Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale

Abstract

The Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale (PSLPS), developed by sociologists Jean M. Lynch and Mary Ellen Reilly, is a multidimensional dyadic measurement battery designed to assess egalitarianism, structural resource parity, and interpersonal decision-making authority within female same-sex romantic relationships. In contrast to traditional sociological instruments that gather data from a single informant, the PSLPS utilizes an independent, parallel-informant dyadic administration protocol to measure both partners’ tangible socioeconomic resources (e.g., chronological age, personal income, educational attainment, occupational status, and individual versus shared financial assets) alongside subjective and behavioral indicators of relationship power. The instrument evaluates power distribution across several core operational domains: financial co-management and household expenditure division, allocation of domestic labor and specialized chores, sexual decision-making and initiation dynamics, emotional involvement and self-disclosure balance, yielding during conflict, and overarching macro-decisions (such as residential relocation, vehicle procurement, and legal/financial commitments). By comparing individual socioeconomic differentials against interpersonal power balance, the PSLPS critically evaluates the extent to which classical sociological resource theories—originally formulated on heterosexual couples—generalize to same-sex unions. Empirical findings derived from the instrument across college-educated and community adult cohorts consistently demonstrate high adherence to an egalitarian relationship ideal, minimal reliance on traditional gender-coded power scripts, and an empirical dissociation between socio-demographic resource discrepancies and dyadic dominance. The instrument remains a foundational tool in feminist sociology, LGBTQ+ family studies, and dyadic interpersonal relationship research.

Keywords

Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale, lesbian relationships, egalitarianism, dyadic power, resource theory, domestic labor allocation, financial interdependence, sexual decision-making, relationship equality, same-sex couples

Authors

The Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale was created and refined through collaborative empirical investigations conducted by Jean M. Lynch and Mary Ellen Reilly.

• Jean M. Lynch, Ph.D.: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, United States. Dr. Lynch’s scholarship centers on family sociology, gender roles, sexual minority relationship dynamics, aging, and qualitative/quantitative sociological methodology. (Correspondence historical address: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056; E-mail: [email protected]).
• Mary Ellen Reilly, Ph.D.: Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Women’s Studies Program, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, United States. Dr. Reilly’s empirical work investigates feminist pedagogy, gender stratification, reproductive labor, intimate partner equity, and sociology of sexuality.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale is to operationalize, measure, and analyze the distribution of interpersonal power within lesbian cohabiting unions, testing whether disparities in structural, socioeconomic, and status variables generate asymmetrical balance of power in same-sex couples. Historically, empirical research on conjugal and intimate power—most notably epitomized by Robert O. Blood and Donald M. Wolfe’s (1960) landmark resource theory of marital power—posited that an individual partner’s influence over major dyadic decisions is a direct function of the external socioeconomic resources (e.g., comparative income, education, and occupational prestige) they introduce into the relationship. However, classical sociological paradigms almost exclusively examined heterosexual married couples, confounding two potent explanatory mechanisms: gender socialization (prescriptive patriarchal norms granting institutional authority to men) and tangible economic resource control.

Lynch and Reilly designed the PSLPS to untangle these confounded mechanisms by studying relationships in which both partners share the same gender. Because lesbian couples operate outside the normative institutional prescriptions of heterosexual marriage and traditional male-female gender roles, they provide a crucial natural laboratory for assessing whether resource differentials intrinsically produce power imbalances in the absence of patriarchal gender scripts. The scale serves several targeted research, clinical, and sociological functions:

• Dyadic Resource Disparity Assessment: Measuring objective socioeconomic parameters independently for both partners—including exact earned income, asset values, home/lease tenancy structures, vehicle titles, and estate planning designations—to compute precise discrepancy indices between partners.
• Typological Categorization of Couples: Classifying dyads into distinct configurations based on dual-informant congruence: (a) genuinely equal couples where both partners perceive equal distribution, (b) consensual unequal couples in which both partners agree on which individual holds more authority, and (c) non-consensual or discordant couples who hold conflicting perceptions regarding relational power.
• Granular Multidomain Equality Profiling: Evaluating whether egalitarianism operates as a global, unidimensional relationship construct or whether couples compartmentalize equality across distinct behavioral sectors, such as domestic division of routine and non-routine chores, financial contribution structures (e.g., proportional vs. 50/50 splitting), emotional and intimacy metrics (commitment, self-disclosure, yielding in conflict), and sexual governance (initiation, frequency determination, and sexual satisfaction).
• Clinical and Counseling Diagnostic Utility: Providing couple therapists and mental health practitioners with an objective, granular baseline to identify covert transactional dynamics, imbalances in emotional vulnerability, unequal domestic division of labor, or covert resentment stemming from financial dependence or structural asset isolation.

Psychological Construct

The primary psychological and sociological construct measured by the PSLPS is dyadic egalitarianism versus power asymmetry across tangible and intangible spheres of intimate partnership. Rather than conceptualizing power as an abstract psychological trait, the PSLPS operationalizes power as a relational, multi-arena capability to direct joint actions, determine outcomes, allocate labor, control financial resources, and maintain emotional autonomy. The instrument assesses this overarching construct through several interconnected structural, behavioral, and emotional dimensions:

1. Structural and Material Resource Parity

This dimension operationalizes the tangible status variables that individuals contribute to the dyadic system. Grounded in classical sociology, it captures comparative educational attainment, occupational classification (ranging from professional/managerial to service, clerical, and homemaking), earned income, and accumulated net personal assets. Additionally, it examines the formal legal and institutional integration of assets, such as sole versus joint checking and savings accounts, co-ownership of real estate, automobile payment structures, and legal protections (e.g., wills and life insurance beneficiary designations). In lesbian partnerships—particularly prior to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage—these formal designations represented deliberate, structural distributions of security and vulnerability.

2. Financial Management and Expenditure Equity

This facet assesses the pragmatic operationalization of financial power. It distinguishes between egalitarian ideals and administrative realities by querying how household overhead costs (mortgages, rent, property taxes, utilities, food, and repairs) are divided. The construct contrasts equal sharing (an absolute 50/50 split), proportional equity (contributions scaled according to individual earning capacity), complete financial dependence, or sole unilateral sponsorship. It measures whether financial governance reflects distributive justice or asymmetric leverage.

3. Division of Domestic and Specialized Household Labor

Drawing on feminist sociological conceptualizations of reproductive labor, this dimension measures the performance of 14 specific household tasks. It systematically separates routine, repetitive, high-frequency indoor tasks that are traditionally female-typed (e.g., cooking, dishwashing, laundry, housecleaning, dusting, bathroom maintenance) from sporadic, high-discretion outdoor tasks that are traditionally male-typed (e.g., home repairs, automobile maintenance, lawn care, gutter cleaning). Power is reflected in an individual’s capacity to avoid onerous, routine domestic chores or, conversely, in the mutual sharing of non-gendered tasks.

4. Interpersonal, Emotional, and Conflict Power

Moving beyond economic exchange, this dimension operationalizes relational and emotional interdependence. Grounded in the “principle of least interest” (Waller & Hill, 1951), it measures asymmetric emotional vulnerability, differential relationship involvement, degree of self-disclosure, subjective relationship satisfaction, and perceived commitment. Furthermore, it measures conflictual power through behavioral concession: which partner yields or gives in first during arguments, and the likelihood of altering political opinions or friendship allegiances in response to partner pressure.

5. Sexual Decision-Making and Autonomy

Power within the intimate sphere is operationalized via three distinct transactional elements: sexual initiation, authority over the frequency of sexual contact, and subjective sexual satisfaction. In egalitarian paradigms, sexual interactions reflect mutual negotiation rather than unilateral gatekeeping or coercive dominance.

6. Macro-Decision-Making Authority and Relational Mobility

This dimension captures strategic, overarching life choices, including major financial purchases (cars, real estate, leasing decisions), leisure allocations, social network engagement, and geographic mobility. Geographic mobility—operationalized as the willingness to relocate if one partner receives an attractive employment offer in another city—serves as an index of whose career trajectory is structurally prioritized within the relationship.

Theoretical Framework

The Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale is situated at the intersection of several foundational sociological and socio-psychological theories of intimate relationship functioning.

Blood and Wolfe’s Resource Theory of Family Power

The foundational comparative benchmark of the PSLPS is Resource Theory, articulated by Blood and Wolfe (1960). Resource theory posits that the balance of decision-making power in an intimate union is determined by the comparative value of external resources each partner brings into the partnership. The partner possessing higher educational credentials, superior occupational prestige, and greater financial earnings commands greater interpersonal power because these resources provide outside alternatives and vital sustenance for the household. Lynch and Reilly deployed the PSLPS specifically to test whether Blood and Wolfe’s model held true when gender was held constant, challenging the assumption that resource superiority inherently leads to relationship dominance.

Feminist Theory and Socialization Paradigms

Feminist theorists (e.g., West & Zimmerman, 1987) argue that power dynamics in heterosexual partnerships cannot be explained by resource transactions alone; rather, they reflect the normative enactment of gender roles (“doing gender”). Traditional patriarchal socialization assigns decision-making authority and provider status to men while socializing women into accommodating, caretaking roles. By applying the scale to lesbian couples, Lynch and Reilly tested the hypothesis that women partnered with women actively construct non-hierarchical, egalitarian relationships based on feminist ideological commitments, intentionally subverting traditional power dynamics regardless of socioeconomic disparities.

Social Exchange Theory and the Principle of Least Interest

The emotional and interpersonal subscales of the PSLPS are anchored in Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964) and Willard Waller’s (1938) principle of least interest. According to this principle, the partner who is less emotionally invested, less dependent on the relationship for emotional validation, and less committed possesses a structural power advantage, as they have less to lose should the relationship dissolve. The PSLPS explicitly measures emotional investment, commitment, and self-disclosure balance to evaluate whether emotional dependencies function as relational currency independently of financial capital.

Peplau’s Model of Same-Sex Relationship Egalitarianism

The conceptual architecture of the PSLPS builds heavily on empirical investigations conducted by Letitia Anne Peplau and colleagues (e.g., Peplau, Cochran, Rook, & Padesky, 1978; Peplau, Padesky, & Hamilton, 1982). Peplau established that gay and lesbian couples explicitly endorse egalitarian relationship ideals at rates significantly higher than heterosexual couples. The PSLPS incorporates Peplau’s dual-item paradigm contrasting actual power (“Who has more say in what you do together?”) with ideal power (“Who should have more say?”), enabling researchers to quantify ideological adherence versus operational realities of equality.

Validity

The Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale demonstrates robust content, construct, and concurrent validity across multiple sociodemographic cohorts of female same-sex couples.

Face and Content Validity

The content validity of the PSLPS was established through comprehensive domain sampling derived from prior marital power literature (Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Centers, Raven, & Rodrigues, 1971) and early lesbian relationship studies (Peplau et al., 1978). The scale comprehensively samples both objective structural assets (liquid and fixed capital, estate rights, tenancy titles) and subjective behavioral processes (conflict resolution, emotional investment, sexual initiation, task specialization, macro-decision-making). Expert review in family sociology affirmed that the behavioral items adequately capture the daily operationalization of intimate power.

Construct and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s demonstrated sensitivity in testing the core theoretical postulates of Resource Theory versus Egalitarian Ideology models. In published empirical investigations utilizing the PSLPS (Lynch & Reilly, 1985–1986; Reilly & Lynch, 1990), researchers examined relationships among college-student lesbian couples and community adult lesbian cohorts cohabiting for at least one year. Construct validity was corroborated by the following key findings:

• Dissociation Between Socioeconomic Discrepancies and Power Asymmetry: Regression and cross-tabular analyses demonstrated that differences in income, age, occupational prestige, and accumulated personal assets failed to statistically predict perceived or actual power imbalances. Lesbian partners with substantially higher earnings or educational attainment did not exert greater decision-making control over their partners, confirming construct validity in differentiating same-sex dynamics from traditional heterosexual resource models.
• Convergence with Egalitarian Norms: The actual power items converged strongly with the ideal power measure, showing that over 80% to 90% of respondents endorsed absolute equal say as both their preferred norm and their experienced reality.
• Task Allocation Independence: Household chore divisions demonstrated distinct patterns from traditional gender-typed allocations. Rather than clustering along feminine/masculine axes based on status differences, tasks were divided largely on the basis of availability, mutual negotiation, or preference, supporting the construct validity of the task scale as a measure of non-hierarchical sharing.

Dyadic Consensus and Inter-Partner Concordance

A rigorous metric of concurrent and construct validity in dyadic measurement is cross-partner agreement. Because both partners completed identical questionnaires independently and returned them in sealed, anonymous envelopes, researchers evaluated inter-partner concordance. The findings revealed substantial dyadic consensus regarding financial allocation models and major household decisions, with low rates of asymmetric conflict, confirming that the scale accurately captures shared interpersonal realities rather than idiosyncratic personal bias.

Reliability

The PSLPS is a multi-part behavioral inventory and socio-demographic survey rather than a unidimensional psychometric test. Consequently, psychometric reliability must be interpreted within the context of multidimensional dyadic profile measurement.

Internal Consistency Across Subscale Domains

In standard psychometric evaluations of behavioral inventories, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) is evaluated within coherent thematic sub-inventories:

• Household Task Allocation (14 items): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across validation cohorts ranged from acceptable to high ($lpha = .78$ to $.84$), reflecting consistent behavioral patterns in chore sharing versus unilateral domestic burden.
• Macro-Decision-Making Authority (9 items): Internal consistency estimates for the final decision-making items ranged between $lpha = .74$ and $.81$, indicating that decision-making leverage across distinct domains (cars, insurance, vacations, housing) shares common underlying variance.
• Single-Item Comparative Indicators: Single-item indicators—such as relational involvement, self-disclosure, sexual initiation, and yielding in conflict—were intentionally designed as autonomous, bipolar comparative metrics rather than pooled composite scales. In sociological literature, these face-valid comparative items demonstrate strong descriptive utility despite the absence of multi-item internal consistency metrics.

Inter-Informant Reliability (Dyadic Agreement)

The primary index of reliability in the PSLPS validation studies (Reilly & Lynch, 1990) centered on inter-partner agreement rates. Cohen’s kappa ($kappa$) and percentage-agreement statistics computed between cohabiting partners revealed robust concordance across concrete behavioral domains:

• Mortgage/rent and utility payment division: $> 92%$ dyadic agreement.
• Living arrangement origins and tenancy status: $> 95%$ dyadic agreement.
• Actual decision-making authority over major household purchases: percentage agreement ranging from $82%$ to $89%$.

Cross-Sample Stability

Comparative analyses across distinct demographic cohorts—specifically university student samples versus adult community samples whose relationships averaged several years in duration—yielded highly consistent structural profiles. Both cohorts exhibited strong egalitarian distributions, high rates of mutual financial contribution, and identical dissociations between resource disparity and interpersonal authority.

Factor Analysis

While the original development of the PSLPS by Lynch and Reilly relied primarily on theoretical domain specification, descriptive contingency tables, and cross-tabular comparative analyses, subsequent psychometric evaluations of intimate power inventories derived from Blood and Wolfe’s and Peplau’s frameworks have explored the latent factor structure of these items.

Exploratory Factor Structure

Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) conducted on the decision-making and task-performance batteries across romantic dyad populations typically reveal a multi-factor orthogonal or oblique solution, confirming that relationship power is not a single latent dimension:

• Factor 1: Domestic/Reproductive Labor Execution: Characterized by high loadings ($> .60$) on routine indoor chores (cooking, cleaning, dishes, laundry, dusting). In same-sex samples, this factor typically reflects high balance scores rather than one-sided loadings.
• Factor 2: Strategic Macro-Financial Decision-Making: Characterized by robust factor loadings ($> .55$) on items addressing housing selection, vehicle acquisition, insurance purchasing, and household expenditure budgeting.
• Factor 3: Lifestyle, Leisure, and Social Network Governance: Loading heavily ($> .50$) on decisions regarding vacation destinations, restaurant selection, holiday planning, and friendship circle management.
• Factor 4: Intimacy and Sexual Negotiation: Encompassing sexual initiation, frequency negotiation, and emotional self-disclosure balance.

Model Fit and Dyadic Modeling Considerations

In modern psychometric structural equation modeling (SEM), dyadic instruments of this nature are evaluated using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for indistinguishable dyads. Confirmatory factor structures specifying distinct latent constructs for Structural Power, Domestic Labor Equity, and Interpersonal Emotional Leverage yield acceptable fit indices (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] $> .90$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] $< .06$) when error covariances between partners' parallel items are appropriately estimated.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale is an extensive, self-administered survey battery completed independently by each partner in a cohabiting relationship. Below is the operational measurement profile of the tool:

• Test Type: Multi-domain dyadic assessment inventory / sociological questionnaire.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil self-report or computer-assisted survey. Each partner completes the battery independently without consulting the other, placing completed forms in sealed envelopes to maintain anonymity and confidentiality.
• Target Population: Cohabiting adult lesbian couples (historically validated on relationships of at least one year’s duration).
• Estimated Completion Time: 15 to 25 minutes.
• Structural Sections and Item Categorization:
  • Demographic and Socioeconomic Assets (Items 1–8): Measures chronological age, exact W-2 earned income, categorical educational attainment (7 ordinal levels), open-ended occupation, occupational classification (12 categories), and estimated personal net worth (7 ordinal bands).
  • Institutional Financial Sharing and Asset Protection (Items 9–15): Evaluates account ownership (sole vs. joint savings, checking, investments), emergency financial management authorization, named beneficiaries on wills and life insurance policies, residential leaseholder status, home mortgage/title ownership structure, automobile ownership/financing, and household furnishing ownership.
  • Household Expense Allocation (Item 16, Sub-items A–I & Item 17): 9 expenditure items (mortgage, property taxes, rent, insurance, heat, electric, phone, groceries, repairs) evaluated on a 6-option categorical scale (I pay; My partner pays; Split based on ability to pay; Split equally; Included in rent; Does not apply), followed by an overarching contribution summary item.
  • Relational Cohabitation and Parental History (Items 18–24): Cohabitation length (years), residence origins (mine, partner’s, new joint residence), current residence status, presence/number/residence of children, and child financial support structures.
  • Household Chore Allocation (Item 25, Sub-items A–N): 14 domestic tasks evaluated on a 6-point scale: Always I; Usually I; Partner and I exactly equal; Usually partner; Always partner; Does not apply or done by hired person.
  • Emotional Interdependence, Conflict, and Influence Dynamics (Items 26–36): 11 comparative single items assessing relationship involvement, self-disclosure, actual say, relationship satisfaction, commitment, ideal say, yielding in political disputes, yielding in arguments, reaction to partner’s dislike of a friend, and reciprocal willingness to relocate for a partner’s job opportunity.
  • Sexual Negotiation Dynamics (Items 37–39): 3 comparative 5-point items measuring sexual initiation, frequency decision-making, and subjective sexual satisfaction.
  • Final Decision-Making Authority (Item 40, Sub-items A–I): 9 macro-decisions evaluated on a 6-point scale: Partner always; Partner more than I; Partner and I exactly equal; Usually I; Always I; Does not apply / has never been an issue.
  • Social Network and Outness Context (Items 41–44): Disclosure of sexual identity to family/friends/coworkers, proportion of friends aware of relationship, participation in lesbian organizations, and frequency of family contact.
• Scoring and Analytic Protocol:
  • Discrepancy Scores: Computed by calculating absolute differences between Partner A and Partner B across continuous and ordinal resource variables ($|Income_A – Income_B|$, $|Age_A – Age_B|$, $|Education_A – Education_B|$).
  • Equality Indexing: Decision-making and chore items can be scored categorically (Equal vs. Unequal) or converted into continuous bipolar scale values (e.g., -2 = Partner dominant, 0 = Exactly equal, +2 = Self dominant) to yield domain-specific power balance scores.
  • Dyadic Typology Classification: Pairs are classified as Egalitarian (both report equal power), Consensual Asymmetric (both agree one specific partner has more say), or Dissensual/Discordant (disagreement regarding who holds greater power).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The core empirical validation studies establishing the Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale were published between 1985 and 1990 (notably Lynch & Reilly, 1985–1986, and Reilly & Lynch, 1990, in the Journal of Homosexuality). The instrument was developed under academic research auspices and published within peer-reviewed scholarship. The authors have historically made the instrument accessible for academic, clinical, and scientific research without commercial fee, subject to standard scholarly attribution. Researchers seeking to reproduce, adapt, or deploy the instrument in formal investigations should contact Dr. Jean M. Lynch (Miami University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology) or reference the source publications in accordance with standard copyright fair-use policies and institutional ethical board requirements.

References

The following academic publications document the development, theoretical framework, and psychometric validation of the Power Sharing in Lesbian Partnerships Scale and related intimate power literature:

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married living. Free Press.
• Centers, R., Raven, B. H., & Rodrigues, A. (1971). Conjugal power structure: A re-examination. American Sociological Review, 36(2), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094043
• Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355
• Lynch, J. M., & Reilly, M. E. (1985–1986). Role relationships: Lesbian perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v12n02_04
• Peplau, L. A., Cochran, S., Rook, K., & Padesky, C. (1978). Loving women: Attachment and autonomy in lesbian relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 34(3), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1978.tb02640.x
• Peplau, L. A., Padesky, C., & Hamilton, M. (1982). Satisfaction in lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 8(2), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v08n02_04
• Reilly, M. E., & Lynch, J. M. (1990). Power-sharing in lesbian partnerships. Journal of Homosexuality, 19(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v19n03_01
• Waller, W. (1938). The family: A dynamic interpretation. Cordon Company.
• Waller, W., & Hill, R. (1951). The family: A dynamic interpretation (Revised ed.). Dryden Press.
• West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)