Previous research suggests that the personality of a relationship partner predicts not only the individual’s own satisfaction with the relationship but also the partner’s satisfaction. Based on the actor–partner interdependence model, the present research tested whether actor and partner effects of personality are biased when the same method (e.g., self-report) is used for the assessment of personality and relationship satisfaction and, consequently, shared method variance is not controlled for. Data came from 186 couples, of whom both partners provided self- and partner reports on the Big Five personality traits. Depending on the research design, actor effects were larger than partner effects (when using only self-reports), smaller than partner effects (when using only partner reports), or of about the same size as partner effects (when using self- and partner reports). The findings attest to the importance of controlling for shared method variance in dyadic data analysis.
AckermanR. A.DonnellanM. B.KashyD. A. (2011). Working with dyadic data in studies of emerging adulthood: Specific recommendations, general advice, and practical tips. In FinchamF. D.CuiM. (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 67-97). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AllisonP. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545-557.
3.
BareldsD. P. H. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19, 501-518.
4.
BidermanM. D.NguyenN. T.CunninghamC. J. L.GhorbaniN. (2011). The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 417-429.
5.
BotwinM. D.BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107-136.
6.
BusbyD. M.GardnerB. C. (2008). How do I analyze thee? Let me count the ways: Considering empathy in couple relationships using self and partner ratings. Family Process, 47, 229-242.
7.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
8.
ColeD. A.MaxwellS. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558-577.
9.
CoteJ. A.BuckleyM. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315-318.
10.
CundiffJ. M.SmithT. W.FrandsenC. A. (2012). Incremental validity of spouse ratings versus self-reports of personality as predictors of marital quality and behavior during marital conflict. Psychological Assessment, 24, 676-684.
11.
DeYoungC. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138-1151.
12.
DinkelA.BalckF. (2006). Psychometrische Analyse der deutschen Dyadic Adjustment Scale [Psychometric analysis of the German Dyadic Adjustment Scale]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 214, 1-9.
13.
DonnellanM. B.AssadK. K.RobinsR. W.CongerR. D. (2007). Do negative interactions mediate the effects of negative emotionality, communal positive emotionality, and constraint on relationship satisfaction?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 557-573.
14.
DonnellanM. B.CongerR. D.BryantC. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481-504.
15.
DyrenforthP. S.KashyD. A.DonnellanM. B.LucasR. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 690-702.
16.
EidM.LischetzkeT.NussbeckF. W.TrierweilerL. I. (2003). Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C(M-1) model. Psychological Methods, 8, 38-60.
17.
ErolR. Y.OrthU. (2013). Actor and partner effects of self-esteem on relationship satisfaction and the mediating role of secure attachment between the partners. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 26-35.
18.
HellerD.WatsonD.IliesR. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574-600.
19.
HeymanR. E.SayersS. L.BellackA. S. (1994). Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical comparison of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 432-446.
20.
HochS. J. (1987). Perceived consensus and predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 221-234.
21.
HofsteeW. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality?European Journal of Personality, 8, 149-162.
22.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
23.
JohnO. P.DonahueE. M.KentleR. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory: Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
24.
JohnO. P.NaumannL. P.SotoC. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford.
25.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551.
26.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206-219.
27.
KennyD. A.AcitelliL. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 439-448.
28.
KennyD. A.CookW. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.
29.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165-172.
30.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
31.
KennyD. A.LedermannT. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359-366.
KlannN.HahlwegK.HeinrichsN. (2003). Diagnostische Verfahren für die Beratung [Assessment instruments in counseling psychology]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
34.
KolarD. W.FunderD. C.ColvinC. R. (1996). Comparing the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of Personality, 64, 312-337.
35.
KrasikovaD. V.LeBretonJ. M. (2012). Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 739-757.
36.
KwanV. S. Y.JohnO. P.KennyD. A.BondM. H.RobinsR. W. (2004). Reconceptualizing individual differences in self-enhancement bias: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111, 94-110.
37.
LangF. R.LüdtkeO.AsendorpfJ. B. (2001). Testgüte und psychometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen [Validity and psychometric equivalence of the German version of the Big Five Inventory in young, middle-aged, and old adults]. Diagnostica, 47, 111-121.
38.
LedermannT.MachoS.KennyD. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 595-612.
39.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.
40.
LuoS.ChenH.YueG.ZhangG.ZhaoyangR.XuD. (2008). Predicting marital satisfaction from self, partner, and couple characteristics: Is it me, you, or us?Journal of Personality, 76, 1231-1265.
41.
MacCallumR. C.AustinJ. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.
42.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.CaiL. (2006). Testing differences between nested covariance structure models: Power analysis and null hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 11, 19-35.
43.
MalouffJ. M.ThorsteinssonE. B.SchutteN. S.BhullarN.RookeS. E. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 124-127.
44.
MatthewsL. S.CongerR. D.WickramaK. A. S. (1996). Work-family conflict and marital quality: Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 62-79.
45.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.
46.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 599-620.
47.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide: Sixth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
48.
NeyerF. J.BanseR.AsendorpfJ. B. (1999). The role of projection and empathic accuracy in dyadic perception between older twins. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 419-442.
49.
NeyerF. J.VoigtD. (2004). Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. European Journal of Personality, 18, 279-299.
50.
OzerD. J.Benet-MartinezV. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
51.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
52.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
53.
RammstedtB.JohnO. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203-212.
54.
ReiseS. P.WidamanK. F.PughR. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.
55.
RobertsB. W.KuncelN. R.ShinerR.CaspiA.GoldbergL. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313-345.
56.
RobertsB. W.KuncelN. R.ViechtbauerW.BoggT. (2007). Meta-analysis in personality psychology: A primer. In RobinsR. W.FraleyR. C.KruegerR. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 652-672). New York, NY: Guilford.
57.
RobinsR. W.CaspiA.MoffittT. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251-259.
58.
SabourinS.LussierY.LaplanteB.WrightJ. (1990). Unidimensional and multidimensional models of dyadic adjustment: A hierarchical reconciliation. Psychological Assessment, 2, 333-337.
59.
SadlerP.WoodyE. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80-96.
60.
SchaferJ. L.GrahamJ. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.
61.
SchmittN.KuljaninG. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210-222.
62.
SiemsenE.RothA.OliveiraP. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476.
63.
SlatcherR. B.VazireS. (2009). Effects of global and contextualized personality on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 624-633.
64.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 84-90.
65.
SouthS. C.KruegerR. F.IaconoW. G. (2009). Factorial invariance of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale across gender. Psychological Assessment, 21, 622-628.
66.
SpanierG. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 15-28.
67.
SpectorP. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.
68.
SrivastavaS.JohnO. P.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041-1053.
69.
VazireS. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281-300.
70.
WatsonD.HubbardB.WieseD. (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68, 413-449.
71.
WatsonD.HumrichouseJ. (2006). Personality development in emerging adulthood: Integrating evidence from self-ratings and spouse ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 959-974.
72.
WatsonD.KlohnenE. C.CasillasA.SimmsE. N.HaigJ.BerryD. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029-1068.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
