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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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.

  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.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy D. Stephen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stephen, T.D., Harrison, T.M. A longitudinal comparison of couples with sex-typical and non-sex-typical orientations to intimacy. Sex Roles 12, 195–206 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288047

Download citation

Keywords

  • Longitudinal Study
  • Social Psychology
  • Discriminant Analysis
  • Additional Analysis
  • Discriminant Function