journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1988, Vol. 54, No. 5,798-810 0022-3514/88/J00.75

The Dynamic Relations Among Interpersonal Behaviors:

A Test of Complementarity and Anticomplementarity

Stanley R. Strong, Hope I. Hills, Christopher T. Kilmartin, Helen DeVries, Keith Lanier,
Blair N. Nelson, Deborah Strickland, and Charles W. Meyer III
Virginia Commonwealth University

On the basis of the positions of behaviors relative to one another in the interpersonal circle, the
principles of complementarity and anticomplementarity specify how people's behaviors influence
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

one another in interpersonal interactions. Pairs of undergraduate women (1 subject, N = 80, and 1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

confederate) collaborated for 16 min to create and agree on stories for two pictures. Confederates
performed scripted roles that emphasized one of eight interpersonal behaviors. Behaviors were coded
into eight categories, and the relative effect of each confederate behavior on each subject behavior
was determined. Using the geometric properties of the interpersonal circle, vectors were calculated
that identified the relative impact of each confederate stimulus behavior on the overall pattern of
subject responses. Results were consistent with the dynamic relations among interpersonal behaviors
that complementarity and anticomplementarity propose and demonstrated that how a person be-
haves toward another systematically and profoundly affects how the other behaves toward the person.

In the 1950s, Timothy Leary and his colleagues at the Kaiser
Foundation (Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey, 1951; La-
Forge, Leary, Naboisek, Coffey, & Freedman, 1954; LaForge &
Suczek, 1955;Leary, 1957) introduced the interpersonal circle,
a classification of interpersonal behaviors in a circular model
along orthogonal status and affiliation dimensions. Benjamin
(1974), Kiesler (1983), Strong and Hills (1986), and Wiggins
(1979) have proposed revisions of the model. The interpersonal
circle is fundamentally a theory of the dynamic relations among
interpersonal behaviors that underlie peoples' use of the behav-
iors in social interactions. The purposes of this study were to
assess the validity of the Strong and Hills interpersonal circle
and to test the two basic hypotheses about the relations among
interpersonal behaviors: complementarity and anticomplemen-
tarity.
Interpersonal theory (Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1983; Leary,
1957; Strong, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c) proposes that an interac-
tant's behaviors constrain the other's subsequent behaviors. The
behaviors are hypothesized to affect the other's perception of
This research was partially supported by a Biomedical Research
Grant to Stanley R. Strong from the College of Humanities and Sci-
ences, Virginia Commonwealth University. Some of the data are from
Christopher T. Kilmartin's master's thesis completed under Strong's di-
rection.
We thank the 17 students who served as confederates and the dozen
other students whose contributions made this study possible. We are
grateful for the insightful criticisms and suggestions of Harry Reis and
several anonymous reviewers.
Hope I. Hills is now at the University of Missouri, Columbia.
Correspondence concerning this article as well as requests for the In-
terpersonal Communication Rating Scale and tables of means and stan-
dard deviations for the Impact Message Inventory scales and cluster
scores should be addressed to Stanley R. Strong, Department of Psy-
chology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 800 West Franklin Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23284-0001.
the interactant's characteristics and thereby encourage some re-
sponses and discourage others. These encouraging and discour-
aging effects are hypothesized to underlie people's purposive use
of interpersonal behaviors to influence how others behave to-
ward them.
In interpersonal theory, which behaviors a behavior encour-
ages or discourages are hypothesized to be a function of the be-
havior's position relative to other behaviors in the interpersonal
circle. Carson (1969) identified the crucial relative position of
behaviors as complementary and defined the encouraging
effects of interpersonal behaviors on one another as the princi-
ple of complementarity:
Generally speaking, complementarity occurs on the basis of reci-
procity in respect to the dominance-submission axis (dominance
tends to induce submission, and vice versa), and on the basis of
correspondence in respect to the hate-love axis (hate induces hate,
and love induces love) (p. 112).
The principle of complementarity asserts that behaviors oppo-
site one another on the status dimension and on the same side
on the affiliation dimension encourage one another. The princi-
ple of anticomplementarity asserts the obverse: Behaviors on
the same side of the status dimension and opposite one another
on the affiliation dimension discourage one another (Kiesler,
1983; Strong, 1987b).
To gain a more concrete notion of complementary and anti-
complementary behaviors, consider the Strong and Hills (1986)
interpersonal circle presented in Figure 1. In the model, eight
classes of interpersonal behaviors are organized along orthogo-
nal status and affiliation dimensions. At the dominant pole of
the status dimension are the behavior categories leading and
self enhancing; at the submissive pole are the behavior catego-
ries self-effacing and docile. At the hostile pole of the affiliation
dimension are the behavior categories critical and distrustful; at
the friendly pole are the categories cooperative and nurturant.
According to the complementarity principle, behaviors that en-

798
 INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR 799
DOMINANT

SELF-ENHANCII being
egotistical admirable and
arrogant important
14 exhibit ionistte
command!
baing
boasting successful
don i mat ing proud advising
patronizing
autonomous over-
protecting
belligeranl sen-assured conciliatory pardoning
' ndescend asserting encouraging^ pitying
abusive /irritable reassuring \ forgiving
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

stern sine. _, helping \sympathlz

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

punishing /Impatient / Indifferent x £

'
bflina \ comfortin9\ consoling
considerate accepting! indulgent
82 I 83 84

72 I 73
agreeable /pleasant
rebelling distrustful cooperation/cooperation
complain skeptical
trusting /unguarded
resentful being
confiding
disappoint
admiring
suspicious \ hurt
' gullible

bitter
unforgiving \S self-doubling content
brooding/\disengag8d 53 63 passive acqu
barrassed ambitionless
inhibited
self-derogating
self-punishing 54
unresponswa

SUBMISSIVE

Figure I. The Strong and Hills (1986) interpersonal circle.

courage one another are nurturant and cooperative, leading and
docile, self-enhancing and self-effacing, and critical and dis-
trustful. According to the anticomplementarity principle, be-
haviors that discourage one another are leading and self-en-
hancing, nurturant and critical, cooperative and distrustful, and
docile and self-effacing.
Orford (1986) reviewed 14 studies that, at least tangentially,
assessed the complementarity principle. He identified serious
methodological flaws in all of the studies. For example, only 5
studies examined sequential contingencies among interpersonal
behaviors. The other 9 studies tallied the total frequencies with
which each interactant used various behaviors and examined
relations among the totals. Orford evaluated the results of the
studies in terms of observed relations among the four quadrants
of the circle (hostile dominant, hostile submissive, friendly
dominant, friendly submissive.) Consistent with the comple-
mentarity principle, he found that friendly dominant and
friendly submissive behaviors were frequently reported to elicit
each other. Observations inconsistent with the complementar-
ity principle, however, were more striking. Dominant behaviors
were frequently observed to elicit dominant responses rather
than submissive responses, and hostile behaviors were fre-
quently observed to elicit friendly responses rather than hostile
responses.
Taken at face value, these findings raise serious doubt about
the accuracy of the complementarity hypothesis and the scien-
tific merit of the interpersonal circle organization of interper-
sonal behaviors. Orford lamented that". . . on this showing it
is tempting to simply abandon all existing theoretical positions
. . ." (p. 374). At the very least, the findings demand a rethink-
ing of the nature of interpersonal behavior and of the dynamic
relations among behaviors.
An obvious issue is whether interpersonal behaviors fully or
partially determine one another. Until recently (Strong, 1987c),
interpersonal theory has not explicated other variables to ac-
count for interpersonal responses beyond the other's behavior.
Indeed, Leary (1957) described interpersonal responses as re-
flexes, a term that suggests invariant causation. Yet interper-
sonal behavior must have multiple determinants. If it did not,
interactions would become redundant in one exchange. For ex-
ample, if one person emitted a leading behavior, the leading be-
havior would elicit a docile response from the other, which in
turn would elicit another leading response from the first person:
The exchange would be redundant immediately.
 800 STRONG ET AL.
Orford (1986) suggested several other possible determinants
of interpersonal behavior including relative status and re-
sources, relationship duration, and sex. Jones and his colleagues
have demonstrated the effects on interpersonal behavior of de-
pendence (E. E. Jones, 1964; E. E. Jones, Gergen, & Jones,
1963; and R. G. Jones & Jones, 1964), relationship objectives
(Gergen & Taylor, 1969), and knowledge of the other (Baumeis-
ter & Jones, 1978; Quattrone & Jones, 1978). Finally, both Car-
son (1969) and Kiesler (1983) couched their propositions of the
dynamic relations among interpersonal behaviors in probabilis-
tic terms. Carson used the term generally speaking, and Kiesler
framed his statement of complementarity as a tendency, ". . .
a probability significantly greater than chance..." (p. 200).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The notion that a person's interpersonal response to anoth-
er's behavior is a function of a number of variables in addition
to the other's behavior has several implications. For example,
different contingencies among behaviors in different interper-
sonal situations would be expected as a function of differences
in the values of causal variables operative in those situations. In
a specific interpersonal situation, some response contingencies
would not conform to the complementarity principle because
of other causal factors simultaneously affecting the interactants.
Moreover, differences among the response contingencies of indi-
viduals would reflect causal variables associated with individual
difference factors.
Another issue is the appropriate methodology to identify
differences in the interpersonal effects of different interpersonal
behaviors. In the interpersonal circle, the differential effects of
behaviors are defined relative to each other. For example, the
complementarity principle proposes that leading responses are
more probable in response to docile behavior than in response
to other interpersonal behaviors. To assess the complementarity
principle adequately, the effects of each interpersonal behavior
on interactants' response behaviors must be evaluated relative
to the effects of all other interpersonal behaviors. The full range
of interpersonal behaviors must be observed, and their effects
on responses must be evaluated relative to each other. None of
the studies Orford (1986) reviewed met this requirement.
Because of the geometric properties of the interpersonal cir-
cle, vector analysis can be used to determine the effect of each
interpersonal behavior on response behavior relative to the
effects of all other interpersonal behaviors. Kurt Lewin (1936)
introduced vector analysis into psychology as a method to de-
termine the resultant effect of several forces acting simulta-
neously on a person's behavior. In vector analysis, the direction
and magnitude of forces acting simultaneously on an object are
combined linearly to identify the resultant direction and inten-
sity of movement of the object. For example, the direction and
speed of a rocket at time t + 1 can be determined from a vector
analysis of the direction and intensity of thrust, resistance, and
gravitational forces acting on the rocket at time«.
To use vector analysis to determine the effect of an interper-
sonal behavior on response behavior relative to the other inter-
personal behaviors, the relative magnitudes of the behavioral
effects of an interpersonal behavior and the directions of its
effects must be determined. The relative magnitudes of an inter-
personal behavior's effects on response behaviors can be deter-
mined statistically. The directions of its effects are given by the
geometric structure of the interpersonal circle. From this infor-
mation, vectors can be calculated that indicate the magnitude
and direction of effect of each interpersonal behavior on re-
sponse behavior relative to all other interpersonal behaviors.
In this study, the sequential contingencies among the inter-
personal behaviors that women exchanged in groups of two
were assessed. To ensure that behaviors in all of the Strong and
Hills (1986) categories occurred, one of the women in each
group was a confederate trained to use a high percentage of a
particular interpersonal behavior. Each of eight conditions em-
phasized behaviors in one of the categories. The magnitude of
each behavior's differential relative effect on each response be-
havior was determined by comparing it with the effect of the
other seven behaviors combined. Finally, the relative effect of
each stimulus behavior on the subjects' overall response behav-
ior was determined using vector analysis that used the geomet-
ric properties of the interpersonal circle.
Method
Subjects
The data were collected in four studies carried out over a 3-year pe-
riod. In all, 80 women from introductory psychology classes who re-
ceived course credit volunteered to participate in the research, 20 in
each study. The composition of the four groups of women was quite
similar. Overall, 40% of the women were Black (ranging in the four stud-
ies from 30%-45%), 57% were White (ranging from 50%-70%) and 2%
were Oriental (ranging from 0%-5%). Their ages ranged from 18 to 40
years, with a mean age of 20.1 years (ranging from 18.8-20.6). Eighty-
one percent of the women were in their freshman or sophomore years
in a large urban university (ranging from 60%-95%).
Conditions and Confederates
A role prescription and script was generated for each of eight condi-
tions that emphasized one of eight categories of interpersonal behaviors.
The scripts consisted of verbal and nonverbal confederate responses for
every aspect of subject and confederate interaction. The research team
refined each script until it embodied as much of the emphasized behav-
ior as possible, but still portrayed a plausible, although not necessarily
likable or ordinary, college woman enrolled in introductory psychology.
The role prescriptions and scripts were based on the following para-
graph descriptions of the behaviors (Strong & Hills, 1986):
In leading behaviors, the communicator shows that he or she
is capable, competent, confident, productive, in charge, and yet is
relatively warm and friendly. Disagreements are played down while
working toward task completion by relying on sociability, rational-
ity, and peisuasion. Leading behaviors may soften forceful thrusts
toward task completion by laughter and pleasantness. The behav-
iors range from easy and sociable confidence to powerful domina-
tion of the interaction with positive and intrusive thrusts to accom-
plish the task.
In self-enhancing behaviors, the communicator shows self-con-
fidence, self-satisfaction, superiority, and autonomy, and is explic-
itly self-promoting. The behaviors point out the capability and/or
the superiority of the communicator. They identify differences with
and/or opposition to the other's ideas and vie for the acceptance of
ideas and dominance in the relationship. The behaviors are often
self-absorbed and make little attempt to involve the other. Low in-
tensity behaviors explicitly promote one's capabilities or show
differences with the other's ideas. More extreme behaviors are ego-
tistical, boastful, arrogant and dictating.
In critical behaviors, a communicator shows impatience with,
 INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR
criticalness of, and disdain for the other. Critical behaviors dis-
count the value of the other. While the behaviors may directly criti-
cize, attack, and aggressively punish the other, the most common
critical behaviors employ indifference to the other and condescend-
ing impatience expressed in a joyless firm handling of the incompe-
tent other. Critical behaviors range from rather gentle questioning
of the other's ideas or their basis to scathing attacks on the other
and his or her competence.
In distrustful behaviors, the communicator shows resentment,
distrust, resistance, hurt, and brooding. The communications im-
ply or denote that the other is inconsiderate and unfair. The behav-
iors may state that the other is being unfair, ignoring, or discounting
the communicator. More frequently, they make the charge of un-
fairness through voice tone and demeanor by portraying hurt, re-
sentment, a negative attitude, and resentful acquiescence. Low in-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tensity behaviors rely on voice tone, inflection, and indications of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
discomfort to convey the sense of unfairness. More extreme behav-
iors openly charge unfairness and show rebellion and resentment.
In self-effacing behaviors, the communicator shows self-doubt,
self-criticism, inability, and helplessness. The behaviors rely on
paralinguistic body language and voice qualities of uncertainty, in-
hibition, and helplessness, and linguistic contents that denote a
lack of ability to perform adequately or give responses of much
value. The paralinguistic and linguistic indicants of self-effacing
usually occur together, but can occur separately. References to a
lack of ability, incompetence, or having little value should be rated
as self-effacing even when the paralinguistics are rather self-as-
sured. The behaviors range from modesty and uncertainty to help-
lessness and inhibition.
In docile behaviors, the communicator shows a lack of ambition,
involvement and affect, passive compliance, obedience, and solicit-
ing help. The behaviors solicit and passively accept the other's lead-
ership. In general, the behaviors are low energy with little affect.
Low intensity behaviors are passively receptive of the other's ideas
and direction. More extreme behaviors solicit help and are obedi-
ent, ambitionless, and deferential.
In cooperative behaviors, the communicator shows receptive-
ness, cooperation, liking, respect, admiration, and trust for the
other. The behaviors are positive and display camaraderie and rap-
port in working with the other as a friendly collaborator. The be-
haviors play down and explain away disagreements. Own opinions
are often presented as mirroring those of the other. Cooperative
behaviors range from receptiveness, agreeableness, and pleasant-
ness to overly exuberant cooperativeness, admiration, or un-
guarded trust and openness to the other and his or her ideas.
In nurturant behaviors, the communicator shows fairness, trust-
worthiness, considerateness, and empathy. The behaviors focus on
supporting, comforting, and encouraging the other to actively par-
ticipate. The behaviors often take the form of inquiries about and
generous consideration of the other's ideas, opinions, and feelings.
The overriding concern is for involving and supporting the other.
At low intensity, the behaviors show consideration for and interest
in the other. More extreme behaviors are complimenting, encour-
aging, sympathetic, patient, indulgent, patronizing, and absolving.
Confederates were 17 women from undergraduate psychology classes,
4 or 5 in each study. They were chosen because they volunteered, had
schedules compatible with the needs of the study, and could pass with-
out question as students in introductory psychology. Each study had
several confederates to diminish the possibility that differences between
roles were due to differences between individual confederates rather
than between roles. The women memorized the scripts of the roles that
they were to portray, practiced the roles with each other, and were
coached on verbal and nonverbal aspects of their performances in about
10 hr of training. They overlearned the roles to appear spontaneous and
to be able to handle unexpected subject responses. During the experi-
ments, members of the research team reviewed some of their perfor-
801
mances and coached them if deviations from desired role behavior were
found.
Each study focused on two behavior roles, and each confederate per-
formed the two roles an equal number of times, with minor exceptions.
Subjects were spread over confederates as evenly as schedules would
allow. The number of subjects that each confederate saw and the per-
centages of each confederate's behaviors that fell into each of the eight
behavior categories are presented in Table 1. Confederates 1-4 served
in the first study, which focused on self-enhancing and self-effacing be-
haviors; Confederates 5-9 served in the second study, which focused on
critical and docile behaviors; Confederates 10-13 served in the third
study, which focused on distrustful and nurturant behaviors; and Con-
federates 14-17 served in the fourth study, which focused on leading
and cooperative behaviors. For the most part, confederates performing
the same role displayed a similar mix of behaviors.
The largest percentage of each behavior occurred when it was the
emphasis (target) of the confederates' role (see the columns in the last
section of Table 1 labeled All actors by condition.) The percentage of
target behaviors in the roles varied from 22.6% (self-enhancing) to
67.3% (critical), and the average was 45.1%. Differences in the percent-
ages of target behaviors in the roles reflect the research team's judgment
of the maximum density that the roles could have and still be plausible.
Target behaviors were the most frequent behaviors in all but two roles
(see the rows in the last section of Table 1). In the self-enhancing role,
leading behaviors were more frequent (36.9%) than self-enhancing be-
haviors (22.6%); in the distrustful role, docile behaviors were more fre-
quent (28.5%) than distrustful behaviors (27.5%). Because the leading
role contained very few self-enhancing behaviors (3.2%) and the docile
role contained almost no distrustful behaviors (.5%), the roles were dis-
tinct stimuli.
Procedure
The procedure was identical in each study. Ten subjects were ran-
domly assigned to each of the two conditions of the study. When subject
and confederate arrived at the reception area, the experimenter intro-
duced himself or herself and asked the subject and confederate to intro-
duce themselves. The experimenter took the two women to an experi-
ment room and explained as follows: "The purpose of this study is to
examine how students negotiate consensus in a creative story construc-
tion task. "Vbu will work together to come up with stories you agree are
best for two pictures." They were given two Thematic Apperception Test
cards and instructed to study each picture for a few moments and then
each write down her answers to three questions about the pictures. Then
they were to share their ideas about the pictures and " . . . negotiate to
determine the best story and write it down." They were told that they
had 16 min to work on the stories, 8 min for each picture. Questions
were answered by paraphrasing the instructions.
In the interactions, which were videotaped, confederates gave the
same answers to the pictures in all conditions. In 16 min, the experi-
menter returned and told the confederate to write the story for the first
picture that she now thought was best. The experimenter took the sub-
ject to another room and told her to write the story for the second pic-
ture that she now thought was best. After writing the story, the subject
was given questionnaires to describe the person with whom she had in-
teracted and to describe herself. When the subject completed the ques-
tionnaires, she was debriefed. In the debriefing, subjects were probed
for suspicions about the authenticity of their partners. None of the 80
women indicated that she suspected that the other woman was working
for the experimenter or was acting.
Measurement and Analysis of the Perceptual Impact of
the Roles
One of the purposes of the study was to assess the validity of the rela-
tive placements of behaviors in the Strong and Hills (1986) interpersonal
 802 STRONG ET AL.

Table 1
Number of Subjects and Percentage of Confederate (Actor) Behaviors in Each Behavior Category by Condition and Confederate

Behavior category

Condition/actor N Leading Enhancing Critical Distrustful Effacing Docile Cooperative Nurturant

Leading
14 2 71.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 20.6
15 2 65.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 15.6
16 3 65.4 1.8 0.8 0.0 5.8 0.4 5.3 20.6
17 3 66.7 3.2 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 7.4 19.1
Self-enhancing
1 3 43.3 26.2 5.4 0.7 5.4 3.4 1.8 14.0
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2 3 30.3 29.3 10.2 0.9 7.2 1.1 1.9 19.0

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

3 3 41.8 14.7 5.7 1.4 9.6 0.0 6.9 19.9

4 1 22.7 15.3 9.1 0.0 10.8 6.2 18.8 17.0
Critical
5 2 16.0 12.4 54.8 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.8 11.6
6 3 9.8 8.6 68.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 7.7
7 1 6.8 4.5 86.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 3 12.3 15.5 63.5 0.0 3.3 0.0 4.0 1.3
9 1 5.6 0.0 80.6 0.0 0.0 8.3 5.6 0.0
Distrustful
10 2 5.1 2.8 8.4 32.6 9.0 15.3 16.2 10.6
11 3 7.4 2.7 14.6 31.6 11.4 19.6 6.0 5.7
12 3 4.7 2.0 4.7 35.4 9.7 38.5 3.8 1.0
13 2 5.7 0.0 1.1 9.5 24.5 40.4 10.4 8.4
Self-effacing
1 2 7.4 7.6 0.0 2.4 63.4 1.8 14.0 3.3
2 3 5.0 3.0 0.0 3.8 46.0 29.8 6.7 5.8
3 3 7.4 2.2 5.3 0.9 48.6 19.2 10.9 5.4
4 2 0.8 1.8 10.2 2.4 46.1 30.0 2.5 6.1
Docile
5 1 15.5 4.3 1.4 0.0 4.2 21.1 36.7 16.8
6 3 18.4 6.5 3.2 0.0 7.0 39.5 17.1 8.1
7 1 13.4 0.0 4.2 1.7 11.9 23.8 27.1 17.8
8 3 10.0 3.2 0.0 1.0 11.5 33.5 29.5 11.4
9 2 22.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 11.2 34.8 14.6 22.1
Cooperative
14 2 23.6 4.3 0.7 4.6 0.7 7.0 47.4 11.6
15 2 19.8 3.2 2.3 0.5 2.7 12.2 46.2 13.2
16 3 21.2 1.1 4.0 0.4 3.2 10.1 51.4 8.6
17 3 14.3 0.6 0.0 2.2 5.3 9.4 48.2 20.0
Nurturant
10 4 21.2 5.5 4.4 3.0 2.7 6.7 16.5 40.1
11 3 19.0 3.2 1.0 0.0 4.7 0.8 27.9 43.3
12 1 17.9 9.1 3.3 0.0 15.8 0.0 12.4 41.5
13 2 17.7 3.2 0.9 1.6 9.7 3.1 9.8 54.0

All actors by condition

leading 10 66.7 3.2 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 7.4 19.1

enhancing 10 36.9 22.6 7.3 0.9 7.7 2.0 5.1 17.6
critical 10 11.1 10.2 67.3 0.8 1.9 0.8 3.0 5.0
distrustful 10 5.7 1.9 7.2 27.5 13.7 28.5 9.1 6.4
effacing 10 5.4 3.4 3.6 2.4 50.3 21.1 8.6 5.2
docile 10 15.9 3.7 1.5 0.5 9.4 33.3 21.8 13.8
cooperative 10 19.3 2.0 1.8 1.8 3.2 9.7 48.6 13.5
nurturant 10 18.9 5.2 2.4 1.2 8.2 2.6 16.7 44.7

circle. If the relative placements of behaviors were not valid, then ob-
served relations among behaviors could not reflect the expectations of
the complementarity principle. In interpersonal theory, a person's inter-
personal behaviors are assumed to distinctly affect an interactant's per-
ception of the person's characteristics and thereby affect the interac-
tant's response to the person. If the placement of behaviors in the Strong
and Hills model were valid, the relative perceptual impact of the behav-
ior roles would correspond to the relative placements of behaviors in
the model.
Measurement of perceptual impact. The subjects' perceptions of the
confederates were measured using the Impact Message Inventory
(Kiesler, 1979, in press; Perkins et al., 1979). The Impact Message In-
ventory measures covert affective reactions to interpersonal stimuli. In
taking the inventory, the interactant indicates how the other person
 INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR
made him or her feel, what he or she felt herself wanting to do and say to
the other, and what he or she felt the other felt and thought. For example,
typical items on the Dominant scale are of the form "She makes me
feel bossed around." The interactant indicates her reactions on 4-point
scales that range from not at all to very much so.
Each of the 90 items of the inventory is keyed on one of the following
15 scales that form a circumplex pattern along status and affiliation
dimensions: dominant, competitive, hostile, mistrusting, detached, in-
hibited, submissive, succorant, abasive, deferent, agreeable, nurturant,
afflliative, sociable, and exhibitionistic. The scales are combined into
four cluster scores labeled dominant, hostile, submissive, and friendly.
The dominant and submissive cluster scores represent the status dimen-
sion, and the hostile and friendly cluster scores represent the affiliation
dimension. Kiesler (in press) reported internal consistency alphas for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the 15 scales ranging from .54 to .80, and for the four cluster scales
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ranging from .84 to .89.
Analysis of perceptual impact. The statistical significance of differ-
ences among the effects of the behavior roles on the subjects' perceptions
of the confederates was assessed in 19 analyses of variance (ANOV AS), 1
for each scale and cluster score. In each analysis, differences between
the effects of each role and the effects of the other seven roles combined
were assessed with eight a priori contrasts. Each contrast divided the
squared differences between two means—the mean for one of the behav-
ior roles and the mean for the other seven roles combined—by the
squared standard error of the sample mean derived from the total sam-
ple variation. The resulting F value was a standardized ratio scale mea-
surement of the differential impact of the specific role as com pared with
the impact of the other roles combined. As standardized ratio scale mea-
sures, the F values from the contrasts were equivalent measures of
differences between the population mean and individual observations.
In comparisons of differences between two groups with large sample
sizes, F = T2 = z 2 . The approximation of Fto z1 in this study was close:
F(\, 72) = 3.9840, ;> - .05;z2 = 3.9601,p = .05.
Indexes of the impact of each behavior role on the status and affilia-
tion dimensions were derived from the F values generated in the con-
trasts on the cluster scores. Each F on the cluster scores was assigned a
plus sign (+) when the mean of subjects' ratings of confederates per-
forming that role was larger than the mean of the ratings of all other
subjects, and a minus sign (-) when the mean was smaller. The signs of
Fs on the submissive and hostile cluster scores were reversed. The Fs on
the dominant and submissive cluster scores were added together for each
role, as were the Fs on the friendly and hostile cluster scores. These
operations resulted in two indexes for each role, one for the status di-
mension and one for the affiliation dimension. The size of the indexes
indicated the magnitude of the differential effect of the role relative to
all other roles on the dimension. The sign of the indexes indicated the
direction of differential effect on the dimension. A plus sign indicated
that the differential effect of the role was toward dominance on the status
dimension and toward friendly on the affiliation dimension. A minus
sign indicated that the differential effect of the role was toward submis-
sive on the status dimension and toward hostile on the affiliation dimen-
sion.
The impact indexes on the status and affiliation dimensions were used
as the coordinates on a Cartesian plane defined by the orthogonal status
and affiliation dimensions of the Impact Message Inventory. Vectors
drawn from the origin of the plane to the intersection of the status and
affiliation coordinates identified the direction and magnitude of the per-
ceptual impact of the roles relative to each other.
Coding and Analysis of Interpersonal Behaviors
The behaviors that women exchanged in the experimental interac-
tions were coded using the Strong and Hills (1986) Interpersonal Com-
munication Rating Scale. The scale is the result of a 4-year effort (par-
803
Table 2
Interrater Reliability of the Interpersonal
Communication Rating Scale
Behavior % Kappa
category JV behavior units agreement coefficient
Leading 785 87.3 .855
Self-enhancing 203 75.4 .719
Critical 283 68.6 .641
Distrustful 118 58.5 .526
Self-effacing 410 82.0 .794
Docile 378 70.4 .662
Cooperative 594 89.7 .882
Nurturant 573 82.4 .799
Overall 3,344 81.0 .783
tially overlapping with this study) to derive a reliable and meaningful
way to classify the behaviors that people display in interactions. The
core of the scale is the Strong and Hills interpersonal circle presented in
Figure 1. The Strong and Hills model is a modification of Leary's (1957)
interpersonal circle. The four categories in Leary's model that corre-
spond to the poles of the status and affiliation dimensions were elimi-
nated and some of the behaviors that Leary placed in the categories
were distributed to adjacent categories. Two diagonal dimensions, in-
troverted-extraverted and separated-connected, were added. Behaviors
along the introverted-extraverted dimension were augmented to fill
holes that Wiggins (1979) and Kiesler (1983) identified in Leary's
model. The four dimensions defined eight categories, two in each of
the four quadrants of the circle. Descriptive terms in the model were
modified to reflect the behaviors that interactants displayed, and the
eight categories were labeled to reflect the behaviors that they con-
tained. Finally, the location of some behaviors were changed to enhance
raters' ability to distinguish among categories reliably.
Coding the interpersonal behaviors. The verbal utterances of subject-
confederate interactions were transcribed. Behavior units were defined
as one individual's behavior uninterrupted by a verbal utterance of the
other. The 7,014 units from the four studies were coded into one of the
eight categories given in Figure 1 using the Interpersonal Communica-
tion Rating Scale (Strong & Hills, 1986). The scale provides raters with
paragraph descriptions and examples of behaviors that fall within each
category. Raters worked from the videotapes and transcripts. The scale
instructs raters to consider each unit independently and warns against
using context (previous or following units and the tone of the interac-
tion). Raters are instructed to use the paragraph descriptions, examples,
and the descriptive terms on Figure 1 to decide which of the eight cate-
gories the behavior unit best fits. When behavior units are broken by
long pauses or extreme shifts in focus or meaning (or both), raters are
instructed to use the last sentence or utterance in the unit for classifica-
tion.
A woman with a BA in psychology rated all 80 interactions. A female
undergraduate psychology major rated 40 interactions, 5 from each
role. Neither rater was aware of the hypotheses of the study. Each 16-
min interaction took the trained raters about 2 hr to rate. The percent-
age of agreement between the two raters is presented in Table 2 for each
of the eight behavior categories and overall. Table 2 also presents the
number of units that both rated and kappa coefficients by category and
overall. The level of agreement for the 3,344 units that both rated was
81.0%. The level of agreement for behavior categories ranged from
58.5% for distrustful to 89.7% for cooperative.
To be more certain that subject and confederate responses were rated
as independent events, one rater rated subject responses in two interac-
tions in which confederate responses had been eliminated from both
videotapes and transcripts. (On the videotapes, portions in which con-
 804 STRONG ET AL.
federate and subject spoke simultaneously or the confederate interjected
a quick response into the subject's ongoing commentary could not be
erased.) The agreement between the first rater, working from complete
tapes and transcripts, and the second, working only from subjects' re-
sponses, was 83.3% forthe 156 subject responses in the two interactions.
Analysis of interpersonal behaviors. Subject-confederate interac-
tions were divided into first picture and second picture sections (first
and second halves). In each section, the ratings of the behavior units
were organized into confederate stimulus and subject response pairs and
cross-classified in eight by eight tables. Each table had eight rows that
represented the behaviors that the confederates used in the interactions
as well as eight columns that contained the frequencies with which the
subject used each behavior in response to the confederate's behavior.
The row of data in each table that contained the subject's responses
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to the confederate's target stimulus behavior (the confederate behavior
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
emphasized in the role) was retained for analysis. The other seven rows
of data represented nontarget behaviors used by the confederate in her
performance. These seven rows of data were discarded to avoid mixing
within-subject variance with between-subject variance in the analysis.
This procedure reduced the data set to 3,062 behavior units. The re-
duced data set contained 1,531 contingent confederate stimulus-sub-
ject response pairs. The number of confederate stimulus-subject re-
sponse pairs varied by condition from 70 for self-enhancing to 296 for
nurturant. The average number of contingent stimulus-response pairs
for the eight conditions was 191.
The reduced data set included 160 lines of data, 1 for each half of
each subject-confederate interaction. Each data line contained the fre-
quencies with which a subject used the eight behaviors in response to a
confederate's target stimulus behavior. To weight each subject and each
half of the interaction equally regardless of how many target behaviors
her confederate-partner emitted (ranging from 1 to 44), the frequencies
were converted into proportions of total response for each data line.
The square root of the arc sine of each proportion was then calculated
to generate a normally distributed variable (Draper & Smith, 1981, pp.
238-239).
The statistical significance of differences among the effects of the con-
federate target behaviors and in time (first half and second half of the
interactions) on subject response behaviors was assessed in eight AN-
OVAS using repeated measures (time), one for each subject response be-
havior.1 In each analysis, differences between the effects of each confed-
erate behavior and the effects of the other seven confederate behaviors
combined were assessed using eight a priori contrasts that used the be-
tween-subjects mean square error term. As described earlier, each con-
trast divided the squared differences between two means—the mean for
one confederate behavior and the mean for the other seven confederate
behaviors combined—by the squared standard error of the sample
mean derived from the total between-subject sample variation. The re-
sulting F value was a standardized ratio scale measurement of the
differential effect of the specific confederate behavior as compared with
the effect of the other seven confederate behaviors combined.
Indexes of the effect of each confederate behavior on the status and
affiliation dimensions were derived from the F values generated in the
eight contrasts on each of the eight subject response behaviors (there
were 64 F values in all). Each F was assigned a plus sign (+) when the
mean of subjects' responses to that confederate stimulus behavior was
larger than the mean of subject responses to the seven other confederate
stimulus behaviors combined, and a minus sign (-) when the mean was
smaller. These operations resulted in eight F ratios for each confederate
behavior that indicated the magnitude and direction of its differential
effects on the eight subject behaviors.
Two indexes of the overall (resultant) effect of each confederate behav-
ior on subject behavior were calculated from the F ratios, one index for
the status dimension and one index for the affiliation dimension of the
Strong and Hills (1986) interpersonal circle. The eight F values for each
confederate behavior that indicated the magnitude and direction of its
differential effects were linearly combined twice, once for each dimen-
sion. In the formulas, each Fvalue was weighted in terms of the position
relative to the dimension of the subject behavior that it represented.
Indexes for the status dimension were calculated using the formula:
S = F leading + F self-enhancing - F docile - F self-effacing + .33
(F nurturant + F critical — F cooperative — F distrustful). Affiliation
dimension indexes were calculated using the formula: A = F
nurturant + F cooperative — F critical — F distrustful + .33 (F lead-
ing + F docile - F self-enhancing - F self-effacing).
These operations resulted in two indexes for each confederate behav-
ior, one for the status dimension and one for the affiliation dimension.
The size of the indexes indicated the magnitude of the differential effect
of the confederate behavior relative to the other seven confederate be-
haviors on the dimension. The sign of the indexes indicated the direc-
tion of differential effect on the dimension. A plus sign indicated that
the differential effect of the confederate behavior on subject behavior
was toward dominance on the status dimension and toward friendly on
the affiliation dimension. A minus sign indicated that the differential
effect of the confederate behavior was toward submissive on the status
dimension and toward hostile on the affiliation dimension.
The effect indexes on the status and affiliation dimensions were used
as coordinates on the Cartesian plane defined by the orthogonal status
and affiliation dimensions of the Strong and Hills (1986) interpersonal
circle. Vectors drawn from the origin of the plane to the intersection of
the status and affiliation coordinates identified the direction and magni-
tude of the behavioral effects of the confederate behaviors relative to
each other.
In the calculation of resultant vectors, opposing forces cancel one an-
other. For example, self-enhancing behavior might stimulate both ap-
peasement (cooperative) and criticism (critical) from an interactant, op-
posite behaviors in the Strong and Hills (1986) circle. The direction and
magnitude of the self-enhancing resultant vector would indicate only
the direction and magnitude of the difference between the effects on
the two behaviors. Mutually canceled magnitudes of opposing effects
is called stress in vector analysis. Indicants of stress on the status and
affiliation dimensions were calculated for each resultant vector. The ab-
solute values in the equations for indexes (coordinates) were summed.
The resultant sums were subtracted from the absolute sums. The
differences were the magnitudes of opposing effects associated with the
resultant vector coordinates. The stress associated with each coordinate
was expressed as the percentage of the absolute sum of effects that was
canceled as a result of opposing effects.
Results
Perceptual Impact
Significant F values from the a priori contrasts on the Impact
Message Inventory scales and cluster scores for the eight roles
1
The inclusion of time as an independent variable in this study was
exploratory. Because we had no hypotheses about the effects of time in
interaction, the results are not discussed. Three significant time effects
were found: self-effacing decreased, F(l, 72) = 7.62, p < .01; docile
decreased, F(l, 72) = 7.18, p< .01; and self-enhancing increased, F(I,
72) = 6.28, p< .05. Five significant Time X Confederate Behavior inter-
actions were found: self-enhancing responses decreased in time to nur-
turant, whereas they increased to all other behaviors, F(l, 72) = 4.53,
p < .05; distrustful responses increased more to critical than to other
confederate behaviors, F(l, 72) = 4.05,p < .05; self-effacing decreased
more in response to distrustful than to other confederate behaviors, F( 1,
72) = 6.03, p < .05; self-effacing increased in response to leading,
whereas it decreased to all other behaviors, F(\, 72) = 4.39, p < .05;
leading responses increased more to docile than to other behaviors, F( 1,
72) = 5.27,p<.05.
 INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR 805

Table 3
Fsjbr Impact Message Inventory (IMI) Scales and Cluster Scores Significantly Higher (+) or Lower (—) in Response to Roles
and Status and Affiliation Dimension Vector Coordinates

Scale, cluster Role

score, or
dimension Leading Enhancing Critical Distrustful Effacing Docile Cooperative Nurturant

Significant Fs for IMI scales

Sociable -4.5 +4.6

Exhibitionistic +5.5 +6.1 -4.6
Dominant 4-12.7 + 10.4 -9.2
Competitive + 16.9 -5.2
Hostile +7.0 +5.7 -4.1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Mistrustful +9.0 -3.9

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Detached +6.1 +3.8

Inhibited -9.6 -7.4 +27.3 +6.3
Submissive -6.2 + 13.8 +7.6
Succorant -7.6 -6.2 -6.2 +24.1
Abasive -4.5 -18.9 -8.4 + 15.5 + 14.0
Deferent -10.9 -8.7 +4.3 + 11.3
Agreeable +6.7
Nurturant -4.7 +7.5 +8.0
Affiliative -9.0 +5.8

Significant Fs for IMI cluster scores

Dominant +8.1 +13.0 -7.6

Submissive -7.5 -9.6 -5.9 +21.9 +9.7
Hostile +4.0 +8.4 -4.7
Friendly -5.0 +6.8 +5.9

Vector coordinates

Status +7.5 + 17.7 + 18.9 -23.2 -8.9 -2.5 + 1.6

Affiliation +3.7 -0.9 -7.0 -13.4 + 1.6 + 11.5 +7.1

Note. The stress level of all coordinates was zero. F23.9=ps.05;J ? ^6.9 =

are presented in Table 3 as well as the status and affiliation di-
mension coordinates. In Table 3, a plus sign was assigned to the
significant Fwhen the mean of subjects' ratings of confederates
performing that role was larger than the mean of the ratings of
all other subjects, and a minus sign (-) when the mean was less.
Fifty-seven of the 152 differences between scores of subjects
who received one role versus the scores of subjects who received
the other roles were significant, well above the 8 significant
differences expected by chance. The number of statistically sig-
nificant differences between a specific role and all other roles
ranged from 3 (nurturant) to 10 (distrustful). The Impact Mes-
sage Inventory scales that reflected distinct perceptual impacts
of the roles corresponded to the Strong and Hills (1986) para-
graph descriptions of the behaviors. For example, confederates
who portrayed the nurturant role were perceived as significantly
more nurturant, affiliative, and sociable than were confederates
who portrayed the other roles; confederates who portrayed the
critical role were perceived as significantly more competitive,
dominant, hostile, and exhibitionistic and as less deferent, ab-
asive, inhibited, succorant, and nurturant. The significant
differences among roles on the cluster scores also conformed to
their meanings in the Strong and Hills model.
The status dimension coordinates ranged from 18.9 (critical)
to -23.2 (distrustful), and the affiliation dimension coordinates
ranged from -13.4 (distrustful) to 11.5 (cooperative). Vectors
that indicate the perceptual impact of the eight behavior roles
relative to each other on the Cartesian plane defined by the Im-
pact Message Inventory status and affiliation dimensions are
presented in Figure 2. The relative perceptual impact of the
behavior roles corresponded closely to their relative placements
in the Strong and Hills model.
Effects on Interpersonal Behaviors
The mean percentage of response for each subject behavior
to each confederate stimulus (target) behavior is presented in
Table 4. The most frequent subject response overall was leading
(24.2%) and the least frequent was distrustful (4.4%). The rela-
tive occurrences of subject response behaviors to different stim-
ulus behaviors differed widely and systematically. For example,
the most frequent subject response to the docile stimulus was
leading (42.2%) and to the self-effacing stimulus was nurturant
(25.7%); the most frequent subject response to the leading stim-
ulus was docile (31.2%) and to the self-enhancing stimulus was
cooperative (32.0%).
Table 5 presents the statistically significant F values from the
a priori contrasts that assessed the significance of differences
in subject response to each confederate behavior as opposed to
response to all other confederate behaviors combined for each
of the eight subject behaviors. Also presented in Table 5 are the
 806 STRONG ET AL.

Dominant
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Submissive

'distrustful

Figure 2. Resultant perceptual impact vectors of interpersonal behaviors.

status and affiliation dimension vector coordinates and coordi- behavior than in response to the other confederate behaviors
nate stress levels. In Table 5, a plus sign indicates that subjects (averaged), and a minus sign indicates that the subjects emitted
emitted more of the behavior in response to the confederate less. Twenty-four of the 64 differences were statistically signifi-

Table 4
Percentages of Subject Response Behaviors to Confederate Stimulus (Target) Behaviors

Subject Confederate stimulus behavior

response
behavior Leading Enhancing Critical Distrustful Effacing Docile Cooperative Nurturant

Leading 19.6 10.5 18.2 16.4 9.8 42.2 49.4 27.8

Enhancing 4.0 4.4 5.0 14.6 5.4 7.0 2.6 4.6
Critical 1.6 8.2 14.6 17.2 6.2 10.6 3.9 2.0
Distrustful 2.4 6.0 14.3 3.8 4.2 0.6 2.8 1.6
Effacing 5.2 7.1 9.0 16.2 20.7 4.1 7.9 11.8
Docile 31.2 11.9 19.2 2.1 12.4 2.4 4.9 7.4
Cooperative 29.5 32.0 8.6 10.6 15.5 1.2 12.1 30.6
Nurturant 6.5 20.1 11.2 19.3 25.7 32.0 16.2 14.1
 INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR 807

TableS
Fsfor Subject Behaviors Significantly More (+) or Less (-) Frequent in Response to Confederate Stimulits Behaviors, Status and
Affiliation Dimension Vector Coordinates, and Coordinates Stress Levels

Subject
response Confederate stimulus behavior
behavior or
dimension Leading Enhancing Critical Distrustful Effacing Docile Cooperative Nurturant

Significant Fs for subject behaviors

Leading -20.2 -4.6 -8.7 + 15.2 +28.7

Enhancing +6.9
Critical +4.9
Distrustful +29.1 -4.8
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Effacing -5.4 + 19.2 -11.0

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Docile +33.6 + 11.4 -12.1 -11.1

Cooperative +9.7 +5.9 -4.3 -21.9 + 11.0
Nurturant -7.5 +4.1 + 10.6

Vector coordinates

Status -39.5 -20.3 + 15.5 -27.1 +50.5 +30.8 -2.0

Affiliation + 17.4 -36.1 -15.7 -4.8 -2.7 +9.8 + 15.4

Coordinate stress levels

Status 5.9 39.1 20.2 44.3 9.2 0.0 9.0 76.0

Affiliation 46.4 91.1 18.9 5.7 64.3 94.8 22.7 4.1

Note. Stress level is the percentage of the magnitude of a stimulus behavior's effects on subject response behaviors that were in opposite directions.
5;F 2:6.9 = p s .01.

cant, well above the 3 significant differences expected by
chance.
In the strongest relations, leading encouraged docile, F\l,
72) = 33.6, p < .001, critical encouraged distrustful,
F( 1,72) = 29.1, p < .001, and cooperative encouraged leading,
F(l, 72) = 28.7, p < .001; docile discouraged cooperative, F(\,
72) = 21.9, p < .001, and self-enhancing discouraged leading,
F{ 1, 72) = 20.2, p < .001. As expected, nearly all of the confed-
erate stimulus behaviors affected several subject response be-
haviors, but only a few of the effects conformed to the expecta-
tions of the complementarity and anticomplementarity princi-
ples. Of the 13 encouraging effects, only 4 were between
complements. Of the 11 discouraging effects, only 3 were be-
tween anticomplements.
The status dimension coordinates ranged from 50.5 (docile)
to —39.5 (leading) and on the affiliation dimension from 15.6
(nurturant) to —36.1 (critical). Stress levels on the status dimen-
sion ranged from 76% (nurturant) to zero (docile) and on the
affiliation dimension from 94.8% (docile) to 4.1% (nurturant).
Resultant vectors that indicate the relative effects of confederate
behaviors on subjects' response behavior are presented in Fig-
ure 3. The direction of each resultant vector indicates the direc-
tional pull or biasing effect of the confederate behavior on the
overall pattern of subject response behavior (subject behaviors
encouraged and, inversely, discouraged). The length of each
vector indicates the strength of the resultant effect.
Confederate docile behavior had the strongest relative resul-
tant effect on subject behaviors. Docile behavior singularly en-
couraged dominant behaviors and discouraged submissive be-
haviors. The high-stress level on affiliation (94.8%) shows that
docile also had effects on the affiliation dimension, but the
effects were equally hostile and friendly and thus canceled out
in the resultant vector calculation. Cooperative and distrustful
behaviors also encouraged dominant and discouraged submis-
sive behaviors. Cooperative encouraged friendly dominant be-
haviors and discouraged hostile submissive behaviors. Distrust-
ful encouraged hostile dominant and discouraged friendly sub-
missive behaviors. The resultant effect of self-effacing behavior
was to encourage a subject response bias toward self-effacing
and away from leading. The moderately high-stress level on
affiliation (64.3%) shows that self-effacing generated both hos-
tile and friendly responses, much of which canceled out.
The resultant effects of self-enhancing and leading were nearly
opposite the effect of docile. Both encouraged submissive and dis-
couraged dominant behaviors. The higher-stress levels for self-
enhancing than for leading on both dimensions, but especially on
the affiliation dimension (91.1% vs. 46.1%, respectively), show
that self-enhancing generated a greater diversity of opposing
effects than did leading. The diversity of opposing effects on the
affiliation dimension canceled one another in the resultant vector
calculation. Critical and nurturant behaviors also encouraged
submissive and discouraged dominant behaviors. Critical en-
couraged hostile submissive and discouraged friendly dominant
behaviors. Nurturant encouraged friendly submissive and dis-
couraged hostile dominant behaviors. The moderately high-
stress level for nurturant on the status dimension (76.0%) shows
that it had opposing effects on the status dimension that self-can-
celed. Its effects on affiliation were singular.
With the exception of self-effacing, the resultant directional
biases in subject behavior that the confederate behaviors gener-
ated conformed closely to the expectations of the complemen-
tarity and anticomplementarity principles.
 808 STRONG ET AL.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure). Resultant behavioral influence vectors of interpersonal behaviors.
Discussion
The results support some aspects of interpersonal theory,
clarify other aspects, and suggest aspects that should be ex-
panded. The results support the validity and pragmatic useful-
ness of the principles of complementarity and anticomplemen-
tarity and of the organization of interpersonal behaviors in the
interpersonal circle. Results especially support the Strong and
Hills (1986) model, but also the closely related models of Leary
(1957), Wiggins (1979), and, to a lesser extent, Kiesler (1983).
Kiesler changed the relative positions of several behavior cate-
gories from those proposed by Leary, and our results do not
support his changes. The relative placements of interpersonal
behavior categories in the Strong and Hills model are consistent
with the behaviors' relative effects on interactants* perceptions
and behavioral responses.
The number and magnitude of significant differences that the
confederates' interpersonal behaviors generated in the subjects'
perceptions and behavioral responses attest to the importance
of interpersonal behaviors as determinants of social behavior
in interpersonal interactions. Clearly, how one person behaves
toward another profoundly influences how the other behaves
toward that person. However, a specific interpersonal behavior
does not impel a specific response from the other. Rather, the
person's behavior biases the other's responses in a particular
direction, a direction that is evident in the other's overall pat-
tern of responses but may not be apparent in specific responses.
The principles of complementarity and anticomplementarity
correspond to powerful causal factors in interpersonal behavior
that partially account for the interpersonal responses that inter-
actants display toward one another.
The results of this study suggest two avenues of expansion of
interpersonal theory. One is conceptual: Given that the comple-
mentarity and anticomplementarity principles correspond to
powerful causal factors in interpersonal behavior, the nature of
these causal factors should be conceptualized. To say that the
effects occur is not sufficient; to understand interpersonal be-
havior more deeply, explanations of why the effects occur
 INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR
should be developed and explored. Strong (1987c) has recently
developed a theory of the processes and mechanisms that under-
lie complementarity effects that is based on a notion of resource
exchange in relationships. This and other theories should be de-
veloped and tested.
The other aspect of interpersonal theory that should be ex-
panded is knowledge of other situalional and individual differ-
ence variables that causally relate to interpersonal behavior.
Three unpublished doctoral dissertations completed at Virginia
Commonwealth University explored several potential determi-
nants of interpersonal behaviors. In a study procedurally sim-
ilar to this study, Gruszkos (1986) explored the effects of being
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
assigned to lead an interaction or to assist the other. In interac-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tions with a self-effacing other, leaders responded with more
self-effacing and assistants with more nurturant behaviors. His
results and the parallel results of Gergen and Taylor (1969) sug-
gest that the direction of the self-effacing vector found in this
study may have been due to the instruction to collaborate.
In the same experimental situation as that used in this study,
Hawks (1987) examined the effects of sex on interpersonal re-
sponses to self-enhancing and self-effacing behaviors. Men and
women perceived and responded to another's behaviors identi-
cally when they were interacting in same sex pairs. Hawks's re-
sults suggest that sex by itself is not a determinant of interper-
sonal behavior. On the other hand, in a study of marital pairs,
Nutall (1987) found that husbands and wives displayed signifi-
cantly different frequencies of several behaviors and used sev-
eral different response contingencies while interacting with
each other.
Knowledge of the other is another potential determinant of
interpersonal behavior. People probably begin interactions with
strangers cautiously and rather quickly modify their behavior in
the light of their growing knowledge of the other's characteris-
tics. As mentioned earlier, Baumeister and Jones (1978) and
Quattrone and Jones (1978) have shown that the way people
behave in initial stages of an interaction is affected by what they
believe to be the other's preexisting impressions of them. As
Orford (1986) concluded, the tasks of identifying, conceptualiz-
ing, and assessing potential causal variables of interpersonal be-
havior is an urgent and potentially rewarding avenue for the fur-
ther development of interpersonal theory.
Self-presentation theory (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Schlenker,
1980; Tedeschi, 1981) and interpersonal theory conceive of so-
cial behavior and interpersonal influence somewhat similarly.
The focus of development in the two approaches has been
different. Self-presentation theory has focused on the situa-
tional determinants of social behavior, whereas interpersonal
theory has focused on the classification and dynamic interre-
lations of social behavior. Furthermore, Jones and Pittman con-
ceived of self-presentation as conscious and intentional presen-
tations of self calculated to enhance one's ability to influence
others; interpersonal behaviors are more broadly conceived of
as efforts to influence other's impressions and behaviors with or
without conscious awareness of the intent to influence.
Most self-presentational theorists limit self-presentation to
some subset of social behavior (cf. Arkin, 1981). On the other
hand, interpersonal theorists conceive of all social behavior as
having a purpose or intent of managing others' impressions as
809
a means of influencing their behavior. Social behaviors are con-
ceived of as having other purposes or intents as well, but the
intent to influence others is always assumed to be present. This
assumption probably stems from the origins of interpersonal
theory in the psychotherapeutic milieu (Sullivan, 1953). Within
interpersonal theory, giving facts, making suggestions, express-
ing anger, agreeing or disagreeing with another, being sympa-
thetic—that is, all behaviors emitted toward another—are seen
as conveying information about one's characteristics and, at
some level, as having the purpose of influencing others. The re-
sults of this study demonstrate that, in awareness or not, con-
ceived of as purposeful or not, the way people behave toward
others powerfully influences the others' responsive treatment of
them.
Self-presentation theory and interpersonal theory have much
to offer one another. Self-presentation theory has a long tradi-
tion of identifying and assessing situational determinants of
self-presentation, beginning with Jones's and Gergen's work in
the 1960s. The variables and methods of investigation are rich
sources of ideas for expanding interpersonal theory. The em-
phasis in self-presentation theory on the attributional signifi-
cance of behavior would also enrich interpersonal theory. On
the other hand, interpersonal theory has evolved a systematic
and dynamically meaningful organization of behaviors in the
interpersonal circle that would be of value in systematizing cat-
egories of self-presentation.
The job of integrating ideas from the two approaches is made
easier by the close correspondence of the self-presentation cate-
gories that E. E. Jones and Pittman (1982) presented and the
interpersonal behavior categories of the Strong and Hills (1986)
interpersonal model. Jones and Pittman's self-promotion
category corresponds to Strong and Hills's leading and self-en-
hancing categories, their intimidation corresponds to Strong
and Hills's critical and distrustful, their supplication corre-
sponds to self-effacing and docile, and ingratiation corresponds
to cooperative and, in some senses, nurturant. Their exemplifi-
cation category seems to be a mixture of several of Strong and
Hills's categories. An integration of concepts from interper-
sonal theory and self-presentation theory might result in a theo-
retical structure that can predict the specific interpersonal
effects of specific interpersonal behaviors in specific situations.
Although the dynamic relations among interpersonal behav-
iors found in this study reflect in part the psychological impact
of the behaviors, they specifically reflect the joint function of
these forces and other forces operative in the specific social situ-
ation of this experiment. Subjects were instructed to collabo-
rate and cooperate as peers, and their responses to the confeder-
ates surely reflected their best efforts to carry out their instruc-
tions. Subjects were aware that they were being videotaped and
that the tapes would be analyzed. Given such obvious surveil-
lance by powerful others (professors, psychologists), they surely
did their best to appear reasonable, polite, intelligent, and facili-
tative of the experimenter's purposes. The subjects interacted
with strangers, another factor that probably induced politeness
and caution. The subjects were women responding to other
women. The reactions of men to some of the behaviors might be
different, and cross-sex reactions would differ in some respects.
Finally, the data were collected in four independent efforts, rais-
 810 STRONG ET AL.
ing the possibility of confounding factors that were due to the
different confederates or the nonrandomization of subjects
across studies. Despite efforts to attenuate these possible con-
founds, they were, nevertheless, present.
References
Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), Im-
pression management theory and social psychological research. New
York: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. E, & Jones, E. E. (1978). When self-presentation is con-
strained by the target's knowledge: Consistency and compensation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 608-618.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psycho-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
logical Review, 81, 392-425.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality, Chicago: Al-
dine.
Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1981). Applied regression analysis. New
York: Wiley.
Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. E, Ossorio, A. G., & Coffey, H. S. (1951).
The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personality,
20, 143-161.
Gergen, K. J., & Taylor, M. G. (1969). Social expectancy and self-pre-
sentation in a status hierarchy. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, S, 79-92.
Gruszkos, J. (1986). The effects of situational motivations on interper-
sonal behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Com-
monwealth University, Richmond.
Hawks, B. K. (1987). The effects of gender and sex-role orientation on
interpersonal behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., & Jones, R.G. (1963). Tactics of ingratiation
among leaders and subordinates in a status hierarchy. Psychological
Monographs, 77(3, Whole No. 566).
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Towards a general theory of strate-
gic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on
theseinvol. 1, pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jones, R. G., & Jones, E. E. (1964). Optimum conformity as an ingratia-
tion tactic. Journal of Personality, 32,436-458.
Kiesler, D. J. (1979). Manual for the Impact Message Inventory. Rich-
mond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for
complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90.
185-214.
Kiesler, D. J. (in press). Research manualfor the Impact Message Inven-
tory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
LaForge, R., Leary, T. E, Naboisek, H., Coffey, H. S., & Freedman,
M. B. (1954). The interpersonal dimension of personality: 2. An ob-
jective study of repression. Journal of Personality, 23, 129-153.
LaFoige, R., & Suczek, R. F. (1955). The interpersonal dimension of
personality: 3. An interpersonal check list. Journal of Personality, 24,
94-112.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New \brk: Ro-
land.
Lewin, K. (1936). ,4 dynamic theory of personality. New\brk: McGraw-
Hill.
Nutall, S. B. (1987). Differences in communication between satisfied
and dissatisfied Black and White married couples. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Orford, J. (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity: Does
hostility beget hostility and dominance, submission? Psychological
Review, 93, 365-377.
Perkins, M. J., Kiesler, D. J., Anchin, J. C., Chirico, B. M., Kyle, E. M.,
& Federman, E. J. (1979). The Impact Message Inventory: A new
measure of relationship in counseling/psychotherapy and other dy-
ads. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 363-367.
Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Selective self-disclosure with
and without correspondent performance. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 14, 511-526.
Scblenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Strong, S. R. (1987a). Interpersonal change processes in therapeutic in-
teractions. In J. Maddux, C. Stoltenberg, and R. Rosenwein (Eds.),
Social influence processes in counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 68-
82). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Strong, S. R. (1987b). Inteipersonal influence theory and therapeutic
interactions. In F. J. Dorn (Ed.), Social influence processes in counsel-
Ing and psychotherapy (pp. 17-30). Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Strong, S. R. (1987c). Interpersonal influence theory: The situational
and individual determinants of interpersonal behavior. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Strong, S. R., & Hills, H. I. (1986). Interpersonal Communication Rat-
ing Scale. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York:
Norton.
Tedeschi, J. T. (Ed.) (1981). Impression management theory and social
psychological research. New "York: Academic Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979), A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive
terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 395-412.
Received September 29, 1986
Revision received November 12,1987
Accepted November 19,1987 •