Interpersonal compatibility or interpersonal matching is the ease and comfort of communication between two or more individuals.
Existing concepts
Although various concepts of interpersonal compatibility have existed from ancient times (see, e.g., Plato's Lysis), no general theory of interpersonal compatibility has been proposed in psychology. Existing concepts are contradictory in many details, beginning with the central pointâÂÂwhether compatibility is caused by matching psychological parameters or by their complementarity. At the same time, the idea of interpersonal compatibility is analyzed in non-scientific fields (see, e.g., Astrological compatibility).
Among existing psychological tools for studying and/or measuring interpersonal compatibility, the following are noteworthy:
Other hypotheses of intertype relationships were later proposed by adherents of MBTI (D. Keirsey's hypothesis of compatibility between Keirsey temperaments).
Controversy
The following problems may be reasons for the absence of a theory of psychological compatibility:
- Lack of generally accepted criteria for measuring compatibility ("degrees of compatibility")
- The terms compatibility and matching, although not identical, are often confused in common speech (the first rather comprises complementarity and the second similarity of partners)
- The problem's unclear status in social science (the problem may belong to social psychology, sociology, personality psychology etc.)
- Different psychological theories propose different parameters of personality, but only few of them are generally accepted among psychologists (e.g. cognitive styles); still, even generally accepted criteria may be irrelevant to interpersonal compatibility
- Some, if not all personality parameters (even genetically determined ones), may change over time and/or due to interpersonal interaction
- The non-traditional view of psychological dependency, which is not considered drug dependency, but rather a need (unilateral or mutual) for somebody else's psychological support that one cannot or can hardly provide by him/herself.
MHC and sexual mating
It has been suggested that the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) plays a role in the selection of potential mates, via olfaction. MHC genes make molecules that enable the immune system to recognize invaders; generally, the more diverse the MHC genes of the parents, the stronger the immune system of the offspring. It would therefore be beneficial to have evolved systems of recognizing individuals with different MHC genes and preferentially selecting them to breed with.
Yamazaki et al. (1976) showed this to be the case for male mice, which show a preference for females of different MHC. Similar results have been obtained with fish.
In 1995, Swiss biologist Claus Wedekind determined MHC influences both body odors and body odor preferences in humans, and that the women's preferences depend on their hormonal status. In an experiment, a group of female college students smelled T-shirts that had been worn by male students for two nights, without deodorant, cologne or scented soaps. Overwhelmingly, the women preferred the odors of men with dissimilar MHCs to their own. However, their preference was reversed if they were taking oral contraceptives. The hypothesis is that MHCs affect mate choice and that oral contraceptives can interfere with the preference for variation. A study in 2005 on 58 test subjects confirmed that taking oral contraceptives made women prefer men with MHCs similar to their own. Several follow up studies have confirmed the belief that paternally inherited HLA-associated odors influence odor preference and may serve as social cues. In 2008, Peter Donnelly and colleagues proposed that MHC is related to mating choice in some human populations.
Complementarity
Complementarity in social psychology is defined on the basis of the interpersonal circle (Carson, 1969), according to which interpersonal behaviors fall on a circle with two dimensions, namely dominance (i.e. dominantâÂÂsubmissive) and warmth (i.e. hostileâÂÂfriendly). It states that each interpersonal behavior invites certain responses of another interactant. The behavior and the response it invites are said to be complementary (Horowitz, Dryer, & Krasnoperova, 1997) when friendly behavior begets hostile behavior, and dominant behavior begets submissive behavior. When people fail to give the invited response, it is said to be a non-complementary interaction. If the first person's behavior invites a reaction from the second person that matches the second person's goals, then the second person is satisfied; otherwise, the second person is frustrated (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997).
Factors affecting complementarity
- Setting i.e. in work, at home, in recreation and others
- Social Role Status e.g. supervisors, coworker and supervisee
- Time e.g. strangers, old friends
See also
Notes
References
- Action G. Scott (2001), The Interpersonal Principle of Complementarity: A Meta-Analysis, Retrieved Apr 2, 2008, from http://www.personalityresearch.org/acton/meta-analysis.html
- Ansell, E.B.; Kurtz, J.E.; Markey, P.M. (2008) Gender Differences in Interpersonal Complementarity Within Roommate Dyads, Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 4 pp. 502âÂÂ512, April 2008
- Carson, R. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
- Dryer, D.C.; Horowitz, Leonard M. (1997) When Do Opposite Attract? Interpersonal Complementarity Versus Similarity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 72 No. 3, 592âÂÂ603, 1997
- Horowitz, L.M., Dryer, D.C., & Krasnoperova, E.N. (1997). The circumplex structure of interpersonal problems. In R. Plutchik & H.R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Locke, Kenneth D.; Sadler, Pamela (2007) Self-Efficacy, Values, and Complementarity in Dyadic Interactions: Integrating Interpersonal and Social-Cognitive Theory, Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 94âÂÂ109, January 2007
- Moskowitz, D.s.; Ho, Moon-ho Ringo; Turcotte-tremblay, Anne-marie (2007) Contextual Influences on Interpersonal Complementarity, Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1051âÂÂ1063, August 2007
- Tracey, Terence J.G. (2004) Levels of Interpersonal Complementarity: A Simplex Representation, Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1211âÂÂ1225, September 2004
Literature
- ÃÂðÃÂøûÃÂõò ÃÂû. ÃÂ., àðüð÷ðýþòð ÃÂ. ÃÂ., ÃÂþóþüð÷ á. ÃÂ. ÃÂþ÷ýðù ôÃÂÃÂóøÃÂ
â ýðùôø ÃÂõñà(ÃÂõúÃÂøø þ ÿÃÂøÃÂ
þûþóøÃÂõÃÂúøÃÂ
ÃÂøÿðÃÂ
ø øÃÂ
þÃÂýþÃÂõýøÃÂÃÂ
). â âþüÃÂú: 1996. â 185 ÃÂ.
- ÃÂÃÂûõýúþ ÃÂ. ÃÂ. áÃÂÃÂÃÂúÃÂÃÂÃÂýþ-ÃÂÃÂýúÃÂøþýðûÃÂýðàÃÂþÃÂøþýøúð: àð÷ÃÂðñþÃÂúð üõÃÂþôð úþüñøýðÃÂþÃÂøúø ÿþûÃÂÃÂýþÃÂÃÂõù. â ç.1 â ÃÂøõò: ëâÃÂðýÃÂÿþÃÂàãúÃÂðÃÂýøû, 1999. â 187 ÃÂ.
- ÃÂñþ÷þò ÃÂ. ÃÂ. ÃÂÃÂøÃÂ
þûþóøàüõöûøÃÂýþÃÂÃÂýÃÂÃÂ
þÃÂýþÃÂõýøù. â ÃÂ.: ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂðàÃÂúþûð, 1990.
- áþñÃÂøú ÃÂ. ÃÂ. ÃÂøðóýþÃÂÃÂøúð ÿÃÂøÃÂ
þûþóøÃÂõÃÂúþù ÃÂþòüõÃÂÃÂøüþÃÂÃÂø. â áÃÂñ.: ëàõÃÂÃÂû, 2002. â 80 ÃÂ.
- äøûðÃÂþòð ÃÂ. á. áþÃÂøþýøúð ûøÃÂýÃÂÃÂ
þÃÂýþÃÂõýøù. â ÃÂ., ëçÃÂÃÂýðàñõûúðû, 2004. â 76 ÃÂ.