Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There has been increasing interest in the analysis of dyadic data. While there is ongoing progress in the development of statistically fine-grained methods to model complex dyadic data, many studies examine relationship duration in dyads using cross-sectional data (e.g., when testing the effects of acquaintanceship on the accuracy of personality judgments). We discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of analyzing and interpreting time-based variables in dyadic research on basis of the cross-sectional and longitudinal design approaches. We give examples from the literature on romantic relationships and interpersonal perception. Finally, we derive recommendations on addressing questions of time-based indexes in dyadic research and discuss advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

Keywords

Dyadic data analysis relationship duration relationship length study design cross-sectional longitudinal interpersonal perception romantic relationships

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baltes

P. B.

(1968). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and generation effects. Human Development, 11(3), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1159/000270604

Beer

(2020). Information as a moderator of accuracy in personality judgment. In Letzring

T.D.

Spain

J.S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgments (pp. 132–148). OUP. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190912529.013.9

Bierstetel

S. J.

Farrell

A. K.

Briskin

J. L.

Harvey

M. W.

Gable

S. L.

Ickes

Lin

W.-F.

Orina

M. M.

Saxbe

Simpson

J. A.

V. P.

Slatcher

R. B.

(2020). Associations between language style matching and relationship commitment and satisfaction: An integrative data analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(8–9), 2459–2481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520923754

Biesanz

J. C.

West

S. G.

Millevoi

(2007). What do you learn about someone over time? The relationship between length of acquaintance and consensus and self-other agreement in judgments of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.119

Brauer

Proyer

R. T.

(2020). Dyadic effects. In Zeigler-Hill

Shackelford

T.K.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1222–1226). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_656-1

Brown

J. A.

Bernieri

(2017). Trait perception accuracy and acquaintance within groups: Tracking accuracy development. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(5), 716–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217695557

Caspi

Herbener

E. S.

Ozer

D. J.

(1992). Shared experiences and the similarity of personalities: A longitudinal study of married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.62.2.281

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583-619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356.

10.

Fallis

E. E.

Rehman

U. S.

Woody

E. Z.

Purdon

(2016). The longitudinal association of relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(7), 822–831. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000205

11.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

12.

Ferguson

L. W.

(1949). The value of acquaintance ratings in criterion research. Personnel Psychology, 2(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1949.tb01673.x

13.

Galambos

N. L.

Krahn

H. J.

Johnson

M. D.

Lachman

M. E.

(2020). The U shape of happiness across the life course: Expanding the discussion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 898–912. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691620902428

14.

Gistelinck

Loeys

(2019). The actor–partner interdependence model for longitudinal dyadic data: An implementation in the SEM framework. Structural Equation Modeling, 26(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1527223

15.

Gorchoff

S. M.

John

O. P.

Helson

(2008). Contextualizing change in marital satisfaction during middle age: An 18-year longitudinal study. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1194–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02222.x

16.

Gray

J. S.

Ozer

D. J.

(2019). Comparing two models of dyadic change: Correlated growth versus common fate. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(7), 957–965. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618799066

17.

Greenwald

A. G.

(1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), 314–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.2.314

18.

Heck

R. H.

Thomas

S. L.

(2009). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques (2nd ed.). Routledge.

19.

Heiman

J. R.

Long

J. S.

Smith

S. N.

Fisher

W. A.

Sand

M. S.

Rosen

R. C.

(2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(4), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9703-3

20.

Joel

Eastwick

P. W.

Allison

C. J.

Arriaga

X. B.

Baker

Z. G.

Bar-Kalifa

Bergeron

Birnbaum

G. E.

Brock

R. L.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

Carmichael

C. L.

Chen

Clarke

Cobb

R. J.

Coolsen

M. K.

Davis

de Jong

D. C.

Debrot

DeHaas

E. C

Wolf

(2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061–19071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117

21.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

22.

Kenny

D. A.

(2020). Interpersonal perception (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

23.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. S.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

24.

Kerr

L. G.

Tissera

McClure

M. J.

Lydon

J. E.

Back

M. D.

Human

L. J.

(2020). Blind at first sight: The role of distinctively accurate and positive first impressions in romantic interest. Psychological Science, 31(6), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620919674

25.

Kurtz

J. E.

Sherker

J. L.

(2003). Relationship quality, trait similarity, and self‐other agreement on personality ratings in college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.t01-1-00005

26.

Lafit

Sels

Adolf

J. K.

Loeys

Ceulemans

(2021, June 29). PowerLAPIM: An application to conduct power analysis for longitudinal actor-partner interdependence models that include quadratic effects. PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mnce4

27.

Lane

S. P.

Hennes

E. P.

(2018). Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel relationships research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517710342

28.

Latagne

Furman

(2017). Romantic relationship development: The interplay between age and relationship length. Developmental Psychology, 53(9), 1738–1749. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000363.

29.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2017). Acquaintanceship and self/observer agreement in personality judgment. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.05.001.

30.

Lee

T. K.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

O'Neal

C. W.

(2021). Modeling longitudinal dyadic processes in family research. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(7), 994–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000862

31.

Lenhausen

M. R.

van Scheppingen

M. A.

Bleidorn

(2021). Self–other agreement in personality development in romantic couples. European Journal of Personality, 35(6), 797–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020969011

32.

Luo

(2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality Compass, 11(8), Article e12337. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337

33.

Maxwell

S. E.

Cole

D. A.

(2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44. https://doi.org10.1037/1082-989x.12.1.23

34.

Maxwell

S. E.

Cole

D. A.

Mitchell

M. A.

(2012). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 816–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.606716.

35.

Mund

Johnson

M. D.

(2021). Lonely me, lonely you: Loneliness and the longitudinal course of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(2), 575–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00241-9

36.

Mund

Nestler

(2019). Beyond the Cross-Lagged Panel Model: Next-generation statistical tools for analyzing interdependencies across the life course. Advances in Life Course Research, 41, 100249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2018.10.002.

37.

Nestler

Geukes

Hutteman

Back

M. D.

(2017). Tackling longitudinal round-robin data: A Social Relations Growth Model. Psychometrika, 82(4), 1162–1181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9546-5

38.

Park

Kraus

Ryan

C. S.

(1997). Longitudinal changes in consensus as a function of acquaintance and agreement in liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 604–616. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.604

39.

Proulx

C. M.

Helms

H. M.

Buehler

(2007). Marital quality and personal well‐being: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x

40.

Pusch

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Zygar-Hoffmann

Hagemeyer

(2021). Perception of communal motives in couples: Accuracy, bias, and their associations with relationship length. Journal of Research in Personality, 91, 104060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104060.

41.

Roberts

B. W.

Walton

K. E.

Viechtbauer

(2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1

42.

Schneider

Schimmack

Petrican

Walker

(2010). Acquaintanceship length as a moderator of self-informant agreement in life-satisfaction ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 146–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.11.004

43.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Humberg

Nestler

(2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(6), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2169

44.

Shrout

P. E.

Stadler

Lane

S. P.

McClure

M. J.

Jackson

G. L.

Clavél

F. D.

Iida

Gleason

M. E. J.

J. H.

Bolger

(2018). Initial elevation bias in subjective reports. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(1), E15–E23. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712277115

45.

Terman

L. M.

(1938). Psychological factors in marital happiness. McGraw-Hill.

46.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Donnellan

M. B.

Lucas

R. E.

(2011). Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists. APA. https://doi.org/10.1037/12350-000

47.

Vaillant

C. O.

Vaillant

G. E.

(1993). Is the U-Curve of marital satisfaction an illusion? A 40-year study of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(1), 230–239. https://doi.org/10.2307/352971

48.

Watson

Hubbard

Wiese

(2000). Self–other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.546

49.

Weigel

D. J.

Ballard‐Reisch

D. S.

(1999). The influence of marital duration on the use of relationship maintenance behaviors. Communication Reports, 12(2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219909367711