OBJECTIVE: Employing a couple-centered approach to social motivation in intimate relationships, we developed a dyadic typology based on the ABC model of communal and agentic social desires. METHOD: Using latent profile analysis, 631 heterosexual couples (age women: M = 39.7, SD = 13.6; age men: M = 42.0, SD = 14.1) were categorized regarding both partners' self-reported desires for closeness with partner, for affiliation with friends, and for being alone. Couple types were described using self-reported indicators of relationship functioning. Relationship stability was assessed after 1 year, and in stable couples, social desires were reassessed to examine continuity and change. RESULTS: We identified four motivational couple types. Three profiles showed similar orientations between partners and were labeled the communion, closeness, and distance couple types. Additionally, the distanced-man type was characterized by a low desire for closeness and a high desire for being alone in men, but not women. The communion and closeness types showed better relationship functioning than the other types, and the distanced-man type showed an increased rate of relationship break-up. CONCLUSIONS: A couple-centered, typological approach provides a viable way of studying complex dyadic motivational constellations and their consequences. This is beneficial for researchers as well as practitioners.
OBJECTIVE: Employing a couple-centered approach to social motivation in intimate relationships, we developed a dyadic typology based on the ABC model of communal and agentic social desires. METHOD: Using latent profile analysis, 631 heterosexual couples (age women: M = 39.7, SD = 13.6; age men: M = 42.0, SD = 14.1) were categorized regarding both partners' self-reported desires for closeness with partner, for affiliation with friends, and for being alone. Couple types were described using self-reported indicators of relationship functioning. Relationship stability was assessed after 1 year, and in stable couples, social desires were reassessed to examine continuity and change. RESULTS: We identified four motivational couple types. Three profiles showed similar orientations between partners and were labeled the communion, closeness, and distance couple types. Additionally, the distanced-man type was characterized by a low desire for closeness and a high desire for being alone in men, but not women. The communion and closeness types showed better relationship functioning than the other types, and the distanced-man type showed an increased rate of relationship break-up. CONCLUSIONS: A couple-centered, typological approach provides a viable way of studying complex dyadic motivational constellations and their consequences. This is beneficial for researchers as well as practitioners.