ATTACHMENT AND PERSONALITY AS RELATED TO RELATIONSHIP
SATISFACTION
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
(Counseling Psychology)
by
Marissa Elizabeth Miller
FALL
2012
ATTACHMENT AND PERSONALITY AS RELATED TO RELATIONSHIP
SATISFACTION
A Thesis
by
Marissa Elizabeth Miller
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Lee Berrigan
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Larry Meyers
__________________________________, Third Reader
Dr. Marya Endriga
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Marissa Elizabeth Miller
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Lisa Harrison
Department of Psychology
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
ATTACHMENT AND PERSONALITY AS RELATED TO RELATIONSHIP
SATISFACTION
by
Marissa Elizabeth Miller
Correlations between personality traits, attachment style and romantic relationship
satisfaction in a sample of 200 California State University, Sacramento undergraduate
students enrolled in introductory psychology courses were examined. In addition,
participants’ sex, sex of partner, ethnicity, college level, college major, relationship
status, length of relationship and cohabitation were examined. Participants were
administered the Experience in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire, the Adult
Attachment Scale, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory, four scales (Dominance, SelfAcceptance, Independence and Empathy) of the California Psychological Inventory, the
Relationship Assessment Scale and the Perceived Relationship Quality Component
Inventory. Differences in personality traits and attachment style were found based on
participants’ sex, ethnicity and sex of participants’ partner. Differences in personality
traits, attachment style, and relationship satisfaction were found in association with
college level.
iv
Differences in personality traits were found between college majors. Differences in
attachment style were found based on relationship status.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Lee Berrigan
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the professors on my thesis
committee for their extended long-term support and expertise and especially to Dr. Lee
Berrigan for his immense patience and commitment. This thesis would never have been
completed without the encouragement and devotion of my family.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
2. METHOD ............................................................................................................ 10
Participants ...................................................................................................... 10
Materials ......................................................................................................... 10
Procedure ........................................................................................................ 13
3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 15
4. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 43
References ................................................................................................................... 49
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Participant Characteristics ............................................................................ ….15
2.
Participant Means………………………………………………………...….....17
3.
Correlations of the Variables in the Analysis…………………………..……...19
4.
Standard Regression Results………………………………………………..…20
5.
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Student…..…22
6.
Eigenvalue of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Student ................ .23
7.
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Student ........ 23
8.
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Partner .......... 25
9.
Eigenvalue of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Partner ................. 26
10.
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Partner ........ 27
11.
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Student Ethnicity ... 30
12.
Eigenvalues of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Student Ethnicity ........ 30
13.
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Function for Ethnicity of Student 31
14.
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Grade Level ............. 34
15.
Eigenvalues of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Grade Level .................. 34
16.
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Functions for College Level......... 35
17.
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Major ....................... 37
18.
Eigenvalues of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Major ............................ 37
19.
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Functions for College Major ........ 38
viii
20.
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Relationship Status.. 41
21.
Functions of Eigenvalues of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Relationship
Status ................................................................................................................... 41
22.
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Function for Relationship Status.. 42
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Human connection in the form of a satisfying romantic relationship is an
important part of a healthy life. Therefore, investigators have examined a variety of
factors as they relate to a person’s ability to maintain satisfaction in such a relationship.
The factors examined in this study are adult attachment styles and personality types as
they relate to romantic relationship satisfaction. Attachment is the “tendency for an
individual to stay in close contact with the attachment figure” (Fraley & Shaver, 2000, p.
138). Attachment investigations originally focused on infant-caregiver attachment
patterns, but expanded to adult romantic relationships during the 1980’s. Shaver, Hazan
and Bradshaw (1988) argued that the behaviors and emotions that characterize romantic
relationships and infant-parent relationships exhibit the same latent dynamics. Three
main attachment styles were identified by Bowlby (1969). These are secure, anxious or
preoccupied, and avoidant or dismissive attachment. Hazan and Shaver (1987) reported
that secure individuals feel safe when their partner is nearby and engage in close and
intimate bodily contact with them. These individuals feel insecure when their partner is
not accessible. Shi (2003) stated that “Avoidant individuals avoid intimacy, experience
discomfort with closeness, and are self reliant. Adults with an anxious attachment style
display jealousy and have a strong fear of abandonment or rejection” (p. 148).
Recently, attachment style has become viewed as a two dimensional construct
(Shaver & Noftle, 2006). Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) labeled these dimensions
2
“attachment related anxiety” and “attachment related avoidance”. Individuals who are
low on both of these dimensions are securely attached. This dimensional view of
attachment allows for a more precise measurement of an individual’s attachment style.
“Prominent tradition has emphasized the role of intrapersonal variables, arguing that each
partner’s behavior, both within and outside of the relationship, will be strongly influenced
by enduring personal traits and characteristics” (Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000, p.
414).
The five-factor or “Big Five” model of personality is one of the most well known
approaches in research on personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Watson et al. (2000)
reported that extensive structural analysis consistently revealed five broad factors:
Neuroticism (vs. emotional stability), Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness
and Openness to Experience (or imagination, intellect, or culture). In addition to these
personality traits, dominance, independence, self-acceptance and empathy will be
examined as they relate both to attachment style and to relationship satisfaction.
The connection between adult attachment style and romantic relationship
satisfaction has been extensively investigated. Simpson (1990) examined the influence of
attachment styles on romantic relationships. For both men and women, the secure
attachment style was associated with greater relationship satisfaction. Securely attached
individuals were more interdependent, committed, and trusting of their partner than were
individuals characterized by an anxious or avoidant attachment style. The anxious and
avoidant styles were associated with less frequent positive emotions and more frequent
negative emotions in the relationship. Collins and Read (1990) discovered that men
3
evaluate their relationship as more negative when their female partner is anxious. These
men reported being less satisfied, experienced more conflict, and felt that they were less
likely to marry their anxious partner. In a similar study, Kane, Jaremka, Guichard, Ford,
Collins, and Feeney (2007) studied how one partner’s attachment style predicts the other
partner’s relationship experience. The researchers found that men were less satisfied
when their female partner was high in attachment anxiety, as she was perceived as less
caring. Women were less satisfied in their relationship when their male partner was high
in avoidance because these men were perceived as poor caregivers. When their partner
was comfortable with closeness, women rated the relationship more positively.
Attachment style is not a static variable and can be transformed by healing or
hurtful relationships. Treboux, Crowell and Waters (2004) examined how differences in
adult attachment representations of previous and current attachment styles influenced
current relationship satisfaction. They discovered that individuals who reported being
secure both in their past relationships and in their current relationship (Secure/Secure)
were most satisfied with their current relationship, most confident in themselves, and
experienced low amounts of conflict. Individuals who reported being insecure in their
previous relationships and insecure in their current relationship (Insecure/Insecure)
reported the highest amount of conflict in their current relationship. These individuals
engaged in poor secure base behaviors and had greater avoidance of closeness. Ironically,
this group was not the most distressed because being insecure “felt right”.
Insecure/Secure individuals reported positive feelings about their current relationship and
low conflict, but a decrease in positive feelings was reported with an increase in stress.
4
Secure/Insecure individuals reported the lowest amount of positive feelings about their
relationship. This type of individual is most likely to separate from his or her partner
when his or her current romantic attachment is characterized by anger and/or anxiety
(preoccupied attachment style).
The connection between the “Big Five” personality types and satisfaction in
romantic relationships has been extensively examined. The most consistent “Big Five”
personality predictor of marital satisfaction in research to date is neuroticism, which may
also be labeled negative affectivity or general anxiety (Gattis, Berns, Simpson, &
Christensen, 2004). Costa and McCrae (1985) reported that neurotic individuals often
experience negative emotions including anxiety, anger, disgust, sadness and
embarrassment. Many studies have shown that neuroticism is negatively correlated with
relationship satisfaction (Gattis et al., 2004; White, Hendrick & Hendrick, 2004; Malouff,
Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar & Rooke, 2010). Also, self-reports of neuroticism were
found to correlate positively with negative interactions and negatively with global
evaluations of the marriage (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005).
The remaining four personality traits in the “Big Five” model have revealed less
consistent findings. Several studies have examined the impact of extraversion on
romantic satisfaction but findings in this area have been mixed. Extraversion is a factor
that encompasses such qualities as being sociable, liking people, being assertive, and
being talkative (Costa & McCrea, 1989). Some studies have found extraversion to be a
moderately strong predictor of marital satisfaction (Malouff et al., 2010; White et al.,
2004). However, Gattis et al. (2004) found extraversion and marital satisfaction to be
5
unrelated. Conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience have been the
least studied personality variables in connection to relationship satisfaction. “A
conscientious person is active, self disciplined, scrupulous and reliable. A person high in
agreeableness is positive and altruistic towards others. The personality variable of
openness to experience is illustrated by an active imagination, receptiveness to inner
feelings, and a preference for variety” (Gattis et al., 2004, p. 565). Watson et al. (2000)
found conscientiousness to be a consistent predictor of satisfaction in dating couples but a
weak predictor of marital satisfaction. Malouff, et al. (2010) found conscientiousness,
agreeableness and openness to experience to be associated with greater marital
satisfaction. However, Gattis et al. (2004) found no relationship between openness to
experience and marital satisfaction.
Many personality constructs beyond the “Big Five” have been examined as they
relate to relationship satisfaction. The following personality traits were included in the
study based on their theoretical and empirical relationships to attachment and relationship
satisfaction: dominance, self-acceptance, and independence. Excessive dominance as a
personality trait can negatively affect relationship satisfaction and quality. Ostrov and
Collins (2007) reported that non-verbal social dominance was associated with poor
romantic relationship quality, conflict, physical and verbal aggression. Self-acceptance is
of major importance in relationship satisfaction. Vohs, Baumeister, and Loewenstein
(2007) found that individuals with low self-esteem “perceive minor transgressions as
extremely threatening which leads them to respond destructively to their partner’s
behavior, causing a long-term reduction in relationship satisfaction” (p. 175). Knox and
6
Schacht (2010) reported that individuals with low self esteem doubt that someone else
can love and accept them. Individuals with high self esteem and acceptance feel loveable,
leading to higher relationship satisfaction for both partners. Knee, Lonsbary, Canevello,
and Patrick (2005) examined autonomy, responses to relationship disagreements, and
dissatisfaction after conflict. They discovered that relationship autonomy was predicted
by trait autonomy, which ultimately predicted relationship satisfaction after
disagreements. In addition, the researchers discovered that relationship autonomy was
associated with less defensive responses to conflict. Mashek and Aron (2004) stated that
“a relational orientation balanced by personal agency or independence promotes health
and well being” (p. 242). Individuals with extremely low independence or autonomy in a
romantic relationship are more likely to experience depression than are more independent
individuals. Edwards (2008) found that individuals who are more empathic toward their
partner tend to be higher in forgiveness during conflict which leads to increased
relationship satisfaction.
Many studies have examined the relationship between personality variables and
attachment style. Shaver and Brennan (1992) examined the associations between
attachment measures, relationship quality and outcome measures, and the “Big Five”
personality traits assessed by the NEO Personality Inventory (McCrae & Costa, 1989).
They found that secure participants were less neurotic and more extraverted than insecure
participants and more agreeable than avoidant participants. There were no attachment
style differences on the Openness to Experience Scale, but this was due in part to the fact
that the “facets of Openness related differently to the anxious and avoidant attachment
7
styles. Persons scoring high on avoidance were less open to feelings, whereas persons
scoring high on anxious-ambivalent were less open to values” (p. 543). Rosswurm,
Peirson and Woodward (2007) assessed the relationship between the Myers-Briggs
Temperament Indicator (MBTI) (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998)
personality types and attachment styles of adults. They found that extraverted personality
types were more likely to possess a secure attachment style. The researchers stated that
extraverted individuals may have a better understanding of people in various social
situations and know how to read and understand people better than do introverts.
Mickelson, Kessler, and Shaver (1997) reported that openness to experience relates
positively to secure attachment style and relates negatively to anxious/avoidant
attachment style.
Willenbacher (2010) examined the connection between interpersonal dominance
and attachment style. Individuals who were lower in dominance scored higher on
insecure attachment. Specifically, low dominance individuals scored higher on the
anxiety dimension of attachment than did average or high dominance participants.
Johnson and Whiffen (2003) reported that individuals who were avoidant of closeness
were less likely to experience emotional distress. “They lack empathy for others and tend
to lack sensitivity to their partner’s distress and need for comfort” (p. 328). Edwards
(2008) studied the role of attachment, conflict, empathy and forgiveness in relationship
satisfaction. Individuals who were more securely attached were more forgiving and
empathic toward their partner during conflict. Less securely attached individuals were
found to be less empathic and forgiving toward their partner during conflict.
8
Self-acceptance and attachment style are strongly correlated. Clulow (2001)
reported that individuals with a secure attachment style have a positive self-image with
high self-esteem. Anxiously attached individuals have a “positive model of others but a
negative model of themselves, intense feelings of unworthiness and excessive need for
others’ approval” (p. 47). Individuals with an avoidant attachment style have a positive
image of themselves. However, they maintain this image by distancing themselves from
others. Clulow (2001) also reported that secure individuals are comfortable with
autonomy and intimacy. They are able to maintain their sense of self as well as an
intimate bond in a romantic relationship. Anxiously attached individuals are overly
dependent, intrusive and demanding in their relationship. Avoidant individuals can be
extremely independent and self reliant in their relationships. They maintain control and
insist that reliance on others is not necessary. This allows them to avoid potential
rejection.
In light of previous investigations regarding attachment style, personality type and
relationship satisfaction, this study has several hypotheses.

Individuals with a secure attachment style will (a) report more satisfaction in their
relationships (b) score higher on extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness
and openness to experience (c) score higher on empathy, independence and selfacceptance and (d) score lower on neuroticism and dominance.

Individuals with an anxious attachment style will (a) report less satisfaction in
their relationships (b) score higher on neuroticism (c) score lower on extraversion,
9
openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness and (d) score lower
on dominance, independence, self-acceptance and empathy.

Individuals with an avoidant attachment style will (a) report less satisfaction in
their relationships (b) score lower on agreeableness, conscientiousness, empathy,
dominance and self-acceptance and (c) score higher on independence.
10
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Participants in this study were 200 California State University, Sacramento
students in undergraduate Psychology classes. All participants were in a romantic
relationship (i.e., dating, engaged, or married). Participants received course credit for
their participation in this study.
Materials
Demographic information was collected including participants’ age, sex, sex of
partner, ethnic background, college grade level, college major, length of relationship,
relationship status (e.g., dating, engaged, or married), and whether or not the participant
was living with his or her partner.
The Experience in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire (ECR-R)
(Fairchild & Finney, 2006) and the Adult Attachment Scale (Collins & Read, 1990) were
used to measure participants’ attachment styles. The ECR-R is a 36-item, 7-point Likert
type scale. Response options range from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). This
measure is based on a two-factor dimensional model of adult attachment and measures
the degree to which an individual is anxious or avoidant in close relationships.
Individuals who are low on both anxiety and avoidance are considered to have a secure
attachment style. The ECR-R measures how an individual generally experiences close
relationships. Strong internal consistency has been shown for both Anxiety (r = .92, M =
11
57.1, SD = 19.3) and Avoidance (r = .93, M = 50.0, SD = 18.2) scales. Fairchild and
Finney (2006) discussed the convergent validity of the ECR-R. The Touch Scale
(Brennan, Wu, & Loev, 1998) measures an individual’s desire for touch from others.
Positive relationships were found between the ECR-R Avoidance subscale and the Touch
Avoidance subscale. A negative relationship was found between the ECR-R Avoidance
subscale and scores from the Affectionate Proximity subscale of the Touch scale. In
addition, a positive relationship between the ECR-R Anxiety subscale and the Avoidance
subscale from the University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996)
has been identified.
The Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) (Collins & Read, 1990) is an 18-item, 5-point
Likert type scale. Response options range from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 5 (very
characteristic). Chongruksa and Thompson (1996) reported that the measure is
comprised of three underlying factors referred to as Depend, Anxiety and Close. Each
factor is represented by six questions in the AAS. The Depend scale measures the degree
to which participants can trust and depend on others. The Anxiety scale measures the
degree to which participants fear abandonment and not being loved. The Close scale
measures the extent to which participants are comfortable with closeness and intimacy.
Internal consistency, as described by Cronbach’s alpha, is .75 for Depend (M = 18.3, SD
= 4.7), .72 for Anxiety (M = 16.2, SD = 5.1) and .69 for Close (M = 21.2, SD = 4.8).
The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (McCrae & Costa, 1989) and four scales (i.e.,
Dominance, Self-Acceptance, Independence and Empathy) of the California
Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1987) were used to measure participants’ personality
12
style. The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) is a shortened version of the NEO-PI
and is intended for use with college populations. The NEO-FFI is a 60-item, 5-point
Likert type scale. Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Internal consistency for the 5 scales of the NEO-FFI are .89 for Neuroticism (M =
79.1, SD = 21.2), .79 for Extraversion (M = 110.6, SD = 17.3), .76 for Openness to
Experience (M = 110.6, SD = 17.3), .74 for Agreeableness (M = 124.3, SD = 15.8), and
.84 for Conscientiousness (M = 123.1, SD = 17.6).
The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) (Gough, 1987) is a well known 462
item scale that measures specific personality traits. Participants respond either true or
false to each item. The CPI consists of 20 “folk” scales. However, only four scales were
administered in this study based on their theoretical and empirical relationships to
attachment style and relationship satisfaction. These four scales are Dominance, SelfAcceptance, Independence, and Empathy. The Dominance scale measures the degree to
which an individual is confident and assertive. The Self-Acceptance scale examines an
individual’s belief regarding his or her self worth. The Independence scale measures an
individual’s level of self-sufficiency. The Empathy scale measures an individual’s ability
to understand the feelings of others.
The Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988) and the Perceived
Relationship Quality Component Inventory (Fletcher, Simpson & Thomas, 2000) were
used to assess relationship satisfaction. The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) is a 7
item, 5-point Likert type measure of general relationship satisfaction. Response options
range from 1 (low satisfaction) to 5 (high satisfaction). Hendrick, Dicke, and Hendrick
13
(1998) reported the psychometric properties of this measure. The RAS has a mean interitem correlation of .49 and an alpha of .86. The measure has a reported correlation of .80
with one of the most widely used measures of relationship satisfaction, the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). “Both the RAS and the DAS have been found to be
effective in discriminating couples still dating from couples who had broken up.” (p.
138).
The Perceived Relationship Quality Component Inventory (PRQC) is an 18-item,
7-point Likert type measure. Response options range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely).
The scale consists of six perceived relationship quality components (i.e., satisfaction,
commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love). Fletcher et al. (2000) recommend using
“only the best exemplars of the six relationship quality components as a measure of
global perceived relationship quality because the three items measuring each component
are intentionally redundant.” (p. 351). The proposed items are items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and
16. These items have been found to have an internal reliability of .88.
Procedure
All measures were administered in a questionnaire packet. A cover letter
described the purpose of the questionnaires and assured confidentiality of participant
responses. Attachment style dimensions were assessed using the Experiences in Close
Relationships-Revised Questionnaire and the Adult Attachment Scale. Personality style
was assessed using the NEO-FFI and four measures (i.e., Dominance, Self-Acceptance,
Independence, and Empathy) of the CPI. Relationship satisfaction was assessed using the
Relationship Assessment Scale and the Perceived Relationship Quality Component
14
Inventory. The order of measures was randomized in each packet. To ensure
confidentiality, participants were asked to not write their names on the packet. Instead,
questionnaires were identified by code numbers. After completing the packet, participants
placed their packet in a designated manila folder and received a debriefing form. The
debriefing explained the purpose of the study and gave directions on how to learn about
the results of the study if participants were interested in this. All participants were treated
in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association.
15
Chapter 3
RESULTS
A total of 200 California State University, Sacramento students participated in
this study. Two participants were not included in the analyses because they did not
complete one or more of the measures. One graduate student was not included in the
analyses due to limited sample size (n = 1). Descriptive statistics were conducted on the
remaining participants (N = 197). Table 1 illustrates participant characteristics, including
frequencies, for all demographic information.
Table 1
Participant Characteristics
Characteristics
Sex
Male
Female
Spouse’s Sex
Male
Female
Age
18
19
20
21-23
24-29
30-47
College Level
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate
College Major
Psychology
Health and Human
services
N
%
48
149
24.1
75.4
141
58
70.9
29.1
18
48
45
61
20
7
9.0
24.1
22.6
30.6
10.0
3.5
27
72
62
35
1
13.6
36.7
31.2
18.1
.5
79
66
40.5
33.8
16
Natural
Science/Math/Engineering
Social Science not
Psychology
Arts and Letters
Business/Marketing/Mass
Communications
Undecided
Ethnicity
African American
Asian
Caucasian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Southeast Asian
Bi-racial
Other
Relationship Status
Dating < 2 weeks
Dating < 6 months
Dating < 1 year
Dating > 1 year
Dating > 3 years
Engaged
Married
Cohabitate
Yes
No
5
2.5
6
3.0
14
7
7.1
3.5
16
8.2
13
34
88
38
6
3
12
5
6.5
17.1
44.4
19.1
3.0
1.5
6.0
2.0
25
37
17
64
31
13
12
12.6
18.6
8.5
32.2
15.6
6.5
6.0
48
151
24.1
75.9
17
Table 2
Participant Means
CSUS Students
Population
Cronbach’s
Alpha
(CSUS)
.870
.750
.679
.809
Measure
M
SD
M
SD
RAS Satisfaction
4.07
.77
4.16
.91
NEO Extraversion
58.01
10.46
NEO Openness
52.91
10.75
NEO
46.39
11.06
Conscientiousness
NEO Neuroticism
52.83
10.76
.836
NEO Agreeableness
44.96
13.36
.731
CPI Independence
15.55
3.53
17.12
4.23
.560
CPI Dominance
21.43
4.73
21.33
5.67
.712
CPI Empathy
21.62
4.14
22.82
4.24
.548
CPI Self-Acceptance
18.71
3.25
19.36
3.47
.478
ECR Avoidance
2.74
1.28
50.0*
18.7*
.934
ECR Anxiety
2.64
.92
57.08*
19.35
.886
AAS Close
3.45
.65
21.2
4.8
.518
AAS Anxiety
2.26
.75
16.2
5.1
.686
AAS Dependence
2.46
.74
18.3
4.7
.678
Note. The mean population scores for the ECR and AAS actually reflect the mean of the
participants’ total score on each scale of the measure whereas the means for this study
reflect the mean of the participants’ response on each question of the scale*.
Table 2 illustrates the means of the measures in this study compared to the
normative population. The Perceived Relationship Quality Component Inventory (i.e.,
PRQC) measured relationship satisfaction and was not included in Table 1 because
researchers did not include normative sample means in the original study. Significant
differences in mean scores were observed for two variables of the NEO-FFI; CSU,
Sacramento students [M = 58.01 , SD = 10.46] reported higher levels of extraversion
than the normative population [M = 50.00 , SD = 10.00], and NEO Agreeableness;
CSU, Sacramento students [M = 44.96 , SD = 13.36] reported lower levels of
18
agreeableness than the normative population [M = 50.00 , SD = 10.00]. Reliability and
validity for all measures were explored. One measure (i.e., PRQC) was removed from the
final analysis due to high correlations with the second dependent measure (i.e., RAS) and
the first measure’s lower reliability coefficient.
Table 3
Correlations of the Variables in the Analysis (N = 197)
Neu
Ext
Neu
Ext
.37*
Ope
-.07
.04
Agr
-.30* .37*
Con
-.37* .27*
AvECR .55* -.12
AxECR .38* -.17*
Sat
-.30* .02
Clo
-.31* .29*
Dep
.39* -.42*
Anx
.37* -.05
Emp
-.45* .43*
Dom
-.49* .38*
Sel
-.40* .39*
Ind
-.57* .26*
Ope
Agr
Con
.06
-.05
-.00
.03
.00
.13
-.03
.04
.39*
.15
.30*
.24*
.30*
-.27*
-.29*
.27*
.34*
-.37*
-.26*
.35*
.15
.13
.06
-.23*
-.33*
.17
.12
-.20*
-.14
.08
.37*
.21*
.30*
AvEC
R
AxEC
R
.57*
-.54*
-.26*
.30*
.73*
-.24*
-.25*
-.27*
-.35*
-.54*
-.38*
.51*
.41*
-.08
-.19*
-.14
-.19*
Sat
Clo
.21*
-.19* -.47*
-.37* -.16
.09
.19*
.10
.28*
.09
.22*
.13
.20*
Dep
Anx
Emp
Do
Sel
.26*
-.35*
-.28*
-.19*
-.27*
-.17*
-.19*
-.19*
-.18*
.49*
.48*
.47*
.63*
.62*
.55*
Note. Neu = NEO Neuroticism, Ext = NEO Extraversion, Ope = NEO Openness to experience, Agr = NEO Agreeableness,
Con = NEO Conscientiousness, AvECR = ECR Avoidance, AxECR = ECR Anxiety, Sat = RAS Satisfaction, Clo = AAS
Close, Dep = AAS Dependence, Anx = AAS Anxiety, Emp = CPI Empathy, Dom = CPI Dominance, Sel = CPI SelfAcceptance, Ind = CPI Independence. * = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
19
20
Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, avoidance, anxiety, closeness, dependence, empathy, dominance, selfacceptance, and independence were used in a multiple regression analysis to predict
relationship satisfaction. The correlations of the variables are shown in Table 3.
The prediction model was statistically significant, F(14, 183) = 9.200, p < .001,
and accounted for approximately 37% of the variance of relationship satisfaction (R2 =
.413, Adjusted R2 = .368). Higher levels of relationship satisfaction were primarily
predicted by lower levels of neuroticism, anxiety, avoidance, and dependence and by
higher levels of agreeableness and closeness.
Table 4
Standard Regression Results
Model
b
SE-b Beta
Pearson
r
sr2
Structure
Coefficient
Constant
5.333
.772
ECR Anxiety
-.328
.069
-.393
-.544 -.332
-.846
ECR Avoidance
-.224
.062
-.372
-.549 -.256
-.854
Neuroticism
-.002
.006
-.033
-.306 -.029
-.476
Extraversion
-.007
.005
-.088
.023 -.088
.036
Openness
.001
.005
.018
.004
.020
.006
Agreeableness
.009
.004
.159
.278
.161
.432
Conscientiousness
-.003
.005
-.038
.172 -.040
.267
Close
.003
.084
.003
.212
.003
.330
Dependence
.134
.083
.128
-.195
.119
-.303
Anxiety
.061
.089
.059
-.379
.051
-.589
Self-Acceptance
-.004
.019
-.016
.096 -.015
.149
Empathy
.000
.016
-.002
.094 -.001
.146
Dominance
.002
.015
.012
.107
.010
.166
Independence
-.005
.019
-.025
.138 -.021
.215
2
2
Note. Dependent variable is Relationship Satisfaction. R = .413, Adjusted R = .368
* p < .05.
21
The raw and standardized regression coefficients of the predictors together with
their correlations with relational satisfaction, their squared semi-partial correlations and
their structure coefficients, are shown in Table 4. Relational anxiety received the
strongest weight in the model followed by relational avoidance and neuroticism.
Inspection of the structure coefficients suggests that relational anxiety and relational
avoidance are strong indicators of the underlying (latent) variable described by the model
which can be interpreted as an insecure relational style.
A Hotelling’s T2 or two-group between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted on fifteen dependent variables: CPI Self-Acceptance, CPI
Empathy, CPI Dominance, CPI Independence, RAS Satisfaction, AAS Dependence, AAS
Anxiety, AAS Close, ECR Avoidance, ECR Anxiety, NEO Neuroticism, NEO
Agreeableness, NEO Conscientiousness, NEO Openness, and NEO Extraversion. The
independent variable was sex.
The sample consisted of 197 California State University, Sacramento college
students (149 women and 48 men). A Pillai’s Trace was employed to evaluate all
multivariate effects.
Using Pillai’s Trace as the criterion, the composite dependent variate was
significantly affected by sex, Pillai’s Trace = .209, F(15, 181) = 3.198, p = .001, 1Wilks’ Lambda = .21. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure
separately to determine the locus of the statistically significant multivariate effect using a
Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of .003 (.05 divided by 15). Statistically significant
univariate effects were associated with the CPI Independence scale, F(1,195) = 143.48, p
22
= .001 ²= .058 - men reported higher levels of independence [M = 17.04, SD = 3.66,
95% CI (15.98, 18.10)] than did women [M = 15.05, SD =3.37, 95% CI (14.51, 15.60)] as
indicated by the Ryan, Einot, Gabriel, and Welsch Studentized Range tests.
Two other variables indicated a trend towards statistical significance: AAS Close
scale F(1,195) = 5.32, p = .022, ² = .027 - men reported being more comfortable with
closeness and intimacy [M = 3.64, SD = .54, 95% CI (3.49, 3.80)] than did women [M =
3.40, SD =.67, 95% CI (3.23, 3.51)]; and the NEO Openness scale F(1,195) = 6.44, p =
.003, ²= .012 - men reported higher levels of openness [M = 56.36, SD = 10.61, 95% CI
(53.28, 59.44)] than did women [M = 51.92, SD =10.52, 95% CI (50.22, 53.62)].
A two-group discriminant analysis was performed. The obtained discriminant
function accounted for a statistically significant percentage of the between group
differences, Wilks’ = .791, ² (15, N = 197) = 44.08, p < .001, Rc²= .209. Using a leaveone-out cross-validation strategy, 69.5% of the cases were correctly classified, Press’ Q =
42.32, p < .05.
Table 5
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Student
Test of function
1
Wilks’ Lambda
.791
Significance
.000
23
Table 6
Eigenvalue of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Student
Function
1
Eigenvalue
.265
% of variance
100
Tables 5 and 6 show that the function was significant and accounted for 100% of the
explained variance.
Table 7
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Student
Scale
CPI Independence
CPI Openness
AAS Close
AAS Anxiety
CPI Dominance
RAS Satisfaction
CPI Self-Acceptance
NEO Conscientious
NEO Neuroticism
ECR Anxiety
CPI Dependence
NEO Agreeable
NEO Extraversion
ECR Avoidance
CPI Empathy
Function
-.484
-.353
-.321
-.274
-.219
.219
-.192
.159
.159
-.013
.091
.084
-.077
-.048
.015
Note. Functions > +/-.300 are in boldface. CPI = California Psychological Inventory;
NEO = NEO-Five Factor Inventory; AAS = Adult Attachment Scale; RAS =
Relationship Assessment Scale; ECR = Experience in Close Relationships-Revised
Questionnaire.
24
The latent construct represented by the discriminant function can be interpreted
with respect to the structure coefficients, which are shown in Table 7. Higher levels of
the latent variable are indicated primarily by lower levels of independence, openness, and
comfort with closeness and intimacy. Overall, the latent construct appears to represent an
anxious relational style.
A Hotelling’s T2 or two-group between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted on fifteen dependent variables: CPI Self-Acceptance, CPI
Empathy, CPI Dominance, CPI Independence, RAS Satisfaction, AAS Dependence, AAS
Anxiety, AAS Close, ECR Avoidance, ECR Anxiety, NEO Neuroticism, NEO
Agreeableness, NEO Conscientiousness, NEO Openness, and NEO Extraversion. The
independent variable was sex of partner.
The sample consisted of 197 California State University, Sacramento college
students (140 in a relationship with a man and 57 in a relationship with a woman). A
Pillai’s Trace was employed to evaluate all multivariate effects.
Using Pillai’s Trace as the criterion, the composite dependent variate was
significantly affected by sex, Pillai’s Trace = .191, F(15, 181) = 2.847, p = .001, 1Wilks’ Lambda = .19. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure
separately to determine the locus of the statistically significant multivariate effect using a
Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of .003. Statistically significant univariate effects were
associated with the CPI Independence scale as indicated by the Ryan, Einot, Gabriel, and
Welsch Studentized Range tests, F(1,195) = 10.52, p = .001, ²= .051 -students in a
relationship with a woman reported higher levels of independence [M = 16.79, SD = 3.50,
25
95% CI (15.86, 17.72)] than did students in a relationship with a man [M = 15.03, SD
=3.43, 95% CI (14.46, 15.60)].
Three other variables indicated a trend towards statistical significance; AAS Close
scale F(1,195) = 5.99, p = .015, ² = .030 - students in a relationship with a woman
reported being more comfortable with closeness and intimacy [M = 3.63, SD = .55, 95%
CI (3.49, 3.78)] than did students in a relationship with a man [M = 3.39, SD =.67, 95%
CI (3.28, 3.50)]; the NEO Openness scale F(1,195) = 6.37, p = .012, ²= .032 - students
in a relationship with a woman reported higher levels of openness [M = 55.97, SD =
10.61, 95% CI (53.16, 58.79)] than did students in a relationship with a man [M = 51.79,
SD =10.52, 95% CI (49.89, 53.42)]; and the CPI Dominance scale F(1,195) = 4.07, p =
.045, ²= .020 - students in a relationship with a woman reported higher levels of
dominance [M = 22.44, SD = 4.18, 95% CI (21.33, 23.55)] than did students in a
relationship with a man [M = 20.95, SD = 4.88, 95% CI (20.18, 21.82)].
A two-group discriminant analysis was performed on participants in a relationship
with a man or a woman. The obtained discriminant function accounted for a statistically
significant percentage of the between group differences, Wilks’ = .809, ² (15, N = 197)
= 39.72, p < .001, Rc²= .191. Using a leave-one-out cross-validation strategy, 63.5% of
the cases were correctly classified, Press’ Q = 28.55, p < .001.
Table 8
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Partner
Test of function
1
Wilks’ Lambda
.809
Significance
.000
26
Table 9
Eigenvalue of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Partner
Function
1
Eigenvalue
.236
% of variance
100
Tables 8 and 9 show that the function was significant and accounted for 100% of the
explained variance.
27
Table 10
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Function for Sex of Partner
Scale
Function
CPI Independence
-.478
NEO Openness
-.371
AAS Close
-.361
AAS Anxiety
-.318
CPI Dominance
-.298
NEO Neuroticism
.234
RAS Satisfaction
.202
AAS Dependence
.180
CPI Self-Acceptance
-.148
ECR Avoidance
-.112
NEO Conscientiousness
.106
NEO Extraversion
-.077
CPI Empathy
-.071
ECR Anxiety
-.047
NEO Agreeable
.029
Note. Functions > +/-.360 are in boldface. CPI = California Psychological Inventory;
NEO = NEO-Five Factor Inventory; AAS = Adult Attachment Scale; RAS =
Relationship Assessment Scale; ECR = Experience in Close Relationships-Revised
Questionnaire.
The latent construct represented by the discriminant function can be interpreted
with respect to the structure coefficients, which are shown in Table 10. Higher levels of
the latent variable are indicated primarily by lower levels of independence, openness, and
comfort with closeness and intimacy. Overall, the latent construct appears to represent an
anxious relational style.
A three-group one-way between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance was
performed on fifteen dependent variables: CPI Self-Acceptance, CPI Empathy, CPI
28
Dominance, CPI Independence, RAS Satisfaction, AAS Dependence, AAS Anxiety,
AAS Close, ECR Avoidance, ECR Anxiety, NEO Neuroticism, NEO Agreeableness,
NEO Conscientiousness, NEO Openness, and NEO Extraversion. The independent
variable was student ethnicity (86 Caucasian, 43 Asian, and 38 Hispanic). African
American students were not included in the analysis due to limited sample size.
A total of 197 California State University, Sacramento college students
participated in this study. Student ethnicity was distributed as follows: Caucasian
(43.6%), Asian (21.8%), and Hispanic (19.2%). A Pillai’s Trace was used to assess the
multivariate effect.
Using Pillai’s Trace as the criterion, the dependent variate was significantly
affected by ethnicity, Pillai’s Trace = .377, F(30, 302 = 2.34, p < .001. 1 – Wilks’
Lambda = .646. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure
separately to determine the locus of the statistically significant multivariate effect. The
NEO Agreeableness scale F(2,164) = 3.85, p = .023, and the CPI Self-Acceptance scale
F(2,164) = 3.08, p = .048, both violated the homogeneity assumption as assessed by
Levene’s test. To evaluate these univariate effects, a more stringent Bonferroni-corrected
alpha level of .003 was used. Against this alpha level, the student ethnicity effect was
statistically significant only for the CPI Self-Acceptance scale F(2,164) = 8.07, p < .001,
²= .090 as indicated by the Ryan, Einot, Gabriel, and Welsch Studentized Range tests.
Caucasian students viewed themselves as more self-accepting [M = 19.53, SD = 2.95,
95% CI (18.90, 20.17)] than did Asian [M = 17.23, SD = 3.66, 95% CI (16.10, 18.36)]
students.
29
Student ethnicity significantly affected CPI dominance scores F(2,164) = 6.17, p
= .003, ² = .070. The Ryan, Einot, Gabriel, and Welsch Studentized Range tests
indicated that Caucasian students viewed themselves as more dominant [M = 22.45, SD =
4.75, 95% CI (21.43, 23.47)] than did Asian [M = 19.56, SD = 4.05, 95% CI (18.31,
20.80)] students. Student ethnicity also significantly affected CPI Independence scores
F(2,164) = 6.38, p = .002, ² = .072. Caucasian students viewed themselves as more
independent [M = 16.24, SD = 3.36, 95% CI (15.52, 16.96)] than did Asian [M = 13.95,
SD = 3.97, 95% CI (12.73, 15.18)] students. In addition, student ethnicity affected CPI
Empathy scores F(2,164) = 7.43, p = .001, ² = .083. Caucasian students viewed
themselves as more empathic [M = 22.88, SD = 4.07, 95% CI (22.01, 23.76)] than did
their Hispanic [M = 20.66, SD =3.68, 95% CI (19.45, 21.87)] and Asian counterparts [M
= 20.28, SD = 4.45, 95% CI (18.91, 21.65)]. Four other scales indicated a trend towards
statistical significance: NEO Extraversion F(2,164) = 5.23, p = .006, ²= .060-Caucasian
students viewed themselves as more extraverted [M = 60.41, SD = 9.61, 95% CI (58.35,
62.47)] than Hispanic[M = 57.93, SD = 9.78, 95% CI (51.24, 59.08)] or Asian [M =
55.42, SD = 11.92, 95% CI (52.40, 58.43)]students; AAS Close F(2,164) = 4.90, p =
.009, ²= .056-Caucasian students viewed themselves as more comfortable with
closeness and intimacy [M = 3.62, SD = .62, CI 95% (3.49, 3.76)] than Hispanic [M =
3.27, SD = .66, CI 95% (3.05, 3.49)] or Asian [M = 3.38, SD = .63, CI 95% (3.18, 3.57)]
students; AAS dependence F(2,164) = 5.16, p = .007, ²= .059-Hispanic students [M =
2.64, SD =.76, 95%CI (2.39, 2.89)] viewed themselves as more dependent than Asian [M
= 2.61, SD =.72, 95%CI (2.39, 2.83)] students or Caucasian [M = 2.27, SD =.72, 95%CI
30
(2.11, 2.42)] students; and ECR Avoidance F(2,164) = 3.53, p = .032, ²= .041-Asian
students [M = 3.16, SD =1.36, 95%CI (2.74, 3.57)]viewed themselves as more avoidant
than Hispanic[M = 2.71, SD = 1.24, 95%CI (2.30, 3.11)] or Caucasian[M = 2.27 , SD =
.72, 95%CI (2.30, 2.79)] students.
A three-group discriminant analysis was performed on California State
University, Sacramento students who described themselves as Caucasian, Asian or
Hispanic. The obtained discriminant functions in combination accounted for a
statistically significant percentage of the between group differences, Wilks’  = .646, ²
(30, N = 197) = 68.54, p < .001, overall Rc² = .354. Using a leave-one-out crossvalidation strategy, 46.1% of the cases were correctly classified, Press’ Q = 15.84, p <
.001.
Table 11
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Student Ethnicity
Test of function(s)
1 through 2
2
Wilks’ Lambda
.646
Significance
.000
.924
.567
Table 12
Eigenvalues of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Student Ethnicity
Function
1
2
Eigenvalue
.429
.083
% of variance
83.8
100
Tables 11 and 12 show that only the first function was significant and accounted for
83.8% of the explained variance.
31
Table 13
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Function for Ethnicity of Student
Scale
Function
CPI Self-Acceptance
.479
CPI Empathy
.445
CPI Independence
.424
CPI Dominance
.419
NEO Extraversion
.355
ECR Avoidance
-.303
RAS Satisfaction
.255
NEO Agreeableness
.269
AAS Close
.307
AAS Dependence
-.349
NEO Openness
.245
ECR Anxiety
-.114
NEO Conscientiousness
.111
AAS Anxiety
-.172
NEO Neurotic
-.062
Note. Functions > +/-.360 are in boldface. CPI = California Psychological Inventory;
NEO = NEO-Five Factor Inventory; AAS = Adult Attachment Scale; RAS =
Relationship Assessment Scale; ECR = Experience in Close Relationships-Revised
Questionnaire.
The latent construct represented by the discriminant function can be interpreted
with respect to the structure coefficients, which are shown in Table 13. Higher levels of
the latent variable are indicated primarily by higher levels of self-acceptance, empathy,
and independence. This construct appears to represent a positive self-image and
awareness of others’ experiences.
A four-group one-way between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance was
performed on fifteen dependent variables: CPI Self-Acceptance, CPI Empathy, CPI
Dominance, CPI Independence, RAS Satisfaction, AAS Dependence, AAS Anxiety,
32
AAS Close, ECR Avoidance, ECR Anxiety, NEO Neuroticism, NEO Agreeableness,
NEO Conscientiousness, NEO Openness, and NEO Extraversion. The independent
variable was college level (27 freshmen, 72 sophomores, 62 juniors, and 35 seniors).
A total of 197 California State University, Sacramento college students
participated in this study. Student college level was distributed as follows: freshman
(13.7%), sophomore (36.5%), junior (31.5%), and senior (17.8%). A Pillai’s Trace was
used to assess the multivariate effect.
Using Pillai’s Trace as the criterion, the dependent variate was significantly
affected by student grade level, Pillai’s Trace = .363, F(45, 140 = 1.65), p = .006. 1 –
Wilks’ Lambda = .679. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure
separately to determine the locus of the statistically significant multivariate effect. The
ECR Avoidance scale F(3,192) = 3.79, p = .011, and the AAS Anxiety scale F(3,192) =
2.48, p = .045, violated the homogeneity assumption as assessed by Levene’s test. Those
dependent variables not violating the homogeneity of variance assumption were
evaluated against a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .003.
No variables were found to be statistically significant. Five scales indicated a
trend towards statistical significance: The Ryan, Einot, Gabriel, and Welsch Studentized
Range tests indicated that AAS Close scores F(3,192) = 4.46, p = .005, ² = .065 juniors viewed themselves as more comfortable with closeness and intimacy [M = 3.66,
SD = .56, 95% CI (3.52, 3.80)] than did sophomores [M = 3.27, SD = .68, 95% CI (3.11,
3.43)]. NEO Openness F(3,192) = 2.40, p = .069, ² = .036 - juniors viewed themselves
as more open [M = 54.80, SD = 10.65, 95% CI (52.10, 57.51)] than did seniors [M =
33
54.57, SD = 11.04, 95% CI (50.78, 58.37)], freshmen [M = 53.29, SD = 12.24, 95% CI
(48.44, 58.13)], or sophomores [M = 50.34, SD = 9.44, 95% CI (48.12, 52.56)];
relationship satisfaction scores F(3,192) = 2.87, p = .038, ² = .043 - juniors viewed
themselves as more satisfied in their relationship [M =4.28 , SD = .66, 95% CI (4.12,
4.45)] than did sophomores [M = 4.09, SD = .75, 95% CI (3.92, 4.27)], freshmen [M =
3.92, SD = .74, 95% CI (3.62, 4.21)], or seniors[M = 3.88, SD = .86, 95% CI (3.58,
4.17)]; NEO Neuroticism F(3,192) = 3.63, p = .014, ²= .054 - juniors viewed
themselves as more neurotic [M =46.71 , SD 12.81= , 95% CI (47.28, 52.33)] than did
freshmen [M = 44.87, SD = 14.0, 95% CI (52.84, 62.30)]; and CPI Empathy F(3,192) =
2.77, p = .043, ² = .041 - sophomores viewed themselves as more empathic [M = 20.75,
SD = 3.97, 95% CI (19.82, 21.68)] than did juniors [M = 19.39, SD = 2.93, 95% CI
(21.61, 23.88)].
A four-group discriminant analysis was performed on California State University,
Sacramento students who described themselves as freshman, sophomores, juniors, and
seniors. The obtained discriminant functions in combination accounted for a statistically
significant percentage of the between group differences, Wilks’  = .679, ² (45, N =
197) = 71.90, p = .007, overall Rc² = .321. Using a leave-one-out cross-validation
strategy, 32.1% of the cases were correctly classified, Press’ Q = 8.53, p < .001.
34
Table 14
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Grade Level
Test of function(s)
1 through 3
2 through 3
3
Wilks’ Lambda
.679
.799
.896
Significance
.007
.048
.086
Table 15
Eigenvalues of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Grade Level
Function
1
2
3
Eigenvalue
.178
.164
.116
% of variance
42.9
29.2
28.0
Tables 14 and 15 show that the first function was significant and accounted for 42.9% of
the explained variance. The second function was also significant and accounted for
29.2% of the explained variance.
35
Table 16
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Functions for College Level
Scale
Function 1
Function 2
AAS Close
-.088
.616
CPI Empathy
-.098
.453
CPI Self-Acceptance
-.114
.434
CPI Dominance
.432
.103
CPI Independence
.428
-.144
NEO Openness
.372
-.313
NEO Agreeableness
.229
-.088
NEO Conscientiousness
.167
.156
RAS Satisfaction
.311
.450
ECR Anxiety
-.133
-.271
NEO Extraversion
.149
.253
NEO Neuroticism
-.331
-.170
ECR Avoidance
.182
.115
AAS Anxiety
.194
.183
AAS Dependence
-.142
.096
Note. Functions > .434 are in boldface. CPI = California Psychological Inventory; NEO
= NEO-Five Factor Inventory; AAS = Adult Attachment Scale; RAS = Relationship
Assessment Scale; ECR = Experience in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire.
The latent constructs represented by the discriminant functions can be interpreted
with respect to the structure coefficients shown in Table 16. For the first function, higher
levels of the latent variable are indicated primarily by higher levels of relational
closeness, empathy, and self-acceptance. This construct appears to represent a secure
relational style. The latent construct for the second function is indicated primarily by
greater relationship satisfaction.
A four-group one-way between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance was
performed on fifteen dependent variables: CPI Self-Acceptance, CPI Empathy, CPI
Dominance, CPI Independence, RAS Satisfaction, AAS Dependence, AAS Anxiety,
36
AAS Close, ECR Avoidance, ECR Anxiety, NEO Neuroticism, NEO Agreeableness,
NEO Conscientiousness, NEO Openness, and NEO Extraversion. Student major was
distributed as follows: Psychology (13.7%), undecided (8.1%), health and human services
(33.5%), and arts and letters (7.1%). Natural science/math/engineering, social science
other than Psychology, and business/marketing/mass communications majors were not
included in the analysis due to limited sample size. The independent variable was college
major (79 Psychology, 16 undecided, 66 health and human services, 5 natural
science/math/engineering, 6 social science other than Psychology, 14 arts and letters, and
7 business/marketing/mass communications).
Using Pillai’s Trace as the criterion, the dependent variate was significantly
affected by major, Pillai’s Trace = .432 F(45, 477 = 1.78), p < .002. 1 – Wilks’ Lambda =
.618. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure separately to
determine the locus of the statistically significant multivariate effect. No scales were
found to violate the homogeneity assumption as assessed by Levene’s test.
The following variables were not found to be statistically significant; AAS close,
NEO Extraversion, NEO Neuroticism, ECR Avoidance, ECR Anxiety, AAS
Dependence, RAS Satisfaction, CPI dominance, CPI Self-Acceptance, and CPI
Independence. Student major significantly affected CPI Openness scores F(3,171) =
10.94, p < .001, ² = .161. The Ryan, Einot, Gabriel, and Welsch Studentized Range tests
indicated that Psychology majors viewed themselves as more open [M = 57.06, SD =
.10.35, 95% CI (-3.37, 7.97)] than did health and human services [M = 47.96, SD = 8.90,
95% CI (-12.60, 1.72)] majors. One other scale indicated a trend towards statistical
37
significance; CPI Empathy F(3,171) = 3.39, p = .019, ² = .056 - arts and letters majors
viewed themselves as more empathic [M = 22.36, SD = 3.84, 95% CI(49.07, 60.44)] than
did Psychology majors [M = 22.27, SD = 4.03, 95% CI(54.74, 59.37)], health and human
services majors [M = 20.97, SD = 4.25, 95% CI(45.78, 50.16)], and those who’s majors
were undecided [M = 19.12, SD = 3.14, 95% CI(43.14, 55.49)].
A four-group discriminant analysis was performed on California State University,
Sacramento students majoring in Psychology, health and human services, arts and letters,
and those whose major was undecided. The obtained discriminant functions in
combination accounted for a statistically significant percentage of the between group
differences, Wilks’  = .618, ² (45, N = 197) = 79.09, p = .001, overall Rc² = .382.
Using a leave-one-out cross-validation strategy, 40% of the cases were correctly
classified, Press’ Q = 5.50, p < .001.
Table 17
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Major
Test of function(s)
1 through 2
2
Wilks’ Lambda
.638
.859
Significance
.000
.061
Table 18
Eigenvalues of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Major
Function
1
2
Eigenvalue
.346
.164
% of variance
67.8
32.2
38
Tables 17 and 18 show that the first function was significant and accounted for 67.8% of
the explained variance. The second function was trending towards significance and
accounted for 32.2% of the explained variance.
Table 19
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Functions for College Major
Scale
Function 1
Function 2
NEO Openness
.101
.759
CPI Empathy
-.312
.362
NEO Agreeableness
-.008
-.331
AAS Close
.123
.245
ECR Avoidance
.017
.232
NEO Extraversion
-.042
.142
AAS Dependence
-.031
-.099
AAS Anxiety
.201
.016
NEO Conscientiousness
-.149
-.289
RAS Satisfaction
.149
-.048
CPI Dominance
.015
.046
ECR Anxiety
.141
.184
NEO Neuroticism
.001
.225
CPI Independence
.103
.141
CPI Self-Acceptance
-.001
.138
Note. Functions > +/-.330 are in boldface. CPI = California Psychological Inventory;
NEO = NEO-Five Factor Inventory; AAS = Adult Attachment Scale; RAS =
Relationship Assessment Scale; ECR = Experience in Close Relationships-Revised
Questionnaire.
The latent constructs represented by the discriminant functions can be interpreted
with respect to the structure coefficients shown in Table 19. For the first function, higher
levels of the latent variable are indicated primarily by higher levels of openness and
empathy. This construct appears to represent the ability to be open minded and
39
understanding of others’ experiences. The latent construct for the second function is
indicated primarily by lower agreeableness and appears to represent a cynical view of
others and a guarded emotional style.
A seven-group one-way between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance was
performed on fifteen dependent variables: CPI Self-Acceptance, CPI Empathy, CPI
Dominance, CPI Independence, RAS Satisfaction, AAS Dependence, AAS Anxiety,
AAS Close, ECR Avoidance, ECR Anxiety, NEO Neuroticism, NEO Agreeableness,
NEO Conscientiousness, NEO Openness, and NEO Extraversion. The independent
variable was relationship status (24 dating less than two weeks, 37 dating less than six
months, 17 dating less than one year, 64 dating more than one year, 31 dating more than
three years, 12 engaged, and 12 married).
A total of 197 California State University, Sacramento college students
participated in this study. Student relationship status was distributed as follows: dating
less than two weeks (12.1%), dating less than six months (18.8%), dating less than one
year (8.6%), dating more than one year (15.7%), engaged (6.1%) and married (6.1%). A
Pillai’s Trace was used to assess the multivariate effect.
Using Pillai’s Trace as the criterion, the dependent variate was significantly
affected by student relationship status, Pillai’s Trace = .621, F(90, 1086 = 1.39), p = .011.
1 – Wilks’ Lambda = .503. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent
measure separately to determine the locus of the statistically significant multivariate
effect. No scales were found to violate the homogeneity assumption as assessed by
Levene’s test.
40
The following variables were not found to be statistically significant; CPI SelfAcceptance, CPI Empathy, CPI Dominance, AAS Close, NEO Openness, and NEO
Agreeableness. Relationship status significantly affected ECR Avoidance scores F(6,190)
= 5.16, p < .001, ² = .140. The Ryan, Einot, Gabriel, and Welsch Studentized Range
tests indicated that students dating less than two weeks viewed themselves as more
avoidant [M = 3.68, SD = 1.16, 95% CI (3.21, 4.16)] than did married [M = 1.85, SD =
.78, 95% CI (1.70, 2.68)] students. ECR Anxiety scores F(6,190) = 6.25, p < .001, ² =
.17 were also significantly affected by relationship status. The Ryan, Einot, Gabriel, and
Welsch Studentized Range tests indicated that students dating less than two weeks
viewed themselves as more anxious [M = 3.41, SD = 1.13, 95% CI (3.06, 3.76)] than did
students dating more than three years [M = 2.21, SD = .66, 95% CI (1.91, 2.52)] or
married students [M = 2.19, SD = .60, 95% CI (1.70, 2.68)]. One other scale indicated a
trend towards statistical significance; AAS Anxiety F(6,190) = 3.15, p = .006, ² = .091students dating less than two weeks viewed themselves as more anxious [M = 2.59, SD =
.75, 95% CI ( 2.30, 2.88)] than did students dating less than one year [M = 2.48, SD =
.91, 95% CI (2.14, 2.82)], students dating more than three years [M = 2.06, SD = .58,
95% CI (1.81, 2.31)], and married students [M = 1.79, SD = .36, 95% CI (1.38, 2.20)].
A seven-group discriminant analysis was performed on California State
University, Sacramento students in romantic relationships. The obtained discriminant
functions in combination accounted for a statistically significant percentage of the
between group differences, Wilks’  = .503, ² (90, N = 197) = 1.44, p = .006, overall
41
Rc² = .497. Using a leave-one-out cross-validation strategy, 16.2% of the cases were
correctly classified, Press’ Q = 83.41, p < .001.
Table 20
Wilks’ Lambda of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Relationship Status
Test of function(s)
1 through 6
2 through 6
3 through 6
4 through 6
5 through 6
6 through 6
Wilks’ Lambda
.503
.683
.835
.898
.942
.979
Significance
.006
.460
.980
.986
.973
.952
Table 21
Functions of Eigenvalues of Canonical Discriminant Functions for Relationship Status
Function
1
2
3
4
5
6
Eigenvalue
.359
.222
.074
.049
.040
.021
% of variance
46.9
29.0
9.7
6.4
5.2
2.8
Tables 20 and 21 show that only the first function was significant and accounted for
46.9% of the explained variance.
42
Table 22
Structure Matrix of Canonical Discriminant Function for Relationship Status
Scale
Function 1
ECR Anxiety
.716
ECR Avoidance
.652
AAS Anxiety
.511
RAS Satisfaction
.357
NEO Neuroticism
.266
AAS Dependence
.250
CPI Independence
-.264
NEO Openness
.027
CPI Empathy
.081
NEO Agreeableness
.050
AAS Close
-.163
NEO Extraversion
.233
CPI Dominance
-.155
NEO Conscientiousness
-.290
CPI Self-Acceptance
-.126
Note. Functions > +/-.400 are in boldface. CPI = California Psychological Inventory;
NEO = NEO-Five Factor Inventory; AAS = Adult Attachment Scale; RAS =
Relationship Assessment Scale; ECR = Experience in Close Relationships-Revised
Questionnaire.
The latent constructs represented by the discriminant function can be interpreted
with respect to the structure coefficients shown in Table 22. For the first function, higher
levels of the latent variable are indicated primarily by higher levels of avoidance and
anxiety. This latent construct appears to represent an insecure relational style.
43
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
The main focus of this study was to explore the relationship between romantic
attachment style, personality type and relationship satisfaction. Higher levels of
relationship satisfaction were primarily predicted by lower levels of neuroticism, anxiety,
avoidance, and dependence and by higher levels of agreeableness and closeness.
My first hypothesis was that individuals who report a secure attachment style
would (a) report more satisfaction in their relationships (b) score higher on extraversion,
conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience (c) score higher on
empathy, independence and self-acceptance and (d) score lower on neuroticism and
dominance. Support was found for part of this hypothesis. Students who reported a secure
attachment style viewed themselves as more agreeable, empathic, independent and selfaccepting.
The second hypothesis was that individuals with an anxious attachment style
would (a) report less satisfaction in their relationships (b) score higher on neuroticism
and (c) score lower on extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness and
agreeableness and (d) score lower on dominance, independence, self-acceptance and
empathy. Support was found for part of this hypothesis. Students who reported an
anxious attachment style viewed themselves as less open to experience and less
independent.
44
The third hypothesis was that individuals with an avoidant attachment style would
(a) report less satisfaction in their relationships (b) score lower on agreeableness,
conscientiousness, empathy, dominance and self-acceptance and (c) score higher on
independence. No significant support was found for this hypothesis.
This study also examined personality traits, attachment style and relationship
satisfaction based on participants’ sex, sex of partner, ethnicity, college level, college
major and relationship status. Differences in personality traits and attachment style were
observed between male and female participants. Men reported being significantly more
independent, more comfortable with closeness and intimacy and more open to new
experience than did women. Society encourages independence in men and dependence in
women in romantic relationships, although this is subtler than in past years. Therefore,
men may be less anxious about rejection from their partners and are free to be more
vulnerable or close with their partners. A discriminant function analysis was performed
on participants’ personality style, attachment style, and relationship satisfaction in
relation to participants’ sex. A pattern of inter-correlations emerged to reveal an anxious
relational style which characterized women to a greater degree than men.
Differences in personality traits and attachment style were also observed between
students in a relationship with a man or a woman. Participants in a relationship with a
woman reported being more independent, more comfortable with closeness and intimacy,
more open to new experiences and also more dominant. These findings may be due to the
fact that most participants in a relationship with women were men. A discriminant
function analysis was performed on participants’ personality style, attachment style, and
45
relationship satisfaction in relation to the sex of the participants’ partner. A pattern of
inter-correlations was observed in the form an anxious relational style and gives further
evidence of differences between men and women’s relational styles.
Differences in personality traits and attachment style were observed between
Caucasian, Hispanic and Asian participants. Caucasian participants reported being
significantly more dominant, independent, and self-accepting than did Asian participants.
In addition, Caucasian participants reported being significantly more empathic than did
Hispanic or Asian participants. Also, Caucasian participants reported being more
extraverted and more comfortable with closeness and intimacy than did Hispanic and
Asian participants. Hispanic participants reported being more dependent on their partner
than did Caucasian and Asian participants. Asian participants reported being more
avoidant in their relationships than did Caucasian or Hispanic participants. Cultural
values may contribute to these between group differences. For example,
European/Caucasian culture has historically valued individuality and extraversion,
whereas Asian culture has historically valued group cohesion. In addition, terms used to
explain relational styles such as secure, avoidant or anxious may reflect a cultural bias or
preference and should not be viewed as superior when examining cultural differences.
However, cultural differences in personality trait, attachment style and relationship
satisfaction was not the focus of this study and should be explored more in future
research including a larger number of ethnic backgrounds. A discriminant function
analysis was performed on participants’ personality style, attachment style, and
relationship satisfaction in relation to participants’ ethnicity. A pattern of inter-
46
correlations emerged which reflected a positive self-image and an awareness of others
experiences. Caucasian participants loaded higher on this construct than did Hispanic or
Asian participants.
Differences in personality traits, attachment style, and relationship satisfaction
were observed between freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. Juniors reported
being significantly more comfortable with closeness and intimacy than did sophomores.
Juniors were also most open to new experiences and most satisfied in their relationships.
However, juniors viewed themselves as significantly more neurotic than did freshmen.
This may be due to the fact that juniors are under more stress in upper division classes,
more likely to be living on their own, or thinking about the future more than freshmen.
Sophomores reported being more empathic than did juniors. This was an unexpected
finding and should be explored in future research. A discriminant function analysis was
performed on participants’ personality style and attachment style in relation to
participants’ college level. Two patterns of inter-correlations were observed. The first
pattern reflected a secure relational style and the second reflected a high level of
relationship satisfaction. Both constructs characterized juniors to a greater degree than
freshmen, sophomores, or seniors.
Differences in personality traits were observed between college majors.
Psychology majors viewed themselves as significantly more open to experience than did
health and human services majors. Although Psychology is a science, it does involve a
philosophical influence and an emphasis on curiosity and understanding how people
work. Philosophical thinking and curiosity are important aspects of openness to new
47
experience. A discriminant function analysis was performed on participants’ personality
style, attachment style, and relationship satisfaction in relation to participants’ college
major. Two differing patterns of inter-correlations emerged. The first pattern showed an
open mindedness and understanding of others experiences, which characterized
Psychology majors to a greater degree than health and human services majors. The
second construct reflected more cynicism and emotional guardedness. Health and human
services majors loaded higher on this construct. This may be a reflection of these
participants lesser interest in exploring or sharing emotions.
Differences in attachment style were observed for relationship status. Participants
who had been with their partner for two weeks or less reported being significantly more
avoidant than did married participants. Married individuals are more likely to feel close
to their partner than are those who have had less time to get to know their partner. People
may be more avoidant or guarded at the start of a relationship because their partner is not
yet seen as a safe haven. Participants dating their partner for two weeks or less reported
being significantly more anxious in their relationship than did participants who were with
their partner for three or more years or were engaged. Anxiety often decreases over time
as a partner is shown to be trustworthy. It is also unclear whether attachment style
predicts the length of the relationship or whether being in a longer stable relationship
shapes a person’s attachment style. Future research should examine these questions in
greater detail. A discriminant function analysis was performed on participants’
personality style, attachment style, and relationship satisfaction in relation to participants’
romantic relationship status. A pattern of inter-correlations emerged to reveal an insecure
48
relational style, which characterized participants who were dating two weeks or less to a
greater degree than participants in long-term relationships.
This study did have several limitations. For example, self-reports of attachment
style were used and these may include bias. It is recommended that future research utilize
observational measures of interactions with one’s partner. In addition it is difficult to
generalize findings across environments and cultures due to limited variation in
participants’ age, ethnicity, and geographical region. Future research should explore the
variables discussed in other colleges and include a larger number of ethnicities and age
ranges. The main focus of this study was participants in a dating relationship, although
significant findings were also observed for participants who were married. Future
research should include a larger number of married participants.
49
References
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K., Clark, C., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson and W.S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-47). New York: Guilford Press.
Brennan, K. A., Wu, S., & Loev, J. (1998). Adult romantic attachment and individual
differences in attitudes toward physical contact in the context of adult romantic
relationships. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Ed.), Attachment theory and
close relationships (pp. 394-428). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J., Boldry, J., Kashy, D. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and
support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510-531.
Chongruksa, & Thompson (1996, January). A note regarding the reliability and validity
of scores on Collins and Read’s Adult Attachment Scale. Paper presented at the
Annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.proxy.lib.csus.edu/PDFS/ED393917.pdf
Clulow (2001). Adult attachment and couple psychotherapy. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor
and Francis, Inc.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4),
644-663.
50
Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Edwards, J. (2008). Relationship satisfaction: The role of attachment, conflict, empathy,
& forgiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 68(12-B), 8445.
Fairchild, A., & Finney, S. (2006). Investigating validity evidence for the Experiences in
Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(1), 116-135.
Fletcher, J., Simpson, J., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived
relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340-354.
Fraley, R. & Shaver, P. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments,
emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General
Psychology, 4(2), 132-154.
Gattis, K., Berns, S., Simpson, L. & Christensen A. (2004). Birds of a feather of strange
birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal
of Family Psychology, 18(4), 564-574.
Gough, H. G. (1987). The California Psychological Inventory TM administrator’s guide.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
51
Hendrick, S. (1988) A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 50, 93-98.
Hendrick, S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment scale.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137-142.
Johnson, S. & Whiffen, V. (2003) Attachment processes in couple and family therapy.
New York, NY: Giulford Press.
Kane, H., Jaremka, L., Guichard, A., Ford, M., Collins, N., & Feeney, B. (2007). Feeling
supported and feeling satisfied: How one partner’s attachment style predicts the
other partner’s relationship experience. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 24(4), 535-555.
Knee, C., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., & Patrick, H. (2005). Self-determination and
conflict in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89(6), 997-1009.
Knox, D. & Schacht, C. (2010). Choices in relationships: An introduction to marriage
and the family (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Malouff, J., Thorsteinsson, E., Schutte, N., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. (2010). The fivefactor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 124-127.
Mashek, D. & Aron, A. (2004). Handbook of closeness and intimacy. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). NEO PI/FFI Manual Supplement. Odessa, FL:
Psychology Assessment Recourses, Inc.
52
Mickelson, K., Kessler, R. P., Shaver, R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally
representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5),
1092-1106.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI Manual: A
guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator (3rd ed.).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ostrov, J. & Collins, W. (2007). Social dominance in romantic relationships: A
prospective longitudinal study of non-verbal processes. Social Development,
16(3), 580-595.
Rosswurm, A., Pierson, B., & Woodward, L. (2007). The relationship between MBTI
personality types and attachment styles of adults. Psychology Journal, 4(3), 109127.
Russell, D. (1996). The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and
factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K.A. (1992). Attachment styles and the “Big Five” personality
traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 536-545.
Shaver, P., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment. In R. J., Sternberg,
M. L. Barnes, (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 68-99). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
53
Shaver, P., & Noftle, E. (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.
Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in
romantic relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 143-157.
Simpson, J. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971-980.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality
of marriage and similar dyads. The Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 1528.
Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Waters, E. (2004). When “new” meets “old”: Configurations
of adult attachment representations and their implications for marital functioning.
Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 295-314.
Vohs, K., Baumeister, R., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Do emotions help or hurt decision
making? New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and
affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from
self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68(3), 413-449.
White, J., Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and
relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519-1530.
54
Willenbacher, A. (2010) Dominance as an interpersonal construct: Maturity of object
relations, attachment style, and measurement. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 70(11-B), 7224.