Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in Close Relationships: In Search of Meaningful Evidence-Based Dyadic Role Distinctions

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) have lasting consequences for adult romantic relationships, yet dyadic studies of ACEs typically default to distinguishing couples by gender. We argue that this methodological convention may obscure theoretically meaningful trauma-related dynamics. In this study, we compared Actor–Partner Interdependence Models (APIMs) distinguished by gender versus ACE history using data from 202 Canadian couples (N = 404). Couples reported on ACEs, perceived partner responsiveness (PPR) and insensitivity, and sexual satisfaction. When distinguished by gender, models replicated prior literature, yielding strong actor effects for both men and women but small or inconsistent partner effects. By contrast, ACE-distinguished models showed that actor and partner associations localized to the ACE-exposed partner: higher PPR predicted greater sexual satisfaction for both themselves and their non-exposed partners, while greater insensitivity predicted lower satisfaction for both partners. No significant effects were observed for non-exposed partners. We argue that distinguishing dyads by ACE status broadens opportunities for inclusive research, tests of dyadic measurement assumptions, and theory-driven insights into how early adversity reverberates through intimate relationships.