A Guide for the Estimation of Gender and Sexual Orientation Effects in Dyadic Data: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Approach

Abstract

The study of gender differences is a pervasive topic in relationship science. However, there are several neglected issues in this area that require special care and attention. First, there is not just one gender effect but rather three gender effects: gender of the respondent, gender of the partner, and the gender of respondent by gender of the partner interaction. To separate these three effects, the dyadic research design should ideally have three different types of dyads: male-female, male-male, and female-female. Second, the analysis of gender differences in relational studies could benefit from the application of recent advances in the analysis of dyadic data, most notably the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Third, relationship researchers need to consider the confounding, mediating, and moderating effects of demographic variables. We use the American Couples (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983) data set to illustrate these points.

Keywords

gender differences Actor-Partner Interdependence Model American Couples dyadic analysis sexual orientation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey, J. , Kim, P.Y. , Hills, A. , & Linsenmeier, J.A.W. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960-973.

Baron, R.M. , & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Berscheid, E. , & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 157-215). New York: Academic Press.

Blumstein, P. , & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: William Morrow.

Bradbury, T.N. , & Fincham, F.D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique . Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3-33.

Burk, W.J. , & Laursen, B. (2005). Adolescent perceptions of friendship and their associations with individual adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 156-164.

Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences , 12, 1-49.

Buss, D.M. , & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.

Campbell, L.J. , & Kashy, D.A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM5: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327-342.

10.

Campbell, L.J. , Simpson, J.A. , Kashy, D.A. , & Rholes W.S. (2001). Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situation: An application of the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 849-871.

11.

Cano, A. , & Vivian, D. (2001). Life stressors and husband-to-wife violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 459-480.

12.

Cillessen, A.H. , Jiang, X.L. , West, T.V. , & Lazkowski, D.K. (2005) Predictors of dyadic friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 165-172.

13.

Cohen, A.B. , & Tannenbaum, I.J. (2001). Lesbian and bisexual women's judgments of the attractiveness of different body types. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 226-232.

14.

Cook, W.L. , & Kenny, D.A. (2005). The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model: A model of directional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101-109.

15.

Deckard, B.S. (1983). The women's movement: Political, socioeconomic, and psychological issues (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

16.

Gangestad, S.W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: Implications for mating dynamics. Human Nature, 4, 205-236.

17.

Gonzales, M.H. , & Meyers, S.A. (1993). Your mother would like me: Self-presentation in the personal ads of heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 131-142.

18.

Griffin, D. , & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430-439.

19.

Harris, C.R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 7, 102-128.

20.

Howard, J.A. , Blumstein, P. , & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 194-200.

21.

Hyde, J.S. (1996). Half the human experience: The psychology of women (5th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

22.

Jacklin, D. (1981). Methodological issues in the study of sex-related differences Developmental Review, 1, 266-273.

23.

Julien, D. , Chartrand, E. , Simard, M. , Bouthillier, D. , & Bégin, J. (2003). Conflict, social support and relationship quality: An observational study of heterosexual, gay male and lesbian couples' communication . Journal of Family Psychology, 3, 419-428.

24.

Kashy, D.A. , & Kenny, D.A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451-477). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Kelley, H.H. , Holmes, J.G. , Kerr, N.L. , Reis, H.T. , Rusbult, C.E. , & Van Lange, P.A. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York: Cambridge .

26.

Kelley, H.H. , & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence . New York: Wiley.

27.

Kenny, D.A. , & Acitelli, L.K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 439-448.

28.

Kenny, D.A. , & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.

29.

Kenny, D.A. , & Judd, C.M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422-431.

30.

Kenny, D.A. , Kashy, D.A. , & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert , S. Fiske , & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233-265). New York: McGraw-Hill.

31.

Kenny, D.A. , Kashy, D.A. , & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York : Guilford.

32.

Kenrick, D.T. , Keefe, R.C. , Bryan, A. , Barr, A. , & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for modular psychological mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1166-1172.

33.

Kraemer, H.C. , & Jacklin, C.N. (1979). Statistical analysis of dyadic social behavior . Psychological Bulletin, 86, 217-224.

34.

Kurdek, L.A. (1997). The link between facets of neuroticism and dimensions of relationship commitment: Evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples . Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 503-514.

35.

Kurdek, L.A. , & Schmitt, J.P. (1986a). Interaction of sex role self-concept with relationship quality and relationship beliefs in married, heterosexual cohabitating, gay, and lesbian couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51, 365-370.

36.

Kurdek, L.A. , & Schmitt, J.P. (1986b). Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabitating, and gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 711-720.

37.

Metz, M.E. , Rosser, B.R.S. , & Strapko, N. (1994). Differences in conflict-resolution styles among heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples. Journal of Sex Research , 31, 293-308.

38.

Murray, S.L. , Holmes, J.G. , & Griffin, D. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.

39.

Olsen, J.A. , & Kenny, D.A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 1-15.

40.

Oriña, M.M. , Wood, W. , & Simpson, J.A. (2002). Strategies of influence in close relationships . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 459-472.

41.

Regan, P.C. , Medina, R. , & Joshi, A. (2001). Partner preferences among homosexual men and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in a romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 625-633.

42.

Sayer, L.C. (2005). Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women's and men's paid work, unpaid work and free time. Social Forces , 84, 285-303.

43.

Schaffer, J.P. (1977). Reorganization of variables in analysis of variance and multidimensional contingency tables. Psychological Bulletin , 84, 220-228.

44.

Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women's movement. Boston: South End.

45.

Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

46.

Sternberg, R.J. , & Barnes, M.L. (1985). Real and ideal others in romantic relationships: Is four a crowd? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 49, 1586-1608.

47.

Thibaut, J.W. , & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

48.

Wegner, D.M. , Erber, R. , & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923-929.

49.

Woody, E. , & Sadler, P. (2005). Structural equation models for interchangeable dyads: Being the same makes a difference. Psychological Methods , 10, 139-158.