Definition and Introduction
A dyad is composed of two people who are interdependently connected by a relationship such as two romantic partners who form a couple, two friends, teacher-student couples, or two co-workers. Their type of relationship can differ, for example, in the degree of intimacy, time spent with each other, situations in which they meet, or their closeness. Such characteristics might affect relationship-related outcomes such as relationship quality (romantic relationships and friendships) or job satisfaction (e.g., employee-supervisor characteristics). Direct and indirect interactions of behaviors of members of the dyad (e.g., reactions in conflict situations, inclination to spend time with the respective dyad member) and characteristics of each dyad member (e.g., expressions in personality traits) are associated with individual and dyadic outcomes (e.g., attraction or relationship...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behaviors as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256.
Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.x.
Barranti, M., Carlson, E. N., & Côté, S. (2017). How to test questions about similarity in personality and social psychology research: Description and empirical demonstration of response surface analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617698204.
Brauer, K., & Proyer, R. T. (2018). To love and laugh: Testing actor-, partner-, and similarity effects of dispositions towards ridicule and being laughed at on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 76, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.08.008.
Chick, G. (2001). What is play for? Sexual selection and the evolution of play. Play and Culture Studies, 3, 3–25.
Chow, M. C., Ruhl, H., & Buhrmester, D. (2013). The mediating role of interpersonal competence between adolescents’ empathy and friendship quality: A dyadic approach. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.10.004.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212.
Conroy-Beam, D., Roney, J. R., Lukaszweski, A. W., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., et al. (2019). Assortative mating and the evolution of desirability covariation. Evolution and Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.06.003.
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405.
Deventer, J., Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2019). Are personality traits and relationship characteristics reciprocally related? Longitudinal analyses of codevelopment in the transition out of high school and beyond. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000191.
Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow & N. W. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Humberg, S., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2019). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 10, 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600.
Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2009). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019651.
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2012). The common fate model for dyadic data: Variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026624.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.
Kurtz, L. E., & Algoe, S. B. (2015). Putting laughter in context: Shared laughter as behavioral indicator of relationship well-being. Personal Relationships, 22, 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12095.
Kurzius, E., & Borkenau, P. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of mimicry: A naturalistic interaction approach. European Journal of Personality, 29, 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1990.
Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607099.
Liden, R. C., Anand, S., & Vidyarthi, P. (2016). Dyadic relationships. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062452.
Luo, S. (2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337.
Neyer, F. J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Personality–relationship transaction in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1190–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1190.
Neyer, F. J., Mund, M., Zimmerman, J., & Wrzus, C. (2015). Personality-relationship transactions revisited. Journal of Personality, 82, 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12063.
Proyer, R. T., & Brauer, K. (2018). Exploring adult playfulness: Examining the accuracy of personality judgments at zero-acquaintance and an LIWC analysis of textual information. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.10.002.
Proyer, R. T., Brauer, K., Wolf, A., & Chick, G. (2019). Adult playfulness and relationship satisfaction: An APIM analysis of romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.001.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007.
Schönbrodt, F. D., Humberg, S., & Nestler, S. (2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32, 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2169.
Weidmann, R., Ledermann, T., & Grob, A. (2016). The interdependence of personality and satisfaction in couples. European Psychologist, 21, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000261.
Wrzus, C., & Neyer, F. J. (2016). Co-development of personality and friendships across the lifespan: An empirical review on selection and socialization. European Psychologist, 21, 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000277.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Brauer, K., Proyer, R.T. (2019). Dyadic Processes. In: Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1720-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1720-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences