CHAPTER ELEVEN
A Companion’s Choice: Do Opposites Attract?
ERIN CURRIE
“Oh, Amy. You have to sort your men out. Choose, even.”
—Dream Lord1
“The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: If there is any reaction, both are transformed.”
—psychiatrist Carl Jung2
In psychology, we attempt to answer the great questions of human behavior. Poets, politicians, and scientists of many stripes have called relationships the most difficult enigma of all. The Who universe is no different, with much fan discussion given to the Doctor’s choice of companions.3 After all, each companion has his or her (usually her) own unique impact on the Doctor and his adventures. The personalities of each Doctor and each companion combine to create new opportunities for humorous, challenging, heartwarming, and nerve-racking interplay, as can be the case when any two people embark on a relationship of any nature. Several of the classic Doctors have an entourage of companions, and one modern Doctor, the Eleventh, travels with a married couple. There, in addition to personality interplay between companion and Doctor, you have personality dynamics playing out among pairs, trios, or more.
The dynamic between companions Amelia “Amy” Pond and Rory Williams is different from most companion entourage arrangements in that the significance of their relationship rivals their individual relationships with the Doctor. Although the Doctor chooses to bring both Amy and Rory along with him, clearly it is Amy’s choice of companion that matters most. How is a person to choose? Both personality psychology and interpersonal psychology address compatibility and attraction, helping us understand how people choose companionship and what leads to relationship satisfaction. Will Amy choose the adventurous, dashing hero or her quiet, unfailing friend? Her choice will be examined through the lenses of these two fields of study.
Individual Personalities
Personality traits are one focus of research on relationship choice. It makes intuitive sense that the repeating pattern of behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that form a person’s essential character would have an impact on that person’s perceived attractiveness.4 The research corroborates this intuitive stance by showing that there are a few personality traits that are generally favored, including emotional stability and conscientiousness.5 However, the majority of attraction research focuses not on the personality traits of an individual, but on the perception and interaction between the players’ personalities. Some of the most heavily researched personality factors, groups of traits that tend to go together (covered in the Factor Files at the end of each section in this book), interact to influence relationship success.
Case 1: The Girl Who Waited
Amy shows high levels of emotional stability. When the Doctor first meets young Amy, she has a crack in her wall from which weird voices emanate. While other children would panic and hide under the covers, she calmly and concisely prays to Santa to send help.6 The hallmark of this emotional stability is the capacity to deal with the task at hand without being waylaid by one’s emotional reactions.7 When the Doctor barges into her house ten years later, it is clear from her questions that she is angry. Instead, of being overwhelmed by her anger about his abandonment, however, she deals with the intruder and tries to figure out what happened to her all those years ago.8
Amy shows high levels of dominance, which is the assertion of control, in that she tends to take matters into her own hands, diving in and directly dealing with whatever situation comes her way.9 People high in dominance prefer to make the decisions, or at least be able to influence the decision maker. Amy also shows high levels of openness to experience, a trait that includes seeking out new and different experiences and creativity in problem solving.10 In the midst of danger she scans her environment and makes the best out of what is available. Openness to new ideas and experiences means that a person is better able to adapt to the reality of his or her surroundings instead of getting bogged down by preconceived notions of how things should be. One great example of these two traits in combination occurs when Amy, upon being locked below decks, grabs a cutlass and a pirate outfit and charges the pirates without regard for her lack of sword-fighting skills.11 Any preconceptions about lack of sword-fighting skills clearly didn’t stop her charge.
Extraversion is an orientation toward active engagement with, and stimulus-seeking from, the world outside oneself.12 Amy’s high level of extraversion is evident in her tendency to walk boldly into exciting experiences with less thought of risk, a facet of extraversion that researchers have labeled surgency.13 People high in extraversion have less sensitivity toward risk cues and greater need for excitement than people low in extraversion, also known as introverts.14 Combine that with a fair dose of stubbornness, which Big Five personality factor researchers would call low agreeableness, which is being more confrontational than cooperative,15 and you have a force to be reckoned with.16
Case 2: The Boy Who Waited
Rory shows low openness to experience in combination with a low level of extraversion, especially with regard to the facet of surgency17 (highly positive emotional reactivity). This is portrayed in Rory’s ultimate goal at the beginning of the series: to build a calm, quiet life as a small-town doctor and start a family with Amy.18 He isn’t worried about saving the world, just the woman he loves and his patients. Low extraversion is also referred to as introversion. Research links regions of the brain involved in risk aversion to higher levels of introversion.19 This is demonstrated by Rory’s quiet demeanor. He doesn’t tend to say much until something is very important to him.20
At the outset of Rory’s adventures, he is the picture of submissiveness as he is led around by Amy.21 He lets an impatient hospital doctor rudely dismiss his concern about a client, even in light of solid evidence supporting his concern: a picture of a client who is comatose in a hospital, but also, inexplicably, simultaneously walking his dog in the park.22 Dear Rory is also highly conscientious, a trait generally defined as reliable, careful, and well-organized.23 It doesn’t get more reliable and devoted than a man sitting alone in a cave for two thousand years, protecting the woman he loves.24 Rory is a combination of introversion, a low level of openness to new experiences, extreme submissiveness, and conscientiousness. Because of these traits, he is less likely to be led astray from his goals by the many wonders of the universe, unlike the Doctor, whom Rory perceives as competition for Amy.25
Case 3: He Who Makes Them Wait
Openness to new experiences and high levels of extraversion are this Doctor’s personality calling card. He has all time and space to explore and a seemingly insatiable need for new experiences.26 Unfortunately, this pairs with a low level of conscientiousness. He gets caught up in the excitement of the moment and forgets to keep track of things like the everyday needs of others, such as changing lightbulbs and staying in contact with people who care about you.27 Low conscientiousness and openness to new experiences come together in the Doctor and result in a lack of planning. Although he frequently tells his companions that he has a plan, in reality his plan is more of a goal, an armful of tools, a next step, and his reliance on his ability to improvise.28 Most folks with a high level of conscientiousness would not consider this a plan.29
His high level of extraversion is most notable in how much he enjoys showing off how clever he is. One element of extraversion is seeking and thriving off social reinforcement.30 At one point he goes as far as to shout at his companions, “I’m being extremely clever up here and there’s no one to stand around looking impressed. What’s the point of having you all?”31 The Eleventh Doctor is also high in social dominance. He is always directing the flow of energy of people around him, whether he is telling them what to do or influencing them without them realizing it.32 The way his extraversion and dominance combine with a lower level of emotional stability makes traveling with him quite the exciting, action-packed ride.
Relationships
Do opposites really attract or is similarity better? Some research promotes the idea that similarities attract. A lot of the research on attraction in dating and early relationships shows that people report a preference for partners with similar personality traits, supporting the old adage that “birds of a feather flock together.”33 Other research promotes complementarity of personality as being highly attractive. This is a take on the idea that “opposites attract.” These studies suggest that people seek out others who fill in the gaps of their skills, strengths, and interpersonal approaches.34 For instance, psychologists studying dominance have found that people who consider themselves dominant respond more positively during cooperative tasks when paired with people who behave in a submissive manner and vice versa, compared to working with similar individuals.35 Both of these matchmaking strategy “camps” get to have their say in Amy’s choice.
Pair 1: Amy and the Doctor
The people in the similarities camp would find Amy’s attraction to the Eleventh Doctor unsurprising because they are very much alike. They are both ready to run in and explore each new situation.36 This behavior reflects shared high levels of openness to new experiences and extraversion.37 Their shared trust in their ability to talk or flirt their way out of trouble reflects combined high levels of extraversion and dominance.38 About the only significant difference between the two of them is in emotional stability. Amy takes a more practical approach, even when faced with gut-wrenching decisions.39 Being low in emotional stability, this Doctor tends to be excitable, able to find joy in many things but also prone to immense anger and despair.40 Add a cool blue box that can carry her to exciting new adventures through all time and space and it’s no surprise that Amy considers choosing the Doctor over Rory after he saves her from the Weeping Angels.41
Pair 2: Amy and Rory
People in the complementarity camp would likely be cheering for Rory. He and Amy are different when it comes to almost every personality trait, and his strengths complement Amy’s. First, Amy is dominant to Rory’s submissive. This area of complementarity is one of the most supported by the research on relationship satisfaction.42 Amy charges into danger and Rory faithfully follows, supports, and saves as needed.43 This is not to say that Rory is cowardly, compared to Amy. There are just different paths to bravery. As the Last Centurion, Rory stands guard over Amy for thousands of years,44 and he takes on numerous foes, such as the Cybermen, the Silence, and the Headless Monks to rescue Amy and their baby.45 Their different approaches to risk-taking are due, in part, to differences in levels of extraversion.46 When Rory takes a look at his environment, he is more likely to notice what could be dangerous.47 Further, he is less likely to seek out risk because it isn’t accompanied by a feeling of happy excitement from a new experience.48
Luckily for Amy and the Doctor, Rory is loyal and dependable. His high levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness mean they can count on him to get them out of whatever mess they talk him into. They can also depend on him to care for the needs of the people they encounter while they are busy trying to solve the mystery.49
Unfortunately, quiet, supportive strength like Rory’s is often overlooked in favor of more dashing figures like the Doctor. People often fail to appreciate approaches different from theirs. Research finds that people actually feel more satisfaction from a partner who is complementary to them, even though they say they prefer similarity. This indicates that people may not always be aware of what they really want in a partnership.50 For Amy, it takes thinking that she has lost Rory when facing the Dream Lord for her to fully appreciate what Rory means to her.51
Pair 3: Amy’s Boys
It isn’t just Amy and the Doctor, and Amy and Rory. Rory and the Doctor have an interesting relationship as well. The complementarity folks would applaud their dynamic. The Doctor is attention-seeking and flamboyant, where Rory is quiet. The Doctor shows higher extraversion and dominance in that he rushes toward adventure and danger and takes everyone along for the ride.52 Rory is more submissive, especially at the beginning. He prefers to consider possible dangers before rushing in.53 Like many highly conscientious people, he would prefer to have a plan in place before taking action.54 The Doctor’s focus is on the new opportunities waiting around every corner of time and space.55 Meanwhile, Rory’s focus is on what he cares about most: the well-being of Amy and the individuals he meets on their adventures.56 Over time, though, as predicted by the complementarity research, they come to respect and rely on each other’s strengths to solve problems, most notably when Amy is in danger.57
The Power of Three
Happily, Amy gets to choose both and everyone wins! She chooses faithful Rory as her husband.58 The complementarity camp is supported. Amy chooses the dashing Doctor as her best friend.67 The similarity camp is supported. Additionally, the Doctor and Rory develop a friendship based on deep mutual respect, trust, and shared interests and experiences, also supporting the complementarity premise.68
The Eleventh Doctor is the exception in the modern series by having more than one companion on an ongoing basis. However, each classic Doctor up through the Fifth has an entourage for at least part of his journey. Group dynamics come into play when you go beyond the dyad.59 Group dynamics theorist Bruce Tuckman developed a theory of how groups develop and evolve.60
| Stage One: Forming | People in the group start to get to know each other. Although Amy knows both Rory and the Doctor, they all learn more about each other in the context of the group.61 |
| Stage Two: Storming | Tension arises as people vie for roles in the group. Although the Doctor is accustomed to being in charge, he cedes that role to Amy while Rory struggles to figure out where he fits.62 |
| Stage Three: Norming | Everyone settles into their roles in the group. Amy is the leader who unites them, Rory is the caretaker, and the Doctor is the brains.63 |
| Stage Four: Performing | People are comfortable in their relationships and group roles, so they start trying new growth behaviors. The Doctor slows down and becomes more relational while Rory becomes more fierce and confident. Amy, meanwhile, learns to rely on others.64 |
| Stage Five: Adjourning | The group disbands, preferably when the members have grown as individuals. Amy and Rory start to talk about fully participating in their life on Earth.65 Although they experience grief when they’re finally separated from the Doctor, they move on to have separate adventures.66 |
The complementarity research indicates that people become especially effective utilizing each other’s strengths when they have a common goal.69 Even though their methods differ, Amy, Rory, and the Doctor all want to save the day and use differing strengths to compensate for each other’s various weaknesses.70 They work together to show how powerful a complementary team can be.71 Amy helps the doctor focus his vast knowledge of space and time, which Rory connects to the experiences of individuals caught in the crossfire. In the end it’s the loss of the power of the relationship of this trio that makes it so heartbreaking when the Weeping Angels force Amy to choose after all.72
References
Banta, T. J., & Hetherington, M. (1963). Relations between needs of friends and fiancés. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 66(4), 401–404.
Bohns, V. K., Lucas, G. M., Molden, D. C., Finkel, E. J., Coolsen, M. K., Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Opposites fit: Regulatory focus complementarity and relationship well-being. Social Cognition, 31(1), 1–14.
Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107–136.
Cundiff, J. M., Smith, T. W., Butner, J., Critchfield, K. L., & Nealey-Moore, J. (2015). Affiliation and control in marital interaction: Interpersonal complementarity is present but is not associated with affect or relationship quality. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 35–51.
Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72(3), 592–603.
Fishman, I., & Ng, R. (2013). Error-related brain activity in extraverts: Evidence for altered response monitoring in social context. Biological Psychology, 93(1), 225–230.
Furler, K., Gomez, V., & Grob, A. (2014). Personality perceptions and relationship satisfaction in couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 33–41.
Johnson, D. L., Wiebe, J. S., Gold, S. M., Andreassen, N. C., Hichwa, R. D., Watkins, G. L., & Boles Ponto, L. L. (1999). Cerebral blood flow and personality: A Positron Emission Tomography study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(2), 252–257.
Jung, C. G. (1933/1995). Modern man in search of a soul (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Little, B. R. (2014). Me, myself, and us: The science of personality and the art of well-being. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Markey, P. M., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Increasing acquaintances and complementarity of behavioral styles and personality traits among college roommates. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 907–916.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517–533.
McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of Factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 251–272.
McGlynn, R. P., Harding, D. J., & Cottle, J. L. (2009). Individual-group discontinuity in group-individual interactions: Does size matter? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 129–143.
Patrick, S. (2013, November 19). Best of ‘Doctor Who’ 50th anniversary poll: Ten favorite companions. BBC America: http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/best-doctor-50th-anniversary-poll-10-favorite-companions.
Schmitt, D. P. (2002). Personality, attachment and sexuality related to dating relationship outcomes: Contrasting three perspectives on personal attribute interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 589–610.
Tuckman, B. W, & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.
Wacker, J., Chavanon, M., & Stemmler, G. (2006). Investigating the dopaminergic basis of extraversion in humans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 91(1), 171–187.
Notes
1. Modern episode 5–7, “Amy’s Choice” (May 15, 2010).
2. Jung (1933/1995), p. 49.
3. Patrick (2013).
4. Schmitt (2002).
5. Furler et al. (2014).
6. Modern episode 5–1, “The Eleventh Hour” (April 3, 2010).
7. Botwin et al. (1997).
8. Modern episode 5–1, “The Eleventh Hour” (April 3, 2010).
9. Dryer & Horowitz (1997).
10. McCrae (1994).
11. Modern episode 6–3, “The Curse of the Black Spot” (May 7, 2011).
12. Little (2014).
13. Wacker et al. (2006); Botwin et al. (1997).
14. Fishman & Ng (2013); Wacker et al. (2006).
15. Botwin et al. (1997).
16. Modern episode 6–10, “The Girl Who Waited” (September 10, 2011).
17. Botwin et al. (1997).
18. Modern episode 5–7, “Amy’s Choice” (May 15, 2010).
19. Johnson et al. (1999).
20. Modern episode 5–6, “Vampires of Venice” (May 8, 2010).
21. Modern episode 6–8, “Let’s Kill Hitler” (August 27, 2011).
22. Modern episode 5–1, “The Eleventh Hour” (April 3, 2010).
23. Botwin et al. (1997).
24. Modern episode 5–13, “The Big Bang” (June 26, 2010).
25. Wacker et al. (2006).
26. Modern episode 7–4, “The Power of Three” (September 22, 2012).
27. Modern episode 7–2, “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship” (September 8, 2012).
28. Modern episode 5–13, “The Big Bang” (June 26, 2010).
29. Botwin et al. (1997).
30. Fishman & Ng (2013).
31. Modern episode 6–1, “The Impossible Astronaut” (April 23, 2011).
32. Modern episode 6–6, “The Almost People” (May 28, 2011).
33. Botwin et al. (1997); Markey & Markey (2007).
34. Bohns et al. (2013).
35. Dryer & Horowitz (1997).
36. Modern episode 5–2, “The Beast Below” (April 10, 2010).
37. Botwin et al. (1997); Wacker et al. (2006).
38. Fishman & Ng (2013).
39. Modern episode 5–7, “Amy’s Choice” (May 15, 2010).
40. Modern episode 7–5, “The Angels Take Manhattan” (September 29, 2012).
41. Modern episode 5–5, “Flesh and Stone” (May 1, 2010).
42. Markey & Markey (2007).
43. Modern episode 6–5, “The Rebel Flesh” (May 21, 2011).
44. Modern episode 5–13, “The Big Bang” (June 26, 2010).
45. Modern episode 6–7, “A Good Man Goes to War” (June 4, 2011).
46. Wacker et al. (2006).
47. Johnson et al. (1999).
48. Wacker et al. (2006).
49. Modern episode 6–5, “The Rebel Flesh” (May 21, 2011).
50. Dryer & Horowitz (1997).
51. Modern episode 5–7, “Amy’s Choice” (May 15, 2010).
52. Wacker et al. (2006).
53. Modern episode 6–5, “The Rebel Flesh” (May 21, 2011).
54. Botwin et al. (1997).
55. Modern episode 7–4, “The Power of Three” (September 22, 2012).
56. Modern episode 5–9, “Cold Blood” (May 29, 2010).
57. Bohns et al. (2013).
58. Modern episode 5–7, “Amy’s Choice” (May 15, 2010).
59. McGlynn et al. (2009).
60. Tuckman & Jensen (1977).
61. Modern episode 5–1, “The Eleventh Hour” (April 3, 2010).
62. Modern episode 5–6, “Vampires of Venice (May 8, 2010).
63. Modern episode 5–13, “The Big Bang” (June 26, 2010).
64. Modern episode 6–7, “A Good Man Goes to War” (June 4, 2011).
65. Modern episode 7–4, “The Power of Three” (September 22, 2012).
66. Modern episode 7–5, “The Angels Take Manhattan” (September 29, 2 012).
67. Modern episode 6–13, “The Wedding of River Song” (October, 1 2011).
68. Modern episode 6–7, “A Good Man Goes to War” (June 4, 2011).
69. Bohns et al. (2013).
70. Bohns et al. (2013).
71. Modern episode 7–4, “The Power of Three” (September 22, 2012).
72. Modern episode 7–5, “The Angels Take Manhattan” (September 29, 2012).