Behavior Genetics, Vol. 6. No. 1. 1976
Motivational and Personality Trait Relationships in Mate Selection Gerrit E. DeYoung 1 and Barbara FleischeP Received 22 Nov. 1974
Final 25 Jan. 1075
This article discusses the question of homogamy and/or heterogamy in human mate selection with particular emphasis on Winch's principles of type I and type II complementarity. The experiment was performed on 82 married couples, at least one spouse of which was a graduate student at the University of Illinois. All were given the 16PF, the Motivational Analysis Test (MAT), and the Marriage Role Questionnaire. The authors found that except for fear and pugnacity all husband-wife trait correlations were positive, in contrast to Winch's principle of type I complementarity. They also found that their data did not support Winch's principle of type I1 complementarity, KEY WORDS: mate selection; homogamy; heterogamy; motivation; personality.
INTRODUCTION M a n y studies of m a t e selection have focused on the question of w h e t h e r people tend to select as m a t e s people who a r e s i m i l a r or d i s s i m i l a r to themselves with respect to a variety of characteristics. T h u s H o l l i n g s h e a d (1950) r e p o r t e d a t r e n d t o w a r d s i m i l a r i t y in m a r r i a g e p a r t n e r s ( h o m o g a m y ) in such variables as race, religion, age, a n d social class. K a t z a n d Hill (1958) found a s i m i l a r tendency with respect to l o c a t i o n of residence. A l t h o u g h b e a r i n g on a slightly different point, Burgess a n d C o t t r e l l (1939) r e p o r t e d t h a t the level of m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t was higher in couples of
i Department of Psychology, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.
1 @ 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation. 227 West 17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recording, or otherwise, without written permissionof the publisher.
2
DeYoung and Fleischer
similar cultural background. Based on such data, Winch (1958) concluded that There is a set of variables upon which h o m o g a m y has been shown to function: race, religion, social class, broad occupational grouping, location of residence, income, age, level of education, intelligence, etc. It is my opinion that these variables function to select for each of us the sort of people with whom we shall be most likely to interact, to assure that the people with whom we otherwise associate are more or less like us with respect to that set of variables and also with respect to cultural interests and values, in the sense that these variables determine with whom we shall associate, ! suggest that they define for each of us a "field of eligible spouse-candidates" within which it is likely that we shall choose our spouses. (p. 14)
Trost (1967b) replicated homogamy on a Swedish sample with respect to age, education, social class, and political preference, with some failures to replicate, e.g., the variable of religion, which were attributed to such factors as United States Swedish differences in social structure. (More clear and consistent support was reported for the importance of perceived homogamy on these variables for mate selection.) Winch (1952, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1967) suggested, however, that within the "field of eligibles" mate selection would proceed according to the principle of complementarity (heterogamy). Specifically, he suggested that both for needs, such as achievement, deference, dominance, and succorance as defined by Murray et al. (1938), and for "'general" traits, such as anxiety and emotionality, clearly personality traits, there would develop mutual attraction between a person high on the need or trait and a person low on the same need or trait, Thus a negative interspousal correlation would be predicted for any given need or trait (type | complementarity). Winch (1958) added that In the context of this study two needs (let us call them X and Y) in two different people (let's denote them respectively as A and B) are complementary when A ' s behavior in acting out A ' s need X is gratifying to B's need Y and B's behavior in acting out B'S need Y is gratifying to A ' s need X (p. 93)
Thus there could be a positive husband wife correlation between such traits as narcissism2 (to rest and have easy time, to enjoy delicacies) in one spouse and career orientation (to learn job well, to stick with job) in the other (type II complementarity). Winch supported his theory with a sample of correlations among needs and traits in 25 married couples and a series of case studies of "types of complementary marriages" derived from the couples. A wide range of studies bear directly on Winch's need and personality trait heterogamy theory of mate selection. Burgess and Wallin (1953), among similar findings, reported significant homogamy with respect to 14 2 This trait is named "narcism'" in the test manual.
Motivational and Personality Trait Relationships in Mate Selection
3
of the 42 items of the Thurstone Neurotic Inventory with no significant evidence of heterogamy. Bowerman and Day (1956), employing the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule based o n Murray's needs, found more evidence for homogamy than for heterogamy with the same needs; in an examination of cross-need corrglations, they found no evidence for or against type II complementarity. Cattell and Nesselroade (1967) found significantly positive husband-wife correlations for eight factors of the Sixteen Personality Factor test (16PF) in a stably married group, with marital stability defined by the absence of steps taken toward dissolution of marriage. (More negative husband-wife correlations were found in an unstably married group.) Working with the needs of "Dominance Submissiveness" and "Nurturance-Receptiveness" as had Winch, Trost (1967a) found approximately zero correlations between husbands and wives on each dimension; Trost concluded that "As far as is known, only Winch and his coworkers have found evidence of complementarity." Udry (1963) advanced the hypothesis that perceived heterogamy would be a significant factor in mate selection; he found little support for his hypothesis with respect to the traits of the 16PF. Also using the 16PF, Barton and Cattell (1972) found clear homogamy among both actual and perceived personality traits. The present report is a further examination of the interspousal relationship of personality and motivation traits.
METHOD
Subjects Eighty-two married couples, at least one spouse of which was a graduate student at the University of Illinois, participated as Ss in this study.
Test Instruments All Ss were given the 16PF, the Motivational Analysis Test (MAT), and the Marriage Role Questionnaire, which will not be discussed further as the instrument does not directly measure either general (personality) or motivational traits. Each test is a factored instrument; the 16PF is a well-established personality self-inventory as described further in Cattell et al. (1970). The MAT is described by Cattell et al. (1964) and is designed to measure innate and learned human motivational systems.
4
DeYoung and Fleischer
1
~D
J
F
'~
~
VV
Motivational and Personality Trait Relationships in Mate Selection
5
Procedure
Each husband and wife was simultaneously administered each of the test instruments in two l-hr sessions, followed by an experiment involving diary-reported behavioral measures not of interest here. Each couple received $10.00 for participation in the study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table ! shows the husband wife correlations on each of the personality and motivational traits measured by the 16PF and the MAT. Tenor the 16 personality trait correlations are significantly positive, as are three of the ten motivational trait correlations. With the exception of very small correlations for the traits of fear and pugnacity, all husband wife trait correlations were positive, in contrast to Winch's principle of type I complementarity (the predicted negative interspousal correlation for any given need or trait). The traits of career motivation and narcissism in the present data would seem to fit Winch's (1958) definition of type II complementarity. That is, as one spouse was acting in accordance with his career motive the by-products of the activity could gratify the spouse's narcissism need; thus the principle of type II heterogeneity would predict a positive interspousal correlation between these two traits. In actual fact, the correlation between the husband's career trait and narcissism in the wife was -0.09, while the correlation between the husband's narcissism and the wife's career motive was 0.01. Similarly, the principle of type II complementarity should predict a positive interspousal correlation between pugnacity (to destroy enemies and observe violence) and fear (of war, injury, or disease). These data show a correlation of -0.10 between the husband's pugnacity and fear in the wife, and a correlation of -0.02 between fear in the husband and the wife's pugnacity. In these data as in the previous studies cited in the introduction, support was lacking for Winch's need complementarity theory of mate selection even though this study examined both type I and type II complementarity in newly married couples as recommended by Winch (1967). On the other hand, the results strongly support the theory and findings of Cattell and Nesselroade (1967) and Barton and Cattell (1972) of congeniality or assortativeness in stable marriages. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Dr. Steven G. Vandenberg for his suggestions, which we have gratefully incorporated, and to thank Professor Raymond B. Catteli for the loan of data on which this article was based.
6
DeYoung and Flei~her
REFERENCES Barton, K., and Cattell, R. B. (1972). Real and perceived similarities in personality between spouses: Test of "likeness" versus "~completeness'" theories. Psychol. Rep. 3 i: 15 18. Bowerman, C. E., and Day, B. R. (1956). A test of the theory of Complementary needs as applied to couples during courtship. Am. Sociol. Rev. 21:602 605. Burgess, E. W., and Cottrell, L. S., Jr. (1939). Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage. Prentice-Hall, New York. Burgess, E. W., and Wallin, P. (1953). Engagement and Marriage, Lippincott, Philadelphia. Catte!l, R. B., and Nesselroade, J. R. (1967). Likeness and completeness theories examined by Sixteen Personality factor measures on stably and unstably married couples. J. Personal. St)c. Psychol. 7:351 361. Cattell, R. B., Horn, J. L., Sweeney, A. B., and Radcliffe, J. A. (1964). A Handbook for the Motivation Ana(vsis Test (MAT), Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, I11. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., and Tatsuoka, N. M. (1970). Handbook ]or the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, I11. Hollingshead, A. B. (1950). Cultural factors in the selection of marriage mates. Am. SocioL Rev~ 15:619-627. Katz, A. M., and Hill, R. (1958). Residential propinquity and marital selection: A review of theory, method, and fact. Marriage Family Living 20:27-335. Murray, H. A., et aL (1938). Explorations in Personality, Oxford University Press, New York. Trost, J. (1967a). Some data on mate selection: Complementarity. J. Marriage Family 29:730 738. Trost, J. (1967b). Some data on mate selection: Homogamy and perceived homogamy..L Marriage Family 29:739- 755. Udry, R. J. (1963). Complementarity in mate selection: A perceptual approach. Marriage Family Living 25:281 -289. Winch, R. F. (1952). The Modern Family, Holt, New York. Winch, R. F. (1955)i The theory of complementary needs in mate-selection: Final results on the test of general hypotheses. Am. Sociol. Rev. 20:552-555. Winch, R. F. (1957). Comment on "a test of the theory of complementary needs as applied to couples during courtship" by Bowerman and Day. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22:336. Winch, R, F. (1958). Mate-Selection: A Study of Complementary Needs, Harper, New York. Winch, R. F. (1967). A further look at the theory of complementary needs in mate-selection. J. Marriage Family 29:756 762.
Motivational and Personality Trait Relationships in Mate Selection Gerrit E. DeYoung 1 and Barbara FleischeP Received 22 Nov. 1974
Final 25 Jan. 1075
This article discusses the question of homogamy and/or heterogamy in human mate selection with particular emphasis on Winch's principles of type I and type II complementarity. The experiment was performed on 82 married couples, at least one spouse of which was a graduate student at the University of Illinois. All were given the 16PF, the Motivational Analysis Test (MAT), and the Marriage Role Questionnaire. The authors found that except for fear and pugnacity all husband-wife trait correlations were positive, in contrast to Winch's principle of type I complementarity. They also found that their data did not support Winch's principle of type I1 complementarity, KEY WORDS: mate selection; homogamy; heterogamy; motivation; personality.
INTRODUCTION M a n y studies of m a t e selection have focused on the question of w h e t h e r people tend to select as m a t e s people who a r e s i m i l a r or d i s s i m i l a r to themselves with respect to a variety of characteristics. T h u s H o l l i n g s h e a d (1950) r e p o r t e d a t r e n d t o w a r d s i m i l a r i t y in m a r r i a g e p a r t n e r s ( h o m o g a m y ) in such variables as race, religion, age, a n d social class. K a t z a n d Hill (1958) found a s i m i l a r tendency with respect to l o c a t i o n of residence. A l t h o u g h b e a r i n g on a slightly different point, Burgess a n d C o t t r e l l (1939) r e p o r t e d t h a t the level of m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t was higher in couples of
i Department of Psychology, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.
1 @ 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation. 227 West 17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recording, or otherwise, without written permissionof the publisher.
2
DeYoung and Fleischer
similar cultural background. Based on such data, Winch (1958) concluded that There is a set of variables upon which h o m o g a m y has been shown to function: race, religion, social class, broad occupational grouping, location of residence, income, age, level of education, intelligence, etc. It is my opinion that these variables function to select for each of us the sort of people with whom we shall be most likely to interact, to assure that the people with whom we otherwise associate are more or less like us with respect to that set of variables and also with respect to cultural interests and values, in the sense that these variables determine with whom we shall associate, ! suggest that they define for each of us a "field of eligible spouse-candidates" within which it is likely that we shall choose our spouses. (p. 14)
Trost (1967b) replicated homogamy on a Swedish sample with respect to age, education, social class, and political preference, with some failures to replicate, e.g., the variable of religion, which were attributed to such factors as United States Swedish differences in social structure. (More clear and consistent support was reported for the importance of perceived homogamy on these variables for mate selection.) Winch (1952, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1967) suggested, however, that within the "field of eligibles" mate selection would proceed according to the principle of complementarity (heterogamy). Specifically, he suggested that both for needs, such as achievement, deference, dominance, and succorance as defined by Murray et al. (1938), and for "'general" traits, such as anxiety and emotionality, clearly personality traits, there would develop mutual attraction between a person high on the need or trait and a person low on the same need or trait, Thus a negative interspousal correlation would be predicted for any given need or trait (type | complementarity). Winch (1958) added that In the context of this study two needs (let us call them X and Y) in two different people (let's denote them respectively as A and B) are complementary when A ' s behavior in acting out A ' s need X is gratifying to B's need Y and B's behavior in acting out B'S need Y is gratifying to A ' s need X (p. 93)
Thus there could be a positive husband wife correlation between such traits as narcissism2 (to rest and have easy time, to enjoy delicacies) in one spouse and career orientation (to learn job well, to stick with job) in the other (type II complementarity). Winch supported his theory with a sample of correlations among needs and traits in 25 married couples and a series of case studies of "types of complementary marriages" derived from the couples. A wide range of studies bear directly on Winch's need and personality trait heterogamy theory of mate selection. Burgess and Wallin (1953), among similar findings, reported significant homogamy with respect to 14 2 This trait is named "narcism'" in the test manual.
Motivational and Personality Trait Relationships in Mate Selection
3
of the 42 items of the Thurstone Neurotic Inventory with no significant evidence of heterogamy. Bowerman and Day (1956), employing the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule based o n Murray's needs, found more evidence for homogamy than for heterogamy with the same needs; in an examination of cross-need corrglations, they found no evidence for or against type II complementarity. Cattell and Nesselroade (1967) found significantly positive husband-wife correlations for eight factors of the Sixteen Personality Factor test (16PF) in a stably married group, with marital stability defined by the absence of steps taken toward dissolution of marriage. (More negative husband-wife correlations were found in an unstably married group.) Working with the needs of "Dominance Submissiveness" and "Nurturance-Receptiveness" as had Winch, Trost (1967a) found approximately zero correlations between husbands and wives on each dimension; Trost concluded that "As far as is known, only Winch and his coworkers have found evidence of complementarity." Udry (1963) advanced the hypothesis that perceived heterogamy would be a significant factor in mate selection; he found little support for his hypothesis with respect to the traits of the 16PF. Also using the 16PF, Barton and Cattell (1972) found clear homogamy among both actual and perceived personality traits. The present report is a further examination of the interspousal relationship of personality and motivation traits.
METHOD
Subjects Eighty-two married couples, at least one spouse of which was a graduate student at the University of Illinois, participated as Ss in this study.
Test Instruments All Ss were given the 16PF, the Motivational Analysis Test (MAT), and the Marriage Role Questionnaire, which will not be discussed further as the instrument does not directly measure either general (personality) or motivational traits. Each test is a factored instrument; the 16PF is a well-established personality self-inventory as described further in Cattell et al. (1970). The MAT is described by Cattell et al. (1964) and is designed to measure innate and learned human motivational systems.
4
DeYoung and Fleischer
1
~D
J
F
'~
~
VV
Motivational and Personality Trait Relationships in Mate Selection
5
Procedure
Each husband and wife was simultaneously administered each of the test instruments in two l-hr sessions, followed by an experiment involving diary-reported behavioral measures not of interest here. Each couple received $10.00 for participation in the study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table ! shows the husband wife correlations on each of the personality and motivational traits measured by the 16PF and the MAT. Tenor the 16 personality trait correlations are significantly positive, as are three of the ten motivational trait correlations. With the exception of very small correlations for the traits of fear and pugnacity, all husband wife trait correlations were positive, in contrast to Winch's principle of type I complementarity (the predicted negative interspousal correlation for any given need or trait). The traits of career motivation and narcissism in the present data would seem to fit Winch's (1958) definition of type II complementarity. That is, as one spouse was acting in accordance with his career motive the by-products of the activity could gratify the spouse's narcissism need; thus the principle of type II heterogeneity would predict a positive interspousal correlation between these two traits. In actual fact, the correlation between the husband's career trait and narcissism in the wife was -0.09, while the correlation between the husband's narcissism and the wife's career motive was 0.01. Similarly, the principle of type II complementarity should predict a positive interspousal correlation between pugnacity (to destroy enemies and observe violence) and fear (of war, injury, or disease). These data show a correlation of -0.10 between the husband's pugnacity and fear in the wife, and a correlation of -0.02 between fear in the husband and the wife's pugnacity. In these data as in the previous studies cited in the introduction, support was lacking for Winch's need complementarity theory of mate selection even though this study examined both type I and type II complementarity in newly married couples as recommended by Winch (1967). On the other hand, the results strongly support the theory and findings of Cattell and Nesselroade (1967) and Barton and Cattell (1972) of congeniality or assortativeness in stable marriages. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Dr. Steven G. Vandenberg for his suggestions, which we have gratefully incorporated, and to thank Professor Raymond B. Catteli for the loan of data on which this article was based.
6
DeYoung and Flei~her
REFERENCES Barton, K., and Cattell, R. B. (1972). Real and perceived similarities in personality between spouses: Test of "likeness" versus "~completeness'" theories. Psychol. Rep. 3 i: 15 18. Bowerman, C. E., and Day, B. R. (1956). A test of the theory of Complementary needs as applied to couples during courtship. Am. Sociol. Rev. 21:602 605. Burgess, E. W., and Cottrell, L. S., Jr. (1939). Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage. Prentice-Hall, New York. Burgess, E. W., and Wallin, P. (1953). Engagement and Marriage, Lippincott, Philadelphia. Catte!l, R. B., and Nesselroade, J. R. (1967). Likeness and completeness theories examined by Sixteen Personality factor measures on stably and unstably married couples. J. Personal. St)c. Psychol. 7:351 361. Cattell, R. B., Horn, J. L., Sweeney, A. B., and Radcliffe, J. A. (1964). A Handbook for the Motivation Ana(vsis Test (MAT), Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, I11. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., and Tatsuoka, N. M. (1970). Handbook ]or the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, I11. Hollingshead, A. B. (1950). Cultural factors in the selection of marriage mates. Am. SocioL Rev~ 15:619-627. Katz, A. M., and Hill, R. (1958). Residential propinquity and marital selection: A review of theory, method, and fact. Marriage Family Living 20:27-335. Murray, H. A., et aL (1938). Explorations in Personality, Oxford University Press, New York. Trost, J. (1967a). Some data on mate selection: Complementarity. J. Marriage Family 29:730 738. Trost, J. (1967b). Some data on mate selection: Homogamy and perceived homogamy..L Marriage Family 29:739- 755. Udry, R. J. (1963). Complementarity in mate selection: A perceptual approach. Marriage Family Living 25:281 -289. Winch, R. F. (1952). The Modern Family, Holt, New York. Winch, R. F. (1955)i The theory of complementary needs in mate-selection: Final results on the test of general hypotheses. Am. Sociol. Rev. 20:552-555. Winch, R. F. (1957). Comment on "a test of the theory of complementary needs as applied to couples during courtship" by Bowerman and Day. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22:336. Winch, R, F. (1958). Mate-Selection: A Study of Complementary Needs, Harper, New York. Winch, R. F. (1967). A further look at the theory of complementary needs in mate-selection. J. Marriage Family 29:756 762.
