{"title":"亲密关系满意度差异中的性别差异:二次分析和元分析》。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Gender Differences in Variability in Intimate Relationship Satisfaction: A Secondary Analysis and Meta-Analysis.
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.
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.