I
.3. . :11.
. .2 . . :. ,.
:

.:_.‘(..
..:. .:
.l... J 3
z

 

 

 

23644570

Ill/clallllll/l/l/l/IIN”Ill/Ill/HINHNIII

006 0432

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w LIBRARY
Michigan State
l University ;

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Social Networks and Development of Close
Relationships: Test of an Interdependency
Model

presented by

Hyun Joo Kim

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

——ElL.—D—.—_ degree in Jammunication

Ma‘ r professor
Date m

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0—12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

“I“ A"?

 

0W5 3 5,007

 

 

Allin/39k
“ /

 

If?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

SOCIAL NETWORKS AND DEVELOPMENT OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS:

TEST OF AN INTERDEPENDENCY MODEL

BY

Hyun Joo Kim

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

1989

:2 ’2 5%

(£04

 

ABSTRACT
SOCIAL NETWORKS AND DEVELOPMENT OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS:
TEST OF AN INTERDEPENDENCY MODEL
BY

Hyun Joo Kim

This study conceptualizes relational development as increase
in interdependency between relational partners. The central
proposition of this study states that the increase in
interdependency at the level of relational dyad will be
associated with an increase in interdependency at the level
of the dyad's social network of close friends and family
members. Theoretical and methodological limitations of
previous studies of social networks are discussed. A study
free of these limitations was conducted to test the
interdependency model of relational development. Generally,
data were consistent with the proposed model. The degree of
relational development was positively correlated with
indicators of involvement in partner's network and overlap
between the individual networks of relational partners. In
addition, the degree of network overlap was predictive of
the convergence among network members regarding their
perception of the focal relationship. Findings are reviewed
in the light of the interdependency model. Limitations of
the current study are discussed and suggestions for future

research are made.

This dissertation is dedicated to my late father, Doo Sik
Kim, who had courageously let his son leave home and long

prayed for his son's accomplishment.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my immense gratitude to those who helped
me with this project. I am especially indebted to Dr. James
B. Stiff, my Dissertation Director, whose help and
encouragements meant so much to me. I also wish to thank
the remaining members of my graduate committee: Dr. Gerald
R. Miller, Dr. Katherine I. Miller, and Dr. Lawrence A.
Messé, for their support and valuable input on this project

in particular and my graduate work in general.

Special thanks go to my family. Of these, my wife Yoo Kyung
and my mother, Song Keum Yoon, deserve recognition for their
support and patience during the past several years of my
graduate work. Those who also need to be recognized include
my parents-in-law, Cheol Wha and Bong Ja Cho, my brother

Hyun Min and his family, and my family in Boston and L.A.

I would also like to thank my undergraduate research
assistants who worked in an accurate and prompt manner to
make this project a success. Finally, my peers, especially
the 'night crew,’ including Mike, Linda, and Tim, need to be
acknowledged for their companionship through most of the

winter nights when I worked on earlier part of dissertation.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Theoretical Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Network Perspective for Studying Close Relationships. 1
Review and Critique of Social Network Research. . . .5

Summary of previous studies. . . . . . . . . . .5
Conceptual weaknesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Methodological weaknesses. . . . . . . . . . . .9

No data from actual network members . . . .9
Errors in eliciting social network. . . . .11

New Approach to Relational Development. . . . . . . .14
Defining relational development. . . . . . . . .14
The notion of interdependency . . . . . . .15
Conceptualizing relational development. . .16

Defining social network properties . . . . . . .17
Predictions Regarding Social Network Properties . . .18
Involvement in partner's network . . . . . . . .20
Network overlap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Convergence of meta-relational perception. . . .28
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Phase One. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Phase Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Measures of relational development . . . . . . .35
Measures of involvement in partner's network . .37
Measures of network overlap. . . . . . . . . . .38
Measure of perception convergence. . . . . . . .40
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Descriptive Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Measures of relational development . . . . . . .42
Network analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Reciprocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Social network properties . . . . . . . . .46

Tests of the Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Involvement in partner's network . . . . . . . .48
Network overlap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Convergence of meta-relational perception. . . .52
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Assessment of the Interdependency Model . . . . . . .55
Involvement in partner's network . . . . . . . .56
Network overlap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Convergence of meta-relational perception. . . .61

V

Study Limitations

Future Research
References

Appendix .

Notes. .
Tables .
Figure .

Suggestions

vi

.63
.68
.76
.81
.84
.91

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Figure 1.

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURE

Summary of major studies on social network and
relational development . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings

of the items of the three primary factors of
relational development . . . . . . . . . .86
Correlations among the global measure of
relational development, its primary factors,
amount of communication, and length of
relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Correlations among relational development,

amount of communication with partner, amount of
communication with partner's network members,
proportion of known members of partner's

network, and strength of ties with partner's
network members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Correlations among relational development,

amount of communication between focal partners,
proportion of mutual network members,

proportion of ties across networks, amount of
communication among global network members,
proportion of existing ties in the global

network, and strength of ties among global

network members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

Diagrammatic representation of the

interdependency model of relational
development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

vii

CHAPTER 1

THEORETICAL RATIONALE

Generally, development of close relationships has been
understood as a movement from nonpersonal interaction to
interpersonal attraction (Berscheid & Walster, 1978; Rubin,
1973); enhanced predictability about partners (Berger &
Calabrese, 1975; Miller & Steinberg, 1975); and growing
commitment (Huston & Levinger, 1978; Kelley, 1983; Rusbult,
1980). Though there has been much consensus about how to
conceptualize and describe development of close
relationships, conditions that promote or deter relational
development have not been thoroughly investigated.

Most studies on relational development adopt a rather
restricted focus for investigating such a complex
phenomenon. They interpret behaviors of relational partners
as resulting from their common attributes and norms rather
than their involvement in structured social relationships
(Wellman, 1983). Because partners' social networks witness
the evolution of the focal relationship, social networks
must be considered a crucial environmental determinant of
close relationships.

Network Perspective for Studying Close Relationshipg

Huston and Levinger (1978) reviewed studies on close
relationships and found that more than two-thirds of them

1

2
dealt with impressions and encounters, usually removed from
the relationships' social contexts. The remaining studies
considered the relationships themselves, excluding other
relationships in the social environment. La Gaipa (1981)
comments on this tendency of relying heavily on individual
or dyadic variables for studying close relationships.

Too often have studies of personal relationships

focused on single dyadic relationships and the

behaviors that occur in them while disregarding the
nexus of other relationships to which individuals are

exposed. (p. 67)

The need to investigate the embeddedness of dyadic
relationships in social contexts has been widely
acknowledged (Duck & Gilmour, 1981; Huston & Levinger, 1978;
La Gaipa, 1981; Parks & Adelman, 1983). Researchers of
close relationships (Huston & Levinger, 1978; Kelley,
Berscheid, Christensen, Harvey, Huston, Levinger,
McClintock, Peplau, & Peterson, 1983) have agreed that a
relationship's causal context is formed by the dispositions
of each relational partner, by factors emerging from the
interaction between the partners, and by features of social
environment in which the relationship is embedded.

Repeated attempts to account for relational development
on the basis of a combination of personal characteristics of
partners have proved unsuccessful (cf. Huston & Levinger,
1978). Examination of dynamic interplay of a close

relationship with various elements in the partners' social

3
network will remedy this failure. For instance, Parks and
Adelman (1983) found that when network factors were combined
with basic dyadic variables, it was possible to predict
which relationships would deteriorate over time with nearly
90% accuracy. Thus, a network perspective is one promising
avenue of future research on close relationships.

A network approach to relational development starts by
treating relational partners as social actors who are
interpreting and constructing reality relative to others.
People may be influenced by the relationships they have with
other individuals (Hinde, 1981). According to atomistic
perspectives, individual actors are depicted as making
choices and acting without regard to the behavior of other
actors. By contrast, network analysis incorporates a
significant assumption about social behavior: That actors
participate in a social system involving many other actors
who are significant reference points for one's behaviors.
The nature of relationships a relational partner has with
other system members may affect and be affected by the
partner's perceptions, beliefs, and actions (Knoke &
Kuklinski, 1982).

In fact, the idea that individuals do not conduct their
social behaviors totally on their own volition has been
echoed by several earlier social theorists (Blau, 1964;
Levi-Strauss, 1969; Mead, 1934). Blau (1964), for example,
emphasizes the importance of including a network perspective

for studying human relationships.

4

The pattern of association between two individuals is

strongly influenced by the social context in which it

occurs. Even the analysis of social interaction in
dyads, therefore, must not treat these pairs as if they
exist in isolation from other social relations..... It
is essential, to conceptualize processes of social
association between individuals realistically as
finding expression in networks of social relations in
groups and not to abstract as isolated pairs from this

group context. (pp. 31—32)

As such, this study considers the role of a social
structural phenomenon, i.e., a communication network, in
developing close relationships. This study explores the
association between the dynamics of relational development
and properties of social networks. First, major findings of
previous studies will be subjected to a more vigorous
theoretical and methodological review. Then, relational
development and social network properties will be
conceptualized in such a way that they not only synthesize
the various perspectives of looking at close relationships
but also permit investigation of the interplay between
relational development and social networks. Hypotheses that
specify the relationship between network properties and
relational development will be advanced. These hypotheses
will be subjected to empirical tests that overcome

limitations of previous studies.

5
Review and Critique of Social Network Research

Summary of previous studies.

Two groups of studies from the areas of social
psychology and communication have investigated relational
development from a network perspective. First group of
studies was concerned with the partner's global perception
of network support or interference (Eggert & Parks, 1987;
Johnson & Milardo, 1984; Leslie, 1982; Lewis, 1973; Parks &
Adelman, 1983; Parks, Stan, & Eggert, 1983). These studies
found that perception of support from partner's social
network, perceptions of similarity and attraction to
partner's network were all correlated with dimensions of
relational development (Eggert & Parks, 1987; Lewis, 1973;
Parks & Adelman, 1983; Parks et al., 1983); and perception
of network interference had a negative effect on relational
development (Johnson & Milardo, 1982).

A second group of studies centered on testing network
overlap and shrinkage as related with development of close
relationships (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Krain, 1977; Milardo,
1982; Milardo, Johnson, & Huston, 1983). General findings
of these studies indicate that as relationships advance,
there is an increase in the size of the overlapping network
mutually shared by both partners (Milardo, 1982); while the
size of separate networks of each partner decreases (Johnson
& Leslie, 1982; Krain, 1977; Milardo et al., 1983). For
example, Milardo (1982) found that the percentage of network

members common to both partners in a dating relationship

6
increased substantially from 30% at casual dating, to 58% at
exclusive dating, to 77% for engaged couples. Research
designs and findings of major network studies on relational

development are summarized in Table 1.

Though these studies added to our understanding of
close relationships, their contribution to knowledge about
the interplay between relational development and social
network has been limited. These studies investigated
certain aspects of social networks while overlooking others.
One advantage of applying a more complete network approach
to the study of close relationships is the opportunity to
identify the organization of social relations and detect
emergent social phenomena that do not exist at the level of
individual partners (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982).

Contrary to the motives of researchers who study the
social networks of close relationships, most of these
network studies have failed to identify any of the
structural properties of social networks and apply
theoretical implications of network analysis to their
investigation. Several methodological flaws also make it
difficult to draw substantive conclusions from previous
findings. Among them, failure to secure data from actual
network members and errors in eliciting social network

members seem to be the most crucial. In the following

7
sections, previous studies of social networks are subjected
to a more extensive conceptual and methodological review.

Conceptual weaknessee.

Researchers of social networks have not investigated
how particular properties of networks interact with features
of relationships at different stages of development. As
such, we do not know the extent to which structural
properties influence and are influenced by the developmental
process of close relationships. Most network studies of
close relationships describe the social network from the
perspective of focal relational partners. Such variables as
perceptions of attraction and similarity to network members
and amount of communication with network members were valid
indices of relational development (Eggert & Parks, 1987;
Parks and Adelman, 1983; Parks et al., 1983).

However, these studies did not describe the overall
network, including ties existing among network members and
the nature of such ties. A few studies that attempted to
map the properties of social networks only described
association between macro properties of network overlap
(Milardo, 1982) or shrinkage of separate networks (Johnson &
Leslie, 1982; Milardo et al., 1983). For example, Milardo
(1982) argues that studies of close relationships have yet
to establish how structural or interactional characteristics
of networks are associated with the development of a pair
relationship.

One major strength of network analysis is that it

8
surpasses individual-based approaches (Knoke & Kuklinski,
1982). To do this, network analysis identifies larger
social structures based on sociometric data from individuals
(Tichy, 1981). Network analysis purports to explain, at
least in part, the behavior of network elements and of the
system as a whole by appealing to specific features of the
connections among the elements (Laumann, 1979). While
social psychologists explore the ways in which feelings for
one another pull partners together, network analysts should
explore the ways in which these feelings are transpired
through networks and manifested as various forms of network
influence (McCall, 1982). Employing network approach
requires researchers to identify structural patterns that
can facilitate or prohibit this process.

On the contrary, network studies of close relationships
often remain at the level of focal relational partners
without reference to the nature of other links in the
network or how they fit together. That is, while
communication links from the focal partners to their network
members have been widely surveyed, links reciprocated from
the network members to the partners or links among network
members have not been investigated. As a result, prior
studies identified only a small portion of the entire
process by which dyadic relationships and their social
network interact.

In addition to the size of the overlapping network

(Milardo, 1982; Milardo et al., 1983), it may be necessary

9
to consider features of social networks that play critical
roles in network-dyad relations. For example, the
characteristics of ties among network members can be
important. Association between range and strength of ties
and effect of communication flow in the network have long
been documented (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950).

Cobb and Jones (1984) argue that network support can be
measured by looking at three elements: the supportive
behavior that people actually provide, the properties of the
network, and the way a person feels about it. Albrecht and
Adelman agree when they contend that "measurement of support
communication should include the nature of supportive
messages exchanged between interactants and the type of
relationship that exists between them, and the
characteristics of the network structure embedding the
interaction" (1987, p. 71). Thus, when conceptualizing
social networks, including specific parameters of network
structures enhances the theoretical relevance of network
research and may improve understanding of the phenomenon.

Methodological weakneeeee.

No data from actual network membere. Previous network
studies on close relationships failed to obtain data from
other network members than focal relational partners. This
failure did not allow the researchers to delineate a
complete map of interaction patterns among network members.
Few studies have assessed both the perceptions of relational

partners and those of other network members. It is

10

generally understood that respondents cannot accurately
estimate the frequency of social contacts with network
constituents over time (Bernard & Killworth, 1977). This
makes it difficult to sort out how much of the linkage
between relational development and network properties is due
merely to the dyadic partners' potential response biases
(Parks et al., 1983). In this regard, findings drawn from
the previous studies may be limited because of the bias
inherent in the procedures used to elicit network data.

Some researchers, however, collected data using an
interactive approach. Instead of asking the relational
partners about their network, Milardo and his colleagues
(Milardo, 1982; Milardo et al., 1983) required participants
to record their daily communication activities immediately
after each interaction occurred. One improvement of their
method from the standard method was that the time interval
was shorter between the occurrence of each social act and
the record of it, which may have produced a more accurate
assessment of each communication act. However, when we
consider that the method employed by these researchers
consists of asking the relational partners to provide
network data, their data are also subject to the same
reporting biases and are inadequate for developing a map of
the complete network.

While gathering data from the networks of each
relational partner may be costly and time-consuming, it may

be essential for answering crucial questions about the role

ll

of social networks in the development of close
relationships. Research designs that include assessments of
both integration and quality of ties from relational
partners as well as their network members provide
opportunities for exploring areas perceptual convergence and
divergence. For example, Eggert and Parks (1987) contend
that they cannot know whether feelings of attraction and
support were reciprocated and transpired throughout the
network, because they only collected data from relational
partners. A broader range of social network indices should
be incorporated in future research designs to permit
cross-level analyses in addition to the traditional analysis
of individual-level perceptions of the social network.

Errors in eliciting social network. Unlike
organizational network which has a corporate identity in
real life (Aldrich & Whetten, 1981), social networks of
close relationships neither have clearly identifiable
boundaries nor distinct defining characteristics that are
relatively stable over time. Correctly identifying the
social network becomes important because an error in the
specification of the boundary can result in fundamental
misrepresentation of the structure (Laumann, Marsden, &
Prensky, 1983).

Previous studies revealed weaknesses in defining the
boundaries of social networks. Most network studies relied
on 'significant others' approach for eliciting relational

partners' social network members (Eggert & Parks, 1987:

12
Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Johnson & Milardo, 1982; Krain,
1977; Lewis, 1973; Parks & Adelman, 1983; Parks et al.,
1983). The significant others approach conceptualizes
relational partners' network members as close associates
whose opinions are important to the partners. This
approach, while being most preferable because of its
efficiency and practicality, may need some elaboration given
following considerations.

First, social networks of people vary in size and
composition (cf. Huston, Surra, Fitzgerald, & Cate, 1981;
Wheeler & Nezlek, 1977). While some people may have small
but strongly integrated networks, others may have larger
networks with weaker integration. That is, there is always
a possibility that the presence of a social network is more
salient to some people than to others. For example, men
tend to emphasize sharing activities and interests with
friends more than women whose friendships tend to be
characterized by emotional sharing. Also women tend to
interact with network members more often and for longer
period of time than men (Brehm, 1985; Weiss & Lowenthal,
1975). Thus, considering only the number of people met or
known in a partner's network by itself would not be a valid
measure of network involvement (Eggert & Parks, 1987; Parks
et al., 1983).

Therefore, when constructing a network of significant
others, the size factor should be controlled for and an

index of network importance should be created. This can be

13
done by assessing the strength and frequency of ties
(Granovetter, 1973) and integration among network members
and relational partners. By doing so, it becomes possible
to document how central and important each network is to the
focal relationship.

Second, error is likely to result from respondents'
exaggeration when they lengthen list of associates to avoid
appearing unpopular. This may have been critical for the
studies where the respondents were required to list a
specified number of people as their network members (Parks &
Eggert, 1987; Parks & Adelman, 1983; Parks et al., 1983).
These studies required respondents to list 4 family and kin
and 8 non-kin of their own network and their dating
partner's network to whom they felt the closest. Asking
respondents to list a certain number of people in their
partner's network may have caused respondents who have
little contact with partner's network overreport the actual
number of network links. There is also the possibility that
respondents might include people in their partner's network
who their partner would not consider important members of
their social network. If this occurs, the assessments of
network overlap would underrepresent the actual degree of
overlap in the two partners' primary networks.

Another problem with this technique is that there is no
justification for researchers to set the size of social
network. Individuals seem to vary in the number of people

they consider close. For instance, whereas Johnson and

14
Milardo (1984) found that respondents on average listed 5.8
people as their significant network members, Fischer's
(1982) finding suggests that people identify about 13
members of the core network. Another study (Milardo et al.,
1983) required respondents to record their daily social
interactions and reported that number of best friends
averaged from 4.4 to 9.0, depending upon the degree of
relational development.

Though speculation by Parks and his colleagues about
network size is consistent with general findings, imposing a
finite limit on the number of network members respondents
should list creates a demand characteristic that ensures the
respondents will identify some close friends and list enough
others to satisfy the needs of a professional social
scientist (Milardo, 1983). Because there seems to be a
practical limit to the amount and intensity of ties an
individual can maintain (Wellman, 1983), it is likely that
respondents will not list more network members than what a
researcher can handle. Therefore, it may be more effective
to instruct respondents to list as many or as few network
members as they wish, rather than requiring them to complete
a list of a certain length.

New Approach to Relational Development

Qefininq relational development.

Many network studies have not adequately conceptualized
relational development. They merely categorized

relationships using crude courtship labels, such as 'casual

15
dating,' 'regularly dating,' or 'engaged' (Johnson & Leslie,
1982; Johnson & Milardo, 1984; Milardo, 1982; Milardo,
Johnson, & Huston, 1983). In addition, such measures ask
respondents to categorize their relationship using a
single-item measure which is never amenable to the
assessment of reliability. Milardo (1983) argued that
"theoretical advances will result when nominally defined
boundary conditions, such as dating partners, spouses, and
close friendships are rephrased in the light of conceptually
defined dimensions common to the development of a variety of
close relationships" (p. 14). Thus, the current study
adopts a more sensitive definition of relational development
by including several factors.

The notion of interdependency. Though most
conceptualizations of relational development do not include
the factors beyond dyadic level, closer scrutiny of them
makes it possible to apply them in the context of social
networks. This study views a focal dyadic relationship as
situated in the web of other relations in the social
environment. As such, it becomes necessary to conceptualize
relational development accordingly. Social exchange theory
(Blau, 1964; Burgess & Huston, 1979; Homans, 1961; Kelley,
1979; Kelley et al., 1983) explains relational development
in terms of interdependency among actors. Whitten and Wolfe
(1973) argue that without exchange theory the notion of
network would be quite abstract, divorced from the realities

of human life in specific social settings.

16

Because social exchanges may transpire indirectly
through complex chains of many interdependent actors rather
than directly between just two actors (Olsen, 1978), the
concept of interdependency becomes a useful tool in
explaining the linkage between close relationships and their
social network. It suggests people seek the company of
others because they can obtain greater rewards and
satisfaction by cooperating with others. Humans are assumed
to be inexorably dependent upon others and hence
collectively interdependent for the satisfaction of a wide
variety of needs. Close relationships are considered,
therefore, as reflections of interdependency, where the
well-being of one person is at least partially contingent
upon the actions of his or her relational partner.

Conceptualizing relational developmepp. Drawing upon
the above discussion, this study adopts the social exchange
notion of interdependency to conceptualize relational
development. Defining features of close relationship
include strength, frequency, diversity, and duration of
interdependency (Kelley et al., 1983). These properties
seem to be congruent with other widely accepted definitions
of close relationships. Among these, attraction (Burgess &
Huston, 1979) is an index of strength of interdependency;
amount of communication is indicative of frequency of
interdependency; behavioral multiplexity (Hinde, 1979) and
predictability (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Miller &

Steinberg, 1975) resulting from recurrent interactions

 

.. “v. ‘— 1T

17
become indices of diversity of interdependency; and
commitment (Kelley et al., 1983; La Gaipa, 1981, Rusbult,
1980) indicates the expected duration of interdependency.

Accordingly, relational development will be understood
as an increase in combination of these indicators that are
representative dimensions of interdependency between
partners. Positive associations among these properties are
expected for close relational partners because these
dimensions have been conceived as underlying relational
development (Kelley et al., 1983; La Gaipa, 1981).

Defining eocial nepwork propertiee.

The social network of close relational partners is one
shared world two people create (Brehm, 1985). This suggests
that study of social networks should examine each partner's
own network as well as a global network which encompasses
the networks of both partners. Because interdependency is
an indicator of relational development, we expect this
interdependency to occur not only between relational
partners but also between their networks to create a social
environment common to both partners. Relational partners,
by becoming interdependent with each other, become
interdependent in their social lives as well. This idea is

represented in Figure 1.

Several network properties of close relationships

18

manifest themselves in communicative behaviors and are
defined below. The degree of interdependency between a
partner (A or B) and members of his or her relational
partner's (B's or A's) network is defined as the involvement
in the partner's network. The degree of interdependency
among members of the global network is defined as the
overlap between A's and B's networks. Agreement among
network members regarding their perceptions about the focal
relationship is defined as the meta-relational perception
convergence and is indicative of the social context of close
relationships (Huston & Levinger, 1978; Milardo, 1983).
These factors were chosen in accordance with the predictions
current theories make about the relationship between the
social network and the interdependency of the focal
relational partners.
Prediction§_Begardinq Social Network Propertiee

This study views network of relational partners as a
communication system and assumes that the properties of the
social network influence communication between relational
partners and members of their networks and vice versa.
Social networks provide support for the relationship and
shape 'surrounding culture' that gives relational partners
clues about the ways to conduct the relationship (Duck,
1986). As relationships develop, they begin to have meaning
for other people and become a social entity over and above
the feelings that the partners have for one another.

To explain the linkages between social networks and

 

19

relational development, researchers have applied various
theories of social psychology and communication. These
include uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese,
1975) employed mainly by researchers interested in partners'
perceptions of network involvement and influence (e.g.,
Eggert & Parks, 1987; Parks & Adelman, 1983; Parks et al.,
1983), social regression theory (Slater, 1963) employed by
researchers looking at network overlap and shrinkage
(Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Johnson & Milardo, 1984), and
social reaction theory (Waller & Hill, 1951) employed to
identify network support and interference (Lewis, 1973).

Though each theoretical position is sufficient to
justify research questions and hypotheses suggested in prior
studies, there have been few attempts to find a single set
of encompassing conceptual propositions that function to
integrate these theories into a single approach to studying
social networks. The notion of transitivity (Aronson &
Cope, 1968; Davis & Leinhardt, 1970; Granovetter, 1973;
Holland & Leinhardt, 1972) offers an answer to the question
of how the dynamics of a particular personal relationship
become associated with the dynamics of other relationships
within the focal partners' network. The transitivity
principle posits that if person A likes person B and person
B likes person C, the A—C relationship is partly a product
of A-B relationship as well as other multiple relationships
A or C has with his or her other friends. The idea of

transitivity becomes especially important when we consider

20
social networks of relational partners in terms of
interdependency.

Transitivity of choice relations is a central factor in
friendship formation theories. Each tie gives participants
potential indirect access to all those with whom dyad
members are connected. These related chains transmit and
allocate scarce resources, fitting members into larger
social systems. Transitivity is expected from strong ties
but not from weak ones (Granovetter, 1973), as it is
reasonable not to be interdependent with one's weak
associates (Aronson & Cope, 1968). Thus, increases in the
structural interdependency of partners' social environments
is characterized by increases in the overlap and density of
their communication networks (Milardo, 1986). Though
several theories may partially explain why the transitivity
occurs, the exact nature of this process of transitivity has
not been explored.

In the following sections, linkages between each of the
aforementioned properties of social network and the elements
of relational development are discussed. Propositions and
their theoretical rationale are provided as an effort to
comprehensively explain how transitivity occurs in social
networks of close relational partners.

Involvement in partner's network.

Involvement in partner's network is conceptualized as
the amount and range of communication as well as the

strength of tie one (A or B) has with members of his or her

21
partner's (B's or A's) network. As relational partners
experience increasing interdependency, they will become more
interdependent with the members of their partner's social
network. In a developing relationship, relational partners
are motivated to promote this interdependency for two
reasons. First, at the egoistic level, one's need to
maintain cognitively balanced affective state regarding his
or her relational conduct dictates that people be similarly
attracted to network members of a relational partner.
Second, at the dyadic level, people should reciprocate
feelings of attraction and intimacy to one's relational
partner by demonstrating attraction toward members of the
partner's network. Thus, attraction toward a partner will
be expressed in the form of interdependency with his or her
network.

Relational development contains both depth and breadth
dimensions (Altman & Taylor, 1973). While development at
the depth dimension implies the strengthened bond between
two people, development at the breadth dimension suggests
increase in activities these relational partners jointly
participate. Hays (1984) found that partners in developed
relationships tend to engage in more behaviors and in more
categories of interaction. Therefore, it is expected that
the broadened interdependency between relational partners
should expand to include other members of partners'
networks. Granovetter (1973) argues that partners' network

members may provide entry to an attractive new social circle

22
with potential rewards. Thus, awareness of increased
availability of rewarding resources provided by members of a
partner's social network increases as partners develop
stronger feelings of attraction toward one another.

In addition, communication in partner's network with an
increasing range of contacts is a potentially rich source of
information exchange that helps partners gain more
understanding of each other (Berger, 1979; Parks & Adelman,
1983). Considerable information about one's partner is
obtained from people other than the relational partner.
Hewes and Planalp (1982), for example, reported that 64% of
the college students indicated that a third party might have
information about the target person which could be obtained
only from the third party.

Family and friends should be a particularly useful
source of information because they have considerable
experience with the partner's out-of—role behavior. By
communicating with more members of partner's network, one
can come to know more about various aspects of relational
partner which otherwise might not be available. In one
study, communication with a partner's network was a stronger
correlate of uncertainty reduction (;=.47) than either
perception of network support (p=.41) or direct
communication with the partner (3:.35) (Parks & Adelman,
1983).

Involvement in partner's network becomes especially

important at the time of relational crisis. Social

23
commitment to members of a partner's network and the fear of
losing rich sources of rewarding reinforcement may act as a
strong barrier force that keeps the relational partners from
leaving the relationship (Parks & Adelman, 1983).
Commitment to a relationship stems not only from its
attractive features, but also from the constraints imposed
on interactions by network members (Levinger, 1979, Milardo,
1986). Parks and Adelman (1983) found that romantic
partners were less likely to break up when they communicated
more often with their partner's family and friends.
Withdrawal from any sector of the partner's network implies
endangered interdependency with other members of the
network, potentially resulting in overall reductions in
interdependency at the dyadic level. Particularly, weakened
interdependency with crucial members of partner's network
may substantially affect the relationship between the focal
relational partners.

Therefore, following proposition is suggested. Because
network involvement is conceptualized in terms of amount and
range of communication and tie strength, the proposition is
converted into three hypotheses that refer to these specific
parameters of partner's network. Given that features of
close relationships and social network properties are
understood as mutually determinant (Milardo, 1982; Parks et
al., 1983), no directionality was assumed in formulating the
proposition. The proposition is stated in a correlational

terms that implies the reciprocal nature of the interplay

24
between dyadic relationships and social networks.

Proposition 1: The degree of involvement in partner's
network will be positively correlated with the degree
of relational development.

Hypothesis 1-1: The amount of one's (A's) communication
with partner's (B's) network members will be
positively correlated with the degree of relational
development.

Hypothesis 1-2: The proportion of one's known members
of partner's network will be positively correlated
with the degree of relational development.

Hypothesis 1-3: The strength of ties one has with
partner's network members will be positively
correlated with the degree of relational development.

Network overlap.

Network overlap refers to the degree to which members
of a relational partner's (A's) network are linked to
members of his or her partner's (B's) network. This
variable is conceptualized in terms of amount and range of
communication and strength of ties among members in one
global network which combines networks of both relational
partners. Two people are assumed to have networks that are
generally independent of one another during their initial
phase of development. As the relationship develops,
partners become more interdependent with each other.

Increased interdependency implies increases in

partners' joint participation in social activities involving

25
members of partners' social network. Gaining relational
publicity (Levinger, 1980) in such a manner provides
opportunities for network members to become better
acquainted. Indeed, Huston and Levinger (1978) contend that
as a pair becomes further involved with each other, their
joint network will increase in size. They suggest that
relationships develop from an initial 'awareness of others'
stage, to a 'surface contact' stage, and then finally to a
'mutual relationship' stage defined as the two partners' a
joint network of the two partners.

As more people who are commonly associated with both
relational partners become aware that the resources are
offered through the focal relationship, they will also
become aware that their access to these resources is
dependent upon the focal relationship that is central in the
joint network. In the same way, as relational partners
become aware that emotional, social, and instrumental needs
of network members are dependent upon their relationship,
they will find it increasingly harder to break their
relationship (Forgas, 1985). In essence, the more friends
perceive system constraints, the more they feel emotionally
committed to their friendships (Argyle & Henderson, 1984).
Joint networks can also act as barriers discouraging the
dissolution of a relationship. Joint networks indirectly
add to an individual's commitment to the continuation of a
relationship, especially to the extent that the network of

mutual friends is identified as an irretrievable investment,

26
too costly a set of relationships to risk losing.

Typically, the size of network overlap has been
investigated in terms of the number of people who are
commonly identified as network members by both partners
(Milardo, 1982; Milardo et al., 1983). However, when
considering the global network that encompasses both
partners' social environments, an additional index of the
size of network overlap seems available. That is, by
examining the proportion of ties that connect members of the
two separate networks among the potential number of ties, it
becomes possible to assess the way these ties interact with
the development of focal relationship. Thus, a proposition
is advanced. From the proposition, two hypotheses are
derived that predict relationships between these indicators
of the size of network overlap and the degree of relational
development.

Proposition 2: The size of overlap between networks of
both partners will be positively correlated with the
degree of relational development.

Hypothesis 2-1: The proportion of people in the global
network who are commonly identified as significant
others by both relational partners will be positively
correlated with the degree of relational development.

Hypothesis 2-2: The proportion of ties connecting the
two separate networks in the global network will be
positively correlated with the degree of relational

development.

27

In addition to these general indices of network
overlap, other qualitative features of the global network
have not been documented in previous endeavors. If
interdependency occurs at the level of the global network,
it should be understood not only in terms of its size but
also its quality. Amount and range of communication and the
strength of ties among members of the joint network are
representative of the qualitative aspect of the network
overlap.

It is predicted that network members will find
increasing opportunities for communication as the
relationship between the focal partners develops. Increased
communication will eventually bring the network members
closer to each other as a set of people surrounding the
focal partners. Theoretical linkages between strength of
ties and integratedness among members of network and the
stability of relationships involved in it has long been
acknowledged (Simmel, 1953). Thus, these three properties
are added as additional indicators of interdependency among
members of partners' global network. Therefore:

Proposition 3: The degree of overlap in the partners'

global network members will be positively correlated
with the degree of relational development.

Hypothesis 3-1: The amount of communication among

members of partners' global network will be
positively correlated with the degree of relational

development.

28
Hypothesis 3—2: The proportion of ties among members of
partners' global network will be positively
correlated with the degree of relational development.
Hypothesis 3-3: The strength of ties among members of
partners' global network will be positively
correlated with the degree of relational development.

Convergence of meta-relational perception.

Convergence of meta-relational perception refers to the
degree to which members of the global network agree on their
definition of the focal relationship. As interdependency
spreads throughout the network and the amount of
communication among network members increases, so will the
similarity of perception (cf. Berger & Calabrese, 1975;
Rogers & Kincaid, 1981). Interdependency among network
members may form a globally balanced system, where all
members are ultimately in agreement regarding their
perceptions about the focal relationship (Newcomb, 1961).
Thus, it may be predicted that members of a global network
will demonstrate convergence in their perceptions about the
focal relationship due to their abundant and similar
experiences and communication with the focal partners.

Awareness of this convergence of perceptions will
provide relational partners with positive rewards and
indicate that their relationship is valued by their network
members (Clore & Byrne, 1974). Such convergence implies
continued communication about the focal relationship among

these members of the global network. This may be

29
interpreted by the focal partners as a sign of their healthy
concern for the relationship, which will ultimately make the
focal partners more satisfied with their relationship. The
degree of convergence among network members is also
indicative of relational partners' efforts to enhance the
relationship. If partners are committed to a relationship,
they are more likely to agree with each other on various
aspects of their relationship (Kiesler, 1971). When
partners communicate with their social network members about
the relationship, information they will provide is likely to
be consistent over time. Accordingly, this consistency will
promote agreement among network members in their perception
about the focal relationship. Therefore:

Hypothesis 4: The degree of convergence of
meta-relational perceptions among members of global
network will be positively correlated with the degree
of relational development between focal partners.

Here, stronger agreement is likely when there is higher

proportion of ties that connect two separate networks of
relational partners. Because such ties are maintained by
network members who belong to the two networks
simultaneously and who are assumed to know both partners
well, these members' opinions about the focal relationship
would be influential in shaping other network members'
perceptions about the relationship. Members of one
relational partner's (A's) network, who are not directly

connected to the members of other relational partner's (B's)

30
network, should rely on these mutual network members as a
valid source of information about the focal relationship.

By becoming central in the flow of information
regarding the relationship between the focal partners, these
members will communicate about the relationship more
frequently and actively than other network members.
Accordingly, multiple redundant communication paths in a
network created by frequent communication opportunities will
enhance the accuracy with which the focal relationship is
perceived. Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) contend
that "the more active the process of communication which
goes on within the group, the greater will be the effect of
the process of communication in producing uniformity of
attitudes, opinions, and behavior" (p. 175). Thus:

Hypothesis 5: The degree of convergence of

meta-relational perceptions among members of global
network will be positively correlated with the
proportion of ties connecting two separate networks

in the global network.

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Overview

Data were collected at two different phases. Phase One
participants were partners of 95 heterosexual dyads (N=190).
Dyadic partners responded to questions about their
relationship and then provided a list of network members
consisting of close friends and family. Phase Two
participants (N=747) were those people who were identified
by the focal dyads as members of their social network. They
were contacted by the researcher and provided information
about their communication contact with the focal partners
and other members of the social network.
Participants

One member of each Phase One dyad was solicited from
various undergraduate communication classes at a large
Midwestern university and given extra course credit for
participation. Participants were those (1) who had a close
relational partner of the opposite gender residing in the
same locality, and (2) who preferred the particular person
as a relational partner over others (cf. Milardo, 1982).
Students who agreed to participate in the study were asked
to bring their partner with them to the research session.
Solicited dyads included 10 engaged couples, 33 couples at

31

32
the exclusive dating stage, 9 casually dating couples, and
43 friends dyads. Average age of the participants was 20.8
(SQ:2.08). Among 190 Phase One participants, 17 were
freshmen, 39 were sophomore, 73 were junior, and 45 were
seniors. Sixteen were non-college participants.1

Phase Two participants responded to either a telephone
interview or mail survey and provided information about
their perception about the focal relationship and their
communication contact with the focal partners as well as
other members of the focal partners' networks.

Proceduree

Phase One.

Phase One participants arrived in pairs at a designated
time and were greeted by the researcher. Each dyadic
partner then individually completed a two-part
questionnaire. In Part One of the questionnaire,
participants responded to items assessing the quality of the
relationship. In Part Two of the questionnaire,
participants were instructed to think of other close friends,
family members, and relatives they considered important and
who are substantially influential in various aspects of
their personal life including crucial decisions.
Participants were then asked to provide names of these
"significant others." They were free to list as many as or
as few names as they wished. They were also told to include
names of only those they interact with on a regular and

frequent basis. The relational partner they brought to the

33
research session was not included in this list.

After listing network members, participants indicated
their relational closeness with each of the network members.
Participants were then given names of network members their
partner listed and asked to identify those whom they knew.
Participants then indicated their relational closeness and
amount of communication with each of these members of their
partner's network. Following this, the researcher asked for
permission to contact the network members listed by each
relational partner. If participants agreed, they were asked
to provide phone numbers and addresses of the names they had
provided. Participants were free to refuse permission, and
those who did were deleted from further analysis.

Nine of the 95 dyads indicated that they did not want
their network members to be contacted by researcher. There
were 12 dyads where one partner provided agreement while the
other did not. In terms of the degree of relational
development, however, participants who did not provide the
agreement (meep=4.82) were not different from those who
provided the agreement (meep=5.18) (p=1.41, gf=185, p>.05).2
Participants who agreed but could not provide phone numbers
and addresses at the time they completed the questionnaire
were later contacted by the researcher who requested the
information. All participants were then debriefed about the
nature of the study and were thanked for their

participation.

34

Phase Two.

Of the 916 network members identified by Phase One
participants, 747 (81.6%) participated in Phase Two data
collection. Six hundred and eighty-five of these
participants responded to telephone interview and 62 who
lived outside the local area code responded to a mail survey
(Appendix) which was similar to the interview protocols.

One hundred sixty-nine of the 916 network members did not

participate in Phase Two. Of these, 152 were inaccessible
after repeated phone calls and 17 did not return the mail

survey.3

Twelve interviewers were extensively trained by the
researcher and were provided with standardized instructions
that specified the exact interview protocols. Interviews
began with an explanation of Phase One data collection and
the context in which the respondents were selected as
interviewees. For mail survey respondents, similar messages
were included in the cover letter (Appendix). Statements
assuring confidentiality of responses were also inserted.
This was particularly important because network analysis
deals with sociometric questions that are generally
perceived as sensitive and somewhat private in nature (Knoke
& Wood, 1981; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981).

Each interview was personalized in such a way that each
respondent was referred to the names of focal relational
partners and the names of network members listed by both

partners. This consideration was necessary to increase

35
respondent involvement and response rate (of. Erickson,
Nosanchuk, & Lee, 1981). After the respondents indicated
their willingness to participate in the interview, they were
first asked to rate their perception of closeness and
communication contact with each of the focal relational
partners. They then made similar ratings for other members
in the networks of both partners. Finally, they rated the
closeness of the focal relationship.
lpetrumentation

Meaeuree of relational development.

Consistent with this study's conceptualization of
relational development as increasing interdependency,
specific indicators were employed to represent strength,
frequency, diversity, and duration dimensions of
interdependency. These indicators included measures of
attraction as representing strength, amount of communication
as being frequency, behavioral multiplexity and
predictability as representing diversity, and commitment as
a proxy of duration of interdependency.

Strength of interdependency was measured with six
Likert-type items with seven-point response format. Because
the present study deals with heterosexual dating
relationships, 'love' portion of Rubin's (1970) love and
liking scale was employed. Given that the strength of
interdependency refers to the degree to which relational
partners are affectively tied to each other (Kelley et al.,

1983) or more generally the degree of cohesiveness

36
(Cartwright & Zander, 1968), the items measuring attraction
between romantic partners matched with the
conceptualization.

Frequency of interdependency refers to the rate and
number of connections between partners over any given time
span (Kelley et al., 1983). To tap this dimension of
interdependency, amount of communication was measured by
asking the relational partners of their approximate hours of
interaction during a typical week.

Because the diversity of interdependency is defined in
terms of the number of multiple ways in which relational
partners interact (Hinde, 1979), a four-item measure of
behavioral multiplexity was developed. An eight-item
measure of uncertainty reduction developed and validated by
Parks (1978) was added to assess the degree of
predictability resulting from diverse and recurrent
interactions between partners.

Commitment or the extent to which the relationship is
expected to continue (Kelley et al., 1983) indicated the
duration dimension of interdependency. The measure included
the partner's degree of satisfaction from the relationship
and the awareness of alternative relationships (Forgas,
1985; Rusbult, 1983). Additionally, the partner's
willingness to continue the relationship for the next six
months, two years, and six years was asked by three items.
Together, 11 Likert-type items with a seven-point response

format were used to measure commitment.

37

Because the above indicators are expected to be
positively correlated with each other (Kelley et al., 1983;
La Gaipa, 1981), the degree of relational development was
operationalized as a composite score of these indicators.
Among these, however, the measure of amount of communication
was excluded because of the incompatibility of its response
format. The measure of amount of communication was examined
separately in terms of its correlation with other indicators
of relational development and social network properties.

Meeeuree of involvement in partner'efnetwppk.

The degree of involvement in partner's network
corresponds to one's interdependency with members of
partner's network. Accordingly, it was operationalized in
terms of the amount of communication (frequency), proportion
of communication ties (range), and the strength of ties each
dyadic partner (A or B) has with members of partner's (B's
or A's) network.

Amount of communication was measured by asking each
member of partner's (A's or B's) network to estimate the
average number of hours spent during a typical week
communicating with the other partner (B or A) either
face-to-face, by phone, by writing, or in a group setting.
Absence of a tie was coded as zero. To obtain the final
measure of amount of communication, number of communication
hours was first summed across all network members and then

divided by the total number of people in the network. This

procedure standardized ratings across networks of varying

38
size.

Proportion of ties was the ratio of people of partner's
(A's or B's) network who indicated that they knew the other
partner (B or A). Strength of tiee was measured by asking
each member of partner's (A's or B's) network to rate his or
her relationship with the known partner (B or A) on a
seven-point closeness scale ranging from 'very distant' to
'very close.‘ The average response across network members
was used as the measure of strength of ties with partner's
network members.

Meaeures of network overlap.

Interdependency between networks of relational partners
was examined by considering the degree of overlap between
the networks. To obtain the measures of network overlap,
one global network combining two separate networks of both
partners (A and B) was considered. Besides the traditional
measure of the size of overlap, interdependency between the
networks was operationalized by the amount of communication
(frequency), proportion of communication ties (range), and
strength of ties among members of the global network.

Size of network overlap was examined by counting the
number of ties that connect members of two separate networks
(A's and B's) in the global network. Any ties directed from
mutual network members (those who belong to both networks)
were regarded as cross-linkages connecting two separate
networks. Again, to control for the effect of density of

the global network, ratio of this number to the total number

39
of ties observed in the global network was used as the final
indicator of network overlap. This measure was compared
with the proportion of people who were listed as mutual
network members of both partners (Milardo, 1982).

Amount of communication in the global network was
measured by asking each member of the network to estimate
the average number of hours spent during a typical week
communicating with each of other members in the network,
either face-to-face, by phone, by writing, or in a group
setting. Absence of a tie was recorded as zero. This
measure was first aggregated across all network members and
then divided by the total number of people in the network to
produce the final measure of amount of communication in the
global network.

Proportion of ties (density) was the ratio of the
number of actually observed ties among the network members
to the number of all possible ties in the global network
(cf. Mitchell, 1969; Thurman, 1979). When a member was
identified as known to other, a tie was recorded as existing
between the two members.

Strength of ties was obtained by asking each member to
evaluate the degree of closeness with other global network
members with whom he or she has a communication tie. A
seven-point scale was used for this measure. Obtained
scores were summed across the network members and then

divided by the total number of ties existing in the network.

4O

Measure of perception convergence.

Measure of the convergence of meta-relational
perception was obtained by examining the discrepancy among
members of global network regarding their ratings about the
closeness of the focal relationship. The index of
perception convergence for each network was the standard
deviation of all the closeness ratings provided by the
members of the global network during Phase Two data

collection.

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Confirmatorv Factor Analyeie

Examination of the structural quality of each measure
of relational development preceded tests of the hypotheses.
Confirmatory factor analyses (Hunter, Cohen, & Nicol, 1982)
were performed to verify unidimensionality of the measures.
Following Hunter's (1980) suggestion, three criteria were
applied for testing the unidimensionality of the measures.
After examining homogeneity of content of the items, tests
of internal consistency and parallelism were conducted.
Analyses indicated that some revisions of the original
scales were necessary to achieve a unidimensional factor
structure for each measures of relational development.

One item of the original six items of the measure of
strength of interdependency (attraction), four items among
the 12 items of the diversity of interdependency measure
(behavioral multiplexity and predictability), and three
items of the 11-item measure of duration of interdependency
(commitment) failed to meet the criteria for internal '
consistency and parallelism and were deleted from further
analyses. In all, five items of strength (21:.84), eight
items of diversity (gL=.91), and eight items of duration of
interdependency (51:.94) were retained for further analyses.

41

42

Though each of the measures fit a unique factor
structure, high intercorrelations among these factors
indicated the existence of one global underlying factor (of.
Kelley et a1, 1983; La Gaipa, 1981). When all 21 items from
the three measures were combined to make a global factor,
none of the items deviated from the criteria for
unidimensionality. This result is consistent with the
current study's conceptualization of relational development
as encompassing dimensions of strength, diversity, and
duration of interdependency. Thus, a global indicator of
the degree of relational development was formed from a
composite score of these measures (9L=.95). Means and
standard deviations of the final 21 items and their factor

loadings are presented in Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics
Measures of relational development.

The average rating of relational development was 5.13
(SQ:1.32) on a seven-point scale. Ratings of the primary
factors of relational development were all similar to the
global rating of relational development. Average ratings
were 5.00 (SQ;1.40) for strength, 5.15 for diversity
(SQ:1.29), and 5.21 (§Q=1.52) for duration of
interdependency. Ratings of relational development by both

partners were highly correlated (;=.84, p<.001). Also, male

 

 

43
partners' rating of relationship (mean=5.15, §Q=1.34) was

not different from female partners' rating (mean=5.12,

 

§Q=1.31) (p=.40, g:=91, p>.05), suggesting a considerable
agreement by both partners about the definition of their
relationship.

The average amount of communication between relational
partners during a typical week was 27.58 hours (§Q=32.05).
The average length of their relationship was 2 years and 4
months (§Q=6 years and 5 months). However, correlations of
these two measures with the global measure of relational
development were weaker than those of the above three
primary factors of relational development. The correlations
were p=.56 (p<.001) for the amount of communication and
p=.21 (p<.01) for the length of relationship.

To further explore the possibility of different
measurement models of relational development for romantic
relationships and friendships (Eggert & Parks, 1987),
association among indicators of relational development were
compared between the two types of relationships. Romantic
relationships included engaged, exclusive dating, and
casual dating partners. Romantic relationships and
friendships produced similar patterns of correlations among
indicators of relational development. Table 3 shows
correlations among indicators of relational development for

the two relationship types jointly as well as separately.

Significant differences in the degree of relational
development were observed across four relational categories
(§=59.74, e;=3,180, 31:.50, p<.001). Comparisons of the
ratings of relational development between adjacent
relational categories also revealed significant differences.
The partners of engaged dyads reported higher rating of
relational development (meep=6.42, §Q=.30) than those at the
exclusive dating (meep=5.94, §Q=.68) (p;3.06,lgf=84, p<.01),
followed by the partners at the casual dating (peep=4.98,
§Q=.97) (p=4.78, gf=82, p<.001). Rating of relational
development made by the casually dating partners was
significantly higher than the rating made by the partners at
friendship stage (meep=4.10, §Q=1.20) (p=2.91, g;=95,
p<.01).

Amount of communication also decreased considerably
from engaged partners to partners at friendship stage
(E=64.37, e;=3,180, 3:=.52, p<.001). The engaged partners
spent significantly more time communicating with each other
(peep=75.95, §Q=42.27) than the partners at the exclusive
dating (peep=40.92, §Q=27.52) (p=4.30, g;=a3, p<.001) who
were followed by the partners at the casual dating
(meep=13.59, ep=1o.24) (e=4.01, gg=81, p<.001). The
partners at friendship stage spent less time communicating

with each other (mean=7.11, §p=7.37) than those at the

 

45
casual dating (p=3.07, g;=97, p<.01).

Taken together, these findings suggest the validity of
the current study's global measure of relational development
across relational categories. Considering that the majority
of social network studies used nominal level measure of
relational development (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Johnson &
Milardo, 1984; Milardo, 1982; Milardo et al., 1983), the
above findings justify attempts to compare this study's
results with those of previous studies.

The length of relationship, however, was not
significantly different across the four relational
categories (E;.65, gf=3,180, fl:=.01, p>.05). While engaged
partners had been in their relationship for 2 years and 6
months on average (§Q=2 years and 1 month), partners at
friendship stage had maintained their relationship for a
similar length of time (meep=2 years and 10 months, SQ:8
years and 6 months) (p=-1.02, g§=87, p>.05). This suggests
that partners can remain in a relationship over an extended
period of time without further developing it. This finding,
combined with the relatively weak correlation between the
length of relationship and the degree of relational
development (;=.21), may negate the usefulness of the
measure of length of relationship as an indicator of
relational development.

Network analysis.

Reciprocation. Because people interact on an equal

basis in nonwork related social networks, communication ties

46
were considered symmetrical, which requires the ties to be
reciprocal (Tichy, Tushman, & Fombrun, 1979).
Unreciprocated ties were attributed to a measurement error
resulting from respondents' recall inaccuracy or missing
data (Rice & Richards, 1985). Thus, when person A reported
a tie to person B, but person B did not reciprocate the tie
or did not participate in Phase Two of data collection,
person A's report of tie to person B was assumed reciprocal.
To achieve the reciprocity, adding the missing ties was
preferred to deleting them. This decision was made because
deleting the missing ties will likely increase sampling
error by reducing the sample size.

On the average 94.8% of the ties network members
reported were reciprocated by the focal partners. A small
portion (5.2%) of unreciprocated ties indicated that
participants' report of communication contact with their
partner's network members was fairly accurate. Average rate
of forced reciprocation due to missing data was 15.8%. The
overall rate of forced reciprocation was 21%.

Social network properties. On the average 5.8 network
members (§p=2.3) were listed by each participant. Among
them, 4.7 (78%) were friends and 1.2 (22%) were kin.4
Relational partners' average rating of closeness to their
own network members was 5.89 (§p=.74) on a seven-point
scale. Of the 5.8 members listed by each participant (A or
B), 4.2 (73%) indicated that they knew the participant's

relational partner (B or A). The network members' rating of

47
closeness to the other focal partner averaged 3.85 (S2;1.42)
on a seven-point scale. Each member of the participant's
(A's or B's) network spent 6.28 hours (§Q=12.43)
communicating with the other focal partner (B or A).

When the networks of both partners were combined, 11.5
people (§Q=8.6) formed the average global network.
Approximately one member (11%) of each global network was
found to be common to both partners' networks. However,
only 40 dyads reported having one or more mutual network
members, while 55 dyads reported no mutual network members
at all. Number of mutual network members in the global
network ranged from 2.8 (31%) for the engaged couples, 1.1
(12%) for the exclusively dating partners, to 0.7 (10%) for
partners at friendship stage.5 The average proportion of
existing ties (density) among members of the global network
was .53 (§p=.22). Of these, 39% were connecting members of
one's (A's or B's) network to members of his or her
partner's (B's or A's) network. The average perception of
closeness among global network members was 3.96 (§Q=1.05).
Each global network member spent 3.8 hours (§Q=3.89) on
average communicating with each of the other members in the
global network.

Finally, the correlation between network members'
reports of supportiveness (meep=5.69, §Q=.99) and their
rating of closeness of the focal relationships (peep=5.63,
§p=1.03) was strong (;=.67, P<.001). That is, as network

members perceived the focal relationship increasingly close,

48
they provided stronger support for the relationship, and
vice versa. This result is consistent with Parks and his
colleagues' findings (Parks & Adelman, 1983; Parks et al.,
1983) which confirmed network members' overall concern for
the well-being of focal relationships.
Teepe of the Hypotheses

Involvement in partner'e network.

 

Positive correlations were predicted between the degree
of relational development and indicators of involvement in
partner's network. To test the hypotheses drawn from this
prediction, correlations were obtained by treating each
relational partner as the unit of analysis. Table 4
contains correlations among the degree of relational
development, amount of communication with partner, amount of
communication with partner's network members, proportion of
known members of partner's network, and strength of ties

with partner's network members.

Hypothesis 1-1 predicted a positive correlation between
the degree of relational development and the amount of
communication with partner's network members. Data were
consistent with the hypothesis. The correlation was
moderate but significantly different from zero (;=.32,
p<.001).6 This suggests that partners in more developed

relationships spent more time communicating with each

49
other's network members. One noteworthy finding was the
correlation between the amount of communication with partner
and the amount of communication with partner's network
members. The correlation was 3;.55 (p<.001). Thus, it may
be that as partners spend more time communicating with each
other, they found increasing opportunities for communication
with each other's network members also.

A predicted positive correlation between the degree of
relational development and the proportion of known members
of partner's network was supported by data (Hypothesis 1-2).
The correlation was sizeable (;=.64, p<.001) and
significantly stronger (p<.01) than any other correlations
between the degree of relational development and indicators
of involvement in partner's network. Thus, partners of more
developed relationships knew more members of each other's
social network.

Hypothesis 1-3 that predicted a positive correlation
between the degree of relational development and the
strength of ties with known members of partner's network was
also supported (;=.26, p<.01). Partners in more developed
relationships felt closer to members of each other's network
than did partners in less developed relationships. The
amount of communication between focal partners was also
similarly correlated with the strength of ties with
partner's network members (3:.28, p<.001).

In sum, the indicators of involvement were all

positively correlated with the degree of relational

50
development. Among the indicators of involvement in
partner's network, the range of communication, which was
operationalized by the proportion of known members of
partner's network, was the strongest indicator of relational
development. When all three indicators were combined, they
explained a substantial portion of the variance of
relational development (_R_= . 58 , B}: =. 34)

Network overlap.

Indicators of network overlap were expected to be
positively correlated with the degree of relational
development. Because network overlap occurs at the level of
global network of both partners, each relational dyad was
treated as the unit of analysis. To test the hypotheses
derived from the literature review, the average of both
relational partners' ratings of relational development was
correlated with each of the indicators of network overlap.
This procedure was justified because relational partners
demonstrated considerable agreement on the measure of
relational development (p=.84, p<.001).

Table 5 contains correlations among the degree of
relational development, amount of communication between
relational partners, proportion of mutual network members,
proportion of ties connecting two separate networks, amount
of communication among global network members, proportion of
existing ties in the global network, and the strength of

ties among global network members.

Hypotheses 2-1 predicted a positive correlation between
the degree of relational development and the proportion of
mutual network members. Data were consistent with the
hypothesis (;=.33, p<.01).7 Based on this finding, it can
be concluded that partners of a more developed relationship
shared more people as their mutual network members.8 The
amount of communication between relational partners was
correlated with the proportion of mutual network members in
a similar fashion (;=.36, p<.01).

Also supported was Hypothesis 2-2 which predicted a
positive correlation between the degree of relational
development and the proportion of ties connecting two
separate networks (;=.34, p<.01). That is, the more
developed the focal relationship, the more members of one's
(A's or B's) network became connected to members of other's
(B's or A's) network. Particularly, the strong correlation
between the proportion of mutual network members and the
proportion of ties connecting two networks (;=.65, p<.001)
indicates the importance of mutual network members in the
merging of the two separate networks into a global network.

Hypothesis 3-1 predicted a positive correlation between
the degree of relational development and the amount of
communication among global network members. Data, however,

were not supportive of the prediction. The correlation was

52
small and not significantly different from zero (;:.15,
p>.05). A similar result was found for Hypothesis 3-2. The
correlation between the degree of relational development and
the proportion of existing ties among global network members
was not significantly different from zero (;=.15, p>.05).
Neither amount of communication nor the density of ties
among members of the global network was associated with the
degree of relational development.

On the other hand, as predicted by Hypothesis 3-3, a
positive correlation existed between the degree of
relational development and the strength of ties among global
network members (p=.36, p<.001). When partialling out the
effect of proportion of ties connecting two networks, the
correlation remained relatively unchanged (partial r=.31,
p<.01). In other words, increases (or decreases) in the
proportion of ties connecting the two networks had little
effect on the correlation between relational development and
the strength of ties among global network members.

Convergence of meta-relational perception.

The degree of convergence of meta-relational
perceptions among global network members was predicted to be
positively correlated with relational development and the
amount of network overlap. Because the degree of
meta-relational perception convergence was indicated by the
standard deviation of closeness ratings made by global
network members, smaller deviations indicated greater

perception convergence. Thus, negative correlations

53
indicate a positive relationship and vice versa.

The data were somewhat inconsistent with Hypothesis 4
which predicted a positive relationship between the
relational development and the meta-relational perception
convergence. The correlation between the standard deviation
of closeness ratings made by the global network members and
relational development was not significantly different from
zero (;=-.16, p>.05). However, a stronger relationship was
found between the amount of communication between focal
partners and meta-relational perception convergence (;=-.30,
p<.01). Thus, though the data were not conclusive, it may
be that communication between focal partners, and not
relational development per se, is responsible for perception
convergence.

Consistent with Hypothesis 5, the correlation between
the standard deviation of closeness ratings and the
proportion of ties connecting two separate networks was
negative and significantly different from zero (gs-.24,
p<.05). In other words, members of global networks which
have many connecting ties that link the two separate
networks are more likely to show agreement in their
perceptions about the focal relationships. The other
indicator of network overlap, i.e., the proportion of mutual
network members, was also negatively correlated with the
standard deviation of closeness ratings made by network
members (;=-.36, p<.001), highlighting the importance of

mutual network members in the development of perceptions

54
about the focal relationship among members of the global
network. The degree of meta-relational perception
convergence was not correlated with other indicators of
network overlap (;=-.09 with the amount of communication
among global network members; p=.10 with the proportion of
existing ties among global network members: ;=.05 with the
strength of ties among global network members).

In sum, it can be concluded that meta-relational
perception convergence is more a function of how many
members of one's (A's) network are connected to members of
other's (B's) network than the degree of relational
development between the focal partners or the amount and

range of communication among the global network members.

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

Assessment of the Interdependency Model

The proposed interdependency model of relational
development states that increases in relational
interdependency will coincide with increases in
interdependency between social networks of relational
partners. The model was tested from two perspectives.
First, interdependency with a partner's social network was
investigated by measuring involvement in a partner's
network. Second, interdependency between the individual
networks of relational partners was investigated by
examining qualities of a global network, which resulted from
the merging of partners' social networks.

General findings verified the usefulness of the
interdependency model for explaining the interplay between
development of various types of heterosexual relationships
and features of their social networks. Particularly, the
validation of the measurement model of relational
development for both romantic relationships and friendships
suggests that the two types of relationships share
considerable similarity in their developmental patterns.
This finding provides support to La Gaipa's (1981) view
which posits that the psychological resources exchanged

55

56

Jog“.
I! r" _
. .
.fi ,

between partners would remain relatively stable in primary
relationships.

In this section, the major findings of this study are
summarized and discussed in reference to the existing body
of research on this topic.

Involvement in partner's network.

 

Relational development was positively correlated with
involvement in the other partner's social network in terms
of amount and range of communication as well as the strength
of ties. That is, partners in a more developed relationship
communicate with more members of each other's network with
increased frequency and an increased feeling of closeness.
Among all the indicators of involvement in a partner's
network, range of communication, i.e., proportion of known
members of partner's network, was the strongest correlate of
relational development.

Additional analyses permit further speculation about
the relative importance of range of communication as an
indicator of involvement in partner's network. The
proportion of known members of partner's network was
moderately correlated with both the amount of communication
(;=.30, p<.001) and the strength of ties with partner's
network members (;=.26, p<.001). When the effect of
proportion of known members was partialled out, the
correlation between the amount of communication with
partner's network members and relational development

decreased considerably (partial r=.14, p>.05; zero-order

57
3:.32, p<.001). The same was true of the correlation
between the strength of ties with partner's network members
and relational development. This correlation, after
controlling for the effect of the proportion of known
members, also became nonsignificant (partial r=.12, p>.05;
zero-order r=.26, p<.01).

Thus, it is likely that the correlation between
relational development and the amount of communication with
partner's network members is largely mediated by the
proportion of known members of partner's network. Increased
strength of ties may also result largely from knowing more
members of partner's network. Most likely, becoming
acquainted with a partner's network members is a
prerequisite for becoming involved in the partner's network.
Though the interplay between changes in a focal relationship
and changes in its surrounding network has been hypothesized
to occur in a reciprocal rather than unidirectional fashion
(Milardo, 1982, 1983; Parks et al., 1983), the above
interpretation seems a likely alternative to such a
scenario.

In summary, the current study verified the association
between relational development and involvement in partner's
network. The findings were consistent with those of Parks
and his colleagues (Eggert & Parks, 1987; Parks & Adelman,
1983; Parks et al., 1983). Though the current study is
partially a replication of their work, it provides more

specificity in describing the ways in which partners become

58
involved in each other's social network. An interesting
finding was that network involvement was indicated more by
behaviorally based variables, i.e., range and amount of
communication, than an emotionally based variable, i.e.,
strength of ties.

By obtaining information about network involvement from
both relational partners and their network members, this
study's findings were not dependent upon the respondents'
perceptions about the influence of their partners' network.
It has been speculated that people's perception of network
involvement is compounded by their wishful thinking (Parks
et al., 1983) or that they cannot accurately estimate the
frequency of communication contacts with their network
members (Bernard & Killworth, 1977). However, the small
portion of unreciprocated ties in the present study (5.2%)
negates this possibility. At least for the current study,
which sampled relatively small and densely knit social
networks, respondents' report of communication contacts with
partner's network was a reliable source of information.

Nepwork overlap.

The test of overlap between networks of relational
partners produced mixed results. Among several indicators
of network overlap, only the size of overlap and strength of
ties among global network members were correlated with
relational development. The amount and range of
communication among network members were not indicative of

relational development, though the directions of the

 

 

59
correlations were consistent with the prediction. Thus, a
conservative interpretation would be that in a more
developed relationship, members of one partner's (A's)
network know more members of the other partner's (B's)
network (network overlap) and the feeling of closeness among
global network members (strength of ties) increases.

A couple of explanations can be offered for the
nonsignificant correlations between relational development
and both the amount and range of communication among global
network members. The first possibility centers on the
nature of the interdependency in the global network. Unlike
partners' involvement in each other's network,
interdependency among the global network members may take
more affective than behavioral form. Relational development
may be more predictive of the perception of closeness among
global network members than the amount and range of
communication among them. That is, unrelated to the actual
amount or range of communication, members of one partner's
(A's) network could feel close to members of other partner's
(B's) network as they would to the focal partners.

A second possibility is a measurement issue. In
examining the amount and range of communication at the level
of the global network, it was difficult to distinguish
between a network in which members are densely connected
within the two separate networks but not so across the
networks and a network in which members are densely

connected across the two separate networks but not within

 

60

each network (of. Bott, 1971; Mitchell, 1974). The overall
density in the global network could be similar between two
qualitatively different networks. Thus, it is possible that
the amount and range of communication among the global
network members might not be a good reflection relational
development, unless the amount and range of communication
within each of the two separate networks are controlled for.

One additional finding was a confirmation of the
shrinkage hypothesis which has not been fully supported by
previous endeavors (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Krain, 1977;
Milardo et al., 1983). Because network shrinkage is
conceptually a necessary end result of network overlap, the
shrinkage hypothesis could be examined by considering the
proportion of people in the global network who remained
within each relational partner's separate network. The
correlation between the proportion of separate network
members and relational development was -.35 (p<.01), while
the correlation between the proportion of mutual network
members and relational development was .33 (p<.01). That
is, as relationships develop more, the number of partners'
mutual network members increased and at the same time the
number of their separate network members decreased (Slater,
1963).

Given the nonsignificant correlation between the degree
of relational development and the number of partner's
network members (p=.04, p>.05), it is unlikely that the

network size increases or decreases as focal relationship

61
becomes developed. Because the current study sampled only
intimate sectors of partner's network, the portion of one's
peripheral network members who dropped out of the network as
it merged with partner's network could not be answered
(Milardo et al., 1983). However, it is reasonable to
conclude that the network overlap and shrinkage that occur
as relationships develop do not seem to come at the expense
of existing relationships with close friends and family (cf.
Johnson and Leslie, 1982).

In summary, the current findings not only replicated
results of previous studies on network overlap (Milardo,
1982; Milardo et al., 1983), but also confirmed the validity
of a more elaborated measure of network overlap, i.e., the
proportion of ties connecting two separate networks of
partners. Additionally, the current study documented
specific features of emerging social environments by
considering a global network of both partners. In this
regard, support for the multi-person transitivity principle
(Aronson & Cope, 1968; Davis & Leinhardt, 1970; Granovetter,
1973) provided the conceptual coherence to explain
interdependency through a system in which multiple actors
are involved. Particularly, mutual network membere were
found to be primary agents of transitivity across networks
of partners.

Convergence of meta-relational perception.

As an effort to explore the nature of social

environment of close relationships, the current study

62
examined the perceptual convergence among members of
partner's networks. Though not fully consistent with the
predictions, findings regarding meta-relational perception
convergence were notable.

Rather than the degree of relational development, the
size of network overlap was more indicative of the degree of
meta-relational perception convergence. Both the proportion
of ties across two networks and the proportion of mutual
network members contributed to explaining the extent to
which global network members agree in their perceptions
about the focal relationship. Because meta-relational

perception convergence implies frequent communication about

 

the focal relationship among members of the global network,
other network indicators might not be as informative as the
proportion of ties connecting two separate networks.

Thus, characteristics of the global network and not the
focal relationship itself are primarily responsible for
influencing network perceptions about the focal
relationship. What seems to matter is the amount and range
of communication across networks and the structural position
of network members who are providing meta-relational
messages (Kapferer, 1973). Given that mutual network
members are those who maintain strong ties with both
relational partners, the amount and range of communication
with the strongly tied mutual network members could be
influential for the meta-relational perception convergence.

This is somewhat inconsistent with the 'strength of ties'

63
hypothesis (Granovetter, 1973) which suggests that the
amount of communication is not as important as the
uniqueness of communication.

Additionally, network members' meta-relational
perception was found to be similar to that of the focal
partners. Given that relational partners reveal positive
information about their relationship while withholding
negative information (Goldsmith, 1988), this finding is not
surprising. Network members' meta-relational communication,
a primary source of information about the focal
relationship, may be framed in such a way that it did not
deviate much from the original version revealed by the focal
partners.

Though communication about the focal relationship could
be only one of the several functions partners' social
network performs, examination of the meta-relational
perception convergence highlighted the importance of the
mutual network members and the network members who maintain
communication ties across individual networks of both
relational partners. These members of the partners' social
network could be analogous to the Likert's (1961) notion of
'linking pins,‘ who are generally identified as overlapping
different organizational systems and a primary source of
information (Farace, Monge, & Russel, 1977).

Studv Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Findings of the current study made a significant

contribution to the existing body of knowledge about social

64
networks and development of close relationships. However,
scrutiny of the findings reveals a few crucial issues that
were not fully addressed by the current study. In this
section, these limitations are discussed and suggestions for
future research are offered.

The first limitation stems from the current study's
emphasis on the pattern rather than the content of
communication occurring in the social network. The
necessity for securing information from as many network
members as possible restricted the practical length of the
questionnaire used in Phase Two. Hence, the content of
communication linkages was not assessed.

Among such information, the nature of meta-relational
messages exchanged between the focal partners and their
network members would have provided some interesting
insights. Though the previous studies suggested a
supportive nature of communication between focal partners
and their network members (Johnson & Milardo, 1984; Lewis,
1973; Parks & Adelman, 1983; Parks et al., 1983), the exact
content and amount of the supportive messages could not be
investigated in the current study (cf. Cobb & Jones, 1984;
Gottlieb, 1985). Also missing was information about the
nature of communication among the global network members.
Information about the proportion of communication among
global network members that is meta-relational would be
informative in explaining overall network influence on the

development of close relationships.

 

65

Additionally, future research should examine the
different supportive functions provided by various sectors
of partner's network. Because most of the partner's network
members sampled in the current study were friends (78%),
family members' opinions were underrepresented. Because
several researchers failed to support the widely held belief
that peer support groups influence youth much more than do
family (cf. Bates, 1942; Milardo & Lewis, 1985; Parks et
al., 1983; Ryder et al., 1971), the issue of relative
importance of family versus friends needs to be examined.

Second, the difference between the current study and
previous studies in eliciting social network members
warrants consideration. The network of significant friends
and family may not be as informative as other possible forms
of networks for explaining the interdependency between the
relational partners and their social environment. There is
a possibility that the network members who are generally
considered influential for the relational partners' daily
life may not be influential for guiding their personal
relationships. For example, the fear of relational
publicity and interference by the members of potentially
dense social networks may lead relational partners to
communicate about their relationship with a separate group
of people that one cannot identify as network of close
friends and family (of. Brehm, 1985). This could be
particularly true for relational partners who have multiple

close relationships besides the one under investigation of

66

this study and these relationships are scattered around
various sectors of their personal life space. Though the
majority of network members were aware of the focal
relationships, a special concern may be given to those who
had not been informed of the relationship by focal partners.

Also, by asking the respondents to list their network
members who were salient to them both in affective (e.g.,
significant others) and behavioral dimensions (e.g.,
frequent interactions), the current study might have
underestimated the overall network size. In fact, the
average network in the present study was somewhat smaller in
size than those in previous studies (cf. Eggert & Parks,
1987; Fischer, 1982; Milardo et al., 1983). An uncontrolled
bias might have been introduced by choosing this network
elicitation method over others. The current study could not
document partners' interaction with affectively salient
networks without involving frequent interactions and those
with less affective but relatively frequent interactions.
Thus, this study could not answer a question as to how
affection-based social relations become transitive in the
web of multiple actors surrounding the focal partners.

Finally, typical of studies of close relationships, the
current study failed to obtain considerable variance in the
measure of relational development. Relatively high average
rating of closeness (5.13) and smaller standard deviation
(1.32) are indicative of this possibility. Given that

respondents of this study were partners in heterosexual

67
relationships, social desirability bias might have affected
their reports on perceptions of relationships (cf. Edmonds,
1967). Because most of the question items measuring
relational development are vulnerable to this bias, future
endeavors should employ a priori assessment of the social
desirability for individual items of a measure of relational
development (Edwards, 1957).

In addition, by focusing only on heterosexual
relationships, the generalizability of this study's findings
may be limited. Though the current study applied coherent
conceptual and operational tools to explain the association
between relational development and features of partners'
social networks across various types of heterosexual
relationships, it is possible that the current findings may
not hold for other types of relationships.

For example, Leik and Leik's (1977) suggest that
partners' exposure to new social environment of each other's
network may create a challenge to their current relationship
by bringing alternative relationships to their attention.
Given this, it is arguable that same-sex friendships may
reveal less constrained pattern of interdependency, because
the concern for being challenged by newly acquainted social
circles is less likely in this type of relationship. Thus,
documentation of the potential differences in quality and
quantity of interdependency across types of relationships is

another direction for future research.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1987). Communicating
eocialeeppport. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aldrich, H., Whetten, D. A. (1981). Organization-sets,
action-sets, and networks: Making the most of
simplicity. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.),

Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 1). (pp.
385-408). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973) Social penetration: The

development of interpersonal relationships. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of
friendship. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 1, 211-237.

Aronson, E., & Cope, V. (1968). My enemy's enemy is my

friend. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 177-181.

Bates, A. (1942). Parental roles in courtship. Social
Forces, 2Q, 483-486.

Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction:
Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of
interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. St.

Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp.
122-144). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Berger, C. R. & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations
in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a
developmental theory of interpersonal relationships.
Human Communication Research, ;, 99-112.

Bernard, H. R., & Killworth, P. D. (1977). Informant
accuracy in social network data II. Human
Communication Research, A, 3-18.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal
attraction. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New
York: Wiley.

68

69

Bott, E. (1971). Family and social network. London:
Tavistock.

Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate relationships. New York:
Random House.

Burgess, R. L., & Huston, T. L. (Eds.). (1979). Social
exchange in developing relationships. New York:

Academic Press.

Cartwright, D. P., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics:
Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Clore, G. L., & Byrne, D. (1974). A reinforcement-affect
model of attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.),

Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 143-170).
New York: Academic Press.

Cobb, S., & Jones, J. M. (1984). Social support, support
groups and marital relationships. In 8. Duck (Ed.),

Personal relationships 5: Repairing personal
relationships (pp. 47-66). New York: Academic Press.

Davis, J., Leinhardt, S. (1970). The structure of positive
interpersonal relations in small groups. In J. Berger

(Ed.), Sociological theories in progress (Vol. 2). (pp.
218-251). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Duck, S. W. (1986). Human relationships. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

Duck, S. W., & Gilmour, R. (Eds.). (1981). Personal
relationships 1: Studying personal relationships. New
York: Academic Press.

Edmonds, V. H. (1967). Marriage conventionalization:
Definition and measurement. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 29, 681-688.

Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in
personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden.

Eggert, L. L., & Parks, M. R. (1987). Communication network
involvement in adolescents' friendships and romantic
relationships. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 283-322). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Erickson, B. H., Nosanchuk, T. A., & Lee, E. (1981).
Network sampling in practice: Some second steps.
Social Networks, ;, 127-136.

70

& Russel, H. M. (1977).

Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R.,
Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA.
Addison-Wesley.

& Back, K. (1950). Social
Harper & Row.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S.,
pressures in informal groups. New York:

Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal
networks in town and city. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
(1985). Interpersonal behavior: The
New York: Pergamon

Forgas, J. P.
p§ychology of social interaction.

Press.
The flow of

Goldsmith, D. (1988). To talk or not to talk:
information between romantic dyads and networks. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, New Orleans.

Social support and the study of
Journal of Social and Personal

Gottlieb, B. H. (1985).
personal relationships.

Relationships, ;, 351-375.

(1973). The strength of weak ties.
1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. S.
American Journal of Sociology, 1e,
The strength of weak ties: A

Granovetter, M. S. (1982).
network theory revisited. In P. Marsden & N. Lin
(Eds.), Social structure and network analy§i§ (PP.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
R. B. (1984). The development and maintenance of
Journal of Personal and Social

friendships.
Relationships, 1, 75-98.
(1982). There is nothing as

Hewes, D. E., & Planalp, S.
useful as a good theory...: The influence of social
In M. Roloff

knowledge on interpersonal communication.
& C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and
107-150). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

communication (pp.
(1979). Towards understanding relationships.

Hinde, R. A.
Academic Press.

London:
The bases of a science of
In S. W. Duck & R.

Hinde, R. A. (1981).
interpersonal relationships.
Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships 1: Studying
personal relationships (pp. 1-22). New York: Academic
Press.

105-130).

Hays,

71

Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and
related behaviors. Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 85,
712-722.

Holland, P., & Leinhardt, S. (1972). Some evidence on the
transitivity of positive interpersonal sentiment.

American Journal of Sociology, 11, 1205-1209.

Homans, G. C. (1950). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.

Hunter, J. E. (1980). Factor analysis. In P. R. Monge & J.
N. Cappella (Eds.), Multivariate technigpes in human
communication research (pp. 229-258). New York:
Academic Press.

Hunter, J. E., Cohen, S. H., & Nicol, T. S. (1982).
PACKAGE: A system of routines to do correlational
analysis, including path analysis, confirmatory factor
analysis, and exploratory factor analysis. Unpublished
manuscript, Department of Psychology, Michigan State
University.

Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G. (1978). Interpersonal
attraction and relationships. Annual Review of

Psychology, 22, 115-156.

Huston, T. L., Surra, C. A., Fitzgerald, N. M., & Cate, R.
M. (1981). From courtship to marriage: Mate selection
as an interpersonal process. In S.W. Duck & R. Gilmour

(Eds.), Personal relationships 2: Developing personal
relationships. New York: Academic Press.

Johnson, M. P., & Leslie, L. A. (1982). Couple involvement
and network structure: A test of the dyadic withdrawal

hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, ep, 34-43.

Johnson, M. P., Milardo, R. M. (1984). Network
interference and pair relationships: A social
psychological recasting of Slater's theory of social
regression. Journal of Marriage and the Famil , pp,
893-899.

Kapferer, B. (1973). Social networks and conjugal roles in
urban Zambia: Towards a reformulation of the Bott
hypothesis. In J. Boissevain & J. C. Mitchell (Eds.),
Network analysi : Studies in human interaction (pp.
83-110). The Hague: Mouton.

Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their
structures and processes. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

72

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.
H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E.,
Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close
relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New
York: Academic Press.

Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1982). Network analysis.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Knoke, D., & Wood, J. R. (1981). Organized for action:

Commitment in voluntary associations. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Krain, M. (1977). A definition of dyadic boundaries and an
empirical study of boundary establishment in courtship.

International Journal of the Family, 1, 107-123.

La Gaipa, J. L. (1981). A systems approach to personal
relationships. In S. W. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.),

Personal relationships 1: Studying personal
relationships (pp. 67-90). New York: Academic Press.

Laumann, E. O. (1979). Network analysis in large social
systems: Some theoretical and methodological problems.
In P. Holland & S. Leinhardt (Eds.), Perepectives on
eocial network research (pp. 379-423). New York:
Academic Press.

Laumann, E. 0., Marsden, P., & Prensky, D. (1983). The
boundary specification problem in network analysis. In
R. Burt & M. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analyeie.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Leik, R. K., & Leik, S. K. (1977). Transition to
interpersonal commitment. In R. Hamblin & J. H. Kunkel
(Eds.), Behavior theory in sociology. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Books.

Leslie, L. A. (1982). Parental influence and premarital
relationship development. Unpublished dissertation.
The Pennsylvania State University.

Levinger, G. (1979). A social exchange view of the
dissolution of pair relationships. In R. Burgess & T.
L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing
relationships (pp. 169-193). New York: Academic Press.

Levinger, G. (1980). Toward the analysis of close
relationships. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1e, 510-544.

73

Levi-Strauss, Claude (1969). The elementary structures of
kinship. London: Eyre Spottiswode.

Lewis, R. A. (1973). Social reaction and the formation of
dyads: An interactionist approach to mate selection.
Sociometry, gg, 409-418.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

McCall, G. J. (1982). Becoming unrelated: The management of
bond dissolution. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Personal
relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships.

New York: Academic Press.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mindi self. and eociety. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Milardo, R. M. (1982). Friendships networks in developing
relationships: Converging and diverging social

environments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 35,
162-172.

Milardo, R. M. (1983). Social networks and pair
relationships: A review of substantive and measurement
issues. Sociology and Social Research, pp, 1-18.

Milardo, R. M. (1986). Personal choice and social
constraint in close relationships: Applications of
network analysis. In V. J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead

(Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp.
146-166). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. P., & Huston, T. L. (1983).
Developing close relationships: Changing patterns of
interaction between pair members and social networks.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychologv, 44,
964-976.

Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people.
Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Minor, M. J. (1983). New directions in multiplexity
analysis. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied

network analysis: A methodological introduction (pp.
223-244). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, J. C. (1969). The concept and use of social
networks. In J. C. Mitchell (Ed.), Social networks in
urban situations (pp. 1-50). Manchester, England:
Manchester University Press.

74

Mitchell, J. C. (1974). Social networks. Annual Review of
Anthropology, ;, 279-299.

Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acgpaintance process. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Olsen, M. E. (1978). The process of social organization
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Parks, M. R. (1978). Perceived sex differences in
friendship development. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Speech Communication Association,
Minneapolis.

Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication
networks and the development of romantic relationships:
An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human
Communication Research, 1Q, 55-79.

 

Parks, M. R., Stan, C., & Eggert, L. L. (1983). Romantic
involvement and social network involvement. Social

Psychology Quarterly, fie, 116-130.

Rice, R. E., & Richards, W. D. (1985). An overview of
network analysis methods and programs. In B. Dervin &

M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences
(Vol. VI) (pp. 105-165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication

networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New
York: Macmillan.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1e, 265-273.

Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to
social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in
romantic associations: A test of the investment model.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1e, 172-186.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the
investment model: The development (and deterioration)
of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual

involvements. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 25, 101-117.

75

Shaver, P., Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Transition
to college: Network changes, social skills, and
loneliness. In S. W. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.),

Understanding personal relationships: An

interdisciplinary approach (pp. 193-219). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Slater, P. (1963). On social regression. American
Sociological Review, gg, 339-358.

Tichy, N. M. (1981). Networks in organizations. In P.C.
Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of

organizational design (Vol. 2) (pp. 225-249). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.

Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social
network analysis for organizations. Academy of

Management Review, A, 507-519.

Thurman, B. (1979). In the office: Networks and coalitions.
Social Networke, 2, 47-63.

Waller, W., & Hill, R. (1951). The family: A dynamic
interpretation. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life-course
perspectives on friendships. In M. Lowenthal & M.
Thurnher, & D. Chiriboga (Eds.), Four etages of life
(pp. 48-61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some basic
principles. In R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological theory
(pp. 155-200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wheeler, L., & Nezlek, J. (1977). Sex differences in social

participation. Journal of Personality and Social
£§ychology, 35, 742-754.

Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Self-disclosure and interpersonal
solidarity: Measurement, validation, and relationships.
Human Communication Research, 3, 47-61.

Whitten, N. E., & Wolfe, A. W. (1973). Network analysis.
In J. J. Honigman (Ed.), The handbook of social and

cultural anthropology (pp. 717-746). Chicago: Rand
McNally.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Mail survey cover letter
Dear Mr. (Ms). (Addressee):

This survey is a portion of a study looking at the influence
of people's social contacts on their personal relationships.
The survey is conducted as a part of my doctoral
dissertation project which is closely supervised by the
Department of Communication at Michigan State University.
Once completed, the project will provide a significant
contribution to our understanding of close relationships.

(Person A) and (Person B) have recently participated in
research conducted by the Department of Communication. In
the research, they provided opinions about their own
relationship, and also provided us with the names of the
people who are important to them. You have been listed
among these "significant others." Person A (Person B) has
provided us with your mailing address and permission to send
this survey to you.

Enclosed is a copy of the survey concerning your personal
contacts with (Person A) and/or (Person B); and with their
other friends. This survey would require less than 10
minutes of your time. Your participation in the survey is
completely voluntary. However, your cooperation will help
me complete my degree work and make this project a success.

When you have completed the survey, please seal it in the
enclosed return-addressed stamped envelope and mail to us at
your earliest convenience. Should you have any questions
about the survey, please feel free to call me at (telephone
number) any time. When the whole research project has been
completed, the results will be promptly available upon your
request. Thank you very much for taking your valuable time
and helping me in this survey.

Sincerely,

(Signature)

Hyun J. Kim, Doctoral Candidate
Department of Communication

Michigan State University

76

 

77

Mail survey questionnaire

SURVEY OF COMMUNICATION CONTACTS

Department of Communication
Michigan State University
1989

On the following pages are questions concerning your contact
with (Person A) and/or (Person B) and your opinions about
their relationship. Also included are names of several of
their other friends and family members which they provided
in previous research. If you know of any of these persons,
please provide information about your contact with them.

There are no right or wrong answers. We are only interested
in your opinion. Because the information you provide will
be merged into a group data, confidentiality is fully
guaranteed. Of course, you are free to withhold any
information you do not want to reveal. Please take your
time and answer each question carefully. We would greatly
appreciate your cooperation in taking time to complete this
survey.

The survey consists of two parts. In Part One of the
survey, we would like you to provide information about your
communication contact with (Person A) and/or (Person B) and
your perception about the relationship between them. In
Part Two, we would like you to provide information about
your communication contact with each of the persons whom
(Person A) and/or (Person B) have listed as their other
close friends and family members.

Please go on to the next page.

78

PART ONE

I. PLEASE THINK ABOUT (PERSON A).

Q1. Do you know (Person A)?
Yes No

*IF YES, please answer the following questions (Q1-1 &
Ql-2).
*IF NO, please go to Q2 about the middle of this page.

Q1-1. How would you rate your relationship with (Person A)?
Please respond on a scale of 1 to 7 below, 1 being
very distant and 7 being very close. Circle a number.

Very distant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very close

Q1-2. How often do you communicate with (Person A) during A
TYPICAL WEEK, be it face-to-face, by phone, by
writing, or in a group?

Hour(s) per week

II. PLEASE THINK ABOUT (PERSON B).

Q2. Do you know (Person B)?
Yes No

*IF YES, please answer the following questions (Q2-1 &
Q2-2).
*IF NO, please go to Q3 on next page.

Q2-1. How would you rate your relationship with (Person B)?
Please respond on a scale of 1 to 7 below, 1 being
very distant and 7 being very close. Circle a number.

Very distant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very close

Q2-2. How often do you communicate with (Person B) during A
TYPICAL WEEK, be it face-to—face, by phone, by
writing, or in a group?

Hour(s) per week

Please go on to the next page.

 

79

III. PLEASE NOW THINK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
(PERSON A) AND (PERSON B).

Q3. Do you know the relationship between (Person A) and
(Person B)?
Yes NO

 

*IF YES, please answer the following questions (Q3-1 &
Q3-2).

*IF NO, please go to PART II of the survey about the
middle of this page.

Q3-1. How would you rate their relationship?
Please respond on a scale of 1 to 7 below, 1 being
very distant and 7 being very close. Circle a number.
Very distant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very close

Q3-2. How unsupportive/supportive are you for their
relationship?
Please respond on a scale of 1 to 7 below, 1 being
very unsupportive and 7 being very supportive. Circle
a number.
Very unsupportive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very supportive

PART TWO

Next page you will find the names of people whom (Person A)
and/or (Person B) have listed as "significant others." We
would like you to first go through the name list and
INDICATE WHETHER YOU KNOW EACH PERSON IN THE LIST.

NEXT, FOR EACH OF THE PEOPLE THUS INDICATED AS KNOWN TO YOU,
please provide the following information: (1) closeness of
your relationship with the person, and (2) amount Of
communication with the person during A TYPICAL WEEK, be it
face-to-face, by phone, by writing, or in a group.

When rating closeness, circle a number that most nearly
represents your Opinion on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being very
distant and 7 being very close. Please refer to the
following scale for more specific rating Of closeness.

Very distant

Distant

Somewhat distant

Neither distant nor close
Somewhat close

Close

Very close

\Jmtnpwphaw
II II II II II II II

Please go on to the next page.

 

Do you How would you How Often do you
know rate your communicate with
this relationship this person in A
person? with this person? TYPICAL WEEK?
NAME --------------------------------------------
Circle Circle a number Indicate
YES or 1=Very distant number of hours
NO through in the blank
7=Very close
(Person 01) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 02) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 03) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 04) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 05) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 06) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 07) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 08) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 09) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(Person 10) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)
(and so on) YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( ) hour(s)

Thank you very much for taking your time and providing
valuable information. Your cooperation in this survey is
greatly appreciated.

 

NNNNN

NOTES

1 Year in college, however, had no influence on a number of
network measures: number of own network members (§-.44,
g;=3,17o, EL=.001, p>.05), proportion of family members
among own network members (F-1.10, e;=3,17o,‘3:=.02, p>.05),
and proportion Of friends among own network members (F:1.10,
g§=3,17o, 3:=.02, p>.05). This result indicates that length
of time spent in college, i.e., away from pre-college home
network, did not alter the size and composition of the
participant's network (cf. Shaver, Furman, & Buhrmester,
1985).

2 This finding suggests that the relational closeness was
not a good indicator of participants' willingness to
publicize the relationship. An interesting finding was that
male participants were significantly less likely to provide
permission to the researcher than females. While 20 male
participants did not provide permission, 9 female
participants did not (31:4.17, g§=1, p<.05). Given that
providing agreement could be interpreted as helping out the
researcher in his Phase Two data collection, females as
better empathizers than males (Hoffman, 1977) might have
shown more concern for the researcher's success in the
project.

81

82
3 Sixty-two of the 79 mail surveys were returned. There
are a couple of possible explanations for the high mail
survey response rate (78.5%). First, by asking questions
about the focal partners who were either close friends or
family members of them, the survey may have been highly
involving for respondents. Second, by inserting a statement
in the cover letter that they have been listed by Phase One
participants as a 'significant other,’ the survey may have
been enjoyable for respondents.
4 This finding coincides with Johnson and Milardo's (1984)
finding. However, it deviates substantively from what Parks
and his colleagues (Eggert & Parks, 1987; Parks & Adelman,
1983; Parks et al., 1983) have assumed, who told respondents
to list 8 friends and 4 family members as their network
members. Their research procedure, combined with the
current study's findings regarding network size, indicates
that the significance of the networks sampled in previous
studies might have been exaggerated.
5 Though Milardo (1983) pointed out the importance of
making a choice between proportion and absolute number of
mutual network members as an index of network overlap, the
two were highly correlated in the current study (;=.78,
p<.001) and both seemed to be good indicators Of size Of
network overlap.
6 Rather than the average amount of communication which
considers the size of the partner's network, simple sum of

amount of communication across all members of partner's

83
network was correlated with the degree Of relational
development. The correlation (;=.25, p<.001) was not
significantly different (p>.05) from the correlation between
the average amount of communication with partner's network
and relational development (p=.32).
7 Because length of the focal relationship might increase
the possibility that the members of partners' networks
become overlapping, the effect of length of relationship was
controlled for. Length Of relationship, however, did not
bring any significant change in the correlation between
relational development and the proportion of mutual network
members (partial r=.32, p<.01; zero-order r=.33, p<.01).
3 The finding was also supportive of the shrinkage
hypothesis (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Krain, 1977; Milardo et
al., 1983). The correlation between proportion of people
who remained within the two separate networks and relational
development was ;=-.35 (p<.01). That is, as more people
were identified as mutual network members, a smaller
proportion of people remained in each relational partner's

separate network.

TABLES AND FIGURE

84

Table 1. Summary of major studies on social network and
relational development.

Study Sample Research Design Major Findings
Eggert friendship cross-sectional; attraction to,
and significant similarity to, and
Parks romantic others involvement in
(1987) partners approach partner's network
were indicators Of
relational
development
Johnson romantic cross-sectional; limited support for
& partners significant shrinkage hypothesis
Leslie others (withdrawal from only
(1982) approach nonintimate network
members)
Johnson romantic cross-sectional; perception of network
& partners significant interference was a
Milardo others precursor to
(1984) approach; termination of
mail survey relationships
Krain romantic cross-sectional; support for
(1977) and significant shrinkage hypothesis;
engaged others no support for
couples approach network overlap
Lewis romantic longitudinal; positive association
(1973) partners 10-week between perception of
interval; network support and
significant pair commitment
others
approach
Milardo romantic longitudinal; support for
(1982) partners 3-month network overlap
interval;
interactive
approach
Milardo romantic longitudinal; limited support for
et al. partners 3-month network shrinkage
(1983) interval; (in terms Of
interactive frequency and
approach duration; but not

network size)

(continued)

Table 1 Continued.

85

longitudinal;
significant
others
approach

communication with
and perceived support
from partner's
network were
indicators of
uncertainty reduction

Parks romantic
& partners
Adelman

(1983)

Parks romantic
et a1. partners
(1983)

cross-sectional;
significant
others

approach

involvement in and
perceived support
from partner's
network were
indicators of
relational
development

86

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings of
the items Of the three primary factors of
relational development.

Factor loadings
Item and factor Mean SD Primary Global

factor factor

Strength (Attraction)

1. I would feel depressed 4.94 1.87 .79 .75
if I could not be with
my partner.

2. There is almost nothing 5.43 1.68 .80 .82
that I wouldn't do for
my partner.

3. I feel I can tell my 5.48 1.82 .77 .81
partner about everything
that happens to me.

4. I feel possessive toward 4.09 2.04 .63 .59
my partner.
5. If my partner feels 5.09 1.54 .59 .53

unhappy, it would be me
to cheer him/her up.

Diversity (Behavioral Multiplexity and Predictability)

1. We depend on each other 4.88 1.88 .87 .88
for many important
aspects of our life.

2. We participate in various 5.38 1.71 .76 .78
activities together.

3. We help each other in 5.05 1.57 .64 .66
getting the things done.

4. I do not know my partner 5.32 2.04 .76 .77
very well. (R)

5. I have a very good idea 5.03 1.54 .67 .62

of why my partner does
certain things.
6. I can accurately predict 5.34 1.33 .80 .75
what my partner's
attitudes are.

7. I can usually tell what 4.85 1.67 .83 .78
my partner is feeling.
8. I can predict how my 5.38 1.31 .68 .61

partner will respond
to me in most situations.

(continued)

87

Table 2 Continued.

Factor loadin s
Item and factor Mean SD Primary Global

factor factor

Duration (Commitment)

1. It is hard to imagine 5.10 1.91 .87 .92
separating from
my partner.

2. I believe we are happier 5.07 1.69 .81 .81
than other couples
in the world.

3. I imagine that it would be 5.12 1.68 .65 .61
better with someone else
as my partner. (R)

4. I am committed to our 5.32 1.86 .88 .88
relationship.
5. I would go to almost any 5.48 1.69 .79 .78

length to see that our
relationship continues.

6. Likely to continue 5.88 1.59 .76 .68
for the next six months

7. Likely to continue 5.07 2.02 .84 .75
for the next two years

8. Likely to continue 4.51 2.13 .84 .76

for the next six years

Note: Items followed by (R) have been reflected.

88

Table 3. Correlations among the global measure of
relational development, its primary factors,
amount of communication, and length of
relationship.

1. Relational __
development __
(global measure) __

2. Strength of .94**a --
interdependency .89**a --
(attraction) .91**a -—

3. Diversity of .94**a .85** -—
interdependency .85**a .69** --
(multiplexity and .93**8 .80** __
predictability)

4. Duration of .94**a .81** .82** -—
interdependency ,90**a .66** .63** --
(commitment) .91**a .71** ,77** --

5. Frequency of .56**a .52** .52** .54** --
interdependency .45**a .35** .40** .43** --
(amount of .35**a .34** ,37** .27** --
communication)

6. Length of .21**a .01 .02 .21** -.07 --
relationship .27**a .13 .19 .30** -.07 -—

028**a 002 .06 024* -001 --
* p<.05
** p<.01

Note 1: a indicates a part-whole correlation between an
indicator of relational development and the global
measure of relational development.

Note 2: Upper row correlation of each entry was obtained
from all respondents (N=190) representing both
romantic relationships and friendships; Middle row
correlation was Obtained from romantic partners
(N=104); Lower row correlation was obtained from
partners at friendship stage (N=86).

89

Table 4. Correlations among relational development, amount
of communication with partner, amount of
communication with partner's network members,
proportion Of known members of partner's network,
and strength Of ties with partner's network
members.

1. Degree of -—
relational
development

2. Amount of .56** --
communication with
partner

3. Amount of .32** .55** --
communication with
partner's network

4. Proportion of .64** .46** .30** ——
known member of
partner's network

5. Strength of ties .26** .28** .41** .26** --
with partner's
network members

90

Table 5. Correlations among relational development, amount
of communication between focal partners,
proportion of mutual network members, proportion
of ties across networks, amount of communication
among global network members, proportion of
existing ties in the global network, and strength
of ties among global network members.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Degree of --

relational
development

2. Amount of .58** --

communication
between partners

3. Proportion Of .33** .36** -—

mutual network
members
4. Proportion of .34** .43** .65** --
ties across
networks
5. Amount of .15 .18 .21* .42** --
communication
among global
network members
6. Proportion of .15 .22* .44** .68** .59** --
existing ties
in the
global network
7. Strength of .36** .09 .24* .22* .43** .22* --
among global
network members
* p<.05
**

91

Figpre 1. Diagrammatic representation of the
interdependency model of relational development.

  
 

A's

social

network I

I Overlapping

Network of
A's and B's

B's I

social

network

Strangers Initiation Developing

 

1?

Increase in interdependency
(Relational development)

 

 

 

 

LIBRQRIES

(H H

.432

IV

"liliilill

    

0