Michelle J. LeybmanMichelle J. Leybman11, David C. Zuroff, David C. Zuroff11, & Marc A. Fournier, & Marc A. Fournier 2 2

McGill UniversityMcGill University11, University of Toronto, University of Toronto22

ABSTRACTABSTRACT

Based on evolutionary psychology, alliance styles were conceptualized in terms of four dimensions of individual differences in approaching cooperative relationships related to: favoring exploitiveness, fairness, altruism, and individualism. A measure of alliance styles was created to examine the newly developed alliance style construct. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the alliance style model, as well as to establish reliability and validity for the newly developed Alliance Style Questionnaire (ASQ). A factor analysis supported the hypothesis that four dimensions characterized people’s approaches to creating and maintaining their alliances. Furthermore, results indicated that the ASQ demonstrated good internal consistency, construct validity, and discriminant validity. Specifically, multiple regressions analyses revealed that alliance styles were associated with constructs related to the self, Big Five traits, and evolutionary psychology constructs in the ways that were hypothesized. The analyses also revealed that alliance styles were not contaminated by social desirability and that the ASQ was not highly correlated with any existing measures. Moreover, multiple regression analyses showed that even when attachment style was controlled, alliance style uniquely predicted interpersonal variables such as received social support and loneliness.

CONVERGENT VALIDITYCONVERGENT VALIDITY

BACKGROUND & METHODSBACKGROUND & METHODS

Evolutionary psychology posits that human behaviour developed as a response to problems of survival in group living.

Reciprocity/cooperation is one domain of social life that has influenced the evolution of behaviour (Bugental, 2000). This domain involves managing costs and benefits in alliances.

Alliances refer to non-intimate relationships in which both people cooperate for mutual benefit. Both partners monitor and balance the costs and benefits of the relationship.

The alliance style model (figure 1) was developed to understand people’s approaches to cooperative relationships.

Alliance Style Questionnaire (ASQ) created to measure individual differences in approaches to cooperative relationships.

Definition of alliances provided

3 part measure (Forced choice, prototype ratings, 30 items)

156 participants (75 males, 81 females) completed the ASQ and a batter of other questionnaires measuring constructs related to the self, Big Five traits and evolutionary psychology constructs.

Principal components analysis of 30 items.

Multiple regressions

Figure 1. Hypothesized alliance style model.Figure 1. Hypothesized alliance style model.

High Expectation to Benefit

Low Expectation to Benefit

High Willingness to Assume Costs

Low Willingness to Assume Costs

EXPLOITEREXPLOITER FAIRTRADERFAIRTRADER

ALTRUISTALTRUISTINDIVIDUALISTINDIVIDUALIST

ALLIANCE STYLE DIMENSIONSALLIANCE STYLE DIMENSIONS

Profit (Sum of 7 items; Cronbach alpha .81)

I try to minimize my costs of remaining in an alliance.

I try to obtain as much benefit as possible from alliances.

Fairness (Sum of 5 items; Cronbach alpha .74)

I accept that alliances can require substantial costs.

I believe that, over the long-term, both partners should benefit equally from an alliance.

Altruism (Sum of 5 items; Cronbach alpha .63)

I occasionally find myself putting more effort into an alliance than the other person.

I do not engage in “hardball” negotiation tactics, preferring to maintain a friendly relationship with allies

Individualism (Sum of 4 items; Cronbach alpha .73)

I can generally reach my goals more efficiently by relying on myself than by forming alliances.

I prefer not to have to rely on others.

Profit Fairness AltruismIndividualis

m

Big 5 Agree. Consc. Extrav.

-0.350.17

0.44

0.16

-0.28

-0.29

Rank Style Dir. Ldr. Cons. Self-Ad.

0.16

0.480.30 0.34

-0.21-0.25

Attachment Anxious Avoidant 0.15 -0.20 0.36

Construals Indep. Interdep.

0.23-0.17

0.170.25 0.47

0.16

ALLIANCE STYLE: A VALIDITY STUDY OF A NEW ALLIANCE STYLE: A VALIDITY STUDY OF A NEW MEASUREMEASURE

DISCRIMINANT VALIDITYDISCRIMINANT VALIDITY Highest correlation was .47; between Altruism and Interdependent Self Construals.

Highest correlation with an attachment variable was .36; between Individualism and Attachment Avoidance.

No positive relationship with total social desirability score.

INCREMENTAL VALIDITYINCREMENTAL VALIDITY

* Only significant relationships are noted

Supported by grants from Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture (FQRSC) and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When attachment was controlled, alliance styles still accounted for variance in people’s loneliness and received social support. Loneliness

Attachment anxiety (0.36)

Attachment avoidance (0.37)

Fairness (-0.17)

Received social support

Attachment anxiety (.16)

Fairness (.23)