Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya • ISSN 2075-7999
peer-reviewed • open access journal


Rusakova M.S. The typological approach to dyadic interaction and the heterogeneity principle

Full text in Russian: Русакова М.С. Типологический подход к диадическому взаимодействию и принцип гетерогенности
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

About authors
Suggested citation

The impact of heterogeneity on features of dyadic interactions is studied. Main stages of the development of the typological approach to study of personality, dyads and teams are described. C.G. Jung, D.V. Keirsey, K.C. Myers and I. Briggs models are discussed. The heterogeneity principle is considered in the context of dyads and teams. The advantage of typological approach in the study of heterogeneity levels is substantiated: it generates five levels in contrast to the accepted two levels. The subjects (50 dyads, a total of 100 subjects) put tangram pieces observing two basic demands. Firstly, parts of an assembler and an instructor were given to dyad members. Secondly, there was a screen between subjects so they couldn't see details and pictures that their partner had got and thus verbal interaction was promoted. It is shown that despite traditional representations according to which minimum and maximum levels of heterogeneity affect team activity satisfaction and team activity effectiveness heterogeneity manifests otherwise. Intermediate levels of heterogeneity take on fundamental importance. Heterogeneity index in the most productive dyads was 75%, heterogeneity index in the most satisfied dyads was 25%, and heterogeneity index in dyads with the optimal combinations of features was 50%. Thus the typological approach generates a new look at the heterogeneity principle application to dyadic interactions.

Keywords: dyad, dyadic interaction, heterogeneity, homogeneity, typological approach



I would like to thank my scientific supervisor, the professor of Moscow State University Yuri M. Zhukov for help and support.


Adizes I.K. Ideal’nyi rukovoditel’. Moscow: Al’pina Pablisher, 2012. (in Russian)

Bazarov T.Yu., Eremin B.L. (Eds.) Upravlenie personalom. Moscow: Yuniti, 2009. (in Russian)

Belbin R.M. Tipy rolei v komandakh menedzherov. Moscow: Kievits, 2007. (in Russian)

Briggs-Myers I. A Description of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1990.

Briggs-Myers I., Myers P. MBTI: opredelenie tipov. Мoscow: Biznes Psikhologi, 2010. (in Russian)

Cosier R.A., Schwenk C.R. Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions. Academy of Management Executive, 1990, 4(1), 69–74.

Donnellon A. Team Talk: The power of language in team dynamics. Cambrige, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1996.

Gimeno J., Jeong E. A structural balance theory of alliance formation: Competition and cooperation in the global airline industry. Toronto: INSEAD, 2001.

Gellert M., Nowak C. Vse o komandoobrazovanii. Moscow: Vershina, 2006. (in Russian)

Jung C.G. Psikhologicheskie tipy. Мoscow: Progress-Univers, 2003. (in Russian)

Keirsey D. Pozhaluista, poimi menya – II. Moscow: Chernaya Belka, 2012. (in Russian)

Kotik M.A., Emel’yanov A.M. Priroda oshibok cheloveka-operatopa. Moscow: Transport,  1993. (in Russian)

Kraiger K., Kirkpatrick S. An empirical evaluation of three popular training Programs to improve interpersonal skills. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 2010, 1(1), 60–73.     

Krüger W. Rukovodstvo komandoi. Moscow: Omega-L, 2006. (in Russian)

Lyons R.S., Sayer A.S. Longitudinal dyad models in family research. Journal of marriage and family, 2005, 67(4), 1048–1060.

Margerison C. “Koleso” komandnogo upravleniya. Dneproperovsk: Balans Biznes Buks, 2004. (in Russian)

Myers I.B., Kirby J.K. Introduction to type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1995.

Prigogine I., Stengers I. Poryadok iz khaosa. Moscow: LKI, 2008. (in Russian)

Triandis H.C., Hall E.R., Ewen R.B. Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity. Human Relations, 1965, 18(1), 33–35.

Vogt S., Weesie J. Social support among heterogeneous partners: an experimental test. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 2006, 1(2), 215–232.

Wise L.R., Tschirhart M. What diversity research can tell us about heterogeneity and work performance. Proceedings: Workplace Diversity: A Research Perspective on Policy and Practice, Brussels, 2000. pp. 124–138.

Wood W. Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1987, 102(1), 53–71.

Yaroshevsky M.G., Jurevich A.V., Allakhverdyan A.G. Programmno-rolevoi podkhod i sovremennaya nauka. Voprosy psikhologii, 2002, No. 6, 3–18. (in Russian)

Zhukov Ju.M., Zhuravlev A.V., Pavlova E.N. Tekhnologii komandoobrazovaniya. Мoscow: Aspekt Press, 2008. (in Russian)

Received 11 September 2012. Date of publication: 22 February 2013.

About authors

Rusakova Mariya S. Ph.D. Student, Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Mokhovaya, 11, str. 9, 125009 Moscow, Russia
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Suggested citation

Rusakova M.S. The typological approach to dyadic interaction and the heterogeneity principle. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2013, Vol. 6, No. 27, p. 11. (in Russian, abstr. in English).

Permanent URL:


 Back to top >>