Suppr超能文献

“你也会完成这份调查吗?”关系研究中个体样本与对偶样本的差异。

"Will you complete this survey too?" Differences between individual versus dyadic samples in relationship research.

机构信息

Center for Family Research, University of Georgia.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia.

出版信息

J Fam Psychol. 2020 Mar;34(2):196-203. doi: 10.1037/fam0000583. Epub 2019 Aug 5.

Abstract

This study examines the ways in which collecting data from individuals versus couples affects the characteristics of the resulting sample in basic research studies of romantic relationships. From a nationally representative sample of 1,294 individuals in a serious romantic relationship, approximately half of whom were randomly selected to invite their partner to participate in the study, we compare relationship, individual, and demographic characteristics among 3 groups: individuals randomized to invite their partner and whose partner participated in the study, individuals randomized to invite their partner but whose partner did not participate, and individuals who were not randomized to invite their partner. Results indicated that individuals whose partner participated reported the highest levels of relationship and individual well-being relative to comparison groups, as well as individuals who participated alone despite being asked to invite their partner, reported the lowest levels of relationship and individual well-being relative to comparison groups. Effect size magnitudes indicated the strongest group differences with respect to relationship variables, particularly cognitive appraisals of overall relationship stability and satisfaction. Implications for romantic relationship research and study design are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

本研究考察了从个体和夫妻双方收集数据的方式如何影响浪漫关系基础研究中样本的特征。我们从一个全国代表性的 1294 名处于认真恋爱关系中的个体样本中选取了大约一半的个体进行随机抽样,邀请他们的伴侣参与研究,比较了 3 组人群的关系、个体和人口统计学特征:随机邀请伴侣并邀请成功的个体、随机邀请伴侣但伴侣未参与的个体、以及未被邀请伴侣的个体。结果表明,相对于对照组,其伴侣参与研究的个体报告的关系和个体幸福感水平最高,而尽管被要求邀请伴侣但实际并未邀请的个体报告的关系和个体幸福感水平最低。与对照组相比,效应量大小表明关系变量存在最强的组间差异,特别是对整体关系稳定性和满意度的认知评价。对浪漫关系研究和研究设计的启示进行了讨论。(APA,2020,所有权利保留)。

相似文献

1
"Will you complete this survey too?" Differences between individual versus dyadic samples in relationship research.
J Fam Psychol. 2020 Mar;34(2):196-203. doi: 10.1037/fam0000583. Epub 2019 Aug 5.
2
Relationships between body image, sexual satisfaction, and relationship quality in romantic couples.
J Fam Psychol. 2018 Jun;32(4):466-474. doi: 10.1037/fam0000407. Epub 2018 Mar 8.
6
Attachment styles, social behavior, and personality functioning in romantic relationships.
Personal Disord. 2019 May;10(3):275-285. doi: 10.1037/per0000317. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
7
Partner dissimilarity in life satisfaction: Stability and change, correlates, and outcomes.
Psychol Aging. 2016 Jun;31(4):327-39. doi: 10.1037/pag0000096.
8
Trait Mindfulness and Relationship Satisfaction: The Role of Forgiveness Among Couples.
J Marital Fam Ther. 2021 Jan;47(1):196-207. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12440. Epub 2020 Jun 19.
10
Trait Emotional Intelligence and Relationship Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Dyadic Coping.
J Psychol. 2020;154(1):75-93. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2019.1661343. Epub 2019 Sep 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Low Power and High Psychopathy: A Toxic Combination for Psychological Aggression.
Aggress Behav. 2025 Sep;51(5):e70045. doi: 10.1002/ab.70045.
2
Unraveling the Experience of Affection Across Marital and Friendship Interactions.
Affect Sci. 2024 Sep 25;6(1):104-116. doi: 10.1007/s42761-024-00277-7. eCollection 2025 Mar.
3
Prevalence and predictors of help-seeking steps in a nationally representative Dutch sample of romantic couples.
Fam Process. 2025 Mar;64(1):e13074. doi: 10.1111/famp.13074. Epub 2024 Oct 29.
6
The protective effects of perceived gratitude and expressed gratitude for relationship quality among African American couples.
J Soc Pers Relat. 2023 May;40(5):1622-1644. doi: 10.1177/02654075221131288. Epub 2022 Oct 4.
7
Does income moderate basic relationship processes?
J Marriage Fam. 2023 Feb;85(1):72-91. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12877. Epub 2022 Aug 12.
10
Changes in couple, parenting, and individual functioning following Family Expectations program participation.
J Marital Fam Ther. 2023 Jan;49(1):169-185. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12613. Epub 2022 Sep 24.

本文引用的文献

1
The effect of depression on the decision to join a clinical trial.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2017 Jul;85(7):751-756. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000212. Epub 2017 Apr 10.
2
Couple Resilience to Economic Pressure Over Time and Across Generations.
J Marriage Fam. 2016 Apr 1;78(2):326-345. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12284. Epub 2016 Feb 5.
3
With a little help from our friends: couple social integration in marriage.
J Fam Psychol. 2014 Dec;28(6):986-91. doi: 10.1037/fam0000038.
5
A Longitudinal Investigation of Commitment Dynamics in Cohabiting Relationships.
J Fam Issues. 2012 Mar 1;33(3):369-390. doi: 10.1177/0192513X11420940. Epub 2011 Sep 15.
6
The Revised Commitment Inventory: Psychometrics and Use with Unmarried Couples.
J Fam Issues. 2011 Jun;32(6):820-841. doi: 10.1177/0192513X10385788. Epub 2010 Oct 18.
7
The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: cross-sectional and longitudinal findings.
J Fam Psychol. 2012 Jun;26(3):348-58. doi: 10.1037/a0028316. Epub 2012 Apr 30.
8
Sexual agreements among gay male couples.
Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Jun;39(3):774-87. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9393-2. Epub 2008 Aug 7.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验