Table 1.

Latent Social Relations Modeling of Questions Asking Based on Total Number of Questions and Percent of Conversation Turns Containing Questions.

Gender	Variance component or covariance	Unstandardized estimate1	SE	p	Standardized estimate	Standardized estimate equal-groups subsample2
Male
	Actor variance	0.22	0.05	< .001	.32	.38
	Partner variance	0.12	0.03	< .001	.18	.11
	Relationship variance	0.22	0.01	< .001	.32	.29
	Error variance	0.12			.17	.22
	Actor-Partner covariance	−0.09	0.03	= .001	−.60	−.60
Female
	Actor variance	0.20	0.05	< .001	.31	.33
	Partner variance	0.10	0.02	< .001	.15	.16
	Relationship variance	0.25	0.01	< .001	.39	.33
	Error variance	0.10			.15	.18
	Actor-Partner covariance	−0.06	0.03	= .04	−.37	−.52
Both
	Relationship covariance	−0.03	0.01	= .001	−.12	−.15

Note.

¹Both variables are normalized with a square-root transformation. The variable of percent of conversation turns containing questions was then multiplied by the ratio of means of the transformed variables to obtain similar variances. When this model was run controlling for the three different speed-dating session it failed. Following the recommendations of Ackerman et al. (2015), who noted that when the differences among groups is minimal, we dropped the group variable to obtain convergence.

²This analysis did not require normalization nor dropping the group variable to obtain convergence. The variable of percent of conversation turns containing questions was multiplied by 50 to equalize variances of the indicators.