Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-5ws7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-08T01:29:05.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - The Design and Analysis of Data from Dyads and Groups

from Part IV - Understanding What Your Data Are Telling You About Psychological Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2024

By
David A. Kenny ,
Robert A. Ackerman  and
Deborah A. Kashy
Edited by
Harry T. Reis ,
Tessa West  and
Charles M. Judd
Harry T. Reis
Affiliation:
University of Rochester, New York
Tessa West
Affiliation:
New York University
Charles M. Judd
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Get access

Summary

The two statistical approaches commonly used in the analysis of dyadic and group data, multilevel modeling and structural equation modeling, are reviewed. Next considered are three different models for dyadic data, focusing mostly on the very popular actor–partner interdependence model (APIM). We further consider power analyses for the APIM as well as the partition of nonindependence. We then present an overview of the analysis of over-time dyadic data, considering growth-curve models, the stability-and-influence model, and the over-time APIM. After that, we turn to group data and focus on considerations of the analysis of group data using multilevel modeling, including a discussion of the social relations model, which is a model of dyadic data from groups of persons. The final topic concerns measurement equivalence of constructs across members of different types in dyadic and group studies.

Keywords

actor–partner interdependence modelsocial relations modelcommon fate modelmeasurement invariancestatistical powerintraclass correlationnonindependencemultilevel modelingstructural equation modeling
Type
Chapter
Information
Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology , pp. 565 - 601
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acitelli, L. K., Veroff, J., and Douvan, E. (2013). Couples and Well-Being Project, 1993–1995, Detroit Metropolitan Area. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR22081.v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, R. A., Kashy, D. A., and Corretti, C. A. (2015). A tutorial on analyzing data from speed‐dating studies with heterosexual dyads. Personal Relationships, 22(1), 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, R. A., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., and Conger, R. D. (2011). Positive engagement in family interactions: A social relations perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 719–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ackerman, R. A., and Kenny, D. A. (2016, December). APIMPower: An interactive tool for Actor–Partner Interdependence Model power analysis (computer software), available from https://robert-a-ackerman.shinyapps.io/apimpower.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. A., Buckley, K. E., and Carnagey, N. L. (2008). Creating your own hostile environment: A laboratory examination of trait aggressiveness and the violence escalation cycle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 462–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Back, M. D., and Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 855–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesanz, J. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F., Jr., and Cross, D. (2008). Beyond the dyad: Prospects for social development. In Card, N. A., Selig, J. P., and Little, T. D. (eds.) Modeling Dyadic and Interdependent Data in the Developmental and Behavioral Sciences. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Bond, C. F., Jr., and Kenny, D. A. (2002). The triangle of interpersonal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonito, J. A. (2022). Extending the group actor–partner interdependence model: MSEM applications. Small Group Research, 53, 207–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., Ervin, J. N., and Staggs, S. M. (2016). Estimation and application of the latent group model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 126–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinberg, M., Ram, N., Conroy, D. E., Pincus, A. L., and Gerstorf, D. (2022). Dyadic analysis and the reciprocal one-with-many model: Extending the study of interpersonal processes with intensive longitudinal data. Psychological Methods, 27, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., and Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claxton, S. E., Deluca, H. K., and van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2015). Testing psychometric properties in dyadic data using confirmatory factor analysis: Current practices and recommendations. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 22, 181–198.Google Scholar
Collins, L. M. (2006). Analysis of longitudinal data: The integration of theoretical model, temporal design, and statistical model. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 505–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, W. L., and Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., and Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1314–1329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corretti, C. A. (2019). An investigation into the effects of cross-sex friendships on heterosexual romantic relationship dynamics, retrieved from http://utd.ir.tdl.org/handle/10735.1/7370.Google Scholar
Dabbs, J. M., Jr., and Ruback, R. B. (1987). Dimensions of group process: Amount and structure of vocal interaction. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 20. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, O. D., Haller, A. O., and Portes, A. (1968). Peer influences on aspirations: A reinterpretation. American Journal of Sociology, 74, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwyer, L. A., Bolger, N., Laurenceau, J. P., Patrick, H., Oh, A. Y., Nebeling, L. C., and Hennessy, E. (2017). Autonomous motivation and fruit/vegetable intake in parent–adolescent dyads. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 52, 63–871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkel, E. J., and Eastwick, P. W. (2008). Speed-dating. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galovan, A. M., Holmes, E. K., and Proulx, C. M. (2017). Theoretical and methodological issues in relationship research: Considering the common fate model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 44–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, R., Kenny, D. A., and Ledermann, T. (2015). Moderation in the actor–partner interdependence model. Personal Relationships, 22, 8–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, R. L., Meagher, B. R., Kenny, D. A. (2015). Analyzing the effects of group members’ characteristics: A guide to the group actor–partner interdependence model. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gistelinck, F., and Loeys, T. (2019). The actor–partner interdependence model for longitudinal dyadic data: An implementation in the SEM framework. Structural Equation Modeling, 26, 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gistelinck, F., Loeys, T., Decuyper, M., and Dewitte, M. (2018). Indistinguishability tests in the actor–partner interdependence model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 71, 472–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gistelinck, F., Loeys, T., and Flamant, N. (2021). Multilevel autoregressive models when the number of time points is small. Structural Equation Modeling, 28, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., and Kashy, D. A. (2010). Pre-adoptive factors predicting lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples’ relationship quality across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., and Estabrook, R. (2016). Growth Modeling: Structural Equation and Multilevel Modeling Approaches. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., and Hamagami, F. (2011). Nonlinear growth curves in developmental research. Child Development, 82, 1357–1371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamaker, E. L., Asparouhov, T., Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., and Muthén, B. (2018). At the frontiers of modeling intensive longitudinal data: Dynamic structural equation models for the affective measurements from the COGITO Study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53, 820–841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamaker, E. L., and Muthén, B. (2020). The fixed versus random effects debate and how it relates to centering in multilevel modeling. Psychological Methods, 25, 365–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26, 136–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hibel, L. C., Mercado, E., and Valentino, K. (2019). Child maltreatment and mother–child transmission of stress physiology. Child Maltreatment, 24, 340–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iida, M., Seidman, G., and Shrout, P. E. (2018). Models of interdependent individuals versus dyadic processes in relationship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jans, L., Leach, C. W., Garcia, R. L., and Postmes, T. (2015). The development of group influence on in-group identification: A multilevel approach. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18, 190–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., and Finkel, E. J. (2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28, 1478–1489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jongerling, J., Laurenceau, J. P., and Hamaker, E. L. (2015). A multilevel AR(1) model: Allowing for inter-individual differences in trait-scores, inertia, and innovation variance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 334–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kashy, D. A. and Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Conceptual and methodological issues in the analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Deaux, K. and Snyder, M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., Burt, S. A., and McGue, M. (2008). Growth curve models for indistinguishable dyads using multilevel modeling and structural equation modeling: The case of adolescent twins’ conflict with their mothers. Developmental Psychology, 44, 316–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kashy, D. A., and Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis, H. T. and Judd, C. M. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A. (2015, February). An interactive tool for the estimation and testing the actor–partner interdependence model using multilevel modeling (computer software), available from https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/APIM_MM.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A. (2019). Interpersonal Perception: The Foundation of Social Relationships, 2nd ed. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A. (2022, January). Dyadic_CFA: An interactive tool for estimating a single-factor model for indistinguishable and distinguishable dyads (computer software), available from https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/Dyadic_CFA.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., and Ackerman, R. A. (2019). Power Computations for the Cross-sectional Actor–Partner Interdependence Model, retrieved from https://osf.io/2pcfb.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., and Ackerman, R. A. (2023). Estimation of Random Effects with Over-Time Dyadic Data Using Multilevel Modeling: The Sum and Difference Method, retrieved from https://osf.io/9pw7d.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., and Garcia, R. L. (2012). Using the actor–partner interdependence model to study the effects of group composition. Small Group Research, 43, 468–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Goldring, M. R., and Jung, T. (2023). The extended social relations model: Understanding dissimilation and dissensus in the judgment of others. European Journal of Personality, 37, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., and Kashy, D. A. (2014). The Design and Analysis of Data from Dyads and Groups. In Reis, H. T. and Judd, C. M. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., and Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., and La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., and Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D. A., and Livi, S. (2009). A componential analysis of leadership using the social relations model. In Yammarino, F. J. and Dansereau, F. (eds.) Research in Multi-level Issues, vol. 8, Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Leadership. Emerald.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., and Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., West, T. V., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Hubbard, J. A., and Schwartz, D. (2007). Accuracy in judgments of aggressiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1225–1236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, T. M. L., Laninga-Wijnen, L, and Lodder, G. M. A. (2022) Are victims of bullying primarily social outcasts? Person–group dissimilarities in relational, socio-behavioral, and physical characteristics as predictors of victimization. Child Development, 93, 1458–1474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lam, C., van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., and Huang, X. (2011). Harming high performers: Social comparison and interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 588–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, S. P., and Hennes, E. P. (2018). Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel relationships research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurenceau, J. P., and Bolger, N. (2005). Using diary methods to study marital and family processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 86–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledermann, T., and Kenny, D. A. (2012). The common fate model for dyadic data: Variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 140–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledermann, T., and Kenny, D. A. (2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 442–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledermann, T., and Macho, S. (2014). Analyzing change at the dyadic level: The common fate growth model. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 204–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledermann, T., Macho, S., and Kenny, D. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor–partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. K., Wickrama, K. A. S., and O’Neal, C. W. (2021). Modeling longitudinal dyadic processes in family research. Journal of Family Psychology, 35, 994–1006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemay, E. P., Jr., and Clark, M. S. (2008). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 647–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeish, D. and Hamaker, E. L. (2020). A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. Psychological Methods, 25, 610–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, D. K., Robinson, S. L., and Eichenbaum, A. E. (2017). Externalizing behavior and psychopathy: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 1–16.Google Scholar
Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research, 41, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestler, S., Geukes, K., Hutteman, R., and Back, M. D. (2017). Tackling longitudinal round-robin data: A social relations growth model. Psychometrika, 82, 1162–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogolsky, B. G. (2009). Deconstructing the association between relationship maintenance and commitment: Testing two competing models. Personal Relationships, 16, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J. A., and Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Planalp, E. M., Du, H., Braungart-Rieker, J. M., and Wang, L. (2017). Growth curve modeling to studying change: A comparison of approaches using longitudinal dyadic data with distinguishable dyads. Structural Equation Modeling, 24, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., and Barnett, R. C. (1995). A multivariate hierarchical model for studying psychological change within married couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakaluk, J. K. (2022). GITHUB site, at https://jsakaluk.github.io/dySEM.Google Scholar
Sakaluk, J. K., Kilshaw, R. E., and Fisher, A. N. (2021) Dyadic measurement invariance and its importance for replicability in romantic relationship science. Personal Relationships, 28, 190–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savord, A., McNeish, D., Iida, M., Quiroz, S., and Ha, T. (2023). Fitting the longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model as a dynamic structural equation model in Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling, 30, 296–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoemann, A. M., and Sakaluk, J. L. (May 2016). Missing data in dyadic modeling: issues and opportunities. Modern Modeling Methods Conference, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Schönbrodt, F. D. (2016). RSA: An R package for response surface analysis (version 0.9.10), retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=RSA.Google Scholar
Schönbrodt, F. D., Back, M. D., and Schmukle, SC. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round-robin designs. Behavioral Research Methods, 44, 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönbrodt, F. D., Humberg, S., and Nestler, S. (2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32, 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stas, L., Kenny, D. A., Mayer, A. and Loeys, T. (2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A user-friendly app for actor–partner interdependence models. Personal Relationships, 25, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliabue, S., and Lanz, M. (2014). Exploring social and personal relationships: The issue of measurement invariance of non‐independent observations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 683–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorson, K. R., West, T. V., and Mendes, W. B. (2018). Measuring physiological influence in dyads: A guide to designing, implementing, and analyzing dyadic physiological studies. Psychological Methods, 23, 595–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, G. D., Brunell, A. B., and Pilkington, C. J. (2009). Individual differences in men’s and women’s warmth and disclosure differentially moderate couples’ reciprocity in conversational disclosure. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., and Smith, P. L. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93, 994–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, T. V., and Kenny, D. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118, 357–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittaker, T. A., Beretvas, S. N., and Falbo, T. (2014). Dyadic curve-of-factors model: An introduction and illustration of a model for longitudinal non-exchangeable dyadic data. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, R. E., and Macia, K. S. (2019). Examining cross-level effects in dyadic analysis: A structural equation modeling perspective. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2629–2645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, M-N. , Kenny, D. A., and Knight, A. (2024). SRM_R: A web-based shiny app for social relations analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 27, 114–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A., Templeton, E., Morrel, J., Schubert, F., and Wheatley, T. (2022). The tendency to laugh is a stable trait: Findings from a round-robin conversation study. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B377: 20210187.Google Scholar
Wood, W., Oldham, C. R., Reifman, A., and Niehuis, S. (2017). Accuracy and bias in newlywed spouses’ perceptions of each other’s personalities. Personal Relationships, 24, 886–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, S. Y., Flake, J. K., Stolier, R. M., Freeman, J. B., and Hehman, E. (2021). Facial impressions are predicted by the structure of group stereotypes. Psychological Science, 32, 1979–1993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, R., DeShon, R. P., and Dishop, C. R. (2020). Challenges and opportunities in the estimation of dynamic models. Organizational Research Methods, 23, 595–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S., Kilduff, G. J., and West, T. (2023). Status acuity: The ability to accurately perceive status hierarchies reduces status conflict and benefits group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108, 114–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, L., Wang, M., and Zhang, Z. (2019). Intensive longitudinal data analyses with dynamic structural equation modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 24, 219–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×