Dyadic interactions were analyzed using constructs from social-cognitive theory (self-efficacy and subjective values) and interpersonal theory (interpersonal circumplex [IPC] and complementarity). In Study 1, the authors developed a measure of efficacy for interpersonal actions associated with each IPC region—the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy (CSIE). In Study 2, the authors used the CSIE and the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (which assesses the subjective value of interpersonal events associated with each IPC region) to predict the dominance expressed and satisfaction experienced by members of 101 same-sex dyads trying to solve a murder mystery. Structural equation modeling analyses supported both social-cognitive and interpersonal theory. A social-cognitive person-variable (dominance efficacy) and an interpersonal dyadic-variable (reciprocity) together predicted dominant behaviors. Likewise, both a social-cognitive variable (friendliness values) and an interpersonal variable (correspondence of friendliness efficacy) predicted satisfaction. Finally, both shared performance outcomes and dynamic interpersonal processes predicted convergence of collective efficacy beliefs within dyads.
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Zautra, A., Urrows, S., Abeles, M., & Karoly, P. (2001). Women's pursuit of personal goals in daily life with fibromyalgia: A value-expectancy analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 587-596.
2.
Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 521-536.
3.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS.
4.
Atkinson, J. N. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
5.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
Bandura, A. (1996). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Unpublished manuscript.
7.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
8.
Bluhm, C., Widiger, T. A., & Miele, G. M. (1990). Interpersonal complementarity and individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 464-471.
9.
Blumberg, S. R., & Hokanson, J. E. (1983). The effects of another person's response style on interpersonal behavior in depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 196-209.
10.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
11.
Carson, R. C. (1982). Self-fulfilling prophesy, maladaptive behavior, and psychotherapy. In J. D. Achin & D. J. Kiesler (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal therapy (pp. 64-77). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
12.
Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592-603.
14.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467-476.
15.
Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2002). Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. Journal of Personality, 70, 901-924.
16.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1-15.
17.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.
18.
Hofsess, C. D., & Tracey, T. G. (2005). The interpersonal circumplex as a model of interpersonal capabilities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 137-147.
19.
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2000). Inventory of interpersonal problems. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
21.
Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, K. R., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M. J., & Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67-86.
22.
Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1987). Evaluating order hypotheses within proximity matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 172-178.
23.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451-477). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.
25.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185-214.
26.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: John Wiley.
27.
Lee, C. (1984). Accuracy of efficacy and outcome expectations in predicting performance in a simulated assertiveness task. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 37-48.
28.
Lent, R. W., Hill, C. E., & Hoffman, M. A. (2003). Development and validation of the counselor activity self-efficacy scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 97-108.
29.
Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 249-267.
30.
Markey, P. M., Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2003). Complementarity of interpersonal behaviors in dyadic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1082-1090.
31.
Mast, M. (2002). Dominance as expresses and inferred through speaking time: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 420-450.
32.
McClelland, D. C. (1980). Motive dispositions: The merits of operant and respondent measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 10-41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825.
34.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30-46.
35.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.
36.
Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 545-559.
37.
Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective-efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62-87.
38.
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229-245.
39.
Myers, N. D., Payment, C. A., & Feltz, D. L. (2004). Reciprocal relationships between collective efficacy and team performance in women's ice hockey. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 182-195.
40.
O'Connor, B. P., & Dyce, J. (1997). Interpersonal rigidity, hostility, and complementarity in musical bands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 362-372.
41.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1987). The structure of personality capabilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 354-365.
42.
Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you're talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80-96.
43.
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2000). The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in a social dilemma. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 32, 104-116.
44.
Shechtman, N., & Horowitz, L. M. (2006). Talking to people versus talking to computers: Interpersonal goals as a distinguishing factor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
45.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). The discovery of hidden profiles by decision making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.
46.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.
47.
Stewart, D. D., Billings, R. S., & Stasser, G. (1998). Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decisionmaking groups. Group Dynamics, 2, 18-23.
48.
Strong, S. R., Hills, H. I., Kilmartin, C. T., DeVries, H., Lanier, K., & Nelson, B. N. (1988). The dynamic relations among interpersonal behaviors: A test of complementarity and anticomplementarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 798-810.
49.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558-568.
50.
Tracey, T. J. G. (1997). RANDALL: A Microsoft FORTRAN program for a randomization test of hypothesized order relations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 164-168.
51.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2000). Analysis of circumplex models. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 641-664). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
52.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2002). Development of interests and competency beliefs: A one-year longitudinal study of fifth to eighth grade students using the ICA-R and structural equation modeling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 148-163.
53.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2004). Levels of interpersonal complementarity: A simple representation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1211-1225.
54.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2005). Interpersonal rigidity and complementarity. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 592-614.
55.
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649-664.
56.
Wagner, C. C., Kiesler, D. J., & Schmidt, J. A. (1995). Assessing the interpersonal transaction cycle: Convergence of action and reaction interpersonal circumplex measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 938-949.
57.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 409-420.
58.
Wiggins, J. S. (2003). Paradigms of personality assessment. New York: Guilford.
59.
Woody, E., & Sadler, P. (2005). Structural equation models for interchangeable dyads: Being the same makes a difference. Psychological Methods, 10, 139-158.
