1. 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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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).

7. 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%)

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. REFERENCES
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. Retrieved from 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,
Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (1999). The correlational analysis of dyadic- level data in the distinguishable case. Personal Relationships, 6, 449– 469. doi: /j tb00203.x
Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. W. (2002). Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. Journal of Personality, 70, 901–924. doi: /
Griffin, D. W., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430–445. doi: /
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 ). 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 ). 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.
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.
Kenny, D. A. (2015). Dyadic analysis. Retrieved June 5, 2016, from
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294. doi: /
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339–348. doi: /
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2011). Bibliography of actor–partner interdependence model. Retrieved from
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.
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–
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 ). 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 ). 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– X

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