Distinguishing Indistinguishable Dyads: An Example using Same-Sex Couples Claire A. Wood1, Heather M. Helms2, & W. Roger Mills-Koonce2 Missouri Institute of Mental Health, The University of Missouri – St. Louis The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Objectives LITERATURE REVIEW 1 2 3 4 Describe distinguishability including terminology, challenges, and application in current literature Highlight the application of purposeful distinguishability Provide an empirical example of distinguishing indistinguishable dyads using same-sex and transgender couples Discuss the implications of distinguishability 1 2 3 4

What is distinguishability? LITERATURE REVIEW What is distinguishability? Terminology Indistinguishable, interchangeable, exchangeable Dyads typically considered distinguishable versus indistinguishable Conceptual versus empirical distinguishability Conceptual but not empirical distinguishability Selected References: Griffin & Gonzalez, (1995); Kenny, (2015); Kenny & Ledermann, (2010); Olsen & Kenny (2006); Selig, McNamara, Card, & Little (2008); Woody & Sadler, (2005)

Empirical Distinguishability LITERATURE REVIEW Empirical Distinguishability m, v i, ev Person 1 Variable X Person 1 Variable Y a e p p Person 2 Variable X Person 2 Variable Y e a m, v i, ev

Applying distinguishability LITERATURE REVIEW Applying distinguishability Application to same-sex couples Transcend heteronormative approaches Distinguishing on a variable relevant to the research question Application to other dyads Empirical distinguishability assessed in some literature on heterosexual couples Distinguishing on a variable aside from gender

Current Study Example of the applicability of distinguishing between partners (a how-to so to speak) Role of femininity in romantic relationships Expressivity/Femininity Hypotheses Construct definition and examples Links between relationship quality and relationship commitment Social Exchange Theory Bem, (1974); Burger & Jacobsen, (1979); Huston & Houts, (1998); Ickes, (1985); Lamke, (1989).

Participants METHODOLOGY Data were collected in 2014 and 2015 from same-sex and transgender couples throughout the United States using web-based surveys Analytic sample: 156 couples from which data were collected from both partners Participant characteristics 33.58 years (SD = 9.40) Associate’s degree 66% were childfree 42% were legally married Predominantly White (83%)

Measures METHODOLOGY Construct Scale Reliability Citation Femininity More Feminine Partner Less Feminine Partner Femininity Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI)-Short (10-Items) α = .84 α = .87 Bem (1981) Relationship Quality Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; 6-Items) α = .97 Norton (1983) Relationship Commitment Dimensions of Commitment Inventory (12-Items) α = .70 α = .76 Adams & Jones (1997)

Assessing Empirical Distinguishability RESULTS Assessing Empirical Distinguishability m, v i, ev Relationship Quality Relationship Commitment a e p p Relationship Quality Relationship Commitment e a m, v Model Fit: χ2 = 25.26, df = 6, p < .001 RMSEA = .14, 90% CI [.09, .20] CFI = .70 i, ev

Correlational and Descriptive Statistics RESULTS Correlational and Descriptive Statistics More Feminine Partner Less Feminine Partner Paired T-Test Femininity 6.75 (.36) 5.97 (.75) p < .001 Relationship Quality 6.61 (1.21) 6.42 (1.41) p = .098 Relationship Commitment 3.79 (.48) 3.70 (.56) p = .071

Correlational and Descriptive Statistics RESULTS Correlational and Descriptive Statistics Pairwise Intraclass Correlation (Indistinguishable Dyads) Bivariate Correlation (Distinguishable Dyads) Femininity -.04 .50 Relationship Quality .41 .42 Relationship Commitment .35 .36 Relationship Quality Indistinguishable Couples Distinguishable Couples Pairwise Correlations More Feminine Partner Less Feminine Partner Actor Partner Relationship Commitment .35 .24 .22 .42 .45 .10

Correlational and Descriptive Statistics RESULTS Correlational and Descriptive Statistics Pairwise Intraclass Correlation (Indistinguishable Dyads) Bivariate Correlation (Distinguishable Dyads) Femininity -.04 .50 Relationship Quality .41 .42 Relationship Commitment .35 .36 Relationship Quality Indistinguishable Couples Distinguishable Couples Pairwise Correlations More Feminine Partner Less Feminine Partner Actor Partner Relationship Commitment .35 .24 .22 .42 .45 .10 .42 = mfp rq with lfp rc .10 = lfp rq with mfp rq

Relationship Commitment .64*** (.40) .08* (.20) Relationship Quality Relationship Commitment .18+ (.19) .60* (.24) .23** (.31) Couple Femininity .07*** (.31) Femininity Discrepancy .12** (.26) Relationship Quality Relationship Commitment .14*** (.34) Model Fit: χ2 = 25.26, df = 6, p < .001 RMSEA = .14, 90% CI [.09, .20] CFI = .70

Conclusions DISCUSSION Substantive interpretation ONE partner effect: relationship quality for the more feminine partner relationship commitment for the less feminine partner Methodological/Statistical Implications Ability to distinguish “interchangeable” dyads Distinguishing added to substantive interpretation Particularly important for research with same-sex couples

Implications for Research DISCUSSION Implications for Research Reshape how we think about research with dyads Partners can be distinguished based on a variable relevant to the research question Application to dyads traditionally considered distinguishable AND indistinguishable

REFERENCES Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/925154 Burger, A. L., & Jacobson, N. S. (1979). The relationship between sex role characteristics, couple satisfaction and couple problem-solving skills. American Journal of Family Therapy, 7, 52-60. Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (1999). The correlational analysis of dyadic- level data in the distinguishable case. Personal Relationships, 6, 449– 469. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00203.x Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. W. (2002). Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. Journal of Personality, 70, 901–924. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05027 Griffin, D. W., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430–445. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.430 Huston, T. L. & Houts, R. M. (1998). The psychological infrastructure of courtship and marriage: The role of personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 114-151). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 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). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kashy, D. A., & Snyder, D. K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 338–348. http://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.338 Kenny, D. A, & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–66. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019651 Kenny, D. A. (2015). Dyadic analysis. Retrieved June 5, 2016, from http://www.davidakenny.net/dyad.htm Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294. doi:10.1177/0265407596132007 Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339–348. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.339 Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2011). Bibliography of actor–partner interdependence model. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/doc/apimbiblio.pdf Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127–141. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127 Sadler, P., Ethier, N., & Woody, E. (2011). Tracing the interpersonal web of psychopathology: dyadic data analysis methods for clinical researchers. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 2, 95–138. http://doi.org/10.5127/jep.010310 Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80– 96. Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2008). It takes two: A dyadic, SEM-based perspective on personality development. In N. A. Card, J. P. Selig, & T. D. Little (Eds.), Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 139-163). New York, NY: Routledge. Selig, J. P., McNamara, K. A., Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2008). Techniques for modeling dependency in interchangeable dyads. In N. A. Card, J. P. Selig, & T. D. Little (Eds.), Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 191-212). New York, NY: Routledge. Woody, E., & Sadler, P. (2005). Structural equation models for interchangeable dyads: Being the same makes a difference. Psychological Methods, 10, 139–58. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989X.10.2.139

Acknowledgements DISCUSSION 156 participating couples NAFS is funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant #1K01 HD075833-01 PI: Roger Mills-Koonce.