Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Intimacy and influence strategies: a function of gender, attachment style, and type of relationship Parker, Sandra 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-953772.pdf [ 3.81MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0088298.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088298-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088298-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088298-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088298-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088298-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088298-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

INTIMACY AND INFLUENCE STRATEGIES:A FUNCTION OF GENDER, ATTACHMENT STYLE,AND TYPE OF RELATIONSHIPbySandra ParkerB.A., University of British Columbia, 1988M.A., University of British Columbia, 1990A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREEOF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Psychology)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJuly 1994© Sandra Parker, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of therequirements for an advanced degree at the University of BritishColumbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely availablefor reference and study. I further agree that permission forextensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may begranted by the head of my department or by his or herrepresentatives. It is understood that copying or publication ofthis thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without mywritten permission.(Signature)__Department of___________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate11AbstractGender differences in the ways individuals think about andbehave in close relationships are widely reported and reliablefindings, yet there are also inconsistencies and exceptions insuch patterns. More integrative and theory—driven approaches maybetter focus research efforts and deepen our understanding of thecomplexities of close relationships for women and men.Attachment theory provides a rich framework for examining themanner in which individuals engage in and make meaning of theiraffectional bonds. There appears good reason to speculate thatgender and attachment style mutually shape the terrain of closerelationships with others, yet the joint effects of gender andattachment style are rarely hypothesized and explicitly tested.A cross—sectional study of university undergraduates wasconducted with 20 women and 20 men each screened into one of fourattachment styles (secure, fearful, preoccupied, dismissing)using self—report measures (N=160). Participants reported onintimacy and influence strategies in their romantic relationship,closest same sex, and cross sex friendship. For the firstdependent variable, attachment style significantly interactedwith gender: 1) dismissing women reported higher intimacy thandismissing men; 2) patterns of intimacy within gender acrossrelationship types differed for women and men. Relationship typewas associated with different patterns of intimacy for women andmen; e.g., men consistently reported highest intimacy in theirromantic relationship whereas women’s most intimate relationshipvaried between same sex friendship and romantic relationship.111This research provides new support for hypothesized profiles ofinfluence strategies for each attachment style: secure subjectswere more likely than all others to use integration/compromise;fearful subjects to use avoidance; dismissing to use dominance;and preoccupied to use both domination and obliging strategies.Relationship type was associated with different patterns ofinfluence use by gender: e.g., men used more dominance in samesex friendships than romantic relationships, whereas the reversewas true for women. This study illustrates the separate andjoint effects of gender, attachment style, and relationship typeon individuals’ reports of intimacy and use of influencestrategies.ivTable of ContentsAbstractList of Tables viiiList of Figures ixAcknowledgements xIntroduction 1Gender Patterns in Three Types of Close Relationships 3Prevailing Differences in Men’s and Women’s Relationships. .3Gender Composition and Type of Relationship 5Friendship 5Gender and Attachment 35Limitations in Attachment Research to Date 38Intimacy as a Core Relational Process 41The Nature of Intimacy in Relationships 41The Intimacy Process 43Attachment and Intimacy 45Same sex FriendshipCross sex FriendshipRomantic RelationshipsGender is not the Whole Picture...Attachment TheoryOverview of Attachment TheoryApplication of Attachment to AdultConceptual AnalysisEmpirical FindingsBartholomew’s Four—Category Model.6810121313Relationships 19192428VHypotheses: Attachment and Intimacy 48Gender Differences in Intimacy 48Hypotheses: Gender and Intimacy 53Hypotheses: Gender x Relationship type - Intimacy 54Gender and Attachment Intersect 54Hypotheses: Gender x Attachment- Intimacy 56Three-way Interaction- Intimacy 57Hypotheses: Three-way Interaction - Intimacy 58Influence Strategies 58The Nature of Influence in Relationships 58Attachment Styles and Influence Strategies 60Hypotheses: Attachment and Influence 63Gender Patterns in Influence Strategies 63Hypotheses: Gender and Influence Strategies 66Hypotheses: Gender x Relationship Type - Influence 66Gender and Attachment Intersect 67Hypotheses: Gender x Attachment - Influence 68Summary of Hypotheses 69Methods 72Issues in the Measurement of Attachment 72Subjects 75Measures 77Procedures 83Attachment Style Screening 83Relationship Screening 85Results 89Description of Sample 89viReliability of Attachment Category Assignment 97Category Assignment by Relationship Type 98Study Design and Analyses 103Intimacy 106MANOVA Results 106Sex by Attachment Style Interaction 107Attachment Style Main Effect 114Sex by Relationship Type Interaction 114Relationship Type Main Effect 121Influence 121MANOVA Results 121Attachment Style Main Effect 123Sex by Relationship Type Interaction 131Sex Main Effect 143Relationship Type Main Effect 143Summary of Results 144Summary of Results: Intimacy 145Summary of Results: Influence 147Discussion 150Discussion of Significant Findings 151Attachment Style, Gender and Intimacy 151Attachment Style and Influence Strategies 153Relational Context and Intimacy 157Relational Context and Influence Strategies 158Discussion of Nonsignificant Findings 162Adequacy of the Study as a Test of the Hypotheses 170Sampling Issues 170viiDesign Issues: Target Relationship 171Design Issues: Power 172Adequacy of Measures 173Adequacy of Classification 175Replication of Previous Findings 177Summary 178Implications of This Research 180Attachment 180Gender Differences in Relationships 184Clinical Implications 185Future Research 187Improvements to This Study 187Extending the Findings 189Conclusions 192References 194Appendix A 216viiiList of Tables1. Sample Descriptives 902. Ethnic Distribution 95-963. One Way MANOVA and follow-up ANOVA’s on Reliabilityof Category Assignment 994. Crosstabulation: Attachment Style Category at TimeOne (over all 3 relationship types) by Time Two(by separate relationship types) 1005. MANOVA Results: Intimacy 1086. Two Between-Subjects (sex, attachment style) ANOVAResults: Intimacy 1107. Cell Means: Intimacy- Sex by Attachment Style 111—1128. One Between-Subjects, One Within-Subjects (sex,relationship type) ANOVA Results: Intimacy 1189. Cell Means: Intimacy- Sex by Relationship Type 119—12010. MANOVA Results:Influence 12211. One Between-Subjects (attachment style) ANOVAResults: Influence 12412. Cell Means: Influence - Attachment Style Main Effect 12513. One Between-Subjects, One Within—Subjects (sex,relationship type) ANOVA Results: Influence 134—13514. Cell Means: Influence - Sex by Relationship Type 136—139ixList of Figures1. Study Design 1042. Intimacy as a Function of Gender and Attachment 1133. Intimacy as a Function of Gender and Relationship Type 1164. Integrative Influence as a Function of Attachment andAvoidant Influence as a Function of Attachment 1265. Dominating Influence as a Function of Attachment andObliging Influence as a Function of Attachment 1276. Influence Profiles: Secure and Fearful 1297. Influence Profiles: Preoccupied and Dismissing 1308. Avoidant Influence by Relationship Type 1339. Dominating Influence by Relationship Type 14010. Obliging Influence by Relationship Type 141xAcknowledgementsI gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for theirunique contributions to my successful completion of thisresearch. I thank Charlotte Johnston for serving on my thesiscommittee both at the Masters and Ph.D. levels, and consistentlyproviding clear and helpful feedback. I also thank BorisGorzalka for actively supporting me in my professional goals, andfor his most valuable combination of an insider’s view with anoutsider’s perspective. I sincerely appreciate Tannis McBethWilliams for her honesty, intelligence, insight and humour, andher generosity in sharing those gifts with me. I am grateful forthe unflagging support of Brian de Vries, whose clarity ofthought and capacity for heartfelt care have enriched myeducation and my life. I wish to acknowledge my deep gratitudeto Danfel Perlman whose wisdom and generativity permitted me,within a context of respect and encouragement, to explore, takeappropriate risks, and to enjoy this investigative endeavour.And my deepest thanks to Cam Oxendale, for being a safehaven, and a dear friend.1INTRODUCTIONOur relatedness with others forms a web of interconnectionthrough which we come to understand ourselves and out of whichflows personal meaning and happiness (e.g., Campbell, Converse &Rodgers, 1976; Freedman, 1978; Klinger, 1977). The importance ofmeaningful relationships is illustrated both in the benefits ofbeing in such relationships, such as better psychosocialadjustment and well-being, and in the risks to individualswithout close bonds, such as loneliness (Reis & Shaver, 1988).Much of what makes up the terrain of psychopathology is comprisedof difficulties in interpersonal functioning (West, Sheldon &Reiffer, 1987) and there is “empirical support for the hypothesisthat a personality disorder is essentially a disorder ofinterpersonal relatedness” (Widiger & Frances, 1985, p. 620). Aswell, physical health is profoundly affected by deficits in andloss of close bonds with others (Hojat & Vogel, 1987; Jemmott,1987; Lynch, 1977; Peplau & Perlman, 1982). Above and beyond theconsequences of having (or not having) intimate connections withothers, interpersonal closeness is intrinsically rewarding,involving feelings of being understood and cared for, affection,and pleasure in the fostering of one’s own and another’s growth(Jordan, 1985).Gender differences in the ways individuals think about andbehave in close relationships are widely reported (e.g., Aries &Johnson, 1983; Bell, 1981; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Dickens &Penman, 1981). Women’s relationships may be characterized by a2model of communality (Bakan, 1966), involving more confiding,personal concern, and sharing of emotional understanding, incontrast to men’s more agentic orientation in relationships,involving shared activities, competitiveness, and less intimatedisclosure. This greater emotional emphasis in women’srelationships is evident in self—report and observationalmeasures, in laboratory and naturalistic settings, in attitudesand behaviors (Reis, 1986). Gender differences in interpersonalexperience may also be implicated in differences in adaptiveoutcomes for men and women. Investigations of loneliness (Reis,1986) and adaptation to loss (Weiss, 1976) indicate that men maybe more at risk for emotional or physical problems than women ifthey lose or do not have a romantic partner. At the same time,women are more likely to be sought out for support by both womenand men under stress (Buhrke & Fuqua, 1987) and women’s greaterempathic concern about problems in their social networks (the“cost of caring”) may be related to greater vulnerability to lifeevents (Kessler & McLeod, 1985).While there currently exists a significant body of empiricalresearch into the importance, nature and functions of closerelationships for women and men, there is a need for moreintegrative and theory—driven approaches that may better focusresearch efforts and deepen our understanding of the complexitiesof such bonds. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982)provides a rich framework for examining the manner in whichindividuals engage in and make meaning of their affectional bondswith others. Differences in internal working models of3attachment shape motivational, cognitive, affective andbehavioral aspects of interpersonal processes (Shaver & Hazan,1992). Intimacy and influence are overarching relationalprocesses which encompass core dimensions of close relationships(e.g., Clark & Reis, 1988). The proposed investigation isdirected both by empirical findings in the gender literature andby theoretical and empirical work in attachment, and attempts toexamine how intimacy and influence processes in closerelationships vary as a function of gender and attachment style.The discussion which follows will begin by addressing thenature of gender differences in close relationships, with aspecific focus on the role of type of relationship and gendercomposition of the dyad. Gaps and inconsistencies in this broadportrait of gender differences will be noted, and the notion ofattachment style as a moderating variable will be introduced.Following an overview of the attachment theoretical perspectiveand recent findings in adult attachment, the limitations of theresearch to date will be discussed. The relational processes ofintimacy and influence will then be presented, with an emphasison gender patterns and attachment-style patterns. Finally, theintersecting relations amongst gender, type of relationship, andattachment to intimacy and influence processes, which form thecrux of this thesis, will be proposed.Gender Patterns in Three Types of Close RelationshipsPrevailing Differences in Men’s and Women’s Relationships4Of the many elements that shape the patterning of closebonds with others, none is as basic as gender (Bell, 1981).Women generally are encouraged to develop and use relationalskills such as empathy, emotional expressiveness, and nurturance,whereas men’s socialization teaches them to guard againstemotional expression (Basow, 1992). In a review of theories andresearch into gender differences in emotional development, Brody(1985) concludes that there are “gender differences in severalareas of emotional functioning, including nonverbal sensitivity,expressiveness, self—reports of anger, fear and sadness, thequality of defenses, and cognitive correlates of recognitionability” (p. 102).The results of several studies suggest that women more thanmen construe their relationships holistically, with an affectiveand verbal focus; in contrast, men more than women emphasize theinstrumental nature of their relations with others and interactwith them in a more differentiated way (e.g. Aries & Johnson,1983; Barth & Kinder, 1988; Davidson & Packard, 1981; Hendrick,1988; Parker & de Vries, 1992). Women score higher in measuresof perspective—taking, empathic concern and communal orientation,and report being more behaviorally interdependent with theirfriends than do men (Omoto & Mooney, 1991). The consistency ofthese findings has prompted Wright (1982) to characterize women’srelationships as face—to—face and men’s relationships as side—by—side, reflecting women’s emotional, personalized focus on theother, in contrast to men’s focus on shared external activities.5The Gender Composition and Type of RelationshipThe above mentioned findings on gender differences in closerelationships focus on the sex—of—subject variable. Recent workhowever has illustrated the need to consider the gendercomposition of the dyad, which apparently plays an important rolein the extent to which gender differences in interaction areevident (Reis, 1986). One consideration of relationship typeinvolves whether the participants are same sex or cross sexpairs. A second consideration is whether the relationship is aromantic one, or is a friendship. Tschann (1988), for example,notes that in studies of self-disclosure it is important toassess whether or not respondents are currently in a romanticrelationship, since disclosure patterns vary for women and mendepending on relationship status: investigators may expect fewergender differences in samples of single people than among thosewho are in romantic relationships. Despite the “potency ofrelationship type for influencing answers to questions aboutclose relationships. . . . it is relatively rare for a singleinvestigation to span several relationship types” (Berscheid,Snyder, & Omoto, 1989, p. 804).FriendshipIn response to the question “What is it that makes your lifemeaningful?” respondents of both genders have cited close friendsmore frequently than any other source, including romanticpartners, who were listed next most often (Klinger, 1977).Despite this, friendship has been until recently an understudied6relationship, its meaning and importance in men’s and women’slives largely unexamined by psychologists (Caldwell & Peplau,1982). In part this may be due to the uniquely ambiguousboundaries of friendship (wright, 1982); the term can be used todescribe a range of different relationships from casualacquaintance to intimate confidante (Hays, 1988). Friendship hasbeen identified as one of the least programmed and sociallydefined relationships (Aries & Johnson, 1983), lacking any publicrituals to honor or celebrate friendships of any kind. Someauthors have argued that “our well—developed ideology aboutmarriage and the family, our insistence that these are therelationships that count for the long haul, have blinded us tothe meaning and importance of friendship in our lives” (Rubin,1985, p. 9).Same sex friendship. Same sex friendship is the most commonrelationship most individuals have throughout their lives(Dickens & Perlman, 1981; woolsey, 1987). Homosociality, or thetendency to prefer the company of others of the same sex (Lipman—Blumen, 1976), is a well-established finding for both men andwomen. Same sex relationships tend to illustrate the genderpattern most obviously; that is, the side-by-side versus face—toface distinction seems most applicable to women’s and men’sinteractions with others of the same sex, and is less clearlyevident when women and men interact with each other (Reis, 1986).Women’s same sex friendships have been found to show moredepth and involvement (Barth & Kinder, 1988), and to be more7intimate and emotional and less focused on activity sharing(Aukett, Ritchie & Mill, 1987) than men’s same sex friendships.When under stress, women more than men will report that they haveincreased contact with their same sex friends (Burhke & Fuqua,1987). Intimacy in itself may be experienced by women as a kindof assistance, or therapeutic experience (Candy, Troll, & Levy,1981; Davidson & Packard, 1981). The talk of women friends hasbeen viewed as a defining feature of their relationships (e.g.,Davidson, 1983), creating “a mosaic of noncritical listening,mutual support, enhancement of self—worth, relationshipexclusiveness, and personal growth and self—discovery” (Johnson &Aries, 1983, p. 353).At the same time, women’s friendships are not exclusivelywarm and supportive; a number of authors have identified severalbarriers to women’s closeness with other women, including thegeneral taboo against displays of anger in women, competitionwith other women for males, women’s greater burden ofresponsibility for the raising of small children, homophobia, andthe generally negative view that society has of women (Basow,1992; Pogrebin, 1987; Raymond, 1986; Rubin, 1985). Despite suchbarriers, the emotional closeness in women’s connection withother women has been described in terms of love: “indeed theserelationships may be even more loving for some women than theirmarital and kin relationships” (O’Meara, 1989, p. 532). Further,some research suggests that terminating a close same sexfriendship is more painful for a woman than is ending a romanticdH0CDO<Ct0)-CDCtCt0)HçtHCDCDII CD0)CtoHHU)o•,‘1()0)o U)H-U)C)H-U)U) Cl)Ct0XH)H0‘1 H-0CDCDU)H)U)QHU)CDCDH-Ct U)H)CtI-H-H-CtCDCD U) H U)•—Ho<oCDCtU) Ct H 0) CtCD0U)‘1U)U)H)‘D<—.1CD- -CD C’)0)aQHaCDCDQ.’Ct 0)i-H-0 U)HU) CDCDI—hCDH-CDCD0) aIICDCDrnU)H 0) ci H-(I)H-CDCD0)U)HC/)i-<0)H)0C’)0 a0)HQHCtCDH-U)0U)CDCDU)-jU)U)U)dH)CD0)•IIxH-CD01CDL.’jU)01Q.H-CDCDX•HQH)U)HH-CtH-CDH-U)U) CDH0)HIH-H-CDCDU)CD0)CtCtCDHH-CtCDt-0)WCtaaoH-00)U)HCt0CDCDCDCt0hXCD0HHCD1CDCtH-H-CD‘)‘oZ0)aiCDCDQ.,0)HCt n)—H.CD0oaCDH0)0CDU)I-0)‘CD0)--aaHC’)êlCDD00 U)0-DCDC’)H-a‘-c1U)ooCtH0)U)CDCtCtH--‘CDOCtCDH-oCDU)0)HU)CtC’)CDH-H-CD0)aU)XU)1HH-H-Ctri-‘CDCDH-CDHCDC’)0C0HCtZaCD0)H-H-H0)HCtCtHC’)H-0)0)Ii)1I0)H‘))H-H)i-CDU)aCD00CDZ0)00)U)HCtH-0)CD0aU)U)HhCtCDCDCt—0)0i-H-•1SC’)CDCD01 ooC’)-o0)Cl)H•HH)H0)CD0)U)0)H-CD 0)CDHC’)C’)HH-0)o‘0U)CD0)H—aU)•0)H-H)Ctp 0)oII‘1CD QICDCD0oH)Ct H- oH-U) a HCD0HH‘-CU)CtDCtCD0H-U)H-C’)CX)CDCDS‘-C--Cl)0)H-Ct0)•0aCD0)H55o‘-C0)C!)0‘-‘1CDH0CtoH-CDHHxoH-0-0)LQU)QII-’-)0)0)00)QIci-S‘-CHH-CDH-H-CtCttYCD0)aCl)‘.<<U)0CtCD-SX0)CDa0)CtH--CDHCl)CDCl)CD0)—nh‘-C)CDci-<H0)CDCDa‘-C0’0)00H-H0)H)0CI)CD‘-C Ct‘.D‘1U)bH-CX)0CDCDCDH01HCtXCD‘1a•—CD0I-Cl)I-CSCDH-HCtci-H-CD0-,U)C’):>‘H-aCD‘dI-’I-C-oci-Cl)-CDHCDCD‘0U)CXCDU)4ci)—U) Ct CD0) 50CD rn0mU) H ci- CDI-C H- CDCt Ct CDU)‘—CC/)HH- C’)U)a0 II0)5aCD‘-C-H-NH-CDCD ‘1 a CDH-U) U) CD 0 Hi ci CD 0 Ct CD ‘-C CD H 0) Ct H 0 U) H H Ct C/) CD H H) H- Cl) H- CD CDI-CH0QIHHCDCDCD-Ct‘-CH-0)I-hci-H-H-CD:E:lHCDH CtSH0)C‘$zU)CD0CtHH)CD‘1‘-CCD,-S U)a 0 U) H CD I-C CD CD ‘-C U) Ct H- CD ‘1 CD H 0) Ct H 0 C’) H Ct CD a ‘-C 0 U) Cl)0) H U) 0H)‘-C H-CD U) H H CD CD ‘-C 0) HU) CD XCD9Cross sex friendship is fraught with ambiguity, making itmore difficult for the actors and observers of this relationshipto label and understand its nature. O’Meara (1989) identifiesseveral aspects of this ambiguity in cross sex friendship,apparently deriving from its less frequent occurrence and thecomplexities inherent in heterosexual gender dynamics. Arisingout of this are a number of “challenges” (O’Meara, 1989): 1)determining the type of emotional bond; 2) dealing withsexuality; 3) issues of equality and power; and 4) presenting therelationship to others as valid.Despite the difficulties involved in defining therelationship and negotiating roles for the participants, manyindividuals do have cross sex friendships, especially among youngadults (Fox et al., 1985). Among mid-life adults, employed womenare found to have more cross sex friends than women not in thepaid workforce, whereas the number of cross sex friends men haveis unrelated to their employment status (Dickens & Penman,1981). Sapadin (1988) suggests that such relationships providecertain experiences that are not available in same sexfriendships, in particular that of obtaining an “insider’sperspective” on the other sex (p. 401).The functions of cross sex and same sex relationships differfor women and men: men derive more emotional support andtherapeutic value from their cross sex relationships than theirsame sex ones, whereas for women this pattern is reversed (Aukettet al., 1988). Women’s same sex friendships are rated higherthan their cross sex friends on measures of overall happiness,10quality, intimacy, and enjoyment, whereas men’s cross sexrelationships are rated higher on all these measures (Helgeson,Shaver & Dyer, 1987; Sapadin, 1988). For both women and men, asthe percentage of interactions with women increases, lonelinessscores decrease; in contrast, as the percentage of interactionswith men increases, loneliness scores increase (Reis, 1986).Although women’s cross sex friends provide less acceptance (i.e.,approval and understanding) than do their same sex friends, womenmay tolerate less acceptance and intimacy from men in exchangefor the greater status they might obtain from being with a male(Rose, 1985). This pattern has led Rose (1985) to conclude that“women’s expectations for friendship do not seem to be fulfilledto the same extent by men friends as by women friends” (p. 72),and Bernard (1976) to remark that women in cross sexrelationships may be at a “relational deficit” with potentiallydeleterious consequences for their well-being (p. 213).Romantic RelationshipsCommitted love relationships, in which two individualsdevelop enduring sexual/romantic bonds and think of themselves asa couple are, for most people, the most significant relationshipsof adult life (Bartholomew, 1990). While archetypes offriendship and romantic relationships share importantsimilarities such as enjoyment, acceptance, respect,understanding and intimacy, they also are characterized bysignificant differences (Davis & Todd, 1982). In particularromantic love is contrasted with friendship on dimensions of11passion and sexual attraction, and in the intensity of support,such as “giving the utmost” and “being a champion or advocate ofthe loved one” (Davis & Todd, 1982, p. 79).Despite the prevailing stereotypes about women being themore romantic gender, the opposite appears to be true: men aremore likely to hold romantic views such as true love only comesonce and lasts forever, to believe in “love at first sight”, andto enjoy the “game” of love, flirtation, and pursuit (Peplau,1983). Men more so than women appear to hold traditional viewsabout their preferred romantic partner: more men than womenprefer the traditional pattern of employed husband andnonemployed wife, and more women than men prefer androgynouspartners over sex—typed ones (Basow, 1992). Both women and menfavor equality in romantic relationships, however when therelationship is not seen as egalitarian the balance of power issignificantly more likely to be in favor of men than of women(Peplau, 1983)Having a romantic partner doesn’t affect women’s lonelinesssignificantly, whereas men who do not have a romantic partner aresignificantly more lonely than men who do. In terms of self—disclosure, married men disclose less to their friends than dounmarried men, or women married or not; women, on the other hand,do not differ in disclosure patterns with friends, whethermarried or not (Tschann, 1988). Such findings have prompted Reis(1986) to speculate that “a romantic relationship provides aconsiderable emotional benefit for males that does not have acounterpart for females” (p. 98). Tschann (1988) states that “in12some subtle but important way women’s intimacy needs are not metas completely by their spouses as men’s, so that women mustmaintain their friendships in order to assure that their intimacyneeds are met” (p. 79).But Gender is not the Whole PictureThe portrait of gender differences is reliable, yet it isundoubtedly painted with a broad brush. There is a centraltendency for women and men to describe and behave in theirrelationships in predictable ways, yet there are alsoinconsistencies and exceptions “found with sufficient frequencyto warrant serious attention” (Wright, 1988, p. 368). Women forexample, are held to self—disclose more and to express greaterinterpersonal intimacy than men, yet some studies have found nogender difference in self—disclosure and expressed intimacy (Hill& Stull, 1986; Peplau, 1983). Further, women and men showconsiderable similarity in their rank ordering of what they valuein close relationships, even when they differ significantly withrespect to their behaviors in those relationships (Parker & deVries, 1993). As well, as with all “average” results there isconsiderable within-group variability, and between—group overlap:not all women are expressive and empathic in their interactions,nor are all men task—focused in their interpersonal relationships(Reis, 1986). Gender is a most obvious group delineation andsurely reflects important internalized tendencies and externalrealities, yet other dimensions likely interact with gender toinfluence the process of relating with others. Sex—role13orientation for example has been found to have an attenuatingeffect on gender differences in relationship depth and intimacy(e.g., Barth & Kinder, 1988; Berg & Peplau, 1982; Williams,1985). Further, relationships of longer duration and greatercloseness were found by Wright (1982) to have an emotional focusand be viewed holistically by both women and men.This complexity has led some authors to call for theidentification of moderator variables which may help clarify thepicture of women’s and men’s relationships (Clark & Reis, 1988;Wright, 1988). Attachment style is uniquely suited to serve as amoderating variable of gender effects in close relationships,arising as it does out of a rich and comprehensive theory ofhuman relatedness across the lifespan. Attachment style is ofgreat heuristic value as an individual difference variable which“is likely to contribute significantly to our understanding ofwhy close relationships vary in both their quality and theirinterpersonal nature” (Simpson, 1990, p. 972).Attachment TheoryOverview of Attachment TheoryAttachment theory is “a way of conceptualizing thepropensity of human beings to make strong affectional bonds toparticular others” (Bowlby, 1977, p. 201) and suggests thatsocial and personal development arises out of the bond thatdevelops between children and their primary caretakers. Ofcentral concern in this theory is how and why the infant—14caregiver bond develops, and why separation from the primarycaregiver leads to emotional distress in infants (Bowlby, 1969;1973). Observational studies of infant response to separationillustrate a predictable sequence of behaviors (Bowiby, 1973):initial protest (involving crying, searching for the caregiver,and resisting others’ efforts at soothing); then despair (sad,passive behavior); and finally detachment (an active, defensiveavoidance of the caregiver if s/he returns). The theory has beendescribed as an evolutionary—ethological approach to development(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978), in that infantattachment behavior is viewed as serving the biological functionof maintaining proximity to the caretaker, thereby ensuringprotection from predators.Attachment involves an organized behavioral system which ismost prone to activation in the face of threat, evidenced inbehaviors emitted by the child that are aimed at reducing thedistance between the self and the caregiver (Bowiby, 1977). Theattachment system is hypothesized to serve three basic functions(Shaver & Hazan, 1992): proximity-seeking (the desire to be closeto the caregiver and positive feelings associated with suchcloseness); safe haven (the tendency to retreat to the caregiverfor comfort when threatened); and secure base (a willingness toexplore the environment as long as the caregiver is nearby). Thenotion of a secure base function has been broadened beyond thedomain of physical protection to include the positivelyreinforcing experience of felt security (Bretherton, 1985; Sroufe& Waters, 1977).15The quality of the early child-caregiver relationship exertsa significant influence on the expectations individuals holdabout themselves and others (Shaver & Hazan, 1992), and shapesthe characteristic ways in which individuals come to modulatenegative emotional experience (Mikulincer, Florian & Tolmacz,1990) and relate to others (Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991). Out ofrepeated experiences with primary caregivers, the child forms “onthe one hand, expectations about the reliability of attachment,and, on the other hand, self—concepts about one’s ability toevoke attachment responses” (West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994, p. 51).Such internal working models of the self and others derive fromthe child’s continued interaction with the parent, whoseemotional availability and responsiveness determine, over time,the extent to which the child will come to see the self as beingworthy of care and others as being reliably caring (Collins &Read, 1990). The responsiveness and sensitivity of the parent tothe child’s affective signals “provides a critical context withinwhich the child organizes emotional experience and regulates feltsecurity” (Kobak & Sceery, 1988, p. 135).An individual who is confident of the availability of theattachment figure “will be less prone to either intense orchronic fear than will be an individual who for any reason has nosuch confidence” (Bowlby, 1973, p. 202). Such differences in theexperience of negative emotions are based on the individual’shistory of successful affect regulation with the primarycaregiver: active support—seeking with a responsive caregiver islikely to elicit soothing behavior, thereby reducing negative16feelings; whereas the same behavior with an inconsistent,nonresponsive, or rejecting caregiver is less likely to beeffective in reducing distress, requiring development ofalternative modes of coping (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Internalworking models of self and other come to organize cognition,affect, and behavior in relationships (Mikulincer & Nachson,1991), and provide the central components of personality (Shaver,Hazan & Bradshaw, 1988). It is hypothesized that these internalmodels are carried forward into new relationships, influencingbehavior “by guiding the appraisal of social situations, as wellas functioning to maintain a coherent world view and self imageby guiding the assimilation of new experiences” (Bartholomew,1990, p. 152)Differences amongst infants in style of attachment havebeen found using an eight-stage laboratory procedure called the“Strange Situation” in which 12-15 month aids are first incontact with, then separated from, and then reunited with theircaregivers (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Three patterns ofinteraction have been observed by Ainsworth and her colleagues:1) secure infants use the caregiver as a base from which toexplore the strange environment; they protest separation andreact to the caregiver’s return with pleasure and are easilyconsoled; 2) anxious/ambivalent infants are clingy and afraid toexplore when the caregiver is present, become highly agitated andanxious upon separation, and seek contact when reunited, howeverthey simultaneously resist the caregiver’s attempts to soothethem; 3) avoidant infants explore without using the caregiver as17a base, do not appear distressed at the separation, and do notseek contact when reunited, yet they also show a pattern ofelevated autonomic arousal (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Thesereactions to separation illustrate the role of attachment stylein the regulation of negative affect: secure attachment isassociated with constructive efforts at attaining desired goalsand an ability to display positive emotions, maximizing thelikelihood of positive responses from others; anxious/ambivalentattachment is characterized by heightened focus of attention onthe distress, with concurrent displays of anxiety and anger; andavoidant attachment involves actively cutting off emotionalexpression, using distraction and blunting to ward off theintolerable distress arising from having a rejecting caregiver(Kobak & Sceery, 1988).Associations between child’s attachment style andcaregiver’s behavior have been observed (Ainsworth et al., 1978).Typically, mothers of infants classified as secure were found tobe sensitive to their children’s cues and were reliablyresponsive to them, whereas mothers of avoidant infants rejectedtheir infants’ efforts at closeness, and mothers ofanxious/ambivalent infants were inconsistent in their responsesto the infant’s signals, sometimes ignoring them and other timesbeing intrusive. The association between a caregiver’sattachment style and the attachment style of their child has beenstudied by Main and her colleagues using the Adult AttachmentInterview (AAI; Main & Goldwyn, 1985; Main, Kaplan & Cassidy,1985). This interview assesses adults’ internal representation18of childhood attachment experiences in their family of origin,and examines the congruence between individuals’ generalcharacterization of those experiences and their specificmemories. Individuals who appear to value the importance ofattachment experiences, whose recollections of childhoodrelationships are freely accessible and generally positive, andwho can report them coherently to the interviewer, are labelledsecure. Individuals are classified as dismissing of attachmentif they tend to devalue the importance of close relationships,have repeated difficulty recalling specific memories, andevidence discrepancies between the specific (often negative)memories they do recall and their more global (often positive)characterization of their childhood. Individuals who areclassified as preoccupied tend to be able to freely accessmemories of childhood attachment experiences, but they seem tohave difficulty integrating their negative experiences into acoherent whole, and appear to be enmeshed with and somewhatambivalent toward their parents. Main and Goldwyn (1985) foundthat in 73% of cases there was a match between parents’attachment style and that of their children (assessed 6 yearsearlier in the Strange Situation): secure parents tended to havehad secure children; dismissing parents tended to have avoidantchildren; and preoccupied parents tended to haveanxious/ambivalent children.Links have been found between children’s attachment styleand other dimensions of social—emotional adjustment in childhood;for example, securely attached children are more self—reliant and19more emotionally open than are anxious/ambivalent or avoidantchildren (Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985). When familycircumstances do not change significantly, these patterns havebeen shown to persist over several years, throughout earlychildhood (Egeland & Farber, 1984; Main & Cassidy, 1988; vaughn,Egeland, Sroufe & Waters, 1979; Waters, 1978).Attachment theory proposes that the need for connection withothers is a primary and fundamental human need throughout life(Ainsworth, 1982). Attachment processes are hypothesized tounderlie “the later capacity to make affectional bonds” inadulthood (Bowlby, 1977, p. 206). That these models of self andother have been found to endure over time and distance inchildhood has prompted investigators to examine the continuity ofattachment patterns in significant relationships in adulthood.Application of Attachment Theory to Adult RelationshipsConceptual analysis. In recent years attachment theory hasbeen increasingly applied to the study of close personalrelationships in adult life (e.g. Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver,1990). Bowlby conceptualized attachment from a lifespanperspective, hypothesizing that it characterizes “human beingsfrom the cradle to the grave” (1977, p. 129), and that “whileattachment behavior is at its most obvious in early childhood, itcan be observed throughout the life cycle, especially inemergencies” (1989, p. 238). A working definition of adultattachment has been provided by Berman and Sperling (1994) who20define it as “the stable tendency of an individual to makesubstantial efforts to seek and maintain proximity to and contactwith one or a few specific individuals who provide the subjectivepotential for physical and/or psychological safety and security”(p. 8). The attachment system and its underlying functions ofproximity—seeking/safe haven (desire for closeness and increasedcontact with the attachment figure when feeling threatened),secure base (feeling more able to take risks when confident thatthe attachment figure is available), and separation protest arehypothesized to operate throughout life. Individual differencesin attachment patterns are also held to continue, maintained bythe individual’s internal working model of attachment.Internal working models of self and other in adulthood arehypothesized to provide a set of heuristics which enableindividuals “to predict the actions of others in order to plan orprepare for particular outcomes, and to interpret and explain thebehavior of others” in order to understand their social world(Collins & Read, 1990, p. 661). The working model is thought tooperate as a sort of cognitive—affective filter for attachmentinformation (West & Sheldon—Keller, 1994) and as a motivationalsystem (Berman & Sperling, 1994). Mental models are hypothesizedto involve ongoing construction, revision, and integration“similar to the notion of scripts and schemas in cognitive—socialpsychology” (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, p. 523), and are “like allimportant affect—laden schemata, resistant though not imperviousto change” (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994, p. 31).21Bartholomew (1990) has commented on the “decidedly cognitivebent” (p. 169) of some investigators and, while endorsing theimportance of such a perspective, cautions that researchersshould not overlook the styles of interpersonal interaction thatthe theory is designed to explain. Internal representations andinterpersonal behavior may interact in mutually supportive ways,so that for example, avoidant individuals who are fearful ofintimacy may have a bias toward perceiving others asoverdependent and desirous of more intimacy than they would like“thereby activating self-fulfilling interaction patterns ofwithdrawal which elicits increased approach behavior in theother” (Bartholomew, 1990, p. 153). Individuals may in such away “create social environments that sustain their initialdispositions” (Senchak & Leonard, 1990, p. 53). The combinationof cognitive models which shape expectations and interactionpatterns which support such mental models lends a coherence toattachment patterns of affect, cognition and behavior which,while not invariant, do show significant continuity over time(Mikulincer et al., 1990).The attachment system then appears to function throughoutthe lifespan, although manifesting itself in differentrelationships and dynamics at different stages. Althoughattachment behavior is hypothesized to operate from infancythroughout adult life, clearly adult relationships differ inimportant ways from those of infancy and childhood (e.g., Hazan &Zeifman, 1994; Shaver et al., 1988). For example thecomplementarity that exists between the care—providing parent and22the care—receiving child is, in adulthood, transformed intoreciprocity between adult peers who are each care—providers forand care-recipients of the other (Weiss, 1982). The role ofcaregiving is central in some conceptualizations of adultattachment, with some authors viewing adult attachment as beingmade up of the components of the childhood attachment system(i.e., care—seeking or proximity—seeking behaviors) plus acaregiving system (e.g., Berman & Sperling, 1994). In childhood,attachment relationships tend to be exclusively with parents orother primary caregivers, whereas in adulthood relationships withequals such as sexual partners, close friends and siblings mayall function as attachment relationships over the lifespan(Ainsworth, 1982, 1989; Weiss, 1982). At the same time, the keyfeatures of infant-caregiver attachment, proximity-seeking,separation protest, safe haven, and secure base, are evident inadult attachment relationships (Bartholomew, 1990; Weiss, 1982),and preliminary measures are being developed to examine suchfunctions in adulthood (West et al., 1987). Of course inadulthood the desire for closeness may involve sexuality (Hazan &Zeifman, 1994; Weiss, 1982), the experience of felt security maybe obtained via thinking of the relationship with the otherrather than by achieving physical proximity (West & SheldonKeller, 1994), the perception of threat may involve other dangersthan physical ones, such as threats to self—concept and integrity(West & Sheldon, 1988), and exploration behavior may involve suchactivities as work (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Importantsimilarities between childhood and adult attachment do exist23however, such as the three stage response of protest, despair anddetachment upon separation from the attachment figure observedamong infants separated from their caregivers (Ainsworth et al.,1978), and which has been found among adults in bereavement(Parkes, 1972) and divorce (Weiss, 1974).Attachment may be conceptualized as a state, which may beexpected to vary at different times and under differentcircumstances, or as a trait, which may be expected to bereasonably stable across time and situation (Berman & Sperling,1994) . Research into attachment as a state examines theconditions which activate and deactivate different attachmentfunctions at different times, for example when facing separationor loss (e.g., Weiss, 1975) or experiencing reunion afterseparation (Cafferty, Davis, Medway, O’Hearn & Chappell, 1994).Another state—based view of attachment is as a relational schemawhich may be elicited by a number of conditions such assituational factors, or the state of one’s current closerelationship (e.g. Baldwin & Fehr, 1993). The more commonconceptualization of attachment style is the trait model, inwhich individuals are thought of as having stable individualdifferences in the tendency to form close relationships and inthe ways they feel about and respond to others in thoserelationships. Patterns of attachment are hypothesized tocontinue across time, and research with children has providedevidence for the temporal stability of attachment styles (e.g.,Main et al., 1985). Research into attachment styles in adulthoodindicates that there is fairly high reliability for periods of24several months up to a few years, although long—term stabilitystudies are lacking (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994).Empirical findings. The development by Hazan and Shaver(1987, 1990; Shaver & Hazan, 1988, 1992; Shaver et al., 1988) ofan effective, efficient method for assessing attachment inadulthood has spawned a vast body of research into the correlatesand dynamics of the construct. Bartholomew and Penman (1994)for example, found in a computer search of PsychologicalAbstracts that in the period between 1980 and 1993, the number ofitems identified with the word attachment in the title was 1050.Hazan and Shaver developed a self—report measure to classifyindividuals into the three attachment styles found among infants,and have repeatedly found that the three styles (secure,avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent or preoccupied) are manifestedin approximately the same proportions in the adult population.Adult attachment styles have been found to be related to anumber of factors involved in individual adaptation (note that nocausality can be inferred on the basis of these data, as theseare merely associations amongst variables) . Individuals who aresecurely attached tend to have higher self—esteem and selfconfidence (Collins & Read, 1990), be more extroverted (Shaver &Brennan, in press) and more ego—resilient (Kobak & Sceery, 1988)than are those who are insecure. Further, secure persons have alower frequency of eating disorders and alcohol abuse (Brennan,Shaver & Tobey, 1991), and have less anxiety, depression, andphysical symptoms (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) than do insecurepersons. While being securely attached clearly appears to bode25well for the individual, the construct of attachment resides inthe interpersonal domain, hence secure attachment is nothypothesized to simply relate to anything that is “good”. Forexample, attachment style is not expected to correlate withvariables such as intelligence or creativity. Attachment stylesare expected to predict differences in the ways individualsunderstand, experience, and behave in relationships with others.Of relevance to relationship researchers, investigators havefound clear differences among attachment styles in adulthood withregard to early family background, mental models ofrelationships, love experiences, affect regulation, andinterpersonal behavior (see Hazan & Shaver, 1992, for a review).Secure individuals report greater warmth in their childhoodrelationship with their parents and in their retrospectiveaccount of the relationship between their parents when they werechildren, than do those who are insecure (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).Different attachment styles are associated with different beliefsabout the course of romantic love, the availability andtrustworthiness of partners, and their own worth as love—partners. Secure individuals hold the most positive models ofself and others, whereas preoccupied individuals’ models ofrelationships are found to be idealized, obsessive and dependent,and avoidants’ models of relationships are characterized byavoidance of intimacy (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver,1987). Internal models of one’s own response to imagined othersalso show differences by attachment type: all subjects imaginefeeling better with a secure other; secure individuals are more26optimistic in general about imagined relationships; andpreoccupied subjects imagine feeling more jealous and anxiouswith the imagined other, regardless of the other’s behavior(Pietromonaco & Carnelley, 1992).Such self—report findings are supported by “growing evidencethat verbally assessed attachment styles are related to behavior”(Shaver & Hazan, 1992, p. 16). A number of researchers havefound positive correlations between self—reported attachmentstyle and the ratings of others (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz,1991; Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Secure and preoccupied individualshave been found to self—disclose more than do those who areavoidant (Mikuliricer & Nachson, 1991). Women categorized assecure are more likely than avoidant women to reach out foremotional support from their romantic partner as their anxietyincreases; secure men are more likely to offer emotional supportto their anxious partner than are avoidant men (Simpson, Rholes,& Nelligan, in press). Caregiving behaviors in romanticrelationships follow theoretically consistent patterns, withsecure individuals being the most sensitive and avoidantindividuals the least sensitive to the cues of the other, whereaspreoccupied individuals are most likely to provide compulsivecaregiving (Shaver & Hazan, 1991). In addition, there is someevidence that the duration and functioning of romanticrelationships is related to attachment style, in that secureindividuals tend to be in more stable relationships with othersecure people (Collins & Read, 1990).27Of particular concern in this thesis is the process ofintimacy. Attachment styles are evident in adulthood in the wayindividuals feel and behave in their close relationships. Inromantic relationships, avoidant individuals are more likely tofear intimacy and strive for distance; those who are preoccupiedare more likely to experience emotional highs and lows and to bejealous and obsess about their partner; those who are securereport more intimacy and closeness, and are less likely to belonely (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). In a longitudinal study ofromantic couples, Simpson (1990) found differences among theattachment styles in individuals’ descriptions of the nature ofthe relationship, the emotions experienced, and reactions todissolution of the relationship. Secure persons reported greaterrelationship interdependence, commitment, trust and satisfaction,and more frequent positive emotions and less frequent negativeemotions than did insecure individuals (Simpson, 1990). Further,when both members of a couple are secure, the relationship ismore likely to have better overall adjustment and higher levelsof intimacy than are relationships between couples where one orboth partners is insecure (Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Senchak &Leonard, 1992).A second core concern of this thesis is the use of influencestrategies in close relationships. Secure attachment isassociated with greater use of compromising and integratingtactics; preoccupied and avoidant attachment styles arenegatively associated with compromise and integration, andpreoccupied attachment is positively associated with dominatingo‘0oo<II0U)o0H-CDCD IIH-)<:z:’CDU)NCt•-—0 0HHC))C) CDH-LQçt CC)‘ HCH-C))I—’‘lC))C))CD-oU)C)CC)CCD•_HHQH-0H-• CD.Q0 H)-0 H)oC))ClU)CD0CDCl-HClC)U)0CDC))rl-;JCD-CtCDCDCD0<‘-‘CCDI-’-CDCDCDCl-HH<H-CDC)LOCH-C))CD0U)ClC))H-CD•“CCDCDC))CtU)0 HCtoH-0-U)H)‘-‘CCtH-CDCl-C)C))HC))CDoHClU)ClH-H-CDH)H-H)U)CD-1CDCDC))HC1H-OD 0:’C))iQCl-H)ctCC))HC)1xj Crl-U)‘-‘CCl-Ct—CDU)H Cl-H-Cl H- H)C)H) CD ‘-C CD C)ClCD U)H HC))H CoCDH-‘1Cl0H-C)<CDH-U)ClU)CCDC))U)H U)C) C))H-Cct‘-C CDCDC))H)Cl)<C1CC))Cl‘-‘CClC))Cl-H-C)0CDbC))‘-CHdl-CDH-H- oCl-H-H-U)oU)C)H)CtC U)ClH‘-‘CC))CDH-‘-‘CU)ft‘-‘CCDH-CDC))H-ClCDClU)C) oCl--CH-1:-IZCDCDHH)U)<CDHCD‘<U)C CDC U)C)CtH-CDC9)Cl<H-HCDC))ftU)-‘1rl-9)‘-‘CHCl-CD“•oCD0:’CDa’:’ClH-‘-‘C-.H-CD U)CDctH0U)U)ftH-CD0oHH0CDC)CD-H—H9)CDLOU)C)0:’U)rl-LOCDH--.U)HU)z-0CD‘19)0Cl-C))-1 D -J D 1) -j D -‘C D —C D -Jrt>()C‘00H-1’C‘10I-’-CDH-H)U)CDCDXCl<H)9)Cl-Cl-ClH-H)CDCDH)1H-H-CD0‘-‘CCC)S—..CDClCDCDC)C)Ct-‘-‘CU)‘j‘-‘C0pCDCl)Cl-Cl-<Cl-Cl-CDCDCl-CDHCi)CDCD9-’CDClx9ftCDpdCl-—ClCDH-C)CDH-jH-H-C‘-<9)Cl-‘—C0CDH-0Cl-ft•H—H-CD<CCH’CDCDCl--C))HCDU)HQftC)C))HHCD,-CD,CDHCDC)‘XCDHCl-H)C)U)1CD‘-‘CC)ftCD‘-‘Cftft9)nC)0U)0CDCD‘-‘CCDCDU)-H-ZU)C))H-CDU)U)Cl-H)H-CDCD0jCDCD,H0‘-‘CHCDH-Hftç,Cl-—CDC))HLOC)Cl-Cl)H-H)H-t’Cz—sCl—H)1HClH-HCDCDCDHCCD‘-‘CLOCDCD‘CC)k<CDC)C)’CD()‘-‘C‘.<CD‘D•ZHCDftCDU)Cl-U)HC))CC)QQH-‘-‘CC))Cl‘-ij9)H-Q,ftH-0ftCDCDCDHH-<CDCDz0U)U)•<CDCDU)H-ft-CDHH-‘CH<CCDCD-.H)H-H9)CCHftU).LOC))H)U)ClH-LOU)HH)“C)4U)U)Cl‘-1oCDU)0U)C><CDCD0H-0‘d•C)‘-QU)IIH-H-0ClCD•‘-CCl-09)H-Cft-CDC)ftCl-ftCDC)CDCDa° Cftr0U)“ClHCDU)U)<9)H)ftCDC))‘-‘CCl-HH-H-‘C‘1H-C))CDH-H-0H)U)09)C)ftftft0CCR’Hç-l-Cl‘-<-U)CDft29dimensions, the subject of the internal representation (self vs.other) and the valence of each (positive vs. negative), toproduce a two by two matrix with four categories. Another way inwhich these dimensions may be mapped is in terms of “dependence”(i.e., reliance on oneself vs. others for positive self—regard)and “avoidance” (i.e., the extent to which the individual avoidsor desires intimacy with others). Individuals with positiverepresentations of both self and other (or, using the second setof dimensions, those who rely internally for self—worth and whodesire intimacy with others) are labelled “secure”. Those withpositive views of others (i.e., those who desire intimacy) andnegative views of self (i.e., those who rely on others forpositive self—regard) are labelled “preoccupied”. This group hasalso been labelled anxious/ambivalent (e.g., Shaver & Hazan,1988), and it has recently been suggested that the latter termbetter captures the core interpersonal dynamic of theseindividuals, that is, their ambivalence regarding intimacy(Feeney, Noller & Hanrahan, 1994). Research conducted by Feeneyet. al. (1994b) indicates that, although these individuals arehighly preoccupied with relationships and need approval fromothers (reflecting negative attitudes toward the self), they arealso uncomfortable with closeness. This suggests that they arenot as “eager for intimacy, wanting extreme closeness inrelationships, and being as unreservedly positive in theirattitudes toward others” as has been previously hypothesized (p.143). Those with negative views of others (i.e., those who avoidintimacy) and positive views of self (i.e., those who rely on the30self rather than on others for self—worth) are “dismissing”.Those with negative representations of both self and other (i.e.,those who avoid others and yet who need others for positive self—regard) are categorized as “fearful”.Theoretically this conceptualization is closer to theoriginal work of Bowlby (1977), which suggests that internalworking models comprise two key features: a) “whether or not theattachment figure is judged to be the sort of person who ingeneral responds to calls for support and protection” and b)“whether or not the self is judged to be the sort of persontowards whom anyone, and the attachment figure in particular, islikely to respond in a helpful way”(p.204). The firstcomponent is equivalent to a model of the other, the second to amodel of the self.From an empirical point of view, Bartholomew and Horowitz(1991) noted that the use of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI,George, Kaplan & Main, 1984) characterizes avoidant individualsdifferently than does the Shaver and Hazan (1987) self-reportmeasure. Avoidant adults are characterized via the AAI asdefensively self-assertive people who deny experiencing negativeaffect or vulnerability, and who minimize the importance ofattachment needs, whereas avoidant individuals as classified bythe Shaver and Hazan (1987) self—report measure are persons whodescribe themselves as lacking in self—esteem, and who feelsubjective distress and discomfort when they become too close toothers. Avoidance in the first instance is a case of detachmentand lack of motivation to engage with others, whereas in the31second instance is the result of an active fear of closeness(Bartholomew, 1990). This discordance led Bartholomew andHorowitz (1991) to speculate that “a single avoidant—detachedcategory may obscure conceptually separable patterns of avoidancein adulthood” (p. 227). The two distinct patterns of avoidancedelineated by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) reflect both thedefensive avoidant type found via the AAI (labelled in the 4-category model “dismissing”), and the more distressed avoidanttype identified by the self-report measure (labelled “fearful”).Examination of multidimensional scalings of attachment—styleratings by subjects, their friends, and independent ratersreveals that the expected four—category structure is reproduced(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Secure individuals scoreuniquely high on the coherence of their interviews and the levelof intimacy in their friendships; as well they obtain highratings on warmth, balance of control, and level of involvement.Dismissing individuals receive uniquely high ratings of selfconfidence and uniquely low on emotional expressiveness, crying,and warmth; they have lower scores than secure or preoccupiedindividuals on all measures of relationship closeness (e.g.,self—disclosure, intimacy, capacity to rely on others). Thosewho are preoccupied show a pattern opposite to the dismissinggroup in almost every respect, with uniquely high scores onelaboration, self—disclosure, emotional expressiveness, romanticinvolvement, crying, and caregiving. Fearful individuals haveuniquely low scores on self confidence, and have significantlylower scores than those who are secure or preoccupied on self—32disclosure, intimacy, level of romantic involvement, reliance onothers, and use of others as a safe haven when upset.In addition, self—concept measures were found todifferentiate groups with positive versus negative models ofself, and sociability measures were found to differentiate groupswith positive versus negative models of others (Bartholomew &Horowitz, 1991). The types of interpersonal problems whichcharacterize each of the four attachment styles also reflectdistinct patterns which are related in meaningful ways to theinternal model of self and other: fearful individuals showinterpersonal problems in passivity; dismissing persons showproblems related to a lack of warmth; and those who arepreoccupied show problems in the area of dominance and excessiveemotional expression (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The resultsof this examination “confirm that the valence of both self—modelsand models of others are separate, important dimensions of anadult’s orientation to close relationships and that the twodimensions can vary independently” (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991,p. 240)In recent research (Feeney et. al, l994b), the four—categorymodel was strongly supported via a cluster analysis conducted onfive scales (Confidence, Discomfort with closeness, Need forapproval, Preoccupation with relationships, and Relationships assecondary) from a new measure assessing attachment patterns (theAttachment Style Questionnaire). Four groups were formed out ofthe cluster analysis, each with a profile on the five scales thatcorresponded remarkably well with the four groups hypothesized by33Bartholomew. Additional support for a fourth category comes fromCollins and Read (1990), who proposed a four-cluster solution inan analysis of three continuous dimensions of adult attachment,and suggested that there may be value in differentiating betweentwo types of anxious attachment: “those who were anxious butcomfortable with closeness (anxious—secure), and those who wereanxious and uncomfortable with closeness (anxious—avoidant)” (p.649). Evidence for the validity of a fourth attachment categoryis further supported by findings in the study of the attachmentstyles of young children, in which a fourth category has recentlybeen identified even in infancy, involving a combination ofavoidant and preoccupied characteristics (Main & Solomon, 1990).In an examination of adult children of alcoholics using boththe Shaver and Hazan three—category and Bartholomew four—categorymodels, Brennan et al., (1991) note that the two overlapconsiderably (i.e., those who are secure or preoccupied in onesystem are the same in the other). However, a fairly largenumber of preoccupied individuals in the three-category modelfall into the fearful group using Bartholomew and Horowitz’sapproach “suggesting that the lack of a fearful alternative inHazan and Shaver’s (1987) measure — one indicating both a desirefor a close relationship and fear, or avoidance, of intimacy —forces some fearful subjects to categorize themselvesmisleadingly” as preoccupied (Brennan et al., 1991, p. 462). Inthe same vein, some individuals who categorized themselves assecure in the three—category model classified themselves asdismissing in the four—category model “suggesting that some34avoidant people with high self-esteem are forced by the threecategory measure to misclassify themselves as secure” (Brennan etal., 1991, p. 462).Pietromonaco and Carnelley (1992) suggest that it isimportant to consider the recent distinction between fearful anddismissing avoidant persons in that this elaboration may help toclarify the relationships among patterns of depression and lowself—esteem for insecure women and men. Utilizing the fourcategory method, Carnelley, Pietromonaco, and Jaffe (1992) findthat the two avoidant categories distinguish between mildly andseverely depressed women: women who are mildly depressed tend tohave either preoccupied or fearful attachment styles, reflectinga negative model of self but an either negative or positive viewof others; however, those who are severely depressed aresignificantly more likely to be fearful, holding negative viewsof both self and others, and are more likely than preoccupiedindividuals to have experienced verbal and physical abuse fromtheir parents when they were children.An important finding in the research using the four-categorymodel is that of gender differences in the distribution of theattachment styles: women received higher ratings than did men onpreoccupied and fearful; men received significantly higherratings than did women on dismissing (Bartholomew & Horowitz,1991; Brennan et a!., 1991) . More recent research has also foundproportionally more men classifying themselves as dismissing, andmore women classifying themselves as fearful (Cafferty et al.,1994). Using the three-category approach, “in all of the studies35published to date there were no reliable gender differences inthe distribution of subjects across the three categories” (Shaver& Hazan, 1992, p. 10). The three—category approach isinsensitive to the distinction between fearful and dismissingstyles, and therefore perhaps to certain gender differences;hence the three—category model “may mask meaningful genderdifferences important to relationship quality” (Brennan et al.,1991, p. 454) . Bartholomew’s four—category model appears moreuseful in illuminating these differences.Gender and Attachment: Findings to DateGender has generally been a neglected variable in attachmentresearch, possibly due in part to the origins of the theory inobservations of infant behavior, and to the predominant use ofthe three-category model of attachment styles described above.In some studies the effect of gender is not examined at all(e.g., Mikulincer et al., 1990; Pistole, 1989). When gender hasbeen examined, researchers have tended to test for main effects,such as differences in the distribution of women and men acrossthe categories (e.g., Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991), or maineffects of gender on dependent variables such as, for example,optimism about relationships, or descriptions of parents (e.g.,Carnelley & Janoff—Bulman, 1992; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; 1990).When gender differences are found in distributions of attachmentstyle, gender is used as a covariate in subsequent analyses(e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Whenmain effects for gender in the distributions or on dependent36measures are not found, the sample is often lumped together andgender is not treated as an independent variable, therebyobscuring possible differences between women and men withinattachment styles, or differences within each gender acrossattachment styles (i.e., interaction effects).When gender and attachment have been studied, interestingfindings have emerged regarding the relationship of gender-roleorientation (instrumentality/expressiveness) and attachment styleto relationship functioning (Shaver & Hazan, 1992). Preoccupiedwomen and avoidant men may be considered “better” exemplars ofthe cultural stereotypes for women and men than anxious men andavoidant women (Shaver & Hazan, 1992). In support of thisnotion, secure attachment is correlated with both masculinity andfemininity, avoidant attachment is negatively correlated withfemininity, and preoccupied attachment is negatively correlatedwith masculinity (Papalia & Shaver, 1991). Secure individualsare most likely to report stable and satisfying romanticrelationships regardless of gender; preoccupied women andavoidant men however, do not differ in relationship stabilityfrom their secure counterparts, even though they reportcomparatively lower levels of relationship satisfaction (Davis &Kirkpatrick, in press).The consequences of being avoidant or preoccupied appear tovary for women and men: avoidant men and preoccupied womenreported the lowest levels of self esteem and the highestdepression scores of all individuals following an experimentaltask of imagining themselves in a romantic relationship37(Pietromonaco & Carnelley, 1992). The consequences of being withan avoidant or preoccupied partner also appears to vary for womenand men: in romantic relationships, greater partner anxiety aboutrelationships is related to lower satisfaction for men but notfor women, whereas greater partner comfort with closeness isrelated to higher satisfaction for women but not for men (Collins& Read, 1990; Pietromonaco & Carnelley, 1992; Simpson, 1990).Examination of the correspondence between reports ofparents’ attachment style and current partner’s attachment stylereveals further gender differences in the role of anxiety andcomfort with closeness for women and men in relationships(Collins & Read, 1990). Descriptions of opposite—sex parentshave been found to predict different attachment dimensions forwomen’s and men’s current romantic relationships. Men’s ratingsof their mother’s attachment style predict whether the men’scurrent partner is worried about abandonment (preoccupied),whereas women’s ratings of their father’s attachment stylepredict whether the women’s current partner is comfortable withcloseness (secure) (Collins & Read, 1990).The joint effects of gender and attachment style are rarelyhypothesized and explicitly tested. There appears to be goodreason to speculate that gender and attachment style may mutuallyshape the terrain of close relationships with others. Secureattachment may attenuate the strength of a gender effect for bothwomen and men; preoccupied attachment may strengthen a gendereffect for female respondents; and avoidant (especiallydismissing) attachment may strengthen a gender effect for male38respondents. For example, avoidant men have been found to besignificantly less distressed than avoidant women followingdissolution of a relationship (Simpson, 1990). Males’ greaterinclination to avoid conflict and suppress negative affect incombination with the tendency of avoidant individuals todefensively inhibit negative emotions has been hypothesized toaccount for this gender effect (Simpson, 1990). In contrast, thetendency of avoidant women to suppress negative feelings is “atodds with the propensity of women to express strong affect [and]may account for the lack of relation between the avoidantattachment style and the extent of postdissolution distresswithin women” (Simpson, 1990, p. 979).Limitations in Attachment Research to DateThree limitations are evident in the foregoing literaturereview of attachment research: 1) the role of gender is generallyoverlooked; 2) close relationships other than parent-child andromantic relationships are generally overlooked; and 3) there hasbeen only a limited focus on variables that assess relationalprocesses and attachment style.Although gender has been shown to be an importantdeterminant of relationship process, it has not been consistentlyexamined in attachment research. Investigators do not alwaystest for gender effects nor do they always find out the gender ofthe close others that are reported upon. A more systematicexamination of the effects of gender and attachment style wouldbe fruitful at this point, separately enhancing our understanding39of each of the two areas, as well as elucidating their mutualinfluence. Complexities and inconsistencies in the field ofgender and close relationships may be clarified through the useof attachment as a moderating variable; an enrichment ofattachment theory may be expected with an understanding of therole of gender; and an examination of the intersection of thesetwo broad areas is likely to significantly benefit ourunderstanding of close personal relationships.Attachment research has focused almost exclusively onparent—child and romantic relationships (Bartholomew, 1990),despite the fact that the majority of our close relationships donot fall in these categories (e.g., de Vries, 1989). Otherrelationships may be influenced by attachment dynamics, such asfriendships, work relationships, mentoring, and therapeuticrelationships (e.g., Bartholomew & Penman, 1994), and evenindividuals’ relationship with God (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1994).Feeney and Noller (1990) note that attachment style likelyinfluences a range of relationships with others, because it“reflects general views about the rewards and dangers ofinterpersonal relationships” (p. 286). Ainsworth (1989) notesthat friendships can be characterized as attachmentrelationships, and suggests that different types of relationships“differ from one another in regard to the role played by theattachment system” (p. 709). There may be meaningful differencesin attachment—related behavior between romantic relationships andnon—romantic relationships. From an attachment—theoreticalperspective, romantic relationships share in common with close40friendship the activation of the behavioral systems of attachmentand caregiving, and may be distinguished from friendships via theactivation of the sexual system (Shaver & Hazan, 1988). Further,the functions of romantic relationships and friendships vary forwomen and men. Men get fewer intimacy needs met in same sexfriendships, and have more of their needs for intimacy met withintheir romantic relationships and cross sex friendships, incontrast to women who get intimacy needs met in both romanticrelationships and same sex friendships, and less so in cross sexfriendships (e.g., Rose, 1985). An investigation spanning thesetypes of relationships would offer an illumination of “thepotency of relationship type for influencing answers to questionsabout close relationships” (Berscheid et al., 1989, p. 804)The majority of attachment studies have examined therelationship between attachment styles and intrapersonaldimensions (e.g., self esteem, fear of death) or betweenattachment style and global interpersonal variables (e.g.,beliefs about human nature, general styles of loving) (see Shaver& Hazan, 1992 for a review). The relationship between attachmentstyles and interpersonal processes in specific, ongoingrelationships has been considerably less studied. Process—typevariables, such as how and what one discloses to another, how onefeels after disclosing to another, or how one tries to get one’sway, are more likely to inform us about the ways in whichattachment style shapes relations with others than are morestatic or summary variables, such as amount of disclosure or howoften one “wins” a conflict. For example, Pietromonaco and41Carnelley (1992) found that more static dependent measures suchas amount of liking for partner and degree of conflict were notsignificantly related to individuals’ working models ofattachment. They suggest that more refined measures that includeassessments of the intimacy process “may be more likely to revealdifferences among people who hold different models of attachment”(Pietromonaco & Carnelley, 1992, p. 32).A more comprehensive study of attachment is called for.Such a study would entail an explicit examination of theintersecting roles of gender and type of relationship in thecontext of ongoing, real—world relationships. Further, thisexamination would assess the independent and interactive effectsof gender, relationship type, and attachment style on importantrelationship processes such as intimacy and influence.Intimacy as a Core Relational ProcessThe Nature of Intimacy in RelationshipsIntimacy is a construct that is central to an understandingof close relationships, yet defining the concept is an elusiveprocess (Penman & Fehr, 1984). The multifaceted nature ofintimacy has prompted some authors to liken it to the proverbialelephant, examined by blind men who come up with quite differentconclusions about the nature of the beast, depending upon wherethey stand (Acitelli & Duck, 1987). Reis and Shaver (1988) haveoutlined a systematic theoretical framework for examining theconcept of intimacy, which involves the intertwined roles of42motives, behavior, cognitive processes, and affect. Intimacy isframed as a multi—step process of emotional communication, “aprocess in which one person expresses important self—relevantfeelings and information to another and as a result of theother’s response comes to feel known, validated (i.e., obtainsconfirmation of his or her world view and personal worth), andcared for” (Clark & Reis, 1988, p. 628). Such a model isconsistent with the notion of mutuality put forth in self-in-relation theory (e.g. Genero, Miller, Surrey & Baldwin, 1991;Jordan, 1987; Surrey, 1986), which involves a bidirectionalmovement of thoughts, feelings and behavior in which it is asimportant to understand the other and reflect that back toher/him as it is to be and feel understood by the other.Attachment and intimacy are linked in important ways. As Reisand Shaver note:It is of interest that the process Bowlby delineatedinvolving a young child’s security (or insecurity)produced in relationships with caregivers who are (orare not) emotionally available, sensitive, andresponsive, is compatible in spirit with the theoriesand observations of Sullivan and Rogers, who usedconcepts such as validation, sensitive listening, andpositive regard. This similarity suggests that centralcomponents of intimacy appear, perhaps in somewhatdifferent forms, across the lifespan. (1988, p. 372).43The Intimacy ProcessLike the internal working model of attachment theory,intimacy involves motivational, behavioral, cognitive, andaffective components. The desire for intimacy (approachmotivation) and the fear of intimacy (avoidance motivation) exertindependent influences upon interpersonal behavior (Reis &Shaver, 1988). Individuals vary in the extent to which theirinteractions with others are, in general, shaped by intimacy—seeking or —avoiding, and it has been hypothesized that “theroots of these desires and fears can be traced to earlierrelational experiences, some reaching as far back as childhood”(Reis & Shaver, 1988, p. 376).Some disclosure of personally relevant information orfeelings is an essential condition for intimacy (Reis & Shaver,1988). Self disclosure which reveals personal feelings is morehighly associated with relationship closeness than is thedisclosure of personal facts (Morton, 1978; Waring & Chelune,1983). It is this verbal or nonverbal revelation which providesthe other person with an opportunity to respond in ways thatindicate understanding and caring for the discloser.Expressivity is highly associated with relationship satisfactionfor both women and men (Frazier & Esterly, 1990), and inparticular, received disclosure from one’s partner is morepredictive of feelings of affection and closeness for the otherthan is the amount of disclosure given to one’s partner(Sprecher, 1987).44The listener’s role is at least as important in the intimacyprocess as the discloser’s, since “appropriate responses enhancefeelings of connectedness, whereas inappropriate responses ordeliberate nonresponsiveness keep interactants at a distance”(Reis & Shaver, 1988, p. 379). Amount of self disclosure is afunction of both the speaker’s and the listener’spredispositions, such that low disclosers will disclose more wheninteracting with an “opener” or a person who tends to elicitintimate self—disclosure in others (Miller, Berg & Archer, 1983,p. 1234). Behaviorally then, intimacy involves A’s disclosureand B’s responsiveness to that disclosure.While disclosing and responsive behavior may be a necessarycondition for intimacy, it is not a sufficient condition.Cognitive and emotional components are also crucial. Penman andFehr (1987) note that the term intimacy is derived from the Latin“intimus” which means “inmost”, suggesting that the word reflectsa sense of being deeply understood and appreciated at a corelevel of oneself. It is individuals’ cognitive appraisal of themeaning of disclosure and other responsive behaviors that“evolves into shared, reciprocal understandings” which fosterintimacy (Clark & Reis, 1988, p. 630). In addition tointellectual rapport, the affective component of intimacy,particularly the discloser’s feelings of being understood,validated, and cared for, is central to the intimacy process.Unfortunately, as Clark and Reis (1988) note, these affectivecharacteristics “have received less attention than self—disclosure in studies of intimacy” (p. 630).45Attachment and IntimacyThe bidirectional nature of intimacy behavior (i.e., theimportance of both disclosing self—relevant material andlistening responsively) echoes the parent—child interactionswhich so powerfully shape the development of attachment style.The caregiver’s consistent awareness of and responsiveness to theinfant’s cues produce feelings of trust and reliance upon thecaregiver, developing into an intimate bond, whereas inconsistentand nonresponsive caregiving leads to feelings of alienation,confusion, and withdrawal (Bowlby, 1969).Secure individuals expect that others will be responsive andsupportive in stressful situations, and feel generally cared for,hence they are likely to believe that intimacy is rewarding, andhave an interaction goal of achieving intimacy with others.Avoidant individuals on the other hand have more negativeexpectations about interactions with others, and have aninteraction goal of maintaining distance (Mikulincer & Nachson,1991). Bartholomew (1990) points out that “adults differ on boththeir motivation to become attached to others, a given ininfancy, and their motivation to ng, become attached. Avoidancemay therefore stem from either a fear of intimacy or a lack ofinterest or motivation to become intimate with others” (p. 149).Hence, secure and preoccupied individuals will tend to approachothers, whereas those who are dismissing and fearful will avoid,but for different reasons: the dismissing person because he/shedoes not want to be intimate, versus the fearful person who wants46but is at the same time afraid of intimacy (Bartholomew, 1990;Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).Attachment style is most evident to others in the behavioraldomain. Secure and preoccupied individuals who desire intimacyare more likely to self-disclose than are dismissing individualswho do not want intimacy, or fearful individuals who are afraidof intimacy (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Individuals who aresecure are more likely than those who are insecure to use self—disclosure when appropriate and are most sensitive and responsiveto the other’s self-disclosure (Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991).Avoidant individuals tend not to self disclose, are less likelyto reciprocate another’s disclosure, and do not report likingothers who disclose to them; the disclosure pattern ofpreoccupied individuals is more complex, reflecting a highwillingness to disclose and to reciprocate disclosure, but theydo not adjust disclosure levels to match the closeness of thetarget, nor are they particularly responsive to the content ofthe other’s disclosure (Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991).Like a schema, the internal working model of attachmentoperates to direct the individual to expect particularinterpersonal patterns and attend to information which conformsto the model, thereby reinforcing the pre-existing view ofrelationships (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1985). Hence, secureindividuals are more likely to expect that others will be warm,reliable and supportive, whereas those who are preoccupied tendto expect that others will be reluctant to commit to therelationship, and avoidant individuals are more likely to doubt47that others are well-intentioned and good-hearted (Hazan &Shaver, 1987)Affect is hypothesized to play a central role in theattachment process such that “many of the most intense emotionsarise during the formation, the maintenance, the disruption, andthe renewal of attachments” (Bowiby, 1979, p. 130). From anattachment point of view, positive feelings of affection increasethe likelihood of proximity-seeking behaviors in the infant, andenhance nurturing behavior in the caregiver, thereby improvingthe infant’s chances of survival (Bowiby, 1969). Feelings ofmutual affection and caring are most likely to occur in secureadult relationships, where they may function to deepen therelationship through increasing individuals’ disclosure ofvulnerabilities, fears, and regrets, and enhancing the personaldevelopment of the interactants as they come to feel known andvalidated at their affective core (Reis & Shaver, 1988).Further, different attachment styles may be conceptualizedas reflecting differences in the ways individuals regulate theintensity of emotional experience and in the methods used to copewith distress (Mikulincer et al., 1990; Sroufe & Waters, 1977).Secure individuals are more likely to cope effectively withnegative affect and to experience greater positive affect thanthose who are insecure (Simpson, 1990). Secure attachment allowsfor constructive modulation of negative feelings, leading securepersons to use negative affect as part of their communicationprocess, promoting effective responses from others (Kobak &Sceery, 1988) . Individuals who are preoccupied manage negative48feelings by focusing attention upon the distress in ahypervigilant way, worrying about abandonment and rejection, anddisplaying heightened levels of affect; those who are avoidantrestrict their awareness of distress, inhibit their expression ofnegative feelings, and maintain emotional distance from others(Mikulincer et al., 1990). The dysfunctional ways in whichinsecure individuals tend to cope with distress (by minimizing itor escalating it) lead to a greater likelihood of negativeresponses from others (Kobak & Hazan, 1991).Hypotheses: Attachment and IntimacyFrom the foregoing review it is clear that secureindividuals are likely to have greater motivation for intimacy inrelationships, to have greater responsivity to others’ self—disclosures, to interpret others’ intimacy behaviors in positiveways, and be less likely to express inappropriate negative affectthan are those who are insecurely attached. All of these factorslead to the hypothesis that individuals who are securely attachedwill, on average, score higher on intimacy measures than willinsecure respondents, on average.Gender Differences in IntimacyAlthough men and women define intimacy in similar ways,Caldwell and Peplau (1982) have found men’s interactions to beless personal, less concerned with their partner’s feelings, andlower in self—disclosure. In addition, in their closerelationships women have been found to attach significantly49greater importance than do men to self—disclosure, appreciationof the other, empathic understanding, deepening the other’s self—awareness, authenticity, and connectedness (Parker & de Vries,1993). In short, men’s relationships appear less intimate.An equal proportion of women and men report feelingaffection and appreciation in their intimate relationships, butmen are less likely than women to express those feelings to theother (Helgeson et al., 1987). Further, men may be less likelyto convey an affective sense of understanding of the otherperson’s perspective than are women (Franzoi, Davis, & Young,1985). Women’s perspective—taking exerts a stronger effect onmen’s satisfaction than does men’s perspective—taking on women’ssatisfaction, leading investigators to speculate that men’sperspective—taking is primarily a cognitive experience, whereaswhen women take the perspective of another they interweaveempathic concern and a cognitive understanding, thereby leadingto greater satisfaction for the recipient of suchmultidimensional empathy (Franzoi et al., 1985).Women more than men are likely to self—disclose aboutfeelings and vulnerabilities (Aries & Johnson, 1983; Bell, 1981;Caidwell & Peplau, 1982; Fox et al., 1985; Woolsey, 1987). Thegeneralization regarding women’s greater disclosure than men’smust be qualified to reflect the complexity in self-disclosurepatterns of women and men. Men self—disclose less than women insame sex friendships, but the difference decreases in cross sexfriendships (Wright, 1982), and in marriage equal disclosure iscommon (Peplau, 1983). The amount of men’s and women’s50disclosure varies by its content: men disclose more aboutpolitical views and ideas, women disclose more about personalinformation and feelings (Hendrick, 1988); and while most womenand men reveal both strengths and weaknesses to one another, nowomen but one third of men reveal only strengths, whereas no menbut one third of women reveal only weaknesses (Hacker, 1981).Further, women rate themselves higher than do men in elicitingself-disclosure from others (Hendrick, 1988). Despite thesequalifications, it is clear that disclosure of feelings andvulnerabilities offers a greater opportunity for intimacy thandisclosure of information and strengths, and the ability toelicit disclosure from others is an important intimacy skill,both of which women more than men tend to exhibit.In terms of the cognitive aspect of intimacy, Acitelli andDuck (1987) have developed the concept of “relationshipawareness” to describe the mutual metacognitive process involvedin both members of the dyad reflecting upon, analyzing, andacknowledging the “behavioral, cognitive, and affectiveinteraction patterns that describe a relationship” (p. 305).Relationship awareness is correlated with relationshipsatisfaction for both women and men if they are single (Frazier &Esterly, 1990). Among married individuals however, women’ssatisfaction is significantly affected by their partner’s levelof relationship awareness, whereas men’s satisfaction is not(Acitelli, in press).The possibility that men may be using the label of intimacydifferently from women was tested by Reis (1986), who reports on51a set of experiments which rule out this alternative. Hesuggests therefore that “we may have greater confidence that thecontent of males’ interactions with each other actually differsfrom those of females” (Reis, 1986, p. 102)Hacker (1981) speculates that men’s lower intimacy level isattributable to a lesser capacity for intimacy. Bell (1981)notes that even when men recognize how they feel “they may beunable to do anything about it. They may have been soeffectively socialized that they can’t confide in their wives orfriends” (p. 405) . Other authors however, report that most menare capable of intimacy behavior given specific motivational orsituational cues (Brody, 1985; Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985).For example, if men expect future interactions with someone whois a prospective romantic partner they may be even more investedin self—disclosure than women (Hendrick, 1988), illustrating thestrategic use of disclosure to achieve ends. This suggests thata motivational rather than an ability deficit may account formen’s lower disclosure (Sattel, 1976).Some investigators have suggested that the differencebetween women’s and men’s disclosure is less one of capacity andmore one of roles and fears (Lewis, 1984). Men, more so thanwomen, are likely to perceive intimate situations negatively(Mark & Alper, 1985), or as potentially dangerous (Pollak &Gilligan, 1982, 1983), perhaps because they receive mixedmessages about closeness in relationships such as “get close butnot too close” (Basow, 1992, p. 203). Men who self—disclosepersonal information may be judged as less likable and less well—52adjusted than women who disclose an equivalent amount (Chelune,1976; Derlega & Chaikin, 1976). Other investigators view men’slesser intimacy as a function of power motivation (Sattel, 1976),and suggest that men intentionally use inexpressiveness tomaintain control, particularly in situations where they perceivea threat to their position (see “influence strategies” below).In a key study which includes a subset of the variables (andlevels of variables) of interest to this proposal, Fischer andNarus (1981) examined the moderating influence of gender—roleorientation (masculinity-femininity) on the association betweengender of respondent and type of relationship (same sex vs. crosssex) as they relate to intimacy levels. Women scoredsignificantly higher on intimacy overall than did men. Feminineand androgynous women scored higher on intimacy than their malecounterparts, and whereas women’s same sex relationships had thehighest intimacy scores, men’s same sex relationships had thelowest (Fischer & Narus, 1981). Fischer and Narus (1981)conclude that “being male or female, but particularly being male,may be more related to how one acts and feels in a closerelationship than being feminine, or masculine, or androgynous”(p. 453). On the other hand, in another study examining theeffect of sex—role orientation on intimacy, Williams (1985) notedthat although there was an overall gender difference in reportedintimacy, with women scoring higher than men, “males and femaleswho reported high levels of femininity, regardless of whetherthey were high or low on masculinity, reported higher levels ofintimacy in their friendships” (p. 599). Psychological53femininity has been found in a number of other studies to beassociated with higher levels of intimacy for both women and men(Berg & Peplau, 1982; Burda, Vaux & Schill, 1984). Men, however,are less likely to have been encouraged to develop “feminine”expressive traits than are women, and in fact have probably beensanctioned against expressing them (Basow, 1992).Despite the central tendency for women and men to describeand experience intimacy in different ways, it is important tokeep in mind that there is also much overlap between the sexesand much within-gender variability (e.g. wright, 1988). There ismore similarity than difference between women and men in the waythey define intimacy (Monsour, 1992). The central dimension ineveryday conceptions of intimacy for both women and men involvesfeelings of closeness, appreciation, and affection (Helgeson etal., 1987). Parker and de Vries (1993) found that trust andauthenticity were the two most highly rated values in closerelationships for both women and men. Importantly, the modalgender pattern of an affective, expressive focus for women incontrast to an instrumental focus for men diminishes “markedly asthe strength and duration of the friendships increases” (Wright,1982, p. 19).Hypotheses: Gender and IntimacyFrom the foregoing review it may be hypothesized that womenrespondents, on average, will score higher on intimacy measuresthan will men respondents, overall.54Hypotheses: Gender x Relationship Type - IntimacyFollowing from the above review a gender of respondent byrelationship type interaction effect on intimacy is hypothesized.Comparing within gender, women respondents will report, onaverage, higher intimacy in their same sex friendships than intheir cross sex friendships; men respondents will report, onaverage, lower intimacy in their same sex friendships than intheir cross sex friendships. Comparing between the genders,women in same sex friendships will, on average, report higherintimacy than will men in same sex friendships.Gender and Attachment Intersect: Intimacy ProcessesThe concept of intimacy is at the heart of genderdifferences in close relationships, and at the same time capturesthe core dimensions of attachment bonds. It is evident thatgender plays a role in patterns of motivation to approach oravoid intimacy, in intimacy behaviors such as disclosure andresponsiveness, in cognitive aspects of intimacy such asrelationship awareness and perspective—taking, and in theaffective experience of intimacy. Attachment style too isexpected to influence intimacy patterns in particular ways, sinceworking models of self and other shape motivational, affective,and behavioral components of individuals’ intimacy process.Gender and attachment style together may be expected to morecompletely capture the nature of the intimacy process among womenand men in their close relationships than either construct on itsown. Secure attachment style, with its positive views of both55self and other, may be associated with less difference betweenthe genders than insecure attachment styles. Securely attachedmen, being comfortable with closeness, may be less likely thaninsecure men to show the male gender—typed pattern of avoidanceof intimacy. Securely attached women and men are not expected todiffer in intimacy levels.Dismissing individuals may be seen as defensively self—assertive people who hold a negative model of others and apositive model of self. They are not particularly motivated toapproach and get close to others. At the same time, they do notfeel that they need others to validate their self-image. Theseindividuals may be expected to have lower levels of intimacy intheir relationships, yet their tendency to deny negative affector vulnerability may lead them to report moderately high intimacylevels. The interpersonal pattern associated with beingdismissing runs counter to traditional gender expectations forwomen, and matches the traditional gender pattern for men.Fearful women and men hold negative views of both self andothers, and are therefore likely to avoid close relationships andto report low intimacy levels. Since women tend not to beexpected to initiate cross sex contact in the same way that menstereotypically are, fearful women, while unlikely to initiatecross sex contact, may be approached by others (especially othersof the opposite sex) more frequently than fearful men (Garcia,Stinson, Ickes, Bissonette & Briggs, 1991). Such a dynamic maybe expected to lead to greater opportunities for intimacy forfearful women than for fearful men.56The preoccupied style is more characteristic of thetraditional feminine role (i.e., affective expressiveness), andas such may be viewed as more predictable and appropriate forwomen than for men. Men who are preoccupied may be expected toreport higher intimacy levels than fearful or dismissing men, yetthey may report lower intimacy levels than preoccupied women.Such a finding might be due to the fact that “while a preoccupiedwoman fits the prescribed gender role, the same behavior in a manmay appear quite inappropriate and hence unacceptable”(Pietromonaco & Carnelley, 1992, p. 34). On the other hand,preoccupied men may show higher intimacy levels than preoccupiedwomen. If the partners of preoccupied men perceive theirattempts at engagement (such as self disclosures and emotionalexpression) as opportunities for intimacy, the partner mayrespond with reciprocal behavior, thereby increasing thelikelihood of intimacy.Hypotheses: Gender x Attachment on IntimacyFrom the foregoing discussion a gender by attachment styleinteraction effect on intimacy is hypothesized. Among those whoare secure, gender differences in intimacy will be suppressed,but among those who are preoccupied and fearful, women, onaverage, are expected to have higher intimacy levels than aremen.Three—way Interaction: Gender, Type of Relationship, andAttachment Style on Intimacy57The simultaneous consideration of three independentvariables proposed for this study is a novel approach, hencehypotheses made at this level of complexity are, by necessity,somewhat speculative and there is less justification for precisepredictions. However, one possible scenario might entail menscoring higher than women in intimacy when comparing within thepreoccupied attachment style and within cross sex friendships.Such a finding might reflect the different meanings of expressivebehavior for men and women. As Feeney et al. (1994a) note,“men’s willingness to be close to relationship partners may beparticularly valued, given the sex—role stereotype of low malecomfort with intimacy”(p.26). Hence the cross sex friends ofpreoccupied men (i.e., women) may be more likely than the crosssex friends of preoccupied women (i.e., men) to regardexpressivity and disclosure attempts as opportunities to increasethe intimacy level in the relationship.In another example of this complexity, at the two-way level(sex of respondent x attachment style) fearful women are expectedto have higher intimacy levels than are fearful men, due todifferent gender—role expectations about approaching others,especially those of the opposite sex. However, this effect mayvary by type of relationship such that in romantic relationshipsfearful women may report greater intimacy than fearful men, butin friendships fearful women and fearful men may not differ.Such an effect might be due to the larger role of sexual dynamicsand expectations in romantic relationships as compared withfriendships.58Such complexity, while admittedly speculative, can only beexamined when all the relevant variables are taken into account,as is the case in this study.Hypotheses: Gender x Attachment x Relationship Type- IntimacyFrom the above discussion it may be hypothesized that incross sex friendships, preoccupied men may score higher onintimacy than will preoccupied women. In addition, in romanticrelationships, fearful women may score higher on intimacy thanwill fearful men.Influence StrategiesThe Nature of Influence in RelationshipsAs noted earlier, process—type variables which assess howindividuals feel and behave may be more informative about theroles of attachment style and gender in relationships than staticvariables. Influence is a relational process of primaryimportance. Influence refers to “instances in which events inone partner’s chain [of thoughts, feelings and behaviors] arecausally connected to events in the other’s chain” (Huston, 1983,p. 170) . Unless each person has some impact on the other, therelationship between them cannot be considered close (Berscheidet al., 1989) . There are numerous areas in which individuals inrelationships have an impact on the other and deal with the taskof trying to get their way, either by convincing the other toagree to their desire, or by preventing the other frominterfering with them (Peterson, 1983). Inevitably in close59relationships there are circumstances in which the individualsinvolved do not both want the same thing. The ability to achieveone’s ends through influence over another reflects one’sinterpersonal power (Huston, 1983). The question ofinterpersonal power or “who wins” has been considerably morestudied than has been the question of q individuals attempt toinfluence close others (Howard, Bluinstein, & Schwartz, 1986).Important dynamics in relationships, such as the experience ofintimacy, can be affected for better or for worse by the mannerand tactics used to handle differences (Reis & Shaver, 1988).A consequence of the limited research focus on styles ofinfluence is that investigator—generated scales dominate thefield, many of which “include similar strategies and identifysimilar underlying dimensions, but none is absolutely consistentwith any other. . . and none of the classifications schemes hasacquired wide acceptance” (Steil & Weltman, 1992, p. 73). Onemeasure of styles of influence which has received reasonablereplication and evidences acceptable reliability and validity isthe Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROd; Rahiin, 1983).The ROCI was designed to differentiate among influencestrategies used by executives in organizations, on the basis oftwo dimensions: concern for self and concern for other. Fivespecific styles are assessed: high concern for both self andother is reflected in an integrating style, a “win—win” processwhich addresses the needs of both partners; low concern for bothself and other is represented by an avoiding style; high concernfor self and low concern for others leads to a dominating style;60low concern for self and high concern for others is illustratedby an obliging style, or a tendency to give in; and the fifthstyle identified is compromising which is hypothesized to fall inthe middle of the other four strategies, and involves bothindividuals giving up something in order to solve the problem(Rahim, 1983)Empirical examination of the five influence styles showsthat they fall into five independent and reasonably pure factors,and that the measure discriminates among the styles of influencemost likely to be used by respondents when with their bosses,peers, and subordinates (Rahim, 1983). Gender patterns alsoemerged in the use of strategies. While dominating strategiesdid not distinguish among women and men, the other fourstrategies did: women executives were more likely than their malecounterparts to use integrating, compromising and avoidantstrategies, and were less likely to use obliging strategies(Rahim, 1983). The representativeness of this sample of women isquestionable however, since the women in the study were allfairly high-level executives, and comprised only 50 of the 1,219respondents.Attachment Styles and Influence StrategiesAlthough the ROCI was originally developed for use inorganizations, it has since been successfully used to examineinfluence strategies in a variety of interpersonal relationships,including romantic relationship, parent, sibling, friend,professor, and generalized other (Hammock, Richardson,61Pilkington, & Utley, 1987; Levy & Davis, 1988; Pistole, 1989;Richardson, Hammock, Lubben, & Mickler, 1988). Factor analysesusing the population of executives confirmed the five—factorsolution (Rahim, 1983); in studies of other interpersonalrelationships however, factor analyses have consistently yieldedfour factors, with integrating and compromising loading on thesame factor (Hammock et al., 1987; Richardson et al., 1988). Thetwo-dimensional conceptualization of the ROCI as reflectingconcern for the self and concern for the other is compatible withthe attachment theoretical perspective of internal working modelsof self and other (Bowiby, 1979) and maps neatly onto the four-category attachment model proposed by Bartholomew and Horowitz(1991)In an examination of the characteristics of ongoing romanticrelationships Levy and Davis (1988), found that adult attachmentstyles (as assessed by the Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 3-categorymeasure) are related in meaningful ways to styles of influence.Compromising and integrating strategies were positivelycorrelated with secure attachment and were negatively correlatedwith preoccupied and avoidant attachment; additionally,preoccupied attachment was positively correlated with dominatingstrategies (Levy & Davis, 1988). Similar findings were reportedby Pistole (1989): those who were identified as securely attachedwere most likely to use integrating and compromising strategies,and those who were preoccupied were more likely than avoidantpersons to use obliging strategies. Integrating and compromisingstrategies are considered to be mutually focused strategies,62reflecting the positive view of self and other characteristic ofthe secure style (Shaver & Hazan, 1992).Interestingly, the avoidant attachment style did notcorrelate with avoidant influence strategies in the Levy andDavis (1988) study. Such a finding may relate to the problemsidentified earlier regarding the need to pull apart two types ofavoidance: dismissing, which has a positive view of self and anegative view of others, and fearful, with a negative view ofboth self and others (cf Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).Dismissing individuals with their defensive self—assertivenessare likely to employ dominant influence strategies, whereasfearful individuals may be more likely to use avoidant orobliging strategies.The combination of both dominant and obliging strategiesfound in preoccupied individuals may relate to their high levelof emotional arousal, motivating them to try to make theirpartner do what they want (dominance), or motivating them in amartyr-like way to oblige the other’s wishes (Levy & Davis,1988). This pattern corresponds to the excessivedominance/warmth kinds of interpersonal problems most likely tobe experienced by preoccupied individuals (Bartholomew &Horowitz, 1991)Hypotheses: Attachment and Influence StrategiesFrom the foregoing discussion it may be hypothesized thatsecure respondents, on average, will be more likely to usecompromising and integrating influence strategies than willinsecure respondents, on average. Dismissing individuals will be63likely to use dominating strategies than will individuals fromthe other three attachment styles. Fearful individuals will bemore likely to use avoidant strategies than will individuals fromthe other three groups.Gender Patterns in Influence StrategiesAs noted earlier, researchers using attachment theory haveoften overlooked the role of gender, and the abovementioned twostudies of attachment style and influence strategies are noexception. The three—category approach to attachment styles mayfurther obscure the role of gender in patterns of using influencestrategies. Gender has been shown in other studies to play arole in the kinds of influence tactics used in closerelationships.In an examination of expectations about which strategies arelikely to be used by the two genders, Johnson (1976) found thatmen more than women are expected to use coercive and directreward forms of influence, in comparison to women who areexpected to use helplessness and personal rewards more than aremen. Gender differences also have been found in the actual useof influence strategies. Peplau (1983) reviews literature onmale and female tactics, and finds that women and men report thattheir behavior is consistent with gender stereotypes: women tendto cry, sulk, and criticize the male partner’s insensitivity,whereas men tend to show anger, call for a logical approach tothe problem, and try to delay the discussion. Despite genderdifferences in the use of influence strategies, women and men64hold similar views on which strategies they would prefer to use;given the choice, both genders rank the use of rationalstrategies, such as stating one’s desires and using reason, mosthighly (White & Roufail, 1989).Men, uncomfortable with the expression and display ofemotion, may give in (oblige) or use avoidant strategies morethan women, who are more likely to be frustrated by avoidance, toconfront differences, and to want to discuss problems andconsider feelings than are men (Kelley, Cunningham, Grisham,Lefebvre, Sink, & Yablon 1978). Men, for example, are lesslikely to bring up a problem for discussion in a strainedrelationship than are women, and are more likely than women toterminate a strained relationship without ever bringing up thedifficulty (Wright, 1982). Women, in contrast to men, are likelyto engage friends in discussions of things that disturb them, andreport that they value the importance of expressing authenticfeelings, even at the risk of losing the friendship (Fox et al.,1985)A frequently noted pattern of interaction among distressedcouples is the demand/withdraw dynamic (Christensen, 1988), inwhich one individual “pressures the other with demands,complaints and criticisms, while the other partner withdraws withdefensiveness and passive inaction” (Christensen & Shenk, 1991,p. 458) . Women more than men have been found to take the demandrole, and men more than women have been shown to withdraw (e.g.,Christensen & Shenk, 1991). It has been hypothesized that thesegender effects are a result of sex—role conditioning in which65women are socialized to seek closeness and to fear rejection inrelationships, whereas men are socialized to seek distance andfear engulfment in relationships (Christensen & Heavey, 1990).The consequences of avoidance versus engagement are not clearlyunderstood (Peterson, 1983). For example, the demand/withdrawpattern has been found to be associated with greater maritaldistress (Christensen & Shenk, 1991). On the other hand, womenand men are equally likely to terminate a problematicrelationship, despite the fact that women are more likely to haveconfronted the source of strain in the relationship prior toterminating than are men (Wright, 1982). Engaging strategies arecommonly held to be more likely to lead to greater couplesatisfaction than is avoidance (Peterson, 1983), and have beenfound to be associated with higher levels of shared spousalunderstanding (Knudson, Sommers, & Golding, 1980).Despite persistent stereotypes and research findingsregarding the characteristic ways in which women and men get whatthey want, gender differences in strategies of influence mayinvolve a more complex picture (Lips, 1991). Some authors havepointed to the importance of studying variables which are gender-linked and which may underlie the differences found between womenand men, such as gender-role orientation, access to resources,perceptions of personal power, and self—confidence (Falbo &Peplau, 1980; Howard et al., 1986; Steil & Weitman, 1992).Greater femininity, less access to resources, less perceivedpersonal power and less self—confidence all predict greater useof the indirect or “manipulative” strategies generally associatedP)C)IIiQ))H)H-ftCl).00<IIU)CDCD0IIC)0ftP)H•H)CDH•CD0CDHCDC)H)CUU)•HftCDIICl)CU‘CDCUCDHftft00CU0CDftCUU)0rtftU)ftftftCU•H)HCD0CDU)CD-CDHCUo-(I)t-(j)CDCDi.PCDCDCl)QCD0U)0CDCD0U)H-U)0U)CDCUXCUoCD‘1CDCDCDCU0CD••HCDI—”H-<C)U)CDU)U)IIU)H<CDCUCDCUU)CUCUU)‘1<‘1fti—00d0U)Hi-•pCD0CDCUU)CDh0CDCDCUCDCDXftCU1H)CU1CDClClH.Q-CDCDCUCDCD-H-HCT)ftCDCC)‘1<CD—ClH-C)CD--0Hcn-CDCDClCT)rtHH-H-ClHftXCl)CDCD-CDft-U)HHCT)CUCDCDCDft<0<CDCDCDH-0ClCDftC)U)C)HHHCDClH-HftHCDCT)ftCUH)ftCT)CDH-0CT.CT)H-HCDCD<HClCDCDft0ç-H00CDU)C)°U) CT)ftCT’C)CUHU)0<C/)CDCUiU)--ii/))CDH-CD-CDCD0H0‘.-Q0ftC)H)CDCDC)CT)0CTCD0CDCTH•HH-CDCDCDCDHftft--0CUH-00Cl)H)0CDU)ftCDCDCDCDCDCDCl)H)HCU‘1i-aH-CT)0CDH)ftCl0H0C)HCDHClCDC)CDftH)ClCDHaHt<<CDC)CDCT)CUCDCDi-a-CUH-1CDH-CDH-fti-i-CDftiQHCDC/)‘HftCDCD-ClClCDH-CDU)XC/)C)CDH-ft1CT)CDCDCD-CDCDCDIHCDftU)H-CDCUCU0ft0C)U)H)ftHHH)H-ft0ftftCT)H-I)CT)CU0CU(/)H0CD‘-ZCDCUH-ftCDH-CDC).ClCDHC)CUC)CUftHH0CD‘C)U)H—H-ftH-o-CDftCDC)•CT)0CU‘C)CDC)0H-H-Cfl‘C)U)HftCUH-Cl)U)‘C)CDhCDCD1C)CUCDCl)HCDH-0:’CD1—-CDClH-ftft•CD•CUHftCUCDftCU-CDCDCDCUH-ftftH-0I-H0H-0H-0C)CDftt-CD0Z0CDftftCUCD(fl0CDU)H-U)CD-CDH-CDftCDC)ClU)CUH-H-CD0ftH-CD<0H-U)H-H-H-HH0H-IIH-H-CDH)00CDCl)bH-CDHCDC)H•U)Cl-H)U)CD‘pCUs67Gender and Attachment Intersect: Influence StrategiesAttachment style may be expected to interact with gender toaffect individuals’ use of influence tactics. Secure attachmentstyle, with its positive views of both self and other, may beassociated with less difference between the genders than insecureattachment styles. Securely attached men, being comfortable withcloseness, may be less likely than insecure men to show the malegender—typed pattern of avoidance. Securely attached women, withtheir reliance on the self for approval and acceptance, may beless likely than insecurely attached women to use obligingstrategies.Fearful individuals who hold a negative view of both theself and the other, are more likely than others to use avoidantstrategies, limiting contact with others in order to minimize thechances of being rejected. Fearful women may however be morelikely than fearful men to use obliging strategies (i.e., givingin) as a way of ending the interaction, as such a pattern is moretraditionally gender—congruent for women than for men.Preoccupied individuals see others in a more positive lightthan the self, and therefore view others as being able to provideapproval that the preoccupied individual cannot give to the self.Such an individual is highly invested in the relationship and isdesperately fearful of being abandoned by the other. Suchindividuals have been found to use both obliging and dominatingstrategies of influence (Levy & Davis, 1988; Pistole, 1989). Interms of influence strategies, it is possible that the dominancestrategies will be used more by preoccupied men than preoccupied68women, and the obliging strategies will be used more bypreoccupied women than by preoccupied men.Dismissing individuals have a positive view of the self anda negative view of others. They do not acknowledge a need forothers and therefore may be more likely to use strategies thatare dominating, since they do not feel that they have muchinvestment in the relationship. The dismissing style is morecharacteristic of the traditional male role, as is the tendencyto use dominant strategies, hence dismissing men may be morelikely to use dominating strategies than dismissing women.Further, dismissing men may be more likely to use dominatingstrategies than will men in the other three groups.Hypotheses: Gender x Attachment on Influence StrategiesAs the literature in this area is limited, the hypothesesmade here are considered exploratory. It may be hypothesizedthat dominating strategies will be used more by dismissing andpreoccupied men, on average, than by dismissing and preoccupiedwomen. Further, preoccupied and fearful men, on average, may bemore likely to use avoidant strategies than will preoccupied andfearful women, on average. In addition, preoccupied and fearfulwomen, on average, may be more likely to use obliging strategiesthan will preoccupied and fearful men, on average.Summary of HypothesesA. Intimacy69Al. Three-way interaction: gender by attachment style byrelationship type.i) in their closest cross sex friendships, preoccupied menwill report higher intimacy than will preoccupied womenii) in romantic relationships, fearful women will reporthigher intimacy than will fearful menA2. Two-way interaction: gender by attachment style.1) preoccupied women will report higher intimacy than willpreoccupied menii) fearful women will report higher intimacy than willfearful menA3. Two-way interaction: gender by relationship type1) in their closest same sex friendship, women will reporthigher intimacy than will menii) women will report higher intimacy in their closest samesex friendship than in their closest cross sex friendshipiii) men will report lower intimacy in their closest samesex friendship than in their closest cross sex friendshipA4. Main effect: genderi) women will report higher intimacy than will menA5. Main effect: attachment stylei) secure participants will report higher intimacy than willinsecure participants70B. InfluenceBi. Two-way interaction: gender by attachment stylei) dismissing and preoccupied men will report more use ofthe dominating strategy than will dismissing and preoccupiedwomenii) preoccupied and fearful women will report more use ofthe obliging strategy than will preoccupied and fearful meniii) preoccupied and fearful men will report more use of theavoiding strategy than will preoccupied and fearful womenB2. Two-way interaction: gender by relationship typeI) men will report more use of the dominating strategy thanwill women in their closest cross sex friendshipsii) men will report more use of the dominating strategy thanwill women in their romantic relationshipsiii) women will report more use of the obliging strategythan will men in their closest cross sex friendshipsiv) women will report more use of the obliging strategy thanwill men in their romantic relationshipsv) in their closest same sex friendships, men will reportmore use of the avoiding strategy than will womenB3. Main effect: genderi) men, on average, will report greater use of avoidingstrategies than will women, on average71B4. Nain effect: attachment stylei) secure participants will report greater use of thecompromising/integrating strategy than will insecure participantsii) fearful respondents will report using avoidantstrategies more than respondents in the other three groupsiii) dismissing individuals will report greater use ofdominating strategies than will individuals in the other threegroups72MethodsIssues in the Measurement of AttachmentThere is no single agreed—upon method for assessing adultattachment. Indeed, “approaches to the measurement of adultattachment reveal a diversity of content and assumptions” (Feeneyet al., 1994b, p. 128). Such diversity has been the source ofsome debate, and has illuminated the basic but sometimesoverlooked association between the measurement of a construct andits conceptualization. As Griffin and Bartholomew (1994, p. 3)note, “the choice of a measurement procedure carries with itimplicit theoretical assumptions about the nature of thephenomenon under study”. The construct of attachment has beencharacterized as a number of discrete categories withnonoverlapping group membership (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987), asa set of prototypes or ideal exemplars of categories, withcategory members varying in the extent to which they correspondto the ideal (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), and as anumber of continuous dimensions (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990).Each approach comes with assumptions, strengths, and limitations(see Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994, for a review).The vast proportion of research that has been carried out oninfant and adult attachment has employed the first approach, thatof assigning individuals to a single category. Thegroundbreaking work of Shaver and Hazan (1988, 1992) indeveloping an effective, easy to administer self—report measurefor grouping individuals opened the way for a flourishing field73of research into a typology of adult attachment. Their approachuses a single—item forced—choice measure in which respondentsselect the one attachment style that best describes them. Animportant assumption in this approach is that any individualwithin a group may be substituted for another within that group,and that therefore between group error is important but withingroup error is random. A grouping approach is advantageous inseveral ways: it provides labels which summarize and organizecomplex patterns of individual differences; it makes for ease incommunication; and it is compatible with analysis of variancemodels for statistical analyses. At the same time, thisconvenience has disadvantages, in that researchers and consumersof research may be tempted to think in overly simplistic waysabout group membership, overlooking differences and exaggeratingsimilarities within groups (and doing the converse betweengroups, that is, exaggerating differences and ignoringsimilarities), and thinking in causal terms about theassociations between group membership and other variables. Aswell, categorical approaches inevitably lead to some loss ofinformation as compared with dimensional ones. In contrast,dimensional approaches to attachment retain its rich complexity,are statistically more sensitive, and do not lend themselveseasily to stereotyping and mistaken causal inference, but nor dothey facilitate an appreciation of the gestalt that arises out ofthe pattern of results.The prototype approach to conceptualizing attachment groupstakes into account the notion of within group difference,74acknowledging that while it is possible to define types on thebasis of complex patterns of individual differences, not allgroup members are equally good representatives of that type. Inthis approach, typicality ratings (e.g., 1 = “not at all likeme”; 7 “very much like me”) are taken for each participant oneach of the attachment patterns, and a profile of the individualis produced which allows for an evaluation of how closely thatperson matches each type (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).Another way of incorporating a prototype approach to grouping isto use the highest of the four typicality ratings to placeindividuals into their best-fitting attachment category (e.g.,Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994).In this study, attachment was viewed as categorical (ratherthan dimensional), and participants were placed into groups onthe basis of their best—fitting category. That is, discretegroups were used in this study, but with the understanding thatfew people are ideal exemplars of a single attachment style, andthat instead there are “better” or “poorer” representatives of acategory. Participants’ category assignment was based onmultiple measurement: 1) both forced choice categorization andseparate ratings on each attachment type; and 2) globally overall close relationships at Time One, and specifically withinthree separate relationship types at Time Two. To be assigned toa category, individuals must have: 1) at Time One ratedtypicality highest (or tied for highest) on the same category asthey chose in the forced choice question; and 2) at Time Twochosen the same forced choice category as they chose at Time One75and rated it as highest (or tied for highest), for at least oneof the three relationship types.This typicality rating approach “overcomes the problem ofassuming that the... attachment styles are mutually exclusive”(Feeney et al., 1994b, p. 130). It is important therefore tokeep in mind that despite having grouped participants intodiscrete categories for the reasons given above, the view in thisresearch is that few individuals are likely to correspondperfectly to a single attachment pattern. This research examinesthe pattern of results for individuals characterized as having aparticular attachment style on the basis of their best fittingstyle. The expectation is that there will be a significantamount of within group variability, and that variability ismeaningful, but that it will be largely unexamined in this work.Subi ectsParticipants were 80 female and 80 male universityundergraduates, currently in heterosexual romantic relationshipsof 6 months or longer, recruited from the volunteer subject pool.Lesbian and gay romantic relationships were not included in thedata analyses, due to the expectation of insufficient numbers inthese groups (estimated at 10% of the population, cf. Basow,1992)The expected distribution of the four attachment styles inthe general population of university students is: secure 48%;dismissing 19*; preoccupied 15%; and fearful 19% (Bartholomew &Horowitz, 1991). By including only individuals who were76currently in a romantic relationship however, secure individualswere likely to be significantly overrepresented in the sample(Davis & Kirkpatrick, in press; Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Shaver &Hazan, 1992). Further, the distribution of the four types hasbeen shown to differ by gender, with fewer dismissing women thandismissing men, and fewer preoccupied men than preoccupied women(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan, et al., 1991; Carnelley,et al., 1992).Given that uneven distributions were expected across thegroups, with an overrepresentation of secure individuals, ascreening test was administered prior to the main questionnaire,and sampling continued until an n of 20 was obtained for womenand men for each attachment style (e.g., Brennan & Shaver, 1991).A power calculation was conducted for the Mutual PsychologicalDevelopment Questionnaire (using data from Genero et al., 1991),and revealed that in order to detect a standard effect sizedifference of .852 with a power of .8, a minimum ri of 11 issufficient. A power calculation conducted on the Miller SocialIntimacy Scale (using data from Miller & Lefcourt, 1982)indicated that in order to detect a standard effect sizedifference of .831 with a power of .8, a minimum of 11 is alsosufficient. These power calculations are based on a one—factorANOVA design, whereas this study involved a multifactorialdesign. The inclusion of additional factors tends to increasethe power of the test for the main effects (Glass & Hopkins,1984, pp. 443-4); however the power of the test of interactionsin factorial designs tends to be lower than for the main effects77(Cohen, 1988). This results from the fact that it is the cell i-iwhich governs the power of the interaction analysis, whereas itis some multiple of that number which is used in tests for themain effects (Cohen, 1988). Hence an j of 20 individuals percell was obtained, in order to take this relative weakness in theinteraction tests into account.Measures (see Appendix A for copies of all measures used)1. Attachment style. The Relationship questionnaire (RQ),(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), is a self—report measure ofattachment style. This measure was used both in the pretestscreening procedure and, in a modified form, in the mainquestionnaire. The RQ consists of four paragraphs representingthe four attachment styles, and individuals are asked to identifythe one style that best reflects how they feel. This method iscommonly used in adult attachment research (e.g., Hazan & Shaver,1987, 1990; Shaver & Hazan, 1988), and has been found to produceresults almost identical to dimensional measures of attachment(e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Validity is evidenced inthe different patterns of results for each type in terms ofadaptational variables, family background, affect regulation,representational processes, behaviors, and relationship historyreported upon earlier in this paper. Test-retest reliability ofthe RQ has been found to be satisfactory at 8 months post-test,with a test-retest correlation of .60 (Scharfe, 1992).On both the screening measure and the main questionnaire,participants were asked to select the one attachment style that78best reflects the way they usually feel in close relationships (aforced choice approach). As well, they were asked on both thescreening measure and the main questionnaire to indicate theextent to which each of the four attachment styles corresponds totheir usual style in relationships, using a 7 point scale (with 1“not at all like me”, 4 “somewhat like me”, and 7 “very much likeme”). On the screening measure, participants were asked torespond to the attachment questions on the basis of all theirclose relationships. On the main questionnaire, participantscompleted the RQ three times, once on the basis of all theirclose same sex friendships, once on the basis of all their closeopposite sex friendships, and once on the basis of all theirromantic relationships. Respondents on the main questionnaireboth answered the forced choice question for each type ofrelationship, and also rated each attachment style on the extentto which it corresponds with their usual style for eachrelationship type.2. Demographics. The Demographics Questionnaire includedinformation on respondents’ age, sex, and ethnic identification.The question on ethnicity was open-ended, allowing participantsto generate their own ethnic label. As well, respondents wereasked to rate on a 5-point scale the extent to which they feeltheir ethnic background influences their close relationships withothers (1 = not at all; 2 = a little; 3 = moderately; 4 = verymuch; 5 = completely). The demographics section also askedparticipants to provide the ages of their closest same sexfriend, closest cross sex friend, and romantic partner, and to79indicate the duration, frequency of contact (number of times theparticipant sees or speaks to the target person), and degree ofcloseness (on a 5—point scale, with 5 representing extremecloseness) in each of the three relationships. In addition,since many individuals include kin in their friendship networks(e.g., Dickens & Perlman, 1981), respondents were asked if theirfriend is a relative by blood or marriage, and if so, what thespecific kin relationship is with that person. Respondents wereasked not to nominate parents as closest friends, as the focus inthis study is on peer relationships.3. Intimacy. Intimacy was assessed in this study with twoseparate measures, the Mutual Psychological DevelopmentQuestionnaire (MPDQ; Genero, Miller, Surrey & Baldwin, 1991) andthe Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS; Miller & Lefcourt, 1982).Multiple measurement of a construct is generally regarded assuperior to assessment via a single measure. In this case, theMSIS is the more well-established measure of the two, howeverboth measures illustrate reasonable levels of reliability andvalidity. Both measures can be adapted for use with differenttypes of relationships, and are sensitive to gender differences.The MPDQ asks the respondent to report on the intimacy processfrom the dual perspectives of the self and the other, in contrastto the MSIS, which has the respondent report for the self only.a) The Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire(Genero, Miller, Surrey & Baldwin, 1991) was completed threetimes, once for each relationship (closest same sex friendship,80closest opposite sex friendship, and romantic relationship). Itassesses perceived intimacy in close relationships, with twoperspectives provided by the respondent: the respondent’s ownpoint of view, and her or his perception of the otherindividual’s point of view.To elicit information about these two perspectives,respondents rated items using each of the following frames: “Whenwe talk about things that matter to me, [the other person] islikely to. . .“ and “When we talk about things that matter to [theother person], I am likely to...”. The scale is made up of twoequivalent sets of 11 items, one for the self—ratings and one forthe other—ratings. Examples of items include: “be receptive”,“get impatient”, “keep an open mind”, “feel moved”, “keepfeelings inside”, “share similar experiences”.Ratings are made on a 6 point scale (from 1 = never to 6 =all the time) . Negative items are reverse scored, the scores aresummed and then averaged by the total 22 items. Thus, scalescores could range from 1 to 6 with higher scores reflectinggreater intimacy. The measure has been shown to have high inter—item reliability, ranging from .89 to .92, and satisfactory test—retest reliability, ranging from .72 to .84 over a two-weekperiod. Construct and concurrent validity have beendemonstrated: the measure correlates positively with adequacy ofsocial support, relationship satisfaction, and cohesion, andcorrelates negatively with self—reported depression (Genero etal., 1992).81b) the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (Miller & Lefcourt 1982)was completed three times, once for each relationship. Seventeenintimacy items were rated on a 10 point scale, with six itemsrequiring frequency ratings (anchored by “very rarely”, “some ofthe time”, and “almost always”), and 11 items requiring intensityratings (anchored by “not much”, “a little”, and “a great deal”).Items include: “How often do you keep very personal informationto yourself and do not share it with him/her?”, “How often areyou able to understand his/her feelings?”, “How much do you liketo spend time alone with him/her?”, “How affectionate do you feeltoward him/her?”.Internal consistency assessed via Cronbach’s alpha is withinthe range of .86 to .91, and test-retest reliability over a two-month period is .96. convergent validity has been illustratedvia positive correlations with other measures of trust andintimacy, and negative correlations with measures of loneliness.Discriminant validity has been shown in comparisons betweenclosest friend and acquaintance, and between distressed andnondistressed couples (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982; Touliatos,Perimutter & Strauss, 1990). The MSIS is a well—establishedmeasure which “has utility for a variety of research purposes”(Perlman & Fehr, 1987, p. 18).5. Influence strategies. The Rahim Organizational ConflictInventory (ROCI), (Rahim, 1983) is a 28-item Likert-type measureconstructed around two dimensions: 1) concern for self; and 2)concern for others. It is designed to tap five strategies of82influence: integrating, compromising, obliging, dominating, andavoiding. Respondents were asked to think about how theytypically handle things when they want to get their way, and touse the 5-point scale to indicate the extent to which the use ofeach influence strategy is characteristic of them, from 1 (“notat all like me”) to 3 (“somewhat like me”) to 5 (“very much likeme”). The ROCI was completed three times by each participant,once for the romantic relationship, once for the closest same sexfriendship, and once for the closest opposite sex friendship.Examples of items include: 1) integrating: “I collaboratewith my___________to come up with decisions acceptable to us”;2) compromising: “I usually propose a middle ground for breakingdeadlocks”; 3) obliging: “I usually allow concessions to my________ “;4) dominating: “I use my authority to make a decisionin my favour”; and 5) avoiding: “I usually avoid open discussionof my differences with my_______As previously noted, factor analyses using a population ofexecutives have confirmed the five—factor solution with eigenvalues as follows: 1) integrating = 4.10; 2) avoiding = 3.00; 3)dominating 2.26; 4) obliging = 1.52; and 5) compromising = 1.09(Rahim, 1983). In subsequent studies of other interpersonalrelationships (including parent, sibling, friend, generalizedother), factor analyses have consistently yielded four factors,with integrating and compromising loading on the same factor(Hammock et al., 1987; Richardson et al., 1988).The measure shows 1 week test-retest reliabilities rangingfrom .60 (compromising scale) to .83 (integrating scale) (Rahim,831983). Internal consistency as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha isacceptable, ranging from .72 (for the compromising, dominatingand obliging scales) to .77 (for the integrating scale) (Rahim,1983). Validity was assessed via known groups procedure;stepwise multiple discriminant analyses reveal that the measuredistinguishes between influence styles used by respondents withtheir bosses, peers, and subordinates (Rahim, 1983).ProceduresIn order to obtain equal distributions of romantically—involved individuals across attachment styles, a first step inthis study was to administer a screening questionnaire topotential participants. Screening questionnaires weredistributed in undergraduate classes eligible for bonus coursepoints. The response to the screening questionnaires was verypositive, with a large number of students taking an apparentinterest in participating in the study. The completedquestionnaires were picked up 1 week later and bonus points weregiven. Participants who fit the study criteria were telephonedwithin 2 weeks of returning the screening questionnaire, andinvited to take part in the larger questionnaire study.Screening continued until the minimum cell number of 20 men and20 women was reached for each attachment style.Attachment style screening. The first aspect of thescreening process involved identifying sufficient numbers Ofindividuals for each attachment category. The RelationshipQuestionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), a measure of84the four attachment styles consisting of four short paragraphswas used as a screening device. As well, the RQ was administered(in a modified form) as part of the main questionnaire, so that acheck on the stability of the category assignment would bepossible. Both a forced choice format and a 7-point rating scalewere used to assess attachment style. On the screening test,respondents were first asked to choose the one paragraph thatbest describes the way they typically feel in close relationshipswith others. In addition, participants were asked to rate, on ascale of one to seven, the extent to which each of the fourattachment styles corresponds to their usual style inrelationships. Participants who assigned a higher rating to anattachment style other than the one they endorsed on the forcedchoice question were excluded from the study, as they wereconsidered less adequate representatives of a category than werethose whose forced choice responses corresponded with theirhighest rating on that category.A total of 592 screening questionnaires were returned, outof which only five individuals had given a higher rating to acategory other than the one endorsed on the forced choicequestion. More women (n = 363) than men (n = 229) completed thescreening questionnaires. The distribution of the screeningquestionnaires across attachment styles approximated expectedproportions: secure women 62.3%, secure men 65.9%; fearful women14.6%, fearful men 10.9%; preoccupied women 14.9%, preoccupiedmen 11.8%; dismissing women 8.3%, dismissing men 11.4%.85The Relationship Questionnaire was administered again on themain questionnaire in a modified form as noted above, in order toassess the reliability of the category assignment between thetime of screening and completing the main questionnaire.Attachment style was assessed on the main questionnaire by typeof relationship; that is, rather than a global judgement acrossall close relationships, the RQ was completed three times, oncefor each type of relationship. Respondents were asked to thinkabout their typical style of relating separately for their closesame sex friendships, their close cross sex friendships, andtheir romantic relationships. Both the forced choice format and7—point rating scale approach were used on the main questionnairefor each relationship type. Participants who, on the forcedchoice attachment question on the main questionnaire, did notchoose the same category they selected on the forced choicescreening measure for at least one of the three relationshiptypes, were discarded from the study as poor exemplars of thecategory. A total of 10 individuals, equally divided among womenand men, met this condition and were replaced: two fearful, fourpreoccupied, and four dismissing.Relationship screening. The second aspect of the screeningprocess involved gathering information about participants’romantic relationships and friendships. Five questions wereasked about the romantic relationship, assessing: 1) duration ofthe relationship; 2) whether the relationship is viewed by theparticipant and others as a “couple” relationship; 3) whetherthey cohabit; 4) whether this is the participant’s only current86romantic relationship; and 5) the sex of the romantic partner.Potential participants were screened out if: 1) the duration oftheir romantic relationship was less than six months, or if ithad ended by the time they were contacted for participation(n=7); or 2) they were not viewed by themselves and others as a“couple” (n=l); or 3) this was not their only current romanticrelationship (n=5); or 4) the romantic partner was the same sexas the participant (n7). In order to ensure that participantshad at least one close friend of each sex they were asked “Amongyour closest friends, what number are women and what number aremen?”. Only participants who identified at least one woman andone man friend among their closest friends were followed up forinclusion in the study.Of the 592 respondents screened, 56 did not have a cross sexfriend among their closest friends, and two did not have a samesex friend among their closest friends, Considering all therelationship screening questions, and examining the pattern ofresults across attachment styles, it was clear that there was adifferential rate of exclusion by attachment style. Among thosewho were secure, approximately 10% (38/377) were excluded on thebasis of the relationship criteria; for those who were fearfulthe rate was approximately 28% (22/78); for preoccupiedindividuals the rate was approximately 15% (12/81); and fordismissing participants the rate was approximately 11% (6/56). AChi—square test was conducted on the proportion of individualsexcluded on the basis of relationship screening criteria, byattachment style. The test was significant (X2 = 12.26, d.f.873, p < .01) . Pairwise Chi—square post hoc comparisons wereundertaken which revealed that the only significant difference inthe proportion of those who were excluded was between those whowere fearful and those who were secure = 11.58, d.f. = 1, p <.009). The greater rate of exclusion for fearful as compared tosecure individuals raises a question regarding the relativerepresentativeness of participants in the different attachmentgroups.On the basis of these results a subset of respondents wasrandomly telephoned within 2 weeks of returning the screeningmeasure, and invited to take part in the questionnaire study.The total number of individuals contacted by telephone was 193,of whom twelve (6.2%) chose not to participate. Studentsagreeing to participate in the main phase of data collection werethen given a set of measures to complete on their own and returnwithin 1 week for bonus course points. Individuals who did notreturn their questionnaires within 1 week were given a remindertelephone call. The number of participants who did not returnthe completed questionnaire following the reminder phone call was11 out of the total 181 who received questionnaires (6.1%).Participants were instructed (verbally and in writing) not toconsult with others while filling out the measure, and not towrite their names on the questionnaires, which were coded bynumber to ensure anonymity.Respondents were asked to report on intimacy and influencestrategies in their relationship with their closest same sexfriend, their relationship with their closest cross sex friend88(other than their romantic partner), and their romanticrelationship. The ordering of relationship type was notcounterbalanced in the questionnaires because of the expectationthat the romantic relationship would be likely to primeindividuals most strongly and thereby influence their ratings inother relationships. For that reason, the romantic relationshipwas rated after the two friendships. Respondents were asked toexclude from consideration either of their parents as theirclosest same sex or cross sex friend, in order to assess the roleof attachment in reciprocal peer relationships. In 25 instancesthere were missing data for a particular item on respondents’questionnaires. In these cases a mean was calculated from theremaining items for that individual on that particular scale.The mean was rounded to the nearest whole number, and that numberwas then entered into the dataset.89ResultsDescription of SampleParticipants were 80 women and 80 men university students,all of whom were currently in heterosexual romantic relationshipsand counted among their closest friends at least one person ofthe same sex and one person of the opposite sex. (See Table 1for more detailed descriptive information about the sample). Theage of participants ranged from 17 to 38 years, with a mean ageof 20.46 years and standard deviation of 3.69. A majority ofparticipants were first year (n38; 23.8%) and second yearstudents (n=69; 42.1%), although 33.1% of the sample were upperlevel students. Twenty-one participants (13.1%) were currentlycohabiting with their romantic partner. In response to thequestion “Among your closest friends how many are women and howmany are men?” women participants nominated a mean of 4.45 womenfriends and 2.48 men friends; men participants nominated a meanof 2.84 women friends and 5.01 men friends. Women reported asignificantly higher number of women among their closest friendsthan did men (t = 4.51, df = 1, p < .05); and men reported asignificantly higher number of men among their closest friendsthan did women (t = 6.25, df = 1,p < .05). This result reflectsthe pattern of hornosociality, that is, a predominance offriendships with others of the same sex, a common finding in theliterature on close relationships.90Table 1Sample DescriptivesWomen Men TotalVariable mean SD mean SD mean SD# of women friends 4.45 2.09 2.84 2.15 3.64 2.26# of men friends 2.48 1.53 5.01 2.74 3.74 2.56AgeSubject 20.46 3.69 20.69 2.77 20.58 3.25Romantic partner 21.56 4.18 20.10 3.74 20.94 3.71Same sex friend 20.96 5.94 20.88 2.52 20.92 4.55Cross sex friend 21.49 5.45 20.88 3.59 21.14 4.56Duration (in months)Romantic partner 25.26 26.09 21.04 19.51 23.15 23.06Same sex friend 76.18 61.43 74.84 50.41 75.51 56.01Cross sex friend 54.25 61.71 50.54 57.78 51.61 59.29Frequency (per month)Romantic partner 47.58 45.36 54.50 57.92 51.04 51.97Same sex friend 14.83 16.72 12.60 13.81 13.71 15.32Cross sex friend 11.73 18.28 10.65 13.98 11.12 16.23Closeness (5 = extremely)Romantic partner 4.29 .66 4.41 .67 4.35 .67Same sex friend 3.95 .67 3.82 .69 3.89 .68Cross sex friend 3.31 .80 3.94 .81 3.35 .8091Participants reported on the duration of the three specificrelationships under examination (i.e., romantic relationship,closest same sex friend, and closest cross sex friend). The meanduration of participants’ romantic relationships was 23.15 months(or approximately 1 year and 11 months) and ranged from 6 monthsto 15 years. For participants’ closest same sex friendships, themean duration was 75.51 months (or approximately 6 years and 4months), and for closest cross sex friendships the mean durationwas 51.61 months (or approximately 4 years and 4 months). Womenand men did not differ in the reported duration of any of thethree close relationships (romantic relationship = 1.159, n.s.;closest same sex friendship t = .151, n.s.; closest cross sexfriendship = .39, n.s.). In order to examine for possibledifferences in duration of relationships as a function ofrelationship type, a one-way within-subjects ANOVA was conducted.The effect of relationship type was significant (F = 57.71; df =2, 318; p = .000). The significant univariate result wasfollowed up with Newman—Keuls post hoc multiple comparisons atnominal alpha of .05. Participants’ closest same sex friendshipswere of significantly longer duration than both their closestcross sex friendships and their romantic relationships; theirsame sex friendships were also of longer duration than theircross sex friendships. It is to be expected that, among a sampleof young adults such as this, romantic relationships would be ofshorter duration than would their closest friendships. Same sexfriendships would be expected to be of longer duration than crosssex ones, as they are the predominant relationship for most92people throughout the lifespan (e.g., Dickens & Penman, 1981),and such differences in relationship duration have been found inprevious research (e.g., Parker, 1990). Longer duration ofparticipants’ closest same sex as opposed to cross sexfriendships reflects the norm of homosociality, and may beconsidered a naturally occurring and meaningful effect in within—subjects research into relationships.Frequency of contact (number of times per month theparticipant sees or speaks to the target person) was: in romanticrelationships 51.04 ( = 51.97); in closest same sex friendships13.71 (SD 15.32); and in closest cross sex friendships 11.12( = 16.23). Women and men did not differ in the reportedfrequency of contact in any of the three relationships (romanticrelationship , = .84, n.s.; closest same sex friendship = .92,n.s.; closest cross sex friendship t = .42, n.s.). Participants’mean ratings of closeness on a 5—point scale were: romanticrelationships 4.35 ( = .67); closest same sex friendships 3.89(SD = .68); and closest cross sex friendships 3.35 ( = .80).Women and men did not differ significantly in their reportedcloseness in their romantic relationship (, 1.14, n.s.), nor intheir closest same sex friendship (t = 1.21, n.s.). In closestcross sex friendships however, men reported greater closenessthan did women (t = 4.96, p < .01).Participants were asked to identify any individuals who werenominated as a closest friend who were also relatives either byblood or marriage. (Note that respondents were asked not tonominate their parents as friends for the purposes of this93study). Twelve participants (7.5% of the sample) nominatedrelatives as their closest cross sex friends; six participants(3.8%) identified relatives as their closest same sex friends.The most common relative identified was a sibling, with fournominated as closest same sex friends and eight as closest crosssex friends. The remainder of the relatives identified byparticipants as closest friends were in—laws, cousins, and auntsor uncles.The distribution of ethnicity in the sample was 49.4%European descent (=79), 32.5% Asian descent (=52), 11.9%“Canadian” (=l9), and 6.2% “Other”. These groupings werecreated by the investigator on the basis of respondents’ self—reported ethnic background. Table 2 contains additionalinformation regarding the specific ethnic identification of theindividuals in the sample. Participants were also asked to rateon a 5-point scale the extent to which their ethnic backgroundinfluences their close relationships with others (with 1 = not atall, 5 = completely). The mean reported influence of ethnicityon relationships was 2.24 (p = 1.15) for the sample as a whole.For participants of European descent the mean reported influenceof ethnicity on relationships was 1.77 ( = .94); forparticipants of Asian descent the mean was 2.77 ( = 1.13); forthose who identified themselves as “Canadian” the mean was 2.11(SD = 1.20); for those in the “Other” category the mean was 3.33(SD = .71). On the basis of these data it appeared thatindividuals who identified themselves as being of Europeandescent or “Canadian” gave lower ratings for the influence of94their ethnicity on their relationships than did individuals inthe other two groups.In order to determine whether the distribution acrossattachment styles of Europeans and “Canadians” as compared toparticipants from other ethnic backgrounds was proportionate towhat would be expected, a Pearson Chi—square test was conducted.One category was created which included those individuals whoidentified themselves as being of European descent and those whoidentified themselves as “Canadian” The remaining respondentswere grouped together and labelled as “ethnically—identified”.The result of the Chi-square test was nonsignificant at .94799( = 3), p >.05, indicating that people who identifiedthemselves as coming from an ethnic background other thanEuropean or “Canadian” were not disproportionately distributedacross the four attachment styles. In order to determine whetherthe distribution of ethnically—identified individuals acrossgender was proportionate to what would be expected, a PearsonChi—square test was conducted for women versus men. The resultof the Chi-square test was nonsignificant at 2.633 ( = 1, p >.05), indicating that ethnically-identified persons were notdisproportionately distributed across women and men.Table 2Ethnic DistributionSelf Described Label Frequency Percent aEthfllC InfluencebEuropean descent 79 49.4 M = 1.77Caucasian 31White 23Anglo—Saxon 6European 2Jewish-European 2Italian 3Ukranian 2English 3Irish 2Scottish 1Scottish-Irish 1Swiss 1French 1German 1bAsian 52 32.5 M = 2.77Chinese 41Asian 4Korean 4Oriental 2Japanese 19596Table 2 (corit’d)Ethnic DistributionSelf Described Label Frequency Percent aEthfllC Influence“Canadian” 19 11.9 M = 2.11bother 10 6.2 M = 3.33Arabic 3Iranian 2Metis 1East Indian 1African 1Trinidadian 1Indian—Portugese—German 1total 160 100.0 M 2.24a Ethnic Influence was assessed via asking participants to rate on a 5point scale the extent to which they felt their ethnic backgroundinfluences their close relationships with others (1 = not at all;5 = completely).b These headings were created by the investigator.97Reliability of Attachment Style Category AssignmentAttachment style serves as an independent grouping variablein this study design. Participants were assigned to attachmentstyle groups on the basis of their response to the forced choicequestion on the Relationship Questionnaire, which wasadministered as part of the screening procedure. Prior toundertaking statistical analyses testing the study hypotheses, acheck was conducted on the stability of participants’ attachmentstyle between the Time One screening and the Time Twoquestionnaire.Category assignment at Time One screening was found to bereliable at Time Two on the main questionnaire. At Time Oneparticipants chose the one attachment style (secure, fearful,preoccupied, or dismissing) that best described them across alltheir close relationships, and then rated themselves on a 7—pointscale for each of the four styles. At Time Two the forced choiceand rating of attachment styles was obtained separately for eachrelationship type (romantic relationships, cross sex friendships,and same sex friendships).A one-way multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) wasconducted with forced choice attachment style category at TimeOne as the independent variable (see Table 3). The fourdependent variables were the four ratings of attachment style(secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing) at Time Two. Thefour dependent variables were created by averaging the Time Twoattachment style ratings across the three relationship types, toget an overall attachment style which would serve as an98appropriate comparison with the Time One measure. The MANOVA wassignificant (Pillais = 1.61; df = 12,465; F 44.78; p = .000).The MANOVA was followed by four univariate ANOVA5, for Time Oneattachment style category on each of the four averaged Time Tworatings of attachment style. All four ANOVAs were significant.Follow-up Tukey multiple comparisons indicated that Time Oneattachment style category predicted Time Two attachment styleratings for each of the four styles. Participants who endorsedsecure on the Time One forced choice question had significantlyhigher ratings at Time Two on the secure attachment style thandid participants who endorsed fearful, preoccupied, or dismissingat Time One. Parallel findings were evident for each of theother three attachment style categories.Category Assignment by Relationship TypeAttachment style category assignment was also assessed bycomparing the Time One forced choice category with the Time Twoforced choice category for each relationship type. The questionunder consideration here is, does the Time One attachmentcategory, obtained across close relationships overall, correspondwith the Time Two attachment category obtained separately foreach type of relationship? Recall that in order to be includedin the study, participants must have endorsed at Time Two thesame category on at least one of the three types of closerelationships as they endorsed globally at Time One. Therefore,99Table 3One Way MANOVA and follow-up ANOVAs on Reliability of Category AssignmentCell MeansRatingSecure Fearful Preoccupied DismissingCategory Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.Secure 5.82 .687 2.33 1.043 2.46 1.186 2.67 1.142Fearful 3.81 .966 4.94 1.026 3.08 1.153 3.14 1.117Preoccupied 4.35 1.254 3.23 1.490 5.11 .849 2.62 .892Dismissing 4.72 .992 2.30 .942 1.84 .834 5.32 .766Multivariate test of significance: (S = 3, N = 0, N = 75 1/2)Test name Value Hypoth DF Error DF F SigPillais 1.608 12.00 465.00 44.78 .000Univariate F—tests with (3, 156) DF:Variable Hypoth MS Error MS F SigRating on Secure 28.82 .991 29.10 .000Rating on Fearful 61.27 1.312 46.70 .000Rating on Preoccupied 80.37 1.038 77.44 .000Rating on Dismissing 65.16 .983 66.25 .000Note. IV = Attachment style forced choice category Time OneDV = Dimensional ratings on 4 attachment styles - Time Two100Table 4Crosstabulation: Attachment style category at Time One (over all 3relationship types) by Time Two (by separate relationship types)Same Sex FriendshipTime TwoSecure Fearful Preocc Dismiss % ChangeN % N % N % N %Time OneSecure 34 85.0 1 2.5 2 5.0 3 7.5 15.0Fearful 13 32.5 20 50.0 2 5.0 5 12.5 50.0Preocc 13 32.5 6 15.0 13 32.5 8 20.0 67.5Dismiss 19 47.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 52.5 47.5Column total 79 49.4 27 16.9 17 10.6 37 23.1 45.0Cross Sex FriendshipTime TwoSecure Fearful Preocc Dismiss % Change0 0 0 0r 0Time OneSecure 33 82.5 2 5.0 1 2.5 4 10.0 10.5Fearful 8 20.0 25 62.5 2 5.0 5 12.5 32.5Preocc 8 20.0 5 12.5 24 60.0 3 7.5 40.0Dismiss 12 30.0 1 2.5 1 2.5 26 65.0 35.0Column total 61 38.1 33 20.6 28 17.5 38 23.8 29.4101Table 4 (continued)Crosstabulation: Attachment style category at Time One(over all 3 relationship types) by Time Two(by separate relationship types)Romantic RelationshipTime TwoSecure Fearful Preocc Dismiss % ChangeN * N % N % N %Time OneSecure 38 95.0 1 2.5 0 0.0 1 2.5 5.0Fearful 5 12.5 34 85.0 1 2.5 0 0.0 15.0Preocc 3 7.5 3 7.5 34 85.0 0 0.0 15.0Dismiss 9 22.5 1 2.5 0 0.0 30 75.0 25.0Column total 55 34.4 39 24.4 35 21.9 31 19.4 15.0102for any single relationship type, respondents may or may not haveendorsed the same category as they did on the global measure atTime One.A crosstabulation procedure was undertaken for Time Onecategory by Time Two category for each relationship type. Forindividuals who were secure at Time One, 85% were secure in theirsame sex friendships, 82.5% were secure in their cross sexfriendships, and 95% were secure in their romantic relationships.For respondents who were fearful at Time One, 50% were fearful intheir same sex friendships, 62.5% were fearful in their cross sexfriendships, and 85% were fearful in their romanticrelationships. For those who identified themselves aspreoccupied at Time One, 32.5% were preoccupied in their same sexfriendships, 60% were preoccupied in their cross sex friendships,and 85% were preoccupied in their romantic relationships. Forparticipants who were dismissing at Time One, 52.5% weredismissing in their same sex friendships, 65% were dismissing intheir cross sex friendships, and 75% were dismissing in theirromantic relationships.While there was a substantial association between the globaland relationship—specific measures of attachment style, the twoassessments were not identical. There were a number ofindividuals in each attachment group who, when rating thespecific relationship type at Time Two, endorsed a differentattachment category than the one they chose on the globalassessment. This change in attachment category varied both with103attachment style and type of relationship. In terms ofattachment style, the smallest variability occurred among thosein the secure group; the largest change occurred among those inthe preoccupied group. In terms of relationship type, thesmallest variability occurred in ratings for the romanticrelationship; the greatest variability occurred in ratings forsame sex friendships. When insecure individuals changedcategories at Time Two, they were most likely to classifythemselves as secure at the second assessment.Study Design and AnalysesThe study involved a 2 (sex of respondent: male vs. female)by 4 (attachment style: secure vs. preoccupied vs. dismissing vs.fearful) by 3 (relationship type: same sex friend vs. cross sexfriend vs. romantic partner) fixed effects model multipleanalysis of variance for repeated measures (MANOVAR) design.(See Figure 1). Between group factors were gender and attachmentstyle. The repeated measures or within—subjects factor wasrelationship type. Pillais’ criterion was used consistently asthe test for the multivariate analyses in this study, as it isheld to be more robust than Wilks’ Lambda, Hotelling’s trace, andRoy’s gcr criterion, particularly for smaller sample sizes and incases where the assumption of homogeneity of variance—covariancematrices may be violated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989, p. 399).Post hoc multiple comparisons were undertaken with the Newman—Keuls method. Newman—Keuls uses a contrast—based alpha level, asopposed to the family-wise alpha used in the Tukey method,104Figure 1Study DesignGender of respondent(between-group)Female (n=80) Male (n8O)Relationship—type csf ssf rom csf ssf rom(within—group)ttachment Style(between group)Secure n=20 n=20Dismissing n=20 n20Preoccupied n=20 n=20Fearful n=20 n=20Dependent Variables:1) Intimacy: 2) Influence:a) MPDQ a) compromising/integratingb) MSIS b) dominatingc) obligingd) aioiding105rendering Newman—Keuls more powerful, (except in the initialpairwise comparison, in which the two tests are identical) butwith a greater risk of Type I error. The issue of Type I errormay be of greater concern in confirmatory research than in anexploratory study such as this one. As well, the overall F—testalready provides omnibus protection from Type I errors. Newman—Keuls is the method of choice cited by Glass and Hopkins (1984,p. 376), as it is held to provide a high degree of protection forthe entire null hypothesis without the overconservatism caused byusing a single critical value, as in the case of the Tukey test.A balanced factorial ANOVA design was used in this study(i.e., equal numbers in all cells) . Unequal cell frequencies infactorial designs lead to complications in the analysis of suchdata because “the sums of squares associated with the variouseffects [are] not orthogonal. This nonorthogonality leads to F—tests for confounded effects” (Glass & Hopkins, 1984, p. 444).Although there are certain adjustments that can be made, Glassand Hopkins (1984) recommend equal numbers in factorial designs.The dependent variables were intimacy (assessed via theMutual Psychological Development Questionnaire or MPDQ and theMiller Social Intimacy Scale or MSIS), and influence strategies(avoiding, dominating, integrating/compromising, and obliging;assessed via the Rahirn Organizational Conflict Inventory orROCI). An examination of the intercorrelation between the MPDQand the MSIS revealed that the two intimacy measures were highlycorrelated but were not identical: for romantic relationships thePearson correlation between the MPDQ and the MSIS was r = .5869;106for closest same sex friendship r = .6063; and for closest crosssex friendship .6165.On the basis of conceptual distinctness, two separateMANOVAR5 were undertaken. One MANOVAR was conducted using thetwo intimacy measures (MPDQ, MSIS) as dependent variables. Theother MANOVAR was conducted using the four factors of the ROCI(integrating/compromising, obliging, dominating, avoiding) asdependent measures. Where significance was obtained, themultivariate tests were followed up with univariate ANOVAs orANOVAR5 for each dependent measure. Simple effects analyses andmultiple comparisons were conducted on significant results whereappropriate. The following section is ordered by dependentvariable, with the results for intimacy first, then for influencestrategies. The results of the analyses are presented withoverall MANOVA results first, then the univariate tests, whichare followed by multiple comparison results.IntimacyMANOVA results. A multivariate analysis of variance wasconducted on the two measures of intimacy (MPDQ and MSIS). (SeeTable 5). The MANOVA was a 2-between-subjects factors and 1-within—subjects factor design. The two between—subjects factorswere sex and attachment style. The within—subjects factor wasrelationship type. The result of the 3-way test (sex byattachment style by relationship type) was nonsignificant,Pillais = .11, F(12,453) = 1.41, p = .157 The two—wayinteraction of sex by attachment style was significant, Pillais107.11, F(6,304) = 2.82, p = .011. The two—way interaction of sexby relationship type was significant, Pillais = .19, F(4, 149) =8.88, p = .000. The two-way interaction of attachment style byrelationship type was not significant, Pillais = .10, F(12,453) =1.32, p = .201. The main effect for sex was not significant,Pillais = .02, F(2,151) = 1.46, p = .236. The main effect forattachment style was significant, Pillais = .17, F(6,304) = 4.75,p = .000. The main effect for relationship type was significant,Pillais = .72, F(4,149) = 95.05, p = .000. The multivariateanalysis of variance was followed up with appropriate univariateanalyses.Sex by attachment style interaction. A 2-between-subjectsfactors ANOVA (sex by attachment style) was conducted for each ofthe intimacy measures (MPDQ and MSIS). (See Table 6). The sexby attachment style interaction was significant for the MPDQ,F(3,152) = 5.67, p = .001, but not for the MSIS, F(3,152) = 1.83,p > .05. Sex was not significant for either the MPDQ, F(l,152)=.17, p > .05, or the MSIS, F(1,152) = 2.55, p >.05. Attachmentstyle was significant for both the MPDQ, F(3,152) = 4.42, p =.005, and for the MSIS, F(3,152) = 8.59, p = .000.108Table 5MANOVA results: IntimacyEffect S, M, N Pillais Hypoth DF Error DF pA 1, 0, 74 1/2 .019 2 151 1.456 .236B 2, 0, 74 1/2 .171 6 304 4.751 .000*C 1, 1, 73 1/2 .718 4 149 95.051 .000*A x B 2, 0, 74 1/2 .106 6 304 2.824 .011*A x C 1, 1, 73 1/2 .193 4 149 8.882 .000*B x C 3, 0, 73 1/2 .102 12 453 1.324 .201A x B x C 3, 0, 73 1/2 .108 12 453 1.412 .157Note. Intimacy was measured via the Mutual Psychological DevelopmentQuestionnaire and the Miller Social Intimacy Scale.A = Sex of respondent (female, male)B = Attachment style (secure, fearful, preoccupied, dismissing)C = Relationship type (same sex friendship, cross sex friendship,romantic relationship)S, M, N multivariate degrees of freedom; they are the values of theparameters used to find significance levels in tables of theexact distributions of the statistics.*= significant at p < .05109Simple effects analyses were conducted on MPDQ results forsex at each level of attachment style (i.e., women vs. men withineach of the four attachment styles) and also for attachment styleat sex (i.e., secure vs. fearful vs. preoccupied vs. dismissingwithin women and within men). The sex at attachment styleanalyses were nonsignificant for secure, fearful, and preoccupiedparticipants (see Table 6). For participants with a dismissingattachment style, sex was significant, F(l,l52) 13.24, p =.000.These simple effects results revealed that dismissing womenreported greater intimacy on the MPDQ than did dismissing men(See Table 7 for cell means). Results are graphically displayedin Figure 2.The attachment style at sex analyses revealed thatattachment style was significant both for women, F(3,152) = 4.94,p = .003, and for men, F(3,l52) = 6.12, p = .001. Multiplecomparisons were conducted for attachment style at each level ofsex. Results based on Newman—Keuls post hoc analyses (at nominalalpha of .05) indicated that for women, those with a secureattachment style and those with a dismissing attachment stylereported greater intimacy levels than did those with a fearfulattachment style. Further, women with a dismissing stylereported higher levels of intimacy than did preoccupied women.No other pairwise comparisons obtained significance. Newman—Keuls analyses for men showed that men with a secure attachmentstyle and men with a preoccupied attachment style both reportedgreater intimacy than did men with a dismissing attachment style.No other pairwise comparisons yielded significant differences.110Table 6Two between—subiects factors (sex, attachment style)ANOVA results: Intimacy (MPDO, MSIS)Mutual Psychological Development QuestionnaireEffect DF MS F pSex 1 .01 .17 .681Sex at Secure 1 .00 .03 >.05Sex at Fearful 1 .06 .79 >.05Sex at Preoccupied 1 .25 3.11 >.05Sex at Dismissing 1 1.08 13.24 .000Attachment style 3 .36 4.42 .005Attachment style at women 3 .40 4.94 .003Attachment style at men 3 .50 6.12 .001Sex by attachment style 3 .46 5.67 .001Error 152 .08Miller Social Intimacy ScaleEffect DF MS F pSex 1 355.018 2.55 .112Attachment style 3 1194.516 8.59 .000Sex by attachment style 3 253.764 1.83 .145Error 152 .08111Table 7Cell Means: IntimacySex by Attachment styleMutual Psychological Development QuestionnaireSecure Fearful Preoccupied Dismissing Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)SexWomen 4686a,c 4440b 4484b,c 4672a,1 4.571(.350) (.246) (.191) (.283)Men 470-a 4520a,b 4643a 4344b,2 4.552(.303) (.330) (.270) (.276)Columntotal 4694a 4480b 4564b 4508b 4.561(.305)Note. Newman—Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted for Attachmentstyle at Sex (rows) and for Sex at Attachment style (columns). Meanswith different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05. Row-wisedifferences are identified by alphabetic subscripts; column-wisedifferences are identified by numeric subscripts.112Miller Social Intimacy ScaleTable 7 (cont’d)Cell Means: IntimacySex by Attachment styleSecure Fearful Preoccupied Dismissing Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)SexWomen 129.017 117.233 123.217 120.333 122.451(15.255) (9.069) (10.129) (10.336)Men 124.600 116.717 125.533 111.033 119.471(10.290) (9.644) (11.059) (16.328)Columntotal 2-6808a “6975b ‘24375a 115683b 115.683(12. 746)Note. The two-way interaction was not significant. Means with differentsubscripts differ significantly at p < .05.ClHH•1-’C)EC.)II-’L.C)C)N-.0C.)LLCl)C.)CuIz--1a).I04-ICa)EC.)Cu.1.d4-’If)Aoewijuj114Attachment style main effect. The significant main effectfor attachment style was followed up with Newman—Keuls post hocmultiple comparisons (at nominal alpha of .05) on both intimacymeasures (MPDQ and MSIS). It is important to note that thissignificant main effect can only be properly understood in thecontext of the significant higher order interaction of sex byattachment style reported above. On the MPDQ, participants witha secure attachment style reported significantly greater intimacythan did participants from any of the other three attachmentstyles. No other pairwise comparisons attained significance. Onthe MSIS, participants with a secure attachment style and thosewith a preoccupied attachment style both reported greaterintimacy than did participants with a dismissing attachment styleand than did those with a fearful attachment style. No otherpairwise comparisons yielded significant results.Sex by relationship interaction. A 2-factor ANOVA with onebetween—subjects factor (sex) and one within—subjects factor(relationship type) was conducted for each of the intimacymeasures (see Table 8). Sex by relationship type was significantfor both the MPDQ, F(2,316) 13.10, p = .000, and the MSISF(2,316) = 16.93, p .000.Simple effects analyses were conducted for sex at each levelof relationship type (i.e., women vs. men within each of thethree relationship types), and also for relationship type at sex115(i.e., romantic relationship vs. closest same sex friendship vs.closest cross sex friendship within women and within men) forboth the MPDQ and the MSIS. (See Table 9 for cell means). Onthe MPDQ, the sex at relationship type analyses werenonsignificant for each relationship type: romantic relationship,F(l,316) = 2.13, p > .05; closest same sex friendship, F(l,316) =3.16, p > .05; closest cross sex friendship, F(l, 316) = .10, p >.05. That is, women and men when compared within each separaterelationship type did not differ significantly in intimacy asmeasured by the MPDQ. On the MSIS, the sex at relationship typeanalyses were nonsignificant for romantic relationship, F(l,316)= .31, p > .05, and for closest cross sex friendship, F(l,3l6) =.17, p > .05. Significant results were obtained for sex atrelationship type on closest same sex friendship, F(1,316) =6.56, p = .011. On the NSIS, women reported significantlygreater intimacy in their closest same sex friendships than didmen in their closest same sex friendships (see Figure 3).116Figure 3Intimacy as Function of Gender and Relationship TypeMPDO0E4-CIntimacy as Function of Gender and Relationship TypeMSIS>.0E4-CRomantic Same Sex Cross SexRelationship TypeRomantic Same Sex Cross SexRelationship Type117The relationship type at sex analyses were significant bothfor women and for men on the MPDQ: for women, F(2,316) = 12.63, p= .000; for men, F(2,316) = 13.10, p = .000. Similarly, on theMSIS, the relationship at sex analyses were significant both forwomen and for men: for women, F(2,316) = 65.82, p = .000; formen, F(2, 316) = 94.84, p = .000. Multiple comparisons wereconducted for relationship type at each level of sex for both theMPDQ and the MSIS (see Figure 3). On the MPDQ, Newman-Keuls posthoc analyses (at nominal alpha of .05) indicated that women’sreported intimacy was significantly greater in their closest samesex friendship than in both their romantic relationship and theirclosest cross sex friendship. No other pairwise comparisons weresignificant. For men, reported intimacy on the MPDQ wassignificantly greater in their romantic relationship than in boththeir closest same sex friendship and their closest cross sexfriendship. No other pairwise comparisons attained significance.On the MSIS, Newrnan-Keuls analyses (at nominal alpha of .05)indicated that women reported greater intimacy in their romanticrelationship than in both their closest same sex friendship andtheir closest cross sex friendship. Further, women reportedsignificantly greater intimacy in their closest same sexfriendship than in their closest cross sex friendship. For men,• significantly greater intimacy was reported in their romanticrelationship than in both their closest cross sex friendship andtheir closest same sex friendship. No other pairwise comparisonsreached significance.118Table 8One between—subiects factor, one within—subiects factor(sex, relationship type) ANOVA results: Intimacy (MPDQ, MSIS)Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire1 1065.051 96.911 2066.121 54.01483.732 33120.692 3791.922 21853.712 3902.152.20.316.56• 17143.7365.8294.8416.93.140>. 05.011>. DF MS F pSex 1 .04 .15 .702Sex at romantic relationship 1 .35 2.13 >.05Sex at same sex friendship 1 .52 3.16 >.05Sex at cross sex friendship 1 .02 .10 >.05Subjects within sex 158 .28Relationship type 2 .43 3.94 .020Relationship type at women 2 .34 12.63 .000Relationship type at men 2 .12 4.40 .013Sex by relationship type 2 1.42 13.10 .000Relationship type by subjectswithin sex 316 .11Miller Social Intimacy ScaleEffect DF MS pSexSex at romantic relationshipSex at same sex friendshipSex at cross sex friendshipSubjects within sexRelationship typeRelationship type at womenRelationship type at menSex by relationship typeRelationship type by subjectswithin sex158316 230.44119Table 9Cell Means: IntimacySex by Relationship TypeMutual Psychological Development QuestionnaireRomantic Same sex Cross Sex Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)SexWomen 4506a 472-b 4485a 4.571(.418) (.391) (.406)Men 4639a 4492b 4525b 4.552(.399) (.392) (.436)Columntotal 4572a,b 4607a 4505b 4.561Note. Newman—Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted for Relationshiptype at Sex (rows) and for Sex at Relationship type (columns). Therewere no significant differences for Sex at Relationship type. Meanswith different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05.120Miller Social Intimacy ScaleTable 9 (cont’d)Cell Means: IntimacySex by Relationship TypeRomantic Same sex Cross Sex Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (P)SexWomen 135437a 123900b,1 ‘°8•13c 122.450(17.817) (17.394) (17.822)Men-38550a -09525b, 1--°338b 119.471(15.426) (17.985) (19.753)Columntotal 136•994a 11-6723b -0975c 120.961Note. Newman—Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted for Relationshiptype at Sex (rows) and for Sex at Relationship type (columns). Meanswith different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05. Row—wisedifferences are identified with alphabetic subscripts; column-wisedifferences are identified with numeric subscripts.121Relationship type main effect. This significant main effectcan only be fully understood in the context of the significanthigher order interaction of sex by relationship type, reportedabove. The significant main effect for relationship type wasfollowed up with Newman-Keuls post hoc multiple comparisons (atnominal alpha of .05) on both intimacy measures (MPDQ and MSIS).On the MPDQ, participants reported greater intimacy in theirclosest same sex friendship than in their closest cross sexfriendship. No other pairwise comparisons yielded significantdifferences. On the MSIS, participants reported greater intimacyin their romantic relationship than in both their closest samesex friendship and their closest cross sex friendship. Further,reported intimacy was greater in participants’ closest same sexfriendship than in their closest cross sex friendship.InfluenceMANOVA results. A multivariate analysis of variance wasconducted on the four influence strategies of the ROCI(integrating/compromising; avoiding; dominating; and obliging).(See Table 10). The MANOVA was again set up as a 2-between-subjects factors and 1-within-subjects factor design. Of thepossible two— and three—way interaction effects, only the two—wayinteraction of sex by relationship type was significant, Pillais= .25, F(8,145) = 6.18, p = .000. All three possible maineffects were significant: for sex, Pillais = .08, F(4,149) =3.38, p = .011; for attachment style, Pillais = .48, F(12,453) =7.17, p = .000; and for relationship type, Pillais = .29,122Table 10MANOVA results: InfluenceEffect S, M, N Pillais Hypoth DF Error DF F pA 1, 1, 73 1/2 .083 4 149 3.384 .011*B 3, 0, 73 1/2 .479 12 453 7.172 .000*C 1, 3, 71 1/2 .293 8 145 7.520 .000*A x B 3, 0, 73 1/2 .128 12 453 1.686 .067A x C 1, 3, 71 1/2 .254 8 145 6.178 .000*B x C 3, 2, 71 1/2 .215 24 441 1.415 .093A x B x C 3, 2, 71 1/2 .129 24 441 .824 .707Note. Influence was measured via the Rahim Organizational ConflictInventory (ROCI). The four dependent variables are the fourinfluence strategies measured on the ROCI: integrating!compromising; avoiding; dominating; and obliging.A Sex of respondent (female, male)B = Attachment style (secure, fearful, preoccupied, dismissing)C = Relationship type (same sex friendship, cross sex friendship,romantic relationship)*= significant at p < .05123F(8,145) = 7.52, p = .000. The multivariate analysis of variancewas followed up with appropriate univariate analyses.Attachment style main effect: The significant main effectfor attachment style was followed up with four one—way between—subjects ANOVA5 for attachment style on each of the influencestrategies (see Table 11). Significant results were obtained forall four ANOVAs: integrating/compromising, F(3,l56) = 5.11, p =.002; avoiding, F(3,156) = 9.83, p = .000; dominating, F(3,156) =7.67, p = .000; and obliging, F(3,156) = 14.17, p = .000. Thesesignificant univariate results were followed up with Newman—Keulspost hoc multiple comparisons (at nominal alpha of 05) on eachof the four influence strategies. (See Table 12 for cell means.)Newman—Keuls pairwise results revealed that on theintegrating/compromising strategy, secure respondents hadsignificantly higher scores than did individuals in the otherthree attachment styles (i.e., compared with dismissing, fearful,or preoccupied individuals). Results are graphically displayedin Figure 4. No other pairwise comparisons were significant. Onthe avoiding strategy, fearful individuals had significantlyhigher scores than did individuals in the other three attachmentstyles (secure, dismissing, or preoccupied). No other pairwisecomparisons on the avoiding strategy attained significance (seeFigure 4). On the dominating strategy, dismissing individualsscored significantly higher than did individuals in the otherthree groups (fearful, secure, or preoccupied). Further,124Table 11One between—subjects factor (attachment style)ANOVA results: InfluenceDependent Measure Effect DF MS pIntegratingAttachment style 3 1.25 5.11 .002Error 156 .24AvoidingAttachment style 3 5.23 9.83 .000Error 156 .53DominatingAttachment style 3 4.38 7.67 .000Error 156 .57ObligingAttachment style 3 3.57 14.17 .000Error 156 .25125Table 12Cell Means: InfluenceAttachment Style Main EffectAttachment styleSecure Fearful Preoccupied Dismissing Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean ()InfluenceIntegrate3840a,l 3468b,l 3580b,1 3464b,l 3.588(.475) (.553) (.463) (.479) (.512)Avoid2599a,3 3•426b,l 2879a,2,3 2744a,2,3 2.912(.718) (.766) (.737) (.694) (.787)Dominate2727a,b, ,3 251-3a,2 2•937b2 3290c,l 2.867(.864) (.585) (.706) (.836) (.802)Oblige3•107a,2 3•503b,c,l 3•464b,c,l 2•878c,2 3.238(.455) (.586) (.431) (.524) (.561)Note. Newman Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted within influencestrategy across attachment styles (rows) and within attachment style acrossinfluence strategies. Means with different subscripts differ significantlyat p < .05. Row—wise differences are identified by alphabetic subscripts;column—wise differences are identified by numeric subscripts.0 B 0 00 0.C CD C) CD C) C’) C) ‘1 C C) 0 0 ICD CO -I C) CD C CD C) CD C) C’) C) ‘1 C) 0 0 -l C) C, z. 3 CD01Cl) CD 0 CD .n CD -I -% C CD 0 0 0TjI-i. I-i CDC,) 3 C,) Co0 3 (0 -I’ CD 0 CD C) Cr, C) -n C 0 0 0 -Ii C) 0 3 CDU) CD C) C CD -Il CD -I C -o -I CD 0 C) C)C.)CD0 0 CD CD .-‘ CD C) CD 0) ci) 0) ‘-I C C) 0 0 ICD 01t)128preoccupied individuals report significantly greater use of thedominating strategy than did fearful individuals. No otherpairwise comparisons yielded significant results (see Figure 5).Fearful and preoccupied individuals reported significantlygreater use of the obliging strategy than did either secure ordismissing individuals. Further, secure individuals reportedsignificantly greater use of the obliging strategy than diddismissing individuals. Preoccupied and secure individuals didnot differ significantly in reported use of the obliging strategy(see Figure 5).It is important to note that, when looking within attachmentstyles across the four different influence strategies (i.e.,column—wise differences on Table 12), scores on theintegrating/compromising strategy were among the highest forindividuals in all attachment groups. Those who were securelyattached were characterized by their uniquely high score onintegration/compromise, moderately high reported use of theobliging strategy, and were least likely to use avoidance (seeFigure 6). Fearful individuals were characterized by theiruniquely low score on domination (see Figure 6). Preoccupiedrespondents’ reported using integrating/compromising and obligingstrategies most, followed by domination, which was significantlyhigher than their reported use of avoidance (see Figure 7). Thepattern for those who were dismissing indicated high scores onintegrating/compromising and dominating strategies, andsignificantly lower scores on obliging and avoiding (see jqure2).C)C.)CC)z.4-129Figure 6Influence Profile: Secure3.93.73.5C)C)C)C— Avoiding Dominating ObligingStrategyInfluence Profile: Fearful3. LIIntegrating Avoiding Dominating ObligingFigure 7Influence Profile: Preoccupied3.7StrategyC)C) 3.3C)C) Profile: Dismissing1303.9Integrating Avoiding Dominating Obliging3.93.73.53.LiC)C)C)C).4- FIntegrating Avoiding Dominating Obliging131Sex by relationship type interaction. The significantmultivariate analysis of variance result was followed up withappropriate univariate analyses. A 2-factor ANOVA with onebetween—subjects factor (sex) and one within—subjects factor(relationship type) was conducted for each of the influencestrategies. (See Table 13). The sex by relationship typeinteraction was nonsignificant for the integrating/compromisingstrategy, F(2,316) = 2.83, p > .05. The sex by relationship typeinteraction was significant for the remaining three influencestrategies: avoiding, F(2,316) = 3.31, p =.038; dominating,F(2,316) = 14.82, p = .000; and obliging, F(2,3l6) = 12.61, p =.000. Sex was nonsignificant for integrating/compromising,F(l,158) = .59, p > .05, and for dominating, F(l,l58) = .50, p >.05. Sex was significant for avoiding, F(l,158) = 8.09, p =.005, and for obliging, F(l,158) = 5.45, p = .016. Relationshiptype was nonsignificant for integrating/compromising, F(2,3l6) =2.84, p > .05, and for dominating, F(2,316) =1.32, p > .05.Relationship type was significant for avoiding, F(2,3l6) = 9.26,p = .000, and for obliging, F(2,316) = 17.80, p = .000.Simple effects analyses were conducted for sex at each levelof relationship type (i.e., women vs. men within each of thethree relationship types), and also for each relationship type atsex (i.e., romantic relationship vs. closest same sex friendshipvs. closest cross sex friendship within women and within men) foravoiding, dominating, and obliging influence strategies.On the avoiding strategy, the sex at relationship typeanalyses were nonsignificant for each relationship type: romantic132relationship, F(l,158) = 3.03, p > .05; closest same sexfriendship, F(l,158) = .34, p > .05; and closest cross sexfriendship, F(l,158) = 1.72, p > .05. That is, women and men didnot differ significantly from each other in their reported use ofavoiding strategies when compared within each separaterelationship type. The relationship at sex analyses for theavoiding strategy revealed significant results for women,F(2,316) = 10.86, p .000, but not for men, F(2, 316) = 1.68, p> .05. Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons (at nominal alpha of.05) were conducted for relationship at women on the avoidingstrategy. Women reported greater use of avoiding strategies intheir closest same sex friendship and in their closest cross sexfriendship than in their romantic relationship. No otherpairwise comparisons obtained significance (see Table 14).Results are graphically displayed in Figure 8.On the dominating strategy, the sex at relationship typeanalyses were nonsignificant for each relationship type: romanticrelationship, F(l,l58) = 3.26, p > .05; closest same sexfriendship, F(l,158) = .88, p > .05; closest cross sexfriendship, F(l,l58) = .36, p > .05. That is, women and men didnot differ significantly from each other in their reported use ofthe dominating strategy when compared within each separaterelationship type. The relationship type at sex analyses for thedominating strategy revealed significant results both for women,F(2,316) = 4.74, p = .009, and for men, F(2,316) = 11.51, p =.000. Newman—Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted for‘-Ici)zCl)CCuC)C.)CC)IICCu:20axciC,)Cl)Cl)0I0><G)C’)EC,)C)E0134Table 13One between—subjects factor, one within—subjects factor(sex, relationship type) ANOVA results: InfluenceIntegrating/compromising strategyEffect DF MS F pSex 1 .47 .59 .442Subjects within sex 158 .79Relationship type 2 .38 2.84 .060Sex by relationship type 2 .38 2.83 .060Relationship type by subjectswithin sex 316 .13Avoiding strategyEffect DF MS F pSex 1 14.41 8.09 .005Sex at romantic relationship 1 2.48 3.03 >.05Sex at same sex friendship 1 .28 .34 >.05Sex at cross sex friendship 1 1.41 1.72 >.05Subjects within sex 158 1.78Relationship type 2 3.14 9.26 .000Relationship type at women 2 3.69 10.86 .000Relationship type at men 2 .57 1.68 >.05Sex by relationship type 2 1.12 3.31 .038Relationship type by subjectswithin sex 316 .34135Table 13 (continued)One between—sublects factor, one within—sublects factor(sex, relationship type’) ANOVA results: InfluenceDominating strategyEffect DF MS FSex 1 .97 .50 .480Sex at romantic relationship 1 2.74 3.26 >.05Sex at same sex friendship 1 .74 .88 >.05Sex at cross sex friendship 1 .30 .36 >.05Subjects within sex 158 1.94Relationship type 2 .39 1.32 .269Relationship type at women 2 1.37 4.74 .009Relationship type at men 2 3.34 11.51 .000Sex by relationship type 2 4.33 14.82 .000Relationship type by subjectswithin sex 316 .29Obliging StrategyEffect DF MS F pSex 1 5.45 5.95 .016Sex at romantic relationship 1 2.18 4.92 .028Sex at same sex friendship 1 .02 .04 >.05Sex at cross sex friendship 1 .47 1.05 >.05Subjects within sex 158 .92Relationship type 2 3.68 17.80 .000Relationship type at women 2 .12 .57 >.05Relationship type at men 2 6.19 29.46 .000Sex by relationship type 2 2.61 12.61 .000Relationship type by subjectswithin sex 316 .21136Integrating/CompromisingTable 14Cell Means: InfluenceSex by Relationship TypeRomantic Same sex Cross Sex Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)SexWomen 3.597 3.715 3.547 3.620(.567) (.557) (.610)Men 3.607 3.542 3.522 3.557(.641) (.594) (.587)Columntotal 4.572 4.607 4.505 4.561Note. The two—way interaction was not significant forintegrating/compromising.137Table 14 (continued)Cell Means: InfluenceSex by Relationship TypeRomantic Same sex Cross Sex Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)SexWomen 2502a 292-b 2794b(.936) (.877) (.849)Men 3.000 3.087 3.169 3.0852(.958) (.901) (.906)Columntotal 2751-a 3°°4b 2985b 2.912Note. Newman—Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted for Relationshiptype at Sex (rows) and for Sex at Relationship type (columns). Meanswith different subscripts differ significantly at < .05. Row-wisedifferences are identified with alphabetic subscripts; column-wisedifferences are identified with numeric subscripts.Avoiding138DominatingTable 14 (continued)Cell Means: InfluenceSex by Relationship TypeRomantic Same sex Cross Sex Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)SexWomen 3•°45a 2783b 2908a,b 2.912(.911) (.895) (.925)Men 2675a 3°55b 2735a 2.822(1.036) (.856) (.866)Columntotal 2.860 2.919 2.822 2.867Note. Newman—Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted for Relationshiptype at Sex (rows) and for Sex at Relationship type (columns). Therewere no significant differences for Sex at Relationship type. Meanswith different subscripts differ significantly at < .05.139Table 14 (continued)Cell Means: InfluenceSex by Relationship TypeRomantic Same sex Cross Sex Row Totalmean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)SexWomen 3.l7l 3.129 3.094 3.1311(.750) (.630) (.602)Men 3638a,2 3085b 33]-0c(.733) (.608) (.656)Columntotal 3404a 3-07b 3202b 3.238Note. Newman—Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted for Relationshiptype at Sex (rows) and for Sex at Relationship type (columns). Meanswith different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05. Row-wisedifferences are identified by alphabetic subscripts; column-wisedifferences are identified by numeric subscripts.Obi iging140relationship type at women and for relationship type at men onthe dominating strategy. Women reported greater use of thedominating strategy in their romantic relationship than in theirclosest same sex friendship. No other pairwise comparisonsyielded significant results. Men reported significantly greateruse of the dominating strategy in their closest same sexfriendship than they did in their closest cross sex friendshipand than in their romantic relationship. No other pairwisecomparisons obtained significance (see Table 14). Results aregraphically displayed in Figure 9.On obliging, the sex at relationship type analysis wassignificant for romantic relationship, F(1,158) = 4.92, p = .028,but was not significant for closest same sex friendship, F(1,158)= .04, p > .05, nor for closest cross sex friendship, F(l,158) =1.05, p > .05. The simple effects analyses for sex at romanticrelationship revealed that men reported significantly greater useof the obliging strategy than did women, in their romanticrelationships. Women and men did not differ significantly intheir reported use of the obliging strategy when compared withintheir closest same sex friendship and within their closest crosssex friendship. The relationship type at sex analyses of theG)0.Cl)=CD>1C.)=II0)CD=0-1-1C)EcioC)><ci)Cl)C,)U)0C.)><C)U)C)EU)0.4-IE0‘-4CC)EC.:oG)Cz0.0.0CD.0G)0G)4-0)0><C)U)U)U)0L.C-)xC)U)C)EU)C)CCuE0C)0.0.U)C0CuC)t-L()C)-‘toeouenpi143obliging strategy revealed significant results for men, F(2,3l6)= 29.46, p = .000, but not for women, F(2,316) =.57, p > .05.Newman-1Ceuls multiple comparisons (with nominal alpha of .05)were conducted for relationship type at men on the obligingstrategy (see Table 14). Men reported significantly greater useof the obliging strategy in their romantic relationship than inboth their closest same sex friendship and their closest crosssex friendship. Further, men reported more use of the obligingstrategy in their closest cross sex friendship than in theirclosest same sex friendship. Results are graphically displayedin Figure 10.Sex main effect. The main effect for sex attainedsignificance for two of the four influence strategies. (SeeTable 14). Note that these results can only be appropriatelyunderstood within the context of the significant higher orderinteraction of sex by relationship type. Sex was significant foravoiding, F(l.158) = 8.09, p = .005, and for obliging, F(l,158)=5.95, p = .016, but was not significant forintegrating/compromising, F(1,l58) = .59, p > .05, nor fordominating, F(l,158) = .50, p > .05. Men, overall, reportedgreater use of both the avoiding and the obliging strategy thandid women, overall.Relationship type main effect. The main effect forrelationship type attained significance for two of the fourinfluence strategies. These results must be understood in thecontext of the significant higher order interaction of sex byrelationship type. Relationship type was significant for144avoiding, F(2,316) = 9.26, p = .000, and for obliging, F(2,316) =17.80, p = .000, but was not significant forintegrating/compromising, F(2,316) = .59, p > .05, nor fordominating, F(2,316) = 1.32, p > .05. The significant maineffect for relationship type on the avoiding and obligingstrategies was followed up with Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons. Participants reported greater use of the avoidingstrategy in their closest same sex friendship and in theirclosest cross sex friendship than in their romantic relationship.Participants reported greater use of the obliging strategy intheir romantic relationship than in their closest cross sexfriendship and than in their closest same sex friendship.Summary of ResultsTwo separate MANOVA5 were conducted, one for the twointimacy measures (NPDQ, MSIS) and one for the four influencestrategies (integrating/compromising, avoiding, dominating,obliging). Both MANOVAs were 2-between-subjects (sex, attachmentstyle) and 1—within-subjects (relationship type) analyses. The3—way interaction was nonsignificant for both intimacy andinfluence. The 2-way interaction of attachment style byrelationship type was also nonsignificant for both intimacy andinfluence. The sex by attachment style interaction wassignificant for intimacy but not for influence. The sex byrelationship type interaction was significant for both intimacyand influence. The main effect for sex was nonsignificant forboth intimacy and influence. The main effect for attachment145style was significant for both intimacy and influence, but wasqualified for intimacy (by the higher order interaction of sex byattachment style). The main effect for relationship type wassignificant for both intimacy and influence, qualified for bothby the higher order interaction of sex by relationship type.Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on significant multivariateresults. For intimacy two 2—between—subjects ANOVA’s (sex,attachment style) and two 1-between, 1-within subjects ANOVA5(sex, relationship type) were conducted, one each for the MPDQand for the MSIS. For influence, four 1-between-subjects ANOVAs(attachment style) and four 1-between, 1-within subjects ANOVAs(sex, relationship type) were undertaken (one for each of theinfluence strategies). Simple effects analyses and Newman—Keulsmultiple comparisons were carried out on significant ANOVAresults where appropriate.Intimacy. The 3-way interaction was not significant. Onthe 2-between—subjects ANOVA (sex, attachment style), significantresults were obtained on the MPDQ but not on the MSIS. Simpleeffects analyses were carried out for sex at attachment style,and for attachment style at sex on the MPDQ. The sex atattachment style analyses were significant only for dismissingparticipants, and revealed that dismissing women reported higherlevels of intimacy than did dismissing men. The prediction thatpreoccupied and fearful women would report higher levels ofintimacy than would preoccupied and fearful men was notsignificant. The attachment style at sex analyses weresignificant for both women and men. Secure and dismissing women146had higher reported intimacy than did fearful women, anddismissing women reported higher intimacy than did preoccupiedwomen. Secure and preoccupied men reported greater intimacy thandid dismissing men.The main effect for sex was not significant. The maineffect for attachment style was significant and was followed upwith multiple comparisons. As predicted, on the MPDQ, secureparticipants reported higher levels of intimacy than didparticipants in any of the other three attachment groups; on theMSIS, both secure and preoccupied individuals had higher intimacyscores than did those who were fearful.The 1-between-subjects, 1-within-subjects ANOVA (sex,relationship type) yielded significant results for both the MPDQand the MSIS. On the MPDQ, the sex at relationship type analyseswere nonsignificant for all relationship types; on the MSIS, thesex at relationship type analyses were nonsignificant forromantic relationship and for closest cross sex friendship, butthe analysis was significant for closest same sex friendship. Aspredicted, women reported significantly higher intimacy than didmen in their closest same sex friendships. The relationship typeat sex analyses were significant for both women and men on boththe MPDQ and the MSIS. On the MPDQ women reported greaterintimacy in their closest same sex friendship than in eithertheir romantic relationship or their closest cross sexfriendship, consistent with the prediction; on the MSIS however,women’s reported intimacy was higher in their romanticrelationship than in their closest same sex or cross sex147friendships. On both the MPDQ and the MSIS men reported greaterintimacy in their romantic relationship than in either theirclosest same sex or cross sex friendships. The prediction thatmen would report lower intimacy in their same sex friendship thanin their cross sex friendship was not supported.The significant main effect for relationship type (qualifiedby the significant higher order interaction reported above) wasfollowed with multiple comparisons on both the MPDQ and the MSIS.On the MPDQ, participants reported greater intimacy in theirclosest same sex friendship than in their closest cross sexfriendship. On the MSIS, respondents reported higher intimacy intheir romantic relationship than in either their closest same sexor cross sex friendships; also, intimacy was higher in theirclosest same sex friendship than in their closest cross sexfriendship.Influence. The 2—between subjects interaction (sex,attachment style) was nonsignificant. On the four 1-betweensubjects ANOVA’s (attachment style) significant results wereobtained for all four influence strategies. As predicted,multiple comparisons revealed that secure participants had higherscores on integrating/compromising than did participants in anyof the other three attachment style groups. As predicted,fearful individuals reported higher levels of avoidance than didindividuals in the other three groups. Also as predicted,dismissing participants had significantly higher scores ondominating than did participants in any of the other threegroups; further, preoccupied individuals reported significantly148greater use of domination than did fearful participants. Fearfuland preoccupied individuals reported significantly greater use ofthe obliging strategy than did secure or dismissing individuals;further, secure participants reported greater use of obligingthan did dismissing participants.On the four 1-between, 1-within subjects ANOVA’s (sex,relationship type), significant results were obtained for theavoiding, dominating and obliging strategies, but not for theintegrating/compromising strategy. On avoidance, simple effectsanalyses for sex at relationship type were nonsignificant foreach relationship type. Hence, the prediction that men would usegreater avoidance in their same sex friendships than would womenwas not confirmed. Relationship at sex analyses revealedsignificant results for women but not for men. Women reportedgreater use of avoidance in their closest same sex and cross sexfriendships than in their romantic relationships. On dominating,the sex at relationship type analyses were nonsignificant foreach relationship type. Hence, the prediction that men wouldreport greater use of dominating strategies than would women intheir romantic relationship and in their cross sex friendship wasnot confirmed. The relationship type at sex analyses weresignificant for both women and men. Women reported greater useof the dominating strategy in their romantic relationship than intheir closest same sex friendship. Men reported greater use ofdomination in their closest same sex friendship than in eithertheir romantic relationship or in their closest cross sexfriendship. On obliging, the sex at relationship type analyses149were significant for romantic relationship, but not for closestsame sex or cross sex friendships. Hence the prediction thatwomen would report greater use of the obliging strategy in theircross sex friendships than would men was not confirmed. Menreported greater use of the obliging strategy in romanticrelationships than did women, contrary to what was predicted.The relationship type at sex analyses were significant for menbut not for women. Men reported greater use of the obligingstrategy in their romantic relationship than in either theirclosest same sex or closest cross sex friendships; further, menreported greater use of obliging in their closest cross sexfriendship than in their closest same sex friendship.The main effect for sex (qualified by the significant higherorder interaction reported above) was significant for avoidingand obliging, but not for integrating/compromising nor fordominating. As predicted men, overall, reported greater use ofthe avoiding strategies than did women, overall. Further, menreported greater use of obliging strategies than did womenoverall.The main effect for relationship type (qualified by thesignificant interaction reported above) was significant foravoiding and obliging, but not for integrating/compromising norfor dominating. Participants reported greater avoidance in theclosest same sex and cross sex friendships than in their romanticrelationship; and participants reported greater use of theobliging strategy in their romantic relationship than in theirclosest same sex or cross sex friendships.150DiscussionThe goal of this research was to address the broad questionof how relational processes of intimacy and influence vary as afunction of gender, attachment style, and type of relationship.The study was aimed at identifying the independent andintersecting roles of those variables in participants’ specificongoing peer relationships. The results of this researchindicate that gender, attachment style, and relationship typeeach are associated with participants’ reported experience ofintimacy and their reported use of various influence strategies.In some instances the variables are associated at the level of amain effect, and in other cases, they interact to produce a morecomplex picture of women’s and men’s close relationships.The ensuing discussion begins by reviewing significantfindings, relating them to theory and previous data, andexploring possible interpretations and implications. A review ofnonsignificant results follows, with possible explanations as towhy significance was not obtained on specific hypotheses. Thisleads into a more general discussion of the adequacy of the studyas a test of the hypotheses. Next, an explication of the broaderimplications of this research for the fields of attachment andgender in close relationships is followed by a discussion ofpossible clinical implications of the findings. Finally somesuggestions for future research are presented, for improving thetest of the hypotheses under examination, and for extending oneof the more intriguing results uncovered in this study.151Discussion of Significant FindingsAttachment style, gender and intimacy. Attachment style wassignificantly associated with reported intimacy levels. As amain effect, secure respondents reported greater intimacy intheir close relationships than did those who were insecure, ashas been hypothesized (e.g., 1-lazan & Shaver, 1987) and shown inprevious research (e.g., Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Simpson, 1990).Intimacy is a complex process involving multiple components:motivational (approach/avoidance), behavioral (expressivity,responsiveness), cognitive (appraisal of meaning), and affective(feeling understood, cared for). Theoretically, secureindividuals are motivated to approach intimacy as they expectthat others will, in general, be responsive and supportive. Theyhave been found to self—disclose appropriately and to respondsensitively to the disclosures of others (Mikulincer & Nachson,1991). They are inclined to expect that others will be warm andreliable, and to have positive feelings about closeness withothers. All these factors likely contribute to the finding thatsecure individuals report greater levels of intimacy in theirclose relationships than do individuals who are insecure.Attachment style interacted with gender in some cases toproduce different patterns for women and men. At the two—waylevel, secure and dismissing women reported greater intimacy thandid fearful women, and dismissing women reported greater intimacythan preoccupied women. Secure and preoccupied men reportedgreater intimacy than men who were dismissing. It is interesting152to speculate on why, for women, being dismissing is associatedwith higher reported intimacy than being preoccupied, whereas formen the reverse is true (i.e., preoccupied men report higherintimacy than dismissing men). This may be related to theresponse of the other person to the disclosures and otherintimacy behaviors of the preoccupied respondent. Individualswho are preoccupied approach intimacy but are at the same timeanxious about abandonment, hence they are expressive anddisclosing, but may also be less sensitive to the appropriatenessof their disclosure, and to the responses of others. Preoccupiedmen’s expressivity, regardless of its sensitivity to therecipient, may be regarded as rare and therefore more valuable.As well, particularly when the recipient of this disclosure is awoman, preoccupied men’s intimacy behavior may be responded to inways that further enhance feelings of closeness (e.g., Collins &Read, 1990). On the other hand, preoccupied women’s anxiety—driven intimacy efforts may be perceived by (particularly male)relationship partners as intrusive, and possibly as a threat totheir freedom (e.g., Feeney et al., 1994). Such a perceptionmight then lead the relationship partner to withdraw, which wouldlead to lower levels of reported intimacy for preoccupied women.Although hypothesized to do so, women and men did not differin reported intimacy at the level of a main effect for gender.This result is probably due to the fact that participants werereporting on only their very closest relationships which, asWright (1982, 1988) has noted, tends to reduce the likelihoodthat gender differences in the relationships will be apparent.153Nor did men and women differ in reported intimacy when the two—way interaction (gender, relationship type) was examined in threeof the four attachment styles, but among respondents who weredismissing, women reported greater intimacy than did men.Dismissing individuals are not emotionally expressive, notparticularly motivated to get close to others, and do notconsciously feel they need others to validate their self worth.Other research has indicated that femininity (or affectiveexpressiveness) is predictive of intimacy for both women and men,with greater femininity associated with greater intimacy(Williams, 1985). Men however are less likely than women to havebeen encouraged to develop expressivity, and may in fact havebeen sanctioned against developing such feminine traits (Basow,1992). The dismissing pattern is more common among men thanwomen (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), and its characteristicsuppression of emotionality is consistent with the masculinegender role, which again is expected more for men than for women.The results from this study suggest that when the respondent’sgender and attachment style correspond in terms of socializedgender expectations, it may produce heightened gender effects, inthis case with men reporting lower intimacy than women, whencomparing within the dismissing attachment style. These findingsextend our understanding of both gender effects and attachment onintimacy.Attachment style and influence strategies. This researchprovides new and substantial support for hypothesized profiles ofinfluence strategies for each attachment style. Secure154participants were more likely to use an integrating/compromisingstrategy of influence than those who were insecure; fearfulparticipants were more likely than all others to report usingavoidance; and dismissing individuals were more likely than allothers to use domination to get their way. Those who werepreoccupied were moderately high on both domination and obligingstrategies; they had significantly lower scores on dominatingthan dismissing participants, but significantly higher scoresthan those who were secure or fearful; their scores on obligingstrategies did not differ from those of the fearful group, bothof which were significantly higher than those of secure ordismissing participants. The pattern of associations found inthis research between the reported use of various interpersonalinfluence strategies and different attachment styles isconsistent with theory, and provides additional new support forBartholomew’s (1990) model.Secure individuals’ greater use of mutually focusedstrategies such as integration and compromise reflect a positiveview of both self and other which is consistent with the internalmodel hypothesized for secure individuals. Use of theintegrating/compromising strategies has been found to beassociated with greater relationship satisfaction (Pistole,1989), and likely contributes to secure individuals’ experienceof greater intimacy.The greater use of avoidance strategies by fearful personsis congruent with their hypothesized interpersonal distrust andhypersensitivity to rejection, leading them to avoid situations155which may lead to such rejection. As Bartholomew has noted, thisavoidance leads to the unfortunate consequence of undermining“the possibility of establishing satisfying personal relationswhich could serve to modify early attachment representations”(1990, p. 164)Dismissing individuals hold a positive model of self and anegative model of others. Their defensive self—assurance anddevaluing of the importance of close relationships may lead totheir greater use of interpersonal dominance as a way ofinfluencing others, and may also contribute to perceptions ofthem by others as hostile or arrogant (e.g., Kobak & Sceery,1988). Such perceptions would limit others’ inclination toapproach dismissing individuals, thereby allowing them topassively maintain their interaction goal of interpersonaldistance.Preoccupied individuals’ pattern of reported influence use,that is being both moderately dominant and obliging, may reflecttheir ambivalence about closeness with others. Motivated by astrong need for others’ approval and high levels of emotionalarousal, preoccupied individuals may engage in obliging behaviorsin a martyr—like way. Compulsive caregiving, which involvesplacing the needs of the other first, having feelings of selfsacrifice, and providing care whether or not it is requested(West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994) has been found to characterizepreoccupied individuals (Shaver & Hazan, 1992). At the same timesuch a style inhibits the likelihood of reciprocity, which maylead those who are preoccupied to feel angry with their156relationship partner. Their anger at the lack of reciprocity andtheir tendency to focus on their emotional distress may promptthem to try to obtain their interaction goal without taking theneeds of the other into account (i.e., dominance behaviors).This might then lead to fears of rejection and disapproval,motivating the preoccupied person into again trying to oblige theother.When looking within attachment style across the fourdifferent influence strategies the integrating/compromisingstrategy was highly endorsed among individuals from allattachment groups. Those who were securely attached werecharacterized by their uniquely high score onintegration/compromise, moderately high reported use of theobliging strategy, and were least likely to use avoidance.Fearful individuals were characterized by their uniquely lowscore on domination. Preoccupied respondents’ reported usingintegrating/compromising and obliging strategies most, followedby domination, which was significantly higher than their reporteduse of avoidance. The pattern for those who were dismissingindicated high scores on integrating/compromising and dominatingstrategies, and significantly lower scores on obliging andavoiding.The ways in which those who are insecurely attached attemptto get their way may lead to a cycle of escalating difficultiesfor each of the three insecure styles. As Kobak and Hazan note:“when working models forecast a lack of psychologicalavailability from a partner, anger that normally serves to157protest a partner’s inaccessibility may become exaggerated in theform of attacking behaviors, or may become inhibited throughwithdrawal... [increasing] the likelihood of defensive responses”which then perpetuate the negative expectations for self andother (1991, p. 862). Such cycles would be expected to diminishopportunities for intimacy and reduce relationship satisfaction.Relational context and intimacy. A central finding in thisstudy is the importance of individuals’ relational context totheir experience of intimacy and use of influence strategies.Comparing at the main effect level women and men did not differin reported intimacy levels, but when examining the interactingeffect of relationship type, a gender difference emerged on samesex friendships. Women reported greater intimacy in theirclosest same sex friendship than did men in their closest samesex friendship. This finding is consistent with other researchon gender effects in same sex friendships (e.g., Parker & deVries, 1993) which suggest that men’s relationships with othermen may be characterized by shared activity and a relativelygreater avoidance of emotionality, in contrast to women’s moreaffectively—focused relationships with other women.Comparing within genders, men reported greater intimacy intheir romantic relationship than in either their closest crosssex or same sex friendship on both intimacy measures. Women’sreported intimacy across relationship type however was morevariable; on one measure, (MPDQ), women reported greater intimacyin their closest same sex friendship than in their romanticrelationship, whereas on the other measure, (MSIS), they reported158greater intimacy in their romantic relationship than in either oftheir closest friendships. The more consistent finding for menthan for women that the romantic relationship is the mostintimate raises interesting questions about what women and mengive and receive in close relationships. Women have been foundto offer more than men to relationships, evidenced both inratings of what women report giving (in comparison to menrespondents), and in terms of what both genders report receivingfrom women versus men (Parker & de Vries, 1993). These findingsprovide some support for Tschann’s (1988) contention thatheterosexual romantic relationships may meet men’s intimacy needsmore completely than women’s, and that therefore “women mustmaintain their friendships in order to assure that their intimacyneeds are met” (p 79)Relational context and influence strategies. There was asignificant main effect for gender on influence, with menreporting greater use of avoidance, as has been demonstrated inprevious research (e.g., Wright, 1982) and greater use of theobliging strategy overall than did women. The main effect forgender needs to be considered in the context of the higher orderinteraction with type of relationship. It is worthwhile to drawattention to the fact that there was no main effect for gender,nor a significant interaction between relationship type andgender on the integrating/compromising strategy. In fact, notonly do women and men not differ in reported use of integrationand compromise, but both genders score higher on these strategiesthan on all other strategies. That is, both genders are more159likely to report using such mutually focused influence behaviorsas exchanging accurate information, integrating ideas with thoseof the others, and working together for a proper understanding ofthe problem. This is consistent with prior research whichsuggests that women and men hold similar views on whichstrategies they would prefer to use, given the choice (White &Roufail, 1989)Comparing between the genders within relationship typesthere was only one significant difference which emerged: inromantic relationships men reported greater use of the obligingstrategy than did women. When looking within gender acrossrelationship types, women and men differed in whetherrelationship type was a significant factor in their use of theobliging strategy. Being obliging did not vary by relationshiptype for women, but did for men such that men reported greateruse of the obliging strategy in their romantic relationship thanin their closest cross sex friendship, which in turn was ratedhigher on obliging than their closest same sex friendship.The items which make up the obliging factor include suchthings as “accommodating to the other’s wishes”, “allowingconcessions”, and “going along with the other’s suggestions”.Being obliging involves choosing to allow the other to get theirway in an exchange, and might be reflective of the individualfeeling sufficiently privileged or comfortable in theirrelationship that such an outcome would not be threatening. Itmay even be construed as a kind of chivalry in which individuals160who can afford to be gallant are ones who either have, orperceive themselves to have, greater power.The finding that men say they oblige more than do women inromantic relationships may stem from women being less likely thanmen to desire or perceive themselves as having greater power intheir close relationships (e.g., Falbo & Peplau, 1980; Parker,1990) hence they would not perceive themselves to be in aposition to enact such chivalry. Men’s greater reported use ofthe obliging strategy in relationships with women may reflect agreater generalized sense of comfort in relationships with womenthan in relationships with men. Men’s same sex friendships havebeen found to be marked by high levels of competition acrossmultiple domains, leading to ongoing comparisons and feelings ofdistrust (e.g., Basow, 1986)Looking within gender across relationship types, women andmen also differed in whether relationship type was a significantfactor in their use of avoidance. Men’s avoidance, while higherthan women’s overall at the main effect level, is nonethelessindiscriminant across type of relationship. Women howeverreported greater use of the avoiding strategy in both of theirclosest friendships than in their romantic relationship.Women may be less likely to avoid as a combined result oftheir greater felt responsibility for the work of maintainingconnection in relationships (e.g., Fishman, 1978; Surrey, 1986),their fear of loss of relationships, and male avoidance. Males’tendency to avoid or withdraw has been found to be associatedwith female partners’ escalation of engagement strategies in an161effort to draw the other party out (e.g., Christensen & Shenk,1991). Women in romantic relationships, feeling greaterresponsibility for maintaining connection and fearing the loss ofthe relationship, may be more motivated by their partner’savoidance to behave in ways that reduce distance, and thereforewould themselves be less likely to avoid. In their relationshipswith other women, both parties are likely to take responsibilityfor maintaining the relationship and therefore to use engagingstrategies to solve differences (e.g., wright, 1982). Becausethe relational work is more equally shared, avoidance behaviormay not represent as great a risk for distance, and thereforewomen in same sex friendships may feel more comfortable usingavoidance. In friendships with men, male avoidance is presumablyless likely to trigger women’s fear of losing the relationshipwhen the man is a friend as opposed to a romantic partner. Womentherefore may be more comfortable also using avoidance andrisking the distance which might ensue.The pattern of results on the dominating strategy revealedinteresting gender differences by relationship type. For bothwomen and men relationship type played a role in the reported useof domination: women reported greater use of domination in theirromantic relationship than in their closest same sex friendship,whereas men reported greater use of domination in their same sexfriendship than in either their romantic relationship or crosssex friendship. Women’s greater reported use of dominatingstrategies in their romantic relationship as compared to theirclosest same sex friendship is consistent with the analysis above162regarding women’s response to withdrawal by their male romanticpartner, that is, female escalation of engagement. Intrusivebehavior such as dominance strategies may not be as likely insituations where both parties are prepared to confront problems,as tends to be the case in women’s friendships with other women.For men, dominance is reportedly used more in same sexfriendships than in their relationships with women. As with thepattern on the use of obliging strategies where men are leastlikely to report being obliging with other men, men’s greaterdominance efforts with other men may be a function of malecompetition.These findings extend our understanding of women’s and men’suse of influence strategies, illustrating a more complex picturethan has previously been uncovered, and underscoring theimportance of taking individuals’ relational contexts intoaccount when examining patterns of influence.Discussion of Nonsignificant FindingsWhile there were a number of significant findings in thisstudy, there were also a number of hypotheses that were notsupported. The next section entails a broad evaluation of theadequacy of the study as a test of the hypotheses, whereas thissection discusses hypotheses that did not turn out as predicted,and explores possible explanations at a more specific level.The three—way interaction of gender, attachment style andrelationship type was nonsignificant (i.e., preoccupied men didnot report higher intimacy than preoccupied women in cross sex163friendships; nor did fearful women report higher intimacy thanfearful men in romantic relationships). A possible explanationfor this lack of significance could be an insufficient forpower. Power calculations were conducted which indicated thatthere was likely adequate power to detect main effect differencesin standard effect sizes of .85 with a power of .8 (see Methodssection). However, the issue here is that the power needed todetect differences at the level of complexity predicted withthree interacting independent variables, is likely greater thanthe power needed to detect differences at the main effect level(Cohen, 1988). There was likely the greatest power to detectmain effects, then to detect two—way interactions, and then leastpower to detect the three—way interaction.Although the three-way interaction did not prove to besignificant it is interesting to note that for women, beingdismissing was associated with higher reported intimacy thanbeing preoccupied, whereas for men the reverse was true (i.e.,preoccupied men report higher intimacy than dismissing men). Asnoted earlier, this may be related to the response of the otherperson to the disclosures and other intimacy behaviors of thepreoccupied respondent. The prediction at the three—way levelfor preoccupied individuals was based on just such a rationale,such that the cross sex friends of preoccupied men (i.e., women)would value and enhance those men’s intimacy efforts, whereas thecross sex friends of preoccupied women (i.e., men) may be morelikely to experience their intimacy behaviors as intrusive,lowering reported intimacy. Although the multivariate test was164nonsigificant, the means were in the hypothesized direction onboth the MPDQ and the MSIS (i.e., the intimacy scores ofpreoccupied men were higher than were those of preoccupied women,when reporting on their cross sex friendships). The hypothesesat the three-way level were admittedly speculative, but theseexploratory findings are intriguing and invite closerexamination.The two—way interaction of gender by attachment style onintimacy was significant, but the two specific predictions didnot turn out as hypothesized. Preoccupied women werehypothesized to report greater intimacy than preoccupied men(hypothesis A2i). This hypothesis was based on the notion thatwhen the gender of the participant and their insecure attachmentstyle are matched in terms of traditional gender socialization(i.e., preoccupied for women, dismissing for men), then the usualgender findings would be strengthened, in this case showinggreater reported intimacy for women (e.g., Simpson, 1990). Therecent findings of Feeney et al., (1994b) may help to explain whythis is not so in the case of preoccupied women’s intimacy. Onthe basis of research conducted on five attachment scales thoseauthors have observed that the key feature of the preoccupiedgroup may not be unambiguous intimacy striving, but is insteadtheir ambivalence about intimacy, as seen in the conflict betweentheir desire for closeness and their lack of trust that otherswill be there for them (Feeney et al., l994b). Hence the moregeneral desire for and comfort with closeness that tends (inbroad terms) to characterize women’s relational experience is not165entirely parallel to the preoccupied style. The preoccupiedstyle does involve desire for closeness, but it is in combinationwith anxiety and discomfort regarding such closeness. Theexpected synergy of gender—congruent attachment style andrespondent’s gender in increasing reported intimacy levels wouldbe less evident as a result of such ambivalence.The other hypothesis regarding gender and attachment styleon intimacy, that fearful women would report greater intimacythan would fearful men (hypothesis A2ii), was based on the ideathat gender expectations regarding the initiation ofrelationships continue to weigh more heavily upon men than women.This dynamic may be especially evident for fearful men in crosssex interactions, and would not be expected to play assignificant a role in same sex friendships for women or men(e.g., Garcia et al., 1991). A shy or fearful woman may havemore opportunities for intimacy in cross sex interactions becauseshe is not expected to “make the first move” in the same way thata shy man would be (Garcia et al., 1991). While this may be trueamongst fearful individuals in general, the design of this studyincluded only those individuals who are currently in a romanticrelationship, and who count at least one woman friend and one manfriend among their closest friends. By setting the inclusioncriteria thus, the more general pattern regarding relationshipinitiation and resultant intimacy among fearful people could notbe assessed. The results do suggest however that among thosefearful individuals who are in romantic relationships and do have166close friends of both sexes, there do not appear to besignificant gender differences in intimacy.The two—way interaction of gender by relationship type oninfluence strategies was significant, and revealed a number ofinteresting findings. Four out of five of the specifichypotheses made were not significantly supported however, and thedata relevant to the fifth hypothesis came out opposite to whatwas predicted. Such results have understandably encouraged arethinking of the rationales used to formulate the hypotheses.The first factor to be considered is that the majority ofsignificant results were obtained at the level of relationshiptype at gender (i.e., within gender across relationship types)rather than for gender at relationship type. The predictions,however, were made exclusively between women and men within aparticular relationship type (see hypotheses B2i-v). In otherwords, when conceptualizing possible gender differences, thehypotheses were made at the more simple level of women versus menwithin a particular relationship type. Yet the results in thisstudy illustrate that often gender differences may not beapparent in simple comparisons of women and men within arelationship type, but instead they appear when looking atdifferent patterns of results across different types ofrelationships for women in comparison to men. The genderdifferences tend to show up in patterns of relative differencesamong the relationship types rather than relative to the othergender within a single relationship type. In effect, these167results suggest that individuals are “doing gender” in a morecomplex way than may often be conceptualized.The one exception to significant findings being obtainedonly within gender across relationship type was on the predictionthat women would report greater use of the obliging strategy thanwould men in their romantic relationships. In fact, in romanticrelationships men reported using the obliging strategy more thandid women. This brings us to the second reconsideration, that offounding the influence hypotheses on research that indicates thatgender—linked variables would predict women’s greater use ofindirect strategies (i.e., obliging), in comparison to men’sgreater use of direct strategies (i.e., dominating). In previousresearch, greater femininity, less access to resources, and lessperceived power have predicted greater use of indirect strategiesusually associated with women (Falbo & Peplau, 1980; Howard etal., 1986; Steil & Weitman, 1992). Extending these results toinclude relationship type, predictions were made such that womenwere expected to be more obliging with men, who would be moredominant with women. The results of this study however, indicatethat men were more dominant arid less obliging with other men thanwith women. Further, women were more dominant with romanticpartners than with other women, and were less avoidant withromantic partners than with friends. These results tend toconform to the demand/withdraw pattern identified by Christensen(1988; Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Christensen & Shenk, 1991), inwhich women are found more often to be in the role of demander,and men are more often found to withdraw. This pattern is168hypothesized to be a function of a number of gender-linkedvariables, most notably socialization toward intimacy—seeking forwomen and distance—seeking for men (Christensen & Heavey, 1990).This raises the question of why the gender pattern in theuse of influence strategies found in this study does notcorrespond with the Falbo and Peplau (1980) power/resourceanalysis (men more direct and dominant), and does seem congruentwith the Christensen demand/withdraw pattern (women dominant, menusing indirect strategies). The answer may lie in the differencebetween influence and conflict, and a lack of clarity in theinfluence measure used in this study in distinguishing betweenthe two kinds of processes.Two people cannot be considered close unless they have someinfluence on each other (Huston, 1983). Influence may beconstrued as having an effect on another person, such thatsomething that one person does has some bearing, in a causal way,upon the other person. Influence is not necessarily intentionalor conscious, and may be symmetrical or asymmetrical in any givenrelationship. If influence is asymmetrical, the relationship maybe considered to be structured hierarchically with one partnerhaving dominance due in part to greater power. Such anasymmetrical situation can produce adjustments in partners’behaviors and attitudes such that the more powerful person maynot need to make overt attempts at influence because thesubordinate one may tend to comply spontaneously (Huston, 1983),possibly without the awareness of either relationship partner.It has been found that men are perceived as the more dominant169gender, generally wielding more power than women in heterosexualrelationships and having greater access to resources (e.g.,Huston, 1983; Peplau, 1983).Conflict, on the other hand, is something individuals arelikely to be aware of, and may be defined as “an interpersonalprocess that occurs whenever the actions of one person interferewith the actions of another” (Peterson, 1983, p. 365). It hasbeen suggested that men have been socialized to be conflict—avoiding people who find the emotional intensity of verbalconflict (particularly with women) difficult to tolerate, whereaswomen are conflict-confronting people who tend to be frustratedby avoidance (e.g., Kelley et al., 1978). It has been furtherhypothesized that men may be more physiologically vigilant toconflict, reacting with heightened autonomic arousal which may beexperienced as aversive (e.g., Markman, Silvern, Clements &Kraft-Hanak, 1993). Social conditioning may lead men to responddifferently in different situations; it may be that when inconflict with women, men have learned to withdraw in order toterminate the aversive interaction.In situations of conflict then, men may tend to give in orgo along with their partner more than women, who tend to confrontproblems directly, especially in cross gender relationships. Incontrast, more general (and possibly less visible) situations ofgeneral influence may reveal that men, more than women, perceivethemselves to have the balance of power or control in theirfavour (e.g., Parker, 1990), and hence may tend to use directstrategies such as stating a preference or using authority.170Unfortunately, in this study, the wording of the influencequestion (“think about how you typically handle things when youwant to get your way with that person”) was not adequate todetermine whether or not participants were responding to it as aquestion on general strategies of influence, or on strategiesemployed in situations of conflict. In essence, it would benecessary to determine whether or not the participant wasimagining situations in which the relationship partner wasinterfering with his or her influence attempts. In any event,the pattern of results found on the influence measure has raisedprovocative questions regarding the role of conflict in women’sand men’s use of different influence strategies.Adequacy of the Study as a Test of the HypothesesThere are a number of factors to consider in the evaluationof this study’s adequacy as a test of the hypotheses: samplingand design issues; adequacy of measures and classification; andreplication of previous findings.Samplinq issues. Among the conditions that may limit thefindings of this research are sampling restraints. First, studyparticipants were undergraduate students in psychology courses.They were for the most part young and therefore may have had lessexperience in relationships, and held more idealized and lesscomplex views of relationships than individuals in a more maturesample. Although these individuals’ reports may not reflect theviews of a more mature sample, it is notable that there was broadinterest in the study among students, as indicated by the good171response to the initial screening questionnaire. Second, the menwho took part in the study may not represent male universitystudents in general. The explicitly stated focus of thisresearch was an examination of participants’ feelings andthoughts in their close relationships. This may have set up aself—selection bias toward men who tend to be more aware andinterested than the average male university student about thenature and meaning of their close relationships, thereby reducingpossible gender differences. Third, some participants may nothave been typical representatives of the attachment styles,thereby reducing possible differences across groups in attachmentstyle. For example, dismissing individuals tend to minimize theimportance of close relationships, so those dismissing personswho chose to participate in a study expressly examining theirviews on close relationships may be atypical. Similarly, fearfulindividuals who are currently in an ongoing romantic relationshipof at least 6 months duration, and have at least one woman andone man among their closest friends, may not be “average”representatives of that group. In fact, it is apparent thatthere were differential rates of exclusion from the study byattachment style on the basis of relationship criteria, at leastwhen comparing between fearful and secure participants.Design issues: Target relationship. One issue in the choiceof target relationships is that only participants’ very closestrelationships were assessed. As has been noted previously, thegreater the closeness of the relationships under examination, theless likelihood there is of observing gender differences (Wright,1721988). Further, the restriction of the relationship ratings to asingle example of each relationship type may mean that theidiosyncrasies of that specific relationship lead to greaterwithin-group variability, reducing the likelihood of uncoveringbetween group differences.Setting relationship type as a within group variable mayhave affected respondents’ tendency to report differences. Onthe one hand, rating their three closest relationships one afterthe other might lead participants to suppress reportingdifferences. When set up one after the other, substantialdifferences by relationship type in relationships identified as“closest” might be a source of discomfort for respondents. Onthe other hand, some might argue that such a design might enhancethe reporting of differences by relationship type. Such findingshave been found in cognitive research (e.g., Ward, 1975), whereindividuals have been shown to report greater difference inwithin—subjects than between—subjects designs. It seems possiblethat the cognitive tendency to see difference when makingcomparisons may be offset by the affectively laden task in thisstudy (i.e., evaluating three close relationships on importantvariables such as intimacy and influence).Design issues: Power. Power calculations for the MutualPsychological Development Questionnaire and the Miller SocialIntimacy Scale revealed that in order to detect a standard effectsize difference in the .84 range with a power of .8, a minimumof 11 is sufficient. These power calculations were based on aone—factor ANOVA design, whereas this study involved a173niultifactorial design. As noted in the Methods section samplingcontinued until an n of 20 was obtained for women and men foreach attachment style. This larger number was chosen in order totake the relative weakness of the interaction tests into account.There clearly was adequate power to detect main effects, and todetect effects on three of the four predicted two—wayinteractions, however the power of the test for the three—wayinteraction was likely lower, making Type II errors more possible(Cohen, 1988)The probability level on the nonsignificant three-wayinteraction was .157. On one of the two predictions, the patternof means was consistent with the hypothesis (preoccupied men wereexpected to report higher intimacy than preoccupied women intheir cross sex friendship, and scores reflected that trend). Onthe other prediction the pattern of means was reversed (fearfulwomen were expected to report greater intimacy than fearful men,but men scored higher). It is possible then that had there beena larger number of participants, the first hypothesis may havebeen confirmed, whereas the second may have been disconfirmed.Adequacy of measures. The measures chosen for this study(Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire, MPDQ; MillerSocial Intimacy Scale, MSIS; and Rahirn Organizational ConflictInventory, ROCI) all have been shown to have adequate reliabilityand validity and, with the exception of the MPDQ, have beenwidely used in relationship research.It is notable that while the two intimacy measures (MPDQ andMSIS) were fairly highly correlated in this study ( = .57 for174romantic relationships; r = .61 for same sex friendships; = .62for cross sex friendships) the measures produced differentpatterns for women and men in some instances. For example, onthe MPDQ women reported greater intimacy in their closest samesex friendship than in their romantic relationship, but on theMSIS the pattern was reversed with greater reported intimacy inwomen’s romantic relationship than in their closest same sexfriendship. For men, intimacy was highest in romanticrelationships on both measures. As well, the MPDQ revealed asignificant two-way interaction of gender by attachment stylewhereas the MSIS did not.The MPDQ was developed out of self-in-relation theory whichattempts to explain women’s development in the context of closerelationships, and employs a construct called mutuality todescribe the bidirectional nature of the intimacy process (e.g.,Surrey, 1986). This construct is centred on the notion thatintimacy involves “both affecting the other and being affected bythe other” (Jordan, 1986, p. 1). This balance of initiative andreceptivity is hypothesized to underlie the depth and richness ofclose relationships. The MPDQ attempts to assess what is givenand what is received in relationships with others. Otherresearch (e.g., Parker & de Vries, 1993) has found thatbidirectional assessment of central dimensions of closerelationships reveals a tendency for women to report giving morethan men in relationships, and for relationships with women to berated as providing more than relationships with men. Suchfindings might be obscured if assessed at a more global level of175overall feelings of closeness or satisfaction (such as with theMSIS). Further research on the MPDQ is needed to determine theways in which mutuality compares with more establishedconceptualizations and measures of intimacy.Adequacy of classification. The classification of theparticipants in terms of the independent variables was quitestraightforward, based on participants’ self—reported gender,their self-reported attachment style, and their nomination ofclosest relationships. Participants were restricted in theirselection of relationships. They were not to nominate theirromantic partner nor a parent as their closest friend.Individuals’ conceptions of friendship and kinship often haveblurred boundaries (e.g., de Vries, in press), and one commonpattern is to identify a spouse or romantic partner as a bestfriend (West & Keller, 1994). By asking participants to excludeparents and romantic partners, some may have chosen otherrelationships which are less close. While this allowed for anassessment of three different relationships, it may have obscuredthe results for some participants who might otherwise haveselected their romantic partner or parent as closest friend.Attachment style was checked in a number of ways (seeAttachment Style Screening in the Methods section). As notedin the Methods section, this research has taken a categorical(rather than dimensional) approach to attachment styles, in whichdiscrete attachment groups were created. One consequence of suchan approach is that there is an inevitable loss of informationfor categories as compared to dimensions. Grouping approaches176have the advantage of conveying patterns in the results moreclearly, but are not as statistically sensitive as dimensionalones.The groups in this study were created on the basis ofparticipants’ “best-fitting” category. That is, a prototype viewwas assumed in which all members of a category were notconsidered to be interchangeable. In fact, it was assumed thatthere will be some individuals who will be “better” exemplars ofthe category, and others who will be “poorer” representatives.This within-group variability is expected and meaningful, butcauses difficulties for detecting group differences with theanalysis of variance model, which regards such within—groupdifference as “noise”.Attachment style classification was based on a short form ofmeasurement, and involved a self—report measure rather than aninterview approach. While the vast majority of research intoadult attachment has taken this approach, it is important to notethat interview and self-report measures do not yield identicalresults (e.g, Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994) and some investigatorsbelieve that self—report measures allow respondents to present assecure when in fact they are not. Dismissing individuals may bethe most difficult to accurately classify via self report(Rothbard & Shaver, 1994). The defensive self assertion ofdismissing individuals may prompt them to classify themselves assecure on a short questionnaire, whereas in an interview theincongruence between their positive presentation of attachmentexperiences and their more negative specific examples would177better reveal their dismissive interpersonal style. Hence inthis study it is possible that the attachment categories(particularly the secure group) were more heterogeneous than ifan interview approach was used.Attachment style assignment appeared to be reliable, atleast for the short span of time between screening andquestionnaire. As a further check on the classification ofattachment, participants’ global attachment categories were foundto be reasonably highly associated with investigator-averagedratings of separate relationship types. Additionally, only thoseparticipants who were found to be reliable category members onthe screening and on the main questionnaire were included in thestudy.Replication of previous findings. This study evidenced anumber of results which are consistent with existing theory orwith previous research. For example, secure individuals werefound to report significantly higher levels of intimacy and weremore likely to use integrating/compromising strategies than wereinsecure individuals. Men’s reported intimacy was found to beconsistently greatest in their romantic relationship; women’sreported intimacy was higher in their closest same sex than intheir closest cross sex friendship. Women reported higherintimacy than did men in their same sex friendships. Menreported using avoidance overall more than women. These findingsindicate that at the level of main effects and two—wayinteractions, this study was sufficient to obtain results whichwould be expected on the basis of prior research.178New findings consistent with theory. This study providednew evidence to support the partitioning of avoidant individualsinto two groups: fearful and dismissing (Bartholomew, 1990). Thepattern of influence strategies found in this study is consistentwith hypothesized patterns and underlying dynamics. Fearfulindividuals were more likely than individuals in all other groupsto report using avoidance, reflecting negative models of bothself and other, whereas dismissing individuals were more likelyto use dominance than all others, reflecting a positive selfmodel and negative other model. Another theoretically—consistentfinding which is new in this research is the highercorrespondence between individuals’ global attachmentcategorization and their attachment style category for theirromantic relationship as compared with either their closest samesex or closest cross sex friendship. The primary attachmentrelationship in adulthood is hypothesized to be the romanticrelationship, which would be expected to most stronglycharacterize individuals’ attachment style. This study permitteda comparison among close relationships which revealed just such afinding.Summary. Overall then, the study had a number of strengths.The measures appear reliable and valid. Multiple measurement ofone of the two major constructs (i.e., intimacy) was undertaken,and found to be productive. The classification of theparticipants in terms of the independent variables appearsadequate overall. Calculations and significant results indicatethat there was sufficient power to detect differences for main179effects and two-way interactions, although power may have beeninsufficient for the three-way interaction. A number of thefindings are theoretically and empirically consistent with theextant literature.At the same time, a number of limitations were noted whichmay have reduced the likelihood of finding significant results.Gender differences may have been suppressed as a result of: 1)sampling young university students with limited experience inrelationships; 2) a self selection bias toward males with agreater than average interest in close relationships; and 3)having respondents rate only their very closest relationships.Relationship type differences may have been suppressed as aresult of: 1) having participants rate only one exemplar for eachrelationship type, increasing possible variability fromidiosyncrasies of the particular relationship. Attachment styledifferences may have been suppressed as a result of: 1) taking acategorical rather than a dimensional approach to attachment; 2)the expected and meaningful within-group variability implicit ina prototype model of attachment; 3) heterogeneity within groups(particularly the secure group) resulting from the use of a shortself—report measure of attachment; and 4) atypical group members,especially among the dismissing and fearful.The study may have provided a conservative test fordetecting some differences between genders, among attachmentstyles, and among relationship types. Despite these conservativeconditions significant results were obtained via this research.180It would therefore seem that the study is an adequate, althoughnot ideal, test of the hypotheses.Implications of This ResearchAttachment. This research draws attention to the importanceof considering the role of gender when examining the effect ofattachment style on relational processes. There were significantdifferences both between genders and within gender acrossattachment styles. Gender has been a neglected variable inattachment research, and this study provides support for itsinclusion in future studies.This study provides new support for Bartholomew’s (1990)four-category model of attachment. The model splits apart theinsecure avoidant category (e.g., Shaver & Hazan, 1988, 1992)into two groups: dismissing (positive view of self, negative viewof others) and fearful (negative view of both self and others).In this study the distinction between the two categories seemedfruitful, with dismissing women reporting higher levels ofintimacy than either dismissing men or fearful women. This studyalso unravelled the earlier paradoxical finding in the use ofinfluence strategies, in which avoidant individuals were not morelikely than others to employ avoidant strategies (e.g., Levy &Davis, 1988). By using the four-category model it becameapparent that dismissing individuals use dominance more thanindividuals from all other groups, and fearful persons useavoidance more than all others. While consistent with the181theory, this is the first empirical support for these uniquepatterns of influence for the two groups.The inclusion in this study of relationships other than theparent—child bond and romantic partners helps to extendattachment into the broader realm of close relationships. Whencomparing individuals’ global (over all close relationships)forced choice attachment style with their forced choiceattachment style by separate relationship type it is clear that,for the most part, the global categories hold. This repeatedmeasurement served to provide a check on the classification ofparticipants into attachment groups, and demonstrated reasonabletemporal stability of the classification. Importantly, it alsoprovided evidence consistent with the view that attachmentdynamics work in close friendships, and suggests that attachmentstyle probably does reflect a generalized influence upon mostindividuals’ close relationships.At the same time, a number of people do discriminate betweenthe global and relationship—specific measures. The match betweenglobal attachment category and relationship specific attachmentcategory varies both by relationship type, and by attachmentstyle. In terms of attachment style, the secure category showsthe least amount of change between the global and specificassessments; next are the fearful and dismissing categories; andthe most variable is the preoccupied category. Other researchhas suggested that the secure category is the most stable acrossassessments, and the preoccupied the least stable (e.g., Baldwin& Fehr, 1993) . However, such examination has not in the past182included a comparison between global versus relationship—specificmeasurement of attachment. /In terms of relationship type, the best match between globalattachment category and relationship—specific category occurswhen rating the romantic relationship, consistent with theory.The romantic relationship is held to be the primary attachmentrelationship in adulthood and would therefore be expected to moststrongly characterize respondents’ global attachment style.The next best match between global and relationship-specificattachment categories is for closest cross sex friendship. Ithas been noted that cross sex friendships are fraught with anumber of difficulties, including their unscripted nature(McWilliams & Howard, 1994), and the tension of sexual dynamics(O’Meara, 1989). Either of these challenges might play a role ineliciting working models of attachment. For example, the vagueboundaries and lack of guidelines for close cross sex friendshipsmay consititute a kind of blank screen against which attachment—related expectations may be projected. On the other hand, sexualattraction is often held to play a covert role in close cross sexfriendships, and such attraction has been hypothesized to be themotivating force behind the formation and maintenance ofattachment bonds in adulthood (e.g., Hazan & Zeifman, 1994).This research has uncovered interesting findings regarding therole of attachment in close cros.s sex friendships, and invitesspeculation as to what features of this relationship activateattachment dynamics.183The most variable relationship (i.e., least likely to matchthe global attachment category) is closest same sex friendship.Individuals who categorized themselves as insecure on the globalrating are more likely, in same sex friendships, to choose the/secure category to describe themselves. Most noticeably, of the40 individuals who rated themselves as dismissing on the globalassessment, 19 rated themselves as dismissing in their closestsame sex friendship, and the remainder (i.e., 21 people)classified themselves as secure. For those who groupedthemselves globally as preoccupied, when classifying themselvesin their closest same sex friendship an equal number chose thesecure category as chose the preoccupied one (n = 13). Theprocesses by which this shift occurs are open to conjecture.Security is characterized by a positive model of the self (lowanxiety about abandonment) and a positive view of others (highcomfort with closeness). It may be that close same sexfriendships involve greater feelings of acceptance in themirroring of oneself in a same sex other, enhancing one’s selfmodel. Perhaps same sex friendships are lower in anxiety,thereby ameliorating the other model and increasing comfort withcloseness. Heightened activation of attachment dynamics ishypothesized to occur in conditions of stress. When not undersuch anxiety—inducing situations, the role of attachment isexpected to be less salient, and people may tend to feel andbehave in a more secure fashion. The results of this studyindicate that certain facets of closest same sex friendships mayplay a special role in enhancing feelings of security,184particularly for those who would be classified globally acrossall their close relationships as insecure.Gender differences in relationships. This study establishesthe principle that attachment style moderates the influence ofgender on patterns of intimacy in relationships. Dismissingwomen were found to report higher levels of intimacy in theirclosest relationships than did dismissing men. As well, womenand men reported significantly different levels of intimacydepending on their attachment style. The results for gender andattachment on influence were nonsignificant at the multivariatelevel (p = .067), hence were not formally reported in thisthesis. An exploratory look at the results, however, evidencessignificant results for domination (p = .016), and multiplecomparisons reveal that fearful women reported more use ofdomination than did fearful men, and dismissing men reportedgreater use of domination than did dismissing women. Theseresults provide an enticing glimpse of the possibilities inherentin exploring the intersection of attachment and gender, and areworth examining further. Although the results across the twooutcome variables are not completely consistent, the significantgender by attachment style interaction for intimacy indicatesthat the two variables mutually shape the terrain of closerelationships.An important finding in this study is the significance ofindividuals’ relational context to their experience of intimacyand use of influence strategies. This research provides solidevidence that, in order to understand the ways in which women and185men differ or are alike in their interpersonal relations, we needto examine with whom they are relating. Type of relationship wasa significant factor which interacted with gender to producediffering patterns in reported intimacy and use of strategies ofinfluence, and points to the complexity of gender differences inrelationships.This research also indicates that there is much that womenand men have in common in their close relationships. Someinteresting significant differences were obtained, but there werealso many instances where no differences between women and menwere evident. For example, both women and men report usingintegrating and compromising strategies more than all otherstrategies, and do not differ in their use by type ofrelationship. It is appropriate to heed the “plea for caution”called for by wright (1988, p. 367), who notes that socialscientists are particularly attuned to identifying between groupdifferences, sometimes at the expense of ignoring within groupvariability and between group similarity.Clinical implications. Attachment theory was originallyformulated by John Bowlby, a clinician with an interest inunderstanding and intervening with emotionally troubled patientsand families, while acknowledging the significant volume ofresearch his theory has generated in developmental and socialpsychology, he also noted his disappointment “that clinicianshave been so slow to test the theory’s uses” (1988, p. x) . Thisstudy was not clinical in orientation, yet its findings may havesome potential implications for clinicians. In particular, the186finding that gender and attachment style interact to influencereported intimacy levels suggests that, for those clientsexperiencing deficits in close relationships, it may be valuableto consider the mutual roles of gender socialization andattachment style. In couples therapy for example, an assessmentof the effect of gender socialization for women to seekintimacy/fear rejection and men to seek distance/fear engulfment,combined with the basic differences in desire for closenessversus distance inherent in the different attachment styles, mayenhance an understanding of important underlying difficulties fordistressed couples (e.g., Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Feeney, 1994a). As well, the use of different strategies ofinfluence in close relationships for individuals with differentattachment styles (fearful persons using avoidance, dismissingusing dominance, and preoccupied high on both dominance andobliging strategies) may also play a role in their interpersonaldifficulties, especially if such use is inflexible. The findingthat men tend to avoid and/or oblige when in their closestrelationships with women as compared to their closestrelationship with another man, whereas women tend to avoid lessin their romantic relationship than in their closest same sexfriendship may open up avenues for exploration in therapy forclients to learn from their own experience what strategies havebeen most (and least) productive for enhancing intimacy.An intriguing finding in this study which may have clinicalimplications is that individuals who consider themselvesinsecurely attached when aggregating across all close187relationships are likely to change their self reported categoryto secure when referring to their closest same sex friendship.For some reason closest same sex friends appear to provide anopportunity for insecure individuals to reframe their sense ofthemselves and others in a more secure way. The mechanism bywhich this occurs is unclear, but uncovering it may be valuablefor therapists interested in facilitating such change at abroader level.Future ResearchFollowing from the results of this study it may be ofinterest to explore more closely the significant sex byattachment style interaction. It was hypothesized that bothintimacy and influence strategies would be mutually associatedwith gender and attachment style, but significance was obtainedonly for intimacy at the inultivariate level. The multivariateresults for influence were nonsignificant, but suggestive (p =.067), and warrant closer examination. The other facet of thisstudy which invites closer examination is the central role ofindividuals’ relational context in their reports of intimacy anduse of influence strategies.Improvements to this study. In order to improve thisresearch, a future study might be undertaken with a larger,community—based sample who have been in their relationships aminimum of 2 years or longer. Such individuals would be older,and their relationships more established, and they may thereforehave more complex views and may better reflect the larger188population than do psychology undergraduates. As well there aredata to suggest that romantic relationships of 2 years or longerare more likely than shorter ones to fulfill all the functions ofattachment (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994). A between-subjects designmight provide a less conservative test of the effect ofrelationship type; participants would only report on onerelationship (either romantic, or closest same sex friendship, orclosest cross sex friendship), avoiding the possibility of beinginfluenced by simultaneously rating multiple relationships. Aswell, a between subjects design would reduce the problem ofdifferential screening out (of particular concern with thefearful group), since the exclusionary criteria would be lessstringent (i.e., participants would only need to be currently inone of the three kinds of relationship).The importance of the relational context (as indicated bythe significant role of relationship type in this study) could befurther elaborated by assessing the attachment style of the otherindividual in the dyad. Other research has indicated thatpartners’ attachment exerts a significant influence onrespondents’ reports of relationship variables (e.g., Collins &Read, 1990; Feeney et al., 1994a). In addition to the dependentmeasures of intimacy and influence, it might be of value toobtain a measure of the quality of the relationship (e.g., DyadicAdjustment Scale, Spanier, 1976), in order to determine the rolesof intimacy and influence strategies for women and men withdifferent attachment styles on overall relationship quality.189Extending the findings. A clarification of why the use ofinfluence strategies by women and men corresponds more closely tothe demand/withdraw pattern (Christensen, 1988) than to thepower/resource analysis (Falbo & Peplau, 1980) might be avaluable extension of this study’s findings. As noted earlier,the key factor may be the role of conflict, and the extent towhich participants in this study were imagining theirrelationship partner to be interfering with their influenceattempts, that is, were imagining a situation of conflict.In the research conducted by Falbo and Peplau (1980), menwere more likely than women to report using direct strategieswhich required the other person to participate. The use of suchstrategies also was associated with a de—emphasis on equal powerin the relationship, a preference for greater personal influence,and perceptions of having greater power, all of which men morethan women endorsed. Other research has also indicated that menvalue and report having greater power/control in their closerelationships more than do women (e.g., Parker, 1990). Suchvalues and perceptions reflect what may be considered to be aposition of privilege in the relationship; as Falbo & Peplaunote: “men perceived themselves to be influencing their partnerfrom a position of relative strength” and therefore expectedcompliance. The subordinate partner may conform spontaneously tosuch direct strategies as requests so that the dominant one doesnot need to resort to more aversive methods (Huston, 1983) . Itis important to note that this discussion refers to subjectivejudgements of power, rather than an objective assessment of who190actually has what kinds of power in a relationship. Perceptionsabout power are likely to play a causal role in the use of powerand influence (Huston, 1983).On the other hand, in situations of conflict men may notfeel that they are in a position of strength, and in fact mayfeel at a significant disadvantage, leading them to use indirectstrategies such as avoiding and giving in. Male withdrawal insituations of conflict is found to be met with female pursuit,and attempts at escalation. This pattern has been evident indistressed relationships (e.g., Christensen, 1988), but morerecent research suggests that nondistressed relationships alsodemonstrate some of these features. Markman et. al, (1993) foundon self report measures of complaints about partner pursuit, thatmen scored higher than did women, indicating a greaterwithdrawing stance for men than for women. In another study,nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples were compared on theextent to which the demand/withdraw pattern characterized theirresponse to conflict (Christensen & Shenk, 1991). The clinic anddivorcing couples scored significantly higher than did thenondistressed couples, but the pattern of woman demanding and manwithdrawing was more likely than the reverse pattern in all threegroups. In the Christensen research (1988; Christensen & Shenk,1991), the situation that participants responded to on thequestionnaire was defined as a “problem in the relationship”.This makes conflict more salient than in the item used in theFalbo and Peplau (1980) study (i.e., “how I get my way”). In thecurrent study, the question was worded in terms of getting one’s191way, but with no way of knowing whether respondents wereimagining interference by the other, it is not possible todetermine whether or not conflict can explain the differentpattern of results.To confirm the role of conflict versus a generalizedperception of power in the relationship as contributing towomen’s and men’s use of various influence strategies, a studymight be undertaken comparing women and men in same sex, crosssex, and romantic relationships across two conditions: highversus low conflict. Conflict would be a between—groupsvariable, manipulated such that participants in the high conflictcondition would be asked to rehash an unresolved argument aboutsomething important to them, and in the low conflict condition tosolve a more neutral problem, such as a puzzle. The interactioncould be videotaped and coded for use of influence strategies.Self report measures of influence in situations of high conflictversus low conflict could also be obtained. Participants couldbe asked to recall and describe specific influence attempts inwhich the partner either did or did not interfere with theirefforts. In addition, assessments could be taken of subjects’perceptions of the amount of power generally held by therelationship partners, its importance to each of them, and thecircumstances in which they feel most and least powerful in therelationship. It may be that men feel least as though they arein a position of strength (and women most so) in situations ofconflict and confrontation. Such a study might illuminate theprocesses underlying the findings in this study on women’s andH)H-IlCD0bft0ft0U)U)U)ftC)I()0IICDCDH)0)H)<H)C))ftftftft0CD010HCD0(I)H)ftftCD<‘-<ft‘I‘I‘I0r1‘tiCDU)ftH-H-H-CDHC))0C))CDICl)0C)CDCDC)CDC)iftCDCDCDIIIHCDCI)ZCDftHIl‘tIftC))ftC)U)QCDHIlCDIftQH-QU)H)H)IlH-HCDHHHI—’IIlIlCDCDCDCD‘1CDftCDk<H-H-p,H-IH-CDH-CDH-0000C))C)’CDIlftU)0HZC)IlH-C)C)H)IlCDH-‘ftHPC)’H)C))ft0‘1It!)ftCDC))ftHU)CDftC)ftIl0-‘U)H-H-ftH-bCDH-IlH-U)CDD0‘CDftHCDC)C))Cl)0CI)CDIlCDHIICDftH-CDIlHCDIICDC))HCDC!)CDftH-CDC)-C))<HCDC))CI)ftHCDCD0CD‘tIIl0CDC))H-IlH‘I10p,C)C)H-HU)El)ft0 C)CDft—H)<C)Q0‘IHH)U)ftIlCD0--U)C)H)CD•CDC))U)ft00CDIlCDCDIIU)HH-ftIlIlftH)IlU)HWH-H0CDCDft1:3.o‘<CDCDCDCDCDftZHCDUU)ZU)CDCDIlftftH)‘-QCDCDCDIIC))C)1) H-CDC))0-.C)H)(I)C))•‘‘<C)IlCDftH-CDCDIl•C)H-ftC)U)ftCD‘ICDH0C!)CDH-U)H0HC))ftHU)0CDftC)U)1:3.IlCDftH-ftCl)ftCD0U)ZC)H-H0H-C))CDCDft<CDCD-CDH-CDQIlIlC))Cl)C)H)CDU)U),,C)U)U)HIlU)0CDII0CDft‘dftCDftC)CDCDH)•IlCDH)IIHCDC)’CDH-HIlH-U)ftU)CDHH-H-0H-0C)<HftIlCDCD-<U)HC)0C))-HftH)ftIlH-CDCDC)ft,pU)‘1ftH-HCDCDHC)’CDC))H-H-H-00CDCD<C)’U)ft1H)ftftCl)C))CDH)CDCDHftCDCDCD0ftCDftH)U)U)C))HC)‘p0‘1CD,-H-HH-C)C)HftC)CDHCD0C))0ftII011<CD1HIlIlIl0‘<H-0CDCDCDfrC))CDCDC)C!)C))HCD<ft‘U)0•CDQU)CDftC))IICDftH-i-’0‘<ftCD‘IHCl)fttl)CDCDp,C))C))H-CDCDCDC)C))H)H-ftH-U)0ftC))C)H-C))ftH-H)11)IIII0H)0<U)‘tI0C))CDft(I)CDH-C))<CDCD00C))C))‘-QH-CDftftHEl)H-ftC)CDC)HIlC))H-H-C)QCDCDCD‘—H-C))H-CDftCDCDI-’H-Il0C))U)H-C))CDCDH0H-H-U)H-IIH-CDCDCDC))CDCl)‘.Q0CD00CDU)C)C))0IlH-C)U)IlU)0H-CDCi)H)Cl)ftCDU)CD-.CDftU)ft-U)CDCDCDH)193relationships and gender. The study offers new support forBartholomew’s (1990) four-category model of attachment styles,with fearful and dismissing participants evidencing uniquely highscores on avoidance and dominance respectively. Friendships playan important and meaningful role in most people’s lives, and thisresearch helps extend our understanding of these valuableconnections in the context of attachment dynamics. This researchextends our understanding of both gender effects and attachmentby establishing the principle that attachment style interactswith gender to produce different patterns of intimacy. It alsodraws attention to the centrality of relationship type inunderstanding women’s and men’s experience of intimacy andinfluence. Importantly, these results underscore the need tothink in more complex ways about the intricacies of gender inclose relationships. In addition to simply mapping main effects,or even two—way interactions examined at the level of betweengender comparisons, it is clear that a topography of gender andrelationships requires standing back from the terrain and viewingthe varying patterns of its landscape for women and for men.This research is unique in its explicit focus on theintersecting roles of gender and attachment style in threedifferent peer relationships in adulthood. This more integrativeand theory driven approach guided the questions and the research,and was found to be productive, offering insights into thecomplex workings of how individuals “do gender” and “doattachment” in the context of their ongoing relationships withothers.‘1H-HC)C)H-HCD0CDU)U)U)r1HU)CDCDHr1ICflP)-ICIOHOfrdO‘JhCDHC)H00I(D-kDH-D)r1ilU)tLOCDHH0HH-IXIctctctctf<ct--JHCDH-H-CDO<I’.EIIç-IC)I•CDIU)•Ict.IQ)CD-C).H(DqIcqIr1-0OH-D)-1CDU)Ort•IHOIH-OOU)CD U)H-H-U).U)•H-lCD00U)•CD-•••0IH-.lU)H-•H-.ct.CDP)’))H---CDU)HrtCD0H-ctCD-<HU)HrtHCD0HWHlot-C)CDU)H-•r1ffrWU)0t\)-<<-IP)CDCDH-U)U)I(tHU)HHCDD)0•CD•H-0c_i_—CDIHct•.HCDD’HCDHQ)d•U)CD1IXH<CDct.HCD-C)H-<ctctU)GCDH•0CD)C)C!)Cf))L.•U)C)H-0H‘0C)0(-1-H-U)CDHC)0CDlCDCDCD•2’WIC!)•0)!))0i_i-ZCDC)Q.,IHCDctHCDctH.0H-”HCDHIH-.?C)U)H--t0bC)CD01(tct-C)CDCD c_i-0CDF-’-C)H!))10Q)(_)C)0p.’.‘;;‘;.‘‘-<HU)0CD00c_i2’CD•P.’U)oH-!))U)CDCDCD—-t‘pnjCDp.’H-P.’CDCD‘_i0lU)CtH<C)H-.HOH-U)H.<CD11CI)H-’pHCDCDci-CD•rI-bCDCD(I)H-X‘10P.’P.’Cl)CDCDIIH-HCDH!))1”hCHIH‘H0•c_iC)rxioIoI<C)!))H-H-H-c_i-U)lCDIc_i-CDCI)0U)H-lCDCDIH-—.lU)0P.’IC)IC)dI!))H-H-!))HU)H-lortI!).IIc_i-!))CDH-•CDI’-i,IlCDH’CDCDCDPJP)Cl)11HCR‘1HH0CtCtCl)--0I010-Cl)b00I-0b-10t-HH-ICRI-bcII-bCl)CDCl)H(DOH-CDHOH-CD10Cl)HOOCl)IrtH.?Cl)HCtHCR0ICRHIZ(D.lo.i-tctctCDOCDCDCDCl0iCtIHH-0-CDP1ICD-..0•00HCl)10-CDCRCt101bH00PCtI0CRQH-f--0CtOo13--CDCDCDcI-’)lI0“F---CDCRH-CRID)—•CR—)CDIHIll.CDCR..HCDCDCDC)h‘H0ICt-IHCRlCDnO0‘1rtIH())CtCR[CD<H.“0IIHbCDCD0‘CDCRH.Ct-tCDzCDCRHIU11-NH.—CR0CDH0CRCDCt°1CD—.H..0XHCl)R’D‘..DU)CR•0‘..OHHZCR0zCt•H-I°D)-•H,••00-CDHHCD0CtCDIH0‘oCl)CD0HCRCR0CD•0CDCDCt‘.,..CtCtHCDCDCRCDCRZCDHCRCDH0CDCtCR-0•Cl)CtCtCDCtCDHCDCtH-Ct00(‘3CRICI)HCDCDH•00°0lCDC)XQH10IXD)CRCt•H0Cl)’<HCRCtCDCDH..c-I-‘1CDrt)4HbR)CDCDCtCDCRCtIf-JCD.C)CDlCD00i-i,‘lCl)CDCRCDCl)PH0LCRCtCl)CRCl)ICR00HH-c-I-1-.’-H-H-CtCDOCtHCtHt1ilICRCl)lCR000Hç-I-00loCl)CRCl)Cl)CRHCRI’—H-CtCD•I0CDCR0CDH-H-0CRCt0CR0Cl)H-10CRDCD•0•H-CtI‘<••H)Ct00000000CDCDoHHHHHHHft(1) C)9)Q<ti<i<9)‘<t-<I<‘Cl)H-flC4II—JOCD-CD-0b-i-9)loI—CD0P..lCDftIC)rtoH--friftoH<9)CDp..IxIi—-CDPCI)9)—HCDHI-ClqQ..cIH-0lCDI-1$)‘1CDtCS0C)00IftCDIHlCD•OHftH-•0.’__Li)—.0.’S.—..CDCDjHC)Li)H1HH—•HCDcn•Id-CDHH0IH-ZHq0’9)-b‘C•1<0I-b_...1<ftlCD(I)Q.’ft0t)Cflo<-IQ..—1OCl)9)IH-—H-I-H••lo•(1).ILi)’—ZHOH•Izft.ft0•9)•t-<CD9).CD0-3CDCDCDCDH1<c-I-CDOftCD9)•‘—.HI<9)•ftCl)9)HHC)•.C)fti-.’-‘D0ldCl)1<CD_9)C)C)CDHH_I-’‘.<H-‘1CDftCDCD3ftI-.’’Cl)C)Z0-—c-I-CDOft-QC)00Ic__))H--(I)IO()I()Op.’9)H-Li)c-I-I9)0H-•CD-Cl)ftC)0-.00.’C)jQ00C)‘<CD0Cl)CDH-F--.’P.’O(•(1)HH9)0H Q‘-109)I[)xiHHH-CD0CD9’9)9)•(1)q-.p.’CD0I<HH-••ft1)•xC)ftH-CD-H-H9’CD<C)Cl)H101CD••I—’0H(I)HIt’Jct0(1)‘19’0-I—’o(flHHftCDCD00•I-tIoCDHCDI-b(I)H•p.’4CDHt.i,0(1)IC)HHaft•CDH•H9’ HIlLi)9’—iC)H.‘CDCDCDCDftQD$)ftHCDft•oH-•CDP.’CI)QU)CDCD.‘Cl)CDWHCDCDU)H9)ftHc-I-‘10HCD Cl)9)c-I-0.’0ft9)CI)CDHCDH-IHCl)H-ZI-’)H-9)C)CD0-.0CDI9)0ftftCl)(1)lOOH-9)I•‘<P.’•C!)•••ftIl-b•HOC)Cci‘1i-i-HH)0CDCDCDci.Hciç1CDU)CDP)Cl)11C)CDIuiCl)dCDtI)(flCl)Cl)Cl)CDHCDIICcfCD1w00II‘10tCl)XHHOCl)‘1ciU)0IIC)F-’-Ori-C)k<-Cl)C)HH--0U)CD•H-U)0H-HCH)c-1-CD<Cl)ciCl).H<CDctdCl)CDCl)‘1H-U)U)‘-30IIOH-i-i-U)CDH(flH-0Cl)H-C)C)*U)•CDC)CDCDU)H-CDCI)p—.-..t1CDU)U)•Cl)U)X,HHH)Z•I—ici U)‘-j”0ciCDzU)III-”cnII•U)Cl)<c1-H-...CDCDCCl)Cl)C‘-“Cl)U)CDHCl)HIICDCl)CDtn(DC-U)CloCDH00CDCl)C)<HIIH00Cl)lU)CDCtIIi--ctW.CD‘lCD—Cl)Hi-’.•HiCiDciCDCl)0CDC).CD0ICDU)01Ix•o-i-t-CDU)ciçt‘IH‘1•IIHçtCDCDctCD10HCDCD1HCDIi-0<01‘oCl)HH0CDrt-lCD0CtiU)H-rt°H)H-CDH)H’l0IU).’ciHCDCl)-HciCDCDH,-3U)U)ciC)H0CDC)h1H-IICDciCD‘-‘dCDH0IH.CDU)0•CDtsiCl)H-1oClU)CDU)CDCt0CDHU)Z‘d-•xIHCD0H-0HC)ct’lHHCDCtHU)D-ti0CDCD’lCl)CDCn0CDCD‘CD0)•‘xC)ri-OU1-‘10ri-CD‘1HH.—U)‘1HH-•CDr1‘l’<IH<‘rt.C)OilCl)H-U)”..H-0HOCDC)U).0-U)Cl)t!iCDHciC10°G)HCD‘<CDoH)HoCDH)CD•C)w‘HciIIIIICl)C).CDrjl--CDCDwCl)OHCDCDtnOHCDciCCtICtCttn0‘1H‘1CDU)0Cl)U)CD•‘d0c-t-•CDCl)Cl)locnwCl)00C)i’ICl)dOj’lCtIC)HC)pCDHH)IOIU)0ICDCl.CDIHH-CDI(I)Cl)lCD0CtHIH-OU1Cl)rtCtIH-ICDCDIICDHIctIICt10CDCDH,Ct<ci-1<Ct•ci“CDQIH)Ctcic-t()(_)C)C)C)C)D)P3P3P3‘1‘1IICDH-HH-HHCl)U)U)CDCDU)k<(c)c-1QU)c-I-c-I-II.3c-I-IH)HIIHd0I(D0CDCD(3QçtCI)(DOCDI4CDICDHlCDCDCDHCD0<I0ICDIHHCDIdcl)HU)OH)Cl)ctU)dCl)10<Il))U)P3<Cl)lCDH.CDHHOCDH-HCDHHQIctCDIc-tOc-I--0•I-i-c-I-HCDCDZ0CD1HU)IF-I-H-CDCD0-H-0U)o<qcn0P300[oP3•c-tc-Ic-I-1c-I-•0CD•H-lU)U)I--IP)H-0•CDHOI<IOP3HU)ZZw0.•P3CD0.IH-CDH-CDHc_4HU)0•tcsxQ)Ic-I-b0lCDI0‘0t-’IU)U)•‘-°—HH•-CD”qCD0qc-tb0DH-0-H)CDU)ctc-I--•CDCT)i—CDH)I01’-CD•U)c-I-010-CDti0U)(Cl0‘1ICDCDCl)••H-F-al).0MCi)IHC)H-0•Cl)01U),•.ijCDU)C4c-I-Z0c-i-0•opH)H-c-I-oH)U)0QP3P30Cl)‘•Cl)C)HH)(DO<zOH-CDHOqU)CDMHCDCDQ-1‘11U)0•H••0c-0çtCDU)H-CDc-I-00110CD0HH-U)CD0H0CDHCD0U)P3t5P3H-011•c-I-<H•-P300‘1H-H(jCDH-0H-c-I-H-0CDc-I-QH)M-H-P3H)HH-H-H•P3CDI(1)0C/)c-I-Oc-tU)C/)0Cl)‘•iH)OH-..0’—CDH-c-I-Q)CD0CDQ•HH)H-U)CDU)P3c-I-U)H-HCDNP3H)P3U)(DOH-OHCDHOH-•CD(c-t0CDIU)H--c-I- HHP3U)‘-DCDIQ0OoHlU)CDU)CDQH)•U)[<<IH-OH)-U)0HP3010CDHP3OlHlCD000c-I-0010000CDH-----CDI-’P3(1)0OHc-I-0jOH)-iOU)0rCDHH-a0CDCflDOHH-lP3H-101c-I-H-MCD00c-I0kDP3P3P3H-P3-<P30P3c-Ic-I--HH-(-I-•HU)CDHH)HC)C)()CDCl)Cl)Cl)Cl’00I-’HCl)HH-H-H-H-HCDCDCl)(ClH.H,U)‘dlCl)0Cl)-a’C)-If—H-Cl)ZCD0CD-Dfr0(1)100OU)lo—)HIcnHIH-Cl)-•H1flH<IIC.t’J0<<C)QP)1Cl.ICD-C)I(D‘d(DCD.•U)IC)0IHHC(Drt.CDjU1CDHZPCDIC)0U)H-jPill.O•llU)IC)—.ICC)lCDHHHID)Cl)HC)0•H0(l)•00I(l)CD--U)0Cl)H-P)ICD1Cl)Cl)tnCDf-cHHCl’ct-C)U)H-pdi-’-‘.0H-Cl)<Cl)(I)IIII(I)ctllClIuiOH-I’.o0Cl)H—HClCD(Cl•‘lCDCtCl,CDCD1)U)-Cl0DID)(C)VC)•Cl)Cl)Hctrt(ClH-CDCl)H-ll•ClH-•--C)HOH-CD0H-C)H-•Cl)—•ctU)0CI)0•U)Httl.‘-ZCD-0•H-CD•ftI-’-H•H-‘_-)•D)dCDCl)doH_HoCl’ClU)HHHHCl)r1U)Cl)‘.Cl)0HH0H°•HC)H-C)C)H—CDC)CD•H0•-Cl)H-o<-CD•Hr10HZC-H(I)OH-C).•FlCC)HH-U)C)Cl)CDCl)H--ClCDO‘1ftC)CD(noCl)HFlU)wC)00IQ1ftç-t-U)00•FrtC)..IOH-CD(C))U)‘1CDHH-HfHO’.QCDft0InH-01Cl-0C)H-Cl•CDdCl-’•FlDP)OHftHH-C)ci-Cl0CD••Cl)H-0(l)rn—HCl)C)WCDCD-0(-I0-CDH-‘1ci-C)CDICD-‘.CDC)CDIClClHHU)HCDCD100<CDH1Cl)<ft-(ClCDH-H)HC)IC)0H-HCDH-Fl0C)ICD<U)CD1Q10CDID)P)‘-OH-Cl)Cli-Cl)CD--H’-PHIHrJTJpJCDCD))0HCDCDCDCDI—’CD0HHCDCD0Cl)CDCDIU)<ICl)0<fr-I0i10-0Cl)rt(T)CDI’rt-loH)1(1)CD•0CD<U)r1-CflcthH-HH01lof<HIF--0Cl)HO-CD-rt0I—bCDCl)0I1HIl—Cl)q10Cl).IHCt-.QCl.’HCt.Cl)0CDrt.(DII--CDICl).IrtCDtCDCD0H-U)Cl)IHICi-a-0.H•CDH-•Cl)CD00U)QIHIHOCflF--0•(DICD0frdctIClCDC)Z.Cl)CD-..F--U)U)•01Wz{1<11‘•H•<OH01<CDlCDCDCDHHZ10°HH0HHxjQ)U)0Cl))(I)(ClU)-0H0CDIWU)Cl)Cl)H-HIl-iii1C0.CDH-CDCl)CD•HCI)QC)CDTOCt---.CDt’JHCl)r-t-H,Cl)H-I-f<0Cl)0CDCDH-ctH--.HCDCl)0-0IH-U)Cl)HHU)U)0ljIU1CDI.101LiICE)Oct-OHI0H-.ICl)j0-çtCD0OH0U)Cl)<OHU)t:-IHQH-0HHCD•H0<000H•QHCDIU)HOCDH(fl0:1.t_H•1<LOCDHLOH-.CDoHLOCl)Cl)0CDH0CDCD•lH0CD••Il-0CDCDCDIICDH-cn1U)U)H-rt<It1Ct’l0U)U))H-U)ZCDtH10HHCD0qOCDCDiCD0Cl)‘1-CD0Cl)HZCl)HCDH-U)U)U)_•Ct_Ct-H0rtCl)Cl)‘HHrtHCl))Cl)<lU)CDH<_(tLOo<Hçt0CD)•U)Q—U)HHCD-H-H)CDCD0U)Cl).<CD•CD•CDCDU)CDi-‘1U)U)U)cnCDCDPHH-H0ClHIr1Ict<H-CtH‘dCDctH-CDp)U)dIoCl)IoctCflrt.H-CD(ClUCD’Cl)CDICltH-CD0CDCDU)l1IzH-0H-CtHlEnCDLioIWIC)0H-Ct)H10H00P.0lCDlCDCl)CtH-Cl)H-ZIH-Ct<•Ct0P0Cl)Ct-CDCt.Cl)<ICl)bCDCDHjCtHi(tHCD•••“IHCD--CD00Iij‘TJzj1!jrjCDP3IIII0H•H-CDIICDP30’X(PU)CDCDC)CDN‘C)H-H-NCDl0L.iQ.,—sP)IH-I-’U)CDP3(fl0)U)0P3<(CD-I{tP)“P3CD1P3I1f-ODH-IP)tiICDrt1”P3IP3(F-”QrtH--IC-ID)-IrtIcn-L.)H-H-H<ICDIP1CDlU)D)HCDC1U)P3Cl)U1IrtqC)I‘..OU)H•P3 LHH)H)-o0lCD.0ID)U)C)P30NH-_CDtIC)p,-P3--_IH’(JC)•‘.H-C)—lU)HX•IctCDU)H<CtP3H-•0CD(u‘Ik<U)-JtT•JoI(J1I-b--CD0--P30U)H)••ciHCDH‘ICDP3CDCD,-iC),-HU)”CDZC)H(DU)••0‘CC)H--ttCDH-0FHZCD‘itCD—•‘1qI-bP3‘I‘I00•P3P3pC)ouiP3HP3HCD•CDCDC)CDU)OrtIiiU)•P3H)U),CDHCD<•P3-CD’‘ICl)‘I‘10QHH-0‘1x-CI)U)--U)0H-P3H-.0HH-0P3c•I-1C)•C)H-0(ilOU)”rtCl)H-H-P3H-‘—‘HC)‘1-‘ctHP3•U)P3C)C)‘-CDI0.f.JCDP3‘-3P3CtU)DXHH-HP3t00DU)CDH-CC)C)tsP3HdCDCD0CtH-’I-oU)XH0C)0CtCDCDHH0P3‘IC)HoP3oHH.<0U)CDCt‘ICDUiiHP3CD0CDC)(I)CDCDH-’-U)P3Ct•0U)C)IC)CDCDIZP’Q‘1U)U)‘CD‘-3CDCDH)CDIHH-CDrt0H-P3CDCDPCDrt-HHCDH’H-P)P3‘I(tQ,ICtH‘00H-0trtH-CDICH-Q(C)H-HQCD‘1—U)CDU)00QC)HQICC)IP3tjCDU)H0P3CtCD0I°CDPU)H-DCl)HU)U)H-IC)IC‘<U)U)0HIØU)•H-IH-Irt•H-PU)PCDDiU)H-H-Ct00IDCDICDH-Dl‘—p-•U)-H)-.‘1PH”I.Q00000I—’CDCDCD0H)CDCDCDtiCD-0H(1)<R’t-CDO-CDHZ1O<CDOICDP00CDH-CDHCDHP)-t—’CDI1))•ZIH-I—’1))HH1))1))••i-çtHctICDI—’Cl)CDH)I1))OCDt-b(flICn(1)C)F-’•CDHC1)•CDId--10<CDCDCDtdCD•OIrtQ’CD•‘1ti’ICD’ti0<•0tilf-1))CDIC)CDH-•tiF-a--H-0ctCDI0•I-HIrtti0CDflII—C)ID)qi01))CDICDF--HCD•C),-CDODCDct1))CD•CD0(i)-IQH1)).)I?)•c-1-‘-CDHCD•0(DC)ZD1)’CDCDtiHH-0I•xj1:’iCDC)MHCDCD‘1OHZ51(1))0HQ•rt.Q<•U)H0<flCDCDD)—CD001))HCDCD-H-HHCD•0H)CDC)0CDCDiQ0<CDH)(1)H)•CD-•CDctp,•çttII_CD(fl(tHCDCDCD0 0C)H0CD0HH1)’CDH)icnCDH-OCD1))CD’H-CDHCDct0H°H)H•CDti•H) CDr11ODCDCD04H°C)CDCDCD•aH-0•rt1))w?SCDCDCi)0çtCDHCDC)H-CD•HC)Is)0CDHD)iCDHHCD-’(DH1<Hi--,IIICD0HHCDCDIsiI<ICDCDtiCOiI0tiCDCDCl)HH._-_Itio0lZ)HlQHoiIH0(ttik<CDrt0IHHHQ.,H-Ia0(-1-0r1IIIH-Is)IC-.H-CD-‘1IP<CDI00H-OOI(I)‘-<iCD0I0)H)CD0)CD10Z0))CDCD010H-CDH-0I-0)IH)HHH)IH)Qi-H)IrI--Hct0CDCDP1Li.HNNNC)lP1P1c-1‘-CDtCI)H-Ixi1H-Enc-I-frp-fr(t-U)Cfl0CD‘-<CDc-t-C)CDCD0CDCDknkmCflCDL71En•••—IC)II-’HitZI-JOc-I<C)<CDc)HCDIP1IP1P1H-PlC)IC)p100•C)fr1CDHO•Ic-Ic-I-ctCDCDIc--I.CDC)IH-H-P)-H-En10--R’10CD0OH-a,CDL100C)0EniHp.c-l-HH-•H)CD0IZ<CDO(t)OH-C)EnC)CD-<lEnEnEnEnqEn<EnHHHOw0”CD0(-i-lH---p)CDCD<0‘D--CD0EnOi-a-CDEnH0Hp-’-(nEnCIC/)EnIu,-1-t-CD-bH-IOCDH—DlCDCDDl•P1Dl-CDCDEn0-CDCDH0i-HHCD0<H)XH-rtD)HO—CDCDZ01CDHOCC)HI•00HEn0(-I-aiCDIç-I-•EnDlQHtiQHCt)H-OCD•cjiEn—.H-Dl0EnEnjEnH<‘—.CDHC)F-H0HDlCDCDH0p’CD•.•i-—3P1P1O’O(_)0CDCD0(tGI-’•0Hc-I-.---‘-z---CDCD•CD‘<0EnCD•CD-0En.<P1°CD0P1qLnPQDl‘CDHP1))0101Dl-C)rtOCDCDHCDEnHCI)CD0CDH-En‘CD0c-IC)C)fri)P)01EnHCDc,En-..H-CDH,H-0EnDlCD‘0CDpDlCDHCDDlCD0EnEnH-•0P1H-H-X$En<HCDCDDlc-ICDH-c-IDl0CDEn0.Xc-IHEnOH-H<‘c-t0EnHC)0CD0Cl)Dlt11Pl00t-Dl<Cl)EnHCDH0P1”‘IXDlP1‘1•CDEnCDC)EnHH-DlCl)HC)HDI<CDc-IC)CDQH.p.H-0En’-dCDc-IH-H-CDIEn‘Enc-I,-Cl)0H-‘<P1c-IDlEnfrtPlc-I-CDCl)c-Ic-Ic-IC)ic-IOHP1CDHHCDc-I’<CDIP1HH-C)-dtiCl),-CD‘IIC)0CINCI)C)CD‘ICl)EnOCD0‘<CDPC)(1)DlCl)0OIH-C)QC)CDP1(l)0L)H-•P1II•EnCDC)H-H-ZC4(DDlCD0DlDlPIP)Plc-ICl)H-IHH><HPlc-I-HHEnHI•qqqCDCD000CD0U)U)HU)Hr1C))HCDC))C))U)00qQtC)rxiCD1loC))H-C))CD-00H-rtCDC)D-CD-C))C1C))IoU)U)-U)IHC)ClClU)I—’CDCDCD{U)HqCD‘lCDIC))HH-U)qCD•t(I)‘lI’lq••ZC))kt--U)0H-.U)ICDCD.C))U)qIF--CtU)<ci-•i—’IcCtCDC))-b.•CflU)Cl-•.I0-‘lCD0C))Cl)0lU)C)U)HCtC)I-’CDClIH--HC)C)_-JHICD.—cl-CD-‘-°U)I‘-<•CDCDCDlU)C))CDCDH.O0U)U)——Clct1.CD0CDC))H,-HlHC))•0HCDC)H-,.H-H-HH-C)H’l0ClCriHHOH-c-i_HCtCl.<C)CDH-ftYlHH-HU)Hf-H•U)I..Q0<QHIU1Clp)-H—C)Cl)CDC)-1CDC))ODC))•rtC)C))Hts-0H-ClU)0)HODU]-.H-HU)•H-CDZOWC))•H‘10I‘<Ct’lCDU)U)HH••CDciH‘-3Ct)CDNCDOD’CD‘•xjt-U)HU)CDC)CDto)‘lCDCtHU]CD‘lCDCDlCDCDClH-CDILrtCDU)<C))lH-CCDoC))C)0-it•0H.C))HHHciU)CDoO0CDCDoU)‘l--“U)•U)CDCDCDOH-HC)t’H-C)-4jWflitHCDCD0CD(C)b_DrI-•0t,i<lCD-C))CtClCDCl)H-itCDHCflH-C)CDH-‘IC)i-bIqCDCDClCflC)CDHH—QCDI<H-CDH-‘—00I’lCDOH‘lit‘IH-êlClI’lIIcU)CDH-<IC)jC))0CDCD•HH-CC)IHIH0CflH-Cl10ICDi-C))CDrl-IH-‘<U)U)Cl-CC).0‘l••CDHIXU)—I——••0lCD——IH,—1:-’CDCDCD00I-’H-H-‘1H-<[I)U)-U)l(fl<U)Hd-0-—0HOH-CDIC)‘-<CDCDD)CtCD0CDH)010l-’-IIcl-CDctlo••F--‘1‘1<a’1‘1..‘1Hc-I--0-IH-U)H-H•0c’U)•IM)CDZCDD)H-HID)‘-CD00CDCDHCD-H’1CDLxiCD0CD0II—JU)GH-(1)Ct.CD•P)U)ctD)WOCDOH-U)IHHH-•ct’1Ct<0CD)lU)-‘100•U)D)CDpIcnCD00U)Cl)ctQ•CDH0cnHlCD‘dHCl)Cl)QçNH----1Icn‘1Cl)ctD)<mCl)OHCD‘1CDCDpj’—CtH-’1H-ZCl)U)•CD0U).H-OCDCnU)U)HOi)1c)U)0C-U)•Cl)CD<CDU)”CDCr)Cl)CDcl-U)H-U)H00•p00H-U)0CD0CDH-p0i-Cl)U).•C’0U)CDH-HCD•‘iU)H-H10U)H--‘Hc‘1t’JCl)IU1’1oH.‘1CtH-CD•CDCD0<H-‘-JCD‘1OH)•U)CDH‘1CtCDHCt•oCt.H-Cl)00CD0CtPCtCtCtO$1H-otCDC)-.ic-t-O0D)•CDHH--‘10CD..000Cl•oI4Cl)H-HH0IH-Cl)CD‘H-0C)HCD<‘1•CtIHH)IoCD0U)IH)Ct-QH,O0HCDICD‘1CtCDCtOCCl)CtCDH-‘1Cl)0CDlCDoP00CDlCDH-ICDHC40l1<U)HQH-0CD“Ii—’CtHU)CD)10‘1H-aCl)HCDo.o.II••CD•‘-CD0•‘1Cl)U)CD0ZCDU)Oc-CDPC)•H-CD0H-<0CDp000Ct-H-0c-t-b)0aCDCD0‘1H-CDH-Cl)D)ioD0Itxj—Cl)Cl)0HH)Cl)HH-<Cl) IHHH‘1‘<HCDCDH-O)HU)H-CCl)CD0IL.)CtOCtCD0•00110Ct01CDICCtO)D)—0‘-<CD’—•0CtIC).”IH)U)p.H)CD•U)U)HHC)-Hf)H-i—0C)iU)Ic-.—c-I-H-I1C)GOH)hCDCDf<IH)tTjoIIi-i,QdF--.ICnIdCD(I)HWc-I- I-P)D)çfIIf-IctI-•H)•c-I-CDHHH-H-CDCDI(DICqH-H-U)C))•c-I-CDU)I.CDHQrI-•-01•i.QCD(C)CDOCD(DH01frCD()Cl)Qd0HI;srtçI-Q•0•CDH---’f-.0C))-p.HIHf-JOCDoti-t-C)-c-I-CD_-C)c_4F-’C))H-.CDri-oLQU),CD0•c-t•U)Z(I)H-00C)<c-I-C))CDCDH-r1C))o0U)0CDCD.I-C)HHU)CDC)HC))CD(IC)Hf-“°U)CDoDc-I-CDQJj)CD-‘C)JCX)I---CDCDHC))H)LQ<UIC)C)lCDU)•‘IL3l0CDHF--qC)0CDH0CD•0 CDCDC)‘IIIU)C))HU)RCDHCDrtCDH-CDCDCDCDHtf-J0ctC)CDiCD0“°<0U)CD00)..H)CDH-0’CC))0C))0_(l)C)I—’c-I-I-0ctCDCDQQC))H-c-I-CD<C))CDC)CDCD‘IC)‘I,-..•H.HCDCDCD(tU)CD‘I•H-U<0HCDU)0CDU)Hc-i-CD•F-CD‘I<c-I-C)0HI’DH-H)0(1)H-’IC)0(C)C))CDc-I-1c-I-0HC)’f-c-IO),‘CDc-I-CD<c-I-CDU)CDIU)-c-I-‘II-’-0(C)0H-U)CCDç-I-H‘ICDCDCDC)CDc-I-0)(C)HC))U)CDC)0)F-H-U)‘I•H-HH-H-H-H)CD(C)•U)-L°oCC)CD0oc-jH)H-CDCD-H-H)t-p.CD0F-t’I0<‘IU)Zc-tc-I-IC)0tJ•III-’-0C).•C)H-I-’-C)C)H-C))H-Cl)C))CC)C)Hc-I-‘—O<C))0CI)OIC))CD1-IZF-b-U)oo001--H-H-H-oHHc1CDC))HHoDi00CDCDHHIQ-I-010I-DiC)U)H-ICf)H-l01C))I—’CDIH0-lCD(DlCD-10DiOCDctFIOH-()Di-IHX-0rI-C)i-Q<OCflknCDHID)H-CflH-IH-ctCDHCDOlID.HCoP)Irt.O<DiCDCDc0IIH)•DiClH”-D)U)-C)•DiflIDICDU)•OHH-U)HU)1DiHIU)Di0HriH-CDH-DiCI)‘JQU)(tH1<CD•.HU)1Q00H00DiH)toi—i-toU).0CDDiCDIH(f)HCtDi00H-‘10DiC)U)-H-‘10QO10CDZDi0HDi0‘1‘10Zi—bOH‘1CDCD00C))U)k<H-.H-QU)CDOH-I‘10DiC)U)H0CDH-DiH-C)IG)H-0CDo-Cl)H)DiH-IHCI)HHrt-0-U)Qc1‘1DiH-jC)l’-CDH’[oQDi01OU)‘1U)OçtQU)ct‘1CDCD-S‘1•10O—0H-ICDDiH’(DH)H‘1IIH-‘1DiDiDiDi‘-HU)0DiIDiHH-H’cIH0,HçtH(tU)H-s)0CDCD•‘0CDH‘1oCDHrtDie’H’CD•CDH-‘1‘10-CDo•H-ZNU)U)DiHCtC)Cl)1-HH)nCtCDHCl)CDDiHU)Z(-IDi-H-IC!)Pj-H-H-CDI-’)H—.oDiU)HDlII‘CDU)jrtDiU)OCD.QCIlxH’1-tCDiCl)D0H-H-0U)00HC))HCCO2Ci)0CD,rt‘1H-0”OH)Di‘1ctHDlH-H)H)•U)HCDH)CD‘CDCt0CDlU)iCDXiqZC))0CDDir’CDCDHO10H<CtCtCtIs3’1C))H-HC)rt00CD‘101(1)ICD0PlC)0CDIl’1dCtCDDiU)DiU)HOOlD)H0CI)COOHCD0H)0DiCl)H-”Dl•H-I‘1CDCD—IOH-O1H-CtDiDllOt))0IC)HCDHIH)”-ctrtCDCDCDCDCDCl)Cl)Cl)Cl)rtII‘1CDHHHCl)‘1Cl)CDCDCDH0(0Cl)F-Cl)Cl)HOCO0P)HCDCDZCDCDfrQ’.Cl)COCl)rtCrtfr1<‘1CDCOC)Cl))Cl)HCDtCOCD(0COOCIDCD(0(DC)rt-IICD.•i-’-QCO•0‘1COti‘-0‘1•0P’CD.00•CO0C)t.QCD•I—P’0CD0CDI--Cl)(fl0CO.COCORCDIC)’1-H<rt-(’)CDHp-’-C)CDP’Ct-”0Cl)CDCl)H<‘dCl)CDCO—)CDCOCOt‘1•t’.)CD‘1CD0CD0‘1•H•P’CDI—’‘1‘1H-HCO)c-t-,1-Cl)CDCl’0lCD‘CD•-ct..CDctCOC)HCOHI-COCD0•Cl)0CO0CD.lftO’1CD0Cl)c()CDCl)C)ZCOCD1‘-0HOCOCDIHHH.‘1010HCOCDCl)CDHZ-t-CD<ZHH’COIZZCt-10)H<C)-CDHHCDItO01<CDCD<HcnIZOHlCDH‘1CflHCOP’.1HI—nCOCDICOrtCl)CtCDCDCOlCDHHHZCO‘DCOICOIZCt01<CtHc-)$-<Z•.CDH.--i-i-H’1COCl)o°0CDCOHi-CO.COo•-CDH0COCDH-1-CDC)cn0(‘iCDCDHCDCl’‘1Cl)QHCO.Ct-CDOZCO(t0CD0CDIHClCtHCDCDCl)CtCD.siP’IICDCDt-CDCDCt-‘1<‘11CD’1CDHCl)CD-CD•HZCOCl)Cl)COCDCDC)CO--CO•CO-lHHH,CD00-rtCDCDCDZCOCl)HCOCl)COCDH‘1CtCOZCDHHCD<CDi...‘1COCl)CD’1000(tHdCDCDCl)0CDHHCl)H(CD‘1Ct-H<ZCDoIZCl)-<‘1C4ObCOrtCDHIHH.HCDCDCOQCDCDCOZZjct-rt<txjCOO-(0OOH00)lHZCOH•CtCOHH0iHHCOCl)iCD-.0HH•‘1MQtiIP’Cl)CDC)•CDI-HIZt-bCD0COiCtrt-<CD—H<0•CDIP’0‘lCDCtZ•CDCD•COZII-I-,--COIH’1•-IiQ)1))000H-H-HHHCl)CDCDH-HHrtII0)())CD00I00’Pii‘-rI-tYIQU)frHD)0ctCflCDfri,10Ioz3-kn0-H--D)CDCD(DOHCDCDD)-kD0-Iod1<CDCDd-H-<QctOCD‘IHC)IH,H•IH-(I)Cl)IaCD-01H-D)H-CDCDrtCDI)HlCDC.4HI‘-H•0U)rtCDH1D)H-H-H-HIH-•n—’00E-01H)H-U)C)IH-ID)C)0ICD5I—’D)•ID)0H-O‘.Q10(-IIH•D)H-010•0-I0lCD•H1wc-tQ—.1<H-H-Q•F-(tCflCDi_I’D)0CD‘1(1)C)0H-•H)—ID)H00ICDH•OH-D)HIZHHH)HIH)0D0’-10H-0i-‘CDa’•CDH-•(1)CtH‘a’—lo‘--CDLQCDCI)HC)ct.CDLQCDjD)(J)’_o1<U)’CD•Oct02D)CDw•10-ctH‘.0CDI))U)•IIctH-CDU)H-.ZCD-d-OCD‘-0CD•MCD0D)CDICDU)H)D)ci-HHOHI))”Op.,P.,CDWU)-°HHH-°OU)l))OCD0p.ia’CDH-CD01H-02‘I’c1‘.CD•o0-00Iu’—çtH)C!)CDH)•0H)ctCDH)a’Hct.CDH-0i-act-IIOCDU)-.D)CDici-•HH-H-P)H00D)00CDrt<OH-•Q.Hftp.,CD•H)OwZH-U)..P)H)H0H-P)CD0•CDOH-C4(D010CD<CD0‘0DiH)H“irtCD0U)‘QU)ci-‘.0H‘.0‘lCDIIH)0CDoCDIIOHCDU)IIU)P)H)0CDH-U)DioCD”F-SD)U)-0<H-IIftH-U)d•Di‘lCDU)H-‘10CDU) •0IJHH)Di00•Iri1CDH-p.,Ia’H-HCDHZI))CDHDiDiH)Ict-D)ICDp)CDl-H1CDCD0Io0Di030.H’lCtU)ID)(DnCDHCDHC))CD0IH-IDiIci-:HWCDDiZri-HWctCDI(tH-C))H-H)IIIC))CD0lH-HHa’H-CtCD0ci-IIlCDHHH-0ri-Itflci-H•CDci-OIICl)C!)CDCDW0OdHDiH’Di‘lIOri-OIpjC)tJO0DiC)0HH-U)0ZIQ0C))ci-H-CDH-CtH-U)‘lci-I0C))H-C))H-Cl)U)H-H-CDCDCDci-IHCDHQ0H••CD-d0II(fl-CD0Ic-lCDC’)0H-0CDCDCD1))CCD0c-I-H-H-H1))H-CDCDCDCD1))..-‘—‘-a-1))p)1))Ijc-I-HHc-tOQlCDlCD‘IlCD0WCDkDIIIH-CDC’)H-c-tbCDIIIctIIQF-0.f<c-tCD•‘IrtID)hi,lCD0<H-H,0lCD1))0’Ip010CD‘-3tCDIttCDICDbCDctHd0CDktCD.CDH-CD•0•IICI--lCDDCDqIHCD0c-I-b--Z•1))IOCDI—’CDQ0lo.0CDIHc-I-01))0IH-..—..0H-CDc-taIc-I-CDI-()•01))H.CDCDIcn0c-I-CD•Ii-’-CDCDQHCDHi-<1<ctCD1))HlCD0lCDHIHD)-CDH-HCD00‘1‘1HtdHHQlCD‘J1))•H-CDCDLHoD)II•‘ICt)CII01))0CD°CDH-H-CDq0000C0II00••CD•CJc-tCDCDCDC/)LQ0‘10OHQCDCD00HH0oD---o0CDCDCD0D)CD-C•H-I-’--‘IH-CD.01H-CH)CDH-1c-tHHH.—.Ho0CDH-H,Ct()QHHHCl)CD•CDICD0CD•o•C•CD•‘I••—o•CDCD-•_—-oC4c-I-O0CDCD•CIII-I,H-00CC)1)’1‘CDCDCDCl)HCD400OlCDCDH-0Hc-I-.(1)0c-I1))IICDIXCDCDIICDCD•HH.‘0.CDI•CDH.IIQ0c-0’lHQH00H-0HI.-CH-1))‘110CD1))1)’ZH0O0c-I-b0IHCDct-3ouiCDH‘CDXOCDlCD0hi,Q•0-‘Tjc-tCDCCD‘III•CDH0CDCDhi,CDc-I-CD.0 0CDH-0<CDCD‘I-ZCD•CDCDHHIIHXIID)CDCDCDCD0CDH-‘IQCD0H-HH-1))CDH-CD,CDII1))HH-IIH-c-I-CDc-lCD•CDD)CDCDP)D)CDD)H-CDc-I-H-CDHc-1‘Il-—i,CD00c-I-CD5HIIH-CDCDct.!t)CDH-0Ht’JOII‘ICDHOH°CDIICDCDCD00CDc-tc-tH-HC’)CD000Cd)H-H-H0c-I-0C’)c-I-•CDH-0001))0Cc-I-<’—1))1))Cl)OH-0IICD-CD•H-c-I-HHHfrifri,.•.(12Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)(1)Cl)Cl)CD09)9)9)9)9)09)rtCl)Cl)CDCDCDCD‘1CD(1)00-.---9’140IICDr-l-hCl)9)IP)H)HCl)01-CD9)-09)Cnfr-t-CD0-L4Cl-‘-.)<CD10CD0-‘<Ict-H019)IC)9)•9)IF-0Cl)0C)010.Z‘09)dl-I0bicl-h1°0<I—P)O)Ct.IHH-.H•CD01H0I100ICDCD•.Cl)9)OICDCl)I-Cl).-CD-<-Ct‘<in-HHCDCD’—3”C41I(fl•CD09)<CDCDCl)lo109)‘ONCD<CDCD‘H.Io--.c2CD9)Cl)Ct•IC-’-Cl)Q09)IHCD,9’CI)C-’0CD.CD(9H00CD..1iI2.ct•‘00H‘.iH-9)-iCD00HCDC)-(1)<•H)..9)CDPLuC-ctICDCDHCtZCDCl)IH••CDP’CCD(1)•9)Cti0H‘1lCD0•H-09)HHCD0I0F-’-Cl-c:l9,0H)1H0•0ZIH09)0Cl)H<1<H)QCl)•HP)d-CDCD9’(9CDCD(l)QF-’-‘Dl-Cl--2HrtH-(t9)CDH(l)Ct9(9CDHOCDCl-•H-C<HCDH-CDCl-Cl)0.CD’--1,CflCDCDCDcn•i’<I-’I‘CDHCtCt‘010CDCDCD(-1-9)<CtCDCD0•CDId9)CD9)HOH-0H-HII0•0‘<Cl)<P’00CD‘-3C)(9<0Cl)10CDHH09)COHCD•(1)0•CD-CtCD-H—9’HCDCDHCD0•Cl-qoc-I-CDCDV—.c-I-HH00CD•CDI-’-(90<OH)9)C)P)•lqj29)Hn1(9C1-Ct0HCt-10Ct0CD9)jO<IH00H-CD—SoPCDCDQCD0CDpCD(:1)1CD0.CDCl)0ii—’c-I-HCDC)UHctCl)CDICl)HCl)H-0•CDH-$)I9)H9)0<HP)—Cl-ClCtZ10009)•CDCl)-‘<-•••H)H)H‘-arxEn0)C)‘1CD00‘10)IIH-IDC)CDHH)H)(•)I-0)QEnEi)<EI)0)0CD—C)CDIO‘13qHCDEnD)CDctctCD0H-xjOCDH)CDCD00fr‘H-0<C)gIHC)-rtC)iCDH-•0)HEnEnlo’CDH‘-dCDCDn•rtIctrtH-CDO)IH-<tiCD1-iEn-0I-ct.N•10CDCD.•CDD)HC)H-0zZCDçtCDctEn0CDH--H-IZ0H)En_00H-CDH-HZCDH0)0)‘1dHojctH)Z‘10)00(1)H.H)Hl0CDH-(t0)CDjIo00)0CD-0)•0•QH-H-Ih0)CDEn--CD0EnCDEnCDH)H0CDI0)HH-OEn•HICl)<H-0)En(tHCD0CDCE)CDCD-0)IHC)•EnH-HCDHEnEnEnHCtHZIH)0)Hc--QMOH)ctHiOH-CDCDIdIctH)rl1CnnIH-H-0LOEn••EnI0ZQ0J0)L40)CDk<.I-P)-‘<Cl)QIIC)H-0H-ctIU10•En•H)C)‘1CDICDCDIH-EnHEn‘H-lEn0)HIQOD0)0H-‘<H‘1lEnHH-IH.0HCD-ctEnIjJH)H0)0)0)EnH-H)ICDlCD<.EnH-CDLCDCDlCDHH)‘H--1<CD0-j-CD-‘1IH0IODp,0CDEnCDIC)H-ICDHC)IHCD0IL.)o’EnHOHI-Enri-0)C)IH‘go’HlEn•r1Ictct,—C)LsiPCDICDH-0)Ii-HEnCD0CD0)C)CDEn(I)(tEn•En-•IH<•CDIoD‘-‘CD0)0)H-ctC)0ID)CD-CD0HH-HIIH0c-4CDHCtH00)oCD1H)CDIrtIH-ctI1<0)CDQ)<•H,-CDC)ICflQjI’0IctloEniiiEnEnH-‘<C)IoIHD)CDIHHOH0)HIH-H-10)U)0HH-0)0)CDID)dcl-En10‘-D0)‘—H-u0)ctEnCDIH”lCD••U)IH)CD•CDI-<•EnctH-H(DCDCDCDCDCD0)U)HH-U)U)U)H-H-H-IIHtri-Cl-c1U)U)U)H-CD-U)U)U)ItflQ01(D0)IU)-I1IPi--ftJci-frrJCDIH-rt1•lCDct1wU)IohbloctICDCDIU)rl-CDIZCDIC).—JOU)I’iiiH.Ch--H--Ici--lCD0)qIrtH--.-H100)10’<IC)HaH-bri-.1oc-i-II1C)c-i-<CDcrIZIH(l00IHCDIQ.H-C•H-.100)HlCDC)iOU)IZCDCDOiII•0)ICH-b--CDc-i-IIICDCr.iCDH-..—P100H-—3IU)t0)CDIHHHctIwIHI001t<CDU)I1H-lU)Iwoo’CD-ri-CD—iII-----ci-kDZHH0)IC)fr00)H—4H100c-I--CD0’•Cl.•0w0-d0i--_-—•c,00-HCHc-i--•HCDIC)CDIi--CHC))11IHC))•CDCDH1-IH_lCDU)I1Ic-i-CH-UlIU1C1CDHlI1Hct1<yU)I—’-c-i-•LJçt-CDCD0ct0’CDH0)—°IaC)C)ciHHoH-H-LO•--(t H-C0p,U)CD01C)C))H-ItnCD<H0ctCDH-IH-CD‘-‘3CDCDCDCD0CD.0)1ICIH-1H-CDHClIH0)CD0HCIi-H-owU)i()1°7j10)•H-CDIc-i-C))_U)H0CDH(t10H-0)Cli-h0’Ict00C0CH-0U)‘-0H-•CDHC—CDCCD(-I-0•HC00000)C))CHc-i-CC))H-“3H‘1CD‘1ci-U)0H-ct00w0Z0-h•Clc-1-CDH.ctH-C))0)0III C),c-i-H0I10’CDC))Cl)•HH-C)fCc-t0000)HCDIt)Hc-iCD<‘CDH--jH-CDlCDI1‘lCD ClIx‘dI00Ic-I-0)0IH-CD0IH-(tC)CD0)HCDc-i-0)H-0HH-I10_0’IHIHCl-IoHCDtCD<II--t)0c-i-U)0•H-Cl)0H-OHCt)0OHCc-i-0U)1)Ii-hH(I)0IH-<CDI—’H-I0)0I0)c-i-H-C)ZIc-i-c-i-100c-i-0)qClU)II-hCDClCDH•.•CDCDII‘10 0 H CnftftC.4H-ft0-CDhp).•CDCD0Q—.CDCDHH,wC1DI•J)H-OH-tj’)QOD0C)H)•--•CDft.IIHC)HCD0CD)cA):0C!)ftCDCD<0ftU21<‘dHd.H)(DO1Cl)oiiI-t-CDHH-Cl)rtIftbCI)0H-IH(DftC)ZIp.’ftp.’ICDt!)HCDIt(Dh)IH-(D!))CDItnCDftC!)-ftc!)HH-CDC))0P.’CDft1iH-C)-CD00C))HCDCl)QOIC!)zlCDH-C))IXtnCflCDtsiIH,-10‘1CDP.IHH-I’J1P)CD•ft(1)CD-1wCD-Cl(0CDIOH,-H-IC)H)P)(0CDPCI)—.)hI-(.ftCD(‘3•H-HOP.’0C)C))•CD•ftAppendix A215CONCEPTIONS OF SELF ANDRThe purpose of this study is to examine how people understand and experience theirrelationships with others. If you are currently in a romantic relationship of at least threemonths duration you are eligible to participate in this study. The questionnaire that followsasks you to provide some information about your feelings about being in relationships withclose others. The questionnaire should take about 5 minutes to complete.On the basis of this questionnaire, we will select some people to participate in alarger study of close relationships, involving a two-hour questionnaire. Therefore, we askthat you provide your first name and last initial, your sex, and a telephone number whereyou may be contacted for possible further participation in this study.This study is being undertaken as part of the requirements for Sandra Parker’sPh.D. thesis. Everything that you write will be kept completely confidential. Individualseligible for participation in the next part of the study will be contacted within three monthsof submitting their questionnaires. The responses of those individuals who are notcontacted within three months will be destroyed.You may refuse to participate or withdraw from this study at any time withoutjeopardizing your class standing. If you complete the questionnaire it will be assumed thatyour consent to participate in this study has been given.Thank you for your time and participation. The benefits which you may gain fromtaking part in this study include an increased awareness of your views and experience ofrelationships with others. If you have any questions or would like further information, youare welcome to contact the investigators at the numbers given below. In addition, thefollowing articles may be of interest to you if you wish to learn more about this area:1) Clark, M.S. & Reis, H.T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships.Annual Review of Psychology, , 609-672.2) Reis, H.T. & Shaver, P.R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck(Ed.), Handbook of research in personal relationships (pp 367-389). London:Wiley.Sandra Parker 822-5581 Dr. Daniel Perlman 822-6138Relationship QuestionnairePlease think about the way you usually feel in your close relationships with others. Thinkabout all of your close relationships - not just how you usually feel in your romanticrelationships, or your friendships, or your family relationships, but how you feel ingeneral, across ll of your relationships that you consider to be close.Below are descriptions of four general relationship styles that people often report.Please read the four following descriptions (A, B, C, and D) and CIRCLE the one lettercorresponding to the style that best describes you or is closest to the way you generally arein your close relationships.A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortabledepending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about beingalone or having others not accept me.B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationshipsbut I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry thatI will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find thatothers are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable beingwithout close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me asmuch as I value them.D. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to meto feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or haveothers depend on me.Referring to the four descriptions on the previous page, please use the scales below to rateh of the relationship styles (A, B, C, & D) according to the extent to which youthink each description corresponds to your usual relationship style across all of yourclose relationships.Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like meStyleA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleD 1 2 3 4 5 6 748Please tell us a little about your current romantic relationship:1. How long have you been in this relationship? (in months)________________2. Do you and others consider you and your partner to be a “couple”? Yes No3. Do you live with your romantic partner? Yes No4. Is this your only current romantic relationship? Yes No5. Is your romantic partner male or female? Male FemaleNow, think about your closest friends (jj including your romantic partner, your mother,or your father). Among your closest friends, what number are women?___________Among your closest friends, what number are men?__________I am (circle one): Male FemaleSo that one of the investigators may contact you for future participation in our study, weask that you provide the following information:First name and initial of last name:______________________Telephone number where I can be reached is:__(please indicate good/bad times to call, if any).Thank you for your participation.2tI CONCEPTIONS OF SELF AND RELATIONSHIPS IThe purpose of this study is to examine how people understand and experience theircurrent relationships with others. We are interested in your current romantic relationship,closest same-sex friendship, and closest opposite-sex friendship (other than your romanticpartner).It is very important that you complete this questionnaire on your own, without consultingwith others. Your unique point of view is very valuable to us, since you are the expert on yourexperience. Even though you might want to talk about some of the items in the questionnaire,please wait until after you have completed it on your own before discussing it with others.Please set aside enough privacy and time to reflect carefully on your close relationships, and tellus what it feels like for you to be in those relationships.The questionnaire that follows asks you to provide some information about yourself andabout each of the three relationships. For each relationship, you are asked to complete a set ofquestions about what you generally feel and do when you are with each of those persons. Thequestionnaire should take about 2 hours to complete.This study is being undertaken as part of the requirements for Sandra Parker’s Ph.D.thesis. All answers that you provide will be kept completely confidential. Please do not writeyour name or student identification on this questionnaire. We will create an anonymousidentification number for each respondent. You may refuse to participate or withdraw from thisstudy at any time without jeopardizing your class standing. If you complete the questionnaire itwill be assumed that your consent to participate in this study has been given.Thank you for your time and participation. The benefits you may gain from taking part inthis study include an opportunity to reflect on and share your experience of being inrelationships, and an increased awareness of your views of relationships with others. If youhave any questions or would like further information, you are welcome to contact theinvestigators at the numbers given below. In addition, we invite you to contact the investigatorsfor information about the results and findings of this study, which will be available to youapproximately one year from now. Also, the following articles may be of interest to you if youwish to learn more about this area:1) Clark, M.S. & Reis, H.T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. AnnualReview of Psychology, 39, 609-672.2) Reis, H.T. & Shaver, P.R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.),Handbook of research in personal relationships (pp 367-38 9). London: Wiley.Sandra Parker 822-5581 Dr. Daniel Per/man 822-6138Part 1: Background Information. Please write your answers in the right-hand column below.Please tell us about yourself:1. What is your sex? Female = 1 Male = 22. What is your age? (in years)3. What year are you in university? (choose one)1 2 3 4 5 (= grad student)4. a) What is your ethnic identification?_____________________b) If you provided us with your ethnic identification, please use the scale below to indicate theextent to which you feel your ethnic identification influences your close relationships withothers: (Circle one).1 2 3 4 5not at all a little moderately very much completelyPlease tell us about your romantic partner:1. What is her/his sex? Female = 1 Male = 2_____________2. What is her/his age? (in years)3. How long have you been in this relationship? years and__ __months4. How often, on average, do you see/speak to this person? Number of times_____per (checkone) — day, — week, or — month5. How close are you to this person? (use the scale below for your answer)1 2 3 4 5a little somewhat moderately very extremelyPlease tell us about your closest same-sex friend: The only exceptions are: do r describe yourromantic partner again, and do not describe your mother or father.1. What is her/his sex? Female = 1 Male = 22. What is her/his age? (in years)3. How long have you been in this relationship? years and_months4. How often, on average, do you see/speak to this person? Number of times per (checkone) — day, — week, or— month5. Is this person a relative by blood or marriage?(if so, please state the relationship)6. How close are you to this person? (use the scale below for your answer)___1 2 3 4 5a little somewhat fairly very extremelyPlease turn over...z2iPage 2Please tell us about your closest opposite-sex friend: The only exceptions are: do !22.t describeyour romantic partner again, and do not describe your mother or father.1. What is her/his sex? Female = 1 Male = 2________2. What is her/his age? (in years)3. How long have you been in this relationship?_____years and_____months4. How often, on average, do you see/speak to this person? Number of times_____per (checkone) day, week, or month5. Is this person a relative by blood or marriage?(if so, please state the kin relationship)6. How close are you to this person? (use the scale below for your answer)1 2 3 4 5a little somewhat fairly very extremelyPart 2: Romantic partnerThe next few pages will focus on your relationship with your romantic partner. Please thinkabout that relationship and, using the scales provided below, give your best estimate ofhow often or how much the following things are experienced in your relationship.MPDQ:When you talk about things that matter to y, how often does your romantic partner .. .(answerusing the scale below):1 2 3 4 5 6never rarely occasionally more often most of alwaysthan not the time1. pick up on your feelings2. feel like you’re not getting anywhere3. show an interest4. get frustrated5. change the subject6. share similar experiences7. keep feelings inside8. respect my point of view9. see the humour in things10. feel down11. express an opinion clearlyPage 3When you talk about things that matter to your romantic partner, how often do you... (answerusing the scale below):1 2 3 4 5 6never rarely occasionally more often most of alwaysthan not the time1. become receptive2. get impatient3. try to understand4. feel moved5. avoid being honest6. get discouraged7. have difficulty listening8. get involved9. feel energized10. get bored11.keepanopenmindMSIS:Keeping in mind your relationship with your romantic partner, please use the scale below to tellus how often you experience the following:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Very rarely Some of the time Almost always1. When you have leisure time how often do you choose to spend it with him/her alone?______2. How often do you keep very personal information to yourself and do not share it withhim/her?____3. How often do you show him/her affection?4. How often do you confide very personal information to him/her?__5. How often are you able to understand his her feelings?6. How often do you feel close to him/her?7. How much do you like to spend time alone with him/her?__8. How much do you feel like being encouraging and supportive to him/herwhen he/she is unhappy?9. How close do you feel to him/her most of the time?10. How important is it to you to listen to his/her very personal disclosures?Please turn over...a13Page 4Keeping in mind your relationship with your romantic partner, please use the scale below to tellus how much you experience the following:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Not much A little A great deal11. How satisfying is your relationship with him/her?1 2. How affectionate do you feel towards him/her?13. How important is it to you that he/she understands your feelings?14. How much damage is caused by a typical disagreement in yourrelationship with him/her?1 5. How important is it to you that he/she be encouraging and supportive to youwhen you are unhappy?1 6. How important is it to you that he/she show you affection?1 7. How important is your relationship with him/her in your life?ROCI:Keeping in mind your relationship with your romantic partner, think about how you typicallyhandle things when you want to get your way with that person. Please use the scalebelow to tell us how characteristic of you are the following statements:1 2 3 4 5Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like me1. I try to investigate an issue with my romantic partner to find a solutionacceptable to us.2. I generally try to satisfy the needs of my romantic partner.3. I attempt to avoid being “put on the spot” and try to keep my conflictwith my romantic partner to myself.4. I try to integrate my ideas with those of my romantic partner to come upwith a decision jointly.5. I try to work with my romantic partner to find solutions to a problemwhich satisfy our expectations.Page 5l(eeping in mind your relationship with your romantic partner, think about how you typicallyhandle things when you want to get your way. Please use the scale below to tell us howcharacteristic of you are the following statements:1 2 3 4 5Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like me6. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with my romantic partner.7. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse.8. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted.9. I use my authority to make a decision in my favour.10. I usually accomodate to the wishes of my romantic partner.11. I give in to the wishes of my romantic partner.1 2. I exchange accurate information with my romantic partner to solve aproblem together.1 3. I usually allow concessions to my romantic partner.14. I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.1 5. I negotiate with my romantic partner so that a compromise can be reached.1 6. I try to stay away from disagreement with my romantic partner.17. I avoid an encounter with my romantic partner.18. I use my expertise to make a decision in my favour.1 9. I often go along with the suggestions of my romantic partner.20. I use “give and take” so that a compromise can be made.21. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue with my romantic partner.22. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolvedin the best possible way.23. I collaborate with my romantic partner to come up with decisionsacceptable to us.24. I try to satisfy the expectations of my romantic partner.25. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation withmy romantic partner.26. I try to keep my disagreement with my romantic partner to myself in orderto avoid hard feelings.27. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my romantic partner.28. I try to work with my romantic partner for a proper understanding of a problem.Please turn over...acPage 6Part 3: Same-sex FriendThe next few pages will focus on your relationship with the person you identified at thebeginning of this questionnaire as your closest same-sex friend. Please think about thatrelationship and, using the scales provided below, give your best estimate of how often or howmuch the following things are experienced it, your closest same-sex friendship. MPDQ:When you talk about things that matter to y, how often does your closest same-sex friend(answer using the scale below):1 2 3 4 5 6never rarely occasionally more often most of alwaysthan not the time1. pick up on your feelings2. feel like you’re not getting anywhere3. show an interest4. get frustrated5. change the subject6. share similar experiences7. keep feelings inside8. respect my point of view9. see the humour in things10. feel down11. express an opinion clearlyWhen you talk about things that matter to your closest same-sex friend, how often doyou.. .(answer using the scale below):1 2 3 4 5 6never rarely occasionally more often most of alwaysthan not the time1. become receptive2. get impatient3. try to understand4. feel moved5. avoid being honest6. get discouraged7. have difficulty listening8. get involved9. feel energized10. get bored11. keep an open mindMSIS: Page 7Keeping in mind your relationship with your closest same-sex friend, please use the scale belowto tell us how often you experience the following:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Very rarely Some of the time Almost always1. When you have leisure time how often do you choose to spend it with him/her alone?_____2. How often do you keep very personal information to yourself and do not share it withhim/her?____3. How often do you show him/her affection?_4. How often do you confide very personal information to him/her?_ ___5. How often are you able to understand his her feelings?6. How often do you feel close to him/her?7. How much do you like to spend time alone with him/her?8. How much do you feel like being encouraging and supportive to him/herwhen he/she is unhappy?9. How close do you feel to him/her most of the time?10. How important is it to you to listen to his/her very personal disclosures?11. How satisfying is your relationship with him/her?1 2. How affectionate do you feel towards him/her?13. How important is it to you that he/she understands your feelings?14. How much damage is caused by a typical disagreement in yourrelationship with him/her?1 5. How important is it to you that he/she be encouraging and supportive to youwhen you are unhappy?1 6. How important is it to you that he/she show you affection?17. How important is your relationship with him/her in your life?ROCI:Keeping in mind your relationship with your closest same-sex friend, think about how youtypically handle things when you want to get your way with that person. Please use thescale below to tell us how characteristic of you are the following statements:1 2 3 4 5Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like me1. I try to investigate an issue with my friend to find a solution acceptable to us.2. I generally try to satisfy the needs of my friend.3. I attempt to avoid being put on the spot” and try to keep my conflictwith my friend to myself.Please turn over...Page 81 2 3 4 5Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like me4. I try to integrate my ideas with those of my friend to come up with a decision jointly.______5. I try to work with my friend to find solutions to a problem which satisfyour expectations.6. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with my friend.7. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse.8. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted.9. I use my authority to make a decision in my favour.10. I usually accomodate to the wishes of my friend.11. I give in to the wishes of my friend.1 2. I exchange accurate information with my friend to solve aproblem together.13. I usually allow concessions to my friend.14. I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.1 5. I negotiate with my friend so that a compromise can be reached.1 6. I try to stay away from disagreement with my friend.17. I avoid an encourter with my friend.18. I use my expertise to make a decision in my favour.1 9. I often go along with the suggestions of my friend.20. I use “give and take” so that a compromise can be made.21. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue with my friend.22. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolvedin the best possible way.23. I collaborate with my friend to come up with decisionsacceptable to us.24. I try to satisfy the expectations of my friend.25. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation withmy friend.26. I try to keep my disagreement with my friend to myself in orderto avoid hard feelings.27. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my friend.28. I try to work with my friend for a proper understanding of a problem.MPDQ: Page 9Part 4: Opposite-sex FriendThe next few pages will focus on your relationship with the person you identified at thebeginning of this questionnaire as your closest opposite-sex friend. Please think about thatrelationship and, using the scales provided below, give your best estimate of how often or howmuch the following things are experienced in your closest opposite-sex friendship.When you talk about things that matter to y, how often does your friend .. .(answer using thescale below):1 2 3 4 5 6never rarely occasionally more often most of alwaysthan not the time1. pick up on your feelings2. feel like you’re not getting anywhere3. show an interest4. get frustrated5. change the subject6. share similar experiences7. keep feelings inside8. respect my point of view9. see the humour in things10. feel down11. express an opinion clearlyWhen you talk about things that matter to your closest opposite-sex friend, how often doyou... (answer using the scale below):1 2 3 4 5 6never rarely occasionally more often most of alwaysthan not the time1. become receptive2. get impatient3. try to understand4. feel moved5. avoid being honest6. get discouraged7. have difficulty listening8. get involved9. feel energized10. get bored11. keep an open mindPlease turn over...MSIS: Page 10Keeping in mind your relationship with your closest opposite-sex friend, please use the scalebelow to tell us how often you experience the following:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Very rarely Some of the time Almost always1. When you have leisure time how often do you choose to spend it with him/her alone?2. How often do you keep very personal information to yourself and do not share it withhim/her?3. How often do you show him/her affection?4. How often do you confide very personal information to him/her?5. How often are you able to understand his her feelings?6. How often do you feel close to him/her?7. How much do you like to spend time alone with him/her?8. How much do you feel like being encouraging and supportive to him/herwhen he/she is unhappy?9. How close do you feel to him/her most of the time?10. How important is it to you to listen to his/her very personal disclosures?11. How satisfying is your relationship with him/her?1 2. How affectionate do you feel towards him/her?13. How important is it to you that he/she understands your feelings?14. How much damage is caused by a typical disagreement in yourrelationship with him/her?1 5. How important is it to you that he/she be encouraging and supportive to youwhen you are unhappy?1 6. How important is it to you that he/she show you affection?1 7. How important is your relationship with him/her in your life?ROCI:Keeping in mind your relationship with your closest opposite-sex friend, think about how youtypically handle things when you want to get your way with that person. Please use thescale below to tell us how characteristic of you are the following statements:1 2 3 4 5Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like me1. I try to investigate an issue with my friend to find a solution acceptable to us.2. I generally try to satisfy the needs of my friend.3. I attempt to avoid being “put on the spot” and try to keep my conflictwith my friend to myself.a3oPage 111 2 3 4 5Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like me4. I try to integrate my ideas with those of my friend to come upwith a decision jointly.5. I try to work with my friend to find solutions to a problemwhich satisfy our expectations.6. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with my friend.7. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse.8. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted.9. I use my authority to make a decision in my favour.10. I usually accomodate to the wishes of my friend.11. I give in to the wishes of my friend.1 2. I exchange accurate information with my friend to solve aproblem together.13. I usually allow concessions to my friend.14. I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.15. I negotiate with my friend so that a compromise can be reached.1 6. I try to stay away from disagreement with my friend.17. I avoid an encounter with my friend.18. I use my expertise to make a decision in my favour.19. I often go along with the suggestions of my friend.20. I use “give and take” so that a compromise can be made.21. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue with my friend.22. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolvedin the best possible way.23. I collaborate with my friend to come up with decisionsacceptable to us.24. I try to satisfy the expectations of my friend.25. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation withmy friend.26. I try to keep my disagreement with my friend to myself in orderto avoid hard feelings.27. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my friend.28. I try to work with my friend for a proper understanding of a problem.Please turn over....231Page 12Part 6: ROSSNow, please think specifically about your close same-sex friendships. Think about how youusually feel, and CIRCLE the letter which best corresponds to the way you generally are in yourclose same-sex friendships.A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others of the same sex. I am comfortabledepending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone orhaving others of the same sex not accept me.B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others of the same sex. I want emotionally closerelationships with others of the same sex but I find it difficult to trust others of the samesex completely. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to othersof the same sex.C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others of the same sex, but I often feelthat they are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being withoutclose same-sex friendships, but I sometimes worry that others of the same sex don’tvalue me as much as I value them.D. I am comfortable without close emotional friendships with others of the same sex. It is veryimportant to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend onothers of the same sex, or to have others of the same sex depend on me.Referring to the four descriptions above, please use the scales below to rate of the relationshipstyles (A, B, C, & D) according to the extent to which you think each descriptioncorresponds to your usual relationship style across your close same-sex friendships.Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like meStyleA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Page 13Part 7: RQOSNow, please think specifically about your close opposite-sex friendships (not including yourromantic partner). Think about how you usually feel, and CIRCLE the letter which bestcorresponds to the way you generally are in your close opposite-sex friendships.A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others of the opposite sex. I am comfortabledepending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone orhaving others of the opposite sex not accept me.B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others of the opposite sex. I want emotionally closerelationships with others of the opposite sex but I find it difficult to trust themcompletely. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others ofthe opposite sex.C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others of the opposite sex, but I often feelthat they are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being withoutclose opposite-sex friendships, but I sometimes worry that others of the opposite sexdon’t value me as much as I value them.D. I am comfortable without close emotional friendships with others of the opposite sex. It isvery important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to dependon others of the opposite sex, or to have others of the opposite sex depend on me.Referring to the four descriptions above, please use the scales below to rate cli of the relationshipstyles (A, B, C, & D) according to the extent to which you think each descriptioncorresponds to your usual relationship style across your close opposite-sex friendships.- Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like meStyleA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Please turn over...Page 14Part 8: RORRNow, please think specifically about your romantic relationships. Think about how you usuallyfeel, and CIRCLE the letter which best corresponds to the way you generally are in yourromantic relationships.A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to a romantic partner. I am comfortabledepending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone orhaving a romantic partner not accept me.B. I am uncomfortable getting close to a romantic partner. I want an emotionally closerelationship with a romantic partner but 1 find it difficult to trust romantic partnerscompletely. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to a romanticpartner.C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with a romantic partner, but I often feel thatthey are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without aromantic partner, but I sometimes worry that they don’t value me as much as I valuethem.D. I am comfortable without a close emotional relationship with a romantic partner. It is veryimportant to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on aromantic partner, or to have a romantic partner depend on me.Referring to the four descriptions above, please use the scales below to rate &h of the relationshipstyles (A, B, C, & D) according to the extent to which you think each descriptioncorresponds to your usual relationship style in your romantic relationships.Not at all Somewhat Very muchlike me like me like meStyleA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7StyleD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Thank you for taking part in our study of personal relationships. We appreciate yourcontribution of time and energy, and we value your unique perspective on your relationships.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items