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

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 Adj...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of sexual behavior 2017-07, Vol.46 (5), p.1349-1359
Hauptverfasser: Bártová, Klára, Štěrbová, Zuzana, Martinec Nováková, Lenka, Binter, Jakub, Varella, Marco Antonio Corrêa, Valentova, Jaroslava Varella
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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.
ISSN:0004-0002
1573-2800
DOI:10.1007/s10508-016-0931-z