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

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-953772.pdf [ 3.81MB ]
Metadata
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
831-1.0088298-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088298.ris

Full Text

INTIMACY AND INFLUENCE STRATEGIES: A FUNCTION OF GENDER,  ATTACHMENT STYLE,  AND TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP by Sandra Parker  B.A.,  University of British Columbia,  1988  M.A.,  University of British Columbia,  1990  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1994  ©  Sandra Parker,  1994  presenting In this thesis partial in fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or or his by her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)__  Department of___________________ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  11  Abstract Gender differences behave  in  findings,  close yet  relationships  there  such patterns.  in the ways  are  are  also  individuals think about and widely  reported  inconsistencies  and  and  reliable  exceptions  in  More integrative and theory—driven approaches may  better focus research efforts and deepen our understanding of the complexities Attachment manner  of  close  theory  in which  relationships  provides  a  rich  individuals engage  affectional bonds.  for  women  framework  for  and  men.  examining  the  in and make meaning of their  There appears good reason to speculate that  gender and attachment style mutually shape the terrain of close relationships attachment A  with  style  others,  yet  the  joint  effects  are rarely hypothesized and  cross—sectional  study  of  university  of  gender  and  explicitly tested. undergraduates  was  conducted with 20 women and 20 men each screened into one of four attachment using  styles  self—report  (secure,  fearful,  measures  preoccupied,  (N=160).  dismissing)  Participants  reported  on  intimacy and influence strategies in their romantic relationship, closest  same  dependent with  variable,  gender:  dismissing  sex,  1)  men;  and  cross  attachment  dismissing 2)  sex  women  patterns  of  friendship.  style  For  significantly  reported intimacy  higher within  relationship types differed for women and men.  first  the  interacted  intimacy gender  than  across  Relationship type  was associated with different patterns of intimacy for women and men;  e.g.,  men  consistently  reported highest  intimacy  in  their  romantic relationship whereas women’s most intimate relationship varied  between  same  sex  friendship  and  romantic  relationship.  111  This research provides new influence  strategies  were more  likely than all  fearful  for  support  for hypothesized profiles  each attachment style:  subjects to use  others to use  avoidance;  secure  influence use  type  was  associated  by gender:  e.g.,  subjects  integration/compromise;  dismissing to use dominance;  and preoccupied to use both domination and obliging Relationship  of  with  different  men used more  strategies. patterns  dominance  of  in same  sex friendships than romantic relationships, whereas the reverse was  true  for  women.  This  joint effects of gender, on  individuals’  strategies.  reports  study  illustrates  attachment style, of  intimacy  the  separate  and  and relationship type  and  use  of  influence  iv  Table of Contents  Abstract List of Tables List of Figures  viii ix  Acknowledgements  x  Introduction  1  Gender Patterns in Three Types of Close Relationships  3  Prevailing Differences in Men’s and Women’s Relationships. .3 Gender Composition and Type of Relationship  5  Friendship  5  Same sex Friendship  6  Cross sex Friendship  8  Romantic Relationships  10  Gender is not the Whole Picture...  12  Attachment Theory  13  Overview of Attachment Theory  13  Application of Attachment to Adult Relationships  19  Conceptual Analysis  19  Empirical Findings  24  Bartholomew’s Four—Category Model.  28  Gender and Attachment  35  Limitations in Attachment Research to Date  38  Intimacy as a Core Relational Process  41  The Nature of Intimacy in Relationships  41  The Intimacy Process  43  Attachment and Intimacy  45  V  Hypotheses: Attachment and Intimacy  48  Gender Differences in Intimacy  48  Hypotheses:  Gender and Intimacy  53  Hypotheses:  Gender x Relationship type  -  Intimacy  Gender and Attachment Intersect Hypotheses:  Gender x Attachment  Three-way Interaction Hypotheses:  -  54 54  -  Intimacy  Intimacy  56 57  Three-way Interaction  -  Intimacy  Influence Strategies  58 58  The Nature of Influence in Relationships  58  Attachment Styles and Influence Strategies  60  Hypotheses:  63  Attachment and Influence  Gender Patterns in Influence Strategies  63  Hypotheses:  Gender and Influence Strategies  66  Hypotheses:  Gender x Relationship Type  66  -  Influence  Gender and Attachment Intersect Hypotheses:  Gender x Attachment  67 -  Influence  68  Summary of Hypotheses  69  Methods  72  Issues in the Measurement of Attachment  72  Subjects  75  Measures  77  Procedures  83  Attachment Style Screening  83  Relationship Screening  85  Results Description of Sample  89 89  vi  Reliability of Attachment Category Assignment  97  Category Assignment by Relationship Type  98  Study Design and Analyses  103  Intimacy  106  MANOVA Results  106  Sex by Attachment Style Interaction  107  Attachment Style Main Effect  114  Sex by Relationship Type Interaction  114  Relationship Type Main Effect  121  Influence  121  MANOVA Results  121  Attachment Style Main Effect  123  Sex by Relationship Type Interaction  131  Sex Main Effect  143  Relationship Type Main Effect  143  Summary of Results  144  Summary of Results:  Intimacy  145  Summary of Results:  Influence  147  Discussion  150  Discussion of Significant Findings Attachment Style,  Gender and Intimacy  151 151  Attachment Style and Influence Strategies  153  Relational Context and Intimacy  157  Relational Context and Influence Strategies  158  Discussion of Nonsignificant Findings  162  Adequacy of the Study as a Test of the Hypotheses  170  Sampling Issues  170  vii  Design Issues:  Target Relationship  171  Design Issues:  Power  172  Adequacy of Measures  173  Adequacy of Classification  175  Replication of Previous Findings  177  Summary  178  Implications of This Research  180  Attachment  180  Gender Differences in Relationships  184  Clinical Implications  185  Future Research  187  Improvements to This Study  187  Extending the Findings  189  Conclusions  192  References  194  Appendix A  216  viii  List  of  Tables  1.  Sample Descriptives  90  2.  Ethnic Distribution  95-96  3.  One Way MANOVA and follow-up ANOVA’s on Reliability of Category Assignment  4.  Crosstabulation: One  99  Attachment Style Category at Time  (over all 3 relationship types)  by Time Two  (by separate relationship types) 5.  MANOVA Results:  6.  Two Between-Subjects Results:  Intimacy  Cell Means:  8.  One Between-Subjects,  Intimacy  relationship type) Cell Means:  (sex,  Intimacy  -  ANOVA  Sex by Attachment Style One Within-Subjects  ANOVA Results: -  11.  One Between-Subjects  Intimacy  (attachment style)  119—120  ANOVA 124  12.  Cell Means:  13.  One Between-Subjects,  Cell Means:  118  122  Influence Influence  relationship type)  111—112  (sex,  Sex by Relationship Type  MANOVA Results:Influence  14.  attachment style)  110  10.  Results:  108  Intimacy  7.  9.  100  -  Attachment Style Main Effect  One Within—Subjects  ANOVA Results:  Influence  -  125  (sex,  Influence  Sex by Relationship Type  134—135 136—139  ix  List of Figures  1.  Study Design . 104  2.  Intimacy as a Function of Gender and Attachment  113  3.  Intimacy as a Function of Gender and Relationship Type  116  4.  Integrative Influence as a Function of Attachment and Avoidant Influence as a Function of Attachment  5.  126  Dominating Influence as a Function of Attachment and Obliging Influence as a Function of Attachment  127  6.  Influence Profiles:  Secure and Fearful  129  7.  Influence Profiles:  Preoccupied and Dismissing  130  8.  Avoidant Influence by Relationship Type  133  9.  Dominating Influence by Relationship Type  140  Obliging Influence by Relationship Type  141  10.  x  Acknowledgements  I gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their unique  contributions  research.  I  thank  to  my  successful  Charlotte Johnston  for  committee both at the Masters and Ph.D. providing  clear  and  helpful  completion serving  levels,  feedback.  I  of  on my  this thesis  and consistently  also  thank  Boris  Gorzalka for actively supporting me in my professional goals, for his most outsider’s Williams  valuable  combination  perspective.  for  I  her honesty,  of  an  sincerely  intelligence,  insider’s  appreciate  unflagging  thought  and  support  capacity  education and my to  Danfel  within a  And haven,  whose  context of  my  for  life.  Perlman  appropriate risks,  of  Brian  de  Tannis  care  an  McBeth and  I am grateful for  Vries,  heartfelt  view with  insight and humour,  her generosity in sharing those gifts with me. the  and  whose have  clarity  of  enriched  my  I wish to acknowledge my deep gratitude wisdom  respect and  and  generativity  encouragement,  to  permitted  me,  explore,  take  and to enjoy this investigative endeavour.  deepest  thanks  and a dear friend.  to  Cam  Oxendale,  for  being  a  safe  1  INTRODUCTION  Our relatedness with through which we  come  others  to  forms  understand  ourselves  flows personal meaning and happiness Rodgers,  1976; Freedman,  being  such  in  adjustment without  and  close  is  well-being, such  such  and as  in  and  1977).  as  out  of which  Converse &  The importance of in the  better  the  loneliness  interconnection  Campbell,  illustrated both  relationships,  bonds,  (e.g.,  1978; Klinger,  meaningful relationships  a web of  risks (Reis  benefits  psychosocial  to &  of  individuals  Shaver,  1988).  Much of what makes up the terrain of psychopathology is comprised of  difficulties  in  Reiffer,  1987)  that  personality  a  interpersonal  loss  disorder  physical health of  close  1987; Lynch,  is  essentially  is  (Widiger & Frances,  others  (Hojat  1977; Peplau & Perlman,  closeness  &  1982).  a  1985,  disorder  of  620).  As  p.  Vogel,  in the  fostering of  in and  Jemmott,  1987;  Above and beyond the  is  intrinsically  involving feelings of being understood and cared for,  (Jordan,  &  intimate connections with  (or not having)  interpersonal  and pleasure  Sheldon  profoundly affected by deficits  bonds with  consequences of having others,  (West,  and there is “empirical support for the hypothesis  interpersonal relatedness” well,  functioning  rewarding, affection,  one’s own and another’s growth  1985).  Gender differences  in the ways  individuals  think about  behave in close relationships are widely reported Johnson,  1983;  Penman,  1981).  Bell,  1981;  Caldwell  &  Peplau,  (e.g.,  1982;  and  Aries &  Dickens  &  Women’s relationships may be characterized by a  2  model  of  communality  personal  concern,  contrast  to  involving  and  men’s  shared  relationships  is  experience  evident  (Reis,  may  and  be  emotional  in  more  in and  self—report  and  implicated  in  less  intimate  in  women’s  observational  settings,  Gender differences  in  attitudes  in interpersonal  differences  in  adaptive  outcomes for men and women.  Investigations of loneliness  1986)  (Weiss,  and adaptation to loss  1976)  in  relationships,  emphasis  naturalistic  confiding,  understanding,  orientation  emotional  1986).  also  involving  competitiveness,  greater  laboratory  and behaviors  of  agentic  activities,  This  in  1966),  sharing  more  disclosure.  measures,  (Bakan,  (Reis,  indicate that men may  be more at risk for emotional or physical problems than women if they lose or do not have a romantic partner.  At the same time,  women are more likely to be sought out for support by both women and men under empathic  stress  concern  about  “cost of caring”) events  (Buhrke &  Fuqua,  problems  in  1987)  their  and women’s greater social  networks  (the  may be related to greater vulnerability to life  (Kessler & McLeod,  1985).  While there currently exists a significant body of empirical research  into  relationships integrative  the for  and  importance, women  and  theory—driven  nature men,  and  there  approaches  functions is  that  a  need  may  of  close more  for  better  focus  research efforts and deepen our understanding of the complexities of  such  provides  bonds. a  rich  Attachment framework  theory for  (Bowlby,  examining  1973,  the  1980,  manner  in  1982) which  individuals engage in and make meaning of their affectional bonds with  others.  Differences  in  internal  working  models  of  3 attachment  shape  behavioral  aspects  1992).  motivational, of  Intimacy  interpersonal  and  influence  processes which encompass (e.g.,  Clark  &  cognitive,  Reis,  affective  processes are  (Shaver  overarching  1988).  The  proposed  intimacy  relational  investigation  is  findings in the gender literature and  by theoretical and empirical work in attachment, how  Hazan,  core dimensions of close relationships  directed both by empirical  examine  &  and  and  influence  and attempts to  processes  in  close  relationships vary as a function of gender and attachment style. The nature  discussion  of  specific  gender  focus  on  which  follows  will  differences  in  the  type  role  composition of the dyad.  of  close  style  Following an  as  a  overview  and recent findings  of  on  moderating of  the  and  attachment  to  intimacy  the  with  and  a  gender  and the notion of  will  be  introduced.  theoretical  perspective  the  limitations of  then be presented,  with  influence  an emphasis Finally,  the  type of relationship,  and  attachment-style patterns.  and  the  The relational processes of  intersecting relations amongst gender, attachment  relationship  variable  in adult attachment,  influence will  gender patterns  addressing  relationships,  be noted,  research to date will be discussed. intimacy and  by  Gaps and inconsistencies in this broad  portrait of gender differences will attachment  begin  processes,  which  form  crux of this thesis, will be proposed.  Gender Patterns in Three Types of Close Relationships  Prevailing Differences in Men’s and Women’s Relationships  the  4 Of  the  many  bonds  with  Women  generally  elements  others,  none  are  men’s  shape  the  as  basic  as  is  encouraged  skills such as empathy, whereas  that  gender  develop  (Basow,  teaches 1992).  them  of  close  (Bell,  and  emotional expressiveness,  socialization  emotional expression  to  patterning  use  1981).  relational  and nurturance,  to  guard  against  In a review of theories and  research into gender differences  in emotional development,  (1985)  “gender  concludes  areas of  emotional  expressiveness, quality  that  of  ability”  there  are  functioning,  self—reports  defenses,  and  differences  including nonverbal  of  anger,  cognitive  fear  several  sensitivity,  and  correlates  in  Brody  sadness,  of  the  recognition  102).  (p.  The results of several studies suggest that women more than men construe their relationships holistically, and verbal focus; instrumental with  them  nature  in  1983;  Barth  1988;  Parker  in contrast,  &  a  of  more  report  Kinder,  1988;  & de Vries,  friends  being  relations with  Davidson  1992).  others  way  (e.g.  &  Packard,  Women  interact  and  Aries 1981;  score higher  Johnson,  &  Hendrick,  in measures  empathic concern and communal orientation,  more  than do men  men more than women emphasize the  differentiated  of perspective—taking, and  their  with an affective  behaviorally  (Omoto & Mooney,  these findings has prompted Wright  interdependent 1991).  (1982)  with  their  The consistency of  to characterize women’s  relationships as face—to—face and men’s relationships as side—by— side, other,  reflecting  women’s  emotional,  personalized  focus  on  the  in contrast to men’s focus on shared external activities.  5 The Gender Composition and Type of Relationship The above mentioned findings on gender differences  in close  relationships focus on the sex—of—subject variable.  Recent work  however  the  has  illustrated  composition of the dyad, in  the  extent  evident  to  (Reis,  involves pairs.  gender  1986).  One  the  notes  that  assess  or  in  relationship,  or  of  not  since  who  are  in  relationship close  in samples  type  relationships.  investigation Snyder,  to  & Omoto,  are  patterns  .  of  span  .  it  is  several  1989, p.  or  type  cross  (1988), it  vary  for  is a  for example,  is  currently  sex  important in  a  to  romantic  women  and  men  single people than among those  influencing .  sex  are  investigators may expect fewer  relationships.  for  interaction  relationship  same  self-disclosure  disclosure  in  of  Tschann  respondents  romantic  gender  is whether the relationship  depending on relationship status: gender differences  are  friendship.  studies  whether  consider  differences  participants  is a  to  consideration  A second consideration  romantic one,  need  which apparently plays an important role  which  whether  the  Despite answers  relatively  the  to  questions  rare  relationship  “potency  for  types”  a  of  about single  (Berscheid,  804).  Friendship In response to the question “What is it that makes your life meaningful?” respondents of both genders have cited close friends more  frequently  partners,  who  Despite this,  than  were  any  listed  other next  source, most  including  often  (Klinger,  romantic 1977).  friendship has been until recently an understudied  6 relationship,  its  lives  largely  1982).  In  meaning  and  unexamined  part  this  by  may  importance  psychologists be  due  boundaries of friendship  (wright,  describe  different  range  a  of  identified  as  one  of  to  the  least  rituals  to  celebrate  authors  have  marriage  argued  and  relationships the meaning 1985,  p.  that  the  family,  that  count  and  our  importance  ambiguous  1983),  and  socially  lacking any public  of  any  these  have  in  kind.  Some  ideology  that  long haul,  friendship  casual  Friendship has  programmed  insistence  of  Peplau,  from  1988).  well—developed  the  &  uniquely  friendships  “our  for  (Caldwell  women’s  the term can be used to  (Hays,  (Aries & Johnson,  or  and  relationships  defined relationships honor  men’s  the  1982);  acquaintance to intimate confidante been  in  our  about  are  the  blinded us lives”  to  (Rubin,  9).  Same sex friendship. relationship  most  Same sex friendship is the most common  individuals  (Dickens & Perlman,  1981;  have  woolsey,  throughout  1987).  their  lives  Homosociality,  or the  tendency to prefer the company of others of the same sex  (Lipman—  Blumen,  men  women.  1976), Same  is sex  a  well-established  relationships  pattern most obviously; that is, face  distinction  interactions  with  seems  most  others  of  tend  finding to  for  both  illustrate  depth  and  same  sex  involvement  applicable the  same  friendships (Barth  &  gender  the  the side-by-side versus face—to to  sex,  women’s and  is  evident when women and men interact with each other Women’s  and  have  Kinder,  been  found  1988),  and  men’s  and  less  clearly  (Reis,  1986).  to  show more  to  be  more  7  intimate  and  (Aukett,  emotional  Ritchie  and  & Mill,  less  1987)  focused  on  than men’s  activity  same  sex  sharing  friendships.  When under stress, women more than men will report that they have increased 1987). of  contact with  same  sex  friends  (Burhke  &  Fuqua,  Intimacy in itself may be experienced by women as a kind  assistance,  1981;  their  or therapeutic  Davidson & Packard,  been viewed as Davidson, mutual  creating  support,  Aries,  1983,  At  the  1981).  “a  (Candy,  Troll,  &  Levy,  The talk of women friends has  a defining feature of  1983),  exclusiveness,  experience  their relationships  mosaic  enhancement  of  of  noncritical  self—worth,  (e.g.,  listening,  relationship  and personal growth and self—discovery”  (Johnson &  353).  p.  same  time,  women’s  friendships  are  not  exclusively  warm and supportive;  a number of authors have identified several  barriers  closeness  general with  to  women’s  taboo  other  against women  with  displays  for  anger  of  males,  other  women, in  women,  the  competition burden  of  responsibility for the raising of small children, homophobia,  and  the  generally  1992;  negative  Pogrebin,  barriers,  the  other women  has  1987;  that  Raymond,  emotional been  view  described  marital and kin relationships” research  suggests  that  society  1986;  closeness  relationships may be even more  some  women’s  including  in  greater  has  Rubin, in  of  loving for  (Basow,  Despite such  connection  love:  “indeed  with these  some women than their  1989,  terminating  women  1985).  women’s  terms  (O’Meara,  of  p. a  532). close  Further, same  sex  friendship is more painful for a woman than is ending a romantic  CD < 0)  CD  CD  CD  H-  Cl)  H-  H H)  Ct C/) CD  H  H  U)  0  H  0) Ct  H-  ()  •,  H U)  Ct  CD  H H  -  O  H  U)  C)  H-  0)  0)  CD  Ct  CD  Ct  0  CD  Ct  C’)  HU)  0) H U) 0  Ct  H-  H-  H  Q U)  U)  U)  CD  H  i-<  CD H  H-  ci  0)  H  II CD  CD  Ct  Ct U)  CD  CD H)  CD  H-  ‘1  H  -  H-  Q  0)  C/)  U)  H  U)  CD  IH-  H)  CD  U)  U)  0  0  Ct Cl) 0 XH)  U)  U)  U)  o  ‘1  o  ‘-C CD  H  H  o  II CD  çt  0)  CD  Ct  0  CD  ci  Hi  0  Ct  d  U) U)  H-  CD  H-  I—h  U) CD  0 U)  i-  CD Q.’  H  a  CD C’)  < CD  )  0) Ct 0 ‘1 U)  j  U) CD  a  H) 0  CD  U)  0  H  0)  0  0)  (I)  CD  C’) 0  ‘  -  H  CD  a  CD Z  H-  CD  X  CD  êl 0 U) C’)  a  0 U) CD  H  a  .  n  Ct  0) i Q.,  0 1  CD Ct  H  0)  a  H-  o  0  Ct  H  0  CD  a  0)  I-  CD  -  -D  D  H  -  0)  0)  CD  0  o  —  )  H  o  H-  Ct  H  CD  h  CD  0)  CD  ‘)‘  CD  H  CD 0  0 U) Ct  U) CD X  ‘-C 0 U) Cl)  a  CD  Ct  H  C’)  0  H  0) Ct  H  ‘1 CD  CD  H-  Ct  U)  Ct  CD I-C CD  CD ‘-C  CD U)  H H  H  Q.  U) H  a  0  II  HCD  H)  CD  H-  CD  HU)  H Ct  •  01 L.’j 01  •  d  0) WCt  t-  H-  CD  Ct  H-  CD  H-  H)  U) CD X  CD  U) 0)  a  CD  H  0)  CD  I  0)  U)  H-  Q U)  HCD  x  < CD U) Ct H  U) CD  H  CD U) rn  a  CD 0)  CD  CD  H  H-  Ct 0)  CD  a  Q  0)  -  -  H ‘D —.1  CD U) U)  Ct  o o  •—  CD  H  ‘-C 0)  CD  CD  H  H  U)  HCD  ‘-C  H)  H)  H  H-  CD  H-  C’) CD X  U) U)  o  O  •  o  o  01  •  —  CD U)  CD 0)  i-  Ii)  H-  Ct  H  C Z 0)  CD  Ct  0) U)  CD  0)  CD  U) H-  a o  0) C’)  CD  0)  o  C’)  1  i-  0)  CD  h  H-  0 Z 0  a  CD  1  0)  H  H0)  a  C’) 0  -‘  ri  H-  H-  -‘  H CD  o  ‘-  1  CD  0)  0)  H)  H C’)  H-  U)  CD  H  Cl) H H  -  CD  S  Ct 0  H CD  a  0)  U) Ct  0  H-  0)  0)  Ct  Ct  H  CD  H-  H  HU)  H Ct  Ct CD  U) Ct  C’) 0)  CD  H-  0 U) Ct  0) H  ‘)) U) CD  I  C’)  H  CD  H  0  CD  H-  a  CD  Ct  0) Ct  c1  •—  01  ‘.D CX)  a  0)  h  CD  0)  U)  tY  H-  0  -  o x  ‘-‘1  •  S  H-  Ct  H  o  H-  Ct  o  CD  ‘1  o  H)  U)  H  CD  o  CD  H  ‘1 0  0  ci-  CD 0) ‘-C  0)  0)  I-’0)  o  o  -  C’)  CD  CD  0)  Ct  H  HH  CD ‘-C 0)  H  Ct 0  H0  CD ‘-C  <  )  -  CD Ct  S  0  a  QI  0)  0) ‘-C CD  Ct 0  CD  ‘1  C U)  CD  ci-  -  0 H CD  I-C  S  :E:l  •  —  ‘0  H  U) CD X I  CI)  H  0’  H  —  -  Ct  CD  ci-  LQ  H-  H  a  H-  -  CX)  D  H  H  a  -  CD ‘1  ‘-C Ct H-  CD  0)  H  Ct ‘.<  H-  0) ‘-C  QI  H H-  C!) 0  0)  U)  U)  a  H  H)  0  CD  Cl) CD  Cl)  -  Ct <  H-  0) H  H 0  CD 5 0 Ct  0)  CD  U)  0  H  ‘-C  S  CD  HU)  H)  0  CD  Hp 0)  0)  0)  Ct  z  H  QI  II CD  Ct  0)  a  U)  H-  b CD CD  0)  n  CD  H  a  X  Cl) CD  S CD  )  U)  H CD  5 0)  Ct 0  CD ‘-C Cl)  H-  ‘-C  ,-  H)  0  ‘$ CD  Ct HI-h HCD  H QI CD  CD  N  H-  ‘-C  a  0)  a  C’)  H-  C/)  U)  CD  H-  I-C  rn m  CD  5  0)  U)  U)  CD  Cl) CD  o  I-’  a  C’)  -,  CD  —  4  CX  ‘0  H  -  ci-  CD I-C  :>‘  -  HCt  S  Cl)  CD  a  CD ‘1  H-  -  CD  5  0 II  U)  H  Ct Ct CD ‘—C  CD  ci-  0 U) H  0  CD  Ct  U)  ci)  CD  CD  -  ‘d  H-  U)  0  H-  ci  I-C CD H  9  Cross  sex  friendship  is  fraught  with  ambiguity,  making  it  more difficult for the actors and observers of this relationship to  label  several  and  understand  aspects  apparently  of  this  deriving inherent  out  are  this  determining sexuality;  a  the 3)  nature.  O’Meara  ambiguity  from  complexities of  its  its  less  in  number  type  of  of  cross  frequent  in heterosexual  (1989) sex  identifies friendship,  occurrence  and  gender dynamics.  “challenges”  emotional  (O’Meara,  bond;  issues of equality and power;  2)  and 4)  the  Arising 1989):  dealing  1)  with  presenting the  relationship to others as valid. Despite  the  relationship  and  difficulties negotiating  involved  roles  for  the  individuals do have cross sex friendships, adults are  (Fox et al.,  unrelated  1981). certain  the  participants,  many  especially among young  sex  friends  employed women  than women not  in the  whereas the number of cross sex friends men have  to  Sapadin  their (1988)  experiences  friendships,  defining  Among mid-life adults,  found to have more cross  paid workforce, is  1985).  in  in  employment  status  suggests that that  are  particular  perspective” on the other sex  (p.  Penman,  &  such relationships provide  not  that  (Dickens  of  available  in  obtaining  an  same  sex  “insider’s  401).  The functions of cross sex and same sex relationships differ for  women  and  men:  therapeutic value  men  derive  from their  more  cross  sex  emotional  support  relationships than  same sex ones, whereas for women this pattern is reversed et  al.,  than  1988).  their  cross  Women’s sex  same  friends  sex on  friendships  measures  of  are  rated  overall  and their  (Aukett higher  happiness,  10 quality,  intimacy,  relationships  are  and  rated higher  Shaver & Dyer,  1987;  the  of  percentage  scores with  decrease;  men  enjoyment,  Sapadin,  on  whereas  all  increases,  (Helgeson,  increases,  the percentage of  loneliness  scores  increase  may  tolerate  less  as  loneliness  interactions (Reis,  1986).  Although women’s cross sex friends provide less acceptance approval and understanding)  sex  For both women and men,  interactions with women as  cross  these measures  1988).  in contrast,  men’s  (i.e.,  than do their same sex friends, women  acceptance  and  intimacy  from men  in  exchange  for 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 fulfilled to the and  same extent by men (1976)  Bernard  relationships may be  friends as by women friends”  to at  remark  a  that  “relational  women  in  deficit”  deleterious consequences for their well-being  (p.  72),  cross  sex  with potentially 213).  (p.  Romantic Relationships Committed  love  relationships,  in  which  two  individuals  develop enduring sexual/romantic bonds and think of themselves as a couple are, of  adult  for most people,  life  friendship  romantic  and  as  is  they  (Davis  contrasted  While  relationships enjoyment,  intimacy,  differences  love  1990).  romantic  such  understanding significant  (Bartholomew,  and  similarities  the most significant relationships  &  with  also Todd,  archetypes  share  acceptance, are  friendship  important respect,  characterized  1982).  In on  of  by  particular  dimensions  of  11  sexual  passion and  the  Despite  1982,  (Davis & Todd,  the loved one”  support,  intensity of  in the  and “being a champion or advocate of  “giving the utmost”  such as  and  attraction,  79).  p.  women  about  stereotypes  prevailing  be  being  the  men  are  true:  opposite  appears  to  more likely to hold romantic views  such as  true love only comes  gender,  romantic  more  the  to believe in “love at first sight”,  once and lasts forever, to  and  wife,  nonemployed  equality  significantly more (Peplau,  likely  prefer  androgynous  Both women and men  1992).  relationships,  the  when  however  egalitarian the balance of power  is not seen as  relationship  (Basow,  romantic  in  men  than  and  husband  employed  of  women  more  sex—typed ones  partners over favor  pattern  traditional  the  prefer  women  than  men  more  partner:  romantic  preferred  their  (Peplau,  pursuit  and  flirtation,  love,  of  so than women appear to hold traditional views  Men more  1983). about  “game”  the  enjoy  and  in  be  to  favor  of  men  than  of  is  women  1983) loneliness  Having a romantic partner doesn’t affect women’s  significantly, whereas men who do not have a romantic partner are more  significantly  married  disclosure,  unmarried men, do  not  differ  married or not (1986)  to  lonely  men  disclose  do.  who  less  to  in  disclosure  (Tschann,  emotional  counterpart for females”  “a  benefit (p.  terms  of  friends  self—  than  do  on the other hand,  with  patterns  friends,  whether  Such findings have prompted Reis  1988).  that  In  their  or women married or not; women,  speculate  considerable  men  than  romantic for  98).  relationship  males  Tschann  that (1988)  does  provides  a  have  a  not  states that “in  12 some subtle but important way women’s as  completely  by  their  spouses  as  intimacy needs are not met men’s,  so  that  women  must  maintain their friendships in order to assure that their intimacy needs are met”  (p.  79).  But Gender is not the Whole Picture The  portrait  undoubtedly tendency  of  gender  painted  for  with  women  relationships  in  inconsistencies  differences  a  and  broad  men  to  predictable  and  example,  are  held  interpersonal  to  brush.  describe ways,  exceptions  to warrant serious attention”  is  yet  There  a  and  yet  “found  with  (Wright,  behave  to  central  are  also  frequency Women for  express  studies have  greater found no  gender difference in self—disclosure and expressed intimacy &  Stull,  1986;  Peplau,  1983).  Further,  women  and  is  their  368).  p.  it  in  sufficient  and  yet some  is  there  1988,  self—disclose more  intimacy than men,  reliable,  (Hill  men  show  considerable similarity in their rank ordering of what they value in close relationships, respect Vries,  to  their  1993).  even when they differ significantly with  behaviors  As  in  those  as with  well,  all  considerable within-group variability,  &  de  results there  is  relationships “average”  (Parker  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).  surely  reflects  Gender  is  a  important  realities,  yet  other  influence  the  process  most  internalized  dimensions of  obvious  likely  relating  group  delineation  tendencies interact with  and  with  others.  and  external gender  to  Sex—role  13 orientation  for  example  has  been  effect  on gender differences  (e.g.,  Barth  1985).  &  Kinder,  Further,  found  to  have  in relationship  1988;  Berg  relationships  closeness were found by Wright  of  &  (1982)  depth and  Peplau,  longer  attenuating  an  1982;  duration  intimacy Williams,  and  greater  to have an emotional focus  and be viewed holistically by both women and men. This  complexity  has  led  some  authors  to  call  for  the  identification of moderator variables which may help clarify the picture of women’s Wright,  1988).  moderating as  arising human  and men’s  relationships  (Clark  &  Reis,  1988;  Attachment style is uniquely suited to serve as a  variable it  does  relatedness  of  gender  out  of  across  a  the  effects rich  in  and  close  relationships,  comprehensive  lifespan.  Attachment  theory  style  is  of of  great heuristic value as an individual difference variable which “is  likely  why  close  to  contribute  relationships  interpersonal nature”  significantly vary  in  (Simpson,  both  1990,  to  our  their  understanding  quality  and  of  their  972).  p.  Attachment Theory  Overview of Attachment Theory Attachment  theory  propensity  of  particular  others”  social  and  develops central  human  concern  beings  way  make 1977,  development  children in  “a to  (Bowlby,  personal  between  is  this  and  strong  arises their  theory  is  and  out  primary how  bonds  affectional  201)  p.  the  conceptualizing  of  and  suggests  to  that  bond  that  caretakers.  Of  of  the  why  the  inf ant—  14 caregiver  bond  develops,  caregiver  leads  to  1973).  initial and  a  protest  why  of  sequence  behavior);  efforts  and  at  finally  in  infant  (involving crying,  others’  separation  distress  studies  predictable  resisting  passive  emotional  Observational  illustrate  and  of  infants  behaviors  searching  detachment  described as an evolutionary—ethological Blehar,  Waters  &  Wall,  to  1969;  separation  the  then  (an  primary  (Bowiby,  for  soothing);  the  (Bowlby,  response  avoidance of the caregiver if s/he returns).  (Ainsworth,  from  1973):  caregiver,  despair  active,  (sad,  defensive  The theory has been  approach to development 1978),  in  that  infant  attachment behavior is viewed as serving the biological function of  maintaining  proximity  to  the  caretaker,  thereby  ensuring  protection from predators. Attachment involves most  prone  behaviors  to  an organized behavioral system which is  activation  emitted  by  the  in  the  child  face  that  of  are  threat, aimed  distance between the self and the caregiver  at  evidenced  in  reducing  the  1977).  The  (Bowiby,  attachment system is hypothesized to serve three basic functions (Shaver & Hazan, to  the  1992):  caregiver  closeness);  and  safe haven  proximity-seeking positive  (the desire to be close  feelings  associated  with  (the tendency to retreat to the caregiver  for comfort when threatened);  and secure base  (a willingness to  explore the environment as long as the caregiver is nearby). notion domain  of  a  of  secure  base  physical  function  has  protection  to  reinforcing experience of felt security & Waters,  1977).  such  been  broadened  include  the  (Bretherton,  The  beyond the positively  1985;  Sroufe  15 The quality of the early child-caregiver relationship exerts a  significant  about the  influence  themselves  and  characteristic  negative 1990)  on  others  ways  emotional  the  (Shaver  in  which  experience  and relate to others  expectations &  Hazan,  one hand,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  self—concepts  internal working models  the  child’s  emotional  availability  of the  modulate  &  Tolmacz, Out of  about  attachment,  one’s  ability  1994,  to  51).  p.  self and others derive from  interaction and  to  the child forms “on  (West & Sheldon-Keller,  Such  hold  shapes  1991).  about the reliability of  evoke attachment responses”  continued  come  (Mikulincer & Nachson,  expectations  and  Florian  repeated experiences with primary caregivers, the  1992),  individuals  (Mikulincer,  individuals  with  responsiveness  the  parent,  determine,  whose  over  time,  the extent to which the child will come to see the self as being worthy Read,  of  care  1990).  and  others  as  being  reliably  caring  (Collins  &  The responsiveness and sensitivity of the parent to  the child’s affective signals “provides a critical context within which the child organizes emotional experience and regulates felt security” An  (Kobak & Sceery,  individual  attachment  figure  who  1988,  is  “will  p.  135).  confident be  less  of  prone  the  availability  to  either  of  intense  the or  chronic fear than will be an individual who for any reason has no such confidence” experience history  of  of  (Bowlby,  negative successful  1973,  p.  emotions affect  202). are  Such differences in the  based  on  regulation  the  with  individual’s the  primary  caregiver:  active support—seeking with a responsive caregiver  likely  elicit  to  soothing  behavior,  thereby  reducing  is  negative  16 feelings;  whereas  the  same  nonresponsive,  or  effective  reducing  in  alternative  models  affect,  and  1991),  rejecting  modes  working  behavior  of  self  of  behavior  caregiver  distress,  coping  is  other  &  come  to  inconsistent, likely  less  Sceery,  relationships  in  an  requiring  (Kobak  and  with  development  models  are  behavior  1988).  carried  organize  cognition, &  (Mikulincer  Nachson, (Shaver,  It is hypothesized that these internal  forward  into  new  relationships,  influencing as well  as  functioning to maintain a coherent world view and self  by  guiding  1990, p.  assimilation  found using  “Strange  caregivers  secure  react  experiences”  new  to  consoled;  an  (Bartholomew,  in  2)  et  12-15  al.,  been observed  infants  the  which  use  strange  the  month  and then 1978).  of  attachment  caregiver  return  as  they with  aids  have  a  first  are  in  reunited with their patterns  Three  by Ainsworth  environment;  caregiver’s  style  in  laboratory procedure called the  eight-stage  (Ainsworth  the  infants  then separated from,  interaction have  explore  amongst  Situation”  contact with,  1)  of  image  152) Differences  been  of  Internal  “by guiding the appraisal of social situations,  the  be  1988).  and provide the central components of personality  Hazan & Bradshaw,  to  and her base  protest pleasure  colleagues:  from  which  separation and  of  are  to and  easily  anxious/ambivalent infants are clingy and afraid to  explore when the caregiver is present, become highly agitated and anxious upon separation, they them;  simultaneously 3)  and seek contact when reunited,  resist  the  caregiver’s  attempts  to  however soothe  avoidant infants explore without using the caregiver as  17 a  base,  seek  not  do  contact  elevated  when  the  regulation  an  negative  is  the distress, avoidant  display  at  involves  arising  and  from  attachment  desired goals the  anxious/ambivalent of  cutting  blunting a  is  attention  off  to  on and  emotional  ward  rejecting  off  the  caregiver  between  child’s  attachment  and  style  (Ainsworth et al.,  1978).  mothers of infants classified as secure were found to  sensitive  to  infants’  anxious/ambivalent  cues  were  and  reliably  whereas mothers of avoidant infants rejected efforts  at  closeness,  infants  were  inconsistent  mothers  and in  of  responses  their  sometimes ignoring them and other times  infant’s signals,  being intrusive.  children’s  their  responsive to them,  to the  style  maximizing  focus  having  of  These  attachment  emotions,  caregiver’s behavior have been observed  their  1977).  attaining  from others;  pattern  1988).  Associations  be  a  secure  actively  distraction  distress  (Kobak & Sceery,  Typically,  of  and do not  with concurrent displays of anxiety and anger;  using  intolerable  affect:  positive  show  Waters,  characterized by heightened  attachment  expression,  also  &  efforts  likelihood of positive responses attachment  they  separation,  illustrate the role  of  to  the  (Sroufe  constructive  ability  at  yet  arousal  separation  associated with and  distressed  reunited,  autonomic  reactions to in  appear  association  The  between  caregiver’s  a  attachment style and the attachment style of their child has been studied  by  Interview 1985).  Main (AAI;  This  and Main  her  colleagues  &  Goldwyn,  interview  assesses  using  1985; adults’  the  Main,  Adult Kaplan  internal  Attachment &  Cassidy,  representation  18 of  childhood  and  attachment  examines  the  characterization memories.  congruence  of  those  Individuals  attachment  experiences  their  between  appear whose  to  they  have  to  repeated  evidence memories  devalue  difficulty  discrepancies they  do  memories have  as  of  of  their  childhood  whole,  the  to  attachment  integrating  their  and  to  appear  in  73%  attachment  of  style  cases and  there  that  of  children;  children;  and  specific  their  labelled  memories,  able  (often positive)  to  access  they  seem  experiences with  children  are  who  freely  but  match  and  negative)  Individuals  be  a  and  relationships,  (often  global  enmeshed  was  of  childhood  are  Main and Goldwyn  into  and  to a  somewhat  (1985)  found  parents’  between (assessed  6  years  secure parents tended to have  earlier in the Strange Situation): had secure  of  specific  negative  be  specific  importance  close  experiences,  ambivalent toward their parents. that  of  their more  tend  general  dismissing of attachment  childhood.  preoccupied  difficulty  coherent  recalling  and  the  interviewer,  importance  between  recall  characterization classified  the  origin,  generally positive,  Individuals are classified as tend  of  their  recollections  who can report them coherently to the  if  and  value  relationships are freely accessible and  secure.  family  individuals’  experiences  who  experiences,  in  dismissing parents tended to have avoidant  preoccupied  parents  tended  to  have  anxious/ambivalent children. Links  have  been  found  between  children’s  attachment  style  and other dimensions of social—emotional adjustment in childhood; for example,  securely attached children are more self—reliant and  19  more  emotionally  children  (Main,  circumstances been  open  shown  childhood Egeland,  Kaplan  do  to  than  not  are &  Cassidy,  change  persist  1985).  significantly,  over  (Egeland & Farber, Sroufe & Waters,  anxious/ambivalent  several 1984;  avoidant  When  these  years,  family  patterns  throughout  Main & Cassidy,  1979; Waters,  or  1988;  have early  vaughn,  1978).  Attachment theory proposes that the need for connection with others  is  a  primary  (Ainsworth,  1982).  underlie  “the  adulthood  (Bowlby,  other  and  Attachment  later  been  have  fundamental  capacity  1977, found  processes to  make  206).  p. to  human  need  throughout  are  hypothesized  affectional  life  bonds”  to in  That these models of self and  endure  over  time  and  distance  in  childhood has prompted investigators to examine the continuity of attachment patterns in significant relationships in adulthood.  Application of Attachment Theory to Adult Relationships Conceptual analysis. been  increasingly  relationships Collins  &  Read,  1990).  Bowlby  perspective, from  the  in  In recent years attachment theory has  adult  life  1990;  Feeney  the  (e.g. &  to  the  that  grave”  study  of  Bartholomew Noller,  conceptualized  hypothesizing  cradle  to  applied  it  & Horowitz,  1990;  attachment  Hazan from  characterizes  (1977,  129),  p.  personal  close  a  Shaver,  &  lifespan  “human  and  1991;  that  beings “while  attachment behavior is at its most obvious in early childhood,  it  can  in  be  observed  emergencies” attachment  throughout  the  238).  A  (1989,  has  been  p.  provided  by  life  cycle,  working  Berman  and  especially  adult  definition  of  Sperling  (1994)  who  20 define  as  it  “the  stable  tendency  of  an  individual  to  make  substantial efforts to seek and maintain proximity to and contact with one or a few specific individuals who provide the subjective potential for physical and/or psychological safety and security” (p.  8).  The  attachment  system  proximity—seeking/safe haven contact  with  secure base the  the  and  its  underlying  functions  (desire for closeness and  attachment  figure  when  feeling  of  increased  threatened),  (feeling more able to take risks when confident that  attachment  figure  is  available),  hypothesized to operate throughout in attachment patterns  are  and  separation protest are  life.  also held  Individual differences  to  continue,  maintained by  the individual’s internal working model of attachment. Internal working models hypothesized  to  provide  a  of  self and other  set  of  in adulthood are  heuristics  which  enable  individuals “to predict the actions of others in order to plan or prepare for particular outcomes, behavior  of  others”  (Collins & Read, operate  as  information system to  a  in  1990,  sort  (West  of &  order p.  to  661).  understand  Sheldon—Keller,  ongoing  their  social  1994).  1994)  world  is thought to  The working model  cognitive—affective  (Berman & Sperling,  involve  and to interpret and explain the  attachment  filter  for  and  a motivational  as  Mental models are hypothesized  construction,  revision,  and  integration  “similar to the notion of scripts and schemas in cognitive—social psychology”  (Hazan  &  Shaver,  1987,  important affect—laden schemata, to change”  (Rothbard & Shaver,  p.  523),  and  are  “like  all  resistant though not impervious  1994, p.  31).  21  Bartholomew (1990) bent”  (p.  has commented on the “decidedly cognitive  169)  of  some  of  such  a  importance  investigators perspective,  should not overlook the styles of  and,  while  cautions  that  interpersonal  the theory is designed to explain.  endorsing  the  researchers  interaction that  Internal representations and  interpersonal behavior may interact in mutually supportive ways, so  that  f or  intimacy  example,  may  have  avoidant  individuals  a  toward  bias  who  are  perceiving  fearful  of  others  as  overdependent and desirous of more intimacy than they would like “thereby  activating  withdrawal other” way  which  self-fulfilling  elicits  (Bartholomew,  “create  increased  1990,  social  p.  environments  (Senchak & Leonard,  of  models  patterns  which  attachment while  not  support  patterns  the  relationships  shape  affect,  do  show  may  sustain  and  lends  cognition  and  significant  system  and  dynamics  behavior  throughout  adult  is  life,  then  appears  a  initial  coherence  a  behavior  at  clearly  itself  different  hypothesized adult  function  to  which,  over  time  to  Shaver  et  al.,  in  different  operate  Although  from  relationships  1988).  throughout  stages.  important ways from those of infancy and childhood 1994;  such  interaction  continuity  to  manifesting  although  attachment  Zeifman,  in  the  The combination  expectations models  in  their  53).  p.  of  1990).  attachment  lifespan,  1990,  patterns  behavior  Individuals that  such mental  of  invariant,  (Mikulincer et al., The  which  approach  153).  dispositions” cognitive  interaction  For  infancy  differ  (e.g.,  in  Hazan &  example  the  complementarity that exists between the care—providing parent and  22 the  care—receiving  child  reciprocity between and  is  attachment,  with  made  up  of  the  other  central  in  some  the  of  some  authors  components  care—seeking  (i.e.,  or  all  sexual  function  (Ainsworth, features  as  1982,  of  attachment Weiss,  1982).  1994).  plus  measures  are (West  and secure  et  siblings the  be  obtained  rather Keller,  Weiss,  than  via by  1982),  thinking achieving  or  base,  are  1990;  developed  al.,  may  the key  proximity-seeking,  to  1987).  evident  Weiss,  Of  in  1982),  examine  such  course  adulthood the desire for closeness may involve sexuality 1994;  a  lifespan  At the same time,  being  Zeifman,  system  In childhood,  and  over  attachment,  safe haven,  adulthood  behaviors)  relationships  and  in  of  adult  attachment  friends  (Bartholomew,  functions  of  exclusively with parents  adult attachment relationships preliminary  role  attachment as being  childhood  close  infant-caregiver  separation protest,  for  whereas in adulthood relationships with  partners,  1989;  The  conceptualizations  the  into  care—providers  1982).  viewing adult  of  transformed  each  (Weiss,  tend to be  other primary caregivers, as  are  Berman & Sperling,  attachment relationships  such  adulthood,  proximity—seeking  caregiving system (e.g.,  equals  in  adult peers who  care-recipients  caregiving  is,  in  (Hazan &  the experience of felt security may  of  relationship  the  physical  proximity  with (West  the &  other  Sheldon  the perception of threat may involve other dangers  1994),  than physical ones,  such as threats to self—concept and integrity  (West & Sheldon,  1988),  and exploration behavior may involve such  activities  work  (Hazan  similarities  as  between  childhood  &  Shaver, and  adult  1990). attachment  Important do  exist  23 however,  such as the three stage response of protest,  detachment  upon  among infants 1978),  and  (Parkes,  which  has  to  may  be  vary  circumstances,  or  as  found  (Weiss,  a  across time into  which  activate  loss  (e.g.,  separation  (Cafferty,  and  and  may  bereavement  as  which may  under  be  situation  state  be  different  expected  (Berman  a  deactivate  &  to  Sperling,  examines  different  be  the  attachment  for example when facing separation  1975)  Davis,  in  state,  a  times  attachment  Weiss,  observed  (Ainsworth et al.,  adults  as  which  and  figure  1974).  trait,  functions at different times, or  attachment  among  different  Research  conditions  the  conceptualized  at  reasonably stable .  been  and divorce  Attachment  1994)  from  separated from their caregivers  1972)  expected  separation  despair and  or  experiencing  Medway,  O’Hearn  &  reunion  Chappell,  after 1994).  Another state—based view of attachment is as a relational schema which  may  be  situational  elicited  factors,  relationship  (e.g.  conceptualization which  differences the  ways  in they  relationships. continue  across  evidence  for  Main et al., indicates  or  feel  about  Patterns time,  and  the temporal  that  there  to  of  Fehr,  as  of  form  is  one’s  the  having close  respond  attachment  research  conditions  1993).  style  and of  of  state  &  thought  tendency  1985).  number  attachment  are  the  a  the  Baldwin of  individuals  by  with  stability of  such  current  The  more  trait stable  common  in  and  attachment  has  in  those  hypothesized  children  in  individual  others  are  close  model,  relationships to  as  to  provided  styles  (e.g.,  Research into attachment styles in adulthood is  fairly  high  reliability  for  periods  of  24 several  months  up  to  studies are lacking  an  1990;  few  years,  The  Shaver & Hazan,  effective,  although  (Rothbard & Shaver,  findings.  Empirical (1987,  a  efficient  1992;  method  stability  1994).  development  1988,  long—term  for  by  and  Hazan  Shaver et al.,  assessing  Shaver  1988)  attachment  of in  adulthood has spawned a vast body of research into the correlates and  dynamics  for  of  example,  the  construct.  found  in  a  Bartholomew  computer  and  search  Penman  of  (1994)  Psychological  Abstracts that in the period between 1980 and 1993,  the number of  items identified with the word attachment in the title was 1050. Hazan  and  Shaver  developed  a  self—report  measure  to  classify  individuals into the three attachment styles found among infants, and  have  repeatedly  avoidant,  and  found  that  anxious/ambivalent  the  or  three  styles  preoccupied)  are  (secure, manifested  in approximately the same proportions in the adult population. Adult attachment  styles have been  found to be related to a  number of factors involved in individual adaptation causality  can  be  inferred  on  the  basis  of  are merely associations amongst variables) securely  attached  confidence Brennan,  (Collins  in press)  tend  to  & Read,  have 1990),  frequency  Shaver  &  Tobey,  of  physical  symptoms  persons.  While being  have  and  (Hazan  &  less  Shaver,  these  and  self  (Shaver &  (Kobak & Sceery,  Further, and  as  Individuals who are  .  be more extroverted  eating disorders  1991),  these data,  self—esteem  and more ego—resilient  than are those who are insecure. lower  higher  (note that no  1988)  secure persons have a  alcohol anxiety, 1987)  abuse  (Brennan,  depression,  than  do  securely attached clearly appears  and  insecure to bode  25 well  for the  the  interpersonal  individual,  hypothesized example,  to  the construct of  domain,  simply  attachment  hence  relate  style  is  to  attachment  secure  attachment  anything  not  resides  that  expected  is  to  is  in not  “good”.  For  correlate  with  variables such as intelligence or creativity.  Attachment styles  are  ways  expected  understand,  to  predict  experience,  differences  in  the  individuals  and behave in relationships with others.  Of relevance to relationship researchers,  investigators have  found clear differences among attachment styles in adulthood with regard  to  early  relationships,  family  love  experiences,  interpersonal behavior Secure  individuals  relationship  with  background,  mental  affect  (see Hazan & Shaver,  report their  greater parents  1992, in  in  of  regulation,  warmth and  models  for a review).  their  their  and  childhood  retrospective  account of the relationship between their parents when they were children,  than do those who are insecure  (Hazan & Shaver,  1987).  Different attachment styles are associated with different beliefs about  the  course  trustworthiness partners. self  and  of  Secure others,  of  romantic  love,  partners,  and  individuals  hold  whereas  their  preoccupied  avoidants’  avoidance 1987). also  of  models  intimacy  of  &  worth  as  love—  positive models  individuals’  models  of of  obsessive and dependent,  relationships  (Feeney  and  availability  own  the most  relationships are found to be idealized, and  the  Noller,  are 1990;  characterized Hazan  &  by  Shaver,  Internal models of one’s own response to imagined others  show  differences  feeling better with a  by  attachment  secure other;  type: secure  all  subjects  imagine  individuals are more  26 optimistic  in  preoccupied  subjects  with  the  general  imagined  about  imagine  other,  (Pietromonaco & Carnelley,  imagined  feeling  relationships;  more  regardless  of  jealous the  and  other’s  and  anxious behavior  1992).  Such self—report findings are supported by “growing evidence that verbally assessed attachment styles are related to behavior” (Shaver found  &  Hazan,  positive and  1991;  Kobak & Sceery, been  avoidant secure  ratings  found  to  emotional  of  &  likely  support  from  number  between  others  1988).  more  increases;  A  of  researchers  self—reported  (e.g.,  &  Horowitz,  Nachson, than  more  than  1991).  avoidant  their  do  Women women  romantic  those  are  categorized  to  partner  who  reach  as  out  their  as for  anxiety  secure men are more likely to offer emotional support  Nelligan,  press).  in  relationships secure  attachment  Bartholomew  to their anxious partner than are avoidant men &  have  Secure and preoccupied individuals  self—disclose  (Mikuliricer  are  16).  p.  correlations  style  have  the  1992,  follow  individuals  Caregiving  the  behaviors  consistent  theoretically being  (Simpson,  most  in  Rholes, romantic with  patterns,  sensitive  avoidant  and  individuals the least sensitive to the cues of the other, whereas preoccupied caregiving evidence  individuals (Shaver  that  relationships individuals  the is  tend  secure people  &  are  Hazan,  be  in  likely  1991).  duration  related to  most  to  and  stable  1990).  provide  addition,  style,  compulsive  there  functioning  attachment  more  (Collins & Read,  In  to  of in  is  some  romantic  that  relationships with  secure other  27  Of  particular  intimacy.  concern  in  this  thesis  is  the  process  of  Attachment styles are evident in adulthood in the way  individuals romantic  feel  and  behave  relationships,  in  their  avoidant  close  individuals  fear intimacy and strive for distance;  relationships.  In  are more  to  likely  those who are preoccupied  are more likely to experience emotional highs and lows and to be jealous report  and more  lonely  obsess intimacy  (Hazan  romantic  &  and  Shaver,  couples,  attachment styles the  about  relationship,  their  closeness, 1987).  Simpson in  partner;  In  (1990)  emotions  and  more  frequent  positive  a  emotions  couple  are  more  likely to have better overall  Leonard,  is  likely  longitudinal differences  and  less  to  be  study  of  among  the  the nature  of  reactions  to  and  insecure  frequent  negative  1990).  Further,  (Simpson,  secure,  the  relationship  adjustment and higher  intimacy than are relationships between partners  secure  commitment, trust and satisfaction,  both  both  less  are  Secure persons reported greater  when  of  of  who  descriptions of  emotions than did insecure individuals members  are  experienced,  dissolution of the relationship. relationship interdependence,  a  found  individuals’  the  and  those  (Kobak  &  is  levels  couples where one  or  Senchak  &  Hazan,  1991;  1992).  A second core concern of this thesis is the use of influence strategies  in  associated tactics;  with  close  greater  preoccupied  negatively  associated  preoccupied  attachment  Secure  relationships. use  and with is  of  compromising  avoidant  and  is  integrating  and  styles  are  integration,  and  attachment  compromise  positively  attachment  associated with  dominating  Ct  N  U)  CD  CD  H-  o  H  C) C))  Cl-  H-  ‘-‘C  H-  CD  •  C)  H)  o  U)  CD  Cl  H-  CD  <  CD  Cl-  ‘-‘C  I-’CD  <  rl-  C))  0  Cl  0  0 H)  H  C  U)  ‘l CD  H  Cl CD H U)  o  .Q  H-  o  C))  C  H-  H  •  -  )  H-  II  CD  ‘  CD  0  H  0  C)) “C  LO  H  CD  ;J  0  C))  CD Q  C)  C))  C))  —  H-  < 0  0  II  o  o o o  Cl  C))  -  Ct  C))  H-  CD U)  C  H  -  CD  C)  U) CD  -  CD  •  H-  •_  -  HI—’  C)  LQ  < CD  U) CD  0  U)  CD  H  U) Ct  Ct  CD  C)) 0  CD  CD  Ct  CD  Cl-  0 H)  CC) H 0  C))  -J  D  D —C  -‘C  ‘ H  C  -j  D  1)  C H  iQ H)  H-  CD C))  H-  Ct  Hct  C)) H U)  Cl C  H-  <  H-  Cl  H-  o  C))  CD U)  C)  H) CD ‘-C CD  Cl HH)  CD U)  Cl-  U)  rl-  C)) C)  Clct  C))  C1  CD  -J  D  1  D  çt  CD  C)  0  0  :z:’  -1  HH) H) CD  Cl  ‘-C CD  C  C) C))  U)  CD  U) U)  0 C) CD  ‘1  CD  C  H  H  H  Cl  C)  ClH-  H  —  ‘-‘C  C  1xj  OD 0:’  H  CD HU) -  x  R’  H 9) ‘-‘C  r  ‘-Q • -  CD  U)  H-  0  ‘-‘C CD H  z  H-  CD H-  H)  C) CD  CD  ‘—C H-  CD  d  CD  CD  Cl-  0  rt  Cl‘1 9) H  CD  ‘-C CD  CD  C)  C  H) H  H-  C))  ‘.<  H)  CD  U) U)  C) CD  ,-  H  0  CD H 9 ClH-  H ç LO  -  CD  CD  CD  CD  j  —  CD Cl) Ci)  1  Cl-  HU)  HC) ç-l-  H  H)  C) 0  Cl-  U)  0  Cl  9)  U)  CD  H-  CC)  CD  j CD , C) H-  U)  C))  ClCD  C)  Cl  C))  U) U)  0 C) CD  II  ‘d  CD  H-  U) ft ‘C C  CD  Q  Q  Clt’C  CD  H-  ‘-‘C  U)  <  H-  ClCD  C)  H-  H-  CD  ‘1 CD Cl  1’C  HCD ft ‘-<  “  •  4  LO  H LO  H • -  ,  CD ft  k<  CD  CD CD  1  —s  Cl-  CD  Z  0  1  ‘  Cl-  C  0  <  Ct-  HCD  X  >  ft  H-  H9) ft CD Cl  C)  U) U) 0  H  H< CD  Q C)) ft  CD  ‘C CD  Cl  U) U)  CD  CD  ,  H  HCl-  Cl-  ‘-‘C  H) 0  0  ()  ft  H-  a  Cl-  H-  U) U) 0  <  H  CD  <  H-  HCl  ‘D U)  CD ‘-‘C  —  U) H,  CD  X  CD  -  H-  Cl  Cl9-’  U)  CD ‘-‘C  Cl  C  -  0  H-  U)  C  °  H-  H  ft  C)  Cl)  HCD  ClCD  ft ‘-‘C C))  C)) H  C  ft  C  ‘  CD CC)  I-’<  H) 0  ft  C ft  Cl U)  . C))  C  0  ‘-ij  •  C)’  H LO  —  C))  H H  ‘-‘C  Q H H CD  •  ‘-<  CD  j CD CD  S—..  CD  Cl 0  9)  ‘  CD  Z U)  H-  Cl  ft  CD  ft 9) C)  C) Cl-  < CD ‘C U) C U)  CD  0  ‘-1  H)  CD U)  CD  ft  Cl  C  o  H)  CD  H-  ft CD  ‘-‘C 9)  Cl-  C) CD  CD  C  H  H)  H  0  C) ft CD  CD H  ft CD H9) ClH — H’  ‘-‘C CD  CD  H)  H)  H-  0 C ft  C))  >< HCD ft  “  -.  CD U)  z  CD  H  ()  H  ‘-‘C  0  H)  0  n  ft  CD  C)  p  ClCl  p  H)  0  Cl-  CD  9) U) U) CD U) U)  H  C)  o  H-  U)  CD  H-  Cl  o  rl-  C))  U) H-  C  H CD U)  C  C)  o  ‘-‘C ‘-‘C HCD Cl  C))  H)  o  o  H-  dl-  C))  H-  C))  <  CD  9)  z  H  —  0  -  rlH-  C)  CD  H CD  C))  0 ‘1  -.  H LO 0:’ LO  -  0  H U) ft  -.  0:’ a’:’  “•  H  H -  <  9)  ‘<  <  1:-I CD  -  HCD U)  ft CD  Cl ‘-‘C  H-  H H-  b  0  Cl  Cl)  H 0  CD  ct 0  CD ‘-‘C  CD  ‘-‘C  C Cl HCD U)  Ct  CD U) CD  Cl-  H-  U)  C  HU) C)  CD ‘-C  Cl-  C ‘-‘C  H)  CD  HCD U)  ClCD  9)  ‘1  ft  C) CD  HZ H) H C CD  Cl  C))  H CD U)  Ct  U)  Cl-  CD  C)  C))  C1 Cl  C))  29 dimensions, other)  the subject of the internal representation  and  the  valence  of  each  (positive  vs.  negative),  produce a two by two matrix with four categories. which these dimensions may be mapped is (i.e.,  reliance  on oneself vs.  and “avoidance” or  desires  (i.e.,  intimacy  others  dimensions,  desire  with  others).  negative  views  of  others  of  Individuals  been  1988),  labelled  and  it  has  captures  better  individuals,  self—regard)  “secure”.  those  who  desire  those  who  rely  anxious/ambivalent  the  been  core  is,  Noller & Hanrahan,  et.  (1994b)  indicates with  (e.g.,  suggested  ambivalence  1994). that,  Those with  intimacy) on  others  Shaver the  dynamic regarding  these  others  (reflecting negative attitudes toward the self),  “eager  relationships,  for  relationships  and  intimacy, being  attitudes toward others” 143).  as  and  This  term  of  these  intimacy  need  wanting  extreme  unreservedly  they are  closeness  positive  in  and positive views of self  (i.e.,  are in  their  as has been previously hypothesized (i.e.,  are from  approval  suggests that they  Those with negative views of others  intimacy)  Hazan,  individuals  preoccupied  as  &  latter  highly  not  for  Research conducted by Feeney  although  also uncomfortable with closeness.  and  This group has  that  interpersonal  their  positive  self—worth and who  for  labelled  with  using the second set  are labelled “preoccupied”.  (Feeney, al.  are  (i.e.,  recently  that  (or,  internally  (i.e.,  self  positive self—regard) also  rely  intimacy with others) views  in terms of “dependence”  the extent to which the individual avoids  those who  positive  to  Another way in  for positive  representations of both self and other of  (self vs.  (p.  those who avoid  those who rely on the  30 self  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 original  work  this  of  conceptualization  Bowlby  (1977),  which  general  figure  is  responds  “whether  or  not  to  calls  the  self  towards whom anyone, likely  respond  to  judged  to  for is  be  the  a)  and  to  a  helpful  that  be  of  the  internal  person  who  in  protection”  and  b)  the  and the attachment figure in  to  “whether or not the  sort (p.  support judged  closer  suggests  working models comprise two key features: attachment  is  way”  sort  of  person  in particular, 204).  component is equivalent to a model of the other,  The  is  first  the second to a  model of the self. From (1991)  an  empirical  point  of  view,  Bartholomew  and  Horowitz  noted that the use of the Adult Attachment Interview  George,  Kaplan  differently measure.  &  than  Main, does  Avoidant  1984) the  characterizes  Shaver  adults  are  and  avoidant  Hazan  (1987)  characterized  via  (AAI,  individuals self-report the  as  AAI  defensively self-assertive people who deny experiencing negative affect  or  vulnerability,  attachment needs, the  whereas  Shaver and Hazan  describe  and  themselves  avoidant  (1987) as  who  minimize  the  individuals  as  self—report measure  lacking  in  self—esteem,  importance  of  classified  by  are persons who and  who  feel  subjective distress and discomfort when they become too close to others. and  lack  Avoidance in the first instance is a case of detachment of  motivation  to  engage  with  others,  whereas  in  the  31 second  instance  (Bartholomew, Horowitz  is  the  result  1990).  (1991)  to  of  an  discordance  This speculate  that  fear  active led  closeness  Bartholomew  single  “a  of  and  avoidant—detached  category may obscure conceptually separable patterns of avoidance in adulthood”  (p.  delineated  Bartholomew  defensive category  by  227).  avoidant model  The two distinct patterns of avoidance and  Horowitz  found  type  “dismissing”),  via  the  AAI  and  the  more  type identified by the self-report measure Examination  of  ratings  by  subjects,  reveals  that  (Bartholomew  multidimensional their  the  expected  &  Horowitz,  friends,  in  distressed  the  the  4-  avoidant  (labelled “fearful”). of  and  four—category  both  (labelled  scalings  1991).  reflect  (1991)  attachment—style  independent  structure  Secure  is  raters  reproduced score  individuals  uniquely high on the coherence of their interviews and the level of  intimacy  in  their  ratings on warmth, Dismissing  friendships;  as  balance of control,  individuals  receive  well  they  and level of involvement.  uniquely  high  ratings  warmth;  individuals  they on  all  self—disclosure, who  are  group  in  have  measures  show  every  a  self—disclosure,  involvement,  crying,  uniquely  scores  lower  scores  than  and on  of  than  to  those who  rely  with  secure  others).  Those  the  dismissing  high  expressiveness, Fearful  confidence, are  preoccupied (e.g.,  to  uniquely  emotional  or  and or  crying,  closeness  on  opposite  caregiving.  self  secure  relationship  pattern  respect,  elaboration,  low  scores  capacity  intimacy,  preoccupied almost  lower  self  of  confidence and uniquely low on emotional expressiveness, and  high  obtain  scores  romantic  individuals  have  on  have  significantly  preoccupied  on  self—  32 disclosure, others,  intimacy,  addition,  differentiate  with  reliance on  and use of others as a safe haven when upset.  In  self,  level of romantic involvement,  self—concept  groups  with  measures  were  versus  negative  positive  found  to  models  of  and sociability measures were found to differentiate groups positive  Horowitz,  versus  1991).  characterize distinct  The  each  patterns  internal  model  interpersonal problems  negative  of  the  to  are  in  of  others  attachment in  other:  of  problems  styles  also  meaningful  fearful  passivity;  lack  (Bartholomew  interpersonal  related  and  a  of  four  self  problems  related  types  which  of  models  warmth;  which  reflect  ways  to  individuals  dismissing and  the show  persons  those  &  show  who  are  preoccupied show problems in the area of dominance and excessive emotional expression  (Bartholomew & Horowitz,  1991).  The results  of this examination “confirm that the valence of both self—models and  models  adult’s  of  others  orientation  are to  separate,  close  relationships  dimensions can vary independently” p.  important  dimensions and  that  of  two  the  (Bartholomew & Horowitz,  an  1991,  240) In recent research  (Feeney et.  al,  l994b),  the four—category  model was strongly supported via a cluster analysis conducted on five  scales  approval, secondary)  (Confidence,  Discomfort  with  Preoccupation with relationships,  closeness,  Need  and Relationships as  from a new measure assessing attachment patterns  Attachment Style Questionnaire). the cluster analysis,  for  (the  Four groups were formed out of  each with a profile on the five scales that  corresponded remarkably well with the four groups hypothesized by  33 Additional support for a fourth category comes from  Bartholomew.  Collins and Read an analysis  who proposed a four-cluster solution in  (1990),  of three  continuous  dimensions  of  adult  attachment,  and suggested that there may be value in differentiating between two  of  types  anxious  comfortable with  attachment:  closeness  “those  (anxious—secure),  anxious and uncomfortable with closeness 649). is  who  were  and  anxious  but  those who were  (anxious—avoidant)”  (p.  Evidence for the validity of a fourth attachment category supported by  further  findings  styles of young children, identified  been  even  in  in the  study of the attachment  in which a fourth category has recently infancy,  involving  avoidant and preoccupied characteristics  a  combination  (Main & Solomon,  of  1990).  In an examination of adult children of alcoholics using both the Shaver and Hazan three—category and Bartholomew four—category models,  Brennan  (i.e.,  considerably system  are  number  of  fall  et  the  the  same  for  a  “suggesting  some  misleadingly” the  same  secure  in  dismissing  that  fear,  and  subjects  a  individuals  a  one  in  large  three-category  model  fearful  and  Horowitz’s  alternative  in  one indicating both a desire or  avoidance,  who  of  1991,  intimacy  —  themselves  categorize  to  model  four—category  overlap  fairly  (Brennan et al.,  three—category the  the  two  preoccupied  Bartholomew of  —  or  However,  in  lack  measure  as preoccupied  the in  the  the  that  secure  using  group  (1987)  some  are  individuals  fearful  vein,  note  other).  the  relationship  close  forces  in  fearful  Hazan and Shaver’s  (1991)  those who  preoccupied  into  approach  al.,  p.  In  462).  categorized  themselves  as  classified  themselves  as  model  “suggesting  that  some  34  avoidant  people  with  self-esteem  high  forced  are  category measure to misclassify themselves as secure” al.,  1991,  the  by  three  (Brennan et  462).  p.  Pietromonaco  and  Carnelley  suggest  (1992)  that  it  is  important to consider the recent distinction between fearful and dismissing avoidant persons the  clarify  self—esteem  relationships  among  patterns  for  women  and  insecure  category method, that the  in that this elaboration may help to  two  Carnelley,  severely depressed women:  Utilizing  men.  Pietromonaco,  categories  avoidant  depression  of  and Jaffe  distinguish  and  low  the  four  (1992)  find  between mildly and  women who are mildly depressed tend to  have either preoccupied or  fearful attachment styles,  reflecting  a negative model of self but an either negative or positive view of  others;  however,  significantly more of  self  both  individuals  and  to  who  those  likely to others,  have  be  and  more  verbal  depressed  are  holding negative views  fearful,  are  experienced  severely  are  likely  than  preoccupied  physical  and  abuse  from  their parents when they were children. An important finding in the research using the four-category model  is  that  of  attachment styles: preoccupied ratings  and  than  did  gender  differences  in  the  distribution of  women received higher ratings than did men on men  fearful; women  1991; Brennan et a!.,  dismissing  on  1991)  received  .  significantly  (Bartholomew  &  higher  Horowitz,  More recent research has also found  proportionally more men classifying themselves as dismissing, more  women  1994).  the  classifying  themselves  as  fearful  Using the three-category approach,  “in  (Cafferty  et  and al.,  all of the studies  35 published  to  date  there  were  no  reliable  gender  differences  the distribution of subjects across the three categories” &  Hazan,  1992,  insensitive styles,  to  and  hence  the  The  distinction  important  to  to  model  fearful  certain “may  relationship  Bartholomew’s  .  three—category  between  perhaps  three—category  454)  p.  the  therefore  differences 1991,  10).  p.  gender  mask  (Shaver  approach and  four—category  differences; gender  (Brennan  model  is  dismissing  meaningful  quality”  in  et  al.,  appears  more  useful in illuminating these differences.  Gender and Attachment:  Findings to Date  Gender has generally been a neglected variable in attachment research,  possibly  observations the In  of  due  infant  three-category some  (e.g.,  studies  such as  of  effect  differences  of  &  to  the  of  the  theory  predominant  attachment  styles  described  of  is  examined  1990;  gender Pistole,  not  1989).  use  in of  above. at  all  When gender has  in the distribution of women and men across  (e.g.,  gender  optimism about Carnelley  and  origins  researchers have tended to test for main effects,  categories  effects  behavior,  model  the  part to the  Mikulincer et al.,  been examined,  the  in  on  Mikulincer dependent  relationships,  Janoff—Bulman,  &  Nachson,  variables  such  or descriptions  1992;  Hazan  &  1991), as, of  for  or  example,  parents  Shaver,  main  1987;  (e.g., 1990).  When gender differences are found in distributions of attachment style, (e.g., main  gender  is  used  as  a  Bartholomew & Horowitz, effects  for  gender  in  covariate  in  subsequent  1991; Kobak & Sceery, the  distributions  or  analyses  1988). on  When  dependent  36  measures gender  are not is  found,  not  obscuring  treated  possible  attachment  findings  gender have  sample  as  or  between  differences  (i.e., and  is often  within  each  emerged regarding  have the  been  relationship  women  be  avoidant notion,  may  stereotypes  women  gender  across  (Shaver  considered  interesting gender-role  of  1992).  “better”  Preoccupied exemplars  &  Hazan,  1992).  support  In  femininity,  and preoccupied  with  masculinity  are  most  likely  relationships avoidant  men  their  attachment  (Papalia to  however, secure  do  negatively  attachment  &  Shaver,  report  regardless  is  of not  and  gender; differ  counterparts,  negatively  is  1991).  stable  correlated  this  individuals  Secure  satisfying  preoccupied in  even  Kirkpatrick,  reported  depression of  report (Davis  &  in press).  women the  and  stability  they  The consequences of being avoidant or preoccupied for  romantic  women  relationship though  with  correlated  comparatively lower levels of relationship satisfaction  task  of  secure attachment is correlated with both masculinity and avoidant  vary  of  for women and men than anxious men and  femininity,  from  within  and attachment style  (Shaver & Hazan,  cultural  men  studied,  to relationship functioning  the  and  thereby  interaction effects).  attachment  avoidant men  variable,  women  orientation (instrumentality/expressiveness)  and  lumped together and  independent  an  differences  styles,  attachment styles When  the  and  lowest  scores  of  imagining  men:  avoidant  levels all  of  self  individuals  themselves  men  in  and  preoccupied  esteem following a  appear to  and an  romantic  the  women  highest  experimental relationship  37 (Pietromonaco & Carnelley,  1992).  The consequences of being with  an avoidant or preoccupied partner also appears to vary for women and men:  in romantic relationships, greater partner anxiety about  relationships women,  for  is  related  whereas  to  lower  greater  satisfaction  partner  comfort  for  with  men  but  closeness  related to higher satisfaction for women but not for men & Read,  1990;  Pietromonaco & Carnelley,  Examination parents’ reveals  the  correspondence  Simpson,  between  further with  (Collins  &  gender  closeness  Read,  been  differences  found  for  1990). to  in  women  the  and  Descriptions  predict  different  role  (Collins  1990). reports  men of  of  in  of  their  mother’s  attachment  current  partner  is  whereas  women’s  ratings  predict whether closeness  worried of  the women’s  (secure)  style  opposite—sex  attachment  predict  abandonment  their  father’s  current partner  is  and  parents  dimensions  for  Men’s ratings  whether  about  (Collins & Read,  anxiety  relationships  women’s and men’s current romantic relationships. of  is  attachment style and current partner’s attachment style  comfort  have  of  1992;  not  the  men’s  (preoccupied),  attachment  style  comfortable with  1990).  The joint effects of gender and attachment style are rarely hypothesized  and  explicitly  tested.  There  appears  to  be  good  reason to speculate that gender and attachment style may mutually shape  the  terrain  of  close  relationships  with  Secure  others.  attachment may attenuate the strength of a gender effect for both women effect  and  men;  for  dismissing)  preoccupied  female attachment  attachment  respondents; may  may  and  strengthen  a  strengthen avoidant  gender  a  gender  (especially  effect  for  male  38 respondents.  For  significantly  less  example,  distressed  dissolution  of  a  inclination  to  avoid  combination  inhibit  and  tendency  negative  been  avoidant  of  found  women  1990).  suppress  Males’  negative  greater  affect  attachment  for  the  lack  to  has  hypothesized  to  (Simpson,  style  and  the  within women”  (Simpson,  of  been  1990).  In contrast,  negative  relation  extent  1990,  of  in  individuals  avoidant women to suppress  account  be  following  feelings  odds with the propensity of women to express strong affect may  to  avoidant  emotions  account for this gender effect tendency of  have  (Simpson,  conflict  the  men  than  relationship  with  defensively  avoidant  between  is  the “at  [and]  the  avoidant  postdissolution  distress  979).  p.  Limitations in Attachment Research to Date limitations  Three  evident  are  review of attachment research: overlooked;  2)  close  1)  in  the  foregoing  literature  the role of gender is generally  relationships  other  than  parent-child  romantic relationships are generally overlooked; and 3) been  only  a  limited  on  focus  variables  that  assess  and  there has relational  processes and attachment style. Although  gender  has  been  shown  determinant of relationship process, examined  in  attachment  research.  to  be  an  important  it has not been consistently Investigators  do  not  always  test for gender effects nor do they always find out the gender of the  close  others  examination of  that  are  the effects  be fruitful at this point,  reported of gender  upon. and  A  more  systematic  attachment style would  separately enhancing our understanding  39 of  each  of  the  influence.  two  areas,  as  Complexities  well  and  as  elucidating  inconsistencies  in  their the  mutual  field  of  gender and close relationships may be clarified through the use of  attachment  as  a  moderating  attachment theory may role of gender; two  broad  be  variable;  expected with  is  likely  to  enrichment  an understanding  and an examination of the  areas  an  of  of  the  intersection of these  significantly  benefit  our  understanding of close personal relationships. Attachment parent—child  research  and  has  romantic  focused  almost  relationships  exclusively  (Bartholomew,  on  1990),  despite the fact that the majority of our close relationships do not  fall  in  these  categories  relationships may be friendships,  work  relationships  Feeney  Noller  influences “reflects  a  general  such as  (1990) of  note  about  can  be  (p.  Vries,  mentoring, &  Penman,  God  (e.g.,  that  and  style  others,  rewards  286).  and  Kirkpatrick,  with  the  therapeutic  1994),  attachment  relationships  views  friendships  from  with  relationships”  relationships, “differ  influenced by attachment dynamics,  Bartholomew  range  interpersonal that  Other  relationship  and  de  1989).  relationships,  (e.g.,  individuals’  (e.g.,  and  Ainsworth  characterized  1994). likely  because  it  dangers  of  (1989)  as  even  notes  attachment  and suggests that different types of relationships one  attachment system”  another (p.  in  709).  regard  to  the  role  played  by  the  There may be meaningful differences  in attachment—related behavior between romantic relationships and non—romantic perspective,  relationships. romantic  From  relationships  an share  attachment—theoretical in  common  with  close  40 friendship the activation of the behavioral systems of attachment and caregiving,  and may be distinguished from friendships via the  activation of the sexual system (Shaver & Hazan,  1988).  Further,  the functions of romantic relationships and friendships vary for women  and  men.  friendships, their  Men  fewer  intimacy  to  relationships  women  who  get  and  cross  sex  needs  met  intimacy  relationships and same sex friendships, friendships types  of  needs  met  in  same  sex  and have more of their needs for intimacy met within  romantic  contrast  get  (e.g.,  Rose,  1985).  relationships  would  friendships, in  both  in  romantic  and less so in cross sex  An investigation spanning these offer  an  illumination  of  “the  potency of relationship type for influencing answers to questions about close relationships” The  majority  relationship  of  between  dimensions  (e.g.,  attachment  style  1989, p.  attachment  studies  have  attachment  styles  and  self and  (Berscheid et al.,  esteem, global  beliefs about human nature,  fear  of  examined  the  intrapersonal  death)  interpersonal  804)  or  between  variables  general styles of loving)  (e.g.,  (see Shaver  & Hazan,  1992 for a review).  The relationship between attachment  styles  and  processes  interpersonal  relationships variables,  has  been  considerably  in  less  specific,  studied.  ongoing  Process—type  such as how and what one discloses to another, how one  feels after disclosing to another,  or how one tries to get one’s  way,  us  are  attachment  more  likely  style  to  shapes  inform relations  static or summary variables, often  one  “wins”  a  about  with  the  ways  in  others  than  are  which more  such as amount of disclosure or how  conflict.  For  example,  Pietromonaco  and  41 Carnelley  (1992)  as amount of  liking  significantly attachment.  found that more static dependent measures  such  for partner and degree of conflict were not  related  to  individuals’  working  models  of  They suggest that more refined measures that include  assessments of the intimacy process “may be more likely to reveal differences among people who hold different models of attachment” (Pietromonaco & Carnelley, A Such  more a  comprehensive  study  intersecting context  of  1992, p.  would  roles  study  entail  of  ongoing,  of  gender,  relationship type,  attachment  explicit  and  real—world  examination would assess the  of  an  gender  32).  type  is  called  examination  of  of  relationship  relationships.  for. the  in  Further,  the this  independent and interactive effects and attachment  style  on  important  relationship processes such as intimacy and influence.  Intimacy as a Core Relational Process  The Nature of Intimacy in Relationships Intimacy is a construct that is central to an understanding of  close  process  relationships, (Penman  &  yet  Fehr,  defining  1984).  the  The  concept  is  an  multifaceted  elusive  nature  of  intimacy has prompted some authors to liken it to the proverbial elephant,  examined by blind men who come up with quite different  conclusions about the nature  of the beast,  they stand  1987).  outlined concept  a of  (Acitelli & Duck, systematic intimacy,  theoretical which  depending upon where  Reis and Shaver framework  involves  the  for  (1988)  have  examining  intertwined  roles  the of  42  as  framed process  which  and  response  for”  Jordan,  important  (e.g.  is  it  of  validated  (i.e.,  obtains  and  and personal  put  Surrey  &  and  in  self-in1991;  which  it  that  reflect  is  as  back  to  the  by  other. As  important ways.  and Shaver note:  It  is  a  involving produced are  in  not)  child’s  young  compatible  is  such  as  positive regard. components  process  of  different forms,  of  Bowlby (or  security  relationships with  observations  concepts  the  emotionally  responsive, and  that  interest  of  caregivers  in  spirit with and  Sullivan  validation,  delineated insecurity)  who  are  sensitive,  available,  (or and  theories  the  who  Rogers,  sensitive  listening,  used and  This similarity suggests that central intimacy  appear,  perhaps  across the lifespan.  in  (1988,  is  bidirectional  a  understood in  and  model  Baldwin,  in  the  worth), a  forth  involves  feel  linked  Such  behavior  other  and  as  628).  p.  which  the  are  result  Miller,  feelings  be  a  mutuality  1986),  intimacy  Attachment and  of  Genero,  to  view  1988,  notion  understand  to  as  Reis,  &  thoughts,  of  world  “a  self—relevant  important  and  known,  feel  her  Surrey,  1987;  movement  or  the  with  theory  relation  her/him  his  of  another  Intimacy is  communication,  emotional  of  expresses  to  to  comes  (Clark  consistent  person  one  information  confirmation cared  process  multi—step  in  feelings other’s  a  and affect.  cognitive processes,  behavior,  motives,  p.  somewhat 372).  Reis  43 The Intimacy Process the  Like intimacy  involves  affective  1988).  or  of  with  these  others  desires  1988,  Self  highly  associated  disclosure  and  attachment  behavioral,  desire  for  been  fears  behavior  shaped  by  be  traced  far  back as  of  personally  relevant  &  intimacy— that  to  “the  earlier  childhood”  condition for  information  intimacy  disclosure which reveals personal  of  (Reis  hypothesized  can  exert  extent to which their  general,  has  and  (approach  (avoidance motivation)  in the  in  cognitive,  intimacy  interpersonal vary  theory,  376).  an essential  1988).  it  of  some reaching as  p.  disclosure is  are,  and  experiences,  Some  the  upon  Individuals  (Reis & Shaver,  1983).  The  —avoiding,  relational  feelings  motivational,  influences  interactions  roots  model  and the fear of intimacy  independent  seeking  working  components.  motivation)  Shaver,  internal  with  personal  relationship facts  (Reis  &  Shaver,  feelings  is more  closeness  (Morton,  1978;  or  than  Waring  &  is  the  Chelune,  It is this verbal or nonverbal revelation which provides  other  person  indicate  with  an  understanding  opportunity and  to  caring  respond for  in  the  that  ways  discloser.  Expressivity is highly associated with relationship satisfaction for  both  women  particular,  received  predictive of than  is  (Sprecher,  and  the  men  disclosure  feelings  of  amount  of  1987).  (Frazier  &  Esterly,  from  one’s  affection and disclosure  1990),  given  to  in  is  more  for the  other  partner  closeness  and  one’s  partner  44 The listener’s role is at least as important in the intimacy process as the discloser’s,  since “appropriate responses enhance  feelings  connectedness,  whereas  nonresponsiveness  keep  of  deliberate (Reis  &  Shaver,  function  1988,  of  both  predispositions, interacting  379).  p.  the  interactants  Amount  responses  at  self  a  distance”  disclosure the  and  or  is  a  listener’s  such that low disclosers will disclose more when  with  an  “opener”  Behaviorally  1234).  of  speaker’s  or  a  person  intimate self—disclosure in others p.  inappropriate  then,  who  tends  elicit  Berg & Archer,  (Miller,  involves  intimacy  to  A’s  1983,  disclosure  and B’s responsiveness to that disclosure. While disclosing and responsive behavior may be a necessary condition  for  intimacy,  it  is  not  a  sufficient  condition.  Cognitive and emotional components are also crucial. Fehr  note that the term intimacy is derived from the Latin  (1987)  “intimus” which means “inmost”, a  sense  being  of  level of oneself. meaning  intimacy  into  understood  It is  individuals’  shared,  (Clark  rapport,  particularly  the  and  Unfortunately, characteristics  reciprocal 1988,  for,  Clark “have  and  is  and  responsive  630).  p.  disclosure in studies of intimacy”  to  (1988) less (p.  In  component  central  received  at  core  a  of  being  the note,  which  foster  addition  to  intimacy,  of  understood,  intimacy  process.  these  affective  attention  630).  that  behaviors  understandings”  feelings  Reis  appreciated  cognitive appraisal of the  affective  the  discloser’s  cared as  other  and  Reis,  &  intellectual  validated,  suggesting that the word reflects  deeply  disclosure  of  “evolves  Penman and  than  self—  45  Attachment and Intimacy The  bidirectional  importance listening which  so  of  both  nature  intimacy  disclosing  responsively) powerfully  of  echoes  shape  the  behavior  self—relevant the  material  parent—child  development  of  (i.e.,  the and  interactions  attachment  style.  The caregiver’s consistent awareness of and responsiveness to the infant’s  cues  produce  feelings  of  trust  and  reliance  upon  the  caregiver, developing into an intimate bond, whereas inconsistent and  nonresponsive  caregiving  confusion, and withdrawal  leads  (Bowlby,  to  feelings  of  alienation,  1969).  Secure individuals expect that others will be responsive and supportive in stressful situations,  and feel generally cared for,  hence they are likely to believe that intimacy is rewarding, have  an  interaction  Avoidant  individuals  expectations  about  interaction goal 1991). their  goal on  infancy,  the  achieving other  interactions  hand  with  to  have  others,  with more  others,  secure  negative  and  (Mikulincer  become  attached  stem from either a  ng,  to  others,  a  become attached.  fear of  have  an  Nachson,  &  and preoccupied  given  individuals will  in  Avoidance  intimacy or a  interest or motivation to become intimate with others” Hence,  others.  points out that “adults differ on both  and their motivation to  may therefore  intimacy  of maintaining distance  Bartholomew (1990) motivation  of  and  lack of  (p.  149).  tend to approach  whereas those who are dismissing and fearful will avoid,  but for different reasons:  the dismissing person because he/she  does not want to be intimate, versus the fearful person who wants  46 but  is  at  the  same  time  Bartholomew & Horowitz,  afraid  of  intimacy  (Bartholomew,  1990;  1991).  Attachment style is most evident to others in the behavioral domain.  Secure and preoccupied individuals who desire intimacy  are more likely to self-disclose than are dismissing individuals who do not want of intimacy  intimacy,  or  fearful  (Bartholomew & Horowitz,  individuals who are afraid 1991).  Individuals who are  secure are more likely than those who are  insecure to use self—  disclosure when appropriate and are most sensitive and responsive to  the  other’s  Avoidant to  individuals  reciprocate  others  self-disclosure  who  tend not  another’s  disclose  preoccupied  individuals disclose  do  disclosure  not  target,  adjust nor  they  are  a  operates  schema,  to  interpersonal to  the  individuals are more reliable to  and  expect  relationship,  and  match  less  likely  report  liking  not  pattern  reflecting  the  responsive  working  to  reinforcing &  are  a  the  high  but they  closeness to  of  of  content  the of  1991). model  to  of  expect  attachment particular  information which  conforms  the  view  Fleeson,  pre-existing  1985).  Hence,  of  secure  likely to expect that others will be warm,  supportive,  that  to  individual  and attend  (Sroufe  1991).  disclosure  complex,  internal  the  thereby  Nachson,  to reciprocate disclosure,  levels  the  patterns  relationships  more  do  (Mikulincer & Nachson,  direct  model,  and  and  the  particularly  the other’s disclosure Like  them; is  &  to self disclose,  disclosure,  to  willingness to  (Mikulincer  others  whereas will  avoidant  be  those who reluctant  individuals  are preoccupied tend to  are more  commit  to  likely to  the doubt  47 that  others  Shaver,  are  well-intentioned  good-hearted  is  hypothesized  attachment process  renewal  of  to  such that  arise during the formation,  play  “many of  a  central  the most  the maintenance,  attachments”  attachment point of view,  (Bowiby,  enhance  nurturing  infant’s  mutual adult  affection  of  in  caring  relationships,  where  through  vulnerabilities, development  of  1979,  and  they  reflecting  130).  and  From  an  in  to  occur  function  as  and  to  come  to  (Reis & Shaver, styles  the ways  may  improving  in  of  secure  deepen  the  disclosure  of  enhancing the  they  and  Feelings  individuals’  attachment  differences  thereby  1969).  likely  may  regrets,  interactants  different  the  in the infant,  caregiver,  are most  validated at their affective core Further,  in  intense emotions  p.  (Bowiby,  increasing  fears, the  the  survival  and  relationship  as  &  positive feelings of affection increase  behavior  chances  role  the disruption,  the likelihood of proximity-seeking behaviors  the  (Hazan  1987)  Affect  the  and  feel  personal known  and  1988).  be  conceptualized  individuals  the  regulate  intensity of emotional experience and in the methods used to cope with distress Secure  (Mikulincer et al.,  individuals  negative  affect  and  are  more  to  those who are insecure  1990;  likely  experience (Simpson,  to  Sroufe cope  greater  1990).  &  process, Sceery,  to  use  negative  promoting 1988)  .  affect  effective  as  part  responses  Individuals who  1977).  effectively  positive  affect  with than  Secure attachment allows  for constructive modulation of negative feelings, persons  Waters,  of  their  from  leading secure communication  others  are preoccupied manage  (Kobak  &  negative  48 feelings  by  focusing  hypervigilant way,  attention  upon  levels  of  affect;  restrict their awareness of distress, feelings,  (Mikulincer  et  and  al.,  maintain  1990).  those  escalating  in  emotional  The  it)  lead  responses from others  to  (Kobak & Hazan,  are  distance  dysfunctional  greater  a  who  a and  avoidant  inhibit their expression of  insecure individuals tend to cope with distress or  distress  worrying about abandonment and rejection,  displaying heightened  negative  the  from  ways  others  in  which  (by minimizing it  likelihood  of  negative  1991).  Hypotheses: Attachment and Intimacy From  the  foregoing  review  it  is  clear  that  secure  individuals are likely to have greater motivation for intimacy in relationships, disclosures, ways,  to  have  greater  responsivity  to interpret others’  to  others’  self—  intimacy behaviors in positive  and be less likely to express inappropriate negative affect  than are those who are insecurely attached.  All of these factors  lead to the hypothesis that individuals who are securely attached will,  on  average,  score  insecure respondents,  higher  on  intimacy  measures  will  than  on average.  Gender Differences in Intimacy Although Caldwell  and  less personal, lower  in  men  and  Peplau  women  (1982)  define  have  found men’s  in  similar  interactions  ways, to  less concerned with their partner’s feelings,  self—disclosure.  relationships  intimacy  women  have  In been  addition,  found  to  in  attach  their  be and  close  significantly  49 greater  importance  of the other, awareness, 1993).  men are other to  authenticity,  equal and  affection  less  person’s  appreciation  deepening the other’s self— (Parker  &  de  Vries,  men’s relationships appear less intimate. of  proportion appreciation  women  in  their  men  and  intimate  report  feeling  relationships,  but  likely than women to express those feelings to the  an  perspective  Further,  1987).  affective  Women’s  1985).  self—disclosure,  connectedness  and  (Helgeson et al.,  convey  men to  do  empathic understanding,  In short,  An  than  sense  than  are  men may be  understanding  of  women  perspective—taking  (Franzoi,  exerts  less likely  of  Davis,  &  stronger  a  other  the  Young,  effect  on  men’s satisfaction than does men’s perspective—taking on women’s satisfaction,  leading  perspective—taking when  empathic to  take  women  concern  investigators  is  primarily  the  multidimensional empathy Women  more  than  for  & Peplau,  men  generalization must  be  1982;  are  to  friendships,  friendships common  (Wright,  (Peplau,  (Aries  women’s  reflect  patterns of women and men. same sex  likely  they  thereby of  such  to  self—disclose  about  1985;  1983;  1983).  Bell,  Woolsey,  1987).  disclosure  than  complexity  in  1981; The men’s  self-disclosure  Men self—disclose less than women in  but the difference decreases 1982),  leading  1985).  greater  the  whereas  interweave  recipient  & Johnson,  Fox et al.,  regarding  qualified  the  (Franzoi et al.,  feelings and vulnerabilities Caidwell  another  of  men’s  that  experience,  cognitive understanding,  a  satisfaction  greater  cognitive  a  perspective  and  speculate  to  and The  in marriage amount  of  equal men’s  in cross disclosure and  sex is  women’s  50 disclosure political  varies views  by  and  information and  its  content:  ideas,  feelings  women  disclose  disclose  (Hendrick,  and men reveal both strengths  men  1988);  more  about  one  third  of  Further,  women  rate  women  self-disclosure  from  qualifications,  it  vulnerabilities disclosure elicit  themselves  is  offers  of  a  from  than  that  and  others  (Hacker,  do  men  1988).  opportunity  strengths, is  an  in  1981).  eliciting  Despite  disclosure  of  intimacy  the  important  these  feelings  for  and  no  whereas no men  weaknesses  higher  greater  information  disclosure  only  (Hendrick,  clear  personal  and weaknesses to one another,  reveal  others  about  and while most women  women but one third of men reveal only strengths, but  more  and than  ability  intimacy  to  skill,  both of which women more than men tend to exhibit. In terms Duck  (1987)  of the cognitive aspect of have  developed  the  intimacy,  concept  of  Acitelli  and  “relationship  awareness” to describe the mutual metacognitive process involved in  both  members  acknowledging interaction  of  the  dyad  reflecting  “behavioral,  patterns  Relationship  the  that  cognitive,  describe  awareness  is  upon,  a  analyzing,  affective  and  relationship”  correlated  with  1990).  satisfaction of  is  relationship  (Acitelli,  Among  married  significantly awareness,  individuals  affected  whereas  305).  (p.  relationship  satisfaction for both women and men if they are single Esterly,  (Frazier &  however,  women’s  by their partner’s  men’s  and  satisfaction  level  is  not  in press).  The possibility that men may be using the label of intimacy differently from women was tested by Reis  (1986),  who reports on  51 a  set  experiments  of  which  suggests therefore that content of  males’  notes  a  do  to  (Reis,  1986,  each  men  anything  other actually differs  102)  p.  lower  intimacy level is  capacity  for  intimacy.  recognize  how  they  about  it.  They  are  (p.  405) of  capable  .  intimacy  situational cues For example,  Other authors however, behavior given  (Brody,  Reis,  1985;  if men expect  future  Bell  feel may  effectively socialized that they can’t confide friends”  He  “we may have greater confidence that the  lesser  even when  that  unable  to  alternative.  this  speculates that men’s  (1981)  attributable  out  interactions with  from those of females” Hacker  rule  (1981)  “they may have  be  been  so  in their wives or  report that most men  specific motivational &  Senchak,  Solomon,  or  1985).  interactions with someone who  is a prospective romantic partner they may be even more invested in self—disclosure than women  (Hendrick,  1988),  strategic use of disclosure to achieve ends. a  motivational  rather  men’s lower disclosure  than  ability  (Sattel,  investigators  Some  an  one  women, (Mark  of  are &  Gilligan,  roles  and  have  likely  to  Alper, 1982,  fears  1985), 1983),  as  deficit  suggested  (Lewis,  perceive or  This suggests that may  too  close”  (Basow,  1992,  for  the  Men,  1984).  potentially  p.  because  203).  difference  less one of capacity and  intimate  perhaps  that  more  situations dangerous they  messages about closeness in relationships such as not  account  1976).  between women’s and men’s disclosure is more  illustrating the  Men  who  so  than  negatively (Pollak  receive  &  mixed  “get close but self—disclose  personal information may be judged as less likable and less well—  52 adjusted than women who 1976;  Derlega  &  disclose an  Chaikin,  1976).  equivalent amount  Other  investigators view men’s  lesser intimacy as a function of power motivation and  suggest  that  maintain control,  men  (Chelune,  intentionally  use  (Sattel,  1976),  inexpressiveness  particularly in situations where they perceive  a threat to their position  (see “influence strategies” below).  In a key study which includes a subset of the variables levels  of  Narus  variables)  (1981)  of  examined  orientation  interest  the  to  this  moderating  (masculinity-femininity)  proposal,  influence  on  the  as  they  relate  to  intimacy  of  counterparts,  intimacy  scores,  lowest  (Fischer  &  men’s  Narus,  same  more  relationship (p.  453).  scored Feminine  intimacy than their male  related than  On  to  being  the  how  one  feminine,  other  sex  1981).  hand,  in  relationships  Fischer  conclude that “being male or female, be  cross  and whereas women’s same sex relationships had the  highest  may  between  Women  significantly higher on intimacy overall than did men. and androgynous women scored higher on  and  gender—role  (same sex vs.  levels.  (and  Fischer  association  gender of respondent and type of relationship sex)  to  and  had  Narus  the  (1981)  but particularly being male, acts  and  feels  or masculine, another  in  or  study  a  close  androgynous” examining  effect of sex—role orientation on intimacy, Williams  (1985)  the  noted  that although there was an overall gender difference in reported intimacy, who  with women scoring higher than men,  reported  high  they were high or intimacy  in  levels  of  femininity,  low on masculinity,  their  friendships”  (p.  “males and females  regardless  reported higher 599).  of  whether  levels  of  Psychological  53 femininity  has  been  found  in  a  number  of  other  studies  to  be  associated with higher levels of intimacy for both women and men (Berg & Peplau, are  less  1982;  likely  to  Burda, Vaux & Schill, have  been  encouraged  expressive traits than are women,  and keep  experience in mind  develop  “feminine”  (Basow,  1992).  tendency for women and men to describe  intimacy  that  to  Men, however,  and in fact have probably been  sanctioned against expressing them Despite the central  1984).  there  in  different  ways,  is  also much  overlap  and much within-gender variability  it  is  important  between  (e.g. wright,  the  1988).  to  sexes  There is  more similarity than difference between women and men in the way they define  intimacy  (Monsour,  1992).  The  central  dimension  in  everyday conceptions of intimacy for both women and men involves feelings al.,  of  closeness,  1987).  authenticity  Parker  gender  and  were  the  for  both  relationships pattern  of  an  appreciation, de  two  Vries most  women  affection  (1993)  highly  and  affective,  and  men.  found rated  (Helgeson  that  trust  values  Importantly,  expressive  focus  for  et and  in  close  the  modal  women  in  contrast to an instrumental focus for men diminishes “markedly as the strength and duration of the friendships 1982,  p.  increases”  (Wright,  19).  Hypotheses: Gender and Intimacy From the respondents,  foregoing review it may be hypothesized that women on  average,  than will men respondents,  will  score higher  overall.  on  intimacy measures  54 Gender x Relationship Type  Hypotheses:  Following  above  from the  review  -  a  Intimacy gender  respondent  of  by  relationship type interaction effect on intimacy is hypothesized. Comparing average,  average,  intimacy  higher  cross  their  gender,  within  sex  lower  their  cross  women  in  sex  in  same  their men  sex  same  sex  Comparing  friendships  will,  on  report,  will  report,  will  the  in  genders,  report  average,  in on  than  friendships between  on  than  friendships  respondents  their  friendships.  sex  same  in  friendships;  intimacy  respondents  women  higher  intimacy than will men in same sex friendships.  Gender and Attachment Intersect: The  concept  of  Intimacy Processes is  intimacy  core  gender avoid  dimensions  plays  a  role in  intimacy,  responsiveness, relationship affective  in  of  patterns  intimacy  and  awareness  experience  of  of  is  motivation such  behaviors  cognitive  It  bonds.  attachment  in  heart  the  gender  of  and at the same time captures  differences in close relationships, the  at  aspects  of  as  intimacy.  to  approach  Attachment  style  of  self  and other  shape motivational,  and behavioral components of individuals’  the  in too  expected to influence intimacy patterns in particular ways, working models  as  such  and  or and  disclosure  intimacy  perspective—taking,  that  evident  is  since  affective,  intimacy process.  Gender and attachment style together may be expected to more completely capture the nature of the intimacy process among women and men in their close relationships than either construct on its own.  Secure  attachment style,  with  its positive views  of  both  55 self  and  other,  the genders men,  may  than  being  be  associated with  less  difference between  insecure attachment styles.  Securely attached  comfortable with  closeness,  may  be  less  likely than  insecure men to show the male gender—typed pattern of avoidance of intimacy.  Securely attached women and men are not expected to  differ in intimacy levels. Dismissing assertive  individuals  people  who  may  hold  positive model of self.  a  be  seen  negative  as  defensively  model  of  others  and  a  They are not particularly motivated to  approach and get close to others.  At the same time,  they do not  feel that they need others to validate their self-image. individuals may be expected to have lower their relationships,  self—  levels of  These  intimacy  in  yet their tendency to deny negative affect  or vulnerability may lead them to report moderately high intimacy levels.  The  interpersonal  dismissing  runs  counter  women,  to  pattern  traditional  associated gender  with  being  expectations  for  and matches the traditional gender pattern for men.  Fearful women and men hold negative views of both self and others, to  and are therefore likely to avoid close relationships and  report  low  intimacy  levels.  expected to initiate cross stereotypically are,  Since  women  the  Stinson, be  opposite Ickes,  expected  to  sex)  fearful  more  women,  frequently  Bissonette & Briggs, lead  to  not  to  be  sex contact in the same way that men while  unlikely  cross sex contact, may be approached by others of  tend  greater  than 1991).  initiate  (especially others  fearful  men  (Garcia,  Such a dynamic may  opportunities  fearful women than for fearful men.  to  for  intimacy  for  56 preoccupied  The  traditional as  such  feminine  may  style role  viewed  be  women than for men.  is  more  (i.e.,  as  more  characteristic  affective  of  the  expressiveness),  predictable  and  appropriate  may  lower  report  for  Men who are preoccupied may be expected to  report higher intimacy levels than fearful or dismissing men, they  and  intimacy  levels  than  preoccupied  yet  women.  Such a finding might be due to the fact that “while a preoccupied woman fits the prescribed gender role, appear  may  quite  (Pietromonaco  inappropriate  Carnelley,  &  1992,  preoccupied men may show higher women. attempts  If at  engagement  expression) respond  partners  the  as  with  hence  34).  p.  On  unacceptable”  the  other  hand,  intimacy levels than preoccupied  as  opportunities reciprocal  and  preoccupied  of  (such  the same behavior in a man  self  for  men  disclosures  intimacy,  behavior,  perceive and  the  thereby  their  emotional  partner  may  increasing  the  likelihood of intimacy.  Hypotheses:  Gender x Attachment on Intimacy  From the  foregoing discussion  interaction effect on intimacy are  secure,  but  among  average,  gender those  are  expected  to  in  intimacy  preoccupied  are  have  by attachment  is hypothesized.  differences  who  a gender  higher  and  will  Among those who be  suppressed,  fearful,  intimacy  style  levels  women,  on  than  are  men.  Three—way  Interaction:  Gender,  Attachment Style on Intimacy  Type  of  Relationship,  and  57 simultaneous  The variables  proposed  hypotheses made  consideration  for  at  this  this  study of  level  three  of  is  novel  a  complexity  independent  approach,  are,  by  hence  necessity,  somewhat speculative and there is less justification for precise predictions.  However,  scoring higher than women preoccupied  attachment  possible  one  scenario  might  entail  men  in intimacy when comparing within the  style  and  cross  within  sex  friendships.  Such a finding might reflect the different meanings of expressive (p. behavior “men’s  for  men  willingness  and  women.  to  be  particularly  valued,  comfort with  intimacy”  preoccupied men sex  friends  given  the  Feeney  to  relationship partners may be  sex—role  26). women)  (i.e.,  of  close  As  et  (1994a)  stereotype  of  note,  low male  Hence the cross sex friends of  may be more  preoccupied  al.  women  likely than the cross  (i.e.,  men)  to  regard  expressivity and disclosure attempts as opportunities to increase the intimacy level in the relationship. In another example of this complexity, (sex of respondent x attachment style) to  have  different  higher  intimacy  gender—role  levels  than  expectations  especially those of the opposite sex.  at the two-way level  fearful women are expected are about  fearful  men,  approaching  However,  due  to  others,  this effect may  vary by type of relationship such that in romantic relationships fearful women may report greater intimacy than  fearful men,  in  may  friendships  fearful  women  and  fearful  men  not  but  differ.  Such an effect might be due to the larger role of sexual dynamics and  expectations  friendships.  in  romantic  relationships  as  compared  with  58  Such  complexity,  while  admittedly  speculative,  can  only be  examined when all the relevant variables are taken into account, as is the case in this study.  Hypotheses: Gender x Attachment x Relationship Type From cross  the  sex  above  discussion  friendships,  it  may  preoccupied  men  intimacy than will preoccupied women. relationships,  fearful  women  may  be  hypothesized may  score  In addition,  score  Intimacy  -  higher  on  that  higher  in on  in romantic  intimacy  than  will fearful men.  Influence Strategies The Nature of Influence in Relationships As  noted  individuals  earlier,  feel  and  process—type  behave  may  be  variables more  which  assess  how  about  the  informative  roles of attachment style and gender in relationships than static variables.  Influence  importance. one  Influence  partner’s  chain  is  a  refers  [of  relational to  process  “instances  thoughts,  in which  feelings  and  170)  Unless  .  each person has  relationship  between  et al.,  .  1989)  them  cannot  some be  impact  events  (Huston,  on the  considered  primary  1983, the  other,  close  in are  behaviors]  causally connected to events in the other’s chain” p.  of  (Berscheid  There are numerous areas in which individuals  in  relationships have an impact on the other and deal with the task of  trying  agree  to  to  interfering  get  their with  their  way,  desire, them  or  either by  (Peterson,  by  convincing  preventing 1983).  the  the  other  other  Inevitably  in  to  from close  59 relationships  there  circumstances  are  in  which  involved do not both want the same thing. one’s  ends  through  interpersonal  influence  power  interpersonal  power  over  (Huston, or  another  has  individuals  The ability to achieve  1983).  wins”  “who  the  reflects  The  one’s  question  considerably  been  of more  studied than has been the question of q individuals attempt to influence  close  Important  dynamics  intimacy,  can be affected  others in  (Howard,  Bluinstein,  relationships,  such  for better or  and tactics used to handle differences consequence  A  influence field,  is  many  of  that of  the  limited  which  “include  any  other.  acquired wide measure  of  .  .  and  none  acceptance”  styles  of  of  Schwartz, the  as  experience  (Reis & Shaver,  research  similar  1986).  focus  1988).  on  scales  styles  dominate  strategies  and  identify  but none is absolutely consistent classifications  the  (Steil  influence  &  Weltman,  which  1992,  schemes  has  73).  One  p.  received  has  the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory ROCI  was  designed  to  strategies used by executives two  dimensions:  specific other  styles  concern are  is reflected  in  for  reasonable  an  (ROd; Rahiin,  differentiate  among  in organizations, self  assessed:  of the  replication and evidences acceptable reliability and validity  The  of  for worse by the manner  investigator—generated  similar underlying dimensions, with  &  and  high  concern  for  concern  integrating style,  which addresses the needs of both partners;  a  1983).  influence  on the basis for  is  Five  other. both  “win—win”  of  self  and  process  low concern for both  self and other is represented by an avoiding style;  high concern  for self and low concern for others leads to a dominating style;  60 low concern by  an  for self and high concern for others style,  obliging  or  a  tendency  to  give  is  in;  illustrated the  and  fifth  style identified is compromising which is hypothesized to fall in the  middle  of  individuals (Rahim,  the  other  giving  up  four  strategies,  something  in  order  involves  and  to  solve  the  both  problem  1983)  Empirical  examination  of  the  five  influence  styles  shows  that they fall into five independent and reasonably pure factors, and that the measure discriminates among the styles of influence most  likely  peers,  be  in the  not  used  by  subordinates  and  emerged did  to  use  of  distinguish  respondents  (Rahim,  when  1983).  Gender  strategies.  While  among  and  women  with  their  patterns  dominating men,  bosses,  the  also  strategies other  four  strategies did: women executives were more likely than their male counterparts strategies, (Rahim,  to  use  and  were  less  likely  compromising to  use  avoidant  and  obliging  strategies  The representativeness of this sample of women is  1983).  questionable  integrating,  however,  since  the  fairly high-level executives,  women  in  the  study  were  all  and comprised only 50 of the 1,219  respondents.  Attachment Styles and Influence Strategies Although  the  organizations,  it  ROCI has  was since  originally been  developed  successfully  used  for to  use  in  examine  influence strategies in a variety of interpersonal relationships, including professor,  romantic and  relationship,  generalized  parent,  other  sibling,  (Hammock,  friend,  Richardson,  61  Pilkington,  &  Richardson,  Hammock,  using  the  solution  Utley,  1987; Lubben,  population (Rahim,  of  factors,  same factor  with  Davis,  & Mickler,  in  1988;  1988).  Factor  confirmed  studies  Pistole,  of  the  other  1989;  analyses  five—factor  interpersonal  factor analyses have consistently yielded  integrating  (Hammock et al.,  two-dimensional  &  executives  1983);  relationships however, four  Levy  compromising  and  loading  1987; Richardson et al.,  conceptualization  of  the  ROCI  on  1988).  as  the The  reflecting  concern for the self and concern for the other is compatible with the attachment theoretical perspective of internal working models of  self and other  category  (Bowiby,  attachment  model  1979)  and maps  proposed  by  neatly onto the f our-  Bartholomew  and  Horowitz  (1991) In an examination of the characteristics of ongoing romantic relationships Levy and Davis styles  (as  measure)  assessed  are  related  Compromising  and  by  (1988),  the  found that adult attachment  Hazan  &  Shaver,  in meaningful ways to integrating  1987,  styles  strategies  of  were  3-category influence. positively  correlated with secure attachment and were negatively correlated with  preoccupied  and  avoidant  attachment;  additionally,  preoccupied attachment was positively correlated with dominating strategies  (Levy & Davis,  by Pistole  (1989):  1988).  Similar findings were reported  those who were identified as securely attached  were most likely to use integrating and compromising strategies, and  those  who  were  preoccupied  were  persons to use obliging strategies. strategies  are  considered  to  be  more  likely  than  avoidant  Integrating and compromising mutually  focused  strategies,  62 reflecting the positive view of self and other characteristic of the secure style  (Shaver & Hazan,  Interestingly, correlate  with  (1988)  Davis  1992).  the  avoidant  avoidant  influence  study.  Such a  attachment  style  strategies  finding may  in  the  relate to  did  not  Levy  and  the problems  identified earlier regarding the need to pull apart two types of avoidance: negative both  dismissing,  view  self  and  Dismissing are  others, others  individuals  likely  fearful  of  which has  individuals  positive view of  and  fearful,  (cf  Bartholomew  with  employ  to  a  their  dominant  may  be  of  both  with  more  negative  a &  likely  and  view  Horowitz,  defensive  influence  self  a of  1991).  self—assertiveness  strategies, to  use  whereas  avoidant  or  obliging strategies. The found of  combination  in preoccupied  emotional  partner  do  martyr-like  way  1988).  This  motivating  they want oblige  to  experienced  Horowitz,  the  by  of  to  them  (dominance),  pattern  dominance/warmth kinds be  and  obliging  strategies  individuals may relate to their high  arousal,  what  dominant  or  corresponds  preoccupied  to  make  their  motivating them  wishes  other’s  interpersonal  try  level  to  a  (Levy  &  the  excessive  problems most  individuals  in  Davis,  likely  to  (Bartholomew  &  1991)  Hypotheses: Attachment and Influence Strategies From secure  the  foregoing  respondents,  compromising  and  on  discussion average,  integrating  insecure respondents,  it  may  will  influence  on average.  be  be  hypothesized  more  likely  strategies  to  than  that use will  Dismissing individuals will be  63 likely  use  to  dominating  strategies  than will  the other three attachment styles.  Fearful  individuals  from  individuals will be  more likely to use avoidant strategies than will individuals from the other three groups.  Gender Patterns in Influence Strategies As noted  earlier,  researchers  using attachment theory have  often overlooked the role of gender, studies  attachment  of  exception.  style  and  and the abovementioned two strategies  influence  no  are  The three—category approach to attachment styles may  further obscure the role of gender in patterns of using influence strategies. role  Gender the  in  has  kinds  shown  been  of  in  studies  other tactics  influence  to play  used  in  a  close  relationships. In an examination of expectations about which strategies are likely to be used by the two genders, men  more  reward  than  women of  forms  are  expected  influence,  in  Johnson  to  men. of  coercive  use  to  comparison  expected to use helplessness and personal  strategies.  male and female tactics,  Peplau  (1983)  cry,  sulk,  and  the  problem,  differences  and in  the  the  show anger,  try  to  use  direct  who  are  in the actual use  reviews  literature  on  and finds that women and men report that  criticize  whereas men tend to  and  women  their behavior is consistent with gender stereotypes: to  found that  rewards more than are  Gender differences also have been found influence  (1976)  delay of  male call  the  partner’s for  a  insensitivity,  logical approach to  discussion.  influence  women tend  strategies,  Despite women  gender and  men  64  hold similar views on which strategies they would prefer to use; the  given  both  choice,  (White & Roufail,  Men,  of  rational  in  give  most  1989). the  with  uncomfortable may  emotion,  use  the  such as stating one’s desires and using reason,  strategies, highly  rank  genders  use  or  (oblige)  and  expression  display  more  strategies  avoidant  of  than women, who are more likely to be frustrated by avoidance, confront  differences,  consider  feelings  Lefebvre, to  likely  bring  up  for  are more  and  relationship  without  in  are  likely than ever  less  strained  a  women  bringing  in contrast to men,  Women,  Grisham,  example,  discussion  and  problems  Cunningham, for  Men,  problem  1982).  (Wright,  discuss  to  (Kelley,  men  1978).  are women,  strained  a  difficulty  a  want  to  are  Yablon  than  relationship terminate  than  &  Sink,  and  up  they  that  feelings,  value  the  even at the risk of  importance  of  expressing  losing the friendship  to the  are likely  to engage friends in discussions of things that disturb them, report  to  and  authentic  (Fox et al.,  1985) frequently  A couples  is  the  one  which  noted pattern  demand/withdraw  individual  of  interaction  dynamic  “pressures  among distressed  (Christensen,  the  other  with  1988),  in  demands,  complaints and criticisms, while the other partner withdraws with defensiveness p.  458)  role,  .  passive  inaction”  (Christensen  &  Shenk,  1991,  Women more than men have been found to take the demand  and men more than women have been shown to withdraw  Christensen & gender  and  effects  Shenk, are  1991). a  result  (e.g.,  It has been hypothesized that these of  sex—role  conditioning  in  which  65 women are socialized to relationships, engulfment  fear The  whereas  understood pattern distress and  been  are  relationship, confronted  found  to  &  equally  the  held  to  example,  1991).  likely  distance  Heavey,  &  engagement  associated  be  seek  are not  the  1990). clearly  demand/withdraw  with  greater  marital  On the other hand,  to  and  terminate  a  women  problematic  despite the fact that women are more likely to have  satisfaction found  to  (Christensen  For  Shenk,  source  of  terminating than are men commonly  socialized  1983).  (Christensen  men  are  avoidance versus  of  (Peterson,  has  men  relationships  in  consequences  seek closeness and to fear rejection in  be  to  than  is  (Wright,  more  understanding  (Knudson,  Despite  likely  with  relationship  the  to  higher  lead  greater  to  1983),  levels  & Golding,  stereotypes  prior  to  Engaging strategies are  (Peterson,  Sommers,  persistent  in  1982).  avoidance  associated  be  strain  of  and  couple  have  shared  been  spousal  1980).  and  research  findings  regarding the characteristic ways in which women and men get what they  want,  gender  differences  in  involve a more complex picture  strategies  (Lips,  of  influence  may  Some authors have  1991).  pointed to the importance of studying variables which are genderlinked and which may underlie the differences found between women and  men,  such  perceptions  of  as  gender-role  personal  Peplau,  1980;  Greater  femininity,  personal  power  Howard  and  power,  et less  less  orientation,  al., access  and 1986; to  access  to  self—confidence Steil  &  resources,  self—confidence all  resources, (Falbo  Weitman, less  &  1992).  perceived  predict greater use  of the indirect or “manipulative” strategies generally associated  HH H  ft  Cl)  CD ‘C)  CT)  I)  0  -  •  H-  H  iQ  ft  1  C)  Cl  CD  cn  Cl  CD  i-  CD X  (I)  C) II 0 Cl) U)  H-  a  0  CD  0  ft  CD  -  H  -  CD  P) < CD II CU  H-  CD  U) CT)  H-  —  CU .Q CD  CU <  o  CD  0  CD H-  0 II CD  0  H-  ft  1 CD  0  ft  CD  CD  CT)  < CD ii CT’ ‘.-Q CD  -  CD -  CT)  0  H  H  H-  CT  ft  CD  CD  U)  CU •  H-  U)  H  II CD H CU rt  I—”  0  H)  0  U) CD  CD  CU < CD ‘1 p  0  ft HC)  CU  Cl  —  CU  U)  H-  U)  CD  CD  0  C)  H-  CD  ft  H-  -  ‘  CD  HH H  U)  CD  CU ft  H-  H  0  CD  0  CD  CU <  -  CU < CD 1 CU  0  CD  0  •  CD  0  H-  CD H  H  CD  CU ft CD  ft  ft  CD  Cl  H-  0 H)  CD  t-  C)  II CD CU ft CD  U)  -  H-  CD  CD Cl  <  C) CD  I-  CD  CD  H  Cl  CU  Hft  H-  H) CD  H  C) CT  H  0  H  0  < C)  CU  CD  0  H)  0  ‘C)  CD CU C).  H  -  C/)  C) CD  t  0  Cl)  CD  /))  CT)  0  H  CD  CD  o  U)  C) CD U)  ))  iQ  -  H)  0  CD (fl  H  HCU  —  I H  CD 1  CD  0 H)  ft  H  U)  CD  CT.  CD U)  CD  H-  ‘1 CU  CD  H  H)  H-  0 H)  CD  CD  HC)  CT)  Cl < CT)  CD  ft  H)  0  C)  CD 1  CD  0 ft H0  CD  0  CU (/) CD  CD  ‘  <  CD  < CD •  H-  ç-  CT)  CD C)  U)  CD Cl  CD  C) 0  (j)  ft  ft -  U)  ft CU  CD U) CD U)  0 ft  ‘C)  H-  0  H H  0  H)  CD  C) CD  -  CD H  CD  H  ft  CU ft  CD U)  CD  0  CD C) HCl) CD  t-  CD C) ft  H-  ft 0  CD  CU ft  ft  -  H-  CD  H  --  H  U)  i—  0 ‘1 CD  U)  CD  H-  CU ft CD  h  ft  Cfl  C) CD  H  H  CD  H-  C/)  0  H-  ft  H  H  •  CD  CU  CD  CU  0  -  ft U)  Cl CD  CD U)  CD  0  H  H-  CT)  ft  CD  h  0  HCD U)  i.P  CU ft CD  CD  X  CT)  CD  0  CD U) CD U)  0 ft  ft  Cl)  ‘p  0 HCl H-  CU  CD  ft  C) ft CD C)  CD  CD X  CD  CU  -  CD  CU  CD  CU  0  -  Cl)  rt  Cl CD  II CD U) d 0  CD  CD C/)  i-i-  ft CD  ‘1  Cl) ft  C) CD  i  CD  H) H  H  CD  Cl CC)  0 CD  ••  CD U)  U)  CD  0 ft  •  CD Cl)  H-  CU ft CD ‘C)  ‘-  U) ft  C) CD  CD  H  H)  i-a  H)  0  U) CT)  CD  ft  H  CD  H  ‘1 0  CU  H  CU H Cl) 0  P)  Hb  0 Z U)  H-  CD H CU ft  CT) Z ft HC)  -  i-a-  Cl  H CD  U) CD  <  U) CD X  CD  U) CU  •  CD  •  H•  .  H-  U)  0  H-  1 CD H CU ft  o  CD  Cl  0  H-  0  C) 0  CD  CD  CD  ft  H)  0  CD CU  CU  CD  ft  H-  U)  H  H) H-  CD  ft  CD  CU  -  °  ft  Cl Cl  CT)  H  H  CU  ft  CD H  s  H  ft CD H-  -  0:’  H  -  CU H  ft  CD  Cl  CU  0  H -  CT)  H  CD  H  CU  CD  Q  ft  H•  67 Gender and Attachment Intersect:  Influence Strategies  Attachment style may be expected to interact with gender to affect individuals’ style,  with  its  use of influence tactics.  positive  views  of  both  Secure attachment  self  and  other,  may  be  associated with less difference between the genders than insecure attachment styles.  Securely attached men,  being comfortable with  closeness, may be less likely than insecure men to show the male gender—typed pattern of avoidance. their reliance on the less  likely  than  self  Securely attached women, with  for approval  insecurely  attached  and  acceptance,  women  to  use  may be obliging  strategies. Fearful  individuals  self and the other,  who  hold  are more  a  negative  view  of  both  the  likely than others to use avoidant  strategies,  limiting contact with others in order to minimize the  chances  being  of  rejected.  Fearful  women  may  however  likely than fearful men to use obliging strategies in)  (i.e.,  be  more  giving  as a way of ending the interaction, as such a pattern is more  traditionally gender—congruent for women than for men. Preoccupied individuals see others in a more positive light than the self, and therefore view others as being able to provide approval that the preoccupied individual cannot give to the self. Such an individual is highly invested in the relationship and is desperately  fearful  of  being  abandoned  by  the  other.  Such  individuals have been found to use both obliging and dominating strategies of  influence  (Levy & Davis,  terms of influence strategies,  1988;  Pistole,  1989).  In  it is possible that the dominance  strategies will be used more by preoccupied men than preoccupied  68 and  women,  the  obliging  strategies  will  be  used  more  by  preoccupied women than by preoccupied men. Dismissing individuals have a positive view of the self and a negative view of others  and therefore may  dominating,  are  others.  investment  in  since  the  They do not acknowledge a need  be more  they  do  to use  likely not  relationship.  feel  The  that  to  use  dominant to  likely  strategies, dominating  use  dismissing  Further,  may  men  hence  as  dismissing  strategies be  more  strategies  that  they  much  dismissing  characteristic of the traditional male role,  than  have  style  is  more  is the tendency men  may  dismissing  likely  for  to  use  be  more  women.  dominating  strategies than will men in the other three groups.  Hypotheses: Gender x Attachment on Influence Strategies As  the  literature  made  here  that  dominating  in this  considered  are  area  is  exploratory.  strategies will  be  limited, It  may  used more  preoccupied men,  on average,  women.  preoccupied and fearful men,  Further,  by  the be  hypotheses  hypothesized  dismissing  and  than by dismissing and preoccupied on average,  may be  more likely to use avoidant strategies than will preoccupied and fearful women, women,  on average.  on average,  In addition,  preoccupied and fearful  may be more likely to use obliging strategies  than will preoccupied and fearful men,  on average.  Summary of Hypotheses A.  Intimacy  69 Al.  Three-way  interaction:  gender  by  attachment  style  by  relationship type. in their closest  i)  sex  cross  friendships,  preoccupied men  will report higher intimacy than will preoccupied women ii)  in  romantic  relationships,  fearful  women  will  report  higher intimacy than will fearful men  A2. Two-way interaction: gender by attachment style. 1)  preoccupied women will  report higher  intimacy than will  preoccupied men fearful  ii)  women  will  report  higher  intimacy  than  will  fearful men  A3.  Two-way interaction: gender by relationship type 1)  in their closest  same sex friendship,  women will report  higher intimacy than will men ii)  women will report higher intimacy in their closest same  sex friendship than in their closest cross sex friendship iii)  men  will  report  lower  intimacy  in  their  closest  same  sex friendship than in their closest cross sex friendship  A4. Main effect: gender i)  women will report higher intimacy than will men  A5. Main effect: i)  attachment style  secure participants will report higher intimacy than will  insecure participants  70  B.  Influence  Bi. Two-way interaction: gender by attachment style i) the  dismissing  dominating  and preoccupied men will  strategy  than  will  report more use  dismissing  and  of  preoccupied  women preoccupied  ii)  and  fearful  women will  report more use  of  the obliging strategy than will preoccupied and fearful men iii)  preoccupied and fearful men will report more use of the  avoiding strategy than will preoccupied and fearful women  B2. Two-way interaction: gender by relationship type I)  men will report more use of the dominating strategy than  will women in their closest cross sex friendships ii) men will report more use of the dominating strategy than will women in their romantic relationships iii)  women  will  report  more  use  of  the  obliging  strategy  than will men in their closest cross sex friendships iv)  women will report more use of the obliging strategy than  will men in their romantic relationships v)  in their  closest  same  sex  friendships,  men will  report  more use of the avoiding strategy than will women  B3. Main effect: gender i)  men,  on  average,  strategies than will women,  will  report  on average  greater  use  of  avoiding  71  B4. Nain effect: attachment style i)  secure  participants  will  report  greater  use  of  the  compromising/integrating strategy than will insecure participants ii)  fearful  respondents  will  report  using  avoidant  strategies more than respondents in the other three groups iii) dominating groups  dismissing strategies  individuals than will  will  report  individuals  in  greater the  use  other  of  three  72 Methods  Issues in the Measurement of Attachment is  There  no  single  Indeed,  attachment.  agreed—upon  “approaches  for  method  to  assessing  measurement  the  of  attachment reveal a diversity of content and assumptions” 1994b,  et al., some  debate,  p.  128).  and  has  Such diversity has illuminated  been the  basic  the  adult adult  (Feeney  source  but  of  sometimes  overlooked association between the measurement of a construct and its  conceptualization.  note,  choice  “the  of  theoretical  implicit phenomenon  under  characterized  Griffin and Bartholomew  As  measurement  a  assumptions  study”.  as  a  The  number  of  set  of  prototypes  or  category members varying to  the  number  ideal of  (e.g.,  continuous  Each approach  of  exemplars  dimensions  &  attachment  has  been  categories Shaver,  comes with assumptions,  (see Griffin & Bartholomew,  1994,  with  1991),  Collins  strengths,  &  with  correspond and  Read,  and  as  1987),  categories,  of  Horowitz,  (e.g.,  it the  in the extent to which they  Bartholomew  with of  &  Hazan  3)  p.  nature  discrete  (e.g.,  ideal  carries  the  about  construct  nonoverlapping group membership a  procedure  (1994,  as  a  1990).  limitations  for a review).  The vast proportion of research that has been carried out on infant and adult attachment has employed the first approach, of  assigning  groundbreaking developing an for  grouping  individuals work  of  effective,  to  Shaver easy  to  a  single  and  individuals opened the way  for  The  category. (1988,  Hazan  administer  that  1992)  in  self—report measure a  flourishing  field  73 of research into a typology of adult attachment. uses  single—item  a  select  the  important  one  forced—choice style  attachment  assumption  this  in  measure that  in  best  approach  is  Their approach  which  respondents  describes  them.  that  individual  any  An  within a group may be substituted for another within that group, and  that  group  therefore  error  several  between group  is random.  ways:  it  error  is  important but within  A grouping approach  provides  labels  which  models  for  and  it  is  statistical  compatible  convenience has disadvantages, of  research  may  be  tempted  about group membership, similarities groups,  within  to  groups  (and  similarities),  and  thinking  categorical  information  as  the  of  same  variance  time,  this  in  overly  simplistic  ways  overlooking differences and exaggerating  exaggerating  well,  organize  it makes for ease in analysis  At  think  is,  between  and  in  in that researchers and consumers  that  associations  with  analyses.  advantageous  summarize  complex patterns of individual differences; communication;  is  group  with  the  converse  differences  in  causal  membership  approaches  compared  doing  and  inevitably  and  terms other  lead  dimensional  between ignoring  about  variables.  to  ones.  some In  loss  the As of  contrast,  dimensional approaches to attachment retain its rich complexity, are  statistically  more  sensitive,  and  do  easily to stereotyping and mistaken causal  not  lend  themselves  inference,  but nor do  they facilitate an appreciation of the gestalt that arises out of the pattern of results. The prototype approach to conceptualizing attachment groups takes  into  account  the  notion  of  within  group  difference,  74 acknowledging  that while  it  possible  is  to  define  types  on  the  not  all  group members are equally good representatives of that type.  In  basis  complex  of  this  approach,  me”;  7  patterns  typicality  “very much  of  individual  ratings  like me”)  differences,  (e.g.,  are taken  1  “not  =  at  all  like  for each participant on  each of the attachment patterns,  and a profile of the individual  is  evaluation  produced which  person  matches  Another way of to  use  the  allows  each  type  into  of  than the  study,  of  of  Bartholomew  how closely that  &  Horowitz,  typicality  best-fitting  1991).  ratings  attachment  to  category  place (e.g.,  1994).  participants  and  their  groups were used  four  attachment was viewed as categorical  dimensional), basis  (e.g.,  the  their  Griffin & Bartholomew, In this  an  incorporating a prototype approach to grouping is  highest  individuals  for  best—fitting  in this  study,  were  placed  category.  groups  into  That  (rather  is,  discrete  but with the understanding that  few people are ideal exemplars of a single attachment style, that instead there are category.  measurement:  separate  ratings  all  close  on  1) each  relationships  category both  forced  attachment at  assignment  Time  choice type;  One,  and  based  on  categorization  and  and  category,  individuals  must  have:  typicality highest  (or tied for highest)  they  forced  chose  in  the  choice  1)  was  2)  at  over  globally  specifically  three separate relationship types at Time Two. a  and  “better” or “poorer” representatives of a  Participants’  multiple  on  within  To be assigned to One  Time  rated  on the same category as  question;  and  2)  at  Time  Two  chosen the same forced choice category as they chose at Time One  75 and rated  it as highest  (or tied for highest),  for at least one  of the three relationship types. This  that  assuming (Feeney keep  typicality the...  al.,  et  mind  in  approach  rating  attachment  1994b, that  styles  130).  p.  despite  “overcomes  It  having  important  grouped  is  that  few  individuals  perfectly to a single attachment pattern.  therefore  to  into  the view in this  likely  are  of  exclusive”  participants  discrete categories for the reasons given above, research  problem  mutually  are  is  the  to  correspond  This research examines  the pattern of results for individuals characterized as having a particular  The  style. amount  attachment  expectation  within  of  meaningful,  style  group  on  is  the  that  of  their  will  be  basis there  variability,  that  and  best a  fitting  significant  variability  is  but that it will be largely unexamined in this work.  Subi ects Participants undergraduates,  were  currently  of 6 months or longer,  these  groups  female  and  in heterosexual  80  university  male  romantic relationships  recruited from the volunteer subject pool.  Lesbian and gay romantic data analyses,  80  relationships were  due to the expectation of (estimated  at  10%  of  the  not  included  in the  insufficient numbers in population,  cf.  Basow,  1992) The expected the  general  distribution of the  population  dismissing  19*;  Horowitz,  1991).  of  preoccupied By  university 15%;  and  including  four  attachment  students fearful  only  is:  19%  styles  secure  48%;  (Bartholomew  individuals  who  in  &  were  76 currently in a romantic relationship however, were  likely  to  (Davis  &  Hazan,  1992).  be  significantly  Kirkpatrick,  in  Further,  press; the  dismissing men,  Kobak  &  the  in  Hazan,  1991;  of  four  the  sample  Shaver types  &  has  with fewer dismissing women than  and fewer preoccupied men than preoccupied women  (Bartholomew & Horowitz, et al.,  overrepresented  distribution  been shown to differ by gender,  secure individuals  1991;  Brennan,  et al.,  1991;  Carnelley,  1992).  Given groups,  that  with  uneven  an  distributions  overrepresentation  were of  expected  secure  across  the  individuals,  a  screening test was administered prior to the main questionnaire, and  sampling  continued  until  an  n  and men for each attachment style A power  calculation  was  revealed  difference  of  sufficient. Intimacy  that .852  difference of sufficient. ANOVA  the  power  1984,  pp.  in  of  of  from  to  this of  the  for  test  Mutual  for women  a  .8,  standard a  detect .8,  a  study  additional the  main  ri  of  on the Miller &  Lefcourt,  standard  effect  factors effects  a  size 11  is  Social 1982) size  of 11 is also  a minimum  involved  1991),  effect  minimum  Miller  1991).  Psychological  calculations are based on  inclusion  443-4);  the  detect  power  data  order  whereas  obtained  Brennan & Shaver,  calculation conducted  These power  The  to  .831 with a power of  design,  design.  a  (using  that  for  was  (using data from Genero et al.,  order  with  A power  Scale  indicated  in  20  (e.g.,  conducted  Development Questionnaire and  of  a  one—factor  multifactorial  tends  to  increase  (Glass  &  Hopkins,  however the power of the test of  interactions  in factorial designs tends to be lower than for the main effects  77 (Cohen,  1988).  This results from the fact that it is the cell  which governs the power is  some multiple of  main  effects  interaction  that number which  (Cohen,  cell was obtained,  of the  1988).  Hence  used  is  an  analysis,  of  j  whereas  in tests  20  i-i  it  for the  individuals  per  in order to take this relative weakness in the  interaction tests into account.  Measures 1.  (see Appendix A for copies of all measures used) Attachment  (Bartholomew attachment screening  style.  The Relationship questionnaire  Horowitz,  &  style.  This  procedure  questionnaire.  1991), measure  and,  The RQ  is  in  the four attachment styles,  was  a  consists  a  self—report  used  both  modified of  commonly used in adult attachment research  (e.g.,  results (e.g., the  Shaver & Hazan,  almost  identical  Bartholomew &  different  adaptational  variables,  representational  1988),  to  of  1991).  results  family  processes,  both  the  each  participants were asked to  representing  is  and  is  evidenced in  affect  terms  in of  regulation,  relationship  history  Test-retest reliability of  .60  measure  attachment  of  type  found to be satisfactory at 8  screening  main  Hazan & Shaver,  measures  background,  behaviors,  with a test-retest correlation of On  the  This method  Validity  for  reported upon earlier in this paper. the RQ has been  pretest  and has been found to produce  dimensional  Horowitz,  patterns  of  and individuals are asked to identify feel.  1990;  the in  four paragraphs  the one style that best reflects how they  1987,  measure  in  form,  (RQ),  (Scharfe, and  select the  the  one  months post-test, 1992).  main  questionnaire,  attachment  style that  78 best reflects the way they usually feel in close relationships (a forced choice screening  approach).  measure  and  As well,  the  main  they were asked on  questionnaire  both the  indicate  to  the  extent to which each of the four attachment styles corresponds to their usual style in relationships, using a 7 point scale (with 1 “not at all like me”,  4 “somewhat like me”,  me”).  On  the  screening  respond  to  the  attachment  relationships.  close  completed  the  the  main  times,  once  close same sex friendships, opposite  sex  romantic  relationships.  both  relationship, to  which  the  on  the  were  basis  of  questionnaire, on  the  basis  asked all  to  their  participants of  all  their  once on the basis of all their close  friendships,  answered  participants  questions  On  three  RQ  measure,  and 7 “very much like  and  once  on  Respondents  forced  choice  the  on  basis  the  question  main for  of  all  their  questionnaire each  type  of  and also rated each attachment style on the extent corresponds  it  with  their  usual  style  for  each  relationship type. Demographics.  2.  The  Demographics  information on respondents’ The question to  age,  on ethnicity was  generate their  own  asked to rate on a  ethnic  sex,  and ethnic identification.  open-ended, label.  included  Questionnaire  allowing participants  As well,  respondents were feel  5-point scale the extent to which they  their ethnic background influences their close relationships with others much;  (1 5  =  =  participants friend,  not at all;  2  completely). to  closest  provide cross  sex  =  a  The the  little;  3  =  moderately;  demographics ages  friend,  of and  their  section closest  4  also  very  =  asked  same  romantic partner,  and  sex to  79 indicate the duration, participant  sees  frequency of contact  speaks to the target person),  or  closeness  (on  closeness)  in  since many  individuals  a  5—point  each  of  with  three  friend  is  1981),  by blood  5  and degree of  representing  relationships.  include kin  Dickens & Perlman, relative  scale,  the  (e.g.,  a  (number of times the  in their  In  extreme  addition,  friendship  networks  respondents were asked if their  or marriage,  and  if  specific kin relationship is with that person.  so,  what  the  Respondents were  asked not to nominate parents as closest friends,  as the focus in  this study is on peer relationships.  3.  Intimacy.  separate  Intimacy was  measures,  Questionnaire  (MPDQ;  the  Mutual  Genero,  measurement  of  a  in this  is  both  measures  the  validity.  more  Both measures  construct  is  generally  types of relationships, The MPDQ  asks  the  measure  reasonable can  be  levels  adapted  a)  The  (Genero, times,  the  of  for  two,  as the  however  reliability  and  use with different  and are sensitive to gender differences.  respondent  to  report  on  the  intimacy process in contrast  which has the respondent report for the self only. Mutual  Miller,  once  1982).  In this case, of  and  regarded  from the dual perspectives of the self and the other, to the MSIS,  1991)  (MSIS; Miller & Lefcourt,  well-established  illustrate  Development  Surrey & Baldwin,  superior to assessment via a single measure. MSIS  study with two  Psychological  Miller,  the Miller Social Intimacy Scale Multiple  assessed  Psychological  Surrey  for each  &  Baldwin,  relationship  Development 1991)  (closest  was  Questionnaire  completed  same sex  three  friendship,  80 closest opposite sex friendship,  and romantic relationship).  assesses  close  perceived  perspectives of  point  intimacy  provided  view,  by  and  in  respondent:  the  her  relationships,  his  or  the  It  with  two  respondent’s  own  perception  the  of  other  individual’s point of view. To  elicit  information  about  these  two  perspectives,  respondents rated items using each of the following frames: we  talk  about  likely to.  things  other person],  matter  I am  likely to...”.  equivalent sets of 11 items, the  other—ratings.  feelings inside”,  [the  me,  “keep  The scale  an  of open  items  summed  and  scores  could  then  item reliability, retest  [the  mind”,  “feel  moved”,  “keep  “share similar experiences”.  averaged from  range  greater intimacy.  is  receptive”,  “be  (from 1  Negative items are reverse scored,  .  person]  is made up of two  include:  Ratings are made on a 6 point scale all the time)  other  one for the self—ratings and one for  Examples  impatient”,  “get  to  “When we talk about things that matter to  and  . .“  that  “When  by 1  the  to  6  total with  =  never to  higher  =  the scores are  items.  22  6  Thus,  scores  scale  reflecting  The measure has been shown to have high inter— ranging from .89 to  reliability,  ranging  from  .92,  .72  and satisfactory test— .84  to  over  a  two-week  period.  Construct  demonstrated:  the measure correlates positively with adequacy of  social  support,  correlates al.,  1992).  and  relationship  negatively  with  concurrent  validity  satisfaction,  self—reported  and  have  been  cohesion,  depression  (Genero  and et  81 b)  the Miller Social Intimacy Scale  was completed three times, items  intimacy  were  once for each relationship.  Seventeen  on  six  rated  requiring frequency ratings  ratings Items to  a  10  yourself  with  “a little”,  not  share  “some of  and “a great deal”).  “How often do you keep very personal  and do  items  and 11 items requiring intensity  (anchored by “not much”,  include:  scale,  point  (anchored by “very rarely”,  and “almost always”),  the time”,  (Miller & Lefcourt 1982)  it with him/her?”,  you able to understand his/her feelings?”, to spend time alone with him/her?”,  information  “How often are  “How much do you like  “How affectionate do you feel  toward him/her?”. Internal consistency assessed via Cronbach’s alpha is within the range of  .86 to  month  is  via  period  positive  intimacy,  correlations  friend  Perimutter  &  and  has  with  other  “has  been  has  been  measures  1990).  utility  1987,  p.  for  of  illustrated trust  and  (Rahim,  constructed  around  concern  others.  for  two  Lefcourt,  The  MSIS  variety  between  distressed  1982;  and  Touliatos,  is  a  of  research purposes”  well—established  The Rahim Organizational Conflict  1983)  is a 28-item Likert-type measure  dimensions:  It  comparisons  between  and  &  a  in  18).  Influence strategies. (ROCI),  shown  (Miller  Strauss,  which  Inventory  validity  acquaintance,  couples  (Perlman & Fehr,  5.  convergent  .96.  validity  nondistressed  measure  and test-retest reliability over a two-  and negative correlations with measures of loneliness.  Discriminant closest  .91,  is  1)  designed  concern to  tap  for  five  and  2)  strategies  of  self;  82 influence:  integrating,  avoiding.  compromising,  Respondents  were  asked  obliging, to  dominating,  think  about  and  how  typically handle things when they want to get their way,  they  and to  use the 5-point scale to indicate the extent to which the use of each influence  strategy  at all like me”)  to 3  me”).  was  The  ROCI  is  characteristic of them,  (“somewhat like me”) completed  three  once for the romantic relationship, friendship,  times  by  1  (“not  (“very much like each participant,  once for the closest same sex  and once for the closest opposite sex friendship.  Examples  of  items  with my 2)  to 5  from  include:  1)  integrating:  “I  collaborate  to come up with decisions acceptable to us”;  compromising:  deadlocks”;  3) 4)  in my favour”;  “I usually propose a middle ground for breaking obliging:  “I  dominating: and 5)  usually  allow  concessions  to  my  “I use my authority to make a decision  avoiding:  “I usually avoid open discussion  of my differences with my As  previously  executives  have  noted,  confirmed  values as follows:  1)  dominating  4)  (Rahim,  2.26;  1983).  relationships other), with  In  (Hammock et al., The measure from .60  obliging  five—factor  =  subsequent  analyses  integrating  the  analyses using a population  integrating  (including  factor  factor  and  1.52;  loading  to  .83  =  3.00;  compromising other friend,  on  the  eigen  =  3)  1.09  interpersonal generalized four  factors,  same  factor  1988).  week test-retest  (compromising scale)  with  avoiding  consistently yielded  compromising  1  of  sibling,  1987; Richardson et al., shows  2)  and 5)  studies  parent, have  4.10;  =  solution  of  reliabilities  ranging  (integrating scale)  (Rahim,  83 1983).  Internal  acceptable,  ranging  and obliging 1983).  consistency as assessed by from  scales)  Validity  to  (for  .77  was  stepwise multiple  .72  (for the  assessed  discriminant  distinguishes  between  their bosses,  peers,  the  compromising,  via  known  used  by  (Rahim,  is  dominating  groups  reveal  styles  and subordinates  alpha  integrating scale)  analyses  influence  Cronbach’s  (Rahim,  procedure;  that the measure respondents with  1983).  Procedures order  In involved this  obtain  to  individuals  study  was  across  participants.  distributed  in  The  with  interest  in  attachment  to  large  a  a  styles,  screening  Screening  undergraduate  response  positive,  distributions  administer  to  potential  points.  equal  classes  the number  participating  of  in  a  first  step  questionnaires for  bonus  questionnaires  students  the  romantically—  questionnaire  eligible  screening  of  taking  study.  in to  were course  was  very  apparent  an  completed  The  questionnaires were picked up 1 week later and bonus points were given. within  Participants who 2  invited  weeks to  of  take  fit the  returning part  in  the the  study criteria were telephoned screening larger  questionnaire,  questionnaire  Screening continued until the minimum cell number of  and  study.  20 men and  20 women was reached for each attachment style. Attachment screening  style  process  individuals Questionnaire  for  screening.  involved each  (RQ;  The  identifying  attachment  Bartholomew  &  first  aspect  sufficient  category. Horowitz,  The 1991),  of  numbers  the Of  Relationship a  measure  of  84 the  four  attachment  styles  consisting  was used as a screening device. (in a modified form) check  on  the  possible.  As well,  short  paragraphs  the RQ was administered  as part of the main questionnaire,  stability  of  the  category  assignment  so that a would  be  Both a forced choice format and a 7-point rating scale  used  were  four  of  assess  to  respondents  were  attachment  first  asked  style.  to  On  choose  the  screening  test,  one paragraph that  the  best describes the way they typically feel in close relationships with others.  In addition,  scale  to  of  one  attachment  styles  relationships. attachment choice  seven,  participants were asked to rate,  the  extent  corresponds  to  to  Participants who  which their  were  excluded  of  usual  the  four  style  in  assigned a higher rating to  style other than the one they  question  each  on a  from  endorsed on the  the  study,  as  an  forced were  they  considered less adequate representatives of a category than were those  whose  forced  choice  responses  corresponded  their  with  highest rating on that category. A total of  which  category  of  only other  592  five  screening questionnaires were returned, individuals  than  endorsed  on  (n  363)  than men  (n  screening  questionnaires.  proportions: 14.6%,  =  The  attachment  secure women 62.3%,  fearful  men  10.9%;  the =  distribution styles  229) of  rating  forced  women  to  a  choice  completed the the  approximated  secure men 65.9%;  preoccupied  men 11.8%; dismissing women 8.3%,  higher  a  one  More women  across  given  the  question.  questionnaires  had  out  screening expected  fearful women  14.9%,  preoccupied  dismissing men 11.4%.  85 The Relationship Questionnaire was administered again on the main questionnaire in a modified form as noted above, assess time  of  reliability  the  screening  of  category  the  the  completing  and  assignment  in order to between  the  questionnaire.  main  Attachment style was assessed on the main questionnaire by type of relationship;  judgement across  rather than a global  is,  that  the RQ was completed three times,  all close relationships,  once  Respondents were asked to think  for each type of relationship.  about their typical style of relating separately for their close same  sex  their  friendships,  friendships,  sex  cross  close  and  Both the forced choice format and  their romantic relationships.  7—point rating scale approach were used on the main questionnaire for  each  relationship  choice  attachment  choose  the  screening types,  measure  at  they  selected  least  one  the  study  from  discarded  main  of  on  the  questionnaire, on the  as  the  forced  did  not  choice  relationship  three  poor  forced  exemplars  of  the  A total of 10 individuals, equally divided among women  category. and men,  for  the  on  category  same  were  question  who,  Participants  type.  met this condition and were replaced:  four  and four dismissing.  preoccupied,  The second aspect of the screening  Relationship screening. process  involved  romantic  relationships  information  gathering  friendships.  and  asked about the romantic relationship, the relationship; participant  two fearful,  and  they cohabit;  4)  2)  whether  others  as  a  whether this  the  about Five  assessing:  relationship  “couple”  is  participants’ questions 1)  were  duration of  viewed by the  relationship;  3)  whether  is the participant’s only current  86 romantic  relationship;  and  the  5)  sex  of  Potential participants were screened out romantic  their  ended  had  (n=7);  by  or 2)  “couple”  relationship was the  time  they  less  were  the if:  than  romantic 1)  the duration of  six months,  contacted  partner.  for  or  if  it  participation  they were not viewed by themselves and others as a  (n=l);  relationship  or  3)  (n=5);  this  or  as the participant  4)  (n7).  was  not their  only  current  romantic  the romantic partner was the  same sex  In order to  ensure that participants  least one close friend of each sex they were asked “Among  had at  your closest  friends,  what number are women and what number are  men?”.  Only participants who  one man  friend among their closest friends were followed up  identified at  least one woman and for  inclusion in the study. Of the 592 respondents screened, friend among their closest sex  friend  among  relationship  their  screening  results across  friends,  closest  56 did not have a cross sex and two did not have a same  friends,  questions,  attachment styles,  and  Considering  examining  it was  the  basis the  of  the  rate  relationship  was  individuals  approximately 10%  the  approximately rate  was  (38/377)  criteria; 28%  for  excluded  test  on  the  attachment style.  was  conducted  basis  of  on  the  those  who  15%  were  for  The test was  of  screening  significant  a  2 (X  =  fearful  preoccupied  (12/81);  proportion  relationship  of  Among those  dismissing participants the rate was approximately 11% Chi—square  pattern  were excluded on the  (22/78);  approximately  the  clear that there was  differential rate of exclusion by attachment style. who were secure,  all  and  for  (6/56).  A  individuals  criteria, 12.26,  d.f.  by  87 3,  p  .01)  <  Pairwise  .  Chi—square  post  hoc  comparisons  were  undertaken which revealed that the only significant difference in the proportion of those who were excluded was between those who were fearful and those who were secure  11.58,  =  d.f.  =  1, p  <  .009).  The greater rate of exclusion for fearful as compared to  secure  individuals  raises  representativeness  of  a  question  participants  in  regarding the  the  different  relative attachment  groups. the  On  basis  of  randomly  telephoned  measure,  and  The total of  whom  these within  invited  number  to  weeks  2  take  part  a  subset  of in  (6.2%)  chose  not  to  respondents was  of  returning the  the  screening  questionnaire  individuals contacted by  of  twelve  results  study.  telephone was  participate.  193,  Students  agreeing to participate in the main phase of data collection were then given a set of measures to complete on their own and return within  1 week  return their telephone  for bonus course points. questionnaires within The  call.  number  of  Individuals who did not  1 week were given a  participants  who  reminder  did not return  the completed questionnaire following the reminder phone call was 11  out  of  the  total  Participants  were  consult  others  write  with  their  names  181  who  instructed while on  the  received  (verbally  filling  out  questionnaires and  the  questionnaires,  in  (6.1%).  writing)  measure,  not  to  not  to  coded  by  and  which  were  intimacy  and  number to ensure anonymity. Respondents were strategies friend,  in  their  their  asked to  report on  relationship  relationship  with  with  their  their closest  closest cross  influence same sex  sex  friend  88 (other  than  their  relationship.  The  romantic  partner),  ordering  of  and  their  relationship  type  romantic was  not  counterbalanced in the questionnaires because of the expectation that  the  romantic  relationship  would  be  likely  to  prime  individuals most strongly and thereby influence their ratings in other relationships.  For that reason,  the romantic relationship  was rated after the two friendships. exclude  from  consideration  either  closest same sex or cross sex friend,  Respondents were asked to of  their  parents  as  their  in order to assess the role  of attachment in reciprocal peer relationships.  In 25 instances  there  on  were  missing  questionnaires. remaining  items  data  In these for  that  for  a  particular  cases  a mean was  individual  on  item  calculated  that  from the  particular  The mean was rounded to the nearest whole number, was then entered into the dataset.  respondents’  scale.  and that number  89 Results  Description of Sample Participants were  80 women and  80  men university  students,  all of whom were currently in heterosexual romantic relationships and  counted  the same  among  sex  their  closest  friends  and one person of  at  least  the opposite  one  sex.  person  (See Table  for more detailed descriptive information about the sample). age of participants ranged of  20.46  years  participants students level  (n=69;  question  first  to 38 years,  deviation  year  23.8%)  33.1%  Twenty-one participants  with  their  romantic  second  of  year  sample were upper  (13.1%)  partner.  The  A majority and  the  of  1  with a mean age  3.69.  of  (n38;  although  42.1%),  students.  cohabiting  standard  and  were  from 17  of  In  were  currently  response  to  the  “Among your closest friends how many are women and how  many are men?” women participants nominated a mean of 4.45 women friends  and  of  women  2.84  2.48  friends;  men  friends  and  men participants nominated a mean men  5.01  friends.  Women  reported  a  significantly higher number of women among their closest friends than  did men  significantly than did women the  pattern  (t  4.51,  =  higher (t of  =  df  number  6.25,  df  =  1,  of =  men 1,p  hornosociality,  .05);  <  p  among <  .05).  that  friendships with others of the same sex, literature on close relationships.  is,  and men  their  reported  closest  a  friends  This result reflects a  predominance  of  a common finding in the  90  Table 1  Sample Descriptives  Women  Variable  mean  #  of women  #  of men friends  friends  Men  SD  mean  Total  SD  mean  SD  4.45  2.09  2.84  2.15  3.64  2.26  2.48  1.53  5.01  2.74  3.74  2.56  Subject  20.46  3.69  20.69  2.77  20.58  3.25  Romantic partner  21.56  4.18  20.10  3.74  20.94  3.71  Same sex friend  20.96  5.94  20.88  2.52  20.92  4.55  Cross sex friend  21.49  5.45  20.88  3.59  21.14  4.56  Romantic partner  25.26  26.09  21.04  19.51  23.15  23.06  Same sex friend  76.18  61.43  74.84  50.41  75.51  56.01  Cross sex friend  54.25  61.71  50.54  57.78  51.61  59.29  Romantic partner  47.58  45.36  54.50  57.92  51.04  51.97  Same sex friend  14.83  16.72  12.60  13.81  13.71  15.32  Cross sex friend  11.73  18.28  10.65  13.98  11.12  16.23  Romantic partner  4.29  .66  4.41  .67  4.35  .67  Same sex friend  3.95  .67  3.82  .69  3.89  .68  Cross sex friend  3.31  .80  3.94  .81  3.35  .80  Age  Duration  Frequency  Closeness  (in months)  (per month)  (5  =  extremely)  91 Participants reported on the duration of the three specific relationships  under  examination  closest same sex friend,  (i.e.,  romantic  and closest cross sex friend).  duration of participants’  and ranged from 6 months  For participants’ closest same sex friendships, the  mean duration was months),  The mean  romantic relationships was 23.15 months  (or approximately 1 year and 11 months) to 15 years.  relationship,  75.51  months  (or  approximately  6  years  (or approximately 4 years and 4 months).  and men  differ  did  not  in  three close relationships same  sex  friendship  in  the  t  n.s.).  duration  relationship type,  reported  duration  =  In  .151,  n.s.;  order  to  relationships  of  as  p  followed  up  =  nominal alpha of were  of  cross same  sex  significant  The  Newman—Keuls .05.  sex  possible of  function  post  (F  57.71;  univariate multiple  hoc  =  df  =  was  result  comparisons  at  Participants’ closest same sex friendships  significantly  sex  n.s.;  cross  for  a  the  a one-way within-subjects ANOVA was conducted.  .000).  with  of  1.159,  =  examine  Women  any  closest  The effect of relationship type was significant 318;  of  (romantic relationship  friendship  .39,  =  differences  2,  4  and for closest cross sex friendships the mean duration  was 51.61 months  closest  and  longer  friendships friendships  and were  cross sex friendships.  duration  their also  than  romantic of  longer  both  relationships; duration  It is to be expected that,  of young adults such as this,  closest  their  than  their their  among a sample  romantic relationships would be of  shorter duration than would their closest friendships.  Same sex  friendships would be expected to be of longer duration than cross sex  ones,  as  they  are  the  predominant  relationship  for  most  92 people throughout  the  lifespan  Dickens  (e.g.,  & Penman,  1981),  and such differences in relationship duration have been found in previous  research  participants’  (e.g.,  closest  friendships  reflects  Parker,  same the  1990).  sex  norm  as  Longer  opposed  duration  to  cross  homosociality,  of  and  of sex  may  be  considered a naturally occurring and meaningful effect in within— subjects research into relationships. Frequency  of  contact  (number  times  per  participant sees or speaks to the target person)  was:  relationships 51.04 (SD  13.71  (  =  (  15.32);  frequency of  and  Women  16.23).  =  51.97); in  and  .84,  =  ,  n.s.;  mean  ratings  closeness  relationships 4.35  Women  .68); and  not  differ  and  men  (  =  closest  did  not  a  on  .42,  =  their closest sex  in  the  same sex  friendships  than did women  (t  =  scale  11.12  reported (romantic .92,  =  Participants’  n.s.).  5—point  were:  romantic  .67);  closest same sex friendships 3.89  cross  sex  differ  friendships  significantly  (,  closeness in their romantic relationship  cross  friendships  sex  closest same sex friendship  closest cross sex friendship t  =  cross  did  n.s.;  of  the  in romantic  contact in any of the three relationships  relationship  (SD  month  in closest same sex friendships  closest men  of  friendship however,  4.96, p  <  (t  men  =  1.21,  reported  3.35 in  (  .80).  reported  their  1.14,  =  n.s.), nor in  n.s.).  In closest  greater  closeness  .01).  Participants were asked to identify any individuals who were nominated as blood  or  nominate  a  closest  marriage. their  friend who were also relatives  (Note  parents  as  that  respondents  friends  for  the  were  either by  asked  purposes  not of  to  this  93 study).  Twelve  relatives  as  their  identified  (3.8%) The  participants  common  most  closest  cross  relatives relative  (7.5%  as  of  sex  sample)  friends;  their  identified  the  six  closest was  same  participants sex  sibling,  a  nominated  friends.  with  four  nominated as closest same sex friends and eight as closest cross sex  friends.  The  remainder  of  the  relatives  participants as closest friends were in—laws,  identified  cousins,  by  and aunts  or uncles. distribution  The European  descent  “Canadian” created  the  and  individuals on  a  the  scale  the  was  49.4%  descent  (=52),  11.9%  These  groupings  basis  Table  specific  in the sample.  5-point  the  on  sample  the  Asian  background.  information regarding  in  “Other”.  6.2%  investigator  ethnic  reported  32.5%  (=79),  (=l9),  by  ethnicity  of  respondents’  of  contains  2  5  completely).  =  extent  to which  ethnic  their  The mean reported  on relationships was 2.24  the  of  Participants were also asked to rate  influences their close relationships with others all,  self—  additional  identification  ethnic  were  (p  =  1.15)  background  (with 1  =  not at  influence of ethnicity  for the sample as a whole.  For participants of European descent the mean reported influence of  ethnicity  on  relationships  was  (  1.77  participants of Asian descent the mean was 2.77 those who (SD (SD  =  identified themselves  descent  On  .71).  individuals or  “Canadian”  for those in the “Other”  1.20);  =  as  who  the  basis  identified  “Canadian”  gave  of  (  =  .94);  for  1.13);  for  the mean was  2.11  category the mean was 3.33  these  themselves lower  =  data as  ratings  it being  for  the  appeared of  that  European  influence  of  94  their  ethnicity  on  their  relationships  than  did  individuals  in  the other two groups. In  order  attachment  to  styles  participants  from  determine of  Europeans  other  ethnic  what would be expected, One  category  was  whether and  the  distribution  “Canadians”  backgrounds was  as  across  compared  to  proportionate to  a Pearson Chi—square test was conducted.  created  which  included  those  individuals  who  identified themselves as being of European descent and those who identified themselves were The  together  grouped result  (  3),  =  themselves European  or  as  of p as  the  “Canadian”  and  labelled  Chi-square  >.05, coming  “Canadian”  test  indicating from  an  were  not  across the four attachment styles. the  distribution  gender  was  of  as was  that ethnic  remaining  to  what  nonsignificant people  who  background  indicating  .94799  identified than  distributed  In order to determine whether  would  be  individuals expected,  conducted for women versus men.  that  at  other  disproportionately  of the Chi-square test was nonsignificant at 2.633 .05),  respondents  “ethnically—identified”.  ethnically—identified  proportionate  Chi—square test was  The  ethnically-identified  Pearson  a  The result  (  persons  disproportionately distributed across women and men.  across  =  1,  were  p  >  not  95  Table 2 Ethnic Distribution  Self Described Label  bEuropean descent  Frequency  79  Caucasian  31  White  23  Anglo—Saxon  6  European  2  Jewish-European  2  Italian  3  Ukranian  2  English  3  Irish  2  Scottish  1  Scottish-Irish  1  Swiss  1  French  1  German  1  bAsian Chinese  52 41  Asian  4  Korean  4  Oriental  2  Japanese  1  Percent  aEthfllC Influence  49.4  M  =  1.77  32.5  M  =  2.77  96  Table 2  (corit’d)  Ethnic Distribution  Self Described Label  Frequency  Percent  aEthfllC Influence  “Canadian”  19  11.9  M  =  2.11  bother  10  6.2  M  =  3.33  100.0  M  Arabic  3  Iranian  2  Metis  1  East Indian  1  African  1  Trinidadian  1  Indian—Portugese—German  1  total  160  2.24  a Ethnic Influence was assessed via asking participants to rate on a 5 point scale the extent to which they felt their ethnic background influences their close relationships with others 5  =  completely).  b These headings were created by the investigator.  (1  =  not at all;  97 Reliability of Attachment Style Category Assignment Attachment style serves as an independent grouping variable in this  study design.  Participants were assigned to attachment  style groups on the basis of their response to the forced choice question  on  the  administered  as  Relationship  part  of  the  Questionnaire,  screening  which  procedure.  was  Prior  to  undertaking statistical analyses testing the study hypotheses, check was conducted on the stability of participants’ style  between  the  Time  One  screening  and  the  a  attachment Time  Two  questionnaire. Category reliable  at  assignment Time  Two  at  on  the  participants  chose  preoccupied,  or dismissing)  the  Time  one  One  main  screening was  questionnaire.  attachment  style  found to At  Time  (secure,  be One  fearful,  that best described them across  all  their close relationships, and then rated themselves on a 7—point scale for each of the four styles.  At Time Two the forced choice  and rating of attachment styles was obtained separately for each relationship type  (romantic relationships,  cross sex friendships,  and same sex friendships). A  one-way  conducted with One  as  the  dependent (secure,  multiple forced  choice  independent  variables fearful,  analysis  were  of  attachment  variance style  variable  (see  the  ratings  preoccupied,  four  Table of  and dismissing)  was  (MANOVA)  category 3).  Time  at  four  The  attachment  style  at Time Two.  The  four dependent variables were created by averaging the Time Two attachment style ratings across the three relationship types,  to  get  an  an  overall  attachment  style  which  would  serve  as  98  appropriate comparison with the Time One measure. significant  (Pillais  The MANOVA was  1.61;  =  df  12,465;  =  style category on each of the  ratings of  attachment Tukey  attachment ratings  style.  multiple  style  for  each of the  ratings  at  All  predicted  four  Time  One.  =  .000).  for Time One  four averaged Time Two  indicated Time  styles.  Two  that  Time  attachment  One  style  Participants who endorsed  forced choice question had significantly  Time Two  on  the  secure  attachment  did participants who endorsed fearful, preoccupied, at  p  four ANOVAs were significant.  comparisons  category  secure on the Time One higher  44.78;  followed by four univariate ANOVA5,  attachment  Follow-up  F  The MANOVA was  Parallel  findings  were  evident  style  than  or dismissing  for  each  of  the  other three attachment style categories.  Category Assignment by Relationship Type Attachment comparing the  style  category  assignment  was  also  assessed  Time One forced choice category with the Time Two  forced choice category for each relationship type. under  consideration  here  does  is,  the  Time  The question  obtained across close relationships overall,  with  Time  Two  attachment  category  obtained  each type of relationship?  Recall that  in  must  the  same  study,  category  participants on  at  least  one  have of  correspond  separately  for  in order to be included  endorsed the  attachment  One  category, the  by  three  at  Time  types  relationships as they endorsed globally at Time One.  Two of  the  close  Therefore,  99  Table 3 One Way MANOVA and follow-up ANOVAs on Reliability of Category Assignment  Cell Means Rating Secure  Category  Mean  Fearful  S.D.  Mean  Preoccupied  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  Dismissing  Mean  S.D.  Secure  5.82  .687  2.33  1.043  2.46  1.186  2.67  1.142  Fearful  3.81  .966  4.94  1.026  3.08  1.153  3.14  1.117  Preoccupied  4.35  1.254  3.23  1.490  5.11  .849  2.62  .892  Dismissing  4.72  .992  2.30  .942  1.84  .834  5.32  .766  Multivariate test of significance:  Test name  Value  Pillais  1.608  (S  Hypoth DF  12.00  Univariate F—tests with  (3,  Variable  Hypoth MS  156)  =  3,  N  =  0,  N  =  75  1/2)  Error DF  F  465.00  44.78  Sig  .000  DF:  Error MS  F  Sig  Rating on Secure  28.82  .991  29.10  .000  Rating on Fearful  61.27  1.312  46.70  .000  Rating on Preoccupied  80.37  1.038  77.44  .000  Rating on Dismissing  65.16  .983  66.25  .000  Note.  IV  =  Attachment style forced choice category  DV  =  Dimensional ratings on 4 attachment styles  Time One -  Time Two  100  Table 4 Crosstabulation: Attachment style category at Time One (over all 3 relationship types) by Time Two (by separate relationship types)  Same Sex Friendship  Time Two  Secure  Fearful  Preocc  Dismiss  N  N  N  %  N  %  %  %  % Change  Time One  Secure  34  85.0  1  2.5  2  5.0  3  7.5  15.0  Fearful  13  32.5  20  50.0  2  5.0  5  12.5  50.0  Preocc  13  32.5  6  15.0  13  32.5  8  20.0  67.5  Dismiss  19  47.5  0  0.0  0  0.0  21  52.5  47.5  Column total  79  49.4  27  16.9  17  10.6  37  23.1  45.0  Cross Sex Friendship  Time Two  Secure  Fearful  0  r  Preocc  0  Dismiss  0  % Change  0 0  Time One  Secure  33  82.5  2  5.0  1  2.5  4  10.0  10.5  Fearful  8  20.0  25  62.5  2  5.0  5  12.5  32.5  Preocc  8  20.0  5  12.5  24  60.0  3  7.5  40.0  Dismiss  12  30.0  1  2.5  1  2.5  26  65.0  35.0  Column total  61  38.1  33  20.6  28  17.5  38  23.8  29.4  101  Table 4  (continued)  Crosstabulation: Attachment style category at Time One (over all 3 relationship types) by Time Two (by separate relationship types)  Romantic Relationship  Time Two  Secure  Fearful  Preocc  Dismiss  N  N  %  N  %  N  %  *  % Change  Time One  Secure  38  95.0  1  2.5  0  0.0  1  2.5  5.0  Fearful  5  12.5  34  85.0  1  2.5  0  0.0  15.0  Preocc  3  7.5  3  7.5  34  85.0  0  0.0  15.0  Dismiss  9  22.5  1  2.5  0  0.0  30  75.0  25.0  Column total  55  34.4  39  24.4  35  21.9  31  19.4  15.0  102  for any single relationship type, endorsed the  respondents may or may not have  same category as they did on the global measure at  Time One. A  crosstabulation  category  by  Time  Two  procedure  category  was  for  undertaken  each  individuals who were secure at Time One, same  sex  friendships,  friendships,  82.5%  were  relationship  friendships,  and  relationships.  85%  friendships,  secure  in  their  cross  sex  For  50% were fearful in  fearful  those  who  in  their  identified  romantic  themselves  as  32.5% were preoccupied in their same sex  60% were preoccupied in their cross sex friendships,  were  participants  preoccupied who  were  in  their  romantic  dismissing  at  sex  friendships,  and  75%  For  relationships.  Time  dismissing in their same sex friendships, cross  For  62.5% were fearful in their cross sex were  preoccupied at Time One,  their  type.  One  and 95% were secure in their romantic relationships.  their same sex friendships,  85%  Time  85% were secure in their  For respondents who were fearful at Time One,  and  for  One,  were  52.5%  65% were dismissing in  were  dismissing  their  in  romantic relationships. While there was a substantial association between the global and relationship—specific measures assessments  were  individuals  in  specific  not each  relationship  attachment assessment.  category  of  identical. attachment type  than  This change  at the  attachment There  group  Time one  Two, they  were  who,  a  when  endorsed chose  the  two  number  of  style,  on  rating a  the  different  the  global  in attachment category varied both with  103  attachment  style  attachment  style,  in the the  and the  secure group;  preoccupied  smallest  the  sex  In  at  greatest  Time  variability  terms  occurred  of  in  In  occurred  terms  of  among those  When  Two,  they  relationship  ratings  variability  friendships.  categories  relationship.  largest change occurred among those in  group.  the  of  smallest  variability  relationship; same  type  occurred  insecure were  for  most  type,  the in  romantic  ratings  individuals likely  the  for  changed  to  classify  themselves as secure at the second assessment.  Study Design and Analyses The study involved a 2 by 4  (attachment style:  fearful) friend  by vs.  analysis  of  3  The  relationship the test  for  secure vs.  (relationship type: romantic  partner)  variance  for  (See Figure 1). style.  (sex of respondent:  male vs.  preoccupied vs.  dismissing vs.  same sex friend vs. fixed  repeated  effects  measures  female)  cross  model  sex  multiple  (MANOVAR)  design.  Between group factors were gender and attachment  repeated type.  measures  Pillais’  the multivariate  or  within—subjects  criterion was analyses  used  in this  factor  consistently study,  as  it  held to be more robust than Wilks’ Lambda, Hotelling’s trace, Roy’s gcr criterion,  was as is and  particularly for smaller sample sizes and in  cases where the assumption of homogeneity of variance—covariance matrices  may  Post  multiple  hoc  Keuls method.  be  violated  (Tabachnick  comparisons  were  &  Fidell,  undertaken  1989,  with  p.  the  399).  Newman—  Newman—Keuls uses a contrast—based alpha level,  opposed to the family-wise alpha used in the Tukey method,  as  104  Figure 1  Study Design  Gender of respondent (between-group) Female (n=80) Relationship—type (within—group)  csf  ssf  rom  Male (n8O) csf  ssf  rom  ttachment Style (between group)  Secure  n=20  n=20  Dismissing  n=20  n20  Preoccupied  n=20  n=20  Fearful  n=20  n=20  Dependent Variables:  1) Intimacy: a) MPDQ b) MSIS  2) Influence: a) b) c) d)  compromising/integrating dominating obliging aioiding  105  rendering  Newman—Keuls  pairwise  comparison,  more  powerful,  in which  the  (except  two  tests  with a greater risk of Type I  error.  may  confirmatory  be  greater  of  concern  in  in  the  initial  identical)  are  The issue of Type I error  exploratory study such as this one.  research  As well,  than  p.  an  Newman—  is the method of choice cited by Glass and Hopkins  376),  in  the overall F—test  already provides omnibus protection from Type I errors. Keuls  but  (1984,  as it is held to provide a high degree of protection for  the entire null hypothesis without the overconservatism caused by using a single critical value, balanced  A (i.e.,  factorial  because  effects tests  “the  [are]  Although  lead to sums  design  there  and Hopkins  are  (1984)  Miller  Social  Intimacy  the  this  study  frequencies in  with  of  the  such  various  This nonorthogonality leads to F— (Glass  were  Development Scale  dominating, via  in  in the analysis  associated  &  adjustments  variables  Psychological  assessed  used  Hopkins,  1984,  that  be  can  p.  444).  made,  Glass  recommend equal numbers in factorial designs.  Mutual  (avoiding,  squares  effects”  certain  dependent  The  of  was  Unequal cell  .  complications  not orthogonal.  confounded  for  ROCI).  ANOVA  equal numbers in all cells)  factorial designs data  as in the case of the Tukey test.  (assessed  Questionnaire  or MSIS),  and  or  of  Organizational the  MPDQ  influence  integrating/compromising,  Rahirn  An examination  intimacy  Conflict  via  the  and  the  strategies  and  obliging;  Inventory  or  intercorrelation between the MPDQ  and the MSIS revealed that the two intimacy measures were highly correlated but were not identical:  for romantic relationships the  Pearson correlation between the MPDQ and the MSIS was r  =  .5869;  106  for closest same sex friendship r sex friendship On MANOVAR5 two  were  of  conceptual  undertaken.  intimacy measures  other MANOVAR was  (MPDQ,  MSIS)  tests  obliging,  Where were  separate  conducted using the  four  factors  dominating,  significance  followed  two  as dependent variables.  conducted using the  measures.  multivariate  distinctness,  One MANOVAR was  (integrating/compromising, dependent  and for closest cross  .6165. basis  the  .6063;  =  up  ANOVAR5 for each dependent measure.  the ROCI  avoiding)  was  with  of  The  as  obtained,  univariate  the  ANOVAs  or  Simple effects analyses and  multiple comparisons were conducted on significant results where appropriate.  The  following  section  is  ordered  variable, with the results for intimacy first, strategies. overall  The  MANOVA  results  results  of  first,  the  analyses  then  the  by  dependent  then for influence are  presented  univariate  tests,  with which  are followed by multiple comparison results.  Intimacy MANOVA  results.  A  multivariate  analysis  conducted on the two measures of intimacy Table  5).  The  MANOVA  was  a  within—subjects factor design. were  sex  and  relationship  attachment type.  attachment  style  Pillais  .11,  =  by  result  of  relationship  F(12,453)  =  factors  The two between—subjects The  1.41,  within—subjects the type) p  =  3-way was .157  was  variance  (MPDQ and MSIS).  2-between-subjects  style.  The  of  (See  factors  factor  test  1-  and  was  (sex  by  nonsignificant, The  interaction of sex by attachment style was significant,  two—way Pillais  107  F(6,304)  .11,  =  2.82,  p  by relationship type was 8.88,  p  .000.  =  The  The two—way  .011.  =  significant,  two-way  Pillais  interaction  relationship type was not significant, 1.32,  p  Pillais  .201.  =  .02,  =  The  effect  main  F(2,151)  1.46,  =  attachment style was significant, p  =  .000.  Pillais  =  of  =  sex  not  .17,  =  style by  F(12,453)  =  significant,  The main  =  sex  149)  F(4,  .10,  =  was  .236.  Pillais  .19,  attachment  Pillais  for  p  interaction of  effect  F(6,304)  =  for  4.75,  The main effect for relationship type was significant, F(4,149)  .72,  =  95.05,  =  analysis of variance was  p  =  .000.  The  multivariate  followed up with appropriate univariate  analyses.  Sex  by  attachment  factors ANOVA the by  F(3,152) p  >  =  .05.  interaction.  (sex by attachment style)  intimacy measures attachment  style  (MPDQ  style  5.67,  p  Sex was  =  .001,  not  =.17,  p >  .05,  style  was  significant  .005,  and for the MSIS,  for  (See Table significant  was  but not for the MSIS,  significant  or the MSIS,  2-between-subjects  was conducted for each of  and MSIS).  interaction  A  F(3,152)  the =  The  for  the  F(3,152)  for either the MPDQ,  F(1,152) both  6).  =  2.55,  MPDQ,  8.59,  p  p >.05.  F(3,152) =  .000.  =  sex  MPDQ, 1.83,  F(l,152)  Attachment =  4.42,  p  =  108  Table 5  MANOVA results:  Effect  S,  M,  N  Pillais  Intimacy  Hypoth DF  Error DF  p  A  1,  0,  74  1/2  .019  2  151  1.456  .236  B  2,  0,  74  1/2  .171  6  304  4.751  .000*  1/2  .718  4  149  95.051  .000*  C  1,  1,  73  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  .201  A x B x C  3,  0,  73  1/2  .108  12  453  1.412  .157  Note.  Intimacy was measured via the Mutual Psychological Questionnaire and the Miller Social Intimacy Scale.  A  =  Sex of respondent  B  =  Attachment style  C  =  Relationship  (female, (secure,  type  Development  male) fearful,  (same  sex  preoccupied,  friendship,  dismissing)  cross  sex  friendship,  romantic relationship) S,  M,  N  multivariate degrees  parameters  used  to  find  of freedom; significance  exact distributions of the statistics.  *  =  significant at p <  .05  they are the values of the levels  in  tables  of  the  109  Simple  effects  analyses were  conducted  sex at each level of attachment style each of the four attachment styles) at sex  (i.e.,  secure vs.  within  women  and  (i.e., women vs.  (see Table  men).  attachment style, These  simple  reported  The  sex  effects  results  intimacy  at  dismissing  attachment  fearful,  on  the  for cell means).  F(l,l52)  revealed MPDQ  than  dismissing  13.24,  that  style  and preoccupied  For participants with a  sex was significant,  greater  (See Table 7  6).  men within  preoccupied vs.  analyses were nonsignificant for secure, participants  for  and also for attachment style  fearful vs.  within  on MPDQ results  p =.000.  dismissing did  women  dismissing  men  Results are graphically displayed  in Figure 2. The  attachment  style  sex  at  analyses  revealed  attachment style was significant both for women, p  .003,  =  and  for  men,  F(3,l52)  6.12,  =  p  F(3,152) .001.  =  =  that 4.94,  Multiple  comparisons were conducted for attachment style at each level of sex. alpha  Results based on Newman—Keuls post hoc analyses of  .05)  attachment reported  No  other  Keuls  style  and  greater  attachment reported  indicated  higher  of  levels  women,  a  women  those  dismissing  than  intimacy  comparisons  for men  for  with  Further,  levels  pairwise  analyses  those  intimacy  style.  that  did  obtained  with  a  did  secure  a  attachment  those with  with than  (at nominal  a  dismissing  style  fearful style  preoccupied women.  significance.  Newman—  showed that men with a secure attachment  style and men with a preoccupied attachment  style  both reported  greater intimacy than did men with a dismissing attachment style. No other pairwise comparisons yielded significant differences.  110  Table 6 Two between—subiects factors ANOVA results:  (sex,  Intimacy  attachment style)  (MPDO,  MSIS)  Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire  Effect  Sex Sex at Secure  DF  MS  F  1  .01  .17  .681  1  .00  .03  >.05  p  Sex at Fearful  1  .06  .79  >.05  Sex at Preoccupied  1  .25  3.11  >.05  Sex at Dismissing  1  1.08  13.24  .000  3  .36  4.42  .005  Attachment style at women  3  .40  4.94  .003  Attachment style at men  3  .50  6.12  .001  3  .46  5.67  .001  152  .08  Attachment style  Sex by attachment style Error  Miller Social Intimacy Scale  Effect  DF  MS  F  p  Sex  1  355.018  2.55  .112  Attachment style  3  1194.516  8.59  .000  Sex by attachment style  3  253.764  1.83  .145  Error  152  .08  111  Table 7 Cell Means:  Intimacy  Sex by Attachment style  Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire  Secure mean  (SD)  Fearful  Preoccupied  Dismissing  mean  mean  mean  (SD)  (SD)  Row Total  (SD)  Sex Women  4686 a,c (.350)  4440 b (.246)  4484 b,c (.191)  4672 a,1 (.283)  4.571  Men  470 -a (.303)  4520 a,b (.330)  4643 a (.270)  4344 b,2 (.276)  4.552  a 4694  b 4480  b 4564  b 4508  4.561  Column  total  (.305)  Note.  Newman—Keuls style at Sex  multiple  (rows)  comparisons  were  conducted  and for Sex at Attachment style  with different subscripts differ  significantly  differences  alphabetic  are  identified  by  at p  (columns). <  .05.  subscripts;  differences are identified by numeric subscripts.  Attachment  for  Means  Row-wise  column-wise  112  Table 7  (cont’d)  Cell Means:  Intimacy  Sex by Attachment style  Miller Social Intimacy Scale  Secure mean  (SD)  Fearful  Preoccupied  Dismissing  mean  mean  mean  (SD)  (SD)  Row Total  (SD)  Sex Women  129.017 (15.255) 124.600  Men  117.233 (9.069) 116.717  123.217  120.333  (10.129)  (10.336)  125.533  111.033  (10.290)  (9.644)  (11.059)  (16.328)  26808 2 a  6975 “ b  24375 ‘ a  b 115683  122.451  119.471  Column total  115.683 (12. 746)  Note.  The two-way interaction was not significant. subscripts differ significantly at p <  .05.  Means with different  Cl H H  z --1  •1-’  C)  E C.) II-’  L.  C) C) N-.  0  C.) LL Cl) C.) Cu  I  If)  Aoewijuj  a) .I  0 C  4-I  a) E C.) Cu .1.d  4-’  114  Attachment for attachment  style main effect. style was  multiple comparisons measures  (MPDQ  and  significant main context  of  the  significant main  effect  followed up with Newman—Keuls post hoc  (at nominal MSIS).  effect  The  It  can  alpha of is  important  only  significant  be  higher  attachment style reported above.  .05) to  properly  order  on both note  that  understood  interaction  On the MPDQ,  intimacy this  in the  of  sex  by  participants with  a secure attachment style reported significantly greater intimacy than  participants  did  styles.  a  any  of  the  other  three  attachment  No other pairwise comparisons attained significance.  the MSIS, with  from  participants with a preoccupied  secure  attachment  attachment  style  both  On  style and those  reported  greater  intimacy than did participants with a dismissing attachment style and  than  did  those  with  a  fearful  attachment  style.  No  other  pairwise comparisons yielded significant results. Sex by relationship interaction. between—subjects (relationship measures for  type)  the =  MPDQ,  16.93,  p  (sex)  was  (see Table 8).  both  F(2,316)  factor  A 2-factor ANOVA with one  and  one  within—subjects  conducted  for  each  of  factor intimacy  the  Sex by relationship type was significant  F(2,316)  13.10,  p  =  .000,  and  the  MSIS  .000.  Simple effects analyses were conducted for sex at each level of  relationship  type  (i.e.,  three relationship types),  women  vs.  men  within  each  of  the  and also for relationship type at sex  115  (i.e.,  romantic relationship vs.  closest  cross  sex  both the MPDQ the  MPDQ,  friendship  within  and the MSIS.  the  sex  closest same sex friendship vs. women  (See Table  at  9  relationship  =  2.13,  3.16,  p  .05;  .05.  That is,  >  relationship  p  .05;  >  .31,  .17,  >  p  .05,  relationship 6.56,  p  greater  =  for cell means).  On  analyses  closest same sex friendship,  did  not  differ  On the MSIS,  nonsignificant  F(l,  316)  type .011.  intimacy  significantly  in  were  F(l,316)  =  .10,  >  =  p  intimacy  for romantic relationship,  Significant on On  results  closest the  same  NSIS,  as  the sex at relationship type  and for closest cross sex friendship,  .05.  >  p  for  women and men when compared within each separate  measured by the MPDQ.  =  men)  romantic relationship,  closest cross sex friendship,  type  analyses were  within  type  nonsignificant for each relationship type: F(l,316)  and  were sex  friendship,  women  in their closest same  obtained  reported  sex  men in their closest same sex friendships  F(l,316)  F(l,3l6) for  sex  F(1,316)  =  at =  significantly  friendships than did  (see Figure 3).  116  Figure 3  Intimacy as Function of Gender and Relationship Type MPDO  0  E 4-  C  Romantic  Same Sex  Cross Sex  Relationship Type  Intimacy as Function of Gender and Relationship Type MSIS  >. 0  E 4-  C  Romantic  Same Sex Relationship Type  Cross Sex  117  The relationship type at sex analyses were significant both for women and for men on the MPDQ: =  .000;  for men,  F(2,316)  f or women,  13.10,  =  p  =  F(2,316)  .000.  12.63, p  =  Similarly,  on the  MSIS,  the relationship at sex analyses were significant both for  women  and  men,  F(2,  for men: 316)  for women, 94.84,  =  p  =  F(2,316) .000.  =  65.82,  Multiple  p  .000;  =  comparisons  for were  conducted for relationship type at each level of sex for both the MPDQ and the MSIS  (see Figure 3).  hoc  nominal  analyses  (at  alpha  On the MPDQ, of  .05)  Newman-Keuls post  indicated  that  women’s  reported intimacy was significantly greater in their closest same sex friendship than in both their romantic relationship and their closest cross sex friendship. significant.  For  men,  No other pairwise comparisons were  reported  intimacy  on  MPDQ  the  was  significantly greater in their romantic relationship than in both their  closest  friendship. On  the  same  sex  friendship  and  MSIS,  Newrnan-Keuls  relationship than closest  significantly  •  closest  cross  sex  No other pairwise comparisons attained significance. analyses  (at  indicated that women reported greater  their  their  sex  greater  friendship.  intimacy  in  alpha  of  .05)  intimacy in their romantic  in both their closest  cross  nominal  same  sex friendship  Further, their  women  closest  and  reported same  sex  friendship than in their closest cross sex friendship.  For men,  significantly  romantic  greater  intimacy  was  reported  in  their  relationship than in both their closest cross sex friendship and their closest same sex friendship. reached significance.  No other pairwise comparisons  118  Table 8 One between—subiects factor, (sex,  relationship type)  one within—subiects factor  ANOVA results:  Intimacy  (MPDQ,  MSIS)  Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire  Effect  DF  MS  F  1  .04  .15  .702  Sex at romantic relationship  1  .35  2.13  >.05  Sex at same sex friendship  1  .52  3.16  >.05  .10  >.05  Sex  Sex at cross sex friendship  p  1  .02  158  .28  2  .43  3.94  .020  Relationship type at women  2  .34  12.63  .000  Relationship type at men  2  .12  4.40  .013  2  1.42  13.10  .000  316  .11  DF  MS  1  1065.05  2.20  Sex at romantic relationship  1  96.91  .31  Sex at same sex friendship  1  2066.12  6.56 • 17  Subjects within sex Relationship type  Sex by relationship type Relationship type by subjects within sex  Miller Social Intimacy Scale  Effect  Sex  Sex at cross  sex friendship  p  .140 >.  05  .011  1  54.01  158  483.73  2  33120.69  143.73  .000  Relationship type at women  2  3791.92  65.82  .000  Relationship type at men  2  21853.71  94.84  .000  2  3902.15  16.93  .000  316  230.44  Subjects within sex Relationship type  Sex by relationship type Relationship type by subjects within sex  >.  05  119  Table 9 Cell Means:  Intimacy  Sex by Relationship Type  Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire  Romantic  Same sex  Cross Sex  mean  mean  mean  (SD)  (SD)  Row Total  (SD)  Sex Women  4506 a (.418)  472 -b (.391)  4485 a (.406)  4.571  Men  4639 a (.399)  4492 b (.392)  4525 b (.436)  4.552  a,b 4572  a 4607  b 4505  4.561  Column total  Note.  Newman—Keuls type at Sex were no  multiple  (rows)  comparisons  were  conducted  and for Sex at Relationship type  significant differences  for  for  Relationship  (columns).  There  Sex at Relationship type.  Means  with different subscripts differ significantly at p  <  .05.  120  Table 9  (cont’d)  Cell Means:  Intimacy  Sex by Relationship Type  Miller Social Intimacy Scale  Romantic  Same sex  Cross Sex  mean  mean  mean  (SD)  (SD)  Row Total  (P)  Sex  Women  135437 a (17.817)  123900 b,1 (17.394)  13 • 8 ‘° c ° (17.822)  122.450  Men  a 3 8550 (15.426)  b,2 0 1 9525 (17.985)  338 1 b -° (19.753)  119.471  a 9 • 136 94  672 11 b 3  c 0 975  120.961  Column total  Note.  Newman—Keuls type at Sex  (rows)  with different differences  multiple  comparisons  conducted  and for Sex at Relationship type  subscripts differ  are  were  identified  with  significantly at p alphabetic  for  (columns). <  .05.  subscripts;  differences are identified with numeric subscripts.  Relationship Means  Row—wise  column-wise  121  Relationship type main effect. be  can only higher  fully understood  order  interaction  The  above.  significant  in sex  of  main  This significant main effect  the by  context  of  the  relationship  effect  for  significant  type,  reported  relationship  type  was  followed up with Newman-Keuls  post hoc multiple comparisons  (at  nominal alpha of  intimacy measures  On  the  MPDQ,  closest  same  .05)  on both  participants sex  friendship  friendship.  No  differences.  On the MSIS,  in their  reported  other  romantic  than  pairwise  greater in  intimacy  their  comparisons  (MPDQ and MSIS).  closest yielded  in  significant  participants reported greater intimacy  relationship  intimacy was  sex  cross  than  in  both  their  closest  sex friendship and their closest cross sex friendship. reported  their  greater  in participants’  same  Further,  closest same  sex  friendship than in their closest cross sex friendship.  Influence MANOVA conducted  results. on  A  the  multivariate  analysis  influence  strategies  of  avoiding;  dominating;  and  four  (integrating/compromising; (See  Table  subjects  10).  The  factors  and  MANOVA  was  again  set  1-within-subjects  up  factor  possible two— and three—way interaction effects,  of  as  the  .25,  F(8,145)  effects 3.38, 7.17,  p p  were  =  6.18,  significant:  .011;  =  =  p  =  for  .000. sex,  for attachment style,  .000;  and  for  All  2-between-  a  design.  Pillais  relationship  =  =  type,  the  Of  only the two—way  three  Pillais  ROCI  obliging).  interaction of sex by relationship type was significant, =  was  variance  Pillais  possible  main  .08,  F(4,149)  =  .48,  F(12,453)  =  Pillais  =  .29,  122  Table 10  MANOVA results:  Effect  S,  Pillais  N  M,  Influence  Hypoth DF  Error DF  F  p  A  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  .067  A 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  .093  A x B x C  3,  2,  71  1/2  .129  24  441  .824  .707  Note.  Influence Inventory  was  (ROCI).  influence  C  = =  The  avoiding;  Sex of respondent  A  Attachment style Relationship  =  significant at p <  .05  Rahim  on  dominating;  (same  Organizational  dependent  measured  (female,  type  the  four  (secure,  romantic relationship)  *  via  strategies  compromising;  B  measured  variables the  are  ROCI:  Conflict the  four  integrating!  and obliging.  male) fearful, sex  preoccupied,  friendship,  dismissing)  cross  sex  friendship,  123  F(8,145)  7.52, p  =  =  .000.  The multivariate analysis of variance  was followed up with appropriate univariate analyses. Attachment for attachment subjects  all  style was  ANOVA5  strategies  for  .002;  avoiding,  7.67,  p  attachment  significant main  style  =  effect  one—way between—  four each  on  the  of  influence  Significant results were obtained for  integrating/compromising, F(3,156)  .000;  The  followed up with  (see Table 11).  four ANOVAs:  =  effect:  style main  9.83,  and obliging,  p  =  F(3,l56)  .000; dominating,  F(3,156)  =  14.17,  p  5.11,  p  =  F(3,156)  =  =  .000.  =  These  significant univariate results were followed up with Newman—Keuls post hoc multiple comparisons  (at nominal  of the four influence strategies. Newman—Keuls  pairwise  integrating/compromising significantly  higher  three attachment styles or preoccupied in Figure 4. the  strategy, than  (i.e.,  individuals).  05)  on each  (See Table 12 for cell means.)  results  scores  alpha of  did  revealed secure  that  respondents  individuals  in  the  compared with dismissing, Results  are  the  on  graphically  had other  fearful, displayed  No other pairwise comparisons were significant.  avoiding  strategy,  fearful  individuals  had  On  significantly  higher scores than did individuals in the other three attachment styles  (secure,  comparisons  on  dismissing, the  avoiding  Figure  4).  scored  significantly  three groups  On  the  or preoccupied).  No other pairwise  strategy  significance  dominating  (fearful,  higher  strategy,  than  secure,  attained  did  dismissing  individuals  or preoccupied).  in  (see  individuals the  Further,  other  124  Table 11  One between—subjects factor ANOVA results:  Dependent Measure  Effect  (attachment style)  Influence  DF  MS  p  Integrating Attachment style Error  3  1.25  156  .24  3  5.23  156  .53  3  4.38  156  .57  3  3.57  156  .25  5.11  .002  9.83  .000  7.67  .000  14.17  .000  Avoiding Attachment style Error  Dominating Attachment style Error  Obliging Attachment style Error  125  Table 12 Cell Means:  Influence  Attachment Style Main Effect  Attachment style  Secure mean  (SD)  Fearful  Preoccupied  Dismissing  mean  mean  mean  (SD)  (SD)  Row Total  ()  Influence  Integrate 3840 a,l (.475)  3468 b,l (.553)  3580 b,1 (.463)  3464 b,l (.479)  3.588  2599 a,3 (.718)  b,l 4 • 3 26 (.766)  2879 a,2,3 (.737)  2744 a,2,3 (.694)  2.912  2727 a,b,2,3 (.864)  251 a 3 ,2 (.585)  b2 9 • 2 37 (.706)  3290 c,l (.836)  2.867  a,2 1 • 3 07 (.455)  b,c,l 5 • 3 03 (.586)  b,c,l 4 • 3 64 (.431)  c,2 8 • 2 78 (.524)  3.238  (.512)  Avoid  (.787)  Dominate  (.802)  Oblige  Note.  Newman  Keuls  multiple  comparisons  strategy across attachment styles influence strategies. at p <  .05.  (rows)  were  conducted  within  (.561)  influence  and within attachment style across  Means with different subscripts differ significantly  Row—wise differences are  identified by alphabetic subscripts;  column—wise differences are identified by numeric subscripts.  Cl)  0 0  B  0  0 0  0  CD  C  -I -%  CD  .n  CD  0  CD  01  I  CD  3  z.  0 -l  0  C) C,  0  C)  C) CD C) C’) C) ‘1  C CD  CD  CD CO -I C)  0  C)  C) CD C) C’) C) ‘1 C  C CD  0 0.  I-i CD  I-i.  Tj  U)  C,) Co  3  C,)  C) C)  CD 0  -o -I  C  -I  -Il CD  CD  C  C)  CD  I  0  0  C)  0) ‘-I C  ci)  CD  3  C) 0  0 -Ii  0  0  CD C) Cr, C) -n C  0  CD  CD 0)  C)  (0  3  0  -I’  C.) CD  CD  .-‘  CD  CD  0  0  01  CD  t)  128 preoccupied dominating  individuals strategy  report  than  significantly greater use of the  did  fearful  individuals.  pairwise comparisons yielded significant results Fearful  and  greater use dismissing  preoccupied of the  obliging  individuals.  significantly dismissing  individuals  greater  Further, use  individuals.  of  the  secure  secure  individuals  obliging  Preoccupied and  significantly  either  did  or  reported  strategy  secure  other  (see Figure 5).  reported  strategy than  No  than  did  individuals  did  not differ significantly in reported use of the obliging strategy (see Figure 5). It is important to note that, when looking within attachment styles  across  column—wise  the  four  differences  integrating/compromising individuals attached  in  were  all  uniquely  score  by  among  the  uniquely  high  were  domination  (see  to  use  the  highest  for  securely on  score of  the  avoidance  (see  use  characterized Figure  (i.e.,  on  high  reported  likely  individuals  on  scores  Those who were  their  least  strategies  12),  were  moderately  and were  Fearful  low  Table  strategy  characterized  strategy,  6).  Figure  on  influence  attachment groups.  integration/compromise, obliging  different  6).  by  their  Preoccupied  respondents’ reported using integrating/compromising and obliging strategies most,  followed by domination,  which was significantly  higher than their reported use of avoidance pattern  for  those who were  dismissing  (see Figure 7).  indicated high  integrating/compromising  and  significantly  on obliging and avoiding  2).  lower  scores  dominating  scores  strategies,  The on and  (see jqure  129  Figure 6  Influence Profile: Secure 3.9 3.7 3.5 C) C) C) C —  I.  2.9 2.7 2.5  Integrating  Avoiding  Dominating  Obliging  Strategy  Influence Profile: Fearful 3.9 3.7 3.5 C) C.) C C)  ...  H  3.3  z 3.1  .4-  2.9  2.5  I  L Integrating  Avoiding  Dominating  Obliging  130  Figure 7  Influence Profile: Preoccupied 3.9 3.7 C)  C) 3.3 C) C)  2.9 2.7 2.5 Integrating  Avoiding  Dominating  Obliging  Strategy  Influence Profile: Dismissing 3.9 3.7 C)  3.5 C) C)  Li . 3  F  C) .4-  Integrating  Avoiding  Dominating  Obliging  131 Sex  relationship  by  multivariate appropriate  analysis  type)  strategies.  (See  interaction  was  strategies:  avoiding,  .000.  Sex  F(l,158) .05. .005,  was  13).  The for  for  p  was  significant  and for obliging,  sex  the  .05.  >  p  .000;  .05,  with  each  remaining  p  .05,  >  and  for  3.31,  =  p  for  =  .000,  5.45,  dominating,  and for obliging,  type  F(2,3l6)  F(2,316)  influence  dominating, =  12.61,  p  =  integrating/compromising,  avoiding, =  =.038;  F(l,l58)  F(l,158) p  =  .016.  F(2,316)  Relationship type was significant for avoiding, p  influence  three  =  17.80,  =  p  .50,  =  8.09,  p  F(2,3l6)  =1.32,  p  F(2,3l6) =  p  > =  Relationship  type was nonsignificant for integrating/compromising, 2.84,  factor  relationship  by  and for dominating,  F(l,158)  the  one  integrating/compromising  and obliging,  for  of  with  The sex by relationship type  the  nonsignificant >  ANOVA  2-factor  for  F(2,316)  =  up  conducted  .59,  =  Sex  p  followed  within—subjects  significant  14.82,  =  was  significant  one  2.83,  was  A  The  and  Table  interaction  F(2,316)  (sex)  was  =  result  analyses.  nonsignificant  F(2,316)  interaction.  variance  factor  (relationship  strategy,  of  univariate  between—subjects  type  .05.  > =  =  9.26,  .000.  Simple effects analyses were conducted for sex at each level of  relationship  type  (i.e.,  three relationship types),  women  vs.  men  within  each  of  and also for each relationship type at  sex  (i.e.,  vs.  closest cross sex friendship within women and within men)  avoiding, On  romantic relationship vs.  dominating, the  avoiding  the  closest same sex friendship for  and obliging influence strategies. strategy,  the  sex  at  relationship  analyses were nonsignificant for each relationship type:  type  romantic  132  relationship, friendship,  F(l,158) F(l,158)  friendship,  .34,  =  F(l,158)  3.03,  =  1.72, p  =  .05;  >  p  .05;  p  >  >  .05.  closest  and  closest  That is,  same  sex  cross  sex  women and men did  not differ significantly from each other in their reported use of avoiding  strategies  relationship avoiding  10.86,  =  .05.  .05)  The  strategy  F(2,316) >  type.  when  .000,  p  conducted  strategy.  within  relationship  revealed  Newman-Keuls  were  compared  sex  results  but not for men,  F(2,  comparisons  relationship  at  (at  316)  on  avoiding  for  for  the  the  women, 1.68,  =  nominal  women  Women reported greater use of  separate  analyses  significant  multiple for  at  each  alpha  p of  avoiding  strategies  in  their closest same sex friendship and in their closest cross sex friendship pairwise  than  their  in  comparisons  romantic  obtained  relationship.  significance  No  (see  Table  other 14).  Results are graphically displayed in Figure 8. On  the  dominating  strategy,  sex  the  at  relationship  type  analyses were nonsignificant for each relationship type: romantic relationship, friendship, friendship,  F(l,l58) F(l,158)  F(l,l58)  =  =  3.26,  =  .88,  .36,  p  p >  .05.  .05;  >  p >  .05;  closest closest  That is,  same  sex  cross  sex  women and men did  not differ significantly from each other in their reported use of the  dominating  strategy  when  compared  within  each  separate  The relationship type at sex analyses for the  relationship type.  dominating strategy revealed significant results both for women, F(2,316) .000.  =  4.74,  p  =  .009,  and  for men,  F(2,316)  =  11.51,  Newman—Keuls multiple comparisons were conducted for  p  =  ‘-I  ci)  z  Cl) C Cu  C) C.)  C C) II  C Cu  0  :2 a  x ci C,)  Cl) Cl)  0 I  0  ><  G)  C’)  E C,)  C)  E  0  134  Table 13 One between—subjects factor, (sex,  relationship type)  one within—subjects factor ANOVA results:  Influence  Integrating/compromising strategy  Effect  DF  MS  F  1  .47  .59  .442  158  .79  Relationship type  2  .38  2.84  .060  Sex by relationship type  2  .38  2.83  .060  316  .13  DF  MS  Sex Subjects within sex  p  Relationship type by subjects within sex  Avoiding strategy  Effect  Sex  F  p  1  14.41  8.09  .005  Sex at romantic relationship  1  2.48  3.03  >.05  Sex at same sex friendship  1  .28  .34  >.05  Sex at cross sex friendship  1  1.41  1.72  >.05  158  1.78  Subjects within sex Relationship type  2  3.14  9.26  .000  Relationship type at women  2  3.69  10.86  .000  Relationship type at men  2  .57  1.68  >.05  2  1.12  3.31  .038  316  .34  Sex by relationship type Relationship type by subjects within sex  135  Table 13  (continued)  One between—sublects factor, (sex,  relationship type’)  one within—sublects factor ANOVA results:  Influence  Dominating strategy  DF  MS  F  1  .97  .50  .480  Sex at romantic relationship  1  2.74  3.26  >.05  Sex at same sex friendship  1  .74  .88  >.05  Sex at cross sex friendship  1  .30  .36  >.05  158  1.94  2  .39  1.32  .269  Relationship type at women  2  1.37  4.74  .009  Relationship type at men  2  3.34  11.51  .000  2  4.33  14.82  .000  316  .29  DF  MS  1  5.45  5.95  .016  Sex at romantic relationship  1  2.18  4.92  .028  Sex at same sex friendship  1  .02  .04  >.05  Sex at cross sex friendship  1  .47  1.05  >.05  158  .92  2  3.68  17.80  .000  Relationship type at women  2  .12  .57  >.05  Relationship type at men  2  6.19  29.46  .000  2  2.61  12.61  .000  316  .21  Effect  Sex  Subjects within sex Relationship type  Sex by relationship type Relationship type by subjects within sex  Obliging Strategy  Effect  Sex  Subjects within sex Relationship type  Sex by relationship type Relationship type by subjects within sex  F  p  136  Table 14 Cell Means:  Influence  Sex by Relationship Type  Integrating/Compromising  Romantic mean  (SD)  Same sex  Cross Sex  mean  mean  (SD)  Row Total  (SD)  Sex 3.715  3.620  3.547  Women  3.597 (.567)  (.557)  (.610)  Men  3.607  3.542  3.522  (.641)  (.594)  (.587)  4.572  4.607  4.505  3.557  Column total  Note.  The  two—way  interaction  integrating/compromising.  was  4.561  not  significant  for  137  Table 14  (continued)  Cell Means:  Influence  Sex by Relationship Type  Avoiding  Romantic  Same sex  Cross Sex  mean  mean  mean  (SD)  (SD)  Row Total  (SD)  Sex Women  2502 a (.936)  292 -b (.877)  2794 b (.849)  Men  3.000  3.087  3.169  (.958)  (.901)  (.906)  -a 2751  °° 3 b 4  b 2985  3.0852  Column  total  Note.  Newman—Keuls type at Sex  (rows)  with different differences  multiple  comparisons  were  2.912  conducted  and for Sex at Relationship type  subscripts differ significantly at  are  identified  with  alphabetic  for  (columns). <  .05.  subscripts;  differences are identified with numeric subscripts.  Relationship Means  Row-wise  column-wise  138  Table 14  (continued)  Cell Means:  Influence  Sex by Relationship Type  Dominating  Romantic  Same sex  Cross Sex  mean  mean  mean  (SD)  (SD)  Row Total  (SD)  Sex Women  45 • 3 a ° (.911)  2783 b (.895)  2908 a,b (.925)  2.912  Men  2675 a (1.036)  b 5 ° 3 5 (.856)  2735 a (.866)  2.822  2.860  2.919  2.822  2.867  Column total  Note.  Newman—Keuls type at Sex  multiple  (rows)  comparisons  and for  were  conducted  Sex at Relationship type  were no significant differences  for  for  Relationship  (columns).  There  Sex at Relationship type.  Means  with different subscripts differ significantly at  <  .05.  139  Table 14  (continued)  Cell Means:  Influence  Sex by Relationship Type  Obi iging Romantic  Same sex  Cross Sex  mean  mean  mean  (SD)  (SD)  Row Total  (SD)  Sex Women  Men  3.l7l  3.129  3.094  (.750)  (.630)  (.602)  3638 a,2 (.733)  3085 b (.608)  33 c 0 ](.656)  a 3404  b 0 3 7  b 3202  3.1311  Column total  Note.  Newman—Keuls type at Sex  (rows)  with different differences  multiple  were  conducted  and for Sex at Relationship type  subscripts  are  comparisons  3.238  differ significantly at p  identified  by  alphabetic  for  <  .05.  subscripts;  differences are identified by numeric subscripts.  Relationship  (columns).  Means  Row-wise  column-wise  140  relationship the  type  dominating  at  same  and  strategy.  dominating strategy closest  women  sex  Women  the  of  friendship and  than  friendship.  dominating  than they in  comparisons  relationship type  reported  greater  at men  use  of  on the  in their romantic relationship than in their No  yielded significant results. use  for  their  in  romantic  obtained  pairwise  comparisons  Men reported significantly greater  strategy  did  other  their  in  their  closest  closest  cross  relationship.  significance  (see  sex  No  Table  same  sex  friendship  other  pairwise  Results  14).  are  graphically displayed in Figure 9. obliging,  On  the  sex  at  relationship  significant for romantic relationship,  type  F(1,158)  =  analysis  4.92,  p  but was not significant for closest same sex friendship, =  .04,  1.05,  >  p p  >  .05,  nor for closest cross sex friendship,  .05.  The simple effects analyses  =  was .028,  F(1,158)  F(l,158)  =  for sex at romantic  relationship revealed that men reported significantly greater use of  the  obliging  relationships.  strategy Women  and  than men  did did  women,  not  in  differ  their  romantic  significantly  in  their reported use of the obliging strategy when compared within their closest same sex friendship and within their closest cross sex friendship.  The relationship type at sex analyses of the  -1  -1  G)  0. Cl)  = CD  >1  C.)  = II  0) CD  = 0  C)  E  o  ci  C)  >< ci)  Cl) C,) U)  0  C.)  >< C) C)  U)  E U)  0 .4-I  E 0  ‘-4  C  z  0. 0. 0  CD  0  .0 G) G) 4-  0)  0  C C)  E o  t-  C.: G)  L()  C)  -  eouenpi  ‘  to  >< C)  U) U) U)  0 L.  C-) C) 0. 0. U)  x C)  C)  U)  C 0 Cu C)  E U)  C) C Cu  E  0  143  obliging strategy revealed significant results for men, =  29.46,  p  Newman-1Ceuls were  .000,  =  multiple  conducted  strategy  not  but  comparisons  relationship  for  (see Table 14).  their  closest  sex friendship. strategy closest  in same  sex  (with type  =.57,  nominal  at  men  on  >  .05.  of  .05)  p  alpha the  obliging  in their romantic relationship than  same  sex  Further,  friendship  and  their  closest  in  cross  men reported more use of the obliging  closest  their  F(2,316)  Men reported significantly greater use  of the obliging strategy both  for women,  F(2,3l6)  cross  friendship.  sex  friendship  Results  than  their  in  are graphically displayed  in Figure 10. Sex  main  significance Table  effect.  for  14).  Note  understood  within  two  the  of  that the  main  The  four  these  effect  influence  results  context  of  the  5.95,  F(l.158) p  =  8.09,  .016,  =  F(l,158)  =  =  .005,  but  integrating/compromising, dominating,  p  .50,  p  >  relationship  context  higher  order  not  significant  .59,  .05.  F(l,158)=  p  Men,  >  .05,  for for  nor  overall,  reported  obliging strategy than  overall.  Relationship  influence  (See  appropriately  and for obliging,  =  attained  Sex was significant for  greater use of both the avoiding and the did women,  be  significant  was  F(1,l58)  sex  strategies.  only  can  interaction of sex by relationship type. avoiding,  for  type  type  attained  strategies.  of  relationship  the  main  type.  The  significance  These  significant  effect.  results  higher  Relationship  must  order type  for be  main two  of  the  understood  interaction was  for  effect  of  four  in sex  significant  the by for  144  avoiding,  F(2,316)  17.80,  p  9.26, p  =  .000,  =  F(2,316)  dominating,  F(2,316)  effect  relationship  strategies  was  comparisons. strategy  and for obliging,  was  but  integrating/compromising,  for  .000,  =  1.32,  =  followed  .05.  on  the  their  closest  same  for  .05,  for  >  p  nor  significant  avoiding  and  friendship  multiple  the  of  main  obliging  Newman-Keuls  greater use  sex  =  significant  The  with  up  Participants reported  in  .59,  =  >  p  type  not  F(2,316)  avoiding in  and  their  closest cross sex friendship than in their romantic relationship. Participants their  reported  romantic  greater  relationship  use  of  the  than  in  their  obliging  strategy  closest  cross  in sex  friendship and than in their closest same sex friendship.  Summary of Results Two intimacy  separate measures  strategies  MANOVA5 (NPDQ,  were  MSIS)  conducted,  and  for  one  (integrating/compromising,  one the  Both MANOVAs were 2-between-subjects  style)  and  1—within-subjects  3—way  interaction  influence.  The  nonsignificant  2-way  interaction  relationship type was influence. significant  The for  and both  influence. intimacy  also  sex  and  attachment  but  not  interaction was  The  main  of  effect  influence.  for  The  intimacy  for both  style  sex was  style  interaction  for  The both  sex  and by  for  was by  intimacy  nonsignificant  effect  The  intimacy and  influence.  main  attachment  attachment  significant for  influence  analyses.  both  two  dominating,  (sex,  type)  for  nonsignificant  by  intimacy  relationship type  (relationship  the  four  avoiding,  obliging).  was  for  for  attachment  145  significant  style was  qualified for intimacy style).  attachment significant  intimacy  and  influence,  but  was  (by the higher order interaction of sex by  The  for both  both  for  main  intimacy  effect and  relationship  for  type  was  qualified for both  influence,  by the higher order interaction of sex by relationship type. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on significant multivariate results.  For  attachment  style)  (sex,  intimacy and  relationship  two  1-between,  two  type)  2—between—subjects  were  conducted,  and for the MSIS.  For  influence,  (attachment  and  four  (sex,  style)  relationship  type)  multiple  comparisons  subjects  each  one  (sex,  for  ANOVA5  the  MPDQ  four 1-between-subjects ANOVAs  1-between,  were  influence strategies).  1-within  ANOVA’s  1-within  undertaken  (one  subjects ANOVAs for  each  of  the  Simple effects analyses and Newman—Keuls were  carried  out  significant  on  ANOVA  results where appropriate. The  Intimacy.  3-way  interaction was  the 2-between—subjects ANOVA (sex, results were effects and  obtained on  analyses  for  attachment  attachment  style  participants, levels  of  the MPDQ  carried  style  analyses  On  significant  but not  on the MSIS.  Simple  out  for  sex  at  style,  sex  on  the  at were  significant  attachment  MPDQ. only  The for  sex  at  dismissing  and revealed that dismissing women reported higher  and  than  significant.  significant.  attachment style),  intimacy than did dismissing men.  preoccupied intimacy  were  not  fearful would The  women  would  preoccupied attachment  significant for both women and men.  report  and  style  The prediction that higher  fearful at  sex  men  levels was  analyses  of not  were  Secure and dismissing women  146  had  higher  dismissing  reported women  intimacy  reported  than  higher  fearful  did  intimacy  than  women,  did  and  preoccupied  Secure and preoccupied men reported greater intimacy than  women.  did dismissing men. main  The effect with  for  for  sex  was  attachment style was  multiple  participants  comparisons. reported  participants MSIS,  effect  As  higher  not  significant.  significant predicted, levels  and was on  of  the  The  main  followed up MPDQ,  intimacy  secure  than  in any of the other three attachment groups;  did  on the  both secure and preoccupied individuals had higher intimacy  scores than did those who were fearful. 1-between-subjects,  The  relationship type) and the MSIS.  1-within-subjects  On the MPDQ,  relationship  at  (sex,  yielded significant results for both the MPDQ the sex at relationship type analyses  were nonsignificant for all relationship types; sex  ANOVA  type  analyses  were  on the MSIS,  the  nonsignificant  for  sex  friendship,  but  the analysis was significant for closest same sex friendship.  As  romantic relationship  predicted,  and  for  closest cross  women reported significantly higher intimacy than did  men in their closest same sex friendships. at sex analyses were the  MPDQ  intimacy their  and in  their  romantic  friendship, women’s  the  significant for both women and men on both  MSIS.  On  closest  the  same  relationship  MPDQ  sex or  women  than  their  intimacy  was  in  closest  their  reported  friendship  consistent with the prediction;  reported  relationship  The relationship type  higher same  than  closest  greater  in  either  cross  sex  on the MSIS however, in sex  their or  romantic cross  sex  147  friendships. intimacy  On both the MPDQ and the MSIS men reported greater  in  their  closest same  romantic  sex or cross  relationship  sex  than  friendships.  either  in  their  The prediction that  men would report lower intimacy in their same sex friendship than in their cross sex friendship was not supported. The significant main effect for relationship type by the  significant higher  order  (qualified  interaction reported above)  was  followed with multiple comparisons on both the MPDQ and the MSIS. On  the  MPDQ,  closest  same  participants sex  friendship.  reported  friendship  On the MSIS,  than  greater  intimacy  their  in  in  closest  their  cross  sex  respondents reported higher intimacy in  their romantic relationship than in either their closest same sex or  cross  closest  sex same  friendships; sex  also,  friendship  intimacy  than  was  their  in  higher  closest  their  in  cross  sex  friendship. Influence. attachment  The  style)  subjects  ANOVA’s  obtained  for  was  2—between  nonsignificant.  (attachment  all  subjects  four  style)  influence  On  interaction the  four  significant strategies.  (sex,  1-between  results As  were  predicted,  multiple comparisons revealed that secure participants had higher scores of  the  fearful  on  integrating/compromising than  other  three  attachment  individuals reported higher  individuals  in  the  other  dismissing  participants  dominating  than  groups;  style  further,  did  three had  groups.  As  in  any  predicted,  levels of avoidance than did  groups.  Also  significantly  participants  preoccupied  did participants  in  any  individuals  as  higher of  the  reported  predicted, scores other  on  three  significantly  148  greater use of domination than did fearful participants.  Fearful  and preoccupied individuals reported significantly greater use of the obliging strategy than did secure or dismissing individuals; secure  further,  participants  reported  greater  use  of  obliging  than did dismissing participants. On  the  four  relationship avoiding,  1-between,  type),  1-within  significant  dominating  and  results  obliging  sex  for  at  type  were  ANOVA’s  obtained but  On avoidance,  relationship  each relationship type.  were  strategies,  integrating/compromising strategy. analyses  subjects  not  (sex,  for  the  for  the  simple effects  nonsignificant  for  Hence, the prediction that men would use  greater avoidance in their same sex friendships than would women was  confirmed.  not  significant  results  Relationship for women  but  at  not  sex  analyses  for men.  revealed  Women reported  greater use of avoidance in their closest same sex and cross sex friendships than in their romantic relationships. the  sex  each  at  relationship  relationship  type.  type  analyses  Hence,  the  were  On dominating,  nonsignificant  prediction  that  for  men would  report greater use of dominating strategies than would women  in  their romantic relationship and in their cross sex friendship was not  confirmed.  The  relationship  type  significant for both women and men.  at  sex  analyses  were  Women reported greater use  of the dominating strategy in their romantic relationship than in their closest  same sex  domination  their  their  in  romantic  friendship.  friendship.  closest  relationship  On obliging,  same or  Men reported greater use of sex  friendship  in  their  than  closest  in  either  cross  sex  the sex at relationship type analyses  149  were significant same  sex  for romantic relationship,  cross  or  sex  friendships.  but not  Hence  the  for closest  prediction  that  women would report greater use of the obliging strategy in their cross  sex  reported  friendships greater  relationships  use  than  The relationship but  not  strategy  for in  reported  type  their  would  of  the  at  analyses  reported  romantic  use  of  not  confirmed.  strategy to  what  were  greater  relationship  sex or closest cross  greater  was  contrary  sex  Men  men  obliging  women,  did  women.  closest same  than  in  was  in  predicted.  than  their  for men  of  the  in  either  sex friendships;  obliging  romantic  significant use  Men  obliging their  further,  closest  cross  men sex  friendship than in their closest same sex friendship. The main effect for sex (qualified by the significant higher order and  interaction obliging,  reported  but  not  above)  for  As predicted men,  the  strategies  reported  greater  use  than of  significant  for  integrating/compromising  dominating. avoiding  was  overall,  nor  for  reported greater use of  did women,  obliging  avoiding  overall.  strategies  Further,  than  men  women  did  overall. The  main  significant avoiding and  effect  for  interaction obliging,  for dominating.  relationship reported  but not  type  above)  for  was  (qualified  by  the  significant  for  integrating/compromising nor  Participants reported greater  avoidance in the  closest same sex and cross sex friendships than in their romantic relationship; obliging  and  strategy  participants in  their  reported  romantic  greater  relationship  closest same sex or cross sex friendships.  use than  of in  the their  150  Discussion  The goal of this research was to address the broad question of how relational processes of function of gender, The  study  was  ongoing  peer  indicate each  of  at  those variables  gender,  associated  The  attachment  with  influence vary as a  and type of relationship.  identifying  relationships.  that  are  attachment style,  aimed  intersecting roles  intimacy and  the  independent  in participants’ results  style,  participants’  of  and  this  specific research  relationship  reported  and  type  experience  of  intimacy and their reported use of various influence strategies. In some instances the variables are associated at the level of a main effect,  and in other cases,  they interact to produce a more  complex picture of women’s and men’s close relationships. The  ensuing  findings,  discussion  relating  them  begins  to  theory  by  reviewing  and  previous  exploring possible interpretations and implications. nonsignificant results  follows,  significant data,  and  A review of  with possible explanations as to  why significance was not obtained on specific hypotheses.  This  leads into a more general discussion of the adequacy of the study as a test of the hypotheses. implications gender  in  possible  of  this  close clinical  Next,  research  for  an explication of the broader the  fields  relationships  is  followed  implications  of  the  by  of a  findings.  and  attachment discussion Finally  of  some  suggestions for future research are presented,  for improving the  test of  for extending one  the hypotheses  under examination,  and  of the more intriguing results uncovered in this study.  151  Discussion of Significant Findings Attachment style,  gender and intimacy.  significantly  associated  main  secure  effect,  their  close  relationships  previous  research  Intimacy  is  motivational  understood,  been  found  secure  Hazan,  the  1987)  1991;  involving  cared  for). approach  to  in  insecure,  as  and shown  in  Simpson,  multiple  behavioral  1990).  components:  (expressivity, and affective  Theoretically, intimacy  as  secure  they  expect  be responsive and supportive.  self—disclose disclosures  appropriately others  of  a  intimacy  were  (appraisal of meaning),  in general, to  Shaver,  As  and  to  (Mikulincer  &  They  respond Nachson,  They are inclined to expect that others will be warm and  reliable, others.  &  &  process  motivated  are  sensitively to 1991).  1-lazan  levels.  greater  did those who  Kobak  cognitive  that others will, have  (e.g.,  intimacy  reported  (approach/avoidance),  responsiveness),  individuals  than  (e.g.,  complex  a  reported  respondents  has been hypothesized  (feeling  with  Attachment style was  and  to  have  positive  feelings  about  closeness  with  All these factors likely contribute to the finding that individuals  report  greater  levels  of  intimacy  in  their  close relationships than do individuals who are insecure. Attachment produce level,  style  different  patterns  for  with  women  gender and  men.  some  in  At  the  cases  to  two—way  secure and dismissing women reported greater intimacy than  did fearful women, than  interacted  preoccupied  and dismissing women reported greater intimacy women.  Secure  and  preoccupied  greater intimacy than men who were dismissing.  men  reported  It is interesting  152  to  speculate  on why,  for women,  being dismissing  is  associated  with higher reported intimacy than being preoccupied, whereas for men  reverse  the  intimacy  than  response  of  intimacy who  is  true  dismissing the  other  behaviors  of  are preoccupied  anxious  about  disclosing,  As well,  This  person  the  to  report  respondent. are  they  higher  related  disclosures  intimacy but hence  men be  may  the  preoccupied  abandonment,  and  the  other  Individuals  at the  are  to  same time  expressive  and  but may also be less sensitive to the appropriateness and to the responses of others.  expressivity,  recipient,  preoccupied  men).  approach  of their disclosure, men’s  (i.e.,  regardless  may be regarded  of  its  Preoccupied  sensitivity  to  the  as rare and therefore more valuable.  particularly when the recipient of this disclosure is a  woman, preoccupied men’s intimacy behavior may be responded to in ways that further enhance feelings of closeness Read,  1990).  driven  On  the  other  intimacy efforts may  relationship partners  as  their  Feeney  freedom  (e.g.,  hand,  preoccupied  be perceived by  intrusive, et  (e.g., women’s  anxiety—  (particularly male)  and possibly as  al.,  Collins &  1994).  Such  a threat to a  perception  might then lead the relationship partner to withdraw, which would lead to lower levels of reported intimacy for preoccupied women. Although hypothesized to do so, women and men did not differ in reported  intimacy at the  This  is probably  result  reporting Wright that  on  only  (1982,  gender  1988)  their has  differences  level  due to  the  of  fact that  very  closest  noted,  tends  in  the  a main effect  for gender.  participants were  relationships to  reduce  relationships  the  will  be  which,  as  likelihood apparent.  153  Nor did men and women differ in reported intimacy when the two— way interaction (gender,  relationship type)  was examined in three  of  styles,  respondents  the  attachment  four  but  among  who  were  dismissing, women reported greater intimacy than did men. Dismissing particularly  individuals  motivated  to  are  not  get  emotionally  close  to  expressive,  others,  and  not  do  not  consciously feel they need others to validate their self worth. Other  research  expressiveness) greater  with  (Williams,  has  indicated  that  femininity  1985).  associated  to  been  sanctioned  against developing  women  develop  dismissing  (Bartholomew  suppression  affective  of  with  greater  intimacy  Men however are less likely than women to have  encouraged  The  (or  is predictive of intimacy for both women and men,  been  1992).  femininity  &  expressivity,  pattern  Horowitz,  emotionality  such  is  more  1991),  is  and  may  in  fact  feminine traits common and  its  consistent  with  among  have  (Basow,  men  than  characteristic the  masculine  gender role, which again is expected more for men than for women. The results gender  and  this  study  suggest  attachment  style  correspond  from  that when the in  terms  respondent’s socialized  of  gender expectations,  it may produce heightened gender effects,  this  reporting  case  with  men  lower  intimacy  than  comparing within the dismissing attachment style.  women,  in  when  These findings  extend our understanding of both gender effects and attachment on intimacy. Attachment  style  and  influence  strategies.  This  research  provides new and substantial support for hypothesized profiles of influence  strategies  for  each  attachment  style.  Secure  154  participants were more likely to use an integrating/compromising strategy  of  participants  influence  than  were  likely  more  avoidance;  and dismissing  others  use  to  those  who  than  were  all  insecure;  others  to  individuals were more  domination  to  get  their  fearful  report  using  likely than all  way.  Those  who  were  preoccupied were moderately high on both domination and obliging strategies; than  they  dismissing  had  significantly  participants,  but  lower  scores  significantly  than those who were secure or fearful;  on  dominating  higher  scores  their scores on obliging  strategies did not differ from those of the fearful group, of  which  were  dismissing  significantly  participants.  higher  The  than  pattern  of  those  of  influence  strategies  and  consistent with theory, Bartholomew’s Secure  different  secure  or  found  in  associations  this research between the reported use of various  interpersonal  attachment  and provides additional  both  styles  is  new support  for  (1990) model. individuals’  greater  use  of  mutually  focused  strategies such as integration and compromise reflect a positive view of both self and other which is consistent with the internal model  hypothesized  for  secure  integrating/compromising associated 1989),  and  with  individuals.  strategies  greater  has  relationship  likely contributes to  secure  been  Use found  of to  the be  satisfaction  (Pistole,  individuals’  experience  of greater intimacy. The greater use is  of  congruent with their  avoidance  strategies by fearful persons  hypothesized interpersonal distrust and  hypersensitivity to rejection,  leading them to  avoid  situations  155  which may lead to such rejection. avoidance  leads  possibility  “the which  could  (1990,  p.  the  to  unfortunate  establishing  of  serve  As Bartholomew has noted, this  to  modify  consequence  satisfying  early  undermining  of  personal  attachment  representations”  164)  Dismissing individuals hold a positive model of negative  model  devaluing their  of  of  the  greater  influencing them  1988).  may  also or  contribute  as  to  (e.g.,  limit  individuals, their  self—assurance  dominance  arrogant  would  self and a  relationships may  and  perceptions  maintain  close  interpersonal  hostile  as  of  defensive  of  dismissing  passively  Their  importance  others,  Such  approach  others.  use  others  by  relations  interaction  a  Kobak  way  &  of of  Sceery,  inclination  allowing  goal  lead to  perceptions  others’  thereby  and  them  to to  interpersonal  of  distance. Preoccupied individuals’  pattern of reported influence use,  that is being both moderately dominant and obliging, their  ambivalence  strong  need  for  about  closeness  others’  approval  others.  with and  high  may reflect  Motivated  levels  by  a  emotional  of  arousal, preoccupied individuals may engage in obliging behaviors in  a  martyr—like  placing  the  sacrifice, (West  &  needs and  way. of  Compulsive the  providing  Sheldon-Keller,  preoccupied individuals such lead  a  style  those  inhibits who  other  are  care 1994)  caregiving,  first,  having  whether has  or  been  (Shaver & Hazan, the  likelihood  preoccupied  to  of  feelings  not found  1992).  it to  is  of  self  requested  characterize  At the same time  reciprocity,  feel  involves  which  angry  which may  with  their  156  relationship partner. tendency  their  Their anger at the lack of reciprocity and  focus  to  on  them to try to obtain their needs  the  of  This  might  other  then  fears  to  distress may prompt  interaction goal without taking the  account  into  lead  emotional  their  dominance  (i.e., of  rejection  behaviors). disapproval,  and  motivating the preoccupied person into again trying to oblige the other. looking  When different strategy  within  influence was  attachment  characterized  the  endorsed  among  Those  by  strategy,  Fearful score  were  domination.  high  least  characterized  and  from  all  attached  were  high  score  on  use  reported  by  to  use  their  respondents’  obliging  four  securely  likely  Preoccupied  integrating/compromising  individuals  uniquely  were  the  across  integrating/compromising  were  moderately  and  individuals  on  who  their  integration/compromise, obliging  style  strategies  highly  groups.  attachment  of  avoidance.  uniquely reported  strategies  the  most,  low  using  followed  by domination, which was significantly higher than their reported use  of  avoidance.  The  pattern  for  those  who  were  dismissing  indicated high scores on integrating/compromising and dominating strategies,  significantly  and  lower  scores  on  obliging  and  avoiding. The ways  in which those who are insecurely attached attempt  to get their way may lead to a cycle of escalating difficulties for each of the three insecure styles.  As Kobak and Hazan note:  “when  lack  working  availability  models  from  a  forecast  partner,  a  anger  that  of  psychological  normally  serves  to  157  protest a partner’s inaccessibility may become exaggerated in the form  of  attacking  behaviors,  withdrawal... [increasing] which  then  other  (1991,  perpetuate  the  the  862).  p.  or  may  become  negative  expectations  their  experience  the  importance of  for  self  and  Such cycles would be expected to diminish reduce relationship satisfaction.  Relational context and intimacy. is  through  likelihood of defensive responses”  opportunities for intimacy and  study  inhibited  of  A central finding in this  individuals’  intimacy  and  use  relational  context  influence  of  to  strategies.  Comparing at the main effect level women and men did not differ in reported  intimacy  levels,  but when examining the  effect of relationship type, sex  friendships.  closest  same  sex  friendship  sex friendship. on  Vries, men  1993)  may  This  effects  gender  be  which  in  same  is  sex  suggest  of  than  finding  characterized  avoidance  greater  a gender difference emerged on same  reported  Women  interacting  greater  did men  their  in  closest  their same  consistent with other research  men’s  shared  by  in  friendships  that  intimacy  emotionality,  (e.g.,  relationships  activity in  Parker  and  contrast  with  de  other  relatively  a  to  &  women’s  more  affectively—focused relationships with other women. Comparing within their sex  or  romantic same  reported  genders,  relationship  sex  friendship  intimacy  across  variable; on one measure, in  their  closest  relationship,  same  men  than on  reported greater  in  both  either  their  intimacy  closest  intimacy measures.  relationship  type  however  in  cross  Women’s was  more  (MPDQ), women reported greater intimacy sex  friendship  than  whereas on the other measure,  in  their  (MSIS),  romantic  they reported  158  greater intimacy in their romantic relationship than in either of their closest than  friendships.  women  for  intimate  that  raises  more  offer  of  ratings  than  men  women  some  relationship  questions  to  about  what  is  for men  the  women  most  and  men  Women have been found  relationships,  report  finding  giving  (in  evidenced  both  comparison  to  in men  in terms of what both genders report receiving  and  from women versus men provide  romantic  in close relationships.  what  respondents),  the  interesting  give and receive to  The more consistent  (Parker & de Vries,  support  for  Tschann’s  1993).  (1988)  These findings contention  that  heterosexual romantic relationships may meet men’s intimacy needs more  completely  than  women’s,  and  that  therefore  “women  must  maintain their friendships in order to assure that their intimacy needs are met” Relational significant  (p 79) context  main  and  effect  influence  for  gender  reporting greater use of  avoidance,  previous  research  (e.g.,  Wright,  obliging  strategy  overall  than  There  strategies.  influence,  on  was  with  as has been demonstrated  1982)  and  did women.  greater  use  The main  a  men in  of  the  effect  for  gender needs to be considered in the context of the higher order interaction with type of relationship.  It is worthwhile to draw  attention to the fact that there was no main effect nor  a  gender  significant on  the  interaction  integrating/compromising  only do women and men not differ and compromise, than  on  all  between  for gender,  relationship strategy.  In  in reported use of  type  and  fact,  not  integration  but both genders score higher on these strategies  other  strategies.  That  is,  both  genders  are more  159  likely to report using such mutually focused influence behaviors as exchanging accurate information, of the others, the  and working together for a proper understanding of  problem.  suggests  This  that  strategies Roufail,  is  women  consistent  and  men  they would prefer  with  hold  prior  similar  research views  to use,  given the  genders  within  which  on  choice  which  (White  &  1989)  Comparing there  integrating ideas with those  was  between  only  one  the  significant  relationship  difference  which  types  emerged:  in  romantic relationships men reported greater use of the obliging strategy  did  than  women.  relationship  types,  relationship  type was  obliging strategy. type  for women,  When  women a  looking  within  gender  men  differed  in  and  significant  factor  across whether  in their use of  the  Being obliging did not vary by relationship  but  for men  did  such that men reported greater  use of the obliging strategy in their romantic relationship than in their  closest  cross  sex  friendship,  which  in  turn was  rated  higher on obliging than their closest same sex friendship. items  The things  as  which  make  up  “accommodating  to  concessions”,  and  “going  the  along  the  obliging  factor  other’s  with  the  include  wishes”,  other’s  such  “allowing  suggestions”.  Being obliging involves choosing to allow the other to get their way  in  feeling  an  exchange, sufficiently  and  might  be  privileged  reflective or  of  the  comfortable  individual in  their  relationship that such an outcome would not be threatening.  It  may even be construed as a kind of chivalry in which individuals  160  who  can  afford  to  gallant  be  perceive themselves to have, The finding that men  are  ones  who  have,  either  or  greater power.  say they oblige more than do women in  romantic relationships may stem from women being less likely than men to desire or perceive themselves as having greater power in their  close  1990)  hence  relationships they  would  (e.g., not  Falbo  perceive  position to enact such chivalry. the obliging  strategy  &  Peplau,  1980;  themselves  to  Parker, be  in  a  Men’s greater reported use of  in relationships with women may reflect a  greater generalized sense of comfort in relationships with women than in relationships with men. been  found  to  be  multiple domains, distrust  marked  by  Men’s same sex friendships have  high  levels  of  competition  across  leading to ongoing comparisons and feelings of  (e.g., Basow,  1986)  Looking within gender across  relationship types,  women and  men also differed in whether relationship type was a significant factor in their use of avoidance.  Men’s avoidance,  than  effect  women’s  overall  indiscriminant reported  at  across  greater use  the  type of  the  main  level,  relationship.  of  avoiding  strategy  while higher  is  nonetheless  Women in  both  however of  their  closest friendships than in their romantic relationship.  their  Women may  be  greater  felt  less  likely to avoid as a  responsibility  connection in relationships  (e.g.,  for  the  work  of  Fishman,  1978;  Surrey,  their fear of loss of relationships, tendency with  to  avoid  or  female partners’  withdraw  has  escalation  combined result of  of  maintaining  and male avoidance. been  found  to  be  1986), Males’  associated  engagement strategies  in an  161  effort  to draw the  1991).  Women  other party out romantic  in  (e.g.,  Christensen  relationships,  &  feeling  Shenk, greater  responsibility for maintaining connection and fearing the loss of the  relationship,  avoidance to  may  behave  be  more  motivated  for maintaining strategies  to  the  relational  may  not  women  avoidance. less  the  relationship  solve  is  as  sex  and  differences  work  same  partner’s  and therefore  In their relationships  both parties are likely to take responsibility  represent  in  their  in ways that reduce distance,  would themselves be less likely to avoid. with other women,  by  more  great  (e.g.,  equally a  therefore  for  may  feel  friendships  wright,  shared,  risk  to  use  1982).  avoidance  distance, more  engaging  and  Because behavior therefore  comfortable  In friendships with men, male avoidance is presumably  likely  to trigger  women’s  fear  of  losing  the  relationship  when the man is a friend as opposed to a romantic partner. therefore  using  may  be  more  comfortable  also  using  Women  avoidance  and  risking the distance which might ensue. The pattern of results interesting gender  on the dominating strategy revealed  differences  by  relationship  type.  For  both  women and men relationship type played a role in the reported use of domination:  women reported greater use of domination in their  romantic relationship than in their closest same sex friendship, whereas men reported greater use of domination in their same sex friendship sex  than  friendship.  strategies  in  in  either Women’s  their  their  romantic  greater  romantic  relationship  reported  relationship  as  use  of  or  cross  dominating  compared  to  their  closest same sex friendship is consistent with the analysis above  162  regarding women’s response to withdrawal by their male romantic partner,  that  is,  behavior  such  as  female  escalation  dominance  of  strategies  engagement.  may  not  be  Intrusive  as  likely  in  situations 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  friendships than in their relationships with women. pattern likely  on to  dominance  the  use  report efforts  of  obliging  being with  strategies  obliging other  with  men  where  other  may  be  sex  As with the  men  men, a  same  are  men’s  function  least  greater of  male  competition. These findings extend our understanding of women’s and men’s use of influence strategies, than  has  previously  importance  of  illustrating a more complex picture  been  taking  uncovered,  individuals’  and  underscoring  relational  contexts  the into  account when examining patterns of influence.  Discussion of Nonsignificant Findings While study,  there were  there  supported.  were  a  also  The next  number a  of  number  section  significant of  entails  hypotheses a  broad  in this  findings that  were  evaluation  adequacy of the study as a test of the hypotheses,  of  not the  whereas this  section discusses hypotheses that did not turn out as predicted, and explores possible explanations at a more specific level. The  three—way  relationship not  report  interaction  type was  higher  of  gender,  nonsignificant  intimacy  (i.e.,  attachment  style  and  preoccupied men did  than preoccupied women  in  cross  sex  163  friendships;  nor  fearful men for  power.  fearful  women  report  in romantic relationships).  lack  this  did  of  Power  significance  calculations  could  were  higher  intimacy  A possible  be  an  conducted  than  explanation  insufficient  which  for  indicated  that  there was likely adequate power to detect main effect differences in standard effect sizes of section).  However,  differences  detect  interacting  three  the at  .85 with a power of  issue here the  level  (see Methods  .8  is that the power needed to  of  complexity  independent variables,  is  predicted  with  likely greater than  the power needed to detect differences at the main effect level (Cohen,  1988).  main effects,  There  was  likely  greatest  the  power  then to detect two—way interactions,  to  detect  and then least  power to detect the three—way interaction. Although significant dismissing being  the  it was  is  three-way  interesting  associated  preoccupied,  interaction  whereas  with  to  note  higher  for men  did  not  prove  that  for  women,  reported  the  to  being  intimacy  reverse was  true  be  than (i.e.,  preoccupied men report higher intimacy than dismissing men).  As  noted earlier,  this may be related to the response of the other  person  disclosures  to  the  preoccupied  respondent.  for preoccupied  and  The  other  intimacy  prediction  individuals was based on  at  behaviors  the  three—way  of  the  level  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 the cross likely  sex to  friends  of preoccupied women  experience  lowering reported  their  intimacy.  intimacy  (i.e.,  men)  behaviors  as  may be more intrusive,  Although the multivariate test was  164  nonsigificant, the  both  the  MPDQ  means  were  the  MSIS  and  the  in  hypothesized  (i.e.,  the  direction  intimacy  scores  on of  preoccupied men were higher than were those of preoccupied women, when reporting on their cross sex at  three-way  the  exploratory  level  findings  were  friendships).  admittedly  are  The hypotheses  speculative,  intriguing  but  these  invite  and  closer  examination. The  two—way  intimacy not  was  turn  interaction  significant,  out  hypothesized  as  to  gender  the  but  two  hypothesized.  report  (hypothesis A2i).  of  greater  by  attachment  specific  predictions  Preoccupied  intimacy  than  style  women  on did  were  preoccupied  men  This hypothesis was based on the notion that  when the gender of the participant and their insecure attachment style  are  matched  in  terms  of  traditional  gender  socialization  (i.e., preoccupied for women, dismissing for men), then the usual gender  findings  would  greater reported  be  strengthened,  intimacy for women  recent findings of Feeney et al.,  in  (e.g.,  (1994b)  this  case  Simpson,  showing  1990).  may help to explain why  this is not so in the case of preoccupied women’s intimacy. the basis authors group  On  of research conducted on five attachment scales those  have  may  The  observed  not  be  that  the  unambiguous  key  feature  intimacy  of  striving,  the but  preoccupied is  instead  their ambivalence about intimacy, as seen in the conflict between their  desire  for  will be  there  general  desire  broad terms)  closeness  for them for  and  and  their  lack of  (Feeney et al., comfort  with  trust that  l994b). closeness  others  Hence the more that  tends  (in  to characterize women’s relational experience is not  165  entirely  parallel  to  the  preoccupied  style.  The  preoccupied  style does involve desire for closeness, but it is in combination anxiety  with  expected  and  discomfort  synergy  of  respondent’s gender  regarding  such  gender—congruent  closeness.  attachment  The  style  and  in increasing reported intimacy levels would  be less evident as a result of such ambivalence. The other hypothesis on  intimacy,  that  fearful  than would fearful men that  gender  regarding gender and women  would  report  (hypothesis A2ii),  expectations  regarding  attachment style greater  intimacy  was based on the the  idea  initiation  of  relationships continue to weigh more heavily upon men than women. This dynamic may be especially evident for fearful men in cross sex  interactions,  significant (e.g.,  role  a  Garcia  and  et  same  in  al.,  not  would  friendships  sex  1991).  expected  be  shy  A  or  to  as  or  men  women  for  fearful  play  woman may have  more opportunities for intimacy in cross sex interactions because she is not expected to “make the first move” in the same way that a shy man would be amongst fearful  (Garcia et al.,  1991). While this may be true  individuals in general,  included only those  the design of this study  individuals who are currently  in a romantic  relationship,  and who count at least one woman friend and one man  friend  their  among  criteria  thus,  the  closest more  friends.  general  By  pattern  setting  the  regarding  inclusion  relationship  initiation and resultant intimacy among fearful people could not be  assessed.  The  results  do  suggest  however  that  among  those  fearful individuals who are in romantic relationships and do have  166  close  friends  of  sexes,  both  there  not  do  appear  to  be  type  on  number  of  significant gender differences in intimacy. The  two—way  influence  interaction  strategies  interesting  was  of  gender  significant,  findings.  Four  out  relationship  by  revealed  and  of  of  five  a the  specific  hypotheses made were not significantly supported however, and the data relevant to the fifth hypothesis came out opposite to what was  predicted.  Such  results  have  understandably  encouraged  a  rethinking of the rationales used to formulate the hypotheses. first  The  results  significant type  at  rather  factor to  gender than  however,  particular words,  for  were  were  (i.e.,  at  is  the  gender  that  exclusively  across  type  between  (see  conceptualizing  of  relationship  relationship types) The predictions,  women  hypotheses  possible  the majority of  level  relationship type.  at  relationship  when  obtained  within  gender  made  considered  be  and  men  within  B2i-v).  gender  In  a  other  differences,  the  hypotheses were made at the more simple level of women versus men within a particular relationship type. study  illustrate  apparent  in  relationship different  that  simple type,  patterns  relationships  for  often  comparisons but  instead  of  results  women  in  differences tend to show up among gender  the  relationship  within  a  gender  single  types  of  Yet the results in this differences  they  appear  across  comparison in patterns rather  relationship  and  women  than  may men  within  when  different to  men.  not  be a  looking  at  types  of  The  gender  of relative differences relative to  type.  In  the  effect,  other these  167  results  suggest  that  individuals  are  “doing  gender”  in  a  more  complex way than may often be conceptualized. one  The  exception  to  significant  findings  being  obtained  only within gender across relationship type was on the prediction that women would report greater use of the obliging strategy than would men in their romantic relationships.  In fact,  in romantic  relationships men reported using the obliging strategy more than did women.  This brings us to the second reconsideration, that of  founding the influence hypotheses on research that indicates that gender—linked indirect  variables  strategies  would  predict  obliging),  (i.e.,  greater use of direct strategies research,  greater  women’s  femininity,  in  (i.e.,  greater  comparison  dominating).  use  to  of  men’s  In previous  less access to resources,  and less  perceived power have predicted greater use of indirect strategies usually al.,  associated with  1986;  Steil  women  Weitman,  &  include relationship type, were  expected  to  be  dominant with women.  more  (Falbo  1992).  &  Peplau,  Extending  1980; these  Howard  et  results  to  predictions were made such that women obliging  with  men,  who  would  The results of this study however,  be  more  indicate  that men were more dominant arid less obliging with other men than with  women.  Further,  partners  than  romantic  partners  with  women  other than  were  women,  with  more and  friends.  dominant  were  less  These  with  romantic  avoidant  results  with  tend  to  conform to the demand/withdraw pattern identified by Christensen (1988;  Christensen & Heavey,  which women are and  men  are  1990; Christensen & Shenk,  found more often to be  more  often  found  to  1991),  in  in the role of demander,  withdraw.  This  pattern  is  168  hypothesized  to  be  function  a  of  a  number  of  gender-linked  variables, most notably socialization toward intimacy—seeking for women and distance—seeking for men raises  This use  influence  of  correspond analysis  question  the  with  of  strategies the  Falbo  (Christensen & Heavey, gender  why the  found and  this  in  Peplau  influence  between  influence  and  measure  this  in  does  not  power/resource  (women dominant, men  The answer may lie in the difference  conflict,  used  study  in the  and does seem congruent  with the Christensen demand/withdraw pattern using indirect strategies).  pattern  (1980)  (men more direct and dominant),  1990).  and  a  study  of  lack in  clarity  distinguishing  in  the  between  the two kinds of processes. Two people cannot be considered close unless they have some influence  on  each  construed  as  having  other  (Huston, effect  an  Influence  1983).  on  another  person,  something that one person does has some bearing, upon the other person. or conscious,  be  to  considered  be  dominance  asymmetrical  not  need  structured  due  in  situation  and to  in a causal way,  attitudes make  part  hierarchically to  greater  can  produce  such  that  overt  the relationship may  at  It  has  without  been  the  found  awareness  that  men  are  of  either  perceived  Such  powerful  an  partners’  in  influence  partner  one  power.  adjustments  the more  attempts  with  subordinate one may tend to comply spontaneously possibly  that  and may be symmetrical or asymmetrical in any given If influence is asymmetrical,  behaviors  such  be  Influence is not necessarily intentional  relationship.  having  may  person  because  (Huston,  may the  1983),  relationship  partner.  as  dominant  the  more  169  generally wielding more power than women in heterosexual  gender,  relationships Huston,  and  Peplau,  1983;  Conflict, be  likely to  on  to  resources  (e.g.,  1983).  the  aware  access  greater  having  hand,  other  of,  and may  is  be  something  defined  as  individuals  “an  are  interpersonal  process that occurs whenever the actions of one person interfere actions  with  the  been  suggested  conflict  by  another”  that  people  avoiding  women  of  men  who  (Peterson,  have  been  the  find  365).  p. to  be  (e.g.,  hypothesized conflict,  that  Kelley  men  may  It has conflict—  intensity  of  verbal  difficult to tolerate, whereas  conflict-confronting people who tend to be  avoidance  et  al.,  1978).  be  more  physiologically  It has  frustrated  been  further  vigilant  to  reacting with heightened autonomic arousal which may be  experienced  as  Kraft-Hanak,  1993).  differently  in  conflict  socialized  emotional  (particularly with women)  are  1983,  with  aversive  (e.g.,  Markman,  Silvern,  Clements  &  Social conditioning may lead men to respond  different women,  men  situations; have  it  learned  may  to  be  that  withdraw  in  when  in  order  to  terminate the aversive interaction. In situations of conflict then,  men may tend to give  go along with their partner more than women, problems directly, contrast, general  favour  more general  to  (e.g.,  strategies  have  (and possibly  the  Parker,  such  as  who tend to confront  especially in cross gender relationships. less visible)  influence may reveal that men,  themselves  in or  balance  1990),  stating  of  and a  situations of  more than women,  power  hence  or  may  preference  control  tend or  In  to  using  perceive in  use  their direct  authority.  170  Unfortunately, question want  in  this  the  study,  wording  of  the  influence  (“think about how you typically handle things when you  to  your  get  with  way  person”)  that  not  was  adequate  to  determine whether or not participants were responding to it as a question  on  general  employed  in  situations  necessary  to  imagining  situations  strategies of  determine  interfering with his  in or  of  influence,  conflict.  whether  or  which her  the  influence  In  or  essence, the  not  on  strategies  it  would  participant  relationship attempts.  was  partner In  any  be  was  event,  the pattern of results found on the influence measure has raised provocative questions  regarding the role of  conflict  in women’s  and men’s use of different influence strategies.  Adequacy of the Study as a Test of the Hypotheses There are a number of factors to consider in the evaluation of  this  study’s  and design  adequacy as  issues;  test of  a  the hypotheses:  adequacy of measures  sampling  and classification;  and  replication of previous findings. Samplinq  issues.  Among  the  conditions  that may  findings of this research are sampling restraints. participants  were  undergraduate  students  limit  First,  in psychology  the  study  courses.  They were for the most part young and therefore may have had less experience  in  relationships,  and  held  more  idealized  and  less  complex views of relationships than individuals in a more mature sample.  Although these individuals’ reports may not reflect the  views of a more mature sample, interest  in the  study  among  it is notable that there was broad students,  as  indicated by  the good  171  response to the initial screening questionnaire. who  part  took  students  in  research  was in  thoughts  in  study  general. an  may  The  not  represent  explicitly  examination  of  bias  than  toward  the  men  average  to  university  have  gender  been  differences.  typical  Third,  representatives  some  and  set up a  more  aware  and  student  about  the  thereby reducing  participants  the  of  this  feelings  be  nature and meaning of their close relationships, possible  of  This may have  tend  the men  university  focus  participants’  who  male  male  stated  their close relationships.  self—selection interested  the  Second,  may  attachment  not  styles,  thereby reducing possible differences across groups in attachment style.  For example,  importance who  chose  of to  close  dismissing individuals tend to minimize the relationships,  participate  in  a  so  study  those  dismissing  expressly  views on close relationships may be atypical.  persons  examining  Similarly,  their  fearful  individuals who are currently in an ongoing romantic relationship of at one  least  man  6  among  representatives there  were  months duration, their of  closest  that  differential  and have  at  friends,  may  group. rates  In of  fact,  exclusion  least one woman  it  not is from  be  “average”  apparent the  attachment style on the basis of relationship criteria,  and  that  study  by  at least  when comparing between fearful and secure participants. Design issues: Target relationship. of target relationships  is  relationships were assessed.  One issue in the choice  that only participants’ As has  very closest  been noted previously,  the  greater the closeness of the relationships under examination, the less likelihood there is of observing gender differences  (Wright,  172  1988).  Further,  the restriction of the relationship ratings to a  single  example  of  idiosyncrasies within-group  of  relationship  each that  specific  variability,  type  relationship  reducing  the  type  a  mean  may  lead  likelihood  that  to  of  the  greater  uncovering  between group differences. Setting have  relationship  affected  respondents’  the one hand, the  tendency  lead  to  When  differences by  relationship type  might  the other hand,  be  set  up  source  a  one  to  after  the  other,  in relationships discomfort  of  suppress  for  in cognitive research  have  been  shown  to  (e.g.,  report  cognitive  the  tendency  to  see  (i.e.,  substantial identified  as On  evaluating  three  close  Such findings  Ward,  1975),  where  difference  in  It seems possible  difference  comparisons may be offset by the affectively study  reporting  respondents.  greater  within—subjects than between—subjects designs. that  On  some might argue that such a design might enhance  found  individuals  may  differences.  the reporting of differences by relationship type. have been  variable  group  report  participants  differences.  “closest”  within  rating their three closest relationships one after  might  other  as  when  laden task  relationships  on  making in this  important  variables such as intimacy and influence). Design  issues:  Psychological  Power.  Development  Power  calculations  Questionnaire  and  for  the  the  Mutual  Miller  Social  Intimacy Scale revealed that in order to detect a standard effect size difference in the  .84 range with a power of  of  These power  11  is  one—factor  sufficient. ANOVA  design,  .8,  a minimum  calculations were based  whereas  this  study  on  involved  a a  173  niultifactorial design. continued  until  an  n  As noted in the Methods section sampling 20  of  each attachment style.  was  obtained  for  women  and men  for  This larger number was chosen in order to  take the relative weakness of the interaction tests into account. There clearly was adequate power to detect main effects, detect  effects  interactions,  on  three  however  the  the  of  power  of  four  predicted  test  the  for  the  and to two—way  three—way  interaction was likely lower, making Type II errors more possible (Cohen,  1988)  The  probability  interaction was .157.  level  the  on  nonsignificant  On one of the two predictions,  of means was consistent with the hypothesis expected  to  report  higher  their cross sex friendship,  intimacy  than  three-way the pattern  (preoccupied men were preoccupied  women  and scores reflected that trend).  the other prediction the pattern of means was  reversed  in On  (fearful  women were expected to report greater intimacy than fearful men, but men scored higher). a  larger  number  been confirmed, Adequacy (Mutual Social  participants,  of  Intimacy ROCI)  validity  the  first  hypothesis  may have  whereas the second may have been disconfirmed. measures.  Psychological  Inventory, and  of  It is possible then that had there been  Scale,  The  measures  Development MSIS;  and  chosen  for  Questionnaire, Rahirn  study  this  MPDQ;  Organizational  Miller Conflict  all have been shown to have adequate reliability  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  MPDQ,  have  been  widely used in relationship research. It is notable that while the two intimacy measures MSIS)  were  fairly  highly  correlated  in  this  study  (  (MPDQ and =  .57  for  174  romantic relationships; for  sex  cross  patterns  for  the  MPDQ  women  sex  friendship  women  and men  reported than  romantic  friendship.  in  on  in  some  greater their  measures  intimacy  romantic  men,  both  than  intimacy  measures.  As  interaction  of  produced  instances.  For  their  in  in was  but  the  gender  by  on  same  on  the  intimacy  closest  highest  well,  different  closest  reported  their  .62  =  example,  relationship,  reversed with greater  two-way  significant  the  relationship  For  relationships  .61 for same sex friendships;  =  friendships)  MSIS the pattern was women’s  r  same  in  MPDQ  in sex  romantic revealed  attachment  a  style  whereas the MSIS did not. The MPDQ was developed out of self-in-relation theory which attempts to  explain women’s  relationships,  and  development  employs  a  construct  describe the bidirectional nature of the Surrey,  1986).  This  construct  in the context of  is  called  mutuality  intimacy process  centred  on  close  the  notion  to  (e.g., that  intimacy involves “both affecting the other and being affected by the other”  (Jordan,  1986,  p.  1).  This balance of  initiative and  receptivity is hypothesized to underlie the depth and richness of close relationships. and  what  research  is  received  (e.g.,  bidirectional  The MPDQ  relationships  in  Parker assessment  attempts to assess what  &  de of  Vries, central  with 1993)  is given  others. has  dimensions  Other  found of  that close  relationships reveals a tendency for women to report giving more than men in relationships,  and for relationships with women to be  rated  than  as  providing  more  findings might be obscured  relationships  with  men.  if assessed at a more global  Such  level of  175  overall  feelings  MSIS).  Further research on the MPDQ  ways  in  of closeness  which  or  mutuality  satisfaction  (such as with the  is needed to determine the  compares  with  more  established  conceptualizations and measures of intimacy. of  Adequacy participants  terms  in  straightforward, their  classification.  based  self-reported  closest  of  romantic  partner  boundaries  pattern  is  to  identify  and  which  de  their  not  were  results  for  some  to  their and  of  in  their  nominate  their  kinship  romantic  gender,  closest  press),  in  quite  nomination  restricted  some  close.  may  While  assessment of three different relationships, the  was  the  and  partner  friend.  often one as  have  common a  best  By asking participants to exclude  partners, less  or  of  self—reported  were  as  Vries,  spouse  1994).  are  variables  and  friendship  of  a  romantic  relationships  They parent  a  (e.g.,  (West & Keller,  style,  Participants  conceptions  blurred  independent  attachment  nor  classification  participants’  relationships.  Individuals’  parents  the  on  relationships.  selection  friend  of  The  participants  who  have this  chosen allowed  other for  an  it may have obscured  might  otherwise  have  selected their romantic partner or parent as closest friend. Attachment  style  was  checked  in  a  number  of  Attachment Style Screening in the Methods section). in  the  Methods  section,  this  (rather than dimensional)  research  for  approach  is  categories  that as  taken  As a  there  compared  is to  an  (see noted  categorical  approach to attachment styles,  discrete attachment groups were created. an  has  ways  in which  One consequence of such  inevitable  dimensions.  loss  of  Grouping  information approaches  176  have  the  clearly,  advantage but  are  of  not  conveying as  patterns  statistically  in  the  sensitive  results  as  more  dimensional  ones. The  groups  in  this  study  were  created  participants’  “best-fitting” category.  was  in  assumed  which  considered to be  all  members  interchangeable.  on  That is, of  a  the  basis  a prototype view  category  In fact,  of  were  not  it was assumed that  there will be some individuals who will be “better” exemplars of the  category,  This  and  others  within-group  causes  variability  difficulties  analysis  of  who will  for  variance  be  is  expected  detecting  model,  “poorer”  group  which  representatives.  and  meaningful,  differences  regards  such  but  with  the  within—group  difference as “noise”. Attachment style classification was based on a short form of measurement, interview  and  involved  approach.  a  While  self—report the  vast  measure  majority  rather  of  than  research  an  into  adult attachment has taken this approach,  it is important to note  that  do  interview  results  (e.g,  and  self-report  measures  Griffin & Bartholomew,  1994)  not  yield  identical  and some investigators  believe that self—report measures allow respondents to present as secure when in fact they are not. the  most  (Rothbard  difficult &  to  Shaver,  Dismissing individuals may be  accurately  1994).  The  classify defensive  via self  self  report  assertion  of  dismissing individuals may prompt them to classify themselves as secure  on  a  incongruence experiences  short  questionnaire,  between and  their  their  more  whereas  positive  in  an  presentation  negative  specific  interview of  the  attachment  examples  would  177  better this  reveal study  their it  dismissive  is  (particularly the  possible  interpersonal that  secure group)  the  style.  Hence  attachment  in  categories  were more heterogeneous than  if  an interview approach was used. Attachment least  for  style  the  assignment  short  questionnaire.  As  span  a  of  further  appeared time  check  to  be  between  on  the  reliable, screening  at and  classification  of  attachment, participants’ global attachment categories were found to  be  reasonably  highly  associated  with  ratings of separate relationship types. participants  who  were  found  to  be  investigator-averaged  Additionally,  reliable  only those  category members  on  the screening and on the main questionnaire were included in the study. Replication number with  of  of  previous  results which  previous  are  research.  findings.  This  consistent with  For  example,  study  evidenced  existing  secure  theory  individuals  a or  were  found to report significantly higher levels of intimacy and were more likely to use integrating/compromising strategies than were insecure  individuals.  consistently reported their  greatest  intimacy was  closest  intimacy  Men’s  than  cross did  in  their  higher sex  men  reported  intimacy was  romantic  in their  in  their  relationship;  closest  friendship. same  same  Women sex  that  interactions,  at this  the  level  study was  of  main  sex than  in  higher  friendships.  effects  be  women’s  reported  reported using avoidance overall more than women. indicate  found to  Men  These findings and  two—way  sufficient to obtain results which  would be expected on the basis of prior research.  178  findings  New  consistent  with  theory.  study provided  This  new evidence to support the partitioning of avoidant individuals into two groups:  fearful and dismissing  (Bartholomew,  1990).  The  pattern of influence strategies found in this study is consistent with  hypothesized  patterns  and  underlying  dynamics.  Fearful  individuals were more likely than individuals in all other groups to  report  self and to  use  using other,  avoidance,  reflecting  models  of  whereas dismissing individuals were more  dominance  than  all  others,  model and negative other model. finding  negative  which  is  correspondence  new  categorization  and  their  a  likely  positive  self  Another theoretically—consistent  in  between  reflecting  both  this  research  individuals’ attachment  is  the  global  style  higher  attachment  category  for  their  romantic relationship as compared with either their closest same sex  or  closest  relationship  cross  in  relationship,  sex  adulthood which  friendship. is  would  The  hypothesized be  primary to  expected  to  characterize individuals’ attachment style.  be  attachment  the  most  romantic strongly  This study permitted  a comparison among close relationships which revealed just such a finding. Summary.  Overall then,  the study had a number of strengths.  The measures appear reliable and valid. one of the two major constructs and  found  participants  to  be  in  that there was  productive.  terms  adequate overall.  (i.e.,  of  the  The  Multiple measurement of intimacy)  was undertaken,  classification  independent  variables  of  the  appears  Calculations and significant results indicate  sufficient power  to  detect  differences  for main  179  effects  and  two-way  interactions,  insufficient  for  findings  theoretically  are  the  three-way  although  power  interaction.  and  empirically  A  may have been number  consistent  of  the  with  the  extant literature. At the same time, may have reduced Gender  limitations were noted which  likelihood of  finding significant results.  differences may have been  sampling  young  relationships; greater having  the  a number of  than  suppressed as  university  students  2)  selection  a  average  respondents  self  interest  rate  only  with  in  result of:  1)  limited  experience  in  bias  close  their  a  toward  males  with  relationships;  very  closest  have  been  and  a 3)  relationships.  Relationship  type  result of:  having participants rate only one exemplar for each  1)  relationship  differences  type,  may  increasing  possible  idiosyncrasies of the particular relationship.  suppressed  variability  as  a  from  Attachment style  differences may have been suppressed as a result of:  1)  taking a  categorical rather than a dimensional approach to attachment;  2)  the expected and meaningful within-group variability implicit in a prototype model  of  attachment;  (particularly the secure group)  3)  heterogeneity within groups  resulting from the use of a short  self—report measure of attachment; and 4)  atypical group members,  especially among the dismissing and fearful. The  study  detecting styles,  some  may  have  differences  provided between  and among relationship types.  conditions significant  results were  a  conservative  genders,  among  test  for  attachment  Despite these conservative obtained via  this  research.  180  It would  therefore seem that the  not ideal,  study  is  an adequate,  although  test of the hypotheses.  Implications of This Research Attachment. of  considering  This research draws attention to the importance the  role  of  gender  when  examining  the  effect  of  attachment style on relational processes.  There were significant  differences  within  both  between  genders  attachment  styles.  Gender  attachment  research,  and  has  this  and  been study  gender  neglected  a  provides  across  variable  support  for  in its  inclusion in future studies. This  study  four-category insecure  provides  model  avoidant  into two groups: of  others)  In this  and  of  new  attachment.  category  (e.g.,  dismissing fearful  support  for  Bartholomew’s  The  model  Shaver  &  splits  Hazan,  (positive view of self,  1988,  with  1992)  (negative view of both self and others).  dismissing  unravelled  the  women  earlier  influence strategies, than  Davis,  others  1988).  reporting  higher  apparent  that  individuals avoidance  more  employ  using  dismissing  from  all  than  paradoxical  finding  seemed  levels  of  This study  in  the  use  of  in which avoidant individuals were not more  to  By  the  negative view  intimacy than either dismissing men or fearful women.  likely  apart  study the distinction between the two categories  fruitful,  also  (1990)  the  strategies  four-category  individuals  other all  avoidant  groups,  others.  use and  While  (e.g.,  model  it  dominance fearful  Levy  became  more  persons  consistent  &  with  than use the  181  theory,  this  is  first  the  empirical  support  for  these  unique  patterns of influence for the two groups. The inclusion in this study of relationships other than the parent—child  bond  romantic  and  partners  helps  to  extend  attachment into the broader realm of close relationships. comparing forced  individuals’  choice  global  attachment  (over  style  close  all  with  their  When  relationships) forced  choice  attachment style by separate relationship type it is clear that, for  the  most  measurement  served  participants temporal  part,  the to  global  provide  categories check  a  into attachment groups,  on  the  evidence  consistent  with  dynamics work in close friendships, probably  does  reflect  a  This  repeated  classification of  and demonstrated reasonable  stability of the classification.  provided  style  hold.  the  Importantly, view  that  it also  attachment  and suggests that attachment  generalized  influence  upon  most  individuals’ close relationships. At the same time,  a number of people do discriminate between  the global and relationship—specific measures. global  attachment  category style. the  varies  both  by  and  relationship  relationship  In terms of attachment style,  least  amount  assessments; the most  category  of  change  between  The match between specific  type,  and  by  attachment attachment  the secure category shows the  global  and  specific  next are the fearful and dismissing categories;  variable  is  the  preoccupied  category.  Other  and  research  has suggested that the secure category is the most stable across assessments, &  Fehr,  1993)  and the preoccupied the least stable .  However,  such  examination  has  (e.g.,  not  in  Baldwin the  past  182  included a comparison between global versus relationship—specific measurement of attachment.  /  In terms of relationship type, the best match between global attachment when The  category  rating  the  romantic  and  relationship—specific  romantic  relationship,  relationship  is  held  to  category  consistent  be  the  theory.  with  primary  occurs  attachment  relationship in adulthood and would therefore be expected to most strongly characterize respondents’ global attachment style. The next best match between global and relationship-specific attachment categories has  been  number  noted of  that  for  cross  1989).  closest  sex  difficulties,  (McWilliams & Howard, (O’Meara,  is  cross  friendships  including  1994),  sex  friendship.  are  their  fraught  with  unscripted  and the tension of  It a  nature  sexual dynamics  Either of these challenges might play a role in  eliciting working models of attachment.  For example,  the vague  boundaries and lack of guidelines for close cross sex friendships may consititute a kind of blank screen against which attachment— related expectations may be projected.  On the other hand,  sexual  attraction is often held to play a covert role in close cross sex friendships, motivating attachment  and such attraction has been hypothesized to be the force bonds  This  research  role  of  behind in  has  as  to  adulthood  uncovered  attachment  speculation  the  in what  attachment dynamics.  close  formation (e.g.,  Hazan  interesting cros.s  features  sex of  and &  maintenance Zeifman,  findings  this  1994).  regarding  friendships,  and  relationship  of  the  invites activate  183  The most variable relationship the global  attachment category)  is  (i.e.,  least likely to match  closest  same sex  friendship.  Individuals who categorized themselves as insecure on the global rating are more  likely,  in  same  sex  friendships,  to  choose the  / secure category to describe themselves. 40  Most noticeably,  of the  individuals who rated themselves as dismissing on the global  assessment, same  19  sex  friendship,  classified  in their  globally  closest  category  processes  by  Security  and  themselves  themselves  secure  themselves  rated  is  this  characterized  comfort  with  closeness).  and  a  It  friendships  involve  greater  mirroring  oneself  in a  same  occurs  those  equal one  are  (n  same  sex  be  feelings sex  open  who  grouped  to  of  that  chose the 13).  The  conjecture.  the  self  others  close  (low (high  same  sex  in  the  enhancing one’s  self  of  other,  friendships  people)  =  positive view of may  closest  21  number  by a positive model  abandonment)  Perhaps  an  their  classifying themselves  preoccupied  shift  about  model.  when  in  (i.e.,  For  friendship the  anxiety  of  remainder  preoccupied,  chose  which  dismissing  secure.  sex  same as  the  as  as  as  acceptance  are  lower  in  anxiety,  thereby ameliorating the other model and increasing comfort with closeness.  Heightened  hypothesized to such  occur  anxiety—inducing  expected  to  in  behave  a  be  less  more  activation  in conditions situations,  salient,  secure  of  attachment  of  stress.  the  role  of  dynamics  When not under attachment  and people may tend to  fashion.  The  results  is  of  feel  this  is and  study  indicate that certain facets of closest same sex friendships may play  a  special  role  in  enhancing  feelings  of  security,  184  particularly  who  those  for  be  would  across  globally  classified  all their close relationships as insecure. This study establishes  Gender differences in relationships. the  on  gender  to  found  report  relationships  closest men  in  intimacy  of  did  .067),  =  thesis.  An exploratory  significant  results  for  comparisons  reveal  that  than  domination greater  use  of  were  hence  did  formally  domination  than  domination  (p  women  intimacy  of  the multivariate  however,  and did  multiple  more  use  of  reported  men  dismissing dismissing  evidences  and  reported  this  in  reported  .016),  =  women  men,  As well,  levels  look at the results,  fearful  their  The results for gender and  not  fearful  in  intimacy  of  influence were nonsignificant at  attachment on (p  Dismissing  different  depending on their attachment style.  level  relationships.  dismissing men.  significantly  reported  influence of  levels  higher  than  the  style moderates  attachment  patterns  were  women  and  that  principle  These  women.  results provide an enticing glimpse of the possibilities inherent intersection of attachment and gender,  in exploring the worth  examining  Although  further.  the  results  outcome variables are not completely consistent, gender that  by  the  attachment two  style  variables  interaction  mutually  shape  this  study  for  across  the  two  the significant  intimacy  the  and are  terrain  indicates of  close  relationships. An  important  individuals’ and use  of  finding  relational influence  evidence that,  in  is  the  significance  context to their experience  strategies.  This  of  of  intimacy  research provides  solid  in order to understand the ways in which women and  185  men differ or are alike in their interpersonal relations, we need to examine with whom they are relating.  Type of relationship was  a  with  significant  factor  which  interacted  gender  produce  to  differing patterns in reported intimacy and use of strategies of and points to the complexity of gender differences in  influence,  relationships. This research also and  men  have  in  indicates that there  common  in  their  close  is much that women Some  relationships.  interesting significant differences were obtained, but there were also many were  instances  evident.  For  integrating  and  strategies,  and  relationship. called  for  no  differences  between women  both  and  example,  compromising do  It  by  where  not  women  strategies  differ  in  men  more  (1988,  p.  367),  who  other  all  by  using  of  type  “plea for caution”  is appropriate to heed the  wright  report  than use  their  and men  notes  social  that  scientists are particularly attuned to identifying between group differences,  sometimes  at  the  expense  of  ignoring within  group  variability and between group similarity. Clinical formulated  implications.  by  John  Bowlby,  Attachment a  theory  clinician  with  originally  was an  interest  in  understanding and intervening with emotionally troubled patients and  families,  research  his  psychology,  while theory  he  also  acknowledging  has  generated  noted  his  the in  significant  developmental  disappointment  have been so slow to test the theory’s uses” study was not clinical in orientation, some potential  implications  for  “that  (1988, p.  volume  of  social  and  clinicians x)  .  This  yet its findings may have  clinicians.  In particular,  the  186  finding  consider  the  the  of  effect  an assessment  In couples therapy for example,  attachment style.  seek  to  women  for  socialization  gender  of  and  socialization  gender  of  roles  mutual  clients  it may be valuable  experiencing deficits in close relationships, to  influence  to  those  for  that,  suggests  levels  intimacy  reported  interact  style  attachment  and  gender  that  intimacy/fear rejection and men to seek distance/fear engulfment, combined  closeness  for  desire  in  differences  basic  the  with  versus distance inherent in the different attachment styles,  may  enhance an understanding of important underlying difficulties for distressed couples  (e.g.,  Christensen & Heavey,  al,  well,  the  As  1994a). in  influence  using  dominance,  (fearful  that  relationships  avoid  to with  and/or  women  as  their  romantic  dismissing and  dominance  both  The finding  oblige  when  compared  to  closest  their  in  closest  their  less  whereas women tend to avoid  relationship with another man, in  on  especially if such use is inflexible.  tend  men  high  avoidance,  may also play a role in their interpersonal  obliging strategies) difficulties,  preoccupied  and  of  individuals with different  using  persons  Feeney et.  strategies  different  of  for  close relationships  styles  attachment  use  1990;  relationship avenues  than  their  same  sex  therapy  for  closest  exploration  in  friendship  may  clients to  learn from their own experience what strategies have  open  been most (and least)  up  for  in  productive for enhancing intimacy.  An intriguing finding in this study which may have clinical implications insecurely  is  that  attached  individuals when  who  aggregating  consider across  themselves all  close  187  relationships to  secure when  For  some  referring  to  their  closest  same  sex  reason  opportunity  for  themselves  insecure others  and  which this occurs for  therapists  in  reframe  to  secure way.  friendship.  sex to  appear  friends  more  provide  an  sense  of  their  The  mechanism by  but uncovering it may be valuable  is unclear,  interested  same  closest  individuals a  self reported category  change their  likely to  are  such  facilitating  in  at  change  a  broader level.  Future Research from  Following interest  to  attachment intimacy  style  and  more  explore  for  results  influence  .067), study  intimacy for  this  closely  the was  It  interaction.  strategies  with gender and attachment only  of  results  the  style,  influence  were  level.  nonsignificant,  invites  individuals’  closer  that  but  both  associated obtained  The multivariate suggestive  (p  =  The other facet of this  and warrant closer examination. which  mutually  by  sex  significance was  the inultivariate  at  be  of  be  may  significant  hypothesized  would but  it  study  examination  is  the  central  role  of  relational context in their reports of intimacy and  use of influence strategies. Improvements research,  a  future  community—based minimum of  to  this study  sample  who  study. might have  2 years or longer.  In be  undertaken  been  in  more  complex  views  and  their  to  improve  with  a  this  larger,  relationships  a  Such individuals would be older,  and their relationships more established, have  order  may  and they may therefore  better  reflect  the  larger  188  As well there are  population than do psychology undergraduates.  data to suggest that romantic relationships of 2 years or longer are more likely than shorter ones to fulfill all the functions of attachment might  (Hazan  provide  relationship  &  Zeifman,  less  a type;  relationship  1994).  conservative  participants  (either romantic,  well,  a  by  between  subjects  screening  group),  stringent  would  one  on  report  only  of  effect  the  of  or  avoiding the possibility of being As  simultaneously rating multiple relationships.  differential fearful  test  or closest same sex friendship,  closest cross sex friendship), influenced  between-subjects design  A  since  (i.e.,  design  out the  would  reduce  particular  (of  exclusionary  the  with  concern  criteria  of  problem  the  would  be  less  participants would only need to be currently in  one of the three kinds of relationship). The  importance  of  the  relational  context  (as  indicated  the significant role of relationship type in this study)  by  could be  further elaborated by assessing the attachment style of the other individual  in  partners’  attachment  respondents’ Read,  1990;  measures  of  the  dyad.  reports  exerts  research  has  and  1994a).  indicated  significant  a  of relationship variables  Feeney et al., intimacy  Other  Spanier,  (e.g.,  Collins  of  influence  intimacy  and  &  In addition to the dependent  influence,  1976),  on  influence  it  might  be  of  value  obtain a measure of the quality of the relationship (e.g., Adjustment Scale,  that  to  Dyadic  in order to determine the roles  strategies  for  women  and  men  different attachment styles on overall relationship quality.  with  189  Extending the  A clarification of why the use of  findings.  influence strategies by women and men corresponds more closely to the  demand/withdraw  power/resource  analysis  valuable extension the  key  which  factor  may  attempts, In  in  partner  &  study’s  the  be  (Christensen,  (Falbo  of this  participants  relationship  were  pattern  role  to  be  Peplau,  1980)  findings.  As  of  this  1988)  conflict,  study  interfering  be  might  a  extent  the  their  to  their  imagining  with  the  noted earlier,  and  were  to  than  influence  that is, were imagining a situation of conflict.  the  more  research  likely  conducted  than  women  by  Falbo  report  to  and  (1980),  Peplau  using  strategies  direct  which required the other person to participate.  men  The use of such  strategies also was associated with a de—emphasis on equal power in the relationship, and  perceptions  of  a preference for greater personal influence, having  than women endorsed. value  and  report  relationships values  and  position note: from  “men a  than  perceptions  of  privilege perceived  position  compliance.  power,  of which men more  all  Other research has also indicated that men  having  more  greater  of  greater do  women  reflect in  (e.g.,  what  the  may  to be  in  Parker, be  as  close  their  Such  1990).  considered  relationship;  themselves relative  power/control  Falbo  be  to &  a  Peplau  influencing their partner  strength”  therefore  and  expected  The subordinate partner may conform spontaneously to  such direct strategies as requests so that the dominant one does not need to resort to more aversive methods is  important  judgements  of  to  note  power,  that  this  discussion  (Huston, refers  rather than an objective  to  1983)  .  It  subjective  assessment  of who  190  Perceptions  actually has what kinds of power in a relationship.  about power are likely to play a causal role in the use of power and influence On feel  the  that  (Huston, other  they  1983).  hand,  are  in  situations  in  a  position  of  such  situations  of  and  attempts  distressed recent  as  avoiding  conflict at  is  found  escalation.  relationships  research  and  suggests  pattern  fact may  in  evident  been  more  relationships  also  1988),  Markman et.  al,  found  (1993)  that  on self report measures of complaints about partner pursuit, men  scored  withdrawing  higher stance  nondistressed, extent  to  than for  clinic,  which  the  response to conflict divorcing  couples  men  did  women,  than  for  indicating  women.  In  greater  a  study,  another  and divorcing couples were compared on the  demand/withdraw  pattern  (Christensen & Shenk, scored  nondistressed couples,  in  but  Christensen,  demonstrate some of these features.  in  female pursuit,  has  nondistressed  that  not  may  men  Male withdrawal  in.  be met with  to  (e.g.,  and  strength,  giving  This  conflict  leading them to use indirect  feel at a significant disadvantage, strategies  of  significantly  their  characterized  1991).  The clinic and  higher  than  did  the  but the pattern of woman demanding and man  withdrawing was more likely than the reverse pattern in all three groups. 1991),  In the Christensen research the  situation  questionnaire This  makes  was  conflict  Falbo and Peplau current study,  more  (1980)  participants  that  defined  (1988;  as  a  salient  study  “problem than  (i.e.,  in  Christensen & responded  in the  the  to  Shenk, on  the  relationship”.  item used  “how I get my way”).  in  the  In the  the question was worded in terms of getting one’s  191  way,  but  with  no  way  imagining  interference  determine  whether  of by  or  knowing the  not  other,  conflict  it  can  were  respondents  whether is  possible  not  explain  the  versus  a  to  different  pattern of results. To  confirm  perception women’s  of  and  the  role  power  men’s  in  use  of  the  of  conflict  relationship  various  comparing women and men  sex,  relationships  and  versus  romantic  low  conflict.  across  Conflict  would  a  study  sex,  cross  strategies,  might be undertaken  in  two  same  high  conditions:  be  to  contributing  as  influence  generalized  between—groups  a  variable, manipulated such that participants in the high conflict condition would be asked to rehash an unresolved argument about something important to them,  and in the low conflict condition to  solve a more neutral problem, could  be  videotaped  and  such as a puzzle.  coded  for use  of  The interaction  influence  strategies.  Self report measures of influence in situations of high conflict versus be  low conflict could also be obtained.  asked  which  to  the  efforts.  recall  partner In  and  either  addition,  perceptions  of  relationship  partners,  circumstances relationship. in a position conflict processes  and  describe  the  did  specific  or  did  assessments  amount its  of  not  could  power  importance  influence  attempts  interfere be  taken  generally to  each  of  of  of  strength  subjects’  held  by  the  them,  and  the  underlying  the  Such  findings  a in  in the  least as though they are  (and women most so)  confrontation.  in  their  with  in which they feel most and least powerful It may be that men feel  could  Participants  in  study might this  study  situations of illuminate  the  on women’s  and  ft  C) I-’ 0 Cl) CD  0 H)  11 CD C))  CD  II 0  C) Z  Il CD  CD Il  H H-  C)  C))  C))  CD  H-  Il CD < CD C)) H  ‘.Q Ci)  H)  0  Cl)  HCD  CD  ft  ft II C))  Cl)  C) CD  CD  H  H  0  CD  U)  C))  C)  Z ft  H  0  ft  1  0  CD  Il  -‘  U)  <  ft  U)  1:3. H-  •  U)  0 Z U)  H-  C)) ft  ‘I CD H  C!)  C) H 0 U) CD  H-Il CD (I) ‘ti r1 0 CD Q HCD Il  CD Q H-Il  11) H-  CD II C)) H  <  U) CD  ft CD  Il CD ‘d H HC)  C)  U)  H  C))  ft U  H  U)  ‘I CD  -  Z ft Il H-  H-  Z Q  CD  CD  H) II 0  C))  0  0  CD  <  H-  C!)  CD  ft  H-  0  ‘—  C))  C)) ft CD  1  U)  CD  ft  ft Il C) ft CD  H H  H-  ft  0 H)  H ft  U)  CD  Il  CD  Il CD H C)’ ft  H  ,,  H CD  ft  U)  ft  ft  —  CD  CD  0  U)  ft  CD H) H) CD C)  < C))  Il  H) 0  U)  CD  p,  CD II  ft  U) CD H H)  0  0 CD  II CD H HC))  CD  H  H  C)  C)’  U)  CD Cl)  CD  0  0 Il  H)  C)  CD  H-  H-  CD  H)  ft  0  b  U)  CD  U)  C)) U)  C) 0  CD  Il  0  ‘p  C) C)’ ft CD  CD  U) CD C)  CD  ft  -.  ‘-Q  Il  U)  C)) C) <  H-  ft  H-  0  CD Il  ft  ft  )  CD  H-  H-  H) CD  HC)  ft CD 1 CD 0 ft  CD  ft  C)  CD  ft  C)  CD  H-  CD 0 C) C)  Il  ‘tI  CD  ft  -.  U)  H-  El)  0  H-  C) CD  C))  0 H-  <  C))  C)) ft  CD  U) 0  Htl)  <  CD i-’ C)) ft  0  ,-  ft CD  H-  H  H-  CD  CD  CD  0  ft  H0  ft CD ‘1 C))  H-  H)  0  Il  0 H)  C)) ft ft CD II  p  CD  ft CD  Il  Q  D CD  ft  H)  0  H  HC) C))  ft <  Il  H) 0 ‘1  ,  0  U) H-  CD  ft CD  H-  C)  H-  ft  H-  H)  0  U)  II  ‘tI C)) ft ft CD  CD  ft ‘<  H-  Cl)  H  Il CD  ‘I  1:3.  H  H  C))  Il  ‘  Il  C) H CD C)’  C)) < CD  -  H0  ft ft CD  ‘  H  U)  Il  CD  0  o  H)  CD  Il  U)  CD H < CD  CD  ft  ‘-< H CD U)  ft  U)  ft  CD  C)) C)  p, ft  CD  -  H-  U)  ft  Il CD  H)  CD  ‘<  H CD  ft  CD  C)) C)  ft ft  -  CD Il  ‘-Q CD  H-  U)  0  H-  C)) ft  ‘1 H-  < C))  0 H)  CD  CD  (I) CD  CD  k<  H  Q  0 i  ‘I  U) ft  HU)  C)  H-  0  C)  CD  -  U)  CD  U)  C) CD  H  Il CD  CD  CD  II  HCD  U) ft ‘I C)) ft CD  CD  C)  CD  H  H-  C) ‘<  H-  ft  H  •  H-  Cl)  0  H-  C)) ft  II  CD  U)  C)  H-  CD  H  C)) b  H-  Il  ‘I CD CD  ft  CD U) CD  0  U)  CD  CD  H  H)  H-  C) H  ft  CD  ft  H-  C))  CD  H) 0 II  El)  0  CD C))  ‘  H-  H  CD H  C) 0  C)) Il CD  CD Il CD  •  H-  U)  H0  H  Il  Q H)  CD  ft  •‘  C)  H CD  --  ft  CD  C)  ft  ft  CD Il  CD  U)  H CD  C))  C))  CD CD  fr  ft  0 H)  H0  C) C!)  ‘<  W  U)  CD  C)  ‘tI Il 0  C)) H  0  H  ft  I—’ p,  CD  II  0  0 H)  ft H-  (I)  CD  C)) Q  0  CD  ft  II CD U)  C))  ft 0  CD  1) H-  CD  U)  ‘1 CD Cl) CD C)) Il  HU)  It!)  P  0  IH-  I I  IH  I  10  I()  •  H  CI)  0  H-  ft  C)’  H  Il CD  0 H 0 Cl) CD  H-  CD  H-  ft CD  U) ft ‘I  C) CD  CD  H) H  H-  0 H)  CD  U)  CD  CD C)  CD  ft  CI)  Il  CD  H)  H-  CI)  CD  193  relationships  and  gender.  Bartholomew’s  (1990)  The  study  four-category  model  styles,  attachment  of  for  support  new  offers  with fearful and dismissing participants evidencing uniquely high Friendships play  scores on avoidance and dominance respectively.  and this  an important and meaningful role in most people’s lives, research  extend  helps  our  understanding  valuable  these  of  This research  connections in the context of attachment dynamics.  extends our understanding of both gender effects and attachment by  establishing  the  principle  attachment  that  with gender to produce different patterns of draws  attention  understanding influence. think  the  to  women’s  complex  even  two—way  men’s  these  ways  the  and  intimacy  of  underscore intricacies  in  type  relationship  experience  results  about  interactions  gender comparisons,  of  It also  intimacy.  need  to  gender  in  the of  In addition to simply mapping main effects,  close relationships. or  and  Importantly,  in more  centrality  interacts  style  it  examined  at  the  level  between  of  is clear that a topography of gender and  relationships requires standing back from the terrain and viewing the varying patterns of its landscape for women and for men. This  research  intersecting  roles  is  unique  in  of  gender  and  its  explicit  attachment  different peer relationships in adulthood.  style  the  on  focus in  three  This more integrative  and theory driven approach guided the questions and the research, and  was  complex  found  workings  attachment” others.  to  in  the  be of  productive, how  context  offering  individuals of  their  “do  ongoing  insights  into  the  gender”  and  “do  relationships  with  H  H  •  0 H !))  C)  U)  0  H-  C)  (I)  0  ‘1 CD  CD  H  •  H ‘0  !))  CD  H  H-  !))  HP.’  Q)  (tct  CD  CD  H  d  CD  Q)  CD  H-  P.’  P.’ CD  0CD  10  01  I  IH  lCD IC!)  0  -  L.  IX  CD  U)  •  CD r1ffr  lCD 0 ••  •  H  I  0  U)  0  C  P.’  H CD  ‘_i  CD  0 U)  H  (_)  •  U)  P.’  H-  H- HCD  1”h  X  CD  U)  CD  -  0) ct  CD  WU)  -  -  H-  IHO  kD  U)  CD  ‘1  IX I Ict. Ic q  )) HrtCD  •  q Ort•  •  O<I’.E  CDIU)  0I(D-  ICflP)-  U)  •  0  H  0  H-H-  U)  CD  H-  Hr1  r1  CD  U)  •.  ct  CD  !))  •  C)  D)  H  •  •  CD  c_i-  rxi  Cl)  ci-  0  c_i2’  U)  H-.? C)  0 i_iHCD 0  HC)  H CD  HW  0  H-ct Hrt  •  0  IH-  IQ) CDIr1-  ICIO H-D) Ictctct I ç-  U)  r1  c_i-  CD  o  I’-i,  I lo  lCD  H  CD  rt  CD C)  U)  o  —  0 C)  F-’-  CD  H-”  0  U)  CD  Z  •  )  CD C)  ct ct  •  t\)  H  .  <CD H-<  0  CD  CD  H-  CD  C).  ct  i  HO  U)  H-  I  0  -  I  I!).I  IC)  IH-  I lCD I  I  •  C) .<  -t  H-  p.’  0  CD  C)  •  lo  <  CD  <  U)  •  C!)  .  U)  2’  C)  nj  ‘H  0  Ct  !))  oI< Ic_i- CD IH—. l d I!)) HIc_i- !)) lCD H’  H  CI)  H-.  CD p.’ lU)  CD  .‘;;‘;.‘‘-<  C)  H  CD  H  -  C)  H  CD 1 H ct  H-0 H  -<  t-  CD  -  CD  H-  .U)  OH-D)1 OO  CD  C) H‘Jh CD H LOCD HH --JHCDHI  H  -  ct.  lU)  IH-.  0  IC)  f<ct  frdO lU) t  U)  H  CD  P)’ H  H-  H  H  H  C)Q.,  U)  (-1H-  CD  G  HCD  CI)  H-  U)  0  c_i  H •  CD H-’p  11  H-  U)  CD  CD  CD  b  rI-b  CD  HO  H<  ‘p  H!))  C)  0  H--t  ctH.  U)  HW  C)  0  U) Cf))  D’  IP) CD HU) (tHU) c_i_—  U) 0  CD  CD U)CD U)  H(D  C) 0  H  C)  CD  CD  H  CR  P  CR  Ct H-  t1i  Cl)  • 0 Ct • ‘1 CD CD ‘lCl)  Z  CD  H  •  •  h  C)  l I  )  .  -  CD  CD H  0  ‘..D  H  0 CR 0 HCl) H-  H  CD H Cl)  CtCD  H  R’D Z  rt [CD  IHCR  0 ‘H  H  101  CD  -  CD 11  I-bc  IZ(D  ICR  I0  Ct  0 H-  CD  I  CR  CR  -  0  lo  l  ICR  CD  0  CD  0  H,  —  IU1  ‘  <H. CD  IH  b H I Oo I ID)— Ill. ICt lCD  lo . I ICD-..  10 II-b  -  CD H H  “  CD 1  CD  U)  .  •  •  Cl)  CR  0  CR  CD  Ct  ..  1 0 °  “0  -  CD  1 0  0  0•  H  i-t  H.?  Cl)  -  CR 0  CD  ••  0  0  -  CD CR  -  z  H  rt)  0  H  CR 0  CR  0 0  C) CD  0  Ct  CD  CD  nO  CR  F-  Cl) b0 Cl) H CD HO Cl)HCt ctctCD H-0 H 00 00 CRQ 3-CD CD  0 H  0  I  o  H  0  Ct CD  I 10  0  I’—  H CD ICR Cl) Cl)  0  CR  CD CD 4H Ct  Ct Ct  H 0  ‘  ° 1 0  (‘3  -  •  0  •  0 H  CR  N  .Ct-t  H0  0  ())Ct  ..  --  H-  Cl)  O  (DO  0 H  H  -  CR  Ct  CD  H-  CtCl) H- c-IOCt Cl) CR0  CD  CR 0  0 CR DCD I ‘<  l  CR 1-.’-  LCR  If-J lCD  bR)  H  D)  CD 0  Cl)’< H..  IX  •  CR  CR ..Ct  CD  CD Ct ICI)H lCD C)  H  ‘.,  0  CD  z .  CD ‘1  H-  Cl  CR CD—. H X ‘..O  CD  CR  0 CD CR  CD  CD  OH-  Ct  P)  Ct H-  CD  Cl) H  °D) 0  H  II  •  CD  0 H CD O HCR CD -CD 10PCt f--  I-  -  PJ ‘1 Ct  ••  0 CR Ct 0  0  CR c-ICD  CD X  Ct  H  Cl)  CD  CD c CR CR—  bCD Cl) 0 0  Cl)  Cl)  Cl)  t-  H  Ct  H  H- Ct HCt  i-i,  QH Ct  H  Ct Cl)  CR  H  CD  •  CD  0 H)Ct  CD  Hç-I-0  H-  0  CR  CD  H  CD  Ct CD  CR  CD  CR  Hb  CD  Ct I-’)  iCt P1 CR  Irt ICRH  10  10  H  H  H  <  Cl)  CD  •  CD  H H  < 0  ft ft  9’  CD  H  CD  ‘<  I  •  H-  H  9)  U)  CD CD  I-’)  IlLi)  (I)  CD  (I)  CD  C)  1<  •  Q.’ft  H-••  ‘1  O  (I)  Li)  H  CD-  •  0 0  C)  0-.  CD  P.’  9)  c-I-  ft ft •  •  C) ft  CD  P.’  —i QD$)  9’  CD IC) a ft  0 4  -  It’Jct  101  -  9)0  H-F--.’  C)  p.’  1) H-CD  9)9)  ‘<CD  9)  9)  Oft  c-I-CD  C)  c-IOft  9)  •  ftCD  CD  •  H q0’ t) 0  0 Li)  I-Cl H-•  CD  -  i<  •  —  •  0 0  Cl)  •.  0  -  -  CD  -3  Z  CD Cl) C!)  0.’  CI) Cl)  CD  •  o  t.i,  •  (1)  0-.  0  H  Q  H-  ft  C)  I-tI  •  H H H  H-  ‘-1 CD  0.’  o  Cl)  0  H-Li)  -  C)  H  9)  0  ft  H(1).  9) <  H  —.  Q..c 0  H ‘C  —  0 0  C)  H-  •  CD  H  S.—..  •  x  (  Q  I lO  9) IH  H  (1)  CD  H  ‘1  •  0  Cl)  ft 0  0  H  .‘CD  CD  Hft  9’  CD (1) xi [) q-. 0  )H-  —  ‘.<  0ld  H  CD  <CD CD  H  •  j  H-  ••  0  H-  ft  ft  CD  Il-b  9)  OH-  Cl)  H  Hc-I-  •  CD  I  O  -  .  t-  OH  1<0  C) I—CD  rto CD ‘1 CD  1$) IH CD CD cn  IC) Ii—-  lo  H-fl  9)  ft  •  H  •  H  0  (fl  (1)  H  p.’  9)  CD  IIO()  Ic__)  -  H I-’  9)  H ‘D  ‘—  CD  ft  CD  I-  9)  ‘Cl)  (1)  CD  CD CD WH  •  C) ft 3 0 QC)  i-.’-  9) Cl)  ZH  •  •  CD 0.’  i-  0  ft  o  0 H  U) CD  H  H  o  ••  Cl)  P.’  j  c-I-  ft ft  .  b IQ..—1 I ILi)’—  Ift  lCD  bIx IH-  I<  H  H  t-<  0  0  I—’  0  H Q (1)  CD  C)  I<9)  •  lo Iz  IH-  H  q  ‘<  Cflo  1  0.’  p..  9)  0 H  0 H  CD  CD  CD  9)  H  ft  H  9)  CD  ti<  Q<  —HCD • OH C) 0  o  —JO  0 H  0  H  P..  II  9)  (I)  I  •  H0  CI)  Cl)  CD  ‘1  CD  .‘  CD  H  9’  I-b  <  H HH  I()O  -  Cl)  H  H  9).  0  I-b_...  0  H  -  0  C4  CD  0  9)  ft  ft  p.’  0  H  Z ft 9)  CD  0  CD  CD  H C) 9’ I—’  C) H H-  HI-.’’  1<  IH-Z 1< ft lCD  Id-CD  tCS lCD C)  PCI)  fri  lCD  H  CD  •  H I  tsi  -  CD  U) Cl)  C)  CD  CD  H-  •  H  IU).’  lCD  Ii-  10  Ix  Cl)  z  H  •  U)  H  ‘-3  -  cf  CD  CD  CD  <‘rt.C) t!i Cl)  ‘1  0  ‘d  CD ct’l  Z  H-  h1  CD ‘< CD CD  CD •  .  Cl. CD CtH H CD ci-  0 I lCD CD 0 II H,Ct<  CD  Cl)  ICtCttn0  U)  Cl)  .  C) CD  HciC  U)  U) H C)  CD Cl)  ci  H CD CD 0<01 0 Cti ciHCD Cl)  i--ctW Cl) CD U) 01 • o -i-tH  II  II  U)  Cl) HU) CD U)•  (DC-  cn  U)  0  H-U)  HO Cl) HHCl) C) c-1-CD<  -  H  C ‘1  CDII  P)  H  CD  iCiDci ICD  U)  I-”  ci U)  ‘1 HCD  H)  U) CD X  H  H)  H  ci.  C)  O  11 CD  C)  Cl)  i-’.  .  H-  •  <  *  IH-O IctII 1< Ct  IH  lo  cn  C) rj CD ‘1H tn  o  H H HU)D 0) ‘CD ‘ x H •  -  1oCl  IH  CD  U)  1  ‘o  0  H  Cl 0  U)  ‘-j”  H-CD Cl) U)  C)  0 Cl)ci 0 II  ciU)  Cl)  ci  C  CD  H  •  Cl)  C  ,  •  x  CD  CD p  •  ci  U1Cl)  Cl)  w  l--  ‘H  CD Oil  •  U)  H-  H-CD  rt°  Cl)  H  ‘1 CD  CD  H  U)  U) CI) X  0 U) Cl).  C)  ci  1w •  H) CD  H)  H  II  ci  CD  “  ci CD CD ‘1 U) CD OH 0 Cl)d H H- CD rt Ct  0 H)H  ‘10 r1 Cl) HHO  0  H-  CD U)  II  CD U)  CD U)  o 0 .CD  CD  ‘-“  H  —.  CD p H  H< OH-  II CD  Iui  ‘1 0  CD  I—i  ri0  CD ‘1  H  C)  CD  Ct  Ct  ciCD  CD  I  CDQ  CtIH-  III II wCl)O U) CD ‘d • CD 0 C) Oj’lCt H)IO  w  oCD  10° -  U)”  ‘l’<  CD Cl) CD’l C)ri-O ri-CD ‘1  0  CD  CD  H ci  H’l  0  CD  CD H0 Cl) — ‘lCD . C) çt ‘I H çtCD  Cl)  c1-H-...  C) -..t H)Z • 0 II  i-i-U)  Cl) d II 00 F-’-O C) HU) ctd CD tI)(fl  Cl)  t  CD  CD  CD  ti  0  c-t-  H  CD 10 IH)Ct  I  I  IC)  i’I  0 ci  G)  HH.— I H  U1-  -  U)  CD  ,-3 0 H  ‘-‘d  0  rt-  CD  Cl)  0  tn  CD II  ciCD  H(fl  Cl)  C)k< H-H  0  CD  CD ç1  i-  i-  Cl)  C)  0  II  CD  <  Cl)  Cl)  H  CD  C)  H  U) 0 H-  •  Ct  cic-t  CD CD  (I)  HC)  C  Cl) H 0Cl)  H)  ..  Cn0  0  0  U)  ct  CD  Ct  lU)  Cl)  CCl) CD  1CD  C Cl)  Cl)  CD  ‘  •  H  H 0  c-I-  P3  H) H H0 c-I-  00  H-  -  U)  H(DO  CD U)  c-t  (1)0  0  H-  • O CD  4 U)C  0  H  C)  Cl)  P30  ‘1  Q-1  Cl)  CD  CD  ct  —  P3(1) iO H-a 101 c-I- HkDP3 P3 HH  -  0  Oo OH)  CD  P3 c-IHCD  H-c-I-Q)  0  C/)  H  0  0  •  CD  4 c_  1  •  0  c-I-  -  U) •  CT) •  HH  H-  -  CD  H0 (c-t  N  c-I‘•i  H  0 •  0  c-IH-  0  H-  c-I-  0  CD  c-  HH) H-  c-I-Z  H-  c-tb c-I-  0  CD HU)  P3  •  Z  CD U)  HCD  Cl)  CD  c-I-  CD H-0 H c-I-  II  HU)  H-  CD  c-I-  I-i-  HHO  •  ctU)d  Cl)  OH)  CD  (DO  c-I-  çtCI)  U)  (3Q I  Q  c-1 CD U)  ‘1 H U)  ‘1 HCl)  0.  (c)  (_)  ()  I4  •  t-’  0  (Cl  •  c-i-  çt  -  0  0  IctCD  H-  U) cn  11  H) CD  H)  •  H-  (-I-  P3  CD H P3 c-IH----OH  P3  U)  CD  c-I-  0  CflD M  CD  CD < H-  1U) CD  QP3 (DO HO  0  0  ‘1  c-I-  w  i—CD  c-I-o  H-  0  U)  •  HO Z Z  1H  CD IH)H I CD H CD I 10<  CD  0 H 00  U)  U)  H H  OH CD  CD  P3  CD  H)  P3  (j  00  CD ‘1  0  H)H-  0  F-al). C)  q 0  0.  HU)  CD  o< 0  q  HHQ 0 CD  0  CD  II.3c-I-  CD H  D)  z  P3  H)  q  Q)  •  CDQ  M  H 0  c-I-  CD  -< HU)  P3  0  O CD  U)  CD  HU)  H-  P3 O 0  U) QH)  P3  P3 U) HO  H-U)  0  C/) OH  H)H  QH)  H-  P3t5 HCD H  U)  < qU) 0 •  0• •  Cl)  MCi)  CD I  I  010  -  CD  U) CD”  DH-  -  IU)  x  H-  U)  HP30  IH-CD  tcs  lU) I  IF-I0  Ic-tO  c-I--  ‘-°  0  U)  H  C) P3  •  H0 P3 H  0 I-’ 0  0  U)  ‘-DCD  I  ..  H-  H-  CD  H  I -  -  c-I-  P3  0  U)  CD  0  op H)U)  H  Cl)  0  •  CD  <  I--  c-t  CD 0  Cl)  CD  IHHCD U) P3< Il))  lCD  d CD  II CD  CD H H  C)  0  <  k<  H)  U)  CD  ,  •  ti  •  <  c-I P3 0 H)H rCD  jO  CD 10 lH 100  [<  lU)  •  IQ CD  •  CD  0’—  O  H-H  •  c-I  l  lCD  I  H  -  U)  0  ‘  ij  -  CD  U)  CD  CD 11  •  CD  Cl)  •.  •  CD  0  H  CD  0  I  0 P3  CD  0  C) P3  0 H-  0  MH  01  -  I01’  -  lCD  Ic-I-b  HIP) IO  [oP3 c-I  Idcl) lCD H.  0  I(D  C) P3  Cl)  •  0  tn  H  CD  (-I  CD  In  ‘1  •-  H  Cli  )  rn  w  C)  •  o  Cl)—  ICD  ID)  IH- Cl) C) IHH IC) 0  If—H-Cl) H  CD  Cl)  1 CD U)  •  •  Cl  0  •  —  •  ICD Cl)  IC)  1 C l) HC) CD  <  H 0  0‘1 CDI CDIClCl  •  Cl  fH  ft C)  H-  Cl’  •  CD  -  0  Httl.  C)  (Cl  <Cl)  H-pd  f-c  --U)  U) H C)  rt. H-j • 0  QP) C(D  •  Z  HCl)  H  CD  Cl)  CD  II  i-’II  H-  H-  •  HU)  -  H CD  <ft  HU)  H CD  Cl)  HC)  H-  •  Fl CD U)  00 H O’.Q  C)  Cl)  .•  Hr1  Cl)  0 C)  ClU)  HD)d  ctU)  H DID) ctrt Cl) H-ll HHO HC)  Cl) 0  j  Cl)  ‘lCD  (I)  0  CD  Cl.  CD I  CD-  •  V  H  H  •  Cl)  C)  -  1Q10  H (Cl -  ciCD  Cl)  ciH-  CDd  01  CD  0 Frt  CD  CD  CD  CD  H-  Cl 0(l)  Cl-  0 C).. H-  (no  H-  C)  C)  Cl)r1  H  CD  ft  CI) ZCD  CD  •  —  H ‘.0  C  •  C)  Cl,  0  O•  (I)  CD  I  C)I(D  <  H  0  C)  CD  ‘-  0  (C) (Cl  Ct  (I)  H-  0(l)  U1  Cl)  (1)100  ‘dl  H-  H(Cl  Pill. H  1  0  H-  .H,U) -Dfr 0 1fl H  Cl’  Cl)  Cl)  U)  Cl)  H  0  H  Cl Cl)  -  Cl-’  H-  ID) H’-P  100  WCD  IOH-  IQ1ftç-t-  -  OH-  H  H—  o<  C)  ‘.  H  •  •  0 H  U)Cl)  Cl)d H  I-’-  0  CD  HCl  CD  ClH-  Cl)  HCl’ Hctll  P) Cl)  0  ‘d(D CD HZ U) ll  0 O  H  U)  H-  --  •  )  •  -  •  CD  I  H  CD  0 C) ‘.CD -  0  (C)  ‘1  C) DP) OH H 0  O  H  CD  H-  U) 1)  H-  ct  Cl)  CD  CD  U)  0 ‘-OH-  •  a’C)-  —)H t’J 0  P)  Fl  <  CD  ft  0 Fl  U)  FlU) CD  Z  -  Cl) H° CD CD  H  H-  •  CD  Cl  H  I(l)  lCD  P IC)—.  CD.  C.  Cl)-  lo I  I-’ Cl)  0 CD  ()  C)  C) 0 H H H  C)  0  <  H  H  ‘_-)  H  C) Cl)  H  C) H  H ft H-  U)  C)  C  H  o  CD  -  I’.o  C) IuiO  -  HH  IC  IC)  Icn  <  •  CD  H  H  0  CD <  U)  CD  •  U)  0  lCD  lCD  •  Ict ct CDIClt  H  CD  )  Ir1  •  U)  HjCtHi(t  P  IoCl)Io U) l 1 Iz oI WI  CD’Cl)  H-  0 CD  ‘  Cl  U)  Cl)  H0 0 H- Cl) Cl) CtHCD HCt 0  C)  Cflrt.  H-  U)  ct  H-CD  CD ‘1 U) 0  H CD  )  U) rt  Hçt HCD  U) 0  CD CD  0  •  HO  Cl)  CD Z  •  H  I . j0  H  -.  o<  Cl)  •  LOH-  H I  0 H-  Cl)  OH  .  -  H  q  0  H  Cl)  CD  IWU) 1C0 .  IC { 1<  i-aIC IHO  H  H-  0  rt<  ii  CD  H  Ct-  i  IU1CD  -  TO f<  Il-  0  0 °H  Irt  0 fr1(1) CD f< H Cl). 10  I—’  ))  TJ  <_(tLO  H CD Cl)  Z  U)  H O Cl)  H-  CD U)  0 t:-I HQ 0<0 0 0 QHCD .t_H 0 : 1  CDCl)0 l j U) 0 Oct-  H -IH-ctH-  CD  HCI)QC)  Cl)  H  10  Z  HH  Il—Cl) q ICl) .  H)  IH H I frdct 1W z  lo lo  CD ICl)0<  CD U)<  CD I’ rtH01 Cl) 0I1 H rt.(DII--CD HU) Cl) 0 U)Q (DICD 0 U) U) • 0  I  CD CD  rJ  CD CD  ‘  0  Li  1<  ••  Ct.  Cl) •  CD  H-  H  CD  iCD  10  It  IlCD  l  CD  CD  Cl) H CD  I IICE)  Q)  H  .  H H H-  •  0  .  •  CD 0-  H  Ct H-Ct)  CDp) 0  i-  <  U)  CD  0  Cl)  H  tH  CD  •  o  LO  çt U)  .CD  -  I0H-.  101  -  CD  Hxj Cl) )  1<11 lCD CD  Cfl lCD  IF--0 IHCt-  CD H Cl) I0i1  0 CD  •  •  CD  .  H  0  ‘1  LO  H  •  CD  H Z I H<ICl)b “IHCD  10  lEn  U)d CD  H-  cn  U) CD -H-  0  CD 1  H  CD < CD  Cl)  Cl) t’J H  (I)  F--0 C) Z  H  U) 0 Cl) HOH QCl.’ tCD CD  0 CD<  0  H  H•  CD-  Cl)  CD  CD  CD  U)  Cl)  H-  )  Ct  P  U)  0 Ct < CDCD  CD  CD (ClU  ‘dCD  CD  •  CD  rtH Cl) <l  Ct_Ct-  -  U)  Ct’l  0 II  Cl)Cl)  H(fl  Cl)  U)-  OH OH H  0  H-  (Cl  0  Cl)CD-.. < OH  CD  Ct.  rt(T) Cl) r1-Cfl  CD  pJ  •  CD  U)  H  U)  H  —  H-  -  -  •  0P.  Li  CD  Ct  CD  H  H  Cl).  Q  H  0 U)_•  )  cn1 0  CD H  H  HU)  CD 0  H  r-t-H, Cl) CD CD H-U)  0  U)  F--  H-H cth rt0 I—bCD Cl) 0 CD CD0 Cl) CD 0  CD  0 0  ,-  CD  H-  -  H  -‘  D H  H-  U)  H  U)  0  H’  rt  ‘1 CD  CD  C)  H-  Cl)  q  (D H-  ‘I C)  CD  I  Icn  P3  (CD-  l0  CD  0 CD  ‘..O  I  H  •  CD  Ct  CD  -  P  IØ  0  0  U)  H-  CD  U)  CD  •  •  Cl)  H-  CD  0 H H.<  0  t  P3CtU)  P3 ctH  H-  •  H-.  U)  C) 1 I-  P3  CD  I-bP3  0  HU)” U)  P3  0  ‘Ik<U)  U)  P3  L.iQ.,—sP)  H-  0 P3 II C)  P3  -J  P3  U)  Di  0  H-  U)  CD  C)  H-’-  0  P3 0 Ct  D  C)  0  ‘I ,CD  C)  P3  ••  •  L P3  -  I{tP)  IH-  II CD CD CD 1  (F-” H- HCD  P3  H-  CD  CD  .  H  ‘I  -  H  ‘  ,-i CD  U)  H  H-  U)  H-  U)  rt-HH P3 H-P) trt 0 H-H U) 00  P3CDCD  CD  Q  H-’I CD CD H ‘IC) P3 U) CD Ct 0 CD U)  00  X  •  ‘—‘  0 H-  U)  ‘-CD  HP3  C)  CI)  QH  P3  ‘I  0  CD  tT•J  0  •‘  D)U) I (JC)  HH)H)-  L.)  “  I-’U)  N  P3  (fl  0  N  -  I  P3  o  CD  ‘-3  H-  CD  Ct•  Ui C)  CD  H  H HCt  P3  0  H)  0  Ct  QC)  QCD  CD ‘I  H)  ‘  P3  ‘I  o  DU)  -  < 0  •  HH-  U)  (ilO  -U)  CD  C)  HH-  -  CD  p  00  CC) FHZ  ZC)U)  P3  H-C)  C)P30  o  P3I1fQrtH-H < C1U) P3 Cl)  P3  0  ‘  •  P3  CD  H -o  CD  -.  ID  -  ‘1  CD  HQ  CD ‘1  (tQ,  C)  U)”  •  0 H-  U)  HCD  H)  I-b  o  U)  NH—  I CD U1  ODH-  X  0  II 0’ ‘  ‘TJ  Iij  I  •  -  H  ICC) 0 IC) IHI P  P  CD  0  0  CD  ‘-3  0  H-  -  CD ‘1 P3  o Ort  i  -  -  lU)  -  IC-  (P  H•  zj  CD  -  0 ti  •  i  P3  -  U)  CD  tjCD  H-  (C)  P3  ‘  ‘—p  •  H”  Dl  rt  I.Q  H-  CDPU) U) U)  —U)  H  Q  CD  P3  Ct H-  I° IC ‘< I CD  IIC  IH  IZP’  IC)  (I)  iH  U)  ts  HP3  P3  ‘1  Cl)  H  f.JCD  C)  H  •  0 ‘I  H)  0 H H  ttCD • ‘1  HCD  P3  (u  C)  CD  H  IH’ <CtP3  IctCD  X  d  I  C)  D)  rt  IC)p,  0  lU)  ICDrt1”  I  CD  CD  CD  rj  P3<  H-CC)  0.  H  P3 c rt  CD’  ‘1  x  CD  •  CD—  c  IiiU)  ui  t  I(J1 -  q lCD . CDt • HX  P1 Irt  ID)  IP)  )U)  U) C)  H-  !j 1  P  0  •  -  CD  10IH)  I  IC  0  lQ  I  1<  CD-’  C)  •  icn  H  •  CD  0  •  I•xj  1)).  CDOD  I-H  Cl)  CD  CD  CD •  0 P  CD  ct  H)  Hi--,  CD  0 0  ) HH  Z0)  -.  H CDCD (ttik< H-CD00  CDCD ti  0  CD  CD  1)’  CD  çtt  -  (DC)  •  0 H)  H)  )I?)  ID)  CDI  C)  CDI0  O H)I1)) CDId--1  ZIH-  OICD CD  1))  t-  •  CD <  H  -  CD  HCD  •  H)  Cl)HH. rt0 CD ‘1 H-OO CD 0 CD CD 0  C  w 1)) çtCD H-CD  CD  ti•  0  C)  CD  0  H  0  ti  H)  0  ctp,  C) CD CD  H-  .Q  CDCD 1:’i 51( 1)) U) < • D)—CD  q CD F--H CDct 1)) •c-1‘-  0  I—’  <R’ CD 00  H) H  0  •  CD <  0  iQ  H  1))  HQ  H  0  0)  IH)Qi  10  I  I  _-_Itio IH IP<  II  0  ?SCD  IsiI OiI oiI  Is)  •  CD  CD’ H°  CD  H CD (1)  0  CD ‘1 H CD  H-  (I)  0 H CD  CD  CD  CD  a  CD  H) H) CD  0  H  II  M  ZD  H  CD  • -  •  CD CD 0(i)  C)  (1) CD  Irtti  ICD’ IC)  ICn  td  H 1))  CD CD  CD  H 1))  CD  CD  t-b(fl CD CD CD ‘1 ti’ CD  HH  H-CD  0  0  •  •  -  H) CD  H-  HQ.,  0  (DH  Ci)  H-  r1  C) HD)  H  H-  CD  0  O  H-  Q  ,  0  H-  C)  H H  1)’  I  CD  C)  CD  ti  ••  CD  CD (1)  I—’  0  i-çt F-’•CD  CD  F-a-  H  • -  •  l CD 0 H)IrI-  ‘-<i  r1I  H-Ia  <I  i  HH  H  0  1 OD 04  CD  H H-  •  CD HZ • < fl  -  1))  ti  0<  O-CD P) -  ti  0  CD  0  0 Hfl  CD  •  CD  (t  CD  rt  0  0  ct I—  C)  II  0) CD I-0) Hct -  H-  Z)H (-1-0 0  CDCD  ti  CDHH  rt  H° CD  H  1))  OCD  CD  CD (fl  0  CD  CD  i  I  0  tilf-1))  OIrtQ’  HC1)  HZ1O< t—’CDI 1)) I—’ HctICD  Is)  I  CD  HO  CD  0  c-1  CD  H  -  Dl c-I  H-  •  H  c-I  0  CD  I  H  PC) L) H-  •  (1)  P1  ti Dl  ‘I  Cl)  II  Cl)  H  Cl) C)  I  H  CD  C4(D  c-I  CD  •  -  CD  P1  CD  CD  <Cl)  CD  ,-  ‘1 C)  En CD Dl  CD  0  CD  Q  CD•  ‘-z--CD  (tG  c-I  d  F-  H O’O  C)  I • QHti H-O En  H)X  CD  -  (-i-  •  0H  HCD  CD  -  En  CD  CD  P1  CDL  ••  tCI) ‘-<CD c-t-  H-  En 0 HC) 00 tP1 Dl H Dl Cl) H. p.  CD  -.---  rtO  <P1°  P1P1  0  Ct)  0<  Dl  CD  i-a-  H  0  CD  En CD  0”  qEn<  H-a, O H)CD0 En C)  CD  Cfl L71En  0  Li.  C)  CD  -  En  CD  ‘< CD  CD  P1  CIC/)  ‘  H-  ‘  CD  CD  p’  En  •  Cl)  H  Cl)  HEn  En  En  0  OH-  H-c-I  HCD  CD  Dl H  En 0  0  En.  0  CD  En 0 H  CD  ’< c-I  0  H><  Dl  En 0  ,-  CD  DI  H  HDl  c,En-.. CD p 0  CD  0P1  I-’  (_)  kn p  CD  •  CD  ‘CD  Dl  CD  C) Dl  H-  H 0  Plc-I-H  CD Dl  OI  ‘IIC)  CDIP1  O ic-I  c-I  ‘  CD En En’-d En H‘<  C) CD  <‘c-t t11 Cl) Dl H  CD <  •  HCI)  H-X$  C) Dl  H-  En En  qLnP  H  CD  <  •  c-I  CD  <  c-I  HEn  PIP)  H-  OCD C) Q  CIN  H H-  P1  CD  C) c-I  Pl 0 H  0  En  C)  H,H-  0  HP1  0  —3  CD i En—. cji jEn H  -  -  -t1 Iu,-  CD  iHp. O(t)  HO  0  C)  Ic-10 --R’  < IC)  CD (-I-a  N P1 frp-  HO  Dl  -  H CD  H0i  En  CD  c-I  CD  c-I  l  N  H-rtD)  CD  En  En  En  En  CD  ctCD H-En En 0  •  H  (n  lH---p)  lEn  IZ<  IH-H-P) 100 C)  c-IIc-I  PlC)  I-JO  CD  CD  •  CD  H-En 0  II-’HitZ IP1 P1 H-  Ixi1 CD CD  CD H  00 QH  Dl  H—  p-’-  -<  •  —IC)  C)  ‘H-  CD  km  CD  c)  •  CD  0  0  H  0  I.  fr1  H  frt  H-  Q  Cl) •  H-  P1(l)  C) ‘<CD  CD  En  CD  H-  En  H Dl  ‘IX  X  En 0  HCD .  Dl  c-I  0  CD  Dl  H  01  C)  CD  CD  Dl  En  Z  H  01 En En  -  101  -  H  CD  i-  Dl  CD  CD 0  Ow C) HH ‘D 0 O En 0 H -b  HH-•  0  C)  HI  Z  CD  C) U) Cfl CD  Plc-I  H-  C)  CI) 0  c-I P1 C)  Dl Plc-I  c-I  P1” H  0  En  CD  fri)P)  0  ))  0  •  0  .  <‘—.  CC) I ç-I-• H-  En  —CD  -  IOCD  CD 10 c-lOH-  < CD 100  fr(t-  P1 N P1  0  C) C))  0  U)  H  C))  H  CD  ••  CD  Cl  o  0  •  H  •  0) U]  i-  CD  CD 0  f-H  C)  CD ClU)  C)  •  rxiCD 1 C1C)) I—’ ClU) t CD•  H  U)  CD U)  -1  H  IX  CD  U)  —  rl-  Cfl  CD•  CflC)CD 0  HH-  CD  CD W HC)t’ CD b (C)  ‘l-  CD  0 CD  U)  H  H-C H.  Cl  •  l  CD  U)  •  c-i  ‘-< H  C)  H-  HOD  C)  I 0 .O  _-J  ‘l  CD  CD (I)  -  C))  lo  CD  H H  CD  H •  I-’  <  q  H-  I  IH-  H-  0I’l II c  it CD ‘I  Hflit  CD  ci  U)  -.  CD  U)  CD  H  CflU) CD  U)  U)ICD  Io CD{ ‘lI’l  C))  q 0  H-  —  —  ‘<  U) HH-  CDO  C) CD H  _DrI-  o  I  CD C)  Ct 0<  C)) H  CD  Cl  C))  CD ‘l H-CD CD U)  CD ‘1 U)  C))  I..Q  H  CD l  CD  CD  Cl0  •  CD  Hq  CDU)  ci-  ••  U)  C)) U)  C))  0  OD  CD  ‘-3  •  •  Cl U)  CD  H  ‘I  CD  0  H  -“  LrtC))  0  H  C))  HQH  Cl.  H,  U)  CD  Ct  Cl)  .  CD  -  0  U)  q 0  H  H-  Ct  C)  U)  U) •  -  Ct)  -  —  CC).  êl  CD  lCD  IH 10  IC)  -  —  Cl  H-  —QCD  C)  CD l  -4j  CD t,i< ClCD HCfl  0  •  C))  -  H  CD  H  ‘lCDCtH CD l CD CD U)< 0  ‘•xjt-U)  ••  ‘<  Z  •  —  H  H’l  0  —  CD H  •  —  kt--U) IF-- Ct Ic CtCD I 0 lU) C) U) ICD.— IH- - H ‘-° lU)  0  U) r1  CD C) DIHC) IC)) HH-  Cl-  H-< CC)  ‘lit  H i-b H H H-  C))  CD U)  C)  CD  to)  OD’CD  I HH  ts-  C))  H  IU1Clp)  ftYl  ClCri HO <C)  H-H-  C)) H  U)  0  •.  C)) Z U)q C)) i—’  0 qQt 0 H-rt U) ‘lCD  q CD  CD  U)  -b.  H-  Cl)  N  0  —  IH,  I0  —  CD ‘l  IH  jC))  I’l  ‘  I<  Cl) IqCD  OH-  CD  oO  it HH  C))  U]CD  CDci  C)) Ct’l  OW  rtC) H0  C)  U)  H  H-C)  CD H 0 C)H-,.  . 1 Clct  C))  q H-.  Cl  -  cl-CD  C))  0  U)  CD  C))  0  0  10  I  Cl)  0  •  CD  O  0  H-  H  t’JCl)  U)  ‘d ‘1 CD U)  CD -  •  Ct  H  c  H-  0  C)  •  U)  ‘-CD  CCl) Cl)  ‘1  CD<  Cl  C) CD  CD  .  U)  CD  .  pj’—  •  ‘-CD  ‘-<CD •• F--  HU)  [I)  10  1c)  Icn  lCD  Icn  lU)  IH  ID) II—J  IH-  lo  l(fl IC)  CD  CD  U)  U)”  0 CD CD  Ct  U)  Ct  0  •  •  Ct  CD Ct 0  Cl)  0 Ct c-t0 D) H-Cl) Cl) 0 H  0 Oc-  H  )  0  •  •o  HH-  HCt P -.ic-t-O  -‘  CD H ‘1 IU1’1 ‘1 -CD ‘-JCD  H-  U)  H-O 0  H-  Cl) <  -  <  CD Cn C-  CtH-’1  ‘10 0 CD H CD HCl) ctD) Cl)  P) H  U)  CD  H-H  00  U)  U) < D) Ct CD ‘1 ‘1<  1:-’ CD  •  H  •  CD Ct  ‘1 CD  CD  CD  H  01 CD I C).”  a 0 H H  H-  o  U) HCt H-  b) 0 ioD  -  CD  10  Ii—’  lCD  1<  lCD  I  ‘1  CD  IH)Ct  IH-Cl) IHH)  4 I  •  U)  ‘1  Ct  o  U) U) CD 0 H  Qç m  0 cn  c’  0 ‘1..  -  ct H0  CD  0  a’1  CD  Hd  0  U)  Cl)  I  Ct  CD  •  0 Ct IC IH)U)  CD  H) H  Itxj  CD  ‘1 P  aCl) II .o.  CD  o P HQ  -  Io  Ct D) 0 ‘10  Ct  ‘H-  -  o  H  •  N  0  OH)  0  C’  0 p  0  Cr)  Z  Cl)  D)  CD  •  0H) CD ‘1  0  0  C)  $1  •  U)  CD  H-  •  H  O)D)— p.  H-O)  ‘1  Cl)  —  H-  Cl)  IL.)CtO  0  0  0  H H  0 H-  0  H  QH,O  Cl)  CD  CtO  ‘i  0 p  Cl)  OH  WO CD • ct’1 • U) 0  GH-  -H’1  U) HO  c-I-H M)CD I  —0 010  Lxi  Ct.  CD  •  U)  CD U)  0 H-  H-  CD  H  Ct 0 H)CD  ‘<  H-  Cl)  Z CD H< 0 CDCD ‘1  ‘1 0 CD U) •• CD  CD  H-  ..  .  CD  <  U)  CD i-Cl) CD  CD 0  •  H----1  OHCt< D) CD p U)  (1)  CD  Z  II  0-  l-’-  H-CD  I-’ H-  H-  <  CD  •  ‘-<  CD  H  •  U)  p  CD  0  H-  CD  Ct  HH  00  CD’— U) U)  0  <  H-  U)  l 0 C4  “  0  •  o  H  CD ‘1 Ct 0 H-Cl) CD 0 tCD  H H-  0  i)  CD  0 CD U).  cl-U) H-U)  0  )  CD  ctQ  CD  0  ‘1 CD 0 HO Cl) CD  H  Cl)  0  U)  CD  ct H-H  cl-CD D)  H‘1  C 01  01  CD  ct  C))  H-’I  c-i-  0  C)  C))  CC)  H-  H I 0) 0) • H-  O),  CD I’D  H  CD  ctCD  C))  CD  L3l  CD-  (C)  o  CDç-IU) CD c-ICD C) ‘I  (1) (C)  H  (l)C)  0  HCD  ‘I  H)LQ  oD  C)  CD  C))  (I)  CD  F-’  •  0  CD  •  C))  tTj  U)  CD  H  I-  c-I-  C)  U)  CD CD  C)  H-  •  c-I-  -  -  Hc-j • U) H) F-t’I0< tJ • II I-’Hc-I1-  H  0  H)  ‘I CD H-U  ‘ICDCD U)  ‘  CD  U)0 •  ‘IC) CD  CDQ  0  QJj)  0 II C) ‘I rtCD CD H-CD CD C) i CD  HF--  0  C))  00  c-t•  c-I(C)  i-i, D)  C)HH  c-I-CD <  U)  I-  H-r1 <c-I-  -  ,  ti-t-  0•  LQ  C))  o  CD  H---’f-.  i.Q ()Cl)  II P) H-  o  G  Hf)HII  C)  C)  I  0  Z  C).  ‘I  ‘I  (t 0  0) 0’  “°  H  •  q  -  U) • C) ‘—O< F-b-  H H-  I-’-  c-Ic-I-CD<  CD ‘I (C)  1  L°o  c-I-  CD  CDU) F-CD 0  <  CD  CD  -‘  Hf-  C))o  I—’ QC))  CD  .  U)Z  CD 0 CD H-  C))-  p.  Qd  çI-Q  ri-o  lCD C)  CD  (I  CD  CD  f-  U) CDO  -c-I-  H-  C)  0  CD  H-CD  çf  i—0  C) OH)hCD F--. Qd  -  H  •  CD  0  UI  CX)  “°  H  .  Z HC))  t-  c-t I-’0  p.  C)) U) F-HH- H) H)HCC)  c-I-  0(C)  0  <  U) HCD  ,-.  <C)) CD  CC)) c-IH-c-I-  tf-J  U)• C)  C)J  CD  H  0 H  CDI(D  Ict  iU) CDf< ICn  IH) I  CD  .  CD  C) CI) U)  CD  U) CD  C) 0  H  C)  H  CD  CD  I-  ..  0 0 CD U) C))  C)  U) I--  C))  I CD  H  (D  I  I-• IC q  Ic-  C)  •  0  C)  CD  H-  c-I-  0  •  CD  0  CD  CD  Hf-JO  0  0 H)  CD  H.  4 c_  H-  C))  c-I-I H- C))  OI  0 C)  Cl) CD  0  CD C  f-c-I  ‘I  U) CD  CD  U)  C)’  C)  <  RCD  H  HU)  CD  H  _-C)  CD  .  H-U) rI-•-  (I) HW c-I-CD H  01fr I ;srt  HQ  HCD H  CD  •  H)  d  .—c-I-H-I1  H  0  -I-  çt  CD  00  O  Di  H-  U)  CtCt  CD  CD  HII Dl CI H00 ‘1 HH-H) Dl HCD H) CD  nCtCD  -  H  CD-S H’  çtQ  CD  -  Qc1  0  H ‘1 H’CD  O ‘1  -  H  CD U)  CD  U)k<  CD  ‘1  C))  0  H-  •.  H-  00 ‘10  CtDi  Di  H  CD  ri  HIU)  •  U)  DICD  CD  .  kn  OlID  Cfl  CDIH FIO H-  IQ  o o c1 o I-  CD Di  C)  CD  H-  0  i  IC)  OlD) Cl) O1H-  Is3’1  lU)  CD  Hrt  ‘1  •  Di C)  0  rt H-  10 H) Di HH-  0  Ct  U) 0 Di H H-”  Di HCD  CI) Dl  CD ‘1  X  ‘CD  Di  0  C))  CD  CD  H)  OH)  H  j  HDi H’1 0 C))  j-  U)  CD ‘1  Di  H  Di  CD  01OU)  j  -  H-  P U)  •  H  ‘1 I Di  [oQDi  H-  H  to  U).  H  Irt IIH)•  ID)  (Dl lCD IHX-  U)  C)) 0  0  Cl)  0”  lx  IC!) ‘CD  Di  CD Cl)  U)  0  U)-  l’-  -  Q  0  C)  H i—i-  0  CoP) 0 OH H- U) Di 0  to  0  0-  DiC)  0  H  HH)  U)  o  (tU)  Di  ‘1 (D  ‘1  o  H-.  Z  Di  H)  0  CD U)  ()DiH H CD c  010  o  CD  •  C  .  -  CD  HO COO • HDl H  I 01(1)  HO  Ct  U) -tCD U)  CD  Di  CD  Cl)  H  CD  CD  HCD ‘1  lOt)) IH)”  I  l’1d I CD  10  iq  •  H—. O Cl) i D HC CO I-’)  HU)  -  CD  0  H-s)  0  H‘1 Di H’cI  U) ct  Di HHrt  H-C)  OH C)  QO  Di  fl Di H H-Di (tH U)  Cfl HO<  CD  HH H CD  O— H Di  ‘1 U)  CD  H)  H  ‘10  0  C)  Di  H-  1-H H CD H-  CI)  U)  Z CD HDi i—bO I U)  I  H’  0  •  H  (-I Di  •  ‘0  H  CtCD  H-H  H<  CD ‘1ct U) 0 C)) Z Di r’  o  1  o  ‘-  -  IHCI)  IG)H-0  -  10  IH(f)  1< 1Q0  I  lH”  Di  H H-  rI-C) IH- ct CD DiCD 0  10  ICf)  H-  ‘1  Die’  CD  Di H0 ,H  H Di  0 ‘1  H  U)  Di  H .Q  -  -  0  0  C)  ctrt  0  H) CD CD  Ct rt Di PlC)  2 C i) , rt H  CD  0  Z  H-ZN Ct  CD II U) 0  ‘10  0  Di  U)-  Di  1 ‘JQ  -D)  0  H  C)) I—’ ct  i-Q<O H CD  OCD  l01  H-  0 —I  H  H  H  C) 0 Z  CD < CD ‘1  CD  CO  H  CO  CD H  CD  Qti  0  ‘dCl) t ‘1 CD  Ct-”  Z  0 CD  H 0  C)  Ct Ct-  •  .  •  CD  l  CD  •  CO Z • C) CD—H CO Z  Cl) IP’ iCtrt-  0 ( CD  H CD <  Cl)  <txjCO Cl) i CD CO  H Z  CD  CD ‘1 i... 0(tHd  CD CO CO  CO  COP’  Cl) 0 CD Cl’ H ctCO C) 0 I-CO CD 0 CD. Z CD CO CO HH’  CD  P’  F-Cl) Cl) Z rtC Cl) H rt(DC) ‘1 CO 0 CD 0 0  H  CD  Zjct-rt iH H  oI  HIHH.  CD  CD rtCD CD Z ‘1 Ct  Cl)  C) cn CO.  CD  i-  H.  H  ‘1  00  CD  cn Cl) CtCD  HO  I—’  Hp-’-  <CD CD’1  -  CD  H  -1-CD QH  < CD <  ‘-  Cl)  -  H  •  Cl)  CD  COR  CO  CO. CD  )  Cl)  00  CD  CD  CD.  (0  CD ‘1 0(0  rt  CD  •  C) CD  CD  0  -  CO  H  •  H  ‘1  O -. 0 H CD < 0 I-I-, I  CD  CO  Cl)  Ct-CD . CD ‘1 Cl) CD CO • CO  Cl)  1  1 CD CO CD  0 ‘1  rtfr t CD II CD. ti CO t. C)  HO  0  ‘  -  •  Cl)  CD CD  -  -  •  I-  -  -<  H  CD H ‘1Ct-H CD COQ  -l  CD (‘iCD OZ HCl I II siP’ CD <‘1 CD •  .  -  IHHH. 10 HCO IZ Z CtItO 0 H IZO I—n CO CD CO CD ICO  Cl)  • -  -  CD I--  lftO’1  lCD  0 CO  Q CD IC)’1  ‘-  CD CD 1< ‘1 (0 CO CD i-’-Q •  H  H  Cl)  CD  CD  CD CO  H  Ct  ‘1 (0 H  CD  <  H  Cl) H  H 0  Cl)  Ct CD 1  H  i-i-  I lCD IZ  lCD  10) 1<  CD ‘1 CD  t’.)  —)  H  •  CD COO CO •  CD CO  Cl) II  Cl’  c-)  H  CO  H  CD  IZ t-b 0 IP’ IH’1  CO 4 C O  CO  0  --  CD 1 CD’ HZ CO Cl) t-  CO CD CO  CO CO  o°  CD  Cl)  H’1  H  H  Cl)  CO 0  CD  Cl)  CIDCD 0 0 I—P’ Cl)  0 frQ’.  CD  ‘1  Cl)  •  •  Ob OH H• CO CD ‘lCD  H Cl)  CD CO H  CD  (t  ‘1  o  c() 0 HZ C) < CD CD ‘1 rt CO HH Ct 0 Z $-< CO 0  •  H• CO  (fl  ‘1  Cl) CO  CD  Cl)  Ct  Cl) H 0  CD  CD  H  ‘D  0  CO  M  0 CtZ -  H  H  00) ‘1  Cl) H ZCD Z COrt  CD H CD  CO  CO CD H,  CD  •.  1<  ZCO  Cfl  -  H  P’ CD 1 c-t-, ct..  rt-(’) Cl)  P’  -t-CD  CD  -  )  CD  <  0  0  C)  P) CO  Cl) H H Cl)  Cl)  C)  4 C.  H  H)  O  H)  •  -  •  0 H)  H  Q  C))  0  H-  HC)) H  H-  ••  Cl)  CD  H-  H  C)  Di ci-  .  H  CD  Di  ‘lCD  0  0  C)) H  P)  ftHZ Di  ci-  II  -  U)  d  H-  H-U)  0  H-  Ct  Di  W0  H-0  0  H-C))  ri-H  CD  H CD H’lCt  C))  HDi  p.,  H00  CD II U)  ci-  CD  D) 00 Hft  H  O  0 CD  H)ct  i-act0 H-H-P)  0  O  CD  •  o  C!)  ‘I’  0  CD  D) HO  Z  CD QU) 0  w  Q.  HCD  H  (J)’_o  (1)  Oct02 ‘.0  •  -  H  II  D)  0  II  0  ‘0 ‘.0  H  CD  Iri  CD II  H-  U) CD (fl  ri-Itfl Od ‘lIO  lCD  H-H)III  U)ID) IH 0  0Io  H)Ict p) CDl-  •  ‘1  CD H-  Z  p.,  CD  p.i  d-O  CD  C) I))  -  CtH  D)  C) H-O  CD 1  i_I’D)  CD  0H-• • OH-  CD  CD H U) D)  H (DO QctO <  H-  F-(tCfl  CD  HCD  D)0  0  CD  <  •  CD  çtH)  C!)CD  CD  •  H-°  0  CD  Cl)  CD  •  E-  Q•  D)  ci-  Ct  Z  H  CD  ‘  H-  H-  H)O  OH-  Hct. D)  CD  CD  D)  LQ  H-.  0 CD  H H iH-  •  II  H-  H  Di  :  0  n  CD  H CD  H)  •  H-  H  CD  a’  H H  H)  CD U)  0<  0  H  •  u’—  CD  D)  frH  0  HCl) rt  d-H01 H- D) 0 rt U) 01 H) HID) 0 010 •  -  -  H-  CD  -  CD  IQU)  CD rI-tY  CD  D)  CD  O  H H  M  H  -  I—’  0  Ia  1<  Pii kn 0  0  H ()) ‘-  0 H  Ii  O  03 ciI  WCD  Ia’H-  IJH  P) F-SD)  II  0  a’  I  ‘.CD  ci-  H (D 4 C  •  U) ci°H  ct  U)’  CD  ‘-  02 H01  -  -  LQ 1<  lo j  H-HI H H-  00 IZ 10  U)  rt<  CD i  c-tQ  1w  1<  CD  5  0  Cl)  I  ‘-  I n—’  -.  0 H)  CD  CD  Di  1  I))  0  II U) CD” U) U)  01 CD  OH-  CD P)  0  CD  l))  H-  WU) OU)  CD  •  CD H)D)  CD  0  P.,  H  •  •  0’-  •  H H H0  Iod IH- (I)  H )  H-  Ioz3-  0 H  1))  0’ 0  -  10  ‘CD  a’ ‘a’— ct.  IH)0D  ID)  —.  IH• lCD  ID)  IH, lCD I  -  0 I0 fri,1  Q)  0  CD  —  w  CI) •  H)H  ‘  CD  Di  •  •  IDi  0lH-  ri-OIpj ZIQ 0 ‘l ciI ci- IH CD CD 0 Ic-  H H ciHDiH’  C))  CD  (D  WctCDI(t  -  H 0  -D)ICD  H-  •  H)H ‘.0 o  CD  CD 1  U)d 0 CD  U)  Di H  0  H-U)  0  -  c1  U) I))”  CD  ‘  0 H  I  CD  ctH-  U)  CD  0 H)  CD  H-  rt H‘.Q  ‘  CD  ctCfl CD D)CD CD  H CD II  CD  0 C)  (-I  H H  CD  Di  CD  lCD  0  C)  U) o  “irt ‘lCD CDII  CD  ..  a’  Op.,  •  1(1)  I) HIH10 I  kD 0 IHC)  tJ 0  hi,  ID)  0  H-  1))  H-  CD  HCD  ‘I  C  CD  1))  0  CD  0  0  CDCD  CD O hi,Q•  1))  II  O  CD •  0  Ct)  IHD)td HH lCD  Icn  I  •  CD  II  II  0 C  H-  CD  ‘I H CD  hi,  0  H CD  ‘1 0  CD  CD  CD  1 H-  q C  i-<  ..—..  •  C/)  •  •  C’)  0 CD CD  CD  CD  Z  CD  1))  •  c-ta  H  0  CD CD,‘I  0  H 1)) ct-3  CD  C  CD  C’)  C’)  H  -  •  c-I-<’—  CD  H-H  II  0  D)CD CD  CD  CD  H-  ‘Tj  •  •  CD -  CD CDII CD  Cl)  0  CD  CD  I  0  .  00 0 00 II LQ 0 HH0 D) CD01 c-t  CD°  0  0  H-CD c-I-CD  CD II CD  <  1))  H0  Q CD H-H,0 ctH I-C Q0  H-c-tb  1)) c-tO  c-I-  •CD  H-  -  -  ‘CDX lCD  CD IHCD  10  I l  IX  CD  lCD  0  0 H-CD  0 CD 0  0  Q  0  I—’  0  0  lCD  ICDb  CD  IH-  1))  IttCD H-CD IOCD  II  kD  H-  ‘-a-  C  C’) 1))  lo  1))  H  -  CD ‘1  ‘I  0  H-  CD c-I-•  CD  c-1 c-I-  D)  0  c-I-  CD  t’JO  CDP) H  CDII  QCD  0  •  c-t  H.II H Q 1)’  CD  •  •  •  HCD4 H-  C)  ••  CD  H,Ct  H-C HHH.  -  CD  H-  oD C  ••  lCD  CD  I-() Ic-I-CD Ii-’ctCD 1<  .  lCD IIIctII Q lCD 1)) 0’ CD d0 DCD lCD q  p)  0 c-I-  0  •  ‘I  •  H-  c-  •  CD  CD ‘I  1)) 1)) HH  00  CD  CD II  ‘I  CD  H-c-I-  H-  0  II  CD  <CDCD  o  00  Z  o  H  Q0  0  1)’  —-  —o  —.  0  C  CDCD  •  CD  .  .  ()QH o•  •  lCD  H-H  CD  IHCD CD 0  ktCD  Ip  lCF-0 D ‘I  ..  CD HCD  1))  •  H  H  c-I-.  0  ‘  X  Cd)  OH-  Hfri  0 HCl)  CDHO 00 CD  ct  lCD  D)H-CD  1))  CD  H  CD  C ‘III CDc-I-  CD  ui  O  HH. 0’ H 0  1  II  CD Ho H  )  C4c-I-O 0 CD  C  -o  0 H-  Jc-tCD OHQ  LHo  ‘J  CD  00  1))  QHCD  c-I-b--  IHc-I01)) H.CD  0  -‘  Ij c-IlCD 0 f< c-tCD• 10 CD ‘-3  CD HCD CD ‘I CD  ‘1  H H  •  H-  H  1)) 0  CD  CD.  CD H 0  0  c-tc-t H-H00 0 fri,. •.  CD H°  0 H-  c-I-H-  1)) H-II c-l —i,CD HII 5  .!t)  CD  H  HHH-  CD  c-I  I-I, CD 0  0 CD  Hc-I-b  C  IID)  •  I.-  H 0  -  (1)0  CD  C  ‘0.  Cl)  I-’-  —  rt  CD CD CD CDCD  0  H-  D)II  ‘1  Z 01)) CD  CD  t  W  HH  CD H CD  H 0  2  •  (1)  •  H CI) (9  • Cl)  CD 1  •  Cl)  CD  H CDV—. I-’-  0  0  H  CD  I  Cl-  0  (1)  9’  CD  I Cl). CD-  Ct.  0  9)  IC)  H-  9)  0  9)  1  09)  0  Cti  P’  -iCD •  ct  C-’  CD  (-1-  U  H9)0  C)  0  c-I-  0 H CD  0  CD  1  0  H-H  Cl)  CD CD 9)  (9 •  -  F-’-  .  CD  -  ‘<  ct  Cl)  H-CD  H0 OH)  9’ Cl-  HCD  II  <  CD  cn  < CD H  9)  ‘  CD  9, H  -  H Ct  CD  • —Cl••  Cl)  Ct 9)  9)  —So  0  H  qo  •  P’  CD 1 ,  •  Cl) H-  •  HH  C) .  0  9)  H  0 0  ‘0 HCD .  Q CD.  Cl) 0  CD  H-  •  <  CD  Cl)  <CD 0 ‘ Z 0< CD  C  0 H)  0 H  0 N  CD 0  H 0 <HP) Cl) CD  0  •  C4  .  n1  •  H  C19 (  0<  H  0 CO 9) H— • 0 CD  ‘<  CD  .CD’CD  0  CD  CD  H)Q (l) Hrt 1<  < CD  9)  ,  2.  2 CD  CD  CD Ct —3” • CD  I  I F010.  ‘-.)  40  CD  ‘  •  Cl- Cl) Cfl  9) (t  d-  •  Cl  CD  CD H-$) CtZ  0 0  0 jO<  CD  0  HCt-  CD  C) (1)0  0  CtCD  Q  0 HP)  0  CD  CD..  CD  <  1  HCtZ  9)  0 0  9)  1  0  CD 9) CD 1 0 Cl) 0  CD r-l-h CD  CD II  CD  CD -.---9’ 1 1L4Cl• 9) C)  9)  9)  9)  Cl)  Cl)  Cl)  9)  Cl)  HO  CD  H  c:l H) 0  H-  CD  -.c  • •  -  CD’ 109) ‘O  <-  100  1° IHH-.  0  Cl) 0  Cl) (1)0  Cl)  Cl)  (12  dl-  CD  PL  CD  -  9)  Ct  H  d  9)  P  IH CD p ii—’ I 9) I 10  lqj 2 10 Ct  c-I-  HO CD (9 • CD  I  01 0  i’  CD  ‘D F-’H  Z H Cl) CD  CD  H  0  Cl)  ‘  CD  9)  I—P)  9)  9) Cl) 09) 0  019)  bi  CD  Cl)  CD  H  P)  Ct CD  0  Ct  I-’  H-  00 H)H)  Cl)  c-I-H  CDQ CD  9)  C)  •  H-  CD  < -  (9  0  ClCt 9 Cl-•  <  (l)  1i  •  C-ct  < 9’ CD l-  ‘1  CD  u  ‘.i  H.  Cl)  I ‘<in-H  OICD  O)  I0  9) ‘1 IP) H) Cnfr-t-CD ‘<Ict-  0  CD 0  Cl)  (1)  •  I  9) H  CD  (:1)  0  CD  ‘-3  CD  C<  (9  CD -  lCD I  ICD IH  I  lo Io IC-’I  H  I(fl  0 Cl)  cl-h  rt CD H 0H  9)  Cl)  H  H  CD  •  (t CD  En  z  1  -  H  H  CD  o  H  En  Io IH- HID)d IH”  lo  IICflQj  I  ID)  10) cllCD  1< I’ iii IH  IH-  Irt  I  En • I  H  Ii-  I  HlEn  ‘go’  C) 0 HI  CD  H  • ‘<Cl) 0•  Z CD  •  CD En  H-  j  QH-  CD  En  En-  rtC)  ‘1  -  0) C)  0)  ‘-a  En ct ‘H-  IU1 H)C) H  Cnn  HCtH  En  0  0)  H  0  CD  -i  Q  ‘-dCD  0)  C)  En  CD  0  CD  Cl)  -  En  ct H-  0)  CD H  D)CD U) En •• U)  0  H 0 CD  H< CD  CD CD 0  -  I IIH IL.)  L  CDICD ‘1 lEn H- lEn CD-  EnI0Z I Q  0)I H H) I CDId I IH-  0 H  •  En  H-  En  r1  En  CD  CD  H)  IH)CD  ct  IH 0 10  I  1  CD 4 c-  H 0) CD (t (I) • CD  CD  H  •  ct LO 0 HJ 0 Q  0)  CD  <  I  0(1) 0)  I  •  I-ct.  H-  0 C)g  H-Ih  Io  CD Z  CD  i  0<  EI)0)  H  Ei)< ctCD  H-  CD  CD  II  ‘1  •  ri0) C)  ‘-D0)  H  En  0)  H  HCt  IoDCD -  -  Ictct  lCD IH  I I lCD 1<  IQ  IH  IH-  IC)  C) c--  En  CD  00)  H  0)  0  H-  çt  D)  N  0)  0  H) CD  0  j  •  0)  -  ,—  .  En  H-  CD  0) C)  .  OD  H  H ‘—H-u CD •  H  En  CD CD  En•  Q  H-  ‘-‘  CD H 0  CD <  0)  En  H-0)  0  H.H)H  o  0 ZCD  -  C) ct H-  rt  n• H CD  En  HEn  —C) H-xjO  0 H) CD  IH-< CD  ti  CD.  -  --  CD  M  H  CD  ct < Q) CD ,CD En HOH H- 0) 0) ct I-<  0)0)  En  C)  0 j-CD H)  En  0  En jJH)  0)  0  40 L )  CD OH) H)  HH-O  En  l0  ctH)  IZ 0 H-CD  En  10  (•) IO 3 ‘1 CD CD H)CD IH C) lo’ CD IctrtH-  ID  ‘1  H-H  CE) HEn  CD  •  •  •  En  ‘< 0)  )  En  C) H 0) CD  CD  H  H-  CD En H-ct  LsiP  o’En I  p, CD  H-  ‘< 0) ‘1 H-  IOD  ‘  -  0) H  H-  ‘  .  ctHi rl1 CDk<  CD  0)  H-(t  ‘1  0)  0 H)  -  I-  qHCD fr 00  rx  HCD  CD  0  0  •  ct  CD  C)  0 H 00)  C)  En  CD  HO H  0 C) H  0)  I-P) H-ct  En En OH-  CD  0 0 H)H  0)0  Z  ‘1d  •  H CDO)  EnD)  CD II  i  C  H  p,  H  CD  Cl)  I1  H-  CD 1  CD  Ix  •  ‘CD H-  H-  H-  H-  H  II-hCD  ClU)  I100  CD  OH  II--t)  Io  C)  U)  CD 0  H0 H  o 01  c-i-•  11  0 HC  .  q  <  H 0 IHCltCD<  I  H  C  H.ct  CD  0 H-  0’ i-h  CD  U)  CD  U) C))  I—’-  -  fr  0)  CD lU) ci0  IC  loct I’i lCD 0) b ri-  IU)-  Ht CD  H0)0  (I)  HCD  0)  0  Cl  CD < ‘lCD  0  C))  •  C—  0  ow  H-  0  H  ci  C))  H  Ul  c-I-  0)  100  •  H-  t  CD  U)  —JO ciI a H0 0 O  -  0)  H H H-  H  01(D  t<CDU) I1  IU)  (l  IH  Iohb . IC) h-- H- -  ItflQ  U)  H-  -.-  ri-  --  CD  CD  C))  Z  H-  CD  1  •  -  0) 0  ‘-0  c-iClCD  0)  0  Cc-i-  0  CD I1  0’  C ‘1  (t  ctCD .0) 1 H -  -  IU1C  IH  0) w  kD  Iwo  IHHH  b  IH  ICDCD ii H. Irt H1o  I1  U)  (D  H  H  H  CD  0  CD H  H-  c-i-  CD H  It)  0  H c-iCD  H-ct  C  CD  H-  C)  CD  CD  CD  o’  c-ict  c-i-  C H  -  CD U) Cl-  H  Cr.i  0’  d  0  ri-CD  CD  0) C)  c-i-  H  C -..  •  H  H-  0)  CD H  0 H-  0  Z •.  H  •  U)  H-  -jH0 I  Hc-i  w  CD  Ict  1° 7j  I IC I  I  0  -  i--_• Cl. •  0) H—4  I  c-iHC) CD  CD  U) U)  Cl)  0 0  H-  C),  III  Z  10 •  Ic-i-  10)  Ii-  0)  CD  tn  ct 0)  I lI1  •  —  H  —  -  H-  CD  U) U) i1•  CD  H-  I—’ HH-C) c-i-0)  U) 0 OH 0  CD  ‘d  00  00 C)) C ci‘1 H0)0  H-  i()  C  Cl  H-LO  1  CD  Hc-i--  -  -  10 II1 IQ. lCD III Iw  IU)rl-  IP IH-rt  c1  U)  CD  <  CD  H-  H  i  .  H  U)  CD  C)  C))  c-i-  C))  •  q  1)  Ct)  0’  f  (-I00 0 -h•  00 CD  C  H0 H U) 0) HCl  C))  CD  CD  —° • -  0’  Hct  H  HCD  •  —  iOU) P1 0  cr  ftJcilCD ct IZCD 10’ <  U)  HU)  CD  H-  0)  H  U)  —3  H  I1  H-  CD C  •  I I  0  CD  CD  Ic-i-c-i-  Ii-hH  0  lCD I1 Ic-I- 0) IH-(t I H  c-t C HCD  H  0 00) Clc-1“3 H 0  CD  H-  CD 0  C  C)  H H-  (t  CD  C)  LJçt  yU)  U) C  < ‘-‘3CD I  -  Ia  1<  IC) Ii-lCD Ic-i-  0  I 001 II----IC) c,0  0  IZ 10 IZ  IC)  1w  frrJCD  0) II  H  CD  •  H) ii  1w  H-  )  H)  •  OP.’  I-  PCI)  IC)  •  •  0  C) CD  H-  (0 P) h —.) (.ftCD  H, -  H-  (0 Cl  P. CD  CD  z  IO  -  CD  CD I’J1P)  -  Cfl  H-C))  QO  Cl)  C) CD  H-  ft1  !)) CD ftC!) CD HH-CD C)) 0 P.’  h  p.’ HCD  Z  rt C)  Cl)  1 CD 0  t-  (DO I-  ‘dHd  ft CD  :  H  •  C))  IHH-  cA)  C)  C!) CD  )  H  --  O OD  0  IH, 10 ‘1  (1)  H-  I•J)  Q C)  w  Q—. H,  0  •  0  IXtn  IC!) lCD  CD i  ftc!)  CDt!)  ft  CI)  HH-  o  1<  ftU2  0  II  CD  H)  H-tj’)  C1D  CD  CD  p).  h  C.4H-ft 0 -  ftft CD  ‘1  II  Cl)  0  •  tsi  H  -  -  Itn  ft  C))  CD  CD CD  ft  CD  It(D IH-(D  ft  Iftb IH(D  Ip.’ I  .  <  CD 0  ft.  0  CD  CD  Cn  H  0 0  (‘3 H  215  Appendix A  CONCEPTIONS OF SELF AND R  The purpose of this study is to examine how people understand and experience their relationships with others. If you are currently in a romantic relationship of at least three months duration you are eligible to participate in this study. The questionnaire that follows asks you to provide some information about your feelings about being in relationships with close others. The questionnaire should take about 5 minutes to complete. On the basis of this questionnaire, we will select some people to participate in a larger study of close relationships, involving a two-hour questionnaire. Therefore, we ask that you provide your first name and last initial, your sex, and a telephone number where you may be contacted for possible further participation in this study. This study is being undertaken as part of the requirements for Sandra Parker’s Ph.D. thesis. Everything that you write will be kept completely confidential. Individuals eligible for participation in the next part of the study will be contacted within three months of submitting their questionnaires. The responses of those individuals who are not contacted within three months will be destroyed. You may refuse to participate or withdraw from this study at any time without jeopardizing your class standing. If you complete the questionnaire it will be assumed that your consent to participate in this study has been given. Thank you for your time and participation. The benefits which you may gain from taking part in this study include an increased awareness of your views and experience of relationships with others. If you have any questions or would like further information, you are welcome to contact the investigators at the numbers given below. In addition, the following 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 822-6138  Relationship Questionnaire Please think about the way you usually about all of your close relationships relationships, or your friendships, or general, across ll of your relationships  -  feel in your close relationships with others. Think not just how you usually feel in your romantic your family relationships, but how you feel in 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 letter corresponding to the style that best describes you or is closest to the way you generally are in your close relationships. A.  It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me.  B.  I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry that I 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 that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.  D.  I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.  Referring to the four descriptions on the previous page, please use the scales below to rate h of the relationship styles (A, B, C, & D) according to the extent to which you think each description corresponds to your usual relationship style across all of your close relationships.  Not at all like me  Very much like me  Somewhat like me  StyleA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  StyleB  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  StyleC  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  StyleD  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  48  Please 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 3. Do you live with your romantic partner? Yes  No  No  4. Is this your only current romantic relationship? Yes  No  5. Is your romantic partner male or female? Male Female  Now, 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  Female  So that one of the investigators may contact you for future participation in our study, we ask 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.  2t  I  CONCEPTIONS OF SELF AND RELATIONSHIPS  I  The purpose of this study is to examine how people understand and experience their current relationships with others. We are interested in your current romantic relationship, closest same-sex friendship, and closest opposite-sex friendship (other than your romantic partner). It is very important that you complete this questionnaire on your own, without consulting with others. Your unique point of view is very valuable to us, since you are the expert on your experience. 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 tell us what it feels like for you to be in those relationships. The questionnaire that follows asks you to provide some information about yourself and about each of the three relationships. For each relationship, you are asked to complete a set of questions about what you generally feel and do when you are with each of those persons. The questionnaire 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 write your name or student identification on this questionnaire. We will create an anonymous identification number for each respondent. You may refuse to participate or withdraw from this study at any time without jeopardizing your class standing. If you complete the questionnaire it will 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 in this study include an opportunity to reflect on and share your experience of being in relationships, and an increased awareness of your views of relationships with others. If you have any questions or would like further information, you are welcome to contact the investigators at the numbers given below. In addition, we invite you to contact the investigators for information about the results and findings of this study, which will be available to you approximately one year from now. Also, the following 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. Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672.  Annual  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 822-6138  Part 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  2. What is your age?  (in years)  Male = 2  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 the extent to which you feel your ethnic identification influences your close relationships with others: (Circle one). 1 not at all  2 a little  3 moderately  4 very much  5 completely  Please tell us about your romantic partner: 1.  What is her/his sex?  Female = 1  2.  What is her/his age?  (in years)  3.  How long have you been in this relationship?  Male = 2 years and  months  4. How often, on average, do you see/speak to this person? Number of times day, one) week, or month —  5.  —  How close are you to this person? (use the scale below for your answer) 1 2 3 4 5 a little somewhat moderately very extremely  Please tell us about your closest same-sex friend: The only exceptions are: do romantic partner again, and do not describe your mother or father. 1. What is her/his sex?  Female = 1  2. What is her/his age?  (in years)  3.  per (check  —  r describe  Male = 2  How long have you been in this relationship?  years and  months 4. How often, on average, do you see/speak to this person? Number of times one) day, week, or month —  —  your  per (check  —  5. 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 5 a little somewhat fairly very extremely  Please turn over...  z2i Page 2 Please tell us about your closest opposite-sex friend: The only exceptions are: do !22.t describe your romantic partner again, and do not describe your mother or father. 1.  What is her/his sex?  2.  What is her/his age?  3. 4. 5.  6.  Female = 1  Male = 2  (in years) How long have you been in this relationship?  years and  months  How often, on average, do you see/speak to this person? Number of times one) day, week, or month Is this person a relative by blood or marriage? (if so, please state the kin relationship)  per (check  How close are you to this person? (use the scale below for your answer) 1 2 3 4 5 a little somewhat fairly very extremely  Part 2: Romantic partner The next few pages will focus on your relationship with your romantic partner. Please think about that relationship and, using the scales provided below, give your best estimate of how 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 using the scale below): 1 never  2 rarely  3 occasionally  1. pick up on your feelings 2. feel like you’re not getting anywhere 3. show an interest 4. get frustrated 5. change the subject 6. share similar experiences 7. keep feelings inside 8. respect my point of view 9. see the humour in things 10. feel down 11. express an opinion clearly  4 more often than not  5 most of the time  6 always  ..  .(answer  Page 3 When you talk about things that matter to your romantic partner, how often do you... (answer using the scale below): 1 never  2 rarely  3 occasionally  4 more often than not  5 most of the time  6 always  1. become receptive 2. get impatient 3. try to understand 4. feel moved 5. avoid being honest 6. get discouraged 7. have difficulty listening 8. get involved 9. feel energized 10. get bored 11.keepanopenmind MSIS: Keeping in mind your relationship with your romantic partner, please use the scale below to tell us how often you experience the following: 1 2 Very rarely  3  4  5 6 7 Some of the time  8  9 10 Almost always  1. 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 with him/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/her when 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 disclos ures?  Please turn over...  a13 Page 4 Keeping in mind your relationship with your romantic partner, please use the scale below to tell us how much you experience the following: 2 1 Not much  3  4  5  6 A little  7  8  10 9 A great deal  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 your relationship with him/her? 1 5. How important is it to you that he/she be encouraging and supportive to you when 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 typically handle things when you want to get your way with that person. Please use the scale below to tell us how characteristic of you are the following statements: 1 Not at all like me  2  3 Somewhat like me  4  5 Very much like me  1.  I try to investigate an issue with my romantic partner to find a solution acceptable 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 conflict with my romantic partner to myself.  4.  I try to integrate my ideas with those of my romantic partner to come up with a decision jointly.  5.  I try to work with my romantic partner to find solutions to a problem which satisfy our expectations.  Page 5 l(eeping in mind your relationship with your romantic partner, think about how you typically handle things when you want to get your way. Please use the scale below to tell us how characteristic of you are the following statements: 1 Not at all like me 6.  2  3 Somewhat like me  4  5 Very much like me  7.  I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with my romantic partner. 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 a problem 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 resolved in the best possible way. 23. I collaborate with my romantic partner to come up with decisions acceptable to us. 24. I try to satisfy the expectations of my romantic partner. 25. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation with my romantic partner. 26. I try to keep my disagreement with my romantic partner to myself in order to 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...  ac Page 6 Part 3: Same-sex Friend The next few pages will focus on your relationship with the person you identified at the beginning of this questionnaire as your closest same-sex friend. Please think about that relationship and, using the scales provided below, give your best estimate of how often or how much 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 never  2 rarely  3 occasionally  4 more often than not  5 most of the time  6 always  1. pick up on your feelings 2. feel like you’re not getting anywhere 3. show an interest 4. get frustrated 5. change the subject 6. share similar experiences 7. keep feelings inside 8. respect my point of view 9. see the humour in things 10. feel down 11. express an opinion clearly When you talk about things that matter to your closest same-sex friend, how often do you.. .(answer using the scale below): 1 never  2 rarely  1. become receptive 2. get impatient 3. try to understand 4. feel moved 5. avoid being honest 6. get discouraged 7. have difficulty listening 8. get involved 9. feel energized 10. get bored 11. keep an open mind  3 occasionally  4 more often than not  5 most of the time  6 always  MSIS:  Page 7  Keeping in mind your relationship with your closest same-sex friend, please use the scale below to tell us how often you experience the following: 1 2 Very rarely  3  4  5 7 6 Some of the time  8  10 9 Almost always  1. 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 with him/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/her when 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 your relationship with him/her? 1 5. How important is it to you that he/she be encouraging and supportive to you when 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 you typically handle things when you want to get your way with that person. Please use the scale below to tell us how characteristic of you are the following statements: 1 Not at all like me  2  3 Somewhat like me  4  5 Very much like me  1.  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 conflict with my friend to myself.  Please turn over...  Page 8 1 Not at all like me  2  3 Somewhat like me  4  5 Very much like me  4. 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 satisfy our expectations. 6. 7.  I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with my friend. 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 a problem 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 resolved in the best possible way. 23. I collaborate with my friend to come up with decisions acceptable to us. 24. I try to satisfy the expectations of my friend. 25. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation with my friend. 26. I try to keep my disagreement with my friend to myself in order to 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 9  Part 4: Opposite-sex Friend The next few pages will focus on your relationship with the person you identified at the beginning of this questionnaire as your closest opposite-sex friend. Please think about that relationship and, using the scales provided below, give your best estima te of how often or how much the following things are experienced in your closest opposite-sex friends hip. When you talk about things that matter to y, how often does your friend scale below): 1 never  2 rarely  3 occasionally  4 more often than not  5 most of the time  ..  .(answer using the  6 always  1. pick up on your feelings 2. feel like you’re not getting anywhere 3. show an interest 4. get frustrated 5. change the subject 6. share similar experiences 7. keep feelings inside 8. respect my point of view 9. see the humour in things 10. feel down 11. express an opinion clearly When you talk about things that matter to your closest opposi te-sex friend, how often do you... (answer using the scale below): 1 2 3 4 5 6 never rarely occasionally more often most of always than not the time 1. become receptive 2. get impatient 3. try to understand 4. feel moved 5. avoid being honest 6. get discouraged 7. have difficulty listening 8. get involved 9. feel energized 10. get bored 11. keep an open mind  Please turn over...  MSIS:  Page 10  Keeping in mind your relationship with your closest opposite-sex friend, please use the scale below to tell us how often you experience the following: 1 2 Very rarely  3  4  5 7 6 Some of the time  8  9 10 Almost always  1. 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 with him/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/her when 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 your relationship with him/her? 1 5. How important is it to you that he/she be encouraging and supportive to you when 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 you typically handle things when you want to get your way with that person. Please use the scale below to tell us how characteristic of you are the following statements: 1 Not at all like me  2  3 Somewhat like me  4  5 Very much like me  1.  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 conflict with my friend to myself.  a3o  Page 11 1 Not at all like me  2  3 Somewhat like me  4  4.  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 satisfy our expectations.  6.  I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with my friend. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse.  7.  5 Very much like me  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 a problem 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 resolved in the best possible way. 23. I collaborate with my friend to come up with decisions acceptable to us. 24. I try to satisfy the expectations of my friend. 25. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation with my friend. 26. I try to keep my disagreement with my friend to myself in order to 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...  .231 Page 12 Part 6: ROSS Now, please think specifically about your close same-sex friendships. Think about how you usually feel, and CIRCLE the letter which best corresponds to the way you generally are in your close same-sex friendships.  A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others of the same sex. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others of the same sex not accept me.  B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others of the same sex. I want emotionally close relationships with others of the same sex but I find it difficult to trust others of the same sex completely. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to becom e too close to others of the same sex.  C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others of the same sex, but I often feel that they are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortabl e being without close same-sex friendships, but I sometimes worry that others of the same sex don’t value me as much as I value them.  D. I am comfortable without close emotional friendships with others of the same sex. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others 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 styles (A, B, C, & D) according to the extent to which you think of the relationship each description corresponds to your usual relationship style across your close same-sex friendships. Not at all like me  Somewhat like me  StyleA StyleB  1  2  1  StyleC StyleD  1 1  2 2 2  3 3 3 3  4 4 4 4  Very much like me  5 5 5 5  6 6 6 6  7 7 7 7  Page 13  Part 7: RQOS Now, please think specifically about your close opposite-sex friendships (not including your romantic partner). Think about how you usually feel, and CIRCLE the letter which best corresponds 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 comfo rtable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others of the opposite sex not accept me.  B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others of the opposite sex. I want emotio nally close relationships with others of the opposite sex but I find it difficult to trust them completely. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others of the opposite sex.  C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others of the opposite sex, but I often feel that they are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being withou t close opposite-sex friendships, but I sometimes worry that others of the opposi te sex don’t value me as much as I value them.  D. I am comfortable without close emotional friendships with others of the opposite sex. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on 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 of the relationship styles (A, B, C, & D) according to the extent to which you cli think each description corresponds to your usual relationship style across your close opposite-sex friends hips. -  Not at all like me  Somewhat like me  StyleA  1  2  3  4  StyleB  1  2  3  4  StyleC  1  2  3  4  StyleD  1  2  3  4  Very much like me  5 5 5 5  6 6 6 6  7 7 7 7  Please turn over...  Page 14  Part 8: RORR Now, please think specifically about your romantic relationships. Think about how you usually feel, and CIRCLE the letter which best corresponds to the way you generally are in your romantic relationships.  A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to a romantic partner. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having a romantic partner not accept me.  B. I am uncomfortable getting close to a romantic partner. I want an emotionally close relationship with a romantic partner but 1 find it difficult to trust romantic partners completely. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to a romantic partner.  C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with a romantic partner, but I often feel that they are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without a romantic partner, but I sometimes worry that they don’t value me as much as I value them.  D. I am comfortable without a close emotional relationship with a romantic partner. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on a romantic 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 relationship styles (A, B, C, & D) according to the extent to which you think each description corresponds to your usual relationship style in your romantic relationships. Not at all like me  Somewhat like me  StyleA  1  2  3  4  StyleB  1  2  3  4  StyleC StyleD  1  2 2  3  4  3  4  1  Very much like me  5 5 5 5  6 6 6 6  7 7 7 7  Thank you for taking part in our study of personal relationships. We appreciate your contribution of time and energy, and we value your unique perspective on your relationships.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0088298/manifest

Comment

Related Items