Participants and additionally claimed its matchmaking reputation: 18
g., team, psychology) in the a large midwestern college or university. Of them players, 102 advertised a great LDRR and you can 136 claimed a good PRR. Out of ethnicity, 89.1% (letter = 212) out of members said Caucasian, 5.5% (n = 13) claimed Ebony, 1.3% (letter = 3) said Western Western, step one.3% (letter = 3) said Latino/a beneficial, and you may 2.9% (letter = 7) supported “most other.” Participants’ decades varied off 18 in order to 50 years (M = ; SD = step three.97). To own degree, 20.2% (n = 48) out-of people were initial-season undergraduates, 20.6% (letter = 49) was basically sophomores, 23.9% (letter = 57) was indeed juniors, and you may sympatia 35.3% (letter = 84) was the elderly. Players reported their relationship standing: 83.2% (n = 198) was never partnered; six.3% (n = 15) were married; and you may 10.5% (letter = 25) was indeed involved, separated, otherwise split. 1% (letter = 43) existed for the mate, 55.9% (n = 133) dated continuously, twelve.2% (letter = 29) old daily, and you may thirteen.9% (n = 33) old casually. No tall distinctions lived ranging from LDRRs and you will PRRs concerning your length of your energy partners know each other (variety = 1-180 weeks; M= ; SD = ).
Simply college students who have been already matchmaking was basically employed. It done look packages in classes. Information was to feet their answers to all things to their “most recent, extremely important like matchmaking.”
Legitimacy of your own Energy subscale are indicated because of the exact discrimination of the fresh new intimacy of your dating, high relationship (r =
Attachment measures. The Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew Horowitz, 1991) was used, consistent with previous methodology (Levy, Blatt, Shaver, 1998), as a brief measure of attachment styles (i.e., positive and negative beliefs about self and other). Categorical data are produced by participants choosing one of four paragraphs that reflect secure attachment (e.g., “It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others”), dismissing attachment (e.g., “I am comfortable without close emotional relationships”), preoccupied attachment (i.e., anxious; e.g., “I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like”), and fearful attachment (e.g., “I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others”). For reliability, 1- to 2-month self-classification correspondence “was 76% (weighted kappa = .65, p < .05)" (Levy et al., 1998, p. 410). Validity is indicated by (a) convergence of attachment self-report, peer report, and interviews; (b) a theory-consistent underlying two-factor structure accounting for 47% of the variance (Bartholomew Horowitz, 1991); and (c) consistency in attachment history, self-report, and theory-predicted results (Mikulincer Shaver, 2007).
This new Knowledge inside the Romantic Relationship size (ECR; Brennan, Clark, Razor, 1998) explores connection proportions: protection and nervousness. The latest ECR features thirty-six products which try ranked toward a eight-point Likert-type measure, that have high results indicating a whole lot more protection or nervousness. The new 18-product Cures measure is sold with products particularly “I really like to not ever tell you someone the way i be deep down”; brand new 18-items Stress size has factors such as “I value getting abandoned.” Even in the event compatible with the fresh new RQ, brand new ECR explores accessory working more than they explores appearance, that is, values about worry about or other (Mikulincer Razor, 2007). In numerous degree, inner structure could have been [alpha] [greater than or equivalent to] .ninety, that have attempt-retest with rs = .fifty in order to .75 (Mikulincer Shaver, 2007). Authenticity try calculated through a main parts grounds study. A few seemingly orthogonal (r = .12) things (i.elizabeth., Protection and you may Anxiety) accounted for 68% of one’s difference. Inside correlational and you can experimental look, the new balances was of indicator (age.grams., attachment-associated concerns) that are in keeping with theoretic predictions. The Cronbach alphas had been .ninety-five towards the Avoidance level and you will .88 with the Stress level.
Closeness measures. The Relationship Closeness Inventory (RCI; Berscheid et al., 1989) conceptualizes closeness as relational interdependence. We used the Strength subscale, which can be used alone without sacrificing psychometric qualities (Berscheid et al., 1989), to assess the partner’s influence on the self’s mundane and important thoughts, plans, and behavior (e.g., “influences important things in my life”). The 34 items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with some items reverse scored. Higher scores indicate stronger influence. The authors report internal consistency reliability of .90 and test-retest of .81 for the Strength subscale. 45, p < .01) with Rubin's Loving Scale, and prediction of relationship longevity (Berscheid et al., 1989). In this study, Cronbach's alpha for the Strength subscale was .90.
Leave a reply