Gender Differences in Variability in Intimate Relationship Satisfaction: A Secondary Analysis and Meta-Analysis.

IF 5.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Mark A Whisman, Antonia Balzert
{"title":"Gender Differences in Variability in Intimate Relationship Satisfaction: A Secondary Analysis and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Mark A Whisman, Antonia Balzert","doi":"10.1007/s10567-024-00499-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a long-standing interest in gender differences in satisfaction in intimate relationships. Whereas prior research has focused on gender differences in central tendency (i.e., means), we conducted two studies - a secondary analysis of data from a probability sample of Australian married couples and a meta-analysis - to examine gender differences in variability (i.e., variances). We hypothesized that compared to males, females would demonstrate greater variability in intimate relationship satisfaction (i.e., greater female variability hypothesis), particularly at lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Results from a secondary analysis of data from 2,711 married couples in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey and from a meta-analysis of 20 years of research (k = 171, N = 84,976), including independent samples from 33 countries, indicated that relative to males, females reported greater variability in relationship satisfaction. Obtained effect sizes (female-to-male variance ratios [VRs] of 1.42 for the HILDA sample and 1.19 for the meta-analysis) were larger than proposed cutoffs for meaningful group differences in variability. Analysis of tail ratios (ratios of the relative proportion of females divided by the relative proportion of males in the distributional tail regions) in the HILDA sample indicated that gender differences in variability were greater at lower (versus higher) levels of satisfaction. Findings support the greater female variability hypothesis and suggest that by focusing only on gender differences in means, the existing literature has underestimated gender differences in intimate relationship satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":51399,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-024-00499-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a long-standing interest in gender differences in satisfaction in intimate relationships. Whereas prior research has focused on gender differences in central tendency (i.e., means), we conducted two studies - a secondary analysis of data from a probability sample of Australian married couples and a meta-analysis - to examine gender differences in variability (i.e., variances). We hypothesized that compared to males, females would demonstrate greater variability in intimate relationship satisfaction (i.e., greater female variability hypothesis), particularly at lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Results from a secondary analysis of data from 2,711 married couples in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey and from a meta-analysis of 20 years of research (k = 171, N = 84,976), including independent samples from 33 countries, indicated that relative to males, females reported greater variability in relationship satisfaction. Obtained effect sizes (female-to-male variance ratios [VRs] of 1.42 for the HILDA sample and 1.19 for the meta-analysis) were larger than proposed cutoffs for meaningful group differences in variability. Analysis of tail ratios (ratios of the relative proportion of females divided by the relative proportion of males in the distributional tail regions) in the HILDA sample indicated that gender differences in variability were greater at lower (versus higher) levels of satisfaction. Findings support the greater female variability hypothesis and suggest that by focusing only on gender differences in means, the existing literature has underestimated gender differences in intimate relationship satisfaction.

Abstract Image

亲密关系满意度差异中的性别差异:二次分析和元分析》。
长期以来,人们一直关注亲密关系满意度的性别差异。之前的研究主要集中在中心倾向(即平均值)的性别差异上,而我们进行了两项研究--对澳大利亚已婚夫妇概率样本数据的二次分析和一项荟萃分析--来研究变异性(即方差)的性别差异。我们假设,与男性相比,女性在亲密关系满意度方面会表现出更大的变异性(即女性变异性更大假设),尤其是在关系满意度较低的情况下。对澳大利亚家庭、收入和劳动力动态调查(HILDA)中 2,711 对已婚夫妇数据的二次分析,以及对 20 年研究(k = 171,N = 84,976 )(包括来自 33 个国家的独立样本)的荟萃分析结果表明,与男性相比,女性在关系满意度方面的变异性更大。所获得的效应大小(HILDA 样本的女性与男性变异比 [VRs] 为 1.42,荟萃分析的女性与男性变异比 [VRs] 为 1.19)大于所建议的有意义的变异性群体差异临界值。对 HILDA 样本的尾部比率(分布尾部区域女性相对比例除以男性相对比例的比率)的分析表明,在满意度较低(与较高)的情况下,变异性的性别差异更大。研究结果支持女性变异性更大的假设,并表明由于只关注平均值的性别差异,现有文献低估了亲密关系满意度的性别差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Editors-in-Chief: Dr. Ronald J. Prinz, University of South Carolina and Dr. Thomas H. Ollendick, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that provides an international, interdisciplinary forum in which important and new developments in this field are identified and in-depth reviews on current thought and practices are published. The Journal publishes original research reviews, conceptual and theoretical papers, and related work in the broad area of the behavioral sciences that pertains to infants, children, adolescents, and families. Contributions originate from a wide array of disciplines including, but not limited to, psychology (e.g., clinical, community, developmental, family, school), medicine (e.g., family practice, pediatrics, psychiatry), public health, social work, and education. Topical content includes science and application and covers facets of etiology, assessment, description, treatment and intervention, prevention, methodology, and public policy. Submissions are by invitation only and undergo peer review. The Editors, in consultation with the Editorial Board, invite highly qualified experts to contribute original papers on topics of timely interest and significance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信