Gender Differences in the Structure of Marital Quality
- 62 Downloads
Marriages consist of shared experiences and interactions between husbands and wives that may lead to different impressions of the quality of the relationship. Few studies, unfortunately, have tested gender differences in the structure of marital quality, and even fewer studies have evaluated whether genetic and environmental influences on marital quality differ across gender. In this study, we evaluated gender differences in the structure of marital quality using independent samples of married male (n = 2406) and married female (n = 2215) participants from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States who provided ratings on twenty-eight marital quality items encompassing six marital quality constructs. We further explored gender differences in genetic and environmental influences on marital quality constructs in a subsample of 491 pairs of twins. Results suggest partial metric invariance across gender but structural variability in marital quality constructs. Notably, correlations between constructs were stronger in women than men. Results also support gender differences in the genetic and environmental influences on different aspects of marital quality. We discuss that men and women may approach and react to marriage differently as the primary reason why we observed differences in the structure of marital quality.
KeywordsMarital quality Gender differences Psychometric Structural equation modeling Behavioral genetics
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Christopher R. Beam, Katherine Marcus, Eric Turkheimer, Robert E. Emery declare that they have no competing interests.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Virginia.
Human and animal rights
No experimental animals were used in the study.
- Baucom D, Notarius CI, Burnett C, Haefner P (1990) Gender differences and sex-role identity in marriage. In: Fincham FD, Bradbury TN (eds) The psychology of marriage: basic issues and applications. Guilford Press, New York, p 150–171Google Scholar
- Brim OG, Ryff CD, Kessler RC (2004) The MIDUS national survey: an overview. In: Brim OG, Ryff CD, Kessler RC (eds) How healthy are we? A national study of well-being at midlife. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–36Google Scholar
- Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (1999) Testing factorial invariance across groups: a reconceptualization and proposed new method. J Manag 25:1–27Google Scholar
- Enders CK (2010) Applied missing data analysis. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Horwitz BN, Marceau K, Neiderhiser JM (2011) Family relationship influences on development: what can we learn from genetic research? In: Kendler KS, Jaffee SR, Romer D (eds) The dynamic genome and mental health: the role of genes and environments in youth development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 128–144Google Scholar
- Hu L, Bentler PM (1995) Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Impett EA, Peplau LA (2006) “His” and “her” relationships? A review of the empirical evidence. In: Vangelisti A, Perlman D (eds) The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 884–904Google Scholar
- Jacobson N, Margolin G (1979) Marital therapy: strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principles. Brunner/Mazel, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kessler RC, Gilman SE, Thornton LM, Kendler KS (2004) Health, well-being, and social responsibility in the MIDUS twin and sibling subsamples. In: Brim OG, Ryff CD, Kessler RC (eds) How healthy are we? A national study of well-being at midlife. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 124–152Google Scholar
- Kline RB (2016) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4th edn. Guilford Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
- McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: a unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
- Millsap RE (2011) Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2017) Mplus user’s guide, 8th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
- Nesselroade JR, Estabrook R (2010) Factor invariance, measurement, and studying development over the lifespan. In: Hertzog C, Bosworth H (eds) Festschrift honoring K. Warner Schaie. American Psychological Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Nesselroade JR, Molenaar PCM (2016) Some behaviorial science measurement concerns and proposals. Multivar Behav Res 3171:1–17Google Scholar
- Nesselroade JR, Gerstorf D, Hardy SA, Ram N (2007) Idiographic filters for psychological constructs. Measurement 5:217–235Google Scholar
- Sabourin S, Bouchard GU, Wright J et al (1988) The influence of sex on the factorial invariance of the dyadic adjustment scale. Sci Comport 18:187–201Google Scholar
- Turliuc MN, Muraru AA (2013) Psychometric properties of the revised dyadic adjustment scale on a sample of married adults. J Psychol Educ Res 21:49–76Google Scholar
- Wood W, Eagly AH (2012) Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In: Olson JM, Zanna MP (eds) Advances in experimental social psychology, 1st edn. Academic Press, Bulington, p 55–123Google Scholar