Content uploaded by Patrick M Markey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patrick M Markey on Sep 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2009). Complementarity. In H. Reis & S.
Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Complementarity
Within the context of social relationships, the term complementarity has two
distinct and separate meanings. Of these two definitions, complementarity most
commonly refers to the premise that people tend to seek out other individuals with
characteristics that are different yet complementary from their own (a concept sometimes
called negative assortative mating). A second definition of complementarity is derived
from Interpersonal Theory and refers to the principle that during any dyadic interaction,
the behaviors of one person tend to elicit or constrain the behaviors of the other, and vice
versa (a concept sometimes called interpersonal complementarity). This entry describes
both of these definitions and provides an overview of the research examining
complementarity.
Negative Assortative Mating
The notion that people are generally attracted to persons who possess
characteristics that are dissimilar from their own is a prominent belief in popular culture
and is reflected in the common expression “opposites attract.” It is thought that such
differences are sought because it allows couples to divide tasks and pursue goals which
are consistent with each member’s personality without much conflict. For example, a
couple might experience little conflict if one member is motivated or driven by social
rewards (e.g., remembers birthdays, focuses on raising children, etc.) and the other is
focused on material rewards (e.g., earning a high income).
Although the notion of complementarity tends to be a common belief among lay
persons, research examining assortative mating suggests that people tend to be attracted
to others who are similar to themselves. It has been argued that such similarity might be
sought because it produces feelings of attachment, fosters a sense of equality, and allows
each partner to enhance or reinforce the self-concept of the (similar) other. Research has
found that men and women alike have a propensity to desire romantic partners similar to
themselves on traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability,
conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Studies have also found preferences for
romantic partners who are similar with respect to certain demographic characteristics
such as age, ethnicity, religious background, height, weight, socioeconomic status,
values, political orientation, and physical qualities. As noted by David Buss, and in
contrast to the popular definition of complementarity, the notion that people desire
homogamy is one of the most replicated findings in human mating research.
Not only have studies suggested that individuals tend to desire a person who is
similar (i.e., not complementary) to themselves, but such similarity is also related to
relationship quality. Researchers have repeatedly found that similarity between romantic
partners on various characteristics (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, personality, etc.) is
linked to lower levels of divorce and higher levels of marital quality. Taken together, past
research suggests that this kind of complementarity is not often sought in romantic
partners nor does it typically lead to satisfying relationships.
Interpersonal Complementarity
Within the context of Interpersonal Theory the term complementarity refers to the
principle that an individual’s behavior tends to alter the behavior of his or her interaction
partner. This implies that interpersonal behaviors carry information regarding how the
other should respond, and thus, interpersonal behaviors can encourage or restrain
subsequent behavior from others. Although this notion of complementarity seems fairly
straightforward, there have been various models presented to define exactly how
complementarity occurs. Arguably, the two most common models are Robert Carson’s
model of complementarity and Jerry Wiggins’ model of complementarity. Both of these
models utilize the dimensions of warmth and dominance, which are often conceptualized
as the primary components of social behavior, in order to define complementarity.
Carson’s model of complementarity predicts that dominant or submissive
behaviors encourage the opposite behavior in interaction partners (i.e., dominance invites
submission, and submission invites dominance) and warm or cold behaviors encourage
similar response in interaction partners (i.e., warmth invites warmth, and coldness invites
coldness). For example, if person A acts in a warm and dominant manner, the likely
response of person B would be to complement this style of behavior by acting in a warm
and submissive manner. Wiggins’ model applies social exchange theory to the
dimensions of warmth and dominance in order to predict behaviors that are
complementary. This definition suggests that every behavior carries with it information
that grants or denies status (to the self and to the other) and grants or denies love (to the
self and to the other) and a complementarity behavior is its logical match. For example, a
dominant behavior tends to grant both status and love to the self, but only grants love
without status to the other. The complementary behavior would therefore be a warm
response, which tends to grant love without status to the self and both love and status to
the other.
Past research examining which of these two models best predicts interpersonal
behavior has been somewhat mixed. Researchers have found that the videotaped
behaviors of randomly paired strangers tend to occur in a manner predicted by Carson’s
model of complementarity. However, others have suggested that support for Carson’s
model only occurs along the warmth dimensions (i.e., dominance does not induce
submission, and vice versa). For example, researchers have found that participants who
interacted with a confederate coached to act in either a dominant or warm manner tended
to act is a similar manner in regard to warmth, but the dominant behavior of the
confederate failed to evoke submission in the participants.
In sum, complementarity is most frequently defined as the contention that people
tend to seek out other individuals with characteristics that are different from their own,
but is also associated with the distinctly different notion that, during any dyadic
interaction, the behaviors of both persons tend to elicit or constrain the behaviors of each
other.
Patrick M. Markey; Villanova University
Charlotte N. Markey; Rutgers University
See Also
Personality Traits, Effects on Relationships; Interpersonal Influence; Interpersonal
Attraction
Further Readings
Carson, R. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment and
relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among
romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 517-534.
Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you you’re talking to? Interpersonal
style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 80 – 96.
Tracey, T. J. (2004). Levels of interpersonal complementarity: A simplex representation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (9), 1211 – 1225.
