THE FIVE FACTORS OF PERSONALITY AND INTERPERSONAL ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

as well In general, subjects were more accepting of friends' negative assertion Results indicated that friends were rated as more likeable than strangers on all three assertive interactions. Compared to refusal assertion, friends were rated higher on appropriateness, skill, respect, and likability when they engaged in disagreement assertion Disagreement and negative affect whh strangers were rated more negatively than refusals from strangers. Lewis and Gallois (1984) explained these resuhs by stating that consensus is important in early stages of relationships and disagreement by strangers is less easily tolerated. Thus negative assertion may promote termination in the early stages of relationship development. If, however, relationships are maintained over time, then negative assertion by friends may be more acceptable, as it is viewed whhin the context of multiple interactions. Zollo, Heimberg, and Becker (1985) examined whether self-assertiveness influences perceptions of others' assertive behavior Based on responses to a conflict resolution measure, subjects were assigned to ehher a high assertiveness or low assertiveness group. The subjects in each group observed videotapes of confederates exhibhing assertive, unassertive, and empathic-assertive behaviors in response to unreasonable requests by acquaintances. The subjects then rated confederate attractiveness and expected consequences of assertiveness The resuhs indicated that there were some similarities in high and low assertive group perceptions Across both groups, assertive confederates were rated as the least likeable Subjects expected assertive confederates to experience more positive social consequences than unassertive 52
confederates, but more negative social and personal consequences than empathicassertive confederates. In contrast, empathic-assertive responses were rated the most favorably Empathic and unassertive confederates were rated as equally likeable, but empathic confederates were rated as more competent Further examination indicated that there were some group differences in perceptions of assertiveness More specifically, high assertive subjects rated empathicassertive and assertive confederates as more likable High assertive subjects also expected more positive consequences to empathic-assertion, and more negative consequences to nonassertion. Overall, empathic-assertive responses appear to temper the negative effects of assertiveness, which enhances poshive appraisals of the confederates. Zollo, Heimberg, and Becker (1985) concluded that self-assertiveness does influence perceptions of others' assertive behavior. Defichs in assertion skills have a negative impact on individual and relationship functioning. For example, Olinger, Shaw, and Kuiper (1987) examined the relationship between unassertiveness, dysfunctional attitudes (eg, excessive approval seeking), and depression in a group of 89 college students In this sample, depression and assertion defichs were posifively related. Individuals whh dysfijnctional attitudes were less assertive in interpersonal conflicts, even when depression was controlled Olinger et al (1987) suggested that nonassertive individuals often have an excessive need for approval from others that interferes whh relational dynamics. More specifically, such individuals are likely to experience discomfort when behaving assertively, and thus fail to adequately 53
Page 1 and 2:
THE FIVE FACTORS OF PERSONALITY AND
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere thanks
Page 5 and 6:
ABSTRACT This study utilized the co
Page 7 and 8: CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION According to
Page 9 and 10: particular interaction episode" (p
Page 11 and 12: proximal context, which in turn aff
Page 13 and 14: contextual model should examine the
Page 15 and 16: Hypotheses The following hypotheses
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This c
Page 19 and 20: experience and interpersonal intera
Page 21 and 22: stability, and (e) culture McCrae a
Page 23 and 24: samples of aduhs and children They
Page 25 and 26: personality descriptors. In the sec
Page 27 and 28: the five factors were identified in
Page 29 and 30: When creating a new scale, it is ne
Page 31 and 32: item adjective list. McCrae and Cos
Page 33 and 34: was .72 and the largest divergent c
Page 35 and 36: Another study conducted by McCrae a
Page 37 and 38: as measured by the PRF, can be view
Page 39 and 40: Longitudinal studies provide insigh
Page 41 and 42: The major weakness of this line of
Page 43 and 44: interactions, men report higher inh
Page 45 and 46: more likely to avoid initiation int
Page 47 and 48: concluded that individuals high in
Page 49 and 50: type of self-disclosure was also as
Page 51 and 52: Emotional Support Emotional support
Page 53 and 54: likely to be desired if they have t
Page 55 and 56: self-esteem, self-confidence, inter
Page 57: colored by other information about
Page 61 and 62: esults cannot be generalized to opp
Page 63 and 64: Lloyd (1990) contacted the same cou
Page 65 and 66: poshively related to discussing and
Page 67 and 68: contrast, unstable couples were cha
Page 69 and 70: Personality and Interpersonal Compe
Page 71 and 72: partner's personaHty (e.g., extrave
Page 73 and 74: negatively associated whh prosocial
Page 75 and 76: ated by peers on assertiveness and
Page 77 and 78: These results support the premise t
Page 79 and 80: maintenance O'Brien and DeLongis (1
Page 81 and 82: satisfaction, distal factors (persp
Page 83 and 84: marriage and then annually for thre
Page 85 and 86: study indicated that spouses' attri
Page 87 and 88: Other studies have acknowledged bot
Page 89 and 90: CHAPTER m METHOD Participants Parti
Page 91 and 92: (steady dating=61%, engaged=9%, coh
Page 93 and 94: Table 2. Distribution of scores for
Page 95 and 96: elationship The hems were summed to
Page 97 and 98: Beliefs Test (Eiedlson & Epstein, 1
Page 99 and 100: CHAPTER IV RESULTS Preliminarv Anal
Page 101 and 102: ^ CN -.16* m .19* .29** O ON O .19*
Page 103 and 104: Table 5 Regressions of proximal fac
Page 105 and 106: Table 6. Regression of liking on th
Page 107 and 108: Table 7 Regression of liking on the
Page 109 and 110:
Table 8 Hierarchical regression of
Page 111 and 112:
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This study exa
Page 113 and 114:
hierarchical level (Costa & McCrae,
Page 115 and 116:
Finally, the measure of satisfactio
Page 117 and 118:
"real" me, "I told my partner about
Page 119 and 120:
For example, openness may be more c
Page 121 and 122:
examined Neuroticism was negatively
Page 123 and 124:
Future research should examine how
Page 125 and 126:
developmental theory would help us
Page 127 and 128:
Boyle, G. J (1989) Re-examination o
Page 129 and 130:
Costa, P T , iS: McCrae, R R (1985)
Page 131 and 132:
Forgas, J , Levinger, G., & Moylan,
Page 133 and 134:
Kentle, R. L (1994) An examination
Page 135 and 136:
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989
Page 137 and 138:
Rusbuh, C. E . Johnson, D J., & Mor
Page 139 and 140:
Wildman, B. G. (1986) Perception of
Page 141 and 142:
Subject We would like you to answer
Page 143 and 144:
IF YOU ARE NOT IN A ROMANTIC RELATI
Page 145 and 146:
STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 1
Page 147 and 148:
I AM POOR I .AM EXTREMELY .AT THIS
Page 149 and 150:
Please answer the following questio
Page 151 and 152:
Next, we are interested in how your
Page 153 and 154:
NOT AT ALL EXTREMELY 1 2 3 4 5 4 Co
show all

THE FIVE FACTORS OF PERSONALITY AND INTERPERSONAL ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?