Properties of the Continuous Assessment of Interpersonal Dynamics Across Sex, Level of Familiarity, and Interpersonal Conflict

Abstract

The Continuous Assessment of Interpersonal Dynamics (CAID) is a method in which trained observers continuously code the dominance and warmth of individuals who interact with one another in dyads. This method has significant promise for assessing dynamic interpersonal processes. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of individual sex, dyadic familiarity, and situational conflict on patterns of interpersonal warmth, dominance, and complementarity as assessed via CAID. We used six samples with 603 dyads, including two samples of unacquainted mixed-sex undergraduates interacting in a collaborative task, two samples of couples interacting in both collaborative and conflict tasks, and two samples of mothers and children interacting in both collaborative and conflict tasks. Complementarity effects were robust across all samples, and individuals tended to be relatively warm and dominant. Results from multilevel models indicated that women were slightly warmer than men, whereas there were no sex differences in dominance. Unfamiliar dyads and dyads interacting in more collaborative tasks were relatively warmer, more submissive, and more complementary on warmth but less complementary on dominance. These findings speak to the utility of the CAID method for assessing interpersonal dynamics and provide norms for researchers who use the method for different types of samples and applications.

Happy Like a Fish in Water? The Role of Personality–Situation Fit for Momentary Happiness in Social Interactions across the Adult Lifespan

“…Given that intrapersonal and interpersonal processes of both interaction partners mutually influence each other (Back, Baumert, et al, 2011;Mund et al, 2016;Sadler, Ethier, Gunn, Duong, & Woody, 2009), it would be highly interesting to examine both interaction partners' personalities, situational perceptions, and affective fluctuations simultaneously (e.g. Hopwood et al, 2018;Ross et al, 2017).…”

Circular Modelling of Circumplex Measurements for Interpersonal Behavior

“…Theoretically, however, the IPC is a continuous order meaning that an individuals’ interpersonal behavior can be described using a continuous circular measurement (in degrees) along the edge of the circle drawn in Figure 1. Research nowadays focusses more on using Agency and Communion scores as continuous measures (e.g., Hopwood et al, 2020; Pennings et al, 2018) instead of using profiles based on octant scores (Wubbels, Brekelmans, den Brok, & van Tartwijk, 2006).…”

“…In most circumplex research, the two axes Agency and Communion are analyzed separately (see, e.g., aan het Rot et al, 2013, aan het Rot et al, 2015, aan het Rot et al, 2017; Brekelmans et al, 2005; Hopwood et al, 2020; Mainhard, Brekelmans, den Brok, & Wubbels, 2011; Mainhard, Pennings, Wubbels, & Brekelmans, 2012; Pennings et al, 2014; Pennings et al, 2018; Sadler & Woody, 2003). Given that interpersonal theory states that interpersonal behavior should be described as a blend of Agency and Communion and cannot be interpreted correctly based on only one of these dimensions, this is not an ideal way of analyzing IPC data.…”

“…The conceptual basis for the IPC was developed by Leary (1957), but the mathematical basis for the model was laid by Guttman (1954) who wanted to model an ordering “without a head and foot to it” (p. 325). Such an ordering can be called a circumplex or circular ordering and is described by Gurtman (2009, p. 602) as “a continuous order with no beginning or end.” Until now, research on interpersonal behavior has heavily relied on linear statistical methods to analyze circumplex data (e.g., aan het Rot et al, 2017; Hopwood et al, 2020; Pennings et al, 2018). These linear methods, however, assume orderings that do have a beginning and end, which does not correspond to the circular nature of the IPC.…”

Full throttle: Demonstrating the speed, accuracy, and validity of a new method for continuous two-dimensional self-report and annotation

“…Many research questions in psychology and other social sciences also involve relations between two or more experiential dimensions. Examples include studies on mixed emotions (e.g., Larsen et al, 2001;Larsen & McGraw, 2011, 2014, interpersonal dynamics (e.g., Hopwood et al, 2018;Ross et al, 2017), core affect (e.g., Madsen, 1996;Nagel et al, 2007), attitude ambivalence (e.g., Conner & Armitage, 2008), and emotion differentiation (e.g., Erbas et al, 2018). This makes accurate and valid methods for continuous selfreport on two dimensions important for researchers across these fields.…”