We assessed the relative contribution of economic, personal, and affective power bases to perceived relationship power. Based on evolutionary studies, we predicted that personality dominance and mate value should represent alternative personal power bases. Our sample was comprised of 84 Czech heterosexual couples. We measured the economic power base using self-report scales assessing education, income and work status. Personal power bases were assessed using self-report measures of personality dominance (International Personality Item Pool Dominance and Assertiveness subscale from NEO Personality Inventory-Revised Extraversion scale), and partner-report measures of mate value (Trait-Specific Dependence Inventory, factors 2-6). The first factor of Trait-Specific Dependence Inventory, which measures agreeableness/commitment was used to assess the affective power base. Our results show that perceived relationship power is associated with a perception of partner's high agreeableness/commitment. Moreover, women's personality dominance and mate value are also linked with perceived relationship power, which supports our evolutionary prediction of dominance and mate value working as power bases for women. The stronger effect of women's than men's power bases may be due to gender differences in investment into relationships and/or due to transition to more equal relationships currently sought by women in the Czech Republic.

Department of Psychology and Life Sciences Faculty of Humanities Charles University 182 00 Prague Czech Republic

Department of Zoology Faculty of Science Charles University 128 44 Prague Czech Republic

National Institute of Mental Health 250 67 Klecany Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Agnew C.R., Harman J.J. Power in Close Relationships: Advances in Personal Relationships. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2019.

Burgoon J.K., Hale J.L. The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Commun. Monogr. 1984;51:193–214. doi: 10.1080/03637758409390195. DOI

Brezsnyak M., Whisman M.A. Sexual desire and relationship functioning: The effects of marital satisfaction and power. J. Sex Marital. Ther. 2004;30:199–217. doi: 10.1080/00926230490262393. PubMed DOI

Buunk B.P., Mutsaers W. Equity perceptions and marital satisfaction in former and current marriage: A study among the remarried. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 1999;16:123–132. doi: 10.1177/0265407599161007. DOI

Sadikaj G., Moskowitz D.S., Zuroff D.C. Negative affective reaction to partner’s dominant behavior influences satisfaction with romantic relationship. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2017;34:1324–1346. doi: 10.1177/0265407516677060. DOI

Dunbar N.E. Theory in progress: Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. J. Fam. Commun. 2004;4:235–248. doi: 10.1080/15267431.2004.9670133. DOI

Carpenter C.J. A Relative commitment approach to understanding power in romantic relationships. Commun. Stud. 2017;68:1–16. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2016.1268639. DOI

Cromwell R.E., Olsen D.H. Power in Families. John Wiley & Sons; New York, NY, USA: 1975.

McDonald G.W. Family power: The assessment of a decade of theory and research, 1970–1979. J. Marriage Fam. 1980;42:841–854. doi: 10.2307/351828. DOI

Blood R.O., Jr., Wolfe D.M. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. Free Press; Glencoe, IL, USA: 1960. DOI

Simpson J.A., Farrell A.K., Oriña M.M., Rothman A.J. Power and social influence in relationships. In: Mikulincer M.E., Shaver P.R., Simpson J.A., Dovidio J.F., editors. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal Relations. American Psychological Association (APA); Washington, DC, USA: 2015. pp. 393–420. DOI

Centers R., Raven B.H., Rodrigues A. Conjugal power structure: A re-examination. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1971;36:264–278. doi: 10.2307/2094043. DOI

Scanzoni J.S.B. Sexual Bargaining: Power Politics in the American Marriage. 1st ed. Prentice Hall; Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: 1972.

Safilios-Rothschild C. A Comparison of power structure and marital satisfaction in urban Greek and French families. J. Marriage Fam. 1967;29:345–352. doi: 10.2307/349696. DOI

Tichenor V.J. Status and income as gendered resources: The case of marital power. J. Marriage Fam. 1999;61:638–650. doi: 10.2307/353566. DOI

Bertrand M., Kamenica E., Pan J. Gender identity and relative income within households. Q. J. Econ. 2015;130:571–614. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjv001. DOI

Gillespie D.L. Who has the power? The marital struggle. J. Marriage Fam. 1971;33:445. doi: 10.2307/349844. DOI

Safilios-Rothschild C. A Macro- and micro-examination of family power and love: An exchange model. J. Marriage Fam. 1976;38:355–362. doi: 10.2307/350394. DOI

Cheng J.T., Tracy J.L., Foulsham T., Kingstone A., Henrich J. Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2013;104:103–125. doi: 10.1037/a0030398. PubMed DOI

Chapais B. Competence and the evolutionary origins of status and power in humans. Hum. Nat. 2015;26:161–183. doi: 10.1007/s12110-015-9227-6. PubMed DOI

Maner J., Case C. Dominance and prestige. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2016;54:129–180. doi: 10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.02.001. DOI

Drews C. The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour. 1993;125:283–313. doi: 10.1163/156853993X00290. DOI

Judge T.A., Bono J.E., Ilies R., Gerhardt M.W. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002;87:765–780. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765. PubMed DOI

Lord R.G., De Vader C.L., Alliger G.M. A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986;71:402–410. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402. DOI

Mast M.S., Hall J.A. Anybody can be a boss but only certain people make good subordinates: Behavioral impacts of striving for dominance and dominance aversion. J. Pers. 2003;71:871–892. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.7105007. PubMed DOI

Linkey H.E., Firestone I.J. Dyad dominance composition effects, nonverbal behaviors, and influence. J. Res. Pers. 1990;24:206–215. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(90)90017-Z. DOI

Von Rueden C., Gurven M., Kaplan H. Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proc. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010;278:2223–2232. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2145. PubMed DOI PMC

Waynforth D. Mate choice trade-offs and women’s preference for physically attractive men. Hum. Nat. 2001;12:207–219. doi: 10.1007/s12110-001-1007-9. PubMed DOI

Cornwell R.E., Palmer C.T., Davis H.P. More women (and men) that never evolved. Behav. Brain Sci. 2000;23:573–587. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00353377. PubMed DOI

Simpson J.A., Campbell L. Trait-specific dependence in romantic relationships. J. Pers. 2002;70:611–660. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.05019. PubMed DOI

Macdonald K., Patch E.A., Figueredo A.J. Love, trust, and evolution: Nurturance/love and trust as two independent attachment systems underlying intimate relationships. Psychology. 2016;7:238–253. doi: 10.4236/psych.2016.72026. DOI

Thibaut J.W., Kelley H.H. The Social Psychology of Groups. Transaction Publishers; New Brunswick, NJ, USA: 1959.

Van Lange P.A.M., Rusbult C.E., Drigotas S.M., Arriaga X.B., Witcher B.S., Cox C.L. Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1997;72:1373–1395. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373. PubMed DOI

Rusbult C.E., Verette J., Whitney G.A., Slovik L.F., Al E. Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1991;60:53–78. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53. DOI

Lennon C.A., Stewart A.L., Ledermann T. The role of power in intimate relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2012;30:95–114. doi: 10.1177/0265407512452990. DOI

Terzino K.A., Cross S.E. Predicting commitment in new relationships: Interactive effects of relational self-construal and power. Self Identity. 2009;8:321–341. doi: 10.1080/15298860802102273. DOI

Rusbult C.E., Buunk B.P. Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 1993;10:175–204. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000202. DOI

Waller W. The rating and dating complex. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1937;2:727–734. doi: 10.2307/2083825. DOI

Sprecher S., Felmlee D. The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over time from “his” and “her” perspectives. Sex Roles. 1997;37:361–379. doi: 10.1023/A:1025601423031. DOI

Rusbult C.E., Agnew C.R. Prosocial motivation and behavior in close relationships. In: Mikulincer M., Shaver P.R., editors. Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of our Nature. American Psychological Association (APA); Washington, DC, USA: 2010. pp. 327–345. DOI

Sprecher S. Sex differences in bases of power in dating relationships. Sex Roles. 1985;12:449–462. doi: 10.1007/BF00287608. DOI

Peplau L.A. Power in dating relationships. In: Freeman J., editor. Women: A Feminist Perspective. Mayfield; Mounatin View, CA, USA: 1978. pp. 106–121.

Van Lange P.A.M., Balliet D. Interdependence theory. In: Mikulincer M.E., Shaver P.R., Simpson J.A., Dovidio J.F., editors. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal Relations. American Psychological Association (APA); Washington, DC, USA: 2015. pp. 65–92.

Havlicek J., Husarova B., Rezacova V., Klapilova K. Correlates of extra-dyadic sex in Czech heterosexual couples: Does sexual behavior of parents matter? Arch. Sex. Behav. 2011;40:1153–1163. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9869-3. PubMed DOI

Stewart S., Stinnett H., Rosenfeld L.B. Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2000;17:843–853. doi: 10.1177/0265407500176008. DOI

Lindová J., Průšová D., Klapilová K. Power distribution and relationship quality in long-term heterosexual couples. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2020;46:528–541. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2020.1761493. PubMed DOI

Rallis S., Skouteris H., Wertheim E.H., Paxton S.J. Predictors of body image during the first year postpartum: A prospective study. Women Health. 2007;45:87–104. doi: 10.1300/J013v45n01_06. PubMed DOI

Ackerman R.A., Kenny D.A. APIMPowerR: An Interactive Tool for Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Power Analysis [Computer Software] [(accessed on 1 December 2016)]; Available online: https://robert-a-ackerman.shinyapps.io/APIMPowerRdis/

Tuček M., Machonin P. Prestiž povolání v České republice v roce 1992. Sociol. Čas. 1993;29:367–382.

Dunbar N.E., Burgoon J.K. Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2005;22:207–233. doi: 10.1177/0265407505050944. DOI

Galliher R.V., Rostosky S.S., Welsh D.P., Kawaguchi M.C. Power and psychological well-being in late adolescent romantic relationships. Sex Roles. 1999;40:689–710. doi: 10.1023/A:1018804617443. DOI

Neff K.D., Suizzo M.-A. Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European American and Mexican Americans. Cogn. Dev. 2006;21:441–457. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.008. DOI

Felmlee D.H. Who’s on top? Power in romantic relationships. Sex Roles. 1994;31:275–295. doi: 10.1007/BF01544589. DOI

Goldberg L.R. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In: Mervielde I., Deary I., De Fruyt F., Ostendorf F., editors. Personality Psychology in Europe. Volume 7. Tilburg University Press; Tilburg, The Netherlands: 1999. pp. 7–28.

Wink P., Gough H. New narcissism scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI. J. Pers. Assess. 1990;54:446–462. doi: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674010. PubMed DOI

Costa P.T., McCrae R.R. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychol. Assess. 1992;4:5–13. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5. DOI

Hřebíčková M. NEO Osobnostní Inventář. Testcentrum; Prague, Czech Republic: 2004.

Kučerová R., Csajbók Z., Havlíček J. Coupled individuals adjust their ideal mate preferences according to their actual partner. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2018;135:248–257. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.019. DOI

Kenny D.A., Kashy D.A., Cook W.L. Dyadic Data Analysis. Guilford Press; New York, NY, USA: 2006.

Ackerman R.A., Donnellan M.B., Kashy D.A. Working with dyadic data in studies of emerging adulthood: Specific recommendations, general advice, and practical tips. In: Fincham F.D., Cui M., editors. Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood. Cambridge University Press; New York, NY, USA: 2011. pp. 67–98.

Bittman M., England P., Sayer L., Folbre N., Matheson G. When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. Am. J. Sociol. 2003;109:186–214. doi: 10.1086/378341. DOI

Beere C.A. Gender Roles: A Handbook of Tests and Measures. Greenwood Press; New York, NY, USA: 1990.

Lucas T.W., Wendorf C.A., Imamoglu E.O., Shen J., Parkhill M.R., Weisfeld C.C., Weisfeld G.E., Imamoǧlu E.O. Marital satisfaction in four cultures as a function of homogamy, male dominance and female attractiveness. Sex. Evol. Gend. 2004;6:97–130. doi: 10.1080/14616660412331327518. DOI

Dainton M., Stafford L. Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity and sex differences. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 1993;10:255–271. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000206. DOI

Cross S.E., Madson L. Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychol. Bull. 1997;122:5–37. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5. PubMed DOI

Bianchi S.M., Robinson J.P., Milke M.A. Changing Rhythms of American Family Life. Russell Sage Foundation; New York, NY, USA: 2006.

Bischoping K. Gender differences in conversation topics, 1922–1990. Sex Roles. 1993;28:1–18. doi: 10.1007/BF00289744. DOI

Hašková H. Gender roles, family policy and family behavior: Changing Czech society in the European context. In: Haukanes H., Pine F., editors. Generations, Kinship and Care. Gendered Provisions of Social Security in Central Eastern Europe. University of Bergen; Bergen, Norway: 2005. pp. 23–52.

Shackelford T.K., Goetz A.T. Men’s sexual coercion in intimate relationships: Development and initial validation of the sexual coercion in intimate relationships scale. Violence Vict. 2004;19:541–556. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.5.541.63681. PubMed DOI

Kaura S.A., Allen C.M. Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence perpetration by men and women. J. Interpers. Violence. 2004;19:576–588. doi: 10.1177/0886260504262966. PubMed DOI

Harvey S.M., Bird S.T., Henderson J.T., Beckman L.J., Huszti H.C. He said, she said. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2004;31:185–191. doi: 10.1097/01.OLQ.0000114943.03419.C4. PubMed DOI