end of the study 122 participants’ data was able to be used and assessed.
The results from this study showed a significant relationship between Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Openness and citizen behavior. As citizen behavior increased towards others
or the organization itself, there was an increase in Extraversion, Agreeableness and Openness
the following day. Interpersonal conflict did not affect Agreeableness; however, decreased
Agreeableness did have an effect on interpersonal conflict the following day. It was shown
that as interpersonal conflict increased, reported levels of Neuroticism also increased and
both influenced each other in a multidirectional relationship. Finally, there was no
relationship explained between interpersonal conflict and Extraversion in either direction.
The conclusions drawn from this study explain that the main effects of personality on next
day work experience are mutually reinforced (Judge et al., 2013) however, some short term
variance could have a later effect on long term personality development. More research was
recommended to examine how the effects of this short term variance might change
personality over a life span. Results from this study further enforce the effects of personality
and interactions with others, not specifically romantic relationships, but business and
colleague relationships.
A meta-analysis was conducted at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign by
Lodi-Smith and Roberts (2007) to gather previous research and analyze relationships between
personality traits with social investment in work, family, religion and volunteerism. For the

purposes of this literature review, the focus from this study is personality and the effects on
family investments. It was hypothesized that there would be positive associations with the
three trait domains of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability with all four
social investments. On top of this there was an expected difference between psychological
investment and demographic investment in each domain. There were 12 articles involving
family investment as it is related to personality. Family social investment variables included,
parenting investment, relationship commitments and marital status (Lodi-Smith & Roberts,
2007). Then psychological variables were looked as a parent’s investment in his or her child,
as an important investment quality in life. It was measured by knowledge and awareness of
children’s activities, interests and friends with acceptance of a parenting role. Demographic
variables included marital status or stability in relationships. The investment in maintaining
the relationship versus those who ended marriages was also looked at demographically
because of the lengths of relationships and general assessment of commitment to marriage
(Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007).
The analysis gave support to the hypothesis with a “95% confidence interval that
indicates that family social involvement significantly relates to Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability” (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007). Of these
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability had a higher robust relationship than
Agreeableness did and due to relationships with other social investments in this study a
moderator relationship was suggested. It was then found that psychologically, family social
investment was more strongly related to Agreeableness and Emotional Stability and therefore
had a significant relationship. Both traits showed a higher relationship with psychological
investment than demographic investment and Conscientiousness was not found to be a
significant moderator for either. The discussion of these results conveyed that those who are
more Agreeable, Conscientious and Emotionally Stable are more likely to engage in social

investments (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007) and with social involvement it is expected that
individuals become more Agreeable, Conscientious and Emotionally Stable under the
socialization effect. The evaluation of psychological investment was a deeper and more
meaningful investment than demographic investment because it is evident in daily life that
people stay in relationships even if they are not longer invested in them due to convenience,
financial stability, prior history and personal values. It is necessary to note that specifically
social investments with family were positively related with Conscientiousness, Agreeableness
and Emotional Stability. Parent-child relationships are closer relationships than business or
colleague relationships it is evident that Five-Factor Personality traits are related to
investment and expression in interpersonal relationships.
Personality in Selection of Romantic Partners
A study done with cross-sex friends, (Morrey, 2007), it investigated the personal
judgments on relationships involving attraction-similarity. Multiple dimensions were
researched within this study: relationship satisfaction, perceived similarities and self-serving
perceptions. Morrey (2007) suggested that many of these opposite sex relationships are more
misunderstood than the general population believes and questioned if it was in fact a
friendship or a prelude to a romantic relationship. These are the following hypotheses, (1)
projection in terms of destiny and growth beliefs and disclosure and relationship relevant
traits, (2) the attraction-similarity hypothesis in terms of relationship beliefs and disclosure;
(3) the attraction-similarity model among cross-sex friendships and (4) whether individuals
make self- or relationship-serving attributions in cross-sex friendships (Morrey, 2007).
In the first study 120 participants of 60 female and male dyads were involved with an
average age of 19. 34 years. The requirement was that they had to known them for at least 3
months, were considered to be more of a friend than an acquaintance, they were not family
and someone with whom they had not dated before, the average length of friendship was

37.26 months. Measures were then taken on a relationship satisfaction via 7-item
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), perceived similarity on a 24-item Locus of Control
Scale, 8-iten destiny and growth scale, 10-disclosure items and finally a self-rated
assessment.
Results for the first study showed that the perceptions of the friendship did not match
the self ratings, reinforcing the variable of projection onto another person. It was discussed
that in cross-sex friendships there is more projection of similarity than actually is present.
In the second study, it was aimed to examine that higher attraction predicts greater
perceived similarity. Prior to Morrey’s (2007) research had only shown that relationship
satisfaction was predictive of similarity perceptions, and closeness is positively related with
satisfaction, therefore suggesting closeness may predict perceived similarity.
This study consisted of 227 students in mixed sex groups from 10-20 people, and the
average age of the participants was 18.78 years. However, men were significantly older with
an average age of 19.04 years in this study than women with an average age of 18.57 years.
Women also reported longer cross-sex relationships than men. Participants were asked to call
to mind a friend that they were not dating and had not previously dated and then used the
same materials from Study 1 with the addition of an Inclusion of Other in Self (IOS) scale to
best describe the closeness of friendship (Morrey, 2007).
From this study results concluded that large positive correlations between self-ratings
and perceptions of friends on all the measures (Morrey, 2007). There were two significant
difference between men and women, external locus of control (men r=.63, women r=.48,
Z=1.73, p<.05) and very supportive (men r=.80, women r=.54, Z=3.96, p<.001). The
conclusions drawn in this discussion showed that individuals perceived themselves as more
positively than their friend, a self-serving attribution; however, closeness did not predict
perceived similarity (Morrey, 2007).

The third study aimed to investigate the attribution-similarity model with the self
having fewer negative aspects than a friend. Study 3 included 148 participants in mixed sex
groups of 10-20 with an average age of 20.55 years and duration of cross-sex relationships of
44.21 months. The same measurements were used as in Study 2 with the addition of a 28-
item measure of conflict resolution behaviors.
Study 3 results showed no significant differences between men and women.
Regressions showed that satisfaction predicted perceived similarity of all traits excluding exit
and disclosure behaviors as well as voice behaviors. Satisfaction was also significantly
correlated with closeness ( r=.42, p<.01) and the length of relationship was significantly
related. This illustrated that again more positive attributes were given to the self over the
friend but contrary to the original hypothesis, self ratings indicated more negative conflict
behaviors (Morrey, 2007).
Final discussion over this entire study gives evidence to the development of intimate
relationships. It is evident that individuals perceive more similarity in intimate relationships
than are present, however, similarities may build over time and during the length of the
relationship as they adapt their emotions, values, verbal and social skills, but not personality.
This group of studies depicted that when it comes to the formation of relationships
individuals over attribute similarities, attraction is not a strong predictor and the development
of intimate relationships can lead to more similarities in couples but does not change an
individual’s personality.
Another study aimed to gather evidence that predict romantic relationships in young
adults. Donnellan, Larson-Rife and Conger (2005), developed the theory that individuals
differences in personality, in addition to experiences in their family of origin may affect the
competence of romantic relationships. By using an informant version of a personality test, the
researchers examine these two variables: (1) whether specific relationship interaction patterns

mediate links between personality traits and global evaluations of the relationship, and
individual differences in personality and (2) if experiences in the family of origin have
independent effects on relationships as their main hypothesis (Donnellan et al., 2005). The
sample used was a section of 500 adolescence students and their parents were also
interviewed, for 2 hours on two separate occasions with the second visit involving a
videotaping of the family interactions. This particular study has built off of previous studies
with multiple phases that took place years prior. Of the 290 studied with romantic partners,
246 couples were still in the same relationship five years later and of those this study was
derived. The average age that individuals met their partner was 18. 35 years. In the study
there was a videotaping that gave evidence for observed nurturing-involved parenting and
observed marital negativity. Then parents answered a 33-item Multidimensional Personality
Questionnaire Scale for their child during late adolescence. In addition to the observed
negative relationship interactions, relationship quality on a marriage quality index was also
evaluated.
The results derived from this study showed that the parent behavior had an effect on
early adult romantic relationships and that personality played a role in the romantic
relationships. It was shown that nurturing–involved parenting was positively correlated with
positive emotionality and constraint. In a five year span it was evident that the family of
origin influenced romantic relationships and behaviors in addition to the individual difference
brought about by personality. Links between positive emotionality (achievement, social
closeness, social potency and well-being) were all related with positive experiences within
romantic relationships. However, it was discussed that personality and developmental
influences do not explain everything about relationships and more research was needed in
this area. This particular study, while not examining romantic relationships through the Five-
Factor Model depicted similarities between what would be labeled as Agreeableness,

Extraversion, Conscientiousness and possibly Emotional Stability. The primary research was
conducted before the boom of the Big Five but still has links and gives more evidence that
personality directly influences the development, longevity and satisfaction within a romantic
relationship.
In a study done by Hall et al. (2010), the world of online dating was explored and how
likely it is for individuals to “misrepresent” themselves on dating profiles. The first set of
hypotheses involved gender differences and assumed that men were more likely to
misrepresent their personal assets (income, education, etc.) and relationship goals than
women. On the other hand, they proposed that women would more likely misrepresent their
age and weight more than men (Hall et al., 2010). The second grouping of hypotheses
involved the personality dimensions involved in misrepresentation, it was stated that
Neuroticism and Extraversion would positively impact misrepresentation and Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness and Openness would negatively impact misrepresentation. The researchers
were able to sample 5,020 participants with 74% of them being female, an average age of
39.8 years (range 18-96, SD=11.4) and 52% of them reported being single and never married.
Surveys were sent through the online dating site and included self-monitoring scales for
misrepresentation and FFM. Due to the large sample, Hall and his colleagues set the
significance level at p<.01. The results showed the following conclusions, between men and
women, men were significantly more likely to misrepresent their personal assets, personal
interests, personal attributes and age than women (Hall et al., 2010). Women were
significantly more likely to misrepresent their weight and there was no difference shown in
relationship goals or past relationship reports. As far as personality variables are concerned,
Neuroticism showed no significance in predicting misrepresentation; however, Extraversion
had mixed results. Extraversion showed to positively increase the misrepresentation of past
relationships but decrease the chance of them misrepresenting their personal interests. This

could likely have been due to covering up promiscuous sexual behavior and that they are
more likely to try new things and have exciting interests. Conscientiousness was linked a
decreased likelihood to misrepresent their personal assets, relationship goals and personal
interests. Agreeableness was shown to decrease misrepresentation on all fronts except weight
and Openness was linked with a decreased likelihood to misrepresent relationship goals and
personal interests (Hall et al., 2010). The “utility of FFM in explaining misrepresentation in
online dating depends on the topic,”(Hall et al., 2010), given it had the second largest
predictive effects on misrepresentation expect on weight. It goes to show that personality
traits reflect how individuals want themselves to be perceived by possible romantic partners
at the early stages of selection.
Additional research was done in the field of personality as it relates to an “ideal”
romantic partner in mate selection. Figueredo, Sefcek and Jones (2006), aimed to further
support the similarity theory (that individuals select mates similar to themselves) or the
complementarity theory (individuals select mates that dissimilar to them and tend to have
opposite characteristics). Their main hypothesis was that the “ideal romantic partner” would
have more similarities to the participants’ personality. The second hypothesis was that
relative mate-value (attractiveness to another person) would play a larger role in the actual
partner they chose over their “ideal romantic partner” (Figueredo et al., 2006). In the first
study looking at “ideal romantic partners,” participants were examined for differences
between individuals and gender. There were 104 participants from a large university, 81 were
female with an average age of 21 and the 23 males had an average age of 23. They were
asked to complete NEO-FFI on their ideal partner followed by a NEO-FFSELF inventory
voluntarily during a class lecture and told it would be used for future research. In this study
the results proved that participants “look” for mates similar to themselves on all personality
factors (Figueredo et al., 2006). There were no differences between gender and age.

Participants showed that they ideally select mates similar to them on all personality variables
(Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) and they look
for “ideal partners” to be slightly higher in Conscientiousness, Extraversion and
Agreeableness and lower in Neuroticism than themselves (Figueredo et al., 2006). This
further supports the positive associative theory and explains that individuals ideally look for a
mate close in similarity to themselves. Then a second study was done to examine the actual
romantic partners individuals choose to support the complementarity theory. This time 161
undergraduates were studied, 119 were female, 30 male and 12 did not select a gender. Of
these participants 87% reported currently being involved in a romantic relationship and those
that were not were asked to report on their most recent relationship. In addition to the
personality inventories given in the first study, this time for their actual partner, they were
also given a mate-value inventory to determine the importance of mate attraction. While
“individuals have ideal romantic partners that have personalities that match their own,” they
“did not seem to have actual romantic partners who matched themselves on personality
traits,” (Figueredo et al., 2006). While their ideal partners are slightly higher in three traits,
lower in Neuroticism, relatively the same in Openness, and significantly higher in mate-value
or attraction, they reported that their actual partners were lower in Openness and Neuroticism
than the participant and the same in MVI (mate-value inventory). While participants were not
matched with their ideal personality they were matched with their relative mate value or
attractiveness, leaving the thought that while they may want a person similar to themselves
other mate-value may override their preference (Figueredo et al., 2006). This study gives
more evidence that while many individuals believe they would select a mate similar to their
personality they actually select mates that seem to compliment their peersonality differences
and are at the same attractiveness level.

In a similar study looking at the ideal partner selection and comparing to actual
partners was done by Markey and Markey (2007) was done and added the factor of
relationship experiences. In the first study to examine romantic ideals, 169 undergraduate
who were seeking romantic partners were sampled. One hundred and three of them were
female and 66 were male. In groups of two to six they were given multiple questionnaires, a
self-rated personality (IAS-R), filler questionnaires and a personality of romantic ideal
(edited version of the IAS-R). The results showed that both females and males fit the
similarity theory of data (Markey & Markey, 2007). They seek ideal partners that are the
same in warmth and dominance respectively (Markey & Markey, 2007). In the second study,
a sample of 212 participants (106 heterosexual couples) that had been in a romantic
relationship for at least a year were assessed, of these couples 30 couples were married, 34
cohabitating and 42 exclusively dating but not living together. In separate lab rooms they
were asked to answer honestly on the self-rated personality and relationship quality inventory
(15-items from the Marital Interaction Scale) to evaluate love, conflict and level of agreement
on relationship quality. The results determined all couples fit in the high, moderate or low
relationship quality groups; all groups had significant results (Markey & Markey, 2007). It
was proposed then that those high in quality would be more complementary. This supports
couples “with high relationship quality display significantly higher amount of complementary
between individuals than couples with low relationship quality,” (Markey & Markey, 2007).
These high relationship quality couples showed more dissimilarity in dominance and warmth
thus making them more complementary. While similarity best describes personalities of
actual romantic couples, even though they are not as similar as ideal romantic partners, it
showed that the model of complementary best predicted romantic obtainment (Markey and
Markey, 2007). These studies reinforce the idea that individuals seek mates or partners that

are more similar to them than the partners they actually obtain. It also reported that some
differences in personality lead to a higher relationship quality.
Summary and Future Directions
Given all of the research on attachment styles, non-intimate relationships, selection of
romantic partners, personality and romantic relationships it is clear that there are trends
present within the interactions of all these variables. First, that FFM traits interact with social
and interpersonal beliefs and behaviors; with increasing scores it shows individuals are more
psychologically stable and have healthier interpersonal behaviors which can lead to longer
romantic relationships. It also has been shown that the FFM traits affect interactions with
others in business relationships as well as the investment and expression in other
interpersonal relationships. Second, certain personality traits in the FFM are linked with more
success in relationships Third, all five personality traits reflect how individuals want to be
perceived during the selection process and most people ideally seek and want someone
similar in personality. However, the trend appears that it is not similar mates that people
choose but rather mates that compliment each other’s personalities. There is some evidence
that similarities present themselves over time during romantic relationships but these
differences are found to lead to a higher relationship quality. Finally, it is evident that the
dimensions of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism
influence the development, longevity and satisfaction in romantic relationships.
While there is significant evidence that personality plays a role in romantic
relationships there are still many areas where more research needs to be done. It has been
shown a relationship exists but there is more room for research in the area of personality and
interpersonal skills as it relates to development and length of relationships. The direction of
this interaction is still relatively undetermined; does personality influence the development
and length of a relationship? Or does the development and length of a relationship influence

the personality development and change over time? Questions like these still remain
unanswered in the field, especially with understanding how romantic relationships promote
change in personality over time or further enforce individuals’ relatively stable personality
traits. This is also connected with the possibility of couples becoming more similar over time.
With evidence showing that people choose ideal partners that are more similar to them, the
positive associative theory is supported and reinforces the saying “birds of a feather flock
together”. However, it then needs to be explained how individuals get from their ideal partner
to the actual partner they have, what factors change or influence the selection? It is possible
that the available mates do not include their “ideal partner” or that pure attraction over
compensates. On the other hand, it could be that during selection people portray different
personality traits than they actually have and their real personality comes out the longer the
romantic relationship persists. It is also possible that the investment in a long term romantic
relationship, like marriage, encourages the increase of certain personality traits and similarity
between partners. Within the couple this could be necessary in order to maintain and preserve
the relationship. However, as explained earlier, complimentary personalities and differences
show a higher relationship quality. Research is lacking in the areas of personality assimilation
over time, and what accounts for differences between individual’s ideal partner and their
actual partner. Future research can aim to answer some of these questions and open-ended
areas in the field of personality as it relates to romantic relationships.

References
Dollenan, B. M., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history and
competence in early adult relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88(3) 562-576. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.562.
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., & Jones, D. N. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 431-441.
DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.004.
Hagerty, G., Blake, M., Naraine, M., Siefert, C., & Blais, M. A. (2010). Construct validity of
the Schwartz-Outcome scale-10: comparisons of interpersonal distress, adult
attachment, alexithymia, the five-factor model, romantic relationship length and
ratings of childhood memories. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 17, 44-50.
DOI: 10.1002/cpp.643.
Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misinterpretation of online
dating: the effects of gender, self-monitoring and personality traits. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships 27(1), 117-135. DOI: 10.1177/0265407509349633.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. D. (2013). The interrelationships
among attachment style, personality traits, interpersonal competency and facebook
use. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 2(2), 117-131. DOI: 10.1037/a0030946.
Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2013). What I experience yesterday is
who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual
variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1-
25. DOI: 10.1037/a0034485.
Lodi-Smith, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Social investment and personality: a meta-analysis
of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion and

volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(68), 68-88. DOI:
10.1177/1088868306294590.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and
relationship experience: the complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic
partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517-533. DOI:
10.1177/0265407507079241.
Morrey, M. M., (2007). The attraction-similarity hypothesis among cross-sex friends;
relationship satisfaction, perceived similarities and self-serving perceptions. Journal
of Social and Personality Relationships 24 (1), 117-140. DOI:
10.1177/0265407507072615.
Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality
traits: associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of
Research in Personality, 40, 179-208. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003.

Literature Review_final draft

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (18)

Destaque

Destaque (13)

Semelhante a Literature Review_final draft

Semelhante a Literature Review_final draft (20)

Literature Review_final draft