Running head : SIMILARITY EFFECTS OF CHARACTER VIRTUES ON RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION Similarity Effects of Character Virtues on Relationship Satisfaction

This study was designed to measure how partner similarity on levels of virtues effects relationship satisfaction. Participants (N=170, 83% female) rated themselves and their partners on the level in which they possessed twenty-four character strengths that fit into six categories of virtues defined by Peterson and Seligman (2004). Before rating character strengths, participants took a relationship satisfaction questionnaire. Two patterns were found: a significant negative linear slope and a significant negative linear slope plus a significant quadratic trend. For every virtue, participants who rated their partner higher than themselves tended to be more satisfied with their relationship. This study has expanded the previous research concerning virtues and applied it to relationship satisfaction while aiding the growing positive psychology movement by highlighting the importance of character strengths in regards to romantic relationships. SIMILARITY EFFECTS OF VIRTUES ON RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION 3 Similarity Effects of Character Virtues on Relationship Satisfaction Romantic relationships play a key role in the lives of most people. Consequently, the quality and stability of these relationships have extremely important implications on people’s psychological health and well-being. A satisfying romantic relationship can result in elevated levels of general well-being and life satisfaction; on the other hand, problems in relationships lead to much distress in the individuals involved and psychological and physical problems. Because, more than help of marriages in the United States end in divorce, finding the factors that may influence levels of satisfaction and stability in intimate relationships has been a popular topic in recent research (Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese 2000). A prominent finding from research on relationships is the idea of assortative mating or the phenomenon in which people choose to mate with individuals who are similar. Research has found that partners tend to be more alike in various dimensions such as: age, race, religion, anthropometrics, physical attractiveness, socio-economic status, intelligence, education, personality, attitudes, interests and sex drive (Wilson & Cousins, 2003). An abundant amount of research has been conducted on the topic similarity and how it affects romantic relationships. Individually reported similarity on dimensions such as: age, political, and religious attitudes, education and general intelligence, is found to be a consistently strong predictor of relationship satisfaction (Lou & Klohnem, 2005). Also, longitudinal evidence suggests partnerships based on similarity are also more stable. When asked to describe an ideal partner, people tend to 4 THE EFFECTS OF PERCIEVED DIFFERENCES ON RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION choose similar others so much that the average correlation between subjects own personality and their ideal mate has been found to be a fairly strong . 30 (Wilson & Cousins, 2003). The similarity effect in mating can be explained by four main theories, the first of which is the propinquity theory. This theory centers around the idea that people tend to form friendships or romantic relationships with those whom they encounter often. The propinquity theory suggests that the more we see and interact with a person, the more likely he or she is to become our friend or intimate partner. This effect is very similar to the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968) in that the more a person is exposed to a stimulus, the more the person likes it. The second theory to explain similarity is the genetic similarity theory. This is the idea that we are attracted to, and help, those who share more of our genes, therefore those who are more similar (Hamilton,1968). Another proposition is that mate preferences are established in early childhood as a result of behavior characteristics of the opposite-sex parent hence, the stereotype that a woman will date someone like her father (Wilson & Barrett, 1987). Consequently, people will choose mates much like themselves because (being closely related) they inevitably share many traits with their opposite-sex parent. The final theory is that people with a lot in common simply share more activities and therefore find each other’s company more rewarding (Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna & Heyman, 2000). Whatever the SIMILARITY EFFECTS OF VIRTUES ON RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION 5 circumstances, it becomes clear that people have a tendency to choose and prefer mates which are more similar to them (Wilson & Cousins, 2003). Although substantial theory and empirical evidence exists to support the idea that similarity across a broad range of traits is related to relationship satisfaction, one set of traits that has thus far been overlooked is the set of character virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). However, as previously mentioned there is little to no research regarding virtues and the part they play on relationship satisfaction. A virtue is defined as a commendable quality or trait and according to Peterson and Seligman (2004), is core characteristic valued by moral philosophers and religious thinkers. Peterson and Seligman’s 2004 book Character Strengths and Virtues is one of the first attempts by the research community to identify and classify the positive psychological traits of human beings. In doing so, the authors emphasize the importance of virtues to the realm of psychology. Peterson and Seligman (2004) identify six classes of virtues which are made up of twenty-four measurable character strengths the full list of which can be found in Appendix A. The classification schema and ideologies represented in the text have been adopted by the present study not only to structurally define virtues but also to help emphasize the important role they should have in psychology. Research on these particular characteristics is new to the field of psychology and Character Strengths and Virtues appears to be the most widely accepted classification of virtues to date (Dunn,2008). The six broad categories of virtues defined by Peterson and Seligman (2004) are: Wisdom and Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance and Transcendence. These six are all considered to be virtuous by the vast majority of 6 THE EFFECTS OF PERCIEVED DIFFERENCES ON RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION cultures and historical periods. Virtues, being valued as always good in and of themselves, have been found to lead to increased happiness when practiced (Punzo & Meara, 1993). In order to determine if someone exemplifies these virtues, the handbook identifies twenty-four measurable character strengths which are distinguishable routes to displaying the virtues. The twenty-four character strengths are dispersed unevenly among the six virtues, with each virtue composed of between three and five strengths. For example, the virtue of wisdom can be achieved through such strengths as creativity, curiosity, love of learning, open-mindedness and perspective. These strengths are similar in that they all involve the acquisition and use of knowledge, but are also distinct (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Due to the lack of past research on virtues and their importance within people’s lives’, I am whether that virtues operate differently than other similarity effects in regards to relationship satisfaction. This leads me to my research question: does self-partner similarity on virtues predict relationship satisfaction? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to go a little more in-depth into the idea of similarity. For this experiment, similarity is considered to be on a continuum portrayed in Figure 1 with the x-axis being the difference in the rating one’s self and their partner and the y-axis being relationship satisfaction. This graph is showing that the farther away from zero or the more dissimilar two partners are, the less satisfied they are with their relationship. This is supported by previous research on relationship SIMILARITY EFFECTS OF VIRTUES ON RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION 7 similarity (Bartle, 1993). It is also necessary to indicate that negative values, or values which represent rating self as lower than partner are left of the y-axis and positive values, or values which represent rating self as higher than partner, are right of the yaxis. Figure 1. Relationship satisfaction vs. Difference score between self and partner (taken from self minus partner ratings on one of the six virtues). As established by the above graph, there are two ways that one’s self-rating can differ from one’s rating of his or her partner: either rating self higher or self lower. The differences between these two ways of differing are the topic of research on social comparison. According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), people want to evaluate themselves and obtain some idea of their strengths. In order to do so, people tend to compare themselves with others when they are unable to evaluate their abilities on their own. For example, if a person is not sure to what level they possess the character strength creativity he or she is likely to compare abilities with a significant other and use that comparison to determine his or her own personal level of creativity. Relationship partners interact on a daily basis and have the privileged knowledge of knowing each other’s daily successes and failures. Since interactions within relationships are so frequent, it makes for a high likelihood of social comparison between partners; this can have a great effect on the relationship, whether that be in a positive or negative way (Watson et al.,2000). 8 THE EFFECTS OF PERCIEVED DIFFERENCES ON RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION Two types of social comparisons are defined by the literature: upward comparisons and downward comparisons. However, the research on social comparison theory is very confusing and the effect these comparisons have on relationship satisfaction is mixed and depends on many variables. Although there are always e