title: On the similarity between exchangeable profiles: A psychometric model, analytic strategy, and empirical illustration.
abstract: Analyses of profile similarity are widespread in personality psychology, but their apparent simplicity masks difficult psychometric and statistical issues. We present a psychometric framework that addresses an important challenge (i.e., profile normativeness) in examinations of dyadic exchangeable profiles. In addition, we present an analytic strategy accounting for non-independence that often arises in analyses of profile similarity, facilitating integrated examinations of variables at dyadic and individual levels. An empirical analysis of personality similarity and relationship quality demonstrates that the model and analytic strategy can reveal novel psychological insights. These are important advances, as previous work has ignored exchangeable profiles and has failed to present an integrated psychometric and statistical framework for profile similarity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, United States.
authors.forename: R Michael
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Furr
authors.forename: Dustin
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Wood
keywords: Dyadic designs; Measurement; Non-independence; Personality similarity; Profile similarity; Relationship satisfaction; Statistics
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1955 May;52(3):177-93
references.pmid: 14371889
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994 Oct;67(4):674-87
references.pmid: 7965613
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2006 Jun;11(2):127-41
references.pmid: 16784334
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 2010 Sep 30;45(5):853-85
references.pmid: 26795267
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1962 Jul;59:311-9
references.pmid: 14480732
references.citation: J Res Pers. 2009;43(4):579-585
references.pmid: 20442795
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1987 Nov;102(3):390-402
references.pmid: 3317468
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2005 Jun;10(2):139-58
references.pmid: 15998174
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Jan;92(1):119-35
references.pmid: 17201547
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Nov;101(5):1033-49
references.pmid: 21688923
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1969 Apr;71(4):281-4
references.pmid: 5790938
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Feb;100(2):349-64
references.pmid: 21299315
references.citation: J Pers. 2007 Jun;75(3):629-62
references.pmid: 17489894
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Jul;83(1):126-37
references.pmid: 12088122
references.citation: J Pers. 2008 Oct;76(5):1267-316
references.pmid: 18705644
references.citation: J Pers. 2001 Aug;69(4):617-40
references.pmid: 11497032
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Jul;93(1):34-48
references.pmid: 17605587
references.citation: J Pers. 2010 Aug 1;78(4):1163-84
references.pmid: 20545819
references.citation: J Pers. 2012 Jun;80(3):665-701
references.pmid: 22092250
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Oct;99(4):690-702
references.pmid: 20718544
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1953 Nov;50(6):456-73
references.pmid: 13112334
references.citation: Personal Disord. 2010 Jan;1(1):58-66
references.pmid: 22121460
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Apr;21(4):589-94
references.pmid: 20424106
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Feb;88(2):304-26
references.pmid: 15841861
references.citation: J Abnorm Psychol. 2006 May;115(2):298-308
references.pmid: 16737394
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Nov;93(5):861-79
references.pmid: 17983305
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Oct;95(4):991-1004
references.pmid: 18808273
references.citation: Am J Psychiatry. 2006 May;163(5):846-56
references.pmid: 16648326
references.citation: J Pers Assess. 2010 Jan;92(1):1-15
references.pmid: 20013451