Homogamy in Masculinity–Femininity Is Positively Linked to Relationship Quality in Gay Male Couples from the Czech Republic

Abstract

The main aims of this research were to test the similarity of masculinity–femininity in long-term male same-sex couples from the Czech Republic and to examine whether this similarity predicts higher relationship quality. In Study 1, participants (N = 30) and their partners completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) and the Childhood Gender Nonconformity Scale (CGN). In Study 2, participants (N = 40) and their partners completed DAS and the Gender Diagnosticity Scale (GD). Results showed that the partners were no more alike than individuals paired at random in their CGN or GD, but greater similarity in CGN between partners increased Dyadic Cohesion (r = −.41 [−.71, −.02]) and Affectional Expression (r = −.38 [−.60, −.13]). Our results add to previous evidence showing that similarity in same-sex couples increased relationship quality. Although, on average, gay men were not coupled on the basis of homogamy in gender roles, their relationship quality is linked to the gender egalitarian model rather than to the gender stratified one. Thus, a widespread stereotype suggesting that same-sex partners are divided by different gender roles seems to be, at least in our sample from a Western society, rather incorrect.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Allen, M. P. (1997). Understanding regression analysis. London: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjær, H. (2006). The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Antill, J. K., & Russell, G. (1980). A preliminary comparison between two forms of the Bern Sex-Role Inventory. Australian Psychologist, 15, 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aube, J., & Koestner, R. (1995). Gender characteristics and relationship adjustment: Another look at similarity–complementarity hypotheses. Journal of Personality, 63, 879–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960–973.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baucom, D. H. (1976). Independent masculinity and femininity scales on the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 876.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Baucom, D. H., & Aiken, P. A. (1984). Sex role identity, marital satisfaction, and response to behavioral marital therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 438–444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bereczkei, T., & Csanaky, A. (1996). Mate choice, marital success, and reproduction in a modern society. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 17–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bovet, J., Barthes, J., Durand, V., Raymond, M., & Alvergne, A. (2012). Men’s preferences for women’s facial features: Testing homogamy and the paternity uncertainty hypothesis. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e49791.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Boyden, T., Carroll, J. S., & Maier, R. A. (1984). Similarity and attraction in homosexual males: The effects of age and masculinity–femininity. Sex Roles, 10, 939–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burger, A. L., & Jacobson, N. S. (1979). The relationship between sex role characteristics, couple satisfaction and couple problem-solving skills. American Journal of Family Therapy, 7, 52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Burriss, R. P., Roberts, S. C., Welling, L. L. M., Puts, D. A., & Little, A. C. (2011). Heterosexual romantic couples mate assortatively for facial symmetry, but not masculinity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 601–613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Carballo-Diéguez, A., Dolezal, C., Nieves, L., Díaz, F., Decena, C., & Balan, I. (2004). Looking for a tall, dark, macho man… sexual-role behaviour variations in Latino gay and bisexual men. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 6, 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cardell, M., Finn, S., & Marecek, J. (1981). Sex-role identity, sex-role behavior, and satisfaction in heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male couples. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 488–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Caspi, A., 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, 281–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Courtiol, A., Picq, S., Godelle, B., Raymond, M., & Ferdy, J. B. (2010). From preferred to actual mate characteristics: The case of human body shape. PLoS ONE, 5, e13010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. (2008). Do people know what they want: A similar or complementary partner? Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 595–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis, L., Ratnasingam, M., & Wheeler, M. (2012). Gender, sexual orientation, and occupational interests: Evidence of their interrelatedness. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 64–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Esteve, A., Cortina, C., & Cabre, A. (2009). Long term trends in marital age homogamy patterns: Spain, 1922–2006. Population, 64, 173–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Felmlee, D. H. (2001). From appealing to appalling: Disenchantment with a romantic partner. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Freeman, L. (1955). Homogamy in interethnic mate selection. Sociology and Social Research, 39, 369–377.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 812–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gyuris, P., Járai, R., & Bereczkei, T. (2010). The effect of childhood experiences on mate choice in personality traits: Homogamy and sexual imprinting. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 467–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Harry, J. (1982). Decision making and age differences among gay male couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 8, 9–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jaffe, K., & Chacon-Puignau, G. (1995). Assortative mating: Sex differences in mate selection for married and unmarried couples. Human Biology, 67, 111–120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kalmijn, M., de Graaf, P. M., & Janssen, J. P. (2005). Intermarriage and the risk of divorce in the Netherlands: The effects of differences in religion and in nationality, 1974–94. Population Studies, 59, 71–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kalmijn, M., & Flap, H. (2001). Assortative meeting and mating: Unintended consequences of organized settings for partner choices. Social Forces, 79, 1289–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive—Self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709–722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kratochvíl, S. (2006). Základy psychoterapie. Praha: Portál.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kurdek, L. (1991). The dissolution of gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kurdek, L. A. (1993). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kurdek, L., & Schmitt, J. P. (1987). Partner homogamy in married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian couples. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 212–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lippa, R. A. (2000). Gender-related traits in gay men, lesbian women, and heterosexual men and women: The virtual identity of homosexual–heterosexual diagnosticity and gender diagnosticity. Journal of Personality, 68, 899–926.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lippa, R. A. (2002). Gender-related traits of heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 83–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lippa, R. A. (2008). Sex differences and sexual orientation differences in personality: Findings from the BBC internet survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 173–187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lippa, R. A., & Connelly, S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1051–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lippa, R. A., & Tan, F. (2001). Does culture moderate the relationship between sexual orientation and gender-related personality traits? Cross-Cultural Research, 35, 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Assortative mating for perceived facial personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 973–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Maes, H. H., Neale, M. C., Kendler, K. S., Hewitt, J. K., Silberg, J. L., Foley, D. L., et al. (1998). Assortative mating for major psychiatric diagnoses in two population-based samples. Psychological Medicine, 28, 1389–1401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mannino, C. A., & Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Changing the division of household labor: A negotiated process between partners. Sex Roles, 56, 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. McCrae, R. R., Martin, T. A., Costa, P. T., Hřebíčková, M., Boomsma, D. I., & Willemsen, G. (2008). Personality trait similarity between spouses in four cultures. Journal of Personality, 76, 1137–1164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. McFarland, D. (1975). Models of marriage formation and fertility. Social Forces, 54, 66–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Moskowitz, D. A., & Hart, T. A. (2011). The influence of physical body traits and masculinity on anal sex roles in gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 835–841.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjær, H. (2005). A demographic analysis of registered partnerships (legal same-sex unions): The case of Norway. European Journal of Population, 21, 89–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Partridge, L. (1983). Non-random mating and offspring fitness. In P. Bateson (Ed.), Mate choice (pp. 227–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., & Peirce, J. W. (1999). Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgments of attractiveness. Current Psychology, 18, 104–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1990). A relational perspective on homosexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 321–349). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Peplau, L. A., & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 111–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Peterson, C. D., Baucom, D. H., Elliott, M. J., & Farr, P. A. (1989). The relationship between sex role identity and marital adjustment. Sex Roles, 21, 775–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Phua, V. C. (2002). Sex and sexuality in men’s personal advertisements. Men & Masculinities, 5, 178–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pinto, K. M., & Coltrane, S. (2009). Divisions of labor in Mexican origin and Anglo families: Structure and culture. Sex Roles, 60, 482–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A., Gygax, L., & Bailey, J. M. (2008). Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology, 44, 46–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Kim, B. S. (2005). The independence of young adults and the rise of interracial and same-sex unions. American Sociological Review, 70, 541–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sánchez, F. J., Greenberg, S. T., Liu, W. M., & Vilain, E. (2009). Reported effects of masculine ideals on gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Schwartz, C. R., & Graf, N. L. (2009). Assortative matching among same-sex and different-sex couples in the United States, 1990–2000. Demographic Research, 21, 843–878.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Smith, J. L., & Ruiz, J. M. (2007). Interpersonal orientation in context: Correlates and effects of interpersonal complementarity on subjective and cardiovascular experiences. Journal of Personality, 75, 679–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2005). Money, housework, sex, and conflict: Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings. Sex Roles, 52, 561–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity–femininity. Journal Supplement Abstract Service, 4, 43.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Štěrbová, Z., Bártová, K., Martinec Nováková, L., Varella, M. A. C., Havlíček, J., & Valentova, J. V. (2016). Actual and preferred self-similarity in personality among heterosexual and male homosexual couples across two cultures. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  70. Štěrbová, Z., & Valentová, J. (2012). Influence of homogamy, complementarity, and sexual imprinting on mate choice. Anthropologie, 50, 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Taywaditep, K. J. (2001). Marginalization among the marginalized: Gay men’s anti-effeminacy attitudes. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 1–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Thiessen, D., Young, R. K., & Delgado, M. (1997). Social pressures for assortative mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Todosijevic, J., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, S. E. (2005). Relationship satisfaction, affectivity, and gay-specific stressors in same-sex couples joined in civil unions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Valentova, J. V., Bártová, K., Štěrbová, Z., & Varella, M. A. C. (2016a). Preferred and actual relative height are related to sex, sexual orientation, and dominance: Evidence from Brazil and the Czech Republic. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 145–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Valentova, J. V., Bártová, K., Štěrbová, Z., & Varella, M. A. C. (2017). Influence of sexual orientation, population, homogamy, and imprinting-like effect on preferences and choices for female buttock size, breast size and shape, and WHR. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Valentova, J., Rieger, G., Havlicek, J., Linsenmeier, J. A., & Bailey, J. M. (2011). Judgments of sexual orientation and masculinity–femininity based on thin slices of behavior: A cross-cultural comparison. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1145–1152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Valentova, J. V., Štěrbová, Z., Bártová, K., & Varella, M. A. C. (2016c). Personality of ideal and actual romantic partners among heterosexual and non-heterosexual men and women: A cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences101, 160–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Valentova, J. V., Stulp, G., Třebický, V., & Havlíček, J. (2014). Preferred and actual relative height among homosexual male partners vary with preferred dominance and sex role. PLoS ONE, 9, e86534.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Valentova, J. V., Varella, M. A. C., Bártová, K., Štěrbová, Z., & Dixson, B. J. W. (2016b). Mate preferences and choices for facial and body hair in heterosexual women and homosexual men: Influence of sex, population, homogamy, and imprinting-like effect. Evolution and Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.10.007.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Varella, M. A. C., Valentová, J., Pereira, K. J., Martins, R. A., & Caramaschi, S. (2012). Homogamy preferences for cognitive sex-typicality in women. Anthropologie, 50, 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Verbakel, E., & Kalmijn, M. (2014). Assortative mating among Dutch married and cohabiting same-sex and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wade, J. C., & Donis, E. (2007). Masculinity ideology, male identity, and romantic relationship quality among heterosexual and gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 775–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Weiss, P., & Zvěřina, J. (2001). Sexuální chování v ČR: situace a trendy. Praha: Portál.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Weisshaar, K. (2014). Earnings equality and relationship stability for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Social Forces, 93, 93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Wester, S. R., Pionke, D. R., & Vogel, D. L. (2005). Male gender role conflict, gay men, and same-sex romantic relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Winch, R. F., Ktsanes, T., & Ktsanes, V. (1954). The theory of complementary needs in mate-selection: An analytic and descriptive study. American Sociological Review, 19, 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this article was supported by the project “Sustainability for the National Institute of Mental Health,” under Grant Number LO1611, with a financial support from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under the NPU I program. LMN and KB were supported by the Charles University Research Centre (UNCE 204004) and by the PRVOUK Program (Programy rozvoje vědních oblastí na Univerzitě Karlově v Praze) P20 at the Faculty of Humanities, Charles University within the Institutional Support for Long-Term Development of Research Organizations from the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. KB and JB were supported by the Grant agency of the Czech Republic (GA16-18891S). We owe our thanks to Timothy J. Wells for English proof-reading. We would also like to thank to all participants and reviewers for valuable advices and comments during the writing of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klára Bártová.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 90 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOC 79 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bártová, K., Štěrbová, Z., Martinec Nováková, L. et al. Homogamy in Masculinity–Femininity Is Positively Linked to Relationship Quality in Gay Male Couples from the Czech Republic. Arch Sex Behav 46, 1349–1359 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0931-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Male same-sex couples
  • Relationship quality
  • Assortative mating
  • Gender roles
  • Sexual orientation