Many questions within the relationship literature are concerned with the similarity between individuals or the agreement of perceptions. There are a number of different methods used to assess these questions (e.g., correlation, profile correlation, and squared difference scores), and there are special considerations that need to be included when analyzing data of this sort (e.g., correction for mean levels). We provide an overview of when these different methods are most appropriate and recommendations for applying the different statistical techniques. We also include an example data set to demonstrate how these analyses should be performed and how results may differ based on the techniques used.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BarrantiM.CarlsonE. N.FurrR. M. (2016). Disagreement about moral character is linked to interpersonal costs. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(8), 806–817.
3.
BiesanzJ. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853–885.
4.
BiesanzJ. C.HumanL. J. (2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy-Motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21, 589–594
5.
CattellR. B. (1952). The three basic factor-analytic research designs—their interrelations and derivatives. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 499–520.
6.
ChaplinW. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143–178.
7.
CorsiniR. J. (1956). Understanding and similarity in marriage. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 327–332.
8.
CronbachL. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity.”Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
9.
CronbachL. J. (1958). Proposals leading to analytic treatment of social perception scores. In TagiuiR. &PetrulloL. (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 353–378). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
CronbachL. J.GleserG. C. (1953). Assessing similarity between profiles. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 456–473.
11.
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.
12.
EdwardsA. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 90–93.
13.
EdwardsA. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Ft Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
14.
EdwardsJ. R. (1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores. Journal of Management, 20, 683–689.
15.
EdwardsJ. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307–324.
16.
EdwardsJ. R.ParryM. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613.
17.
FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354.
18.
FunderD. C. (2001). Three trends in current research on person perception: Positivity, realism, and sophistication. In HallJ. A.BernieriF. J. (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 319–331). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
FurrR. M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316.
20.
FurrR. M. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. London, UK: Sage.
21.
FurrR. M.BacharachV. R. (2013). Psychometrics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
FurrR. M.WoodD. (2013). On the similarity between exchangeable profiles: A psychometric model, analytic strategy, and empirical illustration. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 233–247.
23.
GauntR. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier?Journal of Personality, 74, 1401–1420.
24.
GoldbergL. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In SpielbergerC. D.ButcherJ. N. (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
GonzagaG. C.CarterS.BuckwalterJ. G. (2010). Assortative mating, convergence, and satisfaction in married couples. Personal Relationships, 17, 634–644.
26.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.,Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
27.
GriffinD.GonzalezR. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430–439.
28.
HumanL. J.BiesanzJ. C. (2011). Target adjustment and self-other agreement: Utilizing trait observability to disentangle judgeability and self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 202–216.
29.
HumanL. J.BiesanzJ. C.ParisottoK. L.DunnE. W. (2012). Your best self helps reveal your true self: Positive self-presentation results in more accurate personality impressions. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 3, 23–30.
30.
HumanL. J.SandstromG. M.BiesanzJ. C.DunnE. W. (2013). Accurate first impressions leave a lasting impression: The long-term effects of accuracy on relationship development. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 395–402.
31.
HumbadM. N.DonnellanM. B.IaconoW. G.McGueM.BurtS. A. (2013). Quantifying the association between personality similarity and marital adjustment using profile correlations: A cautionary tale. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 97–106.
32.
IdiaM.SeidmanG.ShroutP. (in press). Models of interdependent individuals and dyadic process in relationship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
33.
KashyD. A.SnyderD. K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 338–348.
34.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford Press.
35.
KennyD. A. (1995). The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Personal Relationships, 2, 67–75.
36.
KennyD. A.AcitelliL. K. (1994). Measuring similarity in couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 417–431.
37.
KennyD. A.AlbrightL. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 390–402.
38.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
39.
LetzringT. D.HumanL. J. (2014). An examination of information quality as a moderator of accurate personality judgment: Information about thoughts and feelings and behaviors increases distinctive accuracy. Journal of Personality, 82, 440–451.
40.
LuoS.KlohnenE. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304–326.
41.
MalloyT. E.KennyD. A. (1986). The Social Relations Model: An integrative method for personality research. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 199–225.
42.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.BellaviaG.GriffinD. W.DoldermanD. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 563–581.
43.
PeetzJ.KammrathL. (2011). Only because I love you: Why people make and why they break promises in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 887–904.
44.
RogersK. H.BiesanzJ. C. (2015). Knowing versus liking: Separating normative knowledge from social desirability in first impressions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1105–1116.
45.
RusbultC. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.
ShermanR.WoodD. (2014). Estimating the expected replicability of a pattern of correlations and other measures of association. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49, 17–40.
48.
SternC.WestT. (in press). Assessing accuracy in close relationships research: A truth and bias approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
49.
WatsonD.KlohnenE. C.CasillasA.Nus SimmsE.HaigJ.BerryD. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068.
50.
WestT. V.KennyD. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118, 357–378.
51.
WoodD.FurrR. M. (2016). The correlates of similarity estimates are often misleadingly positive the nature and scope of the problem, and some solutions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 79–99.
52.
WoodD.WortmanJ. (2012). Trait means and desirabilities as artifactual and real sources of differential stability of personality traits. Journal of Personality, 80, 665–701.
53.
WortmanJ.WoodD.FurrR. M.FanciulloJ.HarmsP. D. (2014). The relationship between actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Research in Personality, 49, 31–46.
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.
