Sex Roles

, Volume 12, Issue 1–2, pp 195–206 | Cite as

A longitudinal comparison of couples with sex-typical and non-sex-typical orientations to intimacy

  • Timothy D. Stephen
  • Teresa M. Harrison


The present study was designed to investigate the relationship experience of males and females who do not conform to sex-typical orientations to intimacy. One hundred sixty-three couples' and 88 nondating singles' (total N=414) responses to the Relationship World Index—Version 2 (RWI-2) were analyzed via discriminant analysis to determine if subjects' sex could be predicted accurately upon the basis of their RWI-2 scores. One discriminant function was found which was significant by the Wilks' lambda test [x2(60)=140.57, p<.001]; the procedure correctly classified 76% of the respondents. Those who were classified correctly were considered sex-typical and the remaining 24% of the sample was considered non-sex-typical in their orientations to intimacy. Additional analyses using data from a 6-month longitudinal study located qualities which significantly distinguished sex-typical from non-sex-typical subjects and couples in which at least one member was non-sex-typical from couples in which both members were classified as sex-typical.


Longitudinal Study Social Psychology Discriminant Analysis Additional Analysis Discriminant Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bem, D., & Funder, D. Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 485–501.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 4, 634–643.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books, 1967.Google Scholar
  4. Bernard, J. The future of marriage, New York: World, 1972.Google Scholar
  5. Blaker, R., & Pederson, T. Control and self-confidence as reflected in sex-bound patterns of communication: An experimental approach. Acta Sociologica, 1980, 23, 33–53.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanen, D., Juhnke, R., & Goldman, M. Violation of personal space as a function of sex. Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 99, 187–192.Google Scholar
  7. Chodorow, N. Oedipal asymmetries and heterosexual knots. Social Problems, 1976, 23, 454–468.Google Scholar
  8. Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1982, 3, 11–27.Google Scholar
  9. Dawkins, R. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Derlega, V., & Chaikin, A. Norms affecting self-disclosure in men and women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 376–380.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, G. Small groups and culture creation: The idioculture of little league baseball teams. American Sociological Review, 1979, 44, 735–745.Google Scholar
  12. Foa, U., & Foa, E. Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. Freud, S. A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York: Pocket Books, 1920/1963.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkins, J., Weisberg, C., & Ray, D. Spouse differences in communication style: Preference, perception, behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1980, 42, 585–593.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, C., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. Break-ups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, 147–168.Google Scholar
  16. Hill, C., Rubin, Z., Peplau, L., & Willard, S. The volunteer couple: Sex differences, couple commitment, and participation in research on interpersonal relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1979, 42, 415–420.Google Scholar
  17. Hoffman, M. Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 712–722.Google Scholar
  18. Hollingshead, A., & Redlich, F. Social class and mental illness. New York: John Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  19. Holtzner, B., & Marx, J. Knowledge application: The knowledge system in society. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. Isenhart, M. An investigation of the relationship of sex and sex roles to the ability to decode nonverbal cues. Human Communication Research, 1980, 6, 309–318.Google Scholar
  21. Jourard, S. Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1971.Google Scholar
  22. Jung, C. Psyche and symbol. New York: Anchor Books, 1958.Google Scholar
  23. Kelley, H., & Thibaut, J. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: John Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. Kenevan, P. Eros, logos and androgyny. Psychological Perspectives, 1981, 12, 8–21.Google Scholar
  25. Kravetz, D., & Jones, L. Androgyny as a standard of mental health. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1981, 51, 502–509.Google Scholar
  26. Levinger, G., & Senn, D. Disclosure of feelings in marriage. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1967, 13, 237–249.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, R. The dyadic formation inventory: An instrument for measuring heterosexual couple development. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 1973, 2, 207–216.Google Scholar
  28. Locke, H., & Wallace, K. Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 1959, 21, 251–255.Google Scholar
  29. Mehrabian, A. Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 359–372.Google Scholar
  30. Murstein, B. Who will marry whom? Theories and research in marital choice. New York: Springer, 1976.Google Scholar
  31. Nguyen, T., Heslin, R., & Nguyen, M. The meanings of touch: Sex differences. Journal of Communication, 1975, 25, 92–103.Google Scholar
  32. Rubin, Z., Hill, C., Peplau, L., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. Self-disclosure in dating couples: Sex roles and the ethic of openness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1980, 42, 305–317.Google Scholar
  33. Safilios-Rothschild, C. Love, sex, and sex roles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  34. Stephen, T. Orientations to intimacy: Effects of sex and length of relationship. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender, Athens, Ohio, October 1982.Google Scholar
  35. Stephen, T., & Markman, H. Assessing the development of relationships: A new measure. Family Process, 1983, 22, 15–25.Google Scholar
  36. Stephen, T., Markman, H., & Enholm, D. Correlates of adjustment in steady dating and marital relationships. A paper presented a+ the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico, May 1980.Google Scholar
  37. Symons, D. The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  38. Trivers, R. Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine, 1972.Google Scholar
  39. White, G. Jealousy and perceived motives for attraction to a rival. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1981, 44, 24–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy D. Stephen
    • 1
  • Teresa M. Harrison
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Speech CommunicationWest Virginia UniversityMorgantown
  2. 2.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteUSA

Personalised recommendations