ThesisPDF Available

Scholars Junction Scholars Junction Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations How Attachment Styles Moderate the Impact Social Network How Attachment Styles Moderate the Impact Social Network Members have upon Romantic Relationships Members have upon Romantic Relationships

Authors:
Mississippi State University Mississippi State University
Scholars Junction Scholars Junction
Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations
5-12-2012
How Attachment Styles Moderate the Impact Social Network How Attachment Styles Moderate the Impact Social Network
Members have upon Romantic Relationships Members have upon Romantic Relationships
Jayne Kathryn Denson
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Denson, Jayne Kathryn, "How Attachment Styles Moderate the Impact Social Network Members have
upon Romantic Relationships" (2012).
Theses and Dissertations
. 2505.
https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/2505
This Graduate Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at
Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of
Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact scholcomm@msstate.libanswers.com.
HOW ATTACHMENT STYLES MODERATE THE INFLUENCE SOCIAL
NETWORK MEMBERS HAVE UPON ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
By
Jayne Kathryn Denson
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of
Mississippi State University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science
in Psychology
in the Department of Psychology
Mississippi State, Mississippi
May 2012
Copyright 2012
By
Jayne Kathryn Denson
_________________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________
HOW ATTACHMENT STYLES MODERATE THE INFLUENCE SOCIAL
NETWORK MEMBERS HAVE UPON ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
By
Jayne Kathryn Denson
Approved:
H. Colleen Sinclair Deborah K. Eakin
Assistant Professor of Psychology Associate Professor of Psychology
(Director of Thesis) (Committee Member)
Cliff McKinney Deborah K. Eakin
Assistant Professor of Psychology Associate Professor of Psychology
(Committee Member) (Graduate Coordinator)
Gary L. Myers
Professor and Dean,
College of Arts & Sciences
Name: Jayne Kathryn Denson
Date of Degree: May 12, 2012
Institution: Mississippi State University
Major Field: Psychology
Major Professor: Dr. H. Colleen Sinclair
Title of Study: HOW ATTACHMENT STYLES MODERATE THE INFLUENCE
SOCIAL NETWORK MEMBERS HAVE UPON ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIPS
Pages in Study: 60
Candidate for Degree of Master of Science
Research has established that network members’ opinions do impact romantic
relationship outcomes. The present study examined whether attachment styles moderate
the impact social network members have upon relationship satisfaction and commitment.
Participants were primed to activate one of three attachment styles, and then read one of 6
vignettes describing a hypothetical relationship experiencing approval/disapproval from
friends/family. After reading, participants completed measures to indicate how satisfied
and committed they would be in the hypothetical relationship. Thus, the study employed
a 3 (Type of opinion: approval, disapproval, no opinion) x 2 (Source of opinion: parent,
friend) x 3 (Attachment prime: secure, anxious, avoidant) factorial design. Analyses
revealed that supportive network opinions increase relationship satisfaction and
commitment relative to relationships facing disapproval. However, the impact of
disapproval was not significantly different from knowing nothing about the network’s
perception. No other effects emerged, perhaps due to the failure of the attachment prime.
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this research to the five individuals who truly understand
what it took to accomplish this: Katie Collier, Lauren Colvin, Ben Fay, John MacArthur,
and Ben Walker.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to give thanks and praise to my Heavenly father
for His grace and blessings throughout the entire project. Without Him, this is nothing. I
also thank my family for their never ending love and patience.
I thank Dr. Cliff McKinney for his advice and knowledge. I owe my deepest
gratitude to Donna Barnes, Lynn Ware, and Chris Webb, who supported me on a daily
basis, and Dr. Edward Manning, who gave me the encouragement to successfully
complete my work.
Most importantly, though, I thank Dr. Deborah Eakin for her guidance throughout
my undergraduate and graduate career, and Dr. Marty Giesen who has become a source
of inspiration and who has impacted my future far more than he realizes.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER1
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1
Social Networks .................................................................................................2
Type of Network Opinion..................................................................................4
Source of Network Opinion ...............................................................................6
Attachment Theory ............................................................................................7
The Present Research.......................................................................................11
II. METHODS ......................................................................................................14
Participants.......................................................................................................14
Design ..............................................................................................................14
Materials and Procedure ..................................................................................14
Demographics ............................................................................................15
Network Members Information .................................................................15
Attachment Prime ......................................................................................16
Sentence Scrambles ...................................................................................16
Writing Task ..............................................................................................17
Relationship Vignettes ...............................................................................17
Source of Opinion. ...............................................................................18
Type of Opinion ...................................................................................19
Processing Questions .................................................................................19
Dependent Variables – Experimental Materials ........................................19
Relationship satisfaction ......................................................................19
Commitment to relationship ................................................................20
Manipulation Checks. ..........................................................................20
iv
III. RESULTS ........................................................................................................22
Manipulation Checks .......................................................................................22
Type of Opinion .........................................................................................22
Source of Opinion ......................................................................................23
Attachment Style ........................................................................................23
Hypothesis Testing...........................................................................................25
Type of Opinion .........................................................................................26
Attachment Styles ......................................................................................26
Source of Opinion ......................................................................................28
IV. GENERAL DISCUSSION ..............................................................................29
Caveats .............................................................................................................30
Interpretation and Implications ........................................................................34
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................37
APPENDIX
A IRB APPROVAL EMAIL ...............................................................................41
B ONLINE SURVEY..........................................................................................43
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Manipulation check means across conditions ....................................................25
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1. Courtship-process model ......................................................................................4
2. Type of opinion and attachment style means on commitment...........................27
3. Type of opinion and attachment style means on satisfaction .............................27
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Research examining romantic relationships suggests that couples do not function
alone but rather develop within a social network (Allan, 2006). Although the impact of
social networks has been a topic of relationships research for over 30 years, the need to
better understand social network influence has increased among the research community
within the past decade. In fact, some have argued that the future of relationship science
lies in examining the social systems within which relationships develop (Reis, Collins, &
Berscheid, 2000). Advocates of this “systems perspective” argue that studying networks
is fundamental to the understanding of contemporary society and the role that personal
relationships have within it (Allan, 2006).
Social networks impact the development of romantic relationships through
support, opinions, and other avenues. In particular, opinions from network members can
lead to the success or failure of romantic relationships. Specifically, research has shown
that generally social network approval leads to more satisfying relationships while
disapproval leads to less satisfying relationships, at least when that opinion comes from
friends. Findings have been less consistent about the impact of parental opinion,
particularly parental disapproval (Driscoll, Davis, & Lipetz, 1972; Felmlee, 2001). Thus
research has yet to conclude what it is that makes an individual decide who they listen to
for relationship appraisals. In the present study, I examined whether variations in
attachment style can explain why people attend to different (i.e., positive and negative
1
opinions) from different sources (i.e., friends or family). I will begin with a review of the
existing literature examining the impact social networks have on romantic relationships,
including addressing the limitations. Then I will examine how attachment theory might
play a role in determining the influence that network members possess.
Social Networks
Recently, Niehuis, Huston, and Rosenband (2006) formulated a model that
captures the individual, dyadic, and network levels of influence on romantic relationship
outcomes. This courtship-process model depicts how a relationship progresses from the
initial meeting to marriage and how it is impacted by multiple levels of factors, including
the social network. As can be seen in Figure 1, this model demonstrates just how
important social networks are because they encompass most of the other processes within
a relationship, except for the larger cultural framework within which the relationship
exists. According to Niehuis et al., within the social network, a relationship starts with
the stable qualities that each partner brings into the romantic relationship, such as
attachment styles which result in working models, or schemas, about how to interact or
what to expect in relationships (Hazan & Shaver 1987; Rholes, Simpson, Tran, Martin, &
Friedman, 2007). These attributes then affect the course the relationship takes (i.e., the
courtship process). The courtship process includes three classes of variables that predict
relationship progression to advanced stages of commitment and the success of that
committed relationship. They are (a) variables that define the progression of the
relationship (e.g., length of courtship), (b) variables that describe the partners’
interactions (e.g., conflict behaviors), and (c) variables reflecting the partners’ cognitions
about the relationship and their partner (e.g., evaluating "is this the right partner for
2
me?"). Each of these variables can be affected by the social network. For example, of
particular interest to the present study is the effect of social networks on evaluations of
the partner and the relationship.
The majority of romantic relationships develop out of introductions made by an
individual’s network members (e.g., friends, family, and acquaintances; Parks, 2007;
Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992). After relationship initiation, social networks continue to
impact the quality of the romantic relationship by providing information to the individual
about the relationship or the romantic partner (Loving, 2006; Parks, 2007). This
information can serve to support or undermine the relationship by affecting the evaluation
an individual makes of his or her partner. For example, network members can explicitly
tell the friend or family member how much they like the new partner to facilitate
relationship growth.
Studies have shown that opinions from our network members are a major
determinant of a wide array of relationship outcomes such as stability, satisfaction,
commitment, and feelings of love (Bryant & Conger, 1999; Felmlee, 2001; Felmlee,
Sprecher & Bassin, 1990; Leslie, Huston & Johnson, 1986; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992).
Positive opinions have the ability to strengthen romantic relationships while negative
opinions can be detrimental. However, there have been some notable exceptions to the
rule that greater social network approval leads to better relationship outcomes and
disapproval leads to relationship demise. Findings are less consistent when it comes to
the impact of disapproval (as opposed to approval) and the impact of parental opinion. I
will review each in turn.
3
Figure 1. Courtship-process model
Type of Network Opinion
Research has shown that social networks play an integral role in all the stages of
romantic relationships through their expression of approval for the couple (Sinclair &
Wright, 2009). For premarital couples, Felmlee et al. (1990) concluded that over a 3-
month period, the amount of support received from network members negatively affected
the breakup rate. Similarly, Lewis (1973) concluded that young adults whose parents
supported their romantic relationship were more likely to continue to be involved in the
relationship as compared to young adults whose parents showed little support. Other
research finds that networks impact relationships even in the later stages, such as
4
marriage, and have demonstrated that positive support increased marital satisfaction and
happiness (Bryant & Conger, 1999).
Across a range of studies it has been clearly demonstrated that social network
support is a significant predictor of the stability of an individual’s romantic relationship.
There have been limitations, however, when it comes to the research on the role
disapproval plays in how network members impact relationships. There have been
discrepancies in the way various researchers have chosen to define disapproval. For
example, Sprecher and Felmlee (1992) chose to use a single continuum by defining
disapproval as the absence of support from network members. Other studies chose to
operationalize disapproval as the presence of conflict between social network members
and the partners involved in the relationship (Bryant, Conger, & Meehan, 2001).
Although there have been difficulties in operationalizing network disapproval, the
majority of research has been able to conclude that disapproval is a significant predictor
of relationship instability (Felmlee, 2001; Felmlee et al., 1990; Sprecher & Felmlee,
1992).
Other studies, however, have found that disapproval can have a positive impact on
romantic relationships (Driscoll et al., 1972). The idea of disapproving parents leading a
couple to become more engrossed in each other is not a new topic when it comes to
fiction. In fact, Driscoll and colleagues coined the term “Romeo and Juliet effect” when
their research concluded that interference from the individual’s parents was positively
associated with a stronger feeling of romantic love for one’s partner. Since that original
study, however, few studies have managed to replicate the effect (e.g., Felmlee, 2001),
and thus some have concluded that the Romeo and Juliet effect may be as fictitious as the
5
title’s origin. However, there have been no exact replications and each of these studies
has used different operationalizations, making comparisons difficult.
Source of Network Opinion
The discrepancies in previous research regarding type of opinion are not the only
limitation in social network research. Different findings regarding the influential power
of parent opinion versus friend opinion has added to the already conflicting results.
Some research has found that parental opinion has no impact on relationship outcomes
(Leslie et al., 1986). In other studies, relationship support from parents has been found to
be a significant predictor of various relationship components such satisfaction and
commitment (Bryant & Conger, 1999; Felmlee, 2001; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992).
Likewise, some have found that disapproval from one’s parents leads to a weakening of
the romantic relationship, putting it at risk for breakup (Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992).
Conversely, those who have found the Romeo and Juliet effect have found it to exist only
for parental opinions. Parental disapproval had a positive impact on love in romantic
relationships (Driscoll et al., 1972) and increased the odds of couple members remaining
in the relationship (Felmlee, 2001). No such effects have ever been found for friend
disapproval.
In fact, a number of studies investigating the impact of friend opinion have fairly
consistently found that more peer approval leads to better relationship outcomes, and
disapproval carries the inverse consequences (Bryant & Conger, 1999; Parks, 2007;
Sprecher & Felmlee, 2001). For instance, Etcheverry and Agnew (2004) demonstrated
that friend approval was a stronger predictor of relationship commitment than parent
opinion (Etcheverry, Le, & Charania, 2008; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992). Likewise,
6
Sinclair and Wright (2009) found that approval by friends was a better predictor than
parent opinion even at the early stages of relationship initiation, such that individuals
were more attracted to the potential date approved by their friend. Overall, friend opinion
has been established as a more consistent, and potentially stronger, predictor for
relationship quality from initiation through termination.
Attachment Theory
In order to address discrepancies in the social network research regarding source
and type of opinion, the potential factors that could affect decisions about whose opinion
and which opinions are more influential should be examined. The courtship-process
model highlights the fact that individual partner attributes can affect the relationship’s
progress. Studies have been able to relate different attachment orientations to an array of
relationship outcomes such as relationship satisfaction, jealousy, self-disclosure, and
overall pro-relationship behaviors (Collins, Cooper, Albino, & Allard, 2002). In the
present study I sought to examine whether an individual’s attachment style could
moderate the impact of network opinions on relationship outcomes.
Proposed by Bowlby (1969), attachment theory contends that, in response to
experiences with attachment figures, individuals develop mental representations of how
close relationships are supposed to be (Madey & Rodgers, 2009; Rholes et al., 2007).
Attachment styles during the infancy stage can predict behavior with romantic
relationships in early adulthood (Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007) and
throughout one's adult life (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that adults in romantic relationships can
demonstrate attachment styles in the same three distinctive categories originally
7
identified by Ainsworth and colleagues: secure, anxious, and avoidant. According to
Madey and Rodgers (2009), the various attachment styles can lead an individual to
develop certain cognitive and behavioral responses which affect relationship quality.
These responses are called one's working model of attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
These working models can guide what type of information one attends to -- if any --
regarding the state of one's romantic relationship (Bowlby, 1973; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
These working models lead those with secure attachments, as compared to insecure
attachment, to have confidence in seeking support from close others, including appraisal
support (i.e., information and opinions; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002).
Rholes et al. (2007) found that one of the consequences of these working models
of attachment is that individuals with different attachment orientations tend to selectively
attend to information in different ways. For example, individuals who possess an anxious
attachment style seek out more relationship-relevant information, especially information
that could indicate that a rejection was forthcoming, while avoidant individuals ignore
that same type of information (Baldwin & Kay, 2003; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
Therefore, depending on attachment style, an individual might listen to certain types of
network opinions, might only listen to certain sources, or might decide to ignore such
information. I will review the potential differences between each attachment style in
turn.
Anxiously attached individuals often worry about being abandoned by others and
worry about not receiving enough care and affection from friends and family (Cassidy &
Berlin, 1994). Individuals who are anxiously attached view previous attachment figures
as uncaring and untrustworthy, and are thus plagued by the need for security. The need
for security leads them to constantly seek reassurance from their romantic partner, never
8
quite believing that they are truly loved and always feeling as if they are at risk of losing
their partner. In their attempts to foresee a potential relationship loss, Rholes et al. (2007)
found that anxiously attached individuals strive to gather as much relationship
information as possible. In particular, anxious individuals are chronically seek out
negative information about the relationship and partner in order to lessen the chance of
them missing cues that signal they might be rejected. In some cases, anxious individuals
may use negative information to strengthen their relationship (i.e., it gives them
something to work through and make their relationship more durable (Rholes et al.).
Whatever the case, it would appear that the anxious individual’s vigilance in looking for
rejection cues might lead them to be particularly impacted by disapproving social
network information more so than approving information.
The second insecure attachment style, avoidant attachment, is characterized by
individuals believing that attachment figures will not readily be available or responsive
when needed (Rholes et al., 2007). Constant rejection by attachment figures during
childhood leads such individuals to feel the need to protect themselves from rejection.
Rather than clinging to relationships and exhibiting hyper vigilance for rejection cues like
anxious persons, avoidant attached individuals will distance themselves from relationship
partners in both the emotional and physical sense in order to maintain independence and
to alleviate the worry of being rejected. Baldwin and Kay (2003; see also Fraley, Garner,
& Shaver, 2000) found that individuals with an avoidant orientation are better at ignoring
relationship-threatening information than individuals who were anxiously attached.
Rholes et al. also found that avoidant individuals have a limited interest in any
information related to their relationship or partner. Therefore, avoidant individuals may
9
simply ignore network opinions regarding their relationships, and thereby escape the
influence.
The third attachment style is secure attachment. Individuals who are securely
attached have an absence of higher levels of anxiety and avoidance. Secure individuals
are likely to show the dominant pattern with regard to social network influence and
information seeking. Generally, they prefer relationship-enhancing information
(approval) and attend to opinions that are positive regarding their intimate relationships
from social network members (Baldwin & Kay, 2003; Fraley et al., 2000; Rholes et al.,
2007). These approving opinions lead to improved relationship quality.
By examining these attachment styles, we can discern individual characteristics
associated with each that help an individual decide what information they will attend to
regarding their relationships. Accordingly, these attachment styles could affect whether
people listen to negative (disapproval) or positive (approval) opinions from their social
networks. Specifically, secure individuals seem to prefer positive information, whereas
anxious individuals attend to negative information. In contrast, avoidant attached
individuals avoid hearing either negative or positive opinions.
As for who an individual might listen to, research provides fewer insights.
Denson, Colvin, and Sinclair (2010) found that anxiously attached individuals were more
influenced by friend than parent opinions regarding their romantic relationship. In
addition, they found that avoidant attached individuals were only influenced by friend
and parent disapproval whereas secure individuals were equally influenced by both
friends and parents. Other than Denson et al., there is little information on differences
based on attachment styles regarding from whom one seeks information. However, if
these attachment styles are rooted in parental relationships, it may be that those with
10
insecure attachment styles – if they listen to anyone – listen to friends over parents.
Friends are voluntary relationships, and thus friends who have elected to engage in a
friendship with someone who is anxious or avoidant might be perceived as more reliable
than their parents. For secure persons, however, there is no reason to believe that friend
and parent opinion should carry unequal weight. Although some studies have found
friend opinion to be more influential than parent opinion, this finding could be due to
friend opinion being a significant predictor for both secure and insecure attachment
styles. However, differences regarding source might only appear in naturally-occurring
attachment styles. Because I plan to manipulate attachment style, there may be no
interactions with source. Attachment style was primed specific to the network member
type (e.g., individuals will be primed to feel an insecure attachment to a friend in the
friend condition). Thus, the moment a certain attachment orientation is activated, only
type of information might matter. Ultimately, because the research has yet to address this
question, hypotheses regarding source and attachment interactions are largely
exploratory.
The Present Research
To investigate the effects of social network influence on relationship satisfaction
and commitment, I used a factorial experimental design. My participants were
undergraduate students enrolled in basic psychology courses. The study was conducted
online using a scenario survey format. First, individuals were primed for one of three
attachment styles (Bartz & Lydon, 2004; Finkel, Burnette, & Scissors, 2007). I used a
priming task instead of using naturally occurring attachment styles because the majority
of the population has a secure attachment. Therefore, by priming I could examine an
11
equal number of participants for every attachment styles. Following the attachment
prime, participants read different paragraphs and decided which one corresponded to the
relationship they had with either their parents or friends. This procedure served as my
first manipulation check to establish the reliability of the priming methods. Then,
participants read a vignette involving a new relationship partner; depending on condition,
their parents or friends expressed approval or disapproval of the new partner. Follow up
questions gauged the impact that the social network opinions had upon the hypothetical
relationship by assessing the relationship between satisfaction and commitment.
Participants then answered a short set of questions to make sure the scenario was
adequately read and ended with another set of questions that served as my final
manipulation check for my attachment primes.
The present study explored whether attachment styles moderate the impact of
social network opinions, and thus potentially find when different sources (parent vs.
friend) and type of opinion (approval vs. disapproval) might vary in their influence. I
expected to find that attachment styles can predict who an individual will listen to and
will also predict if an individual listens more to approving or disapproving opinions from
network members. My hypotheses were:
H1: I hypothesized that approval by network members would be positively
associated with relationship satisfaction, and commitment and perceived disapproval
would be negatively associated with relationship satisfaction and commitment.
H2: I hypothesized that network approval would have a greater impact on
relationship satisfaction and commitment for secure primed individuals than disapproval,
whereas disapproval would have a greater impact for anxiously primed individuals.
12
Conversely, neither approval nor disapproval would impact relationship satisfaction and
commitment for avoidant primed individuals.
H3: I expected that friend opinion would be more influential on relationship
satisfaction and commitment than parental opinion. Friend approval was expected to lead
to greater relationship satisfaction and commitment than parental approval. In contrast, I
expected friend disapproval lead to lower relationship satisfaction and commitment than
parental disapproval. The interaction of source of opinion with attachment style also was
explored
.
13
CHAPTER II
METHODS
Participants
For the present study, I recruited 715 undergraduate students from Mississippi
State University. Participants were recruited online from undergraduate psychology
courses. They received either research credit or extra credit for participating in the online
study. The majority of the sample was single (38.5%) followed by participants who were
dating one person seriously (32.4%). The sample was 61% female and 38.7% male with
an average age of 19.59 years (SD = 2.72). Participants in the sample were 61.5%
Caucasian and 29.9% African-American.
Design
The study employed a 3 (Type of opinion: approval, disapproval, no opinion) x 2
(Source of opinion: parent, friend) x 3 (Attachment prime: secure, anxious, avoidant)
factorial design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of eighteen conditions using
a randomly generated internet identification code. Therefore, when participants looked at
the current studies on the website only the condition to which they have been assigned
appeared.
Materials and Procedure
Participants were recruited to participate in an online study using the PRP online
survey program. The survey was listed among other studies available within the
14
Psychology Department in which the participant had the option to participate.
Participants were only able to see the condition they had been randomly assigned to
based on their ID. Once the study had been selected, participants were presented with a
consent form (see Appendix A). Upon giving consent they were granted access to the
ten-section survey. The survey started with collecting basic demographic questions about
the participant and then moved to the materials for the experimental survey which
included different stimulus materials for attachment priming, then the social network
opinion vignettes, and ended with the relationship quality questionnaires. Participants in
the insecure conditions were given a brief question prompting them to write about a
positive experience with a friend or parent in order to counter-act any lingering
attachment insecurity prime effects (Appendix L). Debriefing information appeared at
the survey’s conclusion.
Demographics
Participants were asked a set of 5 questions concerning their demographics.
These included questions about gender, age, race/ethnicity, origin, and relationship status
(refer to Appendix B).
Network Members Information
Depending on the assigned condition, participants were prompted to answer
questions about their parents/guardians or two friends. These questions included
assessment to see how close the participants are to their parents/friends, how often they
communicate, how often they see each other, how often they seek out their advice, how
they help them make sense of their relationships, how often they get help from them, and
initials or nicknames for the parents/friends (refer to Appendix C). The purpose of these
15
questions was to make sure the participants had certain people in mind while going
through the study.
Attachment Prime
After providing basic information about their relationship with their
friends/parents, participants were asked to keep these individuals in mind throughout the
survey. Depending on which condition they had been assigned, participants were next
primed for one of three attachment styles using the following materials:
Sentence Scrambles
Upon starting the survey, participants were instructed to complete two unrelated
tasks to get them ready for the actual survey. This includes a previously established and
reliable attachment priming method called the “Sentence Scrambles.” The sentences
were originally developed by Finkel et al. (2007) for anxiety attachment or secure
attachment. The sentences were changed to be oriented towards the three attachment
styles by using words selected from scales of attachment styles (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
to create an avoidant condition. Additional sentences were also constructed to make up a
list of ten words per attachment. Participants were to take a set of five words and
eliminate one to make a sentence. This was the first method for priming the participants
for the assigned attachment style. For example, for the secure condition participants had
to unscramble a sentence that read “the boat was steady,” the anxious condition had the
sentence “the boat was unsteady,” (Finkel et al.) and the avoidant condition had the
sentence “the boat was unreliable” (refer to Appendix D for the entire list of sentences).
16
Writing Task
Participants were also prompted with the writing task developed by Bartz and
Lydon (2004) to further activate attachment styles. Participants were instructed to write
about a parent or friend for about 3 to 5 minutes. This was the second method for
priming the participants for their assigned attachment style. For example, participants in
the secure condition were asked to write about a relationship in which it was easy to get
close to the other person and that they felt comfortable depending on them. Participants
in the avoidant condition were asked to write about a relationship in which they were
uncomfortable being too close to the other person and it was difficult to trust that person.
Participants in the anxious condition were asked to write about a relationship in which the
person was reluctant to get as close as they would have liked (refer to Appendix E for
entire tasks). Two priming methods were employed because we wanted to make sure
participants were fully enveloped in the assigned attachment style.
Relationship Vignettes
After completing the attachment priming measures, participants then read a
scenario about the beginning of a new relationship with a hypothetical partner. Then the
scenario, depending on condition, introduced either friends or parents and give the
opinion of their friends or parents (approving, disapproval, or unable to obtain the
opinion) about the new relationship partner. A sample scenario of the parent approval
condition is listed below; all other scenarios can be found in Appendix F:
You sign up for an Internet Matching service and are sent a list of compatible
matches. After looking at their profile information, you identify a man/women
who you would like to at least meet. He/She seems compatible in many ways and
he/she doesn't live too far away. After several email exchanges and then phone
17
calls, you finally meet him/her face-to-face, in a coffee-house. Although you have
been warned that on-line "chemistry" doesn't always transfer to off-line
chemistry, you feel attracted to him/her after the first meeting. The two of you take
things slowly and continue phone calls and email exchanges, and wait another
two weeks before meeting again in person, once again at a coffee house.
After another month of phone conversations and meeting two more times for
coffee, you both agree that the relationship might be worth developing. Although
you are both very cautious about the future, you agree it's time to do something
other than meet for coffee. You go on a "date", which includes dinner in a
restaurant and a movie. Finding yourself even more attracted, you both decide it's
time to meet family and friends. You begin by hosting a dinner and inviting your
date and parents. The dinner goes well enough. Everyone seems to have a good
time and the conversation is pleasant.
A few days later, you talk to each of your parents, separately, and come to the
conclusion that they really like your new date. Loudly and clearly, they point out
that you are a perfect match for him/her and they would love to get together
again.
The other scenarios changed according to the assigned condition.
Source of Opinion. This example shows the parent condition, but in the friend
condition it was inviting “your date and friends” to dinner and it is friends who were
spoken to later.
18
Type of Opinion. Also, this example shows the approval condition, but in the
disapproval condition the last two sentences of the scenario read “A few days later, you
talk to each of your parents, separately, and come to the conclusion that they really don’t
like your new date. Loudly and clearly, they point out that you are not a good match for
each other and they prefer you not to date him/her anymore.” There was also a no
opinion scenario that ended after saying that “a few days later, you try to talk to each of
your parents, separately, but can’t reach them. You are not sure whether they like your
new date or not. Because you can’t get in touch with them, you will have to simply guess
whether they think you are a perfect match or shouldn’t date any longer”.
Processing Questions
Participants then answered a short set of question following the scenarios to see
how they would feel if that had happened to them. The questions include open-ended
questions asking participants what are three things they would feel, think, and do
following the occurrences in the scenario (refer to Appendix G).
Dependent Variables – Experimental Materials
To measure my dependent variables I used the following measures:
Relationship satisfaction. Hendrick’s (1988) Relationship Assessment Scale
(RAS; refer to Appendix H) was used to examine relationship satisfaction. The RAS has
good internal consistency, with an α= .86. The seven items was worded in order to refer
back to the scenario that the participant read. Sample items included: “How well do you
think you would feel that your partner met your needs?” and “How good would you
consider your relationship to be compared to most?” Participants used an 8-point Likert
19
format to answer the questions, ranging from 1 = definitely does not to 8 = definitely
does.
Commitment to relationship. Lund’s (1985; α=.90) 9-item Commitment Scale
(refer to Appendix I) was used to examine commitment to the hypothetical relationship.
A sample item for this scale included “How likely would it be that you would avoid
investing much into this relationship?” (reversed). Participants used an 8-point Likert
format to answer the questions, ranging from 1=not at all to 8=definitely.
Manipulation Checks. Towards the end of the study, participants were given a
set of 8 questions to make sure that the scenario was adequately read (refer to Appendix
J). For example, “Was the scenario about your parents or your partner's parents?” (1 =
my parents, 2 = my partner’s parents) or “What was your partner's reaction?” (0 = very
negative, 9 = very positive) Participants who got the answers wrong, for example if they
said that the opinion was from their parents when it was from their friends, was not be
included in the sample because they did not fully grasp the scenario and instructions.
Participants were also given questions to check and make sure the attachment
priming worked correctly. The questionnaire included 3 items(1 = strongly disagree, 6 =
strongly agree) on which participants indicated how much they agreed or disagreed with
each statement (see Appendix K). The question used to measure anxious attachment was
“I sometimes find that my friends are reluctant to get as close as I would like.” To
measure avoidant attachment, we used the item “I find it difficult to trust my friends.
Lastly, we used the item “I am comfortable depending on my friends and having them
depend on me” to measure secure attachment. Items were taken from attachment scales
20
developed by Hazan and Shaver (1987) and were specific to network member type (e.g.,
friend or parent) depending on condition.
Lastly, participants conducted a short list of things that they like about their
guardian or friend and imagined ways that person had helped them. This part of the
study was to insure participants returned to being securely attached (refer to Appendix L).
21
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The present study was a factorial survey which manipulated type of opinion,
source of opinion, and attachment style to examine their effects on relationship
commitment and satisfaction. Network approval was expected to lead to higher
relationship satisfaction and commitment than network disapproval, particularly when
these opinions came from friends. Also, it was predicted that securely attached
individuals would be more affected by approval than disapproval, while anxiously
attached individuals would be impacted more by disapproving than approving opinions.
Avoidant individuals were predicted to not be affected by either approving or
disapproving network opinions. These predictions were tested after an analysis of the
manipulation checks that were designed to ensure that the priming was effective and that
participants understood the vignette.
Manipulation Checks
Type of Opinion
Manipulation checks were employed to ensure that participants actually read the
vignette and correctly interpreted the opinion they were told their parents or friends had
about the hypothetical relationship partner. Specifically, an ANOVA was conducted
using the opinion manipulation check item of “Based on your reading of the scenario
provided earlier, how would you interpret the opinion of your parents of your
22
relationship?” (1 = very negative, 9 = very positive) as the DV and type of opinion as the
IV. The results indicated a significant difference among groups, F (2, 698) = 200.67, p =
.00, p
2 = .37. Participants who were in the approval condition (M = 7.32; SD = 1.86) had
the highest scores on the opinion manipulation check indicating they perceived the
opinion to be more positive than those participants in the no opinion condition (M = 5.16;
SD = 2.19) or in the disapproval condition (M = 3.63; SD = 1.97). Tukey’s post hoc test
confirmed that all means were significantly different from each other (p < .001).
Source of Opinion
Participants were also asked whether the scenario was about theirs or their
partner’s parents, or were asked whether the scenario was about theirs or their partner’s
friends? A total of 51 individuals who indicated the scenario were about their partner’s
parents or partner's friends were examined for potential elimination from the sample.
Originally, the sample was composed of 715 participants and after examination of the
manipulation check responses, I identified 148 participants as potential cuts due to a lack
of understanding of the type of opinion (e.g., persons in the disapproval condition saying
the opinion was positive) or source of opinion (i.e., parents or friends). After preliminary
analysis, however, I discovered that the results did not change with the elimination of the
individuals who failed either the opinion or source manipulation checks, so I continued to
use the original sample of 715 participants for further analyses.
Attachment Style
Additional items were included to assess the effectiveness of the attachment style
prime. A MANOVA was conducted to determine the role of Attachment Style on each of
the individual manipulation checks to examine the strength of the attachment priming.
23
The results were significant at the multivariate level, Wilks = .97, F(6, 1418) = 3.77, p
= .001, p2 = .02. At the univariate level, the item “I find it difficult to trust my friends
completely,” which was used as the avoidant manipulation check, was significant, F(2,
713) = 4.51, p = .01, p2 = .01). The item used as the secure manipulation check, “I am
comfortable depending on my friends,” was also significant, F(2, 713) = 3.81, p = .02,
p2 = .01). Lastly, the item used as the anxious manipulation check, “I find that my
friends are reluctant to get as close as I would like,” also was significant, F(2, 713) =
7.67, p < .001, p2 = .02). The item “I find it difficult to trust my friends completely,”
which was used as the avoidant manipulation check, had a mean of 2.85 (SD = 1.61) for
those in the avoidant condition, a mean of 2.41 (SD = 1.54) for anxious, and a mean of
2.57 (SD = 1.63) for secure. The item used as the secure manipulation check, “I am
comfortable depending on my friends,” had a mean of 4.37 (SD = 1.54) for secure, a
mean of 4.02 (SD = 1.59) for avoidant, and mean of 4.36 (SD = 1.15) for anxious. Lastly,
the item used as the anxious manipulation check, “I find that my friends are reluctant to
get as close as I would like,” had a mean of 2.53 (SD = 1.53) for anxious, a mean of 2.51
(SD = 1.47) for secure, and a mean of 3.02(SD = 1.71) for avoidant. As shown in Table
1, Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed on the avoidant manipulation check that the anxious
and avoidant conditions were significantly different (p = .01) while the anxious and
secure (p =. 53) and the avoidant and secure (p = .13) were not significantly different. As
for the anxious manipulation check, anxious and avoidant (p = >.001) and avoidant and
secure (p = >.001) conditions were significantly different while the anxious and secure
conditions were not (p = .98). Lastly, the secure manipulation check revealed a different
between the avoidant and secure condition (p = .04) and a significant difference on the
anxious and avoidant (p = .05) and the anxious and secure conditions (p = .99).
24
Table 1
Manipulation check means across conditions
Anxious Secure Avoidant
Anxious Condition 2.53 4.36 2.41
Secure Condition 2.51 4.37 2.57
Avoidant Condition 3.02 4.02 2.85
Therefore, the avoidant condition appeared to generally prime insecurity, but the
anxious attachment prime failed. Analyses were run including the anxious condition and
excluding the anxious condition. The results indicated that participants in the anxious
condition were not significantly different than those in the control/secure condition. The
anxious condition which included 243 participants was, therefore, eliminated from further
analyses. All comparisons were then made between the secure and avoidant/insecure
conditions with the remaining 472 participants.
Hypothesis Testing
In order to test the hypotheses, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted examining the impact of Type of Opinion (approval, disapproval, and no
opinion), Source of Opinion (friend and parent), and Attachment Style (insecure/avoidant
and secure) on relationship commitment and relationship satisfaction. The use of a
MANOVA was justified because the two dependent variables (i.e., commitment and
satisfaction) were highly correlated r = .81 (p = >.001). Tukey’s post hoc tests were used
to compare within conditions having more than two levels.
25
Type of Opinion
The multivariate tests revealed significant main effects for type of opinion,
Wilks = .88, F(1, 467) = 14.61, p = >.001, p
2 = .06. The univariate analyses showed
that the main effect of opinion type was consistent on both dependent variables:
commitment, F(2, 467) = 25.09, p = >.001, p
2 = .09; satisfaction F(2, 467) = 27.69, p =
>.001, p
2 = .11. For relationship commitment, approval lead to the highest scores (M =
5.52; SD = 0.74), followed by no opinion (M = 4.89; SD = .92) and disapproval (M =
4.69; SD = .94). However, Tukey’s post hoc analyses revealed that no opinion and
disapproval means were not significantly different from one another. This is an
interesting finding, however, because it is consistent with previous research (Bryant &
Conger, 1999; Felmlee et al., 1990; Lewis, 1973; Sinclair & Wright, 2009) indicating that
approval matters more than disapproval for relationship outcomes. Relationship
satisfaction followed the same pattern; approval conditions had significantly higher
scores (M = 5.77; SD = 1.06), than the no opinion (M = 5.07; SD = 1.03) or disapproval
conditions (M = 4.83; SD = 1.13), which were statistically equivalent to each other.
Attachment Styles
The interaction between type of opinion and attachment style was not significant,
Wilks = .990, F(2, 467) = 1.18, p = .32. A simple effects comparison showed that
network member having either no (M = 4.87, SD = 0.84) or a disapproving opinion (M =
4.88, SD = 1.02) lead those in the avoidant/insecure condition to have similar scores on
how committed they would feel to the relationship, as compared to the secure condition
in which no opinion lead to higher commitment than disapproval (M = 4.50, SD = 0.96
26
for disapproval; M = 4.91, SD = 0.92 for no opinion). Figure 2 shows the means across
these conditions on commitment and Figure 3 shows the means on satisfaction.
Figure 2. Type of opinion and attachment style means on commitment
Figure 3. Type of opinion and attachment style means on satisfaction
27
Source of Opinion
A MANOVA was conducted to examine a possible interaction between source
and type of opinion. The results were nonsignificant, Wilks = .99, F(2, 467) = .55, p =
ns. In addition, the 3-way interaction between type of opinion, source of opinion, and
attachment style also was nonsignificant, Wilks = .99, F(2, 467) = .13, p = ns. No other
main effects or interactions were significant at the univariate or the multivariate level of
analysis.
28
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Previous investigations into the effects of social network member opinions on
romantic relationship success have found that approval from an individual’s parents and
friends impacts the overall success of their romantic relationship (Bryant & Conger,
1999; Felmlee, 2001; Felmlee et al., 1990; Lewis, 1973; Sinclair & Wright, 2009),
particularly when that opinion comes from friends (Etcheverry & Agnew, 2008; Sprecher
& Felmlee, 1992). As for disapproval, inconsistencies in the current literature (Driscoll
et al., 1972) suggest that such opinions can impact relationships in a positive way,
especially if from parents, whereas other studies have concluded that disapproval has
negative consequences for relationships. Yet few studies have explored who might
attend to different opinions and different social network members. The present study
sought to investigate the role attachment styles play in predicting attending and reacting
to different types of information from different sources. Network approval was expected
to be positively associated with commitment and satisfaction whereas network
disapproval would be negatively associated with commitment and satisfaction. The
results of the study supported this first hypothesis; type of opinion did not impact
relationship commitment and satisfaction. Social network approval led to higher levels
of satisfaction and commitment than no opinion and disapproval. However, disapproval
and no opinion conditions were not significantly different from one another in levels of
satisfaction and commitment
29
For the second hypothesis, I expected that network approval would be more
influential on satisfaction and commitment for individuals primed to be securely attached
whereas network disapproval would be more influential for anxiously primed individuals.
Also, I expected that network opinions would not impact commitment and satisfaction for
avoidantly primed individuals. My second hypothesis was not supported; I did not find
an interaction between type of opinion and attachment style. However, this null effect
may have been due to the failure of the attachment prime to activate attachment
orientations.
Lastly, I expected that friend opinions would have a greater impact on romantic
relationships than parental opinions. My third hypothesis was not supported; the
interaction between type and source of opinion was not significant. In addition, I found
no support for an interaction between source of opinion, type of opinion, and attachment
style. The lack of significant results, again, could be a result of inadequate attachment
priming methods. I will address the priming and limitations first, before turning to
interpretations and implications.
Caveats
Limitations in the present study could help explain the lack of significant results.
The present study required that participants indicate how they believed they would feel
about their hypothetical romantic relationship after hearing their social network’s opinion
of their partner. It is, therefore, possible that individuals believed network opinions
would impact their romantic relationships differently than the opinions would actually
affect relationships in the real world (Parks, 2007). For example, individuals in
hypothetical scenarios do not seem to differentiate between hearing negative opinions of
30
friends and family members. Thus, individuals may be overestimating how much their
parent’s opinions or underestimating how much friend opinions would affect their
romantic relationships.
The lack of difference between friend and parent opinion, however, might also be
due to how the vignette was written. Because the vignettes tell the story of meeting the
parents, they may imply that the parent approval is sought or desired. As such,
participants may have inferred that opinion mattered because the hypothetical person was
seeking it, regardless of source. Examinations using different vignettes that do not
include meeting the parents might determine whether seeking approval from network
members, as compared to simply receiving network opinions, influences the power
different network members’ possess. Research has shown that individuals are most likely
to seek and value network opinions during periods of relational turbulence, such as when
the relationship might move to “the next level” (Knobloch & Donovan-Kicken, 2006).
Many surveys of dating college students that find that friend opinion is a better predictor
than parent opinion may do so because they are sampling relationships that are not ready
to face the “meet the parents” test. Perhaps future manipulations could involve the
introduction to friends or parents as more accidental than intentional to see if this would
impact the weight those opinions carried. In any case, more research should be
conducted to see when and why different sources carry more influence.
Another limitation to the study involved use of the sentence scrambles employed
to prime attachment styles. Some researchers have critiqued the use of primes. For
example, Fiedler (2002) argued that the priming method might activate unintended
mental structures instead of the intended mental structure, such as the participant being
reminded of a particular incident in their life or person, and thus leading to unexpected
31
results or even activate opposite priming effects (Fiedler, 2002). Also, Glassman and
Andersen (1999) found evidence that certain primes may induce single word effects
instead of being processed at the sentence level. Although the primes used in the present
study had been previously employed (e.g., Finkel et al., 2007), and the words included in
the sentences were associated with the assigned attachment style (i.e., they were drawn
from existing measures of adult attachment style intended to measure avoidance vs.
anxiety), there is the possibility that the participants did not associate the particular
attachment with their social network member who was hypothetically depicted in the
scenario. Fieldler also found that priming effects may be weaker when the words refer to
other individuals (i.e., he, she, their) compared to primes related to oneself. The
sentences scrambles employed in the present study included words such as he and she,
therefore it is possible that the sentences failed to prime the participant for the assigned
attachment style. In the future, the sentence scramble primes could be improved by using
the word “you” instead of he and she. For example, instead of using the sentence the
child felt vulnerable, the sentence could be improved by having it read you feel
vulnerable. Pilot studies should be conducted to establish the effectiveness of the
sentence scrambles for activating attachment styles.
Denson et al. (2010) found that attachment styles can predict what opinions
individuals listen to concerning their relationships. Yet, their correlational study utilized
the participant’s naturally occurring attachment style involving people in actual, rather
than hypothetical, relationships. In the future, perhaps additional research is needed that
involves people in actual relationships and priming. If effective primes can be
established, individuals’ relationship-specific attachment within their existing romantic
relationship (or regarding their relationship with their friend/parent) could be examined to
32
see if it affects attention to negative vs. positive social network information. Ultimately,
stronger manipulations of attachment styles are needed, and perhaps more salient
relationship contexts – e.g., using a real relationship as opposed to a hypothetical one –
could yield results more equivalent to those of Denson et al.
Previous research has found that possessing quality relationships are more
important to individuals who are collectivistic opposed to individualistic (Cross &
Madson, 1997; Iyengar & Brockner 2001; Markus & Kitiyama, 1991). Another
limitation is that the majority of our sample was from Mississippi which ranks high in
degree of collectivism (Vandello & Cohen, 1999). In 2008, MacArthur and Sinclair
found that individuals from states that rank high in degrees of collectivism are equally
affected by parent and friend opinions regarding their romantic relationships. It is
possible, therefore, that our lack of support for differences in source of opinion stem from
the origin of the sample. In the future, a study should be conducted in a more
individualistic area to see if attachment styles affect the influence friends and parents
have on relationship satisfaction and commitment.
An additional drawback was that the online format of the study was mistakenly
set to allow participants the chance to review or change their answers before they
completed the survey. It is possible that participants went back and changed answers to
questions after they had engaged in the task used to counter insecure attachment primes.
This factor can be easily remedied in future studies by setting parameters that prohibit
participants from reviewing responses.
33
Interpretation and Implications
Despite the limitations, the present study significantly contributes to the existing
research on the impact network members have upon romantic relationships. Research
has demonstrated that social networks have the power to impact relationship outcomes.
Yet, there is a need to look deeper and find the underlying mechanisms that allow
network members to possess such power. The present study sought to investigate why
individuals attend to different types of opinions and different network members, and will
hopefully inspire future investigations into various partner attributes that possibly guide
which network members and what type of opinions relationship partners allow to
influence their courtship process.
Research has already demonstrated that attachment styles guide what kind of
information individuals choose to attend to (Rholes et al., 2007). Yet little is known as to
how the attachment styles guide who individuals choose to let influence their romantic
relationships. Should the present study lead to future investigations on the power of
attachment styles and their influence on relationships, it would be conceivable that
examining their attachment style could help partners involved in unsatisfying
relationships find methods by which to enhance their relationship outcomes. For
example, calling attention to the fact that an individual’s attachment style guides them to
focus on disapproving opinions could result in that individual not letting disapproving
opinions harm their relationship in the future.
Further, the study sought to experimentally establish that network opinions affect
relationship outcomes. The existing literature has typically been correlational in nature
which leaves the question of whether opinions affect outcomes or if relationship
outcomes affect network opinions. In the present study, I have established that network
34
opinions do have a cause-effect relationship with predicted relationship outcomes. Note,
this does not mean that more satisfied relationships might garner more network support
(in fact, a recent poster at the 2012 Society for Personality and Social Psychology
conference established this was so, Etcheverry, Le, & Hoffman, 2012). However, having
established a causal link, further investigations into what might mediate or moderate that
link can be pursued. Beyond knowing that social network opinions have influence, it
would be interesting to further explore why and how it is that these opinions carry
weight. For instance, does approval reinforce positive illusions and other relationship-
serving cognitions? What are the underlying processes of influence?
Importantly, the present study found that disapproval was not significantly
different from receiving no opinion from an individual’s social network member. Yet,
one might assume that, just as approval makes an individual like someone more,
disapproval would make an individual dislike someone. What research seems to be
indicating, however, is that it is really approval - even just from one source - that helps
the relationship more so than disapproval hurts (Wright & Sinclair, 2012). Although
caution is needed when interpreting the lack of differences, disapproval appears to be
equivalent to having no information from one's network. Previous research has mainly
focused on establishing the effect approval and disapproval has upon relationships,
assuming that disapproval is simply the lack of approval by network members. Yet no
one has compared lack of opinion from network members to the presence of disapproval
(or the presence of approval). At least we now have some evidence about the meaning
and weight of disapproval relative to knowing nothing about one's social network
opinions or perceiving that the network approves, rather than assuming disapproval =
lack of approval.
35
Since the difference between receiving disapproving opinions and no opinions
from network members was clarified, the unexpected lack of impact negative opinions
had upon relationship outcomes was examined. When individuals receive opinions
regarding their romantic partner, there is the possibility that hearing negative opinions
leads one to simply disregard that opinion and not let it impact their relationship in the
early stages. As the scenario depicted the beginning stages of a relationship, it is possible
that individuals felt their social network members did not have enough information to
adequately judge the romantic partner and, therefore, disapproving opinions had the same
impact as network members having no opinion had upon relationship outcomes.
Therefore, it would be useful to explore the impact disapproving opinions from network
members have at various stages of romantic relationships.
In conclusion, although the power social networks have to influence romantic
relationships is fairly well-established, I explored a cause-effect relationship which has
been rarely experimentally tested. The need to better understand why individuals attend
to different opinions and network members is important in order to grasp the actual
power social networks possess. The present study will hopefully spark future
investigations into attachment styles, and other individual qualities brought into
relationships, that could help bolster social network research.
The study, therefore, adds to our understanding of how romantic relationships
work, and ultimately can help enhance relationship outcomes. By understanding the
impact friends and family members have upon relationships, individuals can better
evaluate the opinions their network members possess and decide how important the
opinions are when evaluating overall satisfaction and commitment to their partner.
36
REFERENCES
Allan, G. (2006). Social networks and personal communities. In A. Vangelisti & D.
Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 657-
671). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baldwin, M. W., & Kay, A. C. (2003). Adult attachment and the inhibition of rejection
expectations. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 275–293.
Bartz, J., & Lydon, J. (2004). Close relationships and the working self-concept: Implicit
and explicit effects of priming attachment on agency and communion. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1389-1401.
Bryant, C. M., & Conger R. D. (1999). Marital success and domains of social support in
long-term relationships: Does the influence of network members ever end?
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 437-450.
Bryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., & Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in-laws on
change in marital status. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 614-626.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment:
Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971-991.
Collins, N. L., Cooper, M. L., Albino, A., & Allard, L. (2002). Psychosocial vulnerability
from adolescence to adulthood: A perspective study of attachment style
differences in relationship functioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality,
70, 965-1008.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construal and gender.
Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
Denson, J. K., Colvin, L., & Sinclair, H. C. (2010). Individuals and social networks
determine the maintenance of romantic attachments. Poster presented at the 2010
Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues conference in New Orleans, LA.
Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., & Lipetz, M. E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic
love: The Romeo & Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
24,1-10.
37
Etcheverry, P. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of
romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409-428.
Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., & Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social
referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence.
Personal Relationships, 15, 281-295.
Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., & Hoffman, N. G. (2012). Predictors of social network
approval for a romantic relationship. Personal Relationships. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Felmlee, D. (2001). No couple is an island: A social stability network perspective on
dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259-1287.
Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships:
A hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 13–30.
Fielder, K. (2002). The hidden vicissitudes of the priming paradigm in evaluative
judgment research. In J. Musch & K. Klauer (Eds.), The Psychology of
Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion (pp. 111-142). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Finkel, E. J., Burnette, J. L., & Scissors, L. E. (2007). Vengefully ever after: Destiny
beliefs, state attachment anxiety, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92, 871-886.
Fraley, R. C., Garner, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult attachment and the defensive
regulation of attention and memory: Examining the role of preemptive and
postemptive defensive processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79, 816-826.
Glassman, N. S., & Anderson, S. M. (1999). Activating transference without
consciousness: Using signicant-other representations to go beyond what is
subliminally given. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1146–
1162.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.
38
Iyengar, S. S., & Brockner, J. (2001). Cultural differences in self and the impact of
personal and social influences. In W. Wosinska, R. B. Cialdini, D. W. Barrett, &
J. Reykowski (Eds.), The Practice of social influence in multiple cultures.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Knobloch, L. K., & Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network
members in courtships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Personal
Relationships, 13, 281-302.
Leslie, L. A., Huston, T. L., & Johnson, M. P. (1986). Parental reactions to dating
relationships: Do they make a differences? Journal of Marriage and the Family,
48, 57-66.
Lewis, R. A. (1973). Social reaction and the formation of dyads: An interactionist
approach to mate selection. Sociometry, 36, 409-418.
Loving, T. J. (2006). Predicting dating relationship fate with insiders’ and outsiders’
perspectives: Who and what is asked matters. Personal Relationships, 13, 349-
362.
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting
continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 2, 3-23.
MacArthur, J., & Sinclair, H. C. (2008). Cultural differences on the effects of social
network opinion on romantic relationships. Poster presented at the 2008 Society
for the Psychological Study of Social Issues conference in Chicago, IL.
Madey, S. F. & Rodgers, L. (2009). The effect of attachment and Sternberg’s Triangular
Theory of love on relationship satisfaction. Individual Differences Research, 7,
76-84.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Neihus, S., Huston, T. L., & Rosenband, R. (2006). From courtship into marriage: A new
developmental model and methodological critique. The Journal of Family
Communication, 6, 23-47.
Parks, M. R. (2007). Personal relationships and personal networks. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human
behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844-872.
39
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Tran, S., Martin, A. M., & Friedman, M. (2007).
Attachment and information seeking in romantic relationships. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 422-438.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment
and Human Development, 4, 133-161.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the
experience and expression of emotions in romantic relationships: A
developmental perspective. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 92,
355-367.
Sinclair, H. C., & Wright, B. L. (2009). Social networks: Effects on developed
relationships. In H. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Human
Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publishing.
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality
and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal investigation.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888-900.
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across
the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 279-292.
Wright, B. L., & Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Pulling the strings: Effects of parent and friends
opinions on dating choices. Personal Relationships. Advance online publication.
40
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL EMAIL
41
42
APPENDIX B
ONLINE SURVEY
43
Demographic Questions
1. What is your gender? ____________
2. What is your age? ____________
3. What is your race/ethnicity? ____________
4. What state were you raised in (note: if born outside the United States, please specify
country)?___________
5. What is your current romantic relationship status? ____________
Network member questions
Parent condition
Later in this survey, you will read a hypothetical scenario involving your friends and a
romantic partner. While reading this scenario, we want you to think about your friends
and what you would think/feel about how they responded to your girl/boyfriend in the
scenario.
In order to help you keep your friends in mind, we want you to tell us a little about them
first, so that when you read the scenario to come you can really put yourself in the
situation and imagine what it would be like when you heard what your friends thought of
your romantic partner.
How CLOSE are you to your female parent/guardian?
Extremely Distant Slightly Close
Very Distant Somewhat Close
Somewhat Distant Very Close
Slightly Distant Extremely Close
How often do you communicate with your female parent/guardian?
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
How often do you see your female parent/guardian in person?
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
What is your female parent's/guardian’s initials, nickname or first name (no full names,
please)? _________
How CLOSE are you to your male parent/guardians?
44
Extremely Distant Slightly Close
Very Distant Somewhat Close
Somewhat Distant Very Close
Slightly Distant Extremely Close
How often do you communicate with your male/guardian parent?
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
How often do you see your male parent/guardian in person?
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
What is your male parent's/guardian’s initials, nickname or first name (no full names,
please)? _________
How often do you seek out your female parent/guardian to give you advice?
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
How often do you seek out your male parent/guardian to give you advice?
Never Often, approximately once a month
Rarely, such as about once a year Frequently, such as once a week
Infrequently, about 2-3 times a year Constantly, such at least once a day
Occasionally, such as about 4-8 times a year
How often do you seek out your female parent/guardian to help you make sense of your
relationships?
Never Often, approximately once a month
Rarely, such as about once a year Frequently, such as once a week
45
Infrequently, about 2-3 times a year Constantly, such at least once a day
Occasionally, such as about 4-8 times a year
How often do you seek out your male parent/guardian to help you make sense of your
relationships?
Never Often, approximately once a month
Rarely, such as about once a year Frequently, such as once a week
Infrequently, about 2-3 times a year Constantly, such at least once a day
Occasionally, such as about 4-8 times a year
If you were seeking a new romantic partner, how likely would you seek your female
parent/guardian to help you?
Definitely not: Highly Unlikely Maybe: Slightly Likely
Probably not: Somewhat Unlikely Probably: Somewhat Likely
Maybe not: Slightly Unlikely Definitely: Highly Likely
Equally Unlikely & Likely
If you were seeking a new romantic partner, how likely would you seek your male
parent/guardian to help you?
Definitely not: Highly Unlikely Maybe: Slightly Likely
Probably not: Somewhat Unlikely Probably: Somewhat Likely
Maybe not: Slightly Unlikely Definitely: Highly Likely
Equally Unlikely & Likely
Friend condition
Later in this survey, you will read a hypothetical scenario involving your friends and a
romantic partner. While reading this scenario, we want you to think about your friends
and what you would think/feel about how they responded to your girl/boyfriend in the
scenario.
In order to help you keep your friends in mind, we want you to tell us a little about them
first, so that when you read the scenario to come you can really put yourself in the
situation and imagine what it would be like when you heard what your friends thought of
your romantic partner.
How CLOSE are you to your FIRST friend?
Extremely Distant Slightly Close
Very Distant Somewhat Close
Somewhat Distant Very Close
Slightly Distant Extremely Close
How often do you communicate with your FIRST friend?
46
_______
_________
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
How often do you see your FIRST friend in person?
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
What is your FIRST friend’s initials, nickname or first name (no full names, please)?
How CLOSE are you to your SECOND friend?
Extremely Distant Slightly Close
Very Distant Somewhat Close
Somewhat Distant Very Close
Slightly Distant Extremely Close
How often do you communicate with your SECOND friend?
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
How often do you see your SECOND friend in person?
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
What is your SECOND friend’s initials, nickname or first name (no full names, please)?
How often do you seek out your FIRST friend to give you advice?
47
Never More than once a week
Rarely Daily
Once a month More than once a day
2-3 times a month More than once a day (we live together)
Once a week
How often do you seek out your SECOND friend to give you advice?
Never Often, approximately once a month
Rarely, such as about once a year Frequently, such as once a week
Infrequently, about 2-3 times a year Constantly, such at least once a day
Occasionally, such as about 4-8 times a year
How often do you seek out your FIRST friend to help you make sense of your
relationships?
Never Often, approximately once a month
Rarely, such as about once a year Frequently, such as once a week
Infrequently, about 2-3 times a year Constantly, such at least once a day
Occasionally, such as about 4-8 times a year
How often do you seek out your SECOND friend to help you make sense of your
relationships?
Never Often, approximately once a month
Rarely, such as about once a year Frequently, such as once a week
Infrequently, about 2-3 times a year Constantly, such at least once a day
Occasionally, such as about 4-8 times a year
If you were seeking a new romantic partner, how likely would you seek your FIRST
friend to help you?
Definitely not: Highly Unlikely Maybe: Slightly Likely
Probably not: Somewhat Unlikely Probably: Somewhat Likely
Maybe not: Slightly Unlikely Definitely: Highly Likely
Equally Unlikely & Likely
If you were seeking a new romantic partner, how likely would you seek your SECOND
friend to help you?
Definitely not: Highly Unlikely Maybe: Slightly Likely
Probably not: Somewhat Unlikely Probably: Somewhat Likely
Maybe not: Slightly Unlikely Definitely: Highly Likely
48
Equally Unlikely & Likely
Sentence scrambles
Secure condition
Each line below contains five words. Your task is to mentally unscramble the words and
to eliminate one of them in order to make a sentence. There is only one sensible 4-word
sentence that can be created for each line. Please cross out the word that must be
eliminated to make this sentence and write the correct sentence on the corresponding line.
Example: banana ate car the he He ate the banana________________
steady hands the was boat ____________________________________
he door walked the painted ____________________________________
was like sure she definitely ____________________________________
kitchen friend loyal her was ___________________________________
costume script she her wore ___________________________________
child protected today felt the __________________________________
was reliable thought the mother _______________________________
others the he to supported ____________________________________
signed the was wallet check ___________________________________
10. shiny devotion was their certain _____________________________
Anxious condition
Each line below contains five words. Your task is to mentally unscramble the words
and to eliminate one of them in order to make a sentence. There is only one sensible 4-
word sentence that can be created for each line. Please cross out the word that must be
eliminated to make this sentence and write the correct sentence on the corresponding line.
Example: banana ate car the he He ate the banana________________
unsteady hands the was boat _________________________________
he door walked the painted ___________________________________
lacked like certainty she definitely ___________________________
kitchen friend disloyal her was _______________________________
costume script she her wore __________________________________
child vulnerable today felt the _______________________________
was unreliable thought the mother ____________________________
others the he to disappointed _________________________________
signed the was wallet check __________________________________
shiny devotion was their uncertain ___________________________
Avoidant condition
Each line below contains five words. Your task is to mentally unscramble the words and
to eliminate one of them in order to make a sentence. There is only one sensible 4-word
sentence that can be created for each line. Please cross out the word that must be
eliminated to make this sentence and write the correct sentence on the corresponding line.
Example: banana ate car the he He ate the banana________________
the independence if wanted child ______________________________
avoided he feelings close getting ______________________________
49
shiny devotion was their unreliable ____________________________
he door walked the painted __________________________
unstable hands the boat ______________________________
uncomfortably like was close she ______________________________
signed the was wallet check ___________________________
kitchen friend undependable her was ______________________________
preferred being tables he alone ______________________________
10. costume script she her wore _____________________
Sentence scrambles key
Secure
The boat was steady
He painted the door
She was definitely sure
Her friend was loyal
She wore her costume
The child felt protected
The mother was reliable
He supported the others
The check was signed
Their devotion was certain
Anxious
The boat was unsteady
He painted the door
She definitely lacked certainty
Her friend was disloyal
She wore her costume
The child felt vulnerable
The mother was unreliable
He disappointed the others
Their devotion was uncertain
Avoidant
The child wanted independence
He avoided getting close
Their devotion was unreliable
He painted the door
The boat was unstable
She was uncomfortably close
The check was signed
Her friend was undependable
He preferred being alone
She wore her costume
50
Writing task
Parent - secure condition
Keeping the scenario in mind, please think about a relationship with a parent/guardian
you have in which you have found that it was relatively easy to get close to the other
person and you felt comfortable depending on the other person. In this relationship you
didn’t often worry about being abandoned by the other person and you didn’t worry about
the other person getting too close to you. Write about this relationship until you are
instructed that time is up. Write about the parent/guardian that you have this relationship
with. Please give an example of a time when you have felt this way about your
parent/guardian. Generally, how do you feel about your parent/guardian?
Friend - secure condition
Keeping the scenario in mind, please think about a friendship you have had in which you
have found that it was relatively easy to get close to the other person and you felt
comfortable depending on the other person. In this friendship you didn’t often worry
about being abandoned by the other person and you didn’t worry about the other person
getting too close to you. Write about the friend that you have this relationship with.
Please give an example of a time when you have felt this way about your friend.
Generally, how do you feel about your friend?
Parent - avoidant condition
Keeping the scenario in mind, please think about a relationship with a parent/guardian
you have in which you have found that you were somewhat uncomfortable being too
close to the other person. In this relationship you found it was difficult to trust the other
person completely and it was difficult to allow yourself to depend on the other person. In
this relationship you felt yourself getting nervous when the other person tried to get too
close to you and you felt that the other person wanted to be more intimate that you felt
comfortable being. Write about the parent/guardian that you have this relationship with.
Please give an example of a time when you have felt this way about your parent/guardian.
Generally, how do you feel about your parent/guardian?
Friend - avoidant condition
Keeping the scenario in mind, please think about a friendship you have had in which you
have found that you were somewhat uncomfortable being too close to the other person. In
this friendship you found it was difficult to trust the other person completely and it was
difficult to allow yourself to depend on the other person. In this friendship you felt
yourself getting nervous when the other person tried to get too close to you and you felt
that the other person wanted to be more intimate that you felt comfortable being. Write
about the friend that you have this relationship with. Please give an example of a time
when you have felt this way about your friend. Generally, how do you feel about your
friend?
Parent - anxious condition
Keeping the scenario in mind, please think about a relationship you have had with a
parent/guardian in which you have felt like the other person was reluctant to get as close
51
as you would have liked. In this relationship you worried that the other person didn’t
really like you, or love you, and you worried that they wouldn’t want to stay with you. In
this relationship you wanted to get very close to the other person but you worried that this
would scare the other person away. Write about the parent/guardian that you have this
relationship with. Please give an example of a time when you have felt this way about
your parent/guardian. Generally, how do you feel about your parent/guardian?
Friend - anxious condition
Keeping the scenario in mind, please think about a friendship you have had in which you
have felt like the other person was reluctant to get as close as you would have liked. In
this friendship you worried that the other person didn’t really like you, or love you, and
you worried that they wouldn’t want to stay with you. In this friendship you wanted to
get very close to the other person but you worried that this would scare the other person
away. Write about the friend that you have this relationship with. Please give an example
of a time when you have felt this way about your friend. Generally, how do you feel
about your friend?
Scenario
Parents – approval
You sign up for an Internet Matching service and are sent a list of compatible matches.
After looking at their profile information, you identify a man/women who you would like
to at least meet. He/She seems compatible in many ways and he/she doesn't live too far
away. After several email exchanges and then phone calls, you finally meet him/her face-
to-face, in a coffee-house. Although you have been warned that on-line "chemistry"
doesn't always transfer to off-line chemistry, you feel attracted to him/her after the first
meeting. The two of you take things slowly and continue phone calls and email
exchanges, and wait another two weeks before meeting again in person, once again at a
coffee house.
After another month of phone conversations and meeting two more times for coffee, you
both agree that the relationship might be worth developing. Although you are both very
cautious about the future, you agree it's time to do something other than meet for coffee.
You go on a "date", which includes dinner in a restaurant and a movie. Finding yourself
even more attracted, you both decide it's time to meet family and friends. You begin by
hosting a dinner and inviting your date and parents. The dinner goes well enough.
Everyone seems to have a good time and the conversation is pleasant.
A few days later, you talk to each of your parents, separately, and come to the conclusion
that they really like your new date. Loudly and clearly, they point out that you are a
perfect match for him/her and they would love to get together again.
Friends – approval
You sign up for an Internet Matching service and are sent a list of compatible matches.
After looking at their profile information, you identify a man/women who you would like
to at least meet. He/She seems compatible in many ways and he/she doesn't live too far
away. After several email exchanges and then phone calls, you finally meet him/her face-
to-face, in a coffee-house. Although you have been warned that on-line "chemistry"
52
doesn't always transfer to off-line chemistry, you feel attracted to him/her after the first
meeting. The two of you take things slowly and continue phone calls and email
exchanges, and wait another two weeks before meeting again in person, once again at a
coffee house.
After another month of phone conversations and meeting two more times for coffee, you
both agree that the relationship might be worth developing. Although you are both very
cautious about the future, you agree it's time to do something other than meet for coffee.
You go on a "date", which includes dinner in a restaurant and a movie. Finding yourself
even more attracted, you both decide it's time to meet family and friends. You begin by
hosting a dinner and inviting your date and two of your friends. The dinner goes well
enough. Everyone seems to have a good time and the conversation is pleasant.
A few days later, you talk to each of your friends, separately, and come to the conclusion
that they really like your new date. Loudly and clearly, they point out that you are a
perfect match for him/her and they would love to get together again.
Parents – disapproval
You sign up for an Internet Matching service and are sent a list of compatible matches.
After looking at their profile information, you identify a man/women who you would like
to at least meet. He/She seems compatible in many ways and he/she doesn't live too far
away. After several email exchanges and then phone calls, you finally meet him/her face-
to-face, in a coffee-house. Although you have been warned that on-line "chemistry"
doesn't always transfer to off-line chemistry, you feel attracted to him/her after the first
meeting. The two of you take things slowly and continue phone calls and email
exchanges, and wait another two weeks before meeting again in person, once again at a
coffee house.
After another month of phone conversations and meeting two more times for coffee, you
both agree that the relationship might be worth developing. Although you are both very
cautious about the future, you agree it's time to do something other than meet for coffee.
You go on a "date", which includes dinner in a restaurant and a movie. Finding yourself
even more attracted, you both decide it's time to meet family and friends. You begin by
hosting a dinner and inviting your date and your parents. The dinner goes well enough.
Everyone seems to have a good time and the conversation is pleasant.
A few days later, you talk to each of your parents, separately, and come to the conclusion
that they really don’t like your new date. A few days later, you talk to each of your
parents, separately, and come to the conclusion that they really like your new date.
Loudly and clearly, they point out that you are not a good match for each other and they
prefer you not to date him/her anymore.
Friends – disapproval
You sign up for an Internet Matching service and are sent a list of compatible matches.
After looking at their profile information, you identify a man/women who you would like
to at least meet. He/She seems compatible in many ways and he/she doesn't live too far
away. After several email exchanges and then phone calls, you finally meet him/her face-
to-face, in a coffee-house. Although you have been warned that on-line "chemistry"
doesn't always transfer to off-line chemistry, you feel attracted to him/her after the first
53
meeting. The two of you take things slowly and continue phone calls and email
exchanges, and wait another two weeks before meeting again in person, once again at a
coffee house.
After another month of phone conversations and meeting two more times for coffee, you
both agree that the relationship might be worth developing. Although you are both very
cautious about the future, you agree it's time to do something other than meet for coffee.
You go on a "date", which includes dinner in a restaurant and a movie. Finding yourself
even more attracted, you both decide it's time to meet family and friends. You begin by
hosting a dinner and inviting your date and two of your friends. The dinner goes well
enough. Everyone seems to have a good time and the conversation is pleasant.
A few days later, you talk to each of your friends, separately, and come to the conclusion
that they really like your new date. A few days later, you talk to each of your parents,
separately, and come to the conclusion that they really like your new date. Loudly and
clearly, they point out that you are not a good match for each other and they prefer you
not to date him/her anymore.
Parent – no opinion
You sign up for an Internet Matching service and are sent a list of compatible matches.
After looking at their profile information, you identify a man/women who you would like
to at least meet. He/She seems compatible in many ways and he/she doesn't live too far
away. After several email exchanges and then phone calls, you finally meet him/her face-
to-face, in a coffee-house. Although you have been warned that on-line "chemistry"
doesn't always transfer to off-line chemistry, you feel attracted to him/her after the first
meeting. The two of you take things slowly and continue phone calls and email
exchanges, and wait another two weeks before meeting again in person, once again at a
coffee house.
After another month of phone conversations and meeting two more times for coffee, you
both agree that the relationship might be worth developing. Although you are both very
cautious about the future, you agree it's time to do something other than meet for coffee.
You go on a "date", which includes dinner in a restaurant and a movie. Finding yourself
even more attracted, you both decide it's time to meet family and friends. You begin by
hosting a dinner and inviting your date and parents. The dinner goes well enough.
Everyone seems to have a good time and the conversation is pleasant.
A few days later, you try to talk to each of your parents, separately, but can’t reach them.
You are not sure whether they like your new date or not. Because you can’t get in touch
with them, you will have to simply guess whether they think you are a perfect match or
shouldn’t date any longer.
Friend – no opinion
You sign up for an Internet Matching service and are sent a list of compatible matches.
After looking at their profile information, you identify a man/women who you would like
to at least meet. He/She seems compatible in many ways and he/she doesn't live too far
away. After several email exchanges and then phone calls, you finally meet him/her face-
to-face, in a coffee-house. Although you have been warned that on-line "chemistry"
doesn't always transfer to off-line chemistry, you feel attracted to him/her after the first
54
meeting. The two of you take things slowly and continue phone calls and email
exchanges, and wait another two weeks before meeting again in person, once again at a
coffee house.
After another month of phone conversations and meeting two more times for coffee, you
both agree that the relationship might be worth developing. Although you are both very
cautious about the future, you agree it's time to do something other than meet for coffee.
You go on a "date", which includes dinner in a restaurant and a movie. Finding yourself
even more attracted, you both decide it's time to meet family and friends. You begin by
hosting a dinner and inviting your date and parents. The dinner goes well enough.
Everyone seems to have a good time and the conversation is pleasant.
A few days later, you try to talk to each of your friends, separately, but can’t reach them.
You are not sure whether they like your new date or not. Because you can’t get in touch
with them, you will have to simply guess whether they think you are a perfect match or
shouldn’t date any longer.
Processing questions
Placing yourself in this scenario, please list five FEELINGS you would have about the
situation described above. How would you feel in the situation (e.g., hurt, happy,
confused, etc) ______________________________________________________
Placing yourself in the scenario, please list three THOUGHTS you would have about the
situation. (e.g., "I would think their opinions were unreasonable," "I would wonder why,"
"I would think my relationship is stronger," "I would think about leaving my partner,"
etc.) ______________________________________________________
Putting yourself in the scenario, list three ACTIONS you might would take in the
situation. (e.g., "Now I would talk to my parents even more," "I would avoid my parents,"
"I would take a break from my romantic partner," "I would get my another person's
advice," etc.) ______________________________________________________
Relationship Assessment Scale
Putting yourself in this situation: How well do you think you would feel that your partner
met your needs?
Definitely Definitely
Does Not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Does
Putting yourself in this situation: In general, how satisfied do you think you would feel
with your romantic relationship?
Definitely Definitely
Does Not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Does
Putting yourself in this situation: How good would you consider your relationship to be
compared to most?
Completely Completely
Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Good
Putting yourself in this situation: Do you think you would wish that you hadn't gotten into
this romantic relationship?
Definitely Definitely
Does Not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Does
55
Putting yourself in this situation: How well would your relationship meet your original
expectations?
Definitely Definitely
Does Not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Does
Putting yourself in this situation: How much do you think you would love your partner?
Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Completely
Putting yourself in this situation: How much do you think problems would strongly affect
your relationship?
Constantly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Never
Lund Commitment Scale
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
N
ot at allHighly Most Unlikely
N
either Likely Most Highly Definitely
unlikely unlikely more nor likely likely
less
likely
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY would it be that your romantic
relationship with the partner described in the scenario would be continue? _________
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY would it be that you and your romantic
partner would be together in 6 months? _________
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY would it be that your relationship would
be permanent? _________
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY would it be that you would pursue single
life? _________
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY do you think it would be that you may
decide to end this relationship sometime in the future? _________
Putting yourself in this situation, how hard would it be for you to end your relationship
personally? _________
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY would it be that you would view your
partner as clearly part of your future plans? _________
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY would it be that you would avoid
investing much into this relationship? _________
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY do you think it would be that you may
not want to be with your partner in a few years? _________
Putting yourself in this situation: How LIKELY would it be that you would avoid making
life-long plans for this relationship? _________
Scenario manipulation checks
Based on your reading of the scenario provided earlier, how would you interpret the
opinion of your parents of your relationship?
Very Negative Slightly Negative
Moderately Negative Negative
56
N e utr al M o der at el y P ositi v e
P o siti v e V er y P ositi v e
Sli g htl y P ositi v e
N ot a p pli c a bl e n o par e nt o pi ni o n pr o vi d e d
B a s e d o n y o ur r e a di n g of t h e s c e n ari o pr o vi d e d e arlier, h o w cl e ar w o ul d y o u f e el y o ur
p ar e nts wer e
a b o ut t h eir o pi ni o n ?
V er y N e gati v e P ositi v e
M o der at el y Ne g ati v e Sli g htl y P ositi v e
Sli g htl y N e gati v e M o der at el y P ositi v e
N e gati v e V er y P ositi v e
N e utr al
N ot a p pli c a bl e n o pa r e nt o pi ni o n pr o vi d e d
W h at was t h e stat u s of t h e d ati n g r el ati o ns hi p d es cri b e d i n t h e s c e n ari o ( e. g., w a s it a n e w
or l o n g-ter m r el ati o ns hi p) ?
V er y N e w (l e s s t h a n a we e k)
M o der at el y Ne w (les s t h a n a m o nt h)
Sli g htl y N e w (l ess t h a n 3 m o nt h s)
A v er a ge l e n gt h ( b et w e e n 3- 6 m o nt h s)
Sli g htl y L o n g-t er m ( b et wee n 6 m o nt hs a n d 1 y e ar)
M o der at el y L o n g-ter m ( m or e t h a n 1 y e ar)
V er y L o n g-ter m ( m or e t h a n 3 y e ar s)
W a s t h e s c e n ari o a b o ut y o ur p ar e nts or y o ur p art n er’s p ar e nts ?
M y fri e n ds
M y p art n er’ s fri e n d s
W h at was y o ur p art n er’ s re a cti o n ?
V er y N e gati v e P ositi v e
M o der at el y Ne g ati v e Sli g htl y P ositi v e
Sli g htl y N e gati v e M o der at el y P ositi v e
N e gati v e V er y P ositi v e
N e utr al
N ot a p pli c a bl e n o pa r e nt o pi ni o n pr o vi d e d
B a s e d o n y o ur r e a di n g of t h e s c e n ari o pr o vi d e d e arli er, h o w m u c h w o ul d y o u f e el y o ur
p ar e nts wer e i nt erf eri n g ( eit h er p ositi v el y or n e g ati v el y) i n y o ur r el ati o ns hi p ?
5 7
Not at all interfering
Slightly interfering
Somewhat interfering
Strongly interfering
Completely interfering
Not applicable – no parent opinion provided
Based on your reading of the scenario provided earlier, how definite would you feel your
parents were about their opinion?
Very Unsure
Moderately Unsure
Slightly Unsure
Unsure
Neutral
Sure
Slightly Sure
Moderately Sure
Very Sure
Not applicable – no parent opinion provided
Based on your reading of the scenario provided earlier, how much would you feel your
parents’ opinion was likely to change?
Definitely likely to change
Probably likely to change
Somewhat likely to change
Slightly likely to change
Equal likelihood
Slightly likely to stay the same
Somewhat likely to stay the same
Probably likely to stay the same
Definitely likely to stay the same
Not applicable – no parent opinion provided
Attachment prime manipulation check
58
Parent condition
The following statements concern how you feel in your romantic relationships. We are
interested in how you generally experience these relationships, not just in what is
happening currently within these relationships. Respond to each statement by indicating
how much you agree or disagree with it.
I am comfortable depending on my parents/guardians and having them depend on me.
Strongly disagree Slightly agree
Moderately disagree Moderately agree
Slightly disagree Strongly agree
I find it difficult to trust my parents/guardians.
Strongly disagree Slightly agree
Moderately disagree Moderately agree
Slightly disagree Strongly agree
I find that my parents/guardians are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
Strongly disagree Slightly agree
Moderately disagree Moderately agree
Slightly disagree Strongly agree
Friend condition
The following statements concern how you feel in your romantic relationships. We are
interested in how you generally experience these relationships, not just in what is
happening currently within these relationships. Respond to each statement by indicating
how much you agree or disagree with it.
I am comfortable depending on my friends and having them depend on me.
Strongly disagree Slightly agree
Moderately disagree Moderately agree
Slightly disagree Strongly agree
Slightly disagree Strongly agree
I find it difficult to trust my friends.
Strongly disagree Slightly agree
Moderately disagree Moderately agree
Slightly disagree Strongly agree
I find that my friends are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
Strongly disagree Slightly agree
59
Moderately disagree Moderately agree Slightly disagree
Strongly agree
Return to secure attachment
Please conduct a short list of five-ten things that you like about your parents/guardians.
While doing this image ways that they have helped you in the past
60
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The authors first describe individual differences in the structure of the self. In the independent self-construal, representations of others are separate from the self. In the interdependent self-construal, others are considered part of the self (H. Markus & S. Kitayama, 1991). In general, men in the United States are thought to construct and maintain an independent self-construal, whereas women are thought to construct and maintain an interdependent self-construal. The authors review the psychological literature to demonstrate that many gender differences in cognition, motivation, emotion, and social behavior may be explained in terms of men’s and women’s different self-construals. Recognition of the interdependent self-construal as a possible alternative conception of the self may stimulate new investigations into the ways the self influences a person’s thinking, feeling, and behaving.
Article
Full-text available
Although the individualism–collectivism dimension is usually examined in a U.S. versus Asian context, there is variation within the United States. The authors created an eight-item index ranking states in terms of collectivist versus individualist tendencies. As predicted, collectivist tendencies were strongest in the Deep South, and individualist tendencies were strongest in the Mountain West and Great Plains. In Part 2, convergent validity for the index was obtained by showing that state collectivism scores predicted variation in individual attitudes, as measured by a national survey. In Part 3, the index was used to explore the relationship between individualism–collectivism and a variety of demographic, economic, cultural, and health-related variables. The index may be used to complement traditional measures of collectivism and individualism and may be of use to scholars seeking a construct to account for unique U.S. regional variation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
This study examines the association between various domains of social network support and the long-term marital success of husbands and wives who had been married for an average of 20 years. We hypothesized that three domains of social network support (e.g., support related specifically to the relationship, affective overlap, and general personal support) would predict marital success. Overall, the findings suggest that social networks are influential in long-term marital relationships. For both husbands and wives, relationship-specific support predicted positive change in marital success from 1991 to 1994. Neither affective overlap nor personal support predicted marital success. This study underscores the significance of different domains of social support in long-term romantic relationships, the role of social support in predicting marital success, and the role of marital success in predicting social support.
Article
In this study we examined how support from parents and friends for the romantic relationships of young adults affects the quality of their relationships and the likelihood that their relationships break up over time. Data were gathered over 2 years from a group of romantic couples. Support was found for the positive effect of network support on the quality of the relationship in both cross-sectional and panel analyses. Hazard analyses showed that the female partner's perceived network support increased the stability of the relationships. No evidence was found for the Romeo and Juliet effect.
Article
What information do young adults convey to their parents about their dating partners and their dating relationships? How, in turn, do parents behave toward their children on the basis of such information? Further, how do parents' actions affect the subsequent course of those relationships? These questions were addressed in a four-month longitudinal study of 159 college students. During the fall, information was obtained from respondents on their feelings of closeness to their parents, their stage of relationship involvement with their dating partner, and the extent and nature of their own and their parents' attempts to influence each others' thinking about their dating relationships. Approximately four months later, participants were again contacted to determine their level of involvement in their dating relationships. Results indicate that young adults monitor the information they provide their parents about their dating relationships and that the more committed the young adult is to the relationship, the more likely he or she is to inform the parents of the relationship and to try to influence their opinion of it. Parents, in turn, are more likely to support relationships in which their offspring are highly involved. However, the amount of support provided by parents did not predict change in the stage of premarital relationship involvement. These findings are discussed from a systems perspective that suggests the importance of viewing young adults' relationship development not only within a context of interpersonal influence but also in light of the young adults' socialization history.
Article
We conducted a longitudinal investigation to advance our understanding of determinants of the breakups of premarital relationships. We considered causes, derived from several major theories, that were located in a variety of sources in the relationship, in the social network environment, and in the individual. We extended previous longitudinal research methodologically by analyzing the data with hazard analysis, in which the dependent variable is the instantaneous rate at which a relationship terminates. In the analyses we examined how measures of different factors affected the rate at which a relationship changed from intact to broken up. We found that several variables were significant predictors of the rate at which relationships terminated, including comparison level for alternatives, amount of time spent together, dissimilarity in race, support from partner's social network, and duration of the relationship. These findings offer evidence suggesting that variables derived from social exchange, similarity, and social network theories all contribute toward an explanation of premarital breakups.
Article
Following the Waller-Hill hypothesis that the reflexive behavior of significant others contributes to the formation and maintenance of heterosexual dyads, this longitudinal study of 316 pair relationships examines some interrelations between social reaction and dyadic formation. The underlying assumptions of this study specify that when Social Reaction (SR) is withheld or denied by significant others, pair relationships tend to be transitory and few develop into comprehensive dyads. When SR is offered by significant others and internalized by members of a pair, the resulting dyad may be launched into a more permanent career. The hypotheses were supported by the data. Not only was pretest SR significantly related to the continuance and dissolution of the pair relationships over a ten-week period, but to significantly higher post-test scores on a number of dyadic formation indices.
Article
Three studies (1 correlational and 2 experiments) applied the investment model to explain social network approval for others' romantic relationships. Study 1 supported the prediction that friends' perceived satisfaction and perceived alternatives were predictive of their approval for target relationships, while perceived investments was not a significant predictor. Studies 2 and 3 employed experimental manipulations of perceived satisfaction to test its causal impact on relationship approval, and in these studies, perceived satisfaction was a significant predictor of relationship approval. Taken as a whole, these findings supported the prediction that perceived relationship satisfaction is a causal factor influencing friends' approval of target romantic relationships. The daily activities of romantic couples take place within larger social networks of friends, family, and acquaintances, and these social networks influence those embedded roman-tic relationships (Etcheverry & Agnew, 2004; Leslie, Huston, & Johnson, 1986). Much of the extant research on romantic relation-ships has taken an individualistic or dyadic approach to understand romantic relationship functioning. However, scholars have begun to recognize that to fully understand roman-tic relationship functioning, it is necessary to consider social network influence (Berscheid, 1999; Sprecher, Felmlee, Orbuch, & Wil-letts, 2001). Although many aspects of social net-works have been found to be associated with relationship processes, including con-tact with kin (Burger & Milardo, 1995) and