When does performance feedback prompt complementarity in romantic relationships?

Two studies addressed five issues concerning complementarity in romantic relationships and suggest that complementarity deserves a new look. Dating couples (N= 28 couples) and married couples (N= 43). were given performance feedback to assess effects on self and perceived partner relevance. We found that comparison with a partner but not comparison with a stranger prompted complementarity (Study 1). Comparison resulted in complementarity and did not merely change self‐image (Studies 1 and 2). Both outperforming the partner and being outperformed by the partner can prompt complementarity (Study 2). Ceding areas to the partner in response to being outperformed was relatively automatic (Study 2). And, degree of development in the relationship influenced response to comparison‐feedback (Studies 1 and 2). Findings suggest that partners in romantic relationships automatically protect their views of the relationship as a “team” by increasing “perceived complementarity” in response to differential performance feedback.     

Mutuality of commitment in romantic relationships: Exploring a dyadic model

On the basis of the interdependence and interpersonal perception literatures, this article advanced and tested a dyadic model of mutuality of commitment. It is argued that mutuality of commitment is composed of 4 perceptions (i.e., A's self and other perceptions, and B's self and other perceptions) and 4 types of interconnections among the perceptions (i.e., actual, assumed, empathic, and reciprocal mutuality). Evidence for the presence of the 4 types of mutuality of commitment was found in a sample of 121 romantically involved couples. Furthermore, in several situations the perceptions and types of mutuality had significant associations with people's perceptions of relationship quality. Each of these results is discussed, as well as the utility of the new conceptualization of mutuality of commitment.     

UNPROCTORED INTERNET TESTING IN EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS

As the Internet has become more accessible to individuals and organizations, the use of computerized testing has become more feasible. Computerized testing has brought with it a demand for unproctored testing that allows test takers to take employment tests at times and places convenient to them. However despite the advantages of costs and convenience, unproctored Internet testing (UIT) introduces a number of issues, many of which have not yet been resolved. These problems range from hardware and software issues to concerns about the security of the test content, the identity of candidates, and cheating. This article explores the pros and cons of unproctored, Internet testing. Six panelists share their opinions and experiences regarding issues around UIT and offer suggestions for appropriate use and future research.     

Personnel Managers and the Stigmatized Employee

This article reports on a program that researched the interplay between personnel managers and employee stigmatization.