PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove this chockom from your record.
TO AVOID FINES Man on or Mm duo duo.

“ DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L_____

F: :WF-i-W

MSU Is An Aflimdlvo ActioNEqual Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.

.3.)

INFLUENCES OF THE PARENTAL MARRIAGE, TRIANGULATION,
AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ON THE LEVEL OF INTIMACY
IN YOUNG ADULT MEN AND WOMEN

By

Stacy Jacobson

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

August 1989

11

27>

J

(<>C)¢¥ CDC?

ABSTRACT
INFLUENCES OF THE PARENTAL MARRIAGE, TRIANGULATION,

AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ON THE LEVEL OF INTIHACY
IN YOUNG ADULT HEN AND WOMEN

By

Stacy Jacobson

Establishing intimate relationships is a major task of young
adulthood, yet little is known about the developmental experiences
and individual differences which influence variations in levels of
intimacy in young adults’ close relationships. A path model was
developed to assess the influences of individual differences
variables (gender, sex-role variables (parents’ marriage,
triangulation) on young adults’ levels of intimacy. In addition,
young adults’ styles of coping with intrapsychic and interpersonal
conflict was included in the model based on the significant role
that theoretical accounts of close relationships attribute to
conflict and conflict resolution. Intimacy was defined as having
two conceptually distinct components: depth and commitment, and an
approach for assessing intimacy is described.

Seventy~eight female and 72 male young adults and their
parents participated in interviews and completed questionnaires as

part of a larger study of intergenerational relationships. Tests

Stacy Jacobson

of the proposed model using structural modeling techniques for the
total sample as well as for males and females separately generally
did not support the predictions. Only family life cycle stage and
young adults’ conflict resolution styles accounted for substantial

variations in intimacy status. Young adults who were married

—~

reportgdehjgher levels of commitment than parents, who in turn were
more invested in their close relationships-than single young
29913§4fi Young adults who described more adaptive strategies for
coping with interpersonal and intrapsychic conflict reported highec
levels of intimacy. More females tended to report higher levels of
depth, but paths for men and women did not differ substantially.
Unexpectedly, young women whose parents described better marriages
reported lower levels of depth in their close relationships. Sex-
role orientation and triangulation were not related to intimacy.

Tests of the 'full' model revealed additional significant
paths which were not predicted. “Aggwplayedflan_importantmnole_jn
determininggmales’“intimagxestatus,.withfloldermmen~reportingwmore
deptbFandweommitmentcu Family life cycle stage and age also
influenced young adults’ conflict resolution styles. Young adults
who were married or parents described more adaptive conflict
resolution styles, as did younger individuals.

In sum, the proposed model of intimacy did not support the
idea of direct links between parent and young adult variables, nor

provide strong evidence for sex differences in close relationships

Stacy Jacobson

in young adulthood. However, the results highlighted the
importance of including a measure of conflict resolution in models
of intimacy and generated a number of hypotheses to guide future

research on close relationships.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES .
Introduction .

Current Theories of Close Relationships and Intimacy.
The Historical Perspective .
Social Psychological Approaches to Close Relation-
ships . . . . . . . .

Approaches To Intimacy. .
The Eriksonian Approach .
Previous Research on Intimacy . .
Attachment Theory and Close Relationships

Experiences of Conflict in Intimate Relationships.

Individual Differences Variables and Intimacy .
Gender and Sex Role. . . . .
Gender .
Sex- role orientation. .
Age and Family Life Cycle Stage
Age . .
Life Cycle Stage .

Family Variables. .
The Parental Marriage, Triangulation, and Intimacy
Communication. . . . . . . .
Conflict Resolution.
Companionship.
Summary. . . . . . .
The Parent- Child Relationship: Triangulation .

Summary and Hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 .
Hypothesis 2 .

Hypothesis 3 .
Hypothesis 4 .

ii

2:92

vii

Hypothesis 5.
Method. . .
Participants .

Instruments .
The Young Adults.

Sex- role orientation.

Triangulation .

Intimacy. . .
Conflict Resolution in Intimate Relationships .
The Young Adults’ Parents. . .

The parental marriage

Communication .

Companionship . . .

Conflict Resolution .

Procedures. . .
The young adults . . .
The young adults’ parents .

Results. .
Data Reduction .
Parent variables .
Young adult variables . . . . . . . . . .
Predictors of Intimacy: Tests of the Predicted Model
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5 .
The 'Full' Model. .
Additional Analyses.

Discussion. . .

The role of gender, .sex-role orientation, and family
life cycle stage in intimacy. .

Indirect effects of age, family life cycle stage,
gender, and sex-role orientation on intimacy.

The role of parent marital harmonL

The role of young adults’ conflict resolution styles.

Unexpected findings. .

Methodological issues and considerations for future
research. . . . . . . . . .

Summary and conclusions

LIST OF REFERENCES .
APPENDIX A: PERSONAL DESCRIPTION INVENTORY.

iii

150

153
156

160
180

APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:

YOUNG ADULT/PARENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW .

TRIANGULATION CODING MANUAL.
INTIMACY INTERVIEH.

INTIMACY CODING MANUALS FOR DEPTH AND
COMMITMENT.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION CODING MANUALS
PARENT LIFESTYLE INTERVIEH-MARRIAGE .

iv'

181
196
200

212
224
232

Table

10

11

12

13

14

LIST OF TABLES

Intercorrelations Among Mothers’ and
Fathers’ Marital Variables.

Correlations between Predictor Variables and
Intimacy for the Total Sample. .

Correlations Among the Predictor Variables and
Intimacy for Males . .

Correlations Among the Predictor Variables and
Intimacy for Females. .

Beta Heights in the Predicted Model for All
Subjects. . .

Beta Heights in the Predicted Model for Males .

Beta Heights in the Predicted Model for
Females . . . . . . . .

Beta Heights in the 'Full' Model for All
Subjects. . . . . . . . .

Beta Heights in the 'Full' Model for Males .
Beta Heights in the 'Full' Model for Females

Predicted Variance in the 'Full', Predicted, and
Trimmed Path Models of Intimacy for All
Subjects. .

Predicted Variance in the ”Full”, Predicted, and
Trimmed Path Models of Intimacy for Males.

Predicted Variance in the 'Full', Predicted, and
Trimmed Path Models of Intimacy for Females .

Oneway Analyses of Variance for Commitment,

Conflict Resolution, and Sex Role Orientation
by Family Life Cycle Stage: All Subjects.

V

114

115

117
118

119

122

124

125

127

129

129

137

Table

15 Oneway Analyses of Variance for Commitment,
Conflict Resolution, and Sex Role Orientation
by Family Life Cycle Stage: Males.

16 Oneway Analyses of Variance for Commitment,

Conflict Resolution, and Sex Role Orientation
by Family Life Cycle Stage: Females .

vi

138

139

Figure

\IO‘UT-F

LIST OF FIGURES

A Model of Influences of the Family-Systems and
Individual Differences Variables on Intimacy
in Young Adulthood . . . .

Trimmed Model Predicting Depth for Total
Sample . .

Trimmed Model Predicting Commitment for Total
Sample

Trimmed Model Predicting Depth for Males.
Trimmed Model Predicting Commitment for Males .
Trimmed Model Predicting Depth for Females .

Trimmed Model Predicting Commitment for
Females . .

‘vii

90

131

132
133
134
135

136

11131194116193

"Intimacy, companionship, sharing, communication,
equality--these are the qualities of relationships we
value most highly, we say. He work for them, struggle
for them, analyze ourselves and our loved ones,
seemingly without end. Still they elude us” (L. B.
Rubin, 1983, p. 9).

Close relationships are the focus of a large body of
research, but very little is known about the factors that
contribute to variations in individuals’ experiences in close
relationships. This study will attempt to identify influences in
the development of intimacy in close sexual relationships between
young adult men and women.

It is well established that intimacy in the context of close
relationships has a profound impact on individuals’ mental and
physical health throughout the life cycle (e.g., Bloom, Asher, &
Hhite, 1978; Lynch, 1977: Peplau & Perlman, 1982). For the most
part, however, investigations have not attempted to describe the
antecedents and determinants of the level of intimacy in close,
sexual relationships. Furthermore, those studies which do exist
are problematic due to methodological and conceptual limitations.
For example, there is no clear consensus on the definition of

intimacy, and as such, the conclusions drawn about intimacy vary

according to how intimacy is operationalized. In many cases
intimacy is measured as a unidimensional construct, such as self-
disclosure (Jourard, 1971; Rubin, 1973). This body of research
shows that women generally are more verbally expressive of their
feelings than men (e.g., Hendrick, 1981; Jourard, 1971; Levinger &
Senn, 1967) and therefore, typically concludes that women are more
intimate. These overly simplistic explanations contribute little
to our understanding of the development of intimacy. Clearly,
broader definitions and conceptualizations of intimate
relationships are necessary to understand sex-linked patterns and
other factors which maintain these differences. In this regard
recent models acknowledge the multidimensional nature of close
relationships and link differences in intimacy to individual
characteristics, dyadic features, and factors in the social
environment. For the purpose of the present study, the "level of
intimacy” (based on Orlofsky, Marcia, & Lesser’s (1973) and Hhite,
Speisman, Jackson, Bartis, and Costos’s (1986) definition and
coding systems) refers to the degree to which sexual relationships
which subjects describe are empathic, differentiated, committed,
nonjudgmental, and include reciprocal sharing and Openness.
Individuals in relationships characterized by a high level of
intimacy demonstrate an understanding of psychological causation
and self-awareness, as well as recognition of both the mutual
interdependence of a close relationship and the partner’s need for
autonomy. A more detailed discussion of this study’s definition of

intimacy follows below.

The issue which remains unclear in current theories of close
relationships is how differences in what each person brings to the
relationship are shaped and developed in a relational context.

That is, each person enters relationships with a unique
socialization history and previous interpersonal experiences which
exert significant influences on ongoing and future relationships.
This study attempts to develop a model to assess the contribution
of social, psychological, and familial factors to the development
of the capacity for intimacy. Specifically, relationships among
aspects of the parental marriage in the family of origin, conflict
resolution styles, and the level of intimacy in young adulthood
will be examined. The role of the young adults’ gender, sex role
orientation, age, and life cycle stage will also be considered.

Gender and sex-role differences in close relationships and in
individuals’ levels of intimacy have been the focus of numerous
investigations (e.g., Bernard, 1972; Chodorow, 1978; Costos, 1986;
Gilligan, 1982; Gove, 1972; Huston, Surra, Fitzgerald, & Cate,
1981; Levinger, 1977; Parelman, 1983; Parsons & Bales, 1955; Raush,
Barry, Hertel, & Swain, 1974). However, historical changes in
men’s and women’s endorsement of traditional sex-role norms and
values suggest that the nature of the link between gender and
personality variables such as instrumentality and communion may not
be the same as it was ten or fifteen years ago. For example,
evidence from recent studies shows that men and women expect and
want similar things in close relationships (Parelman, 1983; Peplau

& Gordon, 1985). Conversely, Peplau and Gordon (1985) argue in

their literature review of sex differences in close relationships
that “No examination of close relationships can be wholly complete
or wholly accurate unleSs it recognizes differences in the
experiences and behaviors of women and men” (p. 284). Accordingly,
it is important to identify the unique effects of gender and sex
role orientation in order to understand the relative contributions
of each to the development of intimacy.

The effects of gender on the development of intimacy may be
traced back to gender-specific socialization practices on the part
of parents. For example, in a study of first-time parents, Rubin,
Provenzano, and Luria (1974) report that within 24 hours of their
first child’s birth, fathers rate boy and girl babies
differentially according to gender stereotypes. This finding
illustrates how sex differences in children trigger differences in
parental expectations. These expectations are then likely to be
translated into socialization practices in the family, a number of
which will be related to the child’s attitudes toward interpersonal
relationships.

The belief that young adults’ learned attitudes and ways of
relating to others are outcomes of the ways their families related
to them as children brings up the alternative possibility that
gender differences are a function of parental sex role
expectations. Along these lines, Horell (1981) argues that, given
the lack of substantial evidence of sex differences with respect to
several categorical variables (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) and the

contradictory fact of "contrasting life experiences of males and

females" (p. 313), it is more meaningful to refer to sex-role
orientation than to gender differences in attempting to understand
individual development. To balance this viewpoint and demonstrate
the utility of an approach which distinguishes between gender and
sex role effects, a study by Frank, McLaughlin, and Crusco (1984)
is of note. Although these researchers do not directly address
questions about intimacy, they find that gender is associated with
certain coping styles, whereas sex-role orientation accounts for
other coping styles. These kinds of data demonstrate the gains in
understanding obtained by an approach which attempts to specify the
unique influences of gender and sex-role orientation.

Attempts to account for individual variation in intimacy by
considering gender or gender-linked patterns alone are likely to be
inadequate, however. Developmental and social factors such as
maturation and changes in life situation affect sex role
orientation (Abrahams, Feldman, & Nash, 1978; Nash a Feldman, 1981;
Horell, 1981) and therefore need to be included in
conceptualizations of intimate relationships. Specifically,
whether a person is single, married, or a parent may have profound
implications for how salient particular sociocultural role
prescriptions are, and thus indirectly influences individuals’
intimate relationships. In addition, age potentially impacts on
young adults’ levels of intimacy as a result of the confound
between age and family life cycle (i.e., older persons are more
likely to be married and parents). And while, clearly, there is a

developmental process associated with age that can be linked to

increases in intimacy in childhood and adolescence (e.g.,
Rivenbark, 1966; Bigelow, 1977; Reisman & Shorr, 1978), this study
presumes that within a young adult population, the primary impact
of age on intimacy is a function of family life cycle, rather than
proposing a direct link between age and intimacy. This
conceptualization is congruent with a life-span perspective of
development which links changes in life events to changes in
personality and behavior throughout the life cycle (Nash & Feldman,
1981).

Finally, this study’s major hypotheses focus on the
development of young adults’ intimacy in the family, the primary
social context within which interpersonal styles are formed. As
noted above, the family exerts significant influence as agents of
socialization in childhood. Beyond the familial influences
inherent in the effects of gender and sex role differences in
intimacy, additional factors such as the parental marriage and the
extent to which parents involve their children in their marital
relationships are important but neglected areas of investigation
regarding the development of intimacy. As Berscheid and Peplau
(1983) note, the husband-wife dyad and the parent-child dyad within
the young adult’s family of origin are the prototypes of close
relationships outside the family. Moreover, empirical studies as
well as the clinical literature document a link between conflictual
marital relationships and maladaptive parent-child relationships
(Elder, Caspi, & Downey, in press; Gilbert, Christensen, 1

Margolin, 1984; Minuchin, 1974; Haring & Russell, 1980). Based on

this association one can speculate that young adults’ levels of
intimacy and the kinds of relationships they will become involved
in are influenced by both direct and indirect effects of the
parental marriage. Accordingly, a role model hypothesis asserts
that successful socialization in the family of origin directly
provides appropriate marital-role models on which children base
their own close heterosexual relationships. The "indirect"
transmission hypothesis posits the existence of intervening
variables to account for effects of the parental marriage on their
children’s development. For example, Elder et al. (in press)
hypothesize that aversive family relationships produce ill-
tempered, difficult children who are consequently unable to develop
and sustain enduring relationships as adults. In support of this
position, they find that children who grew up in homes
characterized by marital discord ranked highest on a measure of low
self control and furthermore, “reproduce“ the pattern of marital
discord in their own marriages.

The clinical literature suggests more specifically how
aspects of the parental marriage contribute to the development of
intimacy. First, family systems theory (e.g., Minuchin, 1974;
Satir, 1981) describes a common pattern in families with distressed
marriages in which one or both parents attempt to draw their child
into their conflictual marital relationship by using the child as a
confidant and otherwise cultivating the child’s support and
sympathy against the other parent. This maladaptive parent-child

coalition is referred to as triangulation.‘ Because triangulation

inhibits both the development of autonomy and of relationships
outside the family (Bell & Bell, 1982), it is likely that such
dysfunctional patterns will have significant impact on the
development of the capacity for intimacy.

Secondly, the way in which one’s parents resolve conflicts is
also likely to influence their children’s level of intimacy by
affecting their own approach to problems in intimate relationships.
For the most part, conceptualizations of intimacy recognize the
existence of a close relationship between intimacy and conflict
(Feldman, 1979) yet fail to directly assess the nature and
direction of this association. More importantly, most studies
which have examined relationships between conflict and intimacy
measure amount of conflict rather than the ways in which conflict
is resolved in close relationships. Furthermore, most discussions
of intimacy do not distinguish between interpersonal and
intrapersonal conflict resolution (Braiker & Kelly, 1979). Both
these constructs will be measured here, and their relationships to
the parents’ marriage, on the one hand, and the young adults’
levels of intimacy, on the other hand, will be assessed.

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the
contribution of the parental marriage and triangulation on young
adults’ levels of intimacy. The effects on intimacy of young
adults’ own styles of coping with conflict in their close
relationships also will be examined. Additionally, the role of
gender, sex role orientation, family life cycle stage, and age will

be considered in order to account for significant sources of

variation in individuals’ levels of intimacy. More broadly, I will
develop a model using these variables to describe the direction of
the interrelationships. The literature review which follows will
provide the research and conceptual rationale for the model.
Accordingly, this review focuses on 1) current conceptualizations
of close relationships and intimacy, 2) the influence of young
adults’ conflict resolution styles on intimacy, 3) the influence of
gender and sex role on intimacy, 4) the influence of life cycle
stage and age on intimacy, and 5) the relationship of family

variables to intimacy.

r ie . o s n t

W

As a fundamental part of the American social structure close
relationships are central to people’s happiness and well-being.
Kelley, Berscheid, Christensen, Harvey, Huston, Levinger,
McClintock, Peplau, and Peterson (1983) summarize a large body of
research and survey literature documenting the majority belief that
"for almost everyone one necessary ingredient is some kind of
satisfying, intimate relationship” (p. 2). This popular belief has
been substantiated by the numerous reports which find relationships
between being alone (single, divorced, widowed) and higher
incidences of mental and physical illness, accidents, and
alcoholism(e.g., Bloom, Asher, & Hhite, 1978; Lynch, 1977; Peplau
& Perlman, 1982; Haring & Chelune, 1983). From an historical

perspective, the crucial role attributed to intimate relationships

10

in today’s world can be traced to changes in the economic and
social structure of society since Colonial times (Gadlin, 1977) and
to changes in the traditional sex roles for men and women
(Parelman, 1983; Safilios-Rothschild, 1981). Accordingly, with
industrialization and the growth of cities the central function of
the family ceased to be economic production. The division of work
and home led to a new distinction between private and public life
and an accompanying increase in the salience of interpersonal
'relationships in the family. Thus_as the family decreased in
economic importance, the psychological meaning of the marital
relationship increased as did the emphasis on personal fulfillment
within the marriage.

More recently, both structural socioeconomic changes and an
evolving redefinition of sex role expectations make it likely that
the close sexual relationship will continue to be the arena in
which individuals strive to find meaning and happiness. As one
author suggests, "...intimacy has become as important (if not more
important) a goal as success, desired by all“ (p. 378, Safilios-
Rothschild, 1981). In a somewhat different vein, Levinger (1977)
argues that socioeconomic forces have created a world where
personal fulfillment is sought after at the expense of intimacy and
describes the costs as estrangement and emptiness. These two
sentiments may not be as discrepant from one another as they
appear, and may actually serve to clarify the picture. In an
increasingly technological, consumer-oriented world, estrangement

and loneliness may in fact create a heightened emphasis on meeting

11

emotional needs, such as establishing intimate relationships. Thus
as material and biological needs are routinely satisfied,
interpersonal and affective concerns are more likely to be the
focus of one’s attention. This characterization is supported by
the observation that as social and economic freedom increases, the
prevailing features of human relationships are emotional

characteristics (Andreyeva & Gozman, 1981).

P l cal t h

Changes in the social and economic features of society were
accompanied by the appearance in the 1950’s of an increasing
interest in the theory of relationships, previously the domain of
novelists and playwrights (Berscheid & Peplau, 1983). Initially,
the research and theorizing focused on notions of romantic love,
but more recent work includes the development of complex models of
dyadic relationships, from the initial stages (attraction) to the
committed (friendship & marriage) (Altman a Taylor, 1973; Levinger
& Snoek, 1972; Braiker & Kelley, 1979; LaGaipa, 1981). The
theoretical and research questions asked by social psychologists
for the most part have focused on delineating the progressive
stages of a relationship from initial attraction to commitment or
dissolution, and have generally involved samples of college men and
women or premarital and young married couples (Altman & Taylor,
1973; Raush et al., 1974; Kelley et al., 1983). These "filter" or
”sequential" models of close relationships simply describe

progressively deeper levels of involvement in relationships over

12

time, and lack adequate conceptualizations of mediating factors
such as social and relational history. Furthermore, this research
often suffers from the incorrect assumption that premarital or
marital relationships are in fact intimate (Huston, Surra,
Fitzgerald, & Cate, 1981). As Cate and Koval (1983) point out, the
belief that marriage and intimacy are synonomous (e.g., Haring,
McElrath, Lefcoe, & Heisz, 1981) is contrary to the several studies
which find significantly low levels and even a lack of intimacy
among married and premarital couples (e.g., Broderick & Hicks,
1970; Cuber & Haroff, 1966; Rubin, 1976).

Applications of social exchange theory to close relationships
encompass a broader framework and comprise a significant proportion
of the close relationship research (Huston a Burgess, 1979).
Exchange theory addresses the issue of why some relationships are
superficial and others are characterized by commitment by referring
to the degree of interdependency. Interdependence is defined as
“the extent to which each one’s outcomes depend on the outcome by
the partner, and to the degree to which each one’s profits exceed
customary profits or those like in another relationship (Thibaut a
Kelley, 1959)” (p. 13, Huston & Burgess, 1979). In this same vein,
Kelley et al. (1983) agree that any analysis of close relationships
is primarily an assessment of interdependence between chains of
events. However, their work embellishes the exchange theorists’
conception of close relationships by elegantly articulating the
properties and multicausal conditions of interdependence in

relationships, thereby creating a context in which to understand

13

"actions, reactions, emotions, and thoughts" (p. 26). Kelley et
al. designate eight categories which make up the important
properties involved in the study of relationships. These include:
events, conceptualized as actions, affects, and thoughts; patterns
of interconnections, which define patterns of events between and
within partners: strength of interconnections, defined as the
degree and predictability of change in each partner’s event chain;
frequency of interconnections, or rate of interaction; diversity of
interconnections; facilitation versus interference, the mechanism
for mediating conflict by promoting or hindering connections
between partners: symmetry, the degree to which each partner has
similar or different effects on one another and the degree of
dependence, amount of influence, etc.; and duration of the
interaction and relationship. In addition, these researchers
explicate the concept of causal conditions of close relationships.
Causal conditions are relatively stable factors which influence the
occurrence and sequence of events in a relationship; and depending
on where they are located, causal conditions are referred to as
conditions of the social environment, the physical environment, or
the person. Furthermore, causal conditions can be described as
existing between environments and persons or in the relationship
between two people. In thus elaborating the types of information
and concepts important for studying relationships, Kelley et al.
also resolve many of the problems of applying exchange principles

to close relationships.

14

Kimmel (1979) in a critique of social exchange theory finds
the market principles and economic metaphor underlying the theory
inappropriate for understanding a uniquely human phenomenon.
Similarly, Huston and Cate (1979) acknowledge that social exchange
theory interpretations based on reinforcement and exchange
principles do not suit Hestern notions of love and intimacy. They
furthermore suggest that as a relationship develops into a close,
intimate bond, exchange theory may not in fact accurately portray
the dyadic process, which is at that point more truly
interdependent and communal (i.e., what is rewarding to one partner
is rewarding to the other).

The above problems and criticisms notwithstanding, the models
of close relationships developed by social psychologists have
contributed significantly to the present awareness of the
multidimensional, multicausal nature of interpersonal
relationships. For example, LaGaipa’s (1981) elaborate systems
model of close relationships includes an analysis of three
different dimensions of interdependence, which he describes as
levels (cultural, interpersonal behavior, and individual-
psychological), psychosocial resources, and support systems. Of
particular relevance to this study’s conceptualization of the
development of intimacy in a close sexual relationship is the
individual psychological level. This is the part of the model that
accounts for what each person brings into the relationship and,
although acknowledged as a critical contributor, has been largely

ignored in social psychological investigations of close

15

relationships. As Milardo, Johnson, and Huston (1983) admonish,
"Hithout accounting for the major sources of jngiyjdgal variation,
it is not possible to clearly identify meaningful and consistent
differences in the social activity of men and women, and it is
perhaps more critical to establish how men and women come to be the
way they are and the conditions that lead to similar or different

outcomes for each gender" (p. 974, emphasis mine).

Approaches To Intimacy

Erik Erikson’s (1963, 1968) epigenetic theory of development
from infancy through adulthood has influenced empirical work on
intimacy (Bellew-Smith & Korn, 1986; Fischer, 1981; Morgan &
Farber, 1982; Orlofsky, 1978; Orlofsky, Marcia, & Lesser, 1973;
Tesch & Hhitbourne, 1982; White, Speisman et al. 1986) and
theoretical formulations of close relationships (e.g., Bowlby,
1969). Erikson’s model along with recent attempts to apply
attachment theory to adult romantic love relationships (Antonucci,
1976; Hartup & Lempers, 1973; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Kalish &
Knudtson, 1976; Troll & Smith, 1976) share an emphasis on
explaining how different individual and social histories result in
differing relationship styles. This differential approach (Lerner,
1976) appears to be more directly relevant to developing the
component of the close relationships model which accounts for
differences in young adults’ levels of intimacy and will be

reviewed in greater depth in the following sections.

16

MW

According to the Eriksonian model (1963), development
proceeds through eight critical periods marked by eight
psychosocial stages from infancy to old age. At each stage, the
resolution of an emotional crisis determines how neurotic or mature
an individual will be with regard to the stage-specific ego
capability. Furthermore, the epigenetic principle of development
dictates that the extent to which an individual can successfully
resolve the stage-specific crisis depends on development in the
preceding stages. In sum, the Eriksonian model is a model of
individual, emotional development. To account for differences in
individuals’ levels of intimacy Erikson stresses the interrelation
of developmental and social forces. The Eriksonian approach thus
is congruent with the interest of the current study in explaining
the development of relational dispositions which individual’s bring

into close relationships.

The establishment of intimate relationships is the major task "

of young adulthood, the sixth psychosocial stage in Erikson’s
model. In order to successfully achieve a sense of intimacy the
young person must learn "whom [he/she] cares to be with" (Erikson,
1974, p. 124, and develop the capacity for high degrees of openness
and closeness, commitment, loyalty, mutuality, and mature
sexuality. The inability to become involved in a caring, mutual
relationship results in a sense of isolation. Accordingly, the two
bipolar attributes which define this stage are intimacy and

isolation.

17

The Eriksonian framework postulates that the nature and
outcome of these eight stages can only be understood in the context
of the developing individual’s biology, psychology, and ”society".
This tripartite conceptualization underscores the importance and
value of considering social, biological, and individual
characteristics in explaining differences in intimacy in young
adult men and women. Furthermore, Erikson’s theory is unique in
its focus on intimacy as opposed to unidimensional
conceptualizations such as 'love' (e.g., Rubin, 1976; Lee, 1976;
Dion & Dion, 1979), or more inclusive constructs such as attachment
(e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987) and close relationships (e.g., Kelley
et al., 1983; Levinger, I977; Rausch et al., 1974). For example,
Rubin (1970) defines love as an I'interpersonal attitude" and
assesses behaviors such as mutual gazing and self-disclosure as
indices of love, but fails to examine questions about why and how
variations come about. In contrast, the close relationships
literature attempts a much broader focus and emphasizes the dyadic
interactions and the nature of behavioral influence each partner
has on the other, usually only inferring internal processes which
mediate each partner’s actions (e.g., Kelley et al., 1983).
Similarly, attachment theorists who attempt to extend Bowlby’s
original concept of attachment in infancy to the realm of adult
romantic love are interested in describing and explaining the
development of a social-behavioral system of attachment and
integrating this system with the caregiving and sexuality

(behavioral systems (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). For the most part, this

18

theory relies on analyses of the relationship between early parent-
child interaction and later dyadic interaction among adult lovers
or spouses. None of the above theories or constructs directly
address the specific origins or functions of intimacy. In
contrast, the Eriksonian formulation of intimacy provides a model
which specifically stresses the etiological antecedents, as well as
the developmental consequences, of intimacy. Furthermore, this
model has inspired a large body of research on intimacy addressing
these and other issues, and is included in the conceptualization
used in the current study.

A semi-structured interview designed by Orlofsky, Marcia, and
Lesser (1973) to assess intimacy status in terms of the Eriksonian
model categorizes individuals into one of five intimacy statuses.
It or modified versions (e.g., Bellew-Smith a Korn, 1986; Tesch &
Hhitbourne, 1982) have been used in much of the research in this
area. Operationalizing Erikson’s concept of intimacy requires
evaluation according to two dimensions: 1) depth versus
superficiality and 2) commitment versus no commitment. The five
statuses are defined by the different combinations of the two
dimensions based on the individual’s perceptions of his/her close
relationships in terms of openness and closeness, caring and loving
feelings, responsibility, commitment, mutuality, and mature
sexuality. Briefly, the five relational styles can be described as
follows: The intjmata individual’s relationships are characterized
by both depth and commitment; the pra;in;ima;a person has involved
but uncommitted relationships; atagaatynia individuals lack both

19

depth and commitment in their relationships; commitment with
superficiality characterizes the paaggaiatymata relationship; and
individuals with no close relationships of any kind are defined as
iSQlELES- Orlofsky (1976) interprets his failure to find
significant age differences as evidence that the five different
intimacy statuses represent a range of relational styles due to
differences in ways of resolving the intimacy vs. isolation crisis
rather than differences in maturity alone.

The system developed by Orlofsky et al. (1973) is one of the
more comprehensive measures of intimacy as noted above, but it is
not without its problems and limitations. As Hhite et al. (1986)
point out, Orlofsky et al.’s coding system lacks variability and
adequate differentiation among the intimacy statuses for a number
of reasons. First of all, Orlofsky et al.’s overall intimacy
status score is derived by “combining” an individual’s scores on
Friendship and Sexual (love) relationships. This scoring system
mistakenly confounds and confuses friendship and sexual
relationships, and in doing so, also glosses over finer
distinctions within each type of relationship. To make this point,
Hhite et al. (1986) note that "most married individuals, providing
that they had at least one close same-sex friend, would be
considered to have achieved intimacy" from the Orlofsky et al.
perspective (p. 152). The current study addresses this problem by
conceptually distinguishing between intimacy status in friendship
and sexual relationships and maintaining separate ratings. (Only

sexual relationships are dealt with in the present study.)

20

Hhite et al. further suggest, however, that in order to more
adequately account for variations in the range of "maturity" in
relationships, modification and elaboration of the Orlofsky et al.
coding scheme for intimacy is necessary. Accordingly, these
researchers developed a coding system for intimacy maturity based
on Orlofsky et al.’s system in order to add breadth and richness to
the existing conceptualization. Briefly, Hhite and her colleagues
identify three broad levels of relationship maturity, each of which
is composed of two stages. Level 1 describes egocentric, self-
serving styles of relating to others and is referred to as aalf;
fgaaaag. Level 2, or rala;faguaag individuals are typically
involved in more conventional and traditional relationships. And
Level 3 includes the most mature forms of relatedness, such as the
capacity to appreciate the uniqueness of one’s partner, cope with
frustrations, and balance one’s own and the partner’s needs.
Individuals whose scores fall within Level 3 are referred to as
ingiyiggagag;ggnnag1ag. Scores are determined by individuals’
ranking along five dimensions of intimacy maturity, which include:
Orientation to the other and the relationship,.caring/concern,
sexuality, commitment, and communication.

Essentially, the intimacy maturity scoring system of Hhite et
al. presents a more differentiated conceptualization of depth than
the Orlofsky et al. measure of intimacy by assessing the degree of
orientation, caring, sexuality, and communication separately.
However, as the high intercorrelations among these five scales

demonstrate, it is likely that they are actually only measuring one

21

dimension; and it appears that this dimension is best described by
Orlofsky et al.’s notion of ”depth". There are other problems in
Hhite et al.’s modifications that also need to be addressed.
Although they attempt to separately measure depth and commitment,
they actually fail to adequately differentiate these two aspects of
relationships. For example, in conceptualizing commitment, their
system identifies the lowest level as void of commitment and then
distinguishes between commitment in to the two highest levels by
describing differences in depth (e.g., "a loving investment in this
particular partner and appreciation for his or her individuality"
is at Level 3, whereas "socially acceptable, role-stereotyped
intention to stay in the marriage" is at level 2) (Hhite et al.,
1986, p. 155). The result is an intimacy maturity scoring system
which serves to confound the distinction made in Orlofsky’s system
between commitment and depth rather than add clarity or power to
the existing coding systems of intimacy. Therefore, while Orlofsky
et al.’s system does not allow researchers to more clearly
articulate the components of depth in intimacy, it does preserve
the valuable distinction between depth and commitment.

I have used a coding system for intimacy in the present study
which draws from both the Orlofsky et al. system and the Hhite et
al. system for operationalizing intimacy. 'Depth' and ”commitment"
are measured separately, with each scale distinguishing among six
different levels of intimacy. "Depth" is conceptualized according

to the Hhite et al. system and consists of three broad levels of

intimate relationships. These are aalf;faagaad, Lala;fa§g§ad, and

22

iagiyiggatag;aanaagtag. §a1£;faaaaag individuals have‘
relationships which are characterized by superficiality,
egocentricity, and a self-serving attitude toward others. 391a;
faagaag individuals typically relate to their partner in a
conventional or stereotyped fashion, rely on stereotypical
constructs (e.g., ”considerate“, 'responsible") as a way of
understanding the personal attributes of their partner, and appear
to value what is socially acceptable, rather than what is unique or
distinctive about the partner. Ingiyidgatag;agnnagaad individuals
appreciate the autonomy and uniqueness of their partner, highly
value communication, and relate in an emotionally empathic way.
Each level is made up of two substages, which allows one to make
distinctions about whether a person is at the lower or upper end of
a particular level. 1
Accordingly, increasing levels of depth are defined by the
progression from stage 1 to stage 6, based on the degree to which
an individual describes close sexual relationships that include a
deep appreciation of the partner’s differences, mutual
interdependence, open communication, and sharing. Specifically,
depth is measured by evaluating two aspects of relationships:
orientation and communication. Orientation, based on Hhite et
al.’s (1986) definition and on Loevinger and Hessler’s (1970) work
on ego development, refers toan individual’s ability to see
his/her partner as a complex person and to value individual
differences. Underlying this dimension is consideration of the

degree to which interpersonal relationships are seen in terms of

23

concrete behaviors and cliches versus reciprocal feelings and
complex motives and interactions. Communication refers to the
level of openness and self-disclosure between partners in a close
relationship. This dimension includes consideration of the young
adults’ communication skills and values regarding open
communication and sharing, as well as the level of trust and
tolerance for expressing differences of opinion in the
relationship.

Thus, the depth scale is characterized in general by
increasing levels of psychological awareness, sharing and openness,
interdependence, and tolerance of individuality. Level 1 subjects
rely on behavioral, concrete descriptions of their partner,
particularly focusing on how the partner’s behaviors affect them.
At the lower end of this level, there is little interest in
communication with the partner and perceptions of the partner are
black and white, based on whether or not attitudes and wishes are
shared or contradicted. At the upper end, subjects make some
attempt to understand the partner as psychologically motivated, but
descriptions of the relationship are simplistic and behavioral, and
communication tends to be characterized by a lack of trust, a
tendency to discuss superficial, non-controversial topics, if any,
and to exclude relationship-oriented matters. Level 2 individuals
describe their close relationships in terms of stereotyped images
of a happy marriage and describe their partners in terms of their
role as spouse or parent (e.g., ”a good father"). Communication is

valued by level 2 respondents, although it remains somewhat limited

24

in its range and degree of reciprocity. The upper and lower ends
are differentiated by the increasing awareness of the partner’s
individuality and efforts to reveal oneself via communication in
stage 4 versus stereotypical, socially acceptable descriptions of
both the relationship and the communication process in stage 3.
Level 3 is distinguished by subjects’ appreciation of their
partner’s unique qualities, concern with the emotional and
spiritual facets of the relationship, recognition of
interdependence, and open, relationship-centered communication. At
the lower end of Level 3 there may still be a specific area or
topic which is difficult to discuss or difficulties in integrating
an appreciation of interdependency in the relationship with an
awareness of individual development and growth. In contrast, at
the upper end individuals feel free to express differences and
describe how each partner grows and changes in the context of
mutually influential interactions.

As in Orlofsky et al.’s system, commitment refers to an
enduring involvement and long-term interest in maintaining the
relationship with that particular partner, independent of the
degree of depth.‘ Similarly, the commitment scale is also divided
into the three levels of aaljafgguaad, r91a;£aau§ag, and
indixidgataa;gannaatad, each of which is divided into two
substages. The progression from stage 1 to stage 6 is defined by
increasing levels of investment in both the relationship or
marriage and the particular partner. At the lower end of Level 1

are individuals who are ready to leave the relationship. At the

25

upper end of Level 1 are those not yet committed and struggling
with the idea of a commitment. Level 2 individuals are more
clearly committed to the relationship in stereotypic ways or to
marriage as an institution. At the lower end of level 2,
individuals may describe a troubled relationship and a willingness
to try to work things out or may understand their commitments in a
highly personified and stereotyped way (e.g., "He promised to stay
together until death do us part"). In contrast, individuals at the
upper end of this level are clearly invested in the abstract
institution of marriage and view the relationship as "bigger" than
the individuals. Level 3 is characterized by individuals’
intention to stay in the relationship or marriage with references
to long term investments in family and home, and an expression of
loyalty and affection toward their particular partner, rather than
to the institution of marriage per se. The distinction between the
upper and lower ends of Level 3 is based on the degree to which the
intention to “stick it out, no matter what'I is expressed in
combination with expressions of a loving investment in the partner.
Operationalizing intimacy in this way allows one to maintain
the distinction between depth and commitment, while broadening and
enriching the range of variability among the intimacy levels. For
example, in Orlofsky et al.’s system, individuals with committed
role-focused and self-focused relationships are coded identically
based on the degree of commitment. The present system’s
conceptualization of intimacy avoids the confounding of depth and

commitment and distinguishes between these two kinds of

26

relationships. A potential problem for this as well as other
systems remains, however. It is likely that individuals who have
similar degrees of depth and commitment in close relationships
differ in other ways, such as their ways of handling conflict. No
system for coding intimacy to date provides for distinctions
between more and less adaptive conflict resolution styles. This
issue will be addressed below after completing the discussion of

current approaches to intimacy.

W

In attempts to distinguish how the intimacy statuses differ
many investigations have focused on the relationships between
intimacy and one or more of the five previous psychosocial tasks of
infancy, childhood, and adolescence (Hodgson & Fischer, 1979;
Marcia, 1976; Orlofsky, 1978; Orlofsky et al., 1973). Orlofsky
(1978) found strong relationships between intimacy status and the
subscales of Constantinople’s (1969) Inventory of Psychosocial
Development which assesses an individual’s position of each of
Erikson’s stages. He concludes that optimal resolution of the
intimacy crisis is related to successful resolution of the
antecedent stages, but acknowledges the inferential nature of his
conclusions and the need for longitudinal data. The majority of
the studies on intimacy focus specifically on the relationship
between identity and intimacy. These studies generally support the
hypothesis that, for males, successful resolution of the intimacy

task in young adulthood is dependent on establishing a firm sense

27

of identity, the developmental task of adolescence (Schiedel &
Marcia, 1985; Tesch & Hhitbourne, 1982; Kacerguis & Adams, 1980;
Hodgson & Fischer, 1979; Marcia, 1976; Prager, 1977). The
relationship between identity and intimacy for females does not
appear to be as strong as that for males, which has led some
researchers to suggest that women deal with interpersonal issues
before resolving questions of identity (Schiedel & marcia, 1985),
or alternatively, that for most women, identity and intimacy
development merge or coexist (Hodgson & Fischer, 1979; Schiedel &
Marcia, 1985).

Until recently, most of the research in this field remained
within the confines of the above paradigm and stressed the
interrelationships of Erikson’s psychosocial stages, particularly
identity and intimacy. An exception is a study by Orlofsky (1978)
which attempts to further operationalize some of the psychosocial
aspects of the development of intimacy proposed by the epigenetic
model. For example, congruent with Erikson’s notion of development
as a process of successive psychosocial steps, he notes the
possibility that other factors such as relationships with parents,
relationships with peers, and early social successes or failures
account for differences in the resolution of the intimacy crisis.
Orlofsky’s study, in actuality, taps the peer domain by
(retrospectively) assessing patterns of friendships and popularity
in childhood and adolescence. He finds that male undergraduates
who are isolates report low personal involvement and little

interpersonal success in peer relationships in childhood and

28

adolescence. Differences in the interpersonal sphere among the
other intimacy statuses are negligible, suggesting that future
conceptualizations should include a broader range of "other
factors" selected with reference to a clear theoretical model.

Additionally, Orlofsky sampled college-age males only, a
limitation (restricted age range and gender) which appears all too
frequently in this research. In fact, the intimacy statuses were
developed and tested initially on males only (Orlofsky et al.,
1973). This limitation has wide-ranging implications and has only
begun to be addressed. In this regard and as noted earlier,
Levitz-Jones and Orlofsky (I985) remark that the findings for
college and young adult men generally show stronger relationships
between identity development and intimacy than the relationships
for women on these same variables. To account for this
discrepancy, they suggest that the intimacy statuses may not
provide a valid assessment of women’s interpersonal style. I
suspect, however, the problem lies more in the conceptual model
than in the measure. Other findings showing that women are more
intimate regardless of identity status support the criticism that
the Eriksonian model can not adequately account for female
development of intimacy (Hodgson & Fischer, 1979). Finally, in a
theoretical paper Franz and Hhite (1985) spell out their viewpoint
of the limitations in the Eriksonian account of intimacy: Due to
his focus on identity development, Erikson fails ”to provide a

clear picture of how individuals become progressively able to form

29

intimate dyadic bonds characterized by openness, reciprocity, and
sharing" (p. 234).

It is important to point out, however, that Erikson’s
formulations of development up through and including adolescence
emphasize the importance of familial and social factors. The fact
is that these family and psychosocial variables such as the
parental marriage, sex role orientation and gender have not been
adequately addressed in the empirical investigations of this model.
The focus in a great deal of this research on identity achievement
and its relationship to the capacity for intimacy is exceedingly
narrow in its assumption that resolving issues about political,
religious, and occupational ideology -- presumably the components _
of "identity” -- is the only pathway to intimacy. According to
many authors, both the emphasis on identity and the ”masculine"
bias in the identity construct reflect Erikson’s vague position on
sex differences in development. To date, however, the attempts to
explicate males’ and females’ developmental pathways to intimacy
‘consist of modifications to current measures of identity (Bellew-
Smith & Korn, 1986; Tesch & Hhitbourne, I982; Grotevant, Thorbecke,
& Meyer, 1982) or patchwork addenda to the theory itself (Franz &
Hhite, 1985). Relatedly, because the literature fails to
articulate the role of the social sphere such as the family, most
of the research takes a sharp detour around issues of values and
attitudes with regard to close relationships. An extension of the
identity status interview into the interpersonal domain (Grotevant,

Thorbecke, & Meyer, 1982) attempts to resolve some of these

30

problems and will be discussed in a later section on gender and sex
role.

In sum, Erikson’s psychosocial model of personality
development continues to be of significant value in assessing the
capacity for intimacy in young adults, despite its limitations.
Erikson’s description of intimacy and the elaboration of the
intimacy statuses (Orlofsky et al., 1973) provide one of the few
in-depth analyses of intimacy as a psychological variable.
Moreover, the model’s theoretical framework functions as a "secure
base", in the jargon of attachment theorists, from which current
researchers continue to generate and explore expanded formulations

of the development of intimacy.

WWW

Attachment theory and recent work applying the theory to
relationships in adulthood are particularly relevant for generating
possibilities to account for the gaps in the Eriksonian model and
existing research. As Franz and Hhite (1985) have noted, Erikson’s
theory comprehensively describes the development of individuation
in the first five stages of the model and essentially neglects the
development of attachment until the onset of adulthood, marked by
the intimacy versus isolation crisis. Attachment theories, on the
other hand, stress the idea that development is continuous, and
suggest that development occurs through a process which links
childhood and adulthood (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Sroufe & Fleeson,
1986). Although both Eriksonian and attachment theories agree that

31

development occurs within the context of a social network (Hinde, '
1979; Kimmel, 1979; Heinraub, Brooks, & Lewis, 1977), theorists
writing about attachment and adulthood make explicit their
conceptualizations of how events in early childhood influence
attachment to a romantic partner in adulthood, in particular.

Because attachment theory and its extensions are newcomers to
the relatively young field of close relationships, the literature
to date is largely theoretical. Confusion in the literature
(Haith, 1982) regarding the term attachment itself makes it
difficult to precisely define the construct and even more difficult
to note how it is similar or different to intimacy. Generally, it
appears that attachment refers to an affective bond or relationship
(Haith, 1982; Gaensbauer & Harmon, 1982; Ainsworth, 1969;
Ainsworth, 1969). In this sense, attachment is a broader construct
than intimacy, yet encompasses "the full spectrum of emotion and
feeling” (Ainsworth, Blehar, Haters, & Hall, 1978, p. 23), and
therefore includes intimacy.

Particularly salient to the study of intimacy is the emphasis
given to the idea that relationships affect relationships (e.g.,
AntonucCi, 1976; Hinde, 1979). According to this approach to
development, the capacity for intimacy will have its roots in
experiences and behaviors learned in childhood from the significant
adults in the child’s life (Antonucci, 1976; Troll & Smith, 1976).
Evidence from empirical studies done by Rutter and his colleagues
(Rutter, 1980) which show that family relationships characterized

by disharmony interfere with the development of close relationships

32

in adulthood (and vice versa) substantiates the above claim. A
related finding in Uddenberg, Englesson, and Nettelbladt’s study
(1979) demonstrates that the way a woman relates to her husband and
son is influenced by her relationship with her own father. Others
have stressed the need to consider the developmental context of
relationships, particularly with regard to family relationships and
to changes in the salience of roles over time (Kimmel, 1979;
Lowenthal, Thurner, Chiriboga & Associates, 1975; Shulman, 1975).

Hazan and Shaver (1987) are particularly interested in the
implications of attachment theory for differences in individual
relational styles in adult romantic relationships. Specifically,
they hypothesize that differences in parent-child attachment
histories underlie variations in the quality of individuals’ close
relationships in adulthood. The foundation for Hazan and Shaver’s
basic premise comes from Bowlby’s (1969) belief that attachment
throughout the life-span is characterized by continuity and based
on mental representations of one’s self and social experiences.
Results from two large scale studies (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) provide
empirical support for Bowlby’s continuity thesis. These studies
show that the quality of the young adults’ relationships with a
romantic partner differed as a function of the differences in the
young adults’ attachment histories as assessed by respondents’
perceptions of the quality of earlier parent-child relationships
and of their parents’ relationship with one other.

Because Hazan and Shaver use simple adjective checklists to

retrospectively measure young adults’ perceptions of parent-child

33

and parental marriage variables, it is difficult to ascertain the
praaaaa of continuity in attachment from parent-child to close
relationships in adulthood. Other life-span theorists have
suggested, however, that children learn how to relate to others
(Haith, 1982) and learn perspective-taking skills in the context of
early parent-child attachment relationships, and that this capacity
will "have a crucial bearing on [the child’s] success in
maintaining proximity and communication with new figures"
(Ainsworth, 1969, p. 1008). For the most part, however, the
processes posited by Haith (1982) and Ainsworth (1969) are
speculative. In this regard, Haith (1982) notes that research
which adequately and accurately describes the social factors which
presumably affect parent-child attachment, such as the pattern and
affective quality of family relationships, is lacking.
Specifically, he draws our attention to the likelihood that the
quality of mother-father and parent-child interactions affects the
child’s present and future relationships. Haith raises the
question with regard to families characterized by chronic conflict,
but notes that the larger issue is describing how different
affective environments influence relational development.

The association between marital discord and child problems
(O’Leary & Emery, 1984) and between parental characteristics such
as lack of confidence, overinvolvement, or undercontrol and child
problems (Mash, 1984; Patterson, 1985) receives considerable
attention in the child development research, but remarkably few

studies address the implications of differences in the quality of

34

parenting for children’s ability to form intimate relationships in
young adulthood. An exception is the work by Elder et al. (in
press) which spans four generations of family relationships and
finds evidence to suggest that children who grow up in homes
characterized by marital conflict and aversive family relationships
are also likely to have more difficulty forming and sustaining
close relationships in adulthood. In a more speculative vein,
Weiss (1982) posits that parents directly and indirectly foster or
frustrate their children’s attempts to form relationships outside
the family. For instance, by undermining a child’s sense of
competence parents can impede a child’s ability to make friends and
later, to form more intimate relationships.

In another vein, in families where there are poor marriages
one parent may monopolize a child’s time and emotional energy to
compensate for loneliness or other needs not being met in the
marital relationship, thus limiting the child’s outside
relationships (Weiss, 1982). In both examples, parents’ lack of
sensitivity to the child’s or adolescent’s needs have the potential
for critical consequences on the individual’s ability to form
intimate relationships in adulthood. Finally, Stierlin (1981) in
his discussion of the process of parent-adolescent separation
suggests that the goal of this developmental transition is for the
adolescent to develop new loyalties outside the nuclear family
without having to disengage emotionally from his/her parents at the
same time. Important to the current study is their notion that the

outcome of the adolescent’s separation from parents is dependent

35

upon and is organized by the nature of the parental relationship
and parental conflicts. In essence, in order to accomplish this
task, the adolescent must feel free to become involved in
relationships outside the family without experiencing guilt about
leaving his/her parents.

To summarize, attachment theory’s approach to close
relationships sharpens the focus on specific factors within the
child’s social setting likely to account for differences in the
capacity for intimacy in adulthood. Although attachment theory and
other adult development approaches to close relationships do not
specifically address the development of intimacy, these models do
stress the importance of understanding how societal and familial
influences act together to determine different outcomes in
individuals’ levels of autonomy, interpersonal competence, and
ability to communicate effectively (Anastasiow, 1982).
Additionally, these researchers’ interest in the "affective
environment” hints at the close ties between conflict and close
relationships, and suggests an additional dimension of intimate

relationships which heretofore has been neglected.

nmmmmmmmmemfi

I The current study raises an additional question about the
relationship between intimacy status or level of intimacy and the
variations in conflict resolution in close relationships. As noted
earlier in the critique of existing intimacy measures, current

conceptualizations of intimacy as operationalized by Orlofsky et

36

al. (1973) and by White et al. (1986) confound conflict with the
broad construct of depth. By burying notions of conflict
resolution in more global categories such as “insight" or
"communication", the current systems for defining intimacy obscure
opportunities to examine more precisely the relationship between
the level of intimacy and the ways in which people experience and
cope with problems. Others have suggested, however, that the high
rates of interaction and the diversity of activities which people
share in close relationships also provides increased opportunity
for conflict to occur (Peterson, 1983). Importantly, theoretical
discussions of the role of conflict in intimacy propose that
conflict can either facilitate relationship growth and commitment,
or, alternatively, can ultimately cause the demise of a
relationship (Braiker & Kelley, 1979; Peterson, 1983). Hhat is
missing in the literature, however, is the critical distinction
between the amount or presence of conflict and conflict resolution.
In the case of intimate relationships in non-clinical samples, it
is likely that individuals’ various ways of coping with conflict
rather than the degree of conflict is the important variable to
examine. This study accordingly focuses on the relationship
between young adults’ styles of conflict resolution, not on
conflict per se, and intimacy. However, in extremely distressed
couples, such as those seen in a clinic setting, it is likely that
the amount of conflict is an important indicator of the level of

stress.

37

Although I believe that a reciprocal interaction probably
best characterizes the relationship between intimacy and conflict
resolution, this is impossible to test in a cross-sectional study
such as the present investigation. For heuristic reasons I will
therefore focus on how individuals’ conflict resolution strategies
affect the level of intimacy. Based on the work of Braiker and
Kelley (1979), the current study makes a distinction between
jfltarparagnal and intranaygnig conflict resolution. 'Interpersonal
conflict resolution" refers to the way individuals typically
approach and handle problems in close relationships. 'Intrapsychic
conflict resolution" refers to individuals’ intrapersonal
experience of coping with problems. 0r stated somewhat
differently, the intrapsychic conflict dimension reflects the
degree of tension versus satisfaction expressed (directly or
indirectly) about the way conflicts are resolved, whereas the
interpersonal dimension is representative of what individuals
typically £9 to resolve problems. The distinction between these
two aspects of close relationships allows a closer look at the
relationship between what individuals do and how they feel in
intimate relationships, and is especially relevant to the present
study’s focus on exploring individual differences in what each
person brings to the relationship.

To assess both intrapsychic and interpersonal conflict
resolution, scales were developed based on a cognitive-
developmental approach. Conceptually, the underlying framework of

the scales is consistent both with ego psychology’s developmental

38

model of interpersonal relationships (e.g., Loevinger & Hessler,
1970; Hhite et al., 1986) and with cognitive models of coping with
stress (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), especially stress in the
interpersonal domain (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978).

The ego development model describes a continuum of
interpersonal style characterized by egocentricism and self-serving
behavior on the low end, stereotyped and concrete thinking and
interpersonal behaviors at the middle ranges, and by increasing
capacities for empathy, interdependence, and appreciation for
individual differences at the high ends. Conflict resolution style
can be considered one aspect of interpersonal style. At the lower
end of the developmental continuum, an egocentric or self-focused
style of coping with conflict is characterized by a reactivity to
negative affect and impulsive or aggressive behaviors (e.g.,
yelling, leaving the scene, verbal or physical abuse) that fail to
take into account the needs of the other individual. This approach
to conflict resolution reflects a style of coping that, in
Loevinger’s and Hessler’s (1970) words, is I'impulsive" and
potentially exploitative and is driven by negative affect and self
protective concerns. Accordingly, both of the conflict scales used
in the present research are defined at the lower levels by
maladaptive attempts to cope with conflict, that generally are
unsuccessful at reducing the level of tension or resolving the
problem. Strategies represented at the intermediate levels of the
scales are based on palliative techniques that preserve the peace

and avoid confrontational and negative interactions. Consistent

39

with the developmental model, individuals at intermediate levels of
conflict resolution cope with interpersonal problems in terms of
concrete behaviors rather than complex motives or feelings. Hhen
feelings are expressed, they are stereotypical and cliche, and they
serve to facilitate minimization and denial of conflict. In
contrast, at the higher levels of the scale, strategies involve
efforts to acknowledge feelings of anger and guilt, and to cope
with problems in a constructive, change-oriented manner. As
depicted by a developmental model of interpersonal style,
underlying these higher level strategies is the recognition of
reciprocal dependence as well as appreciation for individual
differences.

Additionally, the stress and coping model provides conceptual
support to the framework described above. The stress and coping
model distinguishes among styles of coping in which individuals are
helpless in the face of negative and overwhelming affect, styles in
which individuals rely on palliative strategies, and styles in
which individuals focus on constructive resolution. Hhile the
stress and coping model typically does not presume a continuum for
these three types of conflict resolution strategies, Pearlin and
Schooler (1978) have shown that in marriage, the most effective
responses are characterized by reflective consideration of
problems, whereas those that involve emotional discharge of
feelings are the least effective, and those that rely on avoidance

and withdrawal fall somewhere in between.

40

Along these same lines, Holahan and Moos’ (1987) summary of
the research findings on the influence of coping strategies on
psychological well-being is consistent with the conceptual
underpinnings of the conflict scales used in the present study.
Active or problem-oriented strategies, which are conceptually
similar to the higher levels of this study’s conflict scales, were
more successful in reducing depressive symptoms (Mitchell,
Cronkite, & Moos, 1983) and in reducing the effects of negative
life events on psychological functioning (Billings & Moos, 1981;
Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Conversely, findings from studies by
Menaghan (1982), Moos and Moos (1984), and Billings and Moos (1981)
all demonstrated a positive association between avoidance
strategies and psychological distress (e.g., depression, increased
family conflict). In addition, a study which used intraindividual
analyses to examine the relationship between conflict strategies
and respondents’ perceptions of satisfactory versus unsatisfactory
outcomes found strategies which were hostile and aggressively
confrontive or which relied on detaching oneself or creating a
positive outlook were positively related to unsatisfactory outcomes
(Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis a Gruen, 1986). These
same researchers found that a focus on personal growth and problem-
solving, strategies found at the higher ends of the conflict scales
in the present study, were positively related to reports of
satisfactory outcomes.

Finally, a study by Rubsult, Johnson, and Morrow (1986)
attempted to empirically establish the adaptive value of four

41

possible responses in the "exit-voice-loyalty-neglect' coping
paradigm. The results of regression analyses based on 68
university couples’ self-reports of their conflict resolution
styles indicated that "exit" and "neglect" strategies in which
individuals are abusive, threaten to leave, refuse discussion or
ignore problems were related to self-reported decreases in
satisfaction and increases in distress. "Voice" strategies which
were characterized by a willingness to compromise and talk things
over were predictive of nondistress, whereas the more passive-
avoidant tendency to "wait for things to improve“ was not
predictive.

In sum, the conflict resolution scales developed and used in
this study reflect Braiker and Kelley’s (1979) distinction between
coping with conflict on an intrapsychic level and coping with
conflict on an interpersonal or behavioral level in close
relationships. The underlying framework of both scales is based on
the theoretical and conceptual formulations of the ego psychology
developmental model and the cognitive model of stress and coping.

The Interpersonal Conflict Resolution scale was originally
developed and used in a dissertation by Pedigo (1986). Individuals
who score at the low end of the interpersonal conflict resolution
scale typically approach difficulties in ways that escalate
conflict such as verbally attacking the partner, yelling and
screaming, or otherwise creating barriers to resolution.
Individuals scoring in the middle range of the scale typically

avoid confrontation and try to minimize negative affect in

42

resolving problems. And individuals scoring in the high range of
the scale resolve problems via open confrontation and discussion,
compromise, or other effective strategies.

In the present study, I developed the Intrapsychic Conflict
Resolution scale to assess young adults’ inner experiences of
coping with conflict in their close relationships, based on the
distinction pointed out by Braiker and Kelley (1979). The low,
middle, and high points of the Interpersonal and Intrapsychic
Conflict Resolution scales are conceptually similar, but the
content of the latter refers to intrapsychic rather than
interpersonal processes of conflict resolution. The Intrapsychic
Conflict Resolution scale describes individuals at the low end who
are overwhelmed by and experience conflict as distressful and as a
threat to the relationship, and individuals at the high end who
experience conflict as an inevitable, growth-enhancing part of the
relationship. In the middle of this scale are those who attempt to
deny or minimize the importance of conflicts, but who also may
inadvertently acknowledge that problems exist.

Empirical evidence to guide the formulation of hypotheses
about the function of conflict in close relationships is limited.
In fact, the literature is actually more confusing than
enlightening in this regard. As Peterson (1983) notes, there is a
significant discrepancy between the relatively large amount of
theoretical work and the paucity of actual data about the role of
conflict in intimate relationships, which he suggests is due to

practical and ethical restraints in collecting information about

43

how couples handle differences. However, for the most part
theoretical conceptualizations and particularly, the empirical work
on intimacy have neither emphasized nor explored in depth the
interplay between the level of conflict experienced in close
relationships and the level of intimacy. The exceptions are a
longitudinal study by Raush et al. (1974) and a retrospective study
by Braiker and Kelley (I979).

Raush et al. (1974) followed couples during the first three
years of marriage, during which time couples completed
questionnaires, interviews, and participated in videotaped role
plays designed to stimulate conflict and conflict resolution.
Based on the data from four role plays, they designate three
distinct styles of dealing with conflict, and further stipulate
that these categories did not differ by family life cycle stage or
sex. Individuals in the ayaigange classification scheme chose not
to confront their differences openly. This particular style of
handling problems appears to inhibit further growth of the
relationship, but notably does not appear to impede the overall
level of marital satisfaction or stability for these couples. A
second style of handling conflict is characterized by a limited
range of problem solving behaviors, presumably as an effort to
remain uninvolved and maintain distance. These [aggrigtad couples
usually resort to ineffective strategies which lead to escalation
of the conflict and possibly to a break in the relationship. In
contrast, the distinguishing feature of the third group is the

varied repertoire available for solving problems. Individuals in

44

this group typically appeal to agnatrggtiya means of resolving
differences, and do so in a context of caring and concern, which
ultimately promotes relationship growth. Notably, the consequences
for the relationship differ according to each style, with the
avoiders remaining satisfied but static; the restricted leading to
further friction and possible dissolution; and the constructive
achieving resolution and relationship development. These
relationships suggest, in terms of the present study’s hypotheses,
that individuals who have more constricted interpersonal styles of
dealing with conflict will be less intimate, i.e., more ”self-
focused". Additionally, individuals with avoiding styles of
resolving conflicts will be more likely to score in the middle
ranges of both the intimacy and conflict scales. And lastly,
individuals with constructive styles of coping with problems will
be more likely to score at the high end of the intimacy (i.e.,
'individuated-connected") and conflict scales.

Braiker and Kelley (1979) attempt to explore the relationship
between conflict and the quality of relationships in a
retrospective questionnaire study with twenty couples. The study
describes a pattern of increasing interdependence from casual
dating to serious dating to engagement and marriage accompanied by
increasing opportunities and occurrences of conflict. Secondly,
they note that "conflict is not necessarily destructive of or
disruptive to relationship growth and continuation“, given that all

these couples were married (Braiker & Kelley, 1979, p. 150).

45

Peterson (1983) suggests that this and other studies (e.g.,
Stambul, 1975; Hills, Heiss, & Patterson, 1974; Orden & Bradburn,
1968) are not tapping what may be more complex relationships
between conflict and "closeness". In this regard, Braiker and
Kelley (1979) note that although their own data show love and
conflict are not related, it is possible that there is a link
between the two, such that the communication which facilitates
feelings of love and closeness in the early stages of a
relationship serves as an aid to resolving conflict in later
stages. In a more clinical and theoretical vein, Kaplan and Klein
(1985) present a somewhat stronger hypothesis about the growth-
enhancing potential of conflict in close relationships:

we see conflict as one mode of intense and abiding

engagement, not as the leading edge of separation and

disconnection. Conflict is a necessary part of
relationships, essential for the changes which must be

made so that the relationship and each person in it can

change and grow (p. 5).

The results from the Braiker and Kelley (1979) studies do not
allow statements about the causal relationship between conflict and
successful relationships. They speculate, however, that
"successful" relationships may differ in severity, number, or
styles of conflict resolution from less satisfied couples.
Moreover, it is their belief that successful couples are more
likely to settle differences by discussion rather than avoidance.
Similarly, the present study expects that individuals who have

adaptive problem solving styles which lead to integrative

agreements will have relationships characterized by structural

46

improvement, and therefore will also have higher levels of
intimacy. Extending these implications beyond that which is
postulated in the literature, it is proposed that young adults with
more constructive interpersonal strategies for conflict resolution
will also experience conflict as relationship-building and
enriching rather than as painful and distressing. As Braiker and
Kelley (1979) suggest, interpersonal conflict can trigger changes
in attitudes and feelings (i.e., intrapersonal conflict), including
"a crystallization of sentiments about the relationship that
supports a new self attribution of ’being in love’ (p. 161).
Missing in the above studies are analyses to explore what
factors are contributing to these differences. Furthermore, there
are a number of methodological problems. For example, the
literature to date employs small samples and focuses on married
couples, which have thus far prevented an adequate analysis of the
contribution of variables, such as age and family life cycle stage.
In addition, the data from Raush et al. (1974) are provocative, but
have serious limitations due to the “staged" laboratory tasks and
the fact that couples were asked to repeat the same role plays each
year of the study. Hhat these studies do is point out the
importance of studying agafligt_ra§g1gtian rather than the level of
conflict. For example, both Raush et al. (1974) and Braiker and
Kelley (1979) make it clear that they believe communication or
conflict resolution skills contribute to the differences in
satisfied and dissatisfied couples. Additionally, both research

groups establish the relationship between "satisfaction" or

47

"success” and adaptive conflict resolution. Hhile "success" seems
to be fraught with problems such as value judgment and
”satisfaction" is not the same as intimacy, a dimension in common
to both of these terms and intimacy is commitment. It is possible
that, among other things, the example of communication and conflict
resolution in the parental marriage influences young adults’ styles
of resolving conflict in their own close relationships, which in
turn affects the capacity for negotiating the level of commitment
and intimacy.

The present study distinguishes between interpersonal and
intrapsychic conflict resolution in order to enhance the present
understanding of close relationships. Hence, I expect there will
be a positive, but only moderately strong relationship between
interpersonal and intrapsychic conflict resolution, because they
are tapping two different types of experiences of one domain. More
importantly, I will address previously unexplored issues by
proposing: 1) that both interpersonal conflict resolution and
intrapsychic conflict resolution will influence the level of
intimacy; and 2) that young adults’ own interpersonal and
intrapsychic strategies for conflict resolution will partly mediate
the relationship between their parent’s style of conflict
resolution and the level of intimacy.

The sections which follow will attempt to specify individual
and familial factors which contribute to differences in the level
of intimacy in young adulthood as well as suggest how these factors

are related to one another.

48

Individual Differences Variables and Intimacy

Although the variables discussed in the following section are
not psychological variables per se, the influences of gender, sex
role, age, and family life cycle are included in the present study
because they represent significant sources of developmental and
social influences on close relationships. The sections below are
not intended to suggest that all of the variables that account for
or contribute to differences in levels of intimacy are being
measured, but the above four indices are selected because they
represent important sources of variation and information in the
absence of other data. For example, age provides a useful marker
of potential differences in individuals’ maturation and ”readiness"
for intimacy, and sex-role orientation likely explains some of the

variance accounted for by gender.

Gender and Sax Role

The fact that this section includes both gender and sex role
orientation effects on intimacy reflects the close and obvious
connection between the two variables, but hopefully will not
obscure the importance of identifying each aspect’s potentially
unique influence on the development of intimacy. Although I expect
that sex-role orientation will partly mediate the effect of gender
on intimacy, I also believe that both sex-role orientation and
gender will each contribute independently to intimacy.

Additionally, the possibility that gender moderates the effects of

49

other predictors in the model will also be investigated. Finally,
I expect that sex-role orientation will mediate the relationship
between gender and intimacy.

The focus of the literature on gender and sex role with
respect to intimacy has changed over time, with the earlier studies
focusing on gender differences in intimacy and the more recent
studies emphasizing that gender differences in intimacy are
mediated by differences in sex role orientation. The goal of this
section is to review these diverse findings for the purpose of
underscoring the importance of understanding how both gender and
sex role contribute to intimacy in today’s changing world.

fianaan. Bem (1981) has described the dichotomy between male
and female as the basic organizing principle for the allocation of
adult roles. This notion is particularly relevant for the study of
close relationships, and is echoed in the frequently cited
conclusion that in every heterosexual relationship, there are in
fact two relationships, the male and the female (Bernard, 1972).

In a similar vein, investigations of close relationships from a
range of theoretical orientations generally agree that there are
different developmental pathways for men and women which shape
intimate relationships (e.g., Peplau & Gordon, 1985; Schiedel &
Marcia, 1985; Hodgson & Fischer, 1979; Orlofsky, 1977; Prager,
1977; Chodorow, 1974). Furthermore, numerous studies report
differences in intimacy in men’s and women’s friendships reflecting
a pattern similar to those differences found for heterosexual close

relationships. For example, women report having more intimate

50

friends (Powers & Bultena, 1976), and are more likely to have an
intimate confidante throughout the life span (Booth & Hess, 1974;
Lowenthal & Haven, 1968). In contrast, men are described as
disclosing less personal information (Cozby, 1973), as less
emotionally expressive (Balswick & Peek, 1971), and as choosing
less intimate topics to discuss (Morgan, 1976). Both questionnaire
and role play data show that women value emotional sharing more
than men, and that men are more interested in sharing activities
(Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985; Douvan & Adelson, 1966).

The literature on close relationships depicts similar
findings for differences in men’s and women’s levels of intimacy,
or in variables believed to promote intimacy. Homen have been
shown to be more empathic (Hoffman, 1977), more sensitive to
nonverbal communication (Hall, 1978), and to value emotional caring
and support more than men in close relationships (Parelman, 1983).
In a more detailed theoretical account, Chodorow (1974) discusses
the ramifications of the “social organization of gender" from a
psychoanalytic perspective and stresses differences in the ways
boys and girls resolve the oedipal crisis. Briefly, the task for
boys involves a positional identification with their father and
thus with aspects of the masculine role as provider and worker (not
as husband or parent), which effectively curtails the
acknowledgement of nurturant and relational capacities and needs.
Girls’ development, on the other hand, involves a personal
identification with their mothers, which effectively establishes a

link between the affective, nurturant aspects of personality and

51

aspects of learning the adult female role. Similarly, Stiver
(1984) suggests that girls’ identification with I'mother as mother"
leads to the enhancement of emotional and nurturant capacities in
women and not men. According to Stiver, men’s development occurs
via a path which begins with attachment and proceeds to separation
to individuation to autonomy. Girls, in contrast, move from
attachment to further connectedness, always developing within a

relational context.

- o i t o . The above discussion of male-female
differences in intimate relationships illustrates the problematic
tendency in this literature to lump together psychological and
social influences on attitudes and behaviors by measuring and
examining relationships between variables in terms of gender alone.
For example, the psychodynamic model referred to above stresses
identification with the same-sex parent and describes two, neat
pathways defined as "masculine” and ”feminine”. In a similar vein,
the sociological and developmental literature focuses on the
consequences of gender-linked socialization for male and female
sex-role differentiation. However, the social-developmental
approach which emphasizes gender differences in learned values and
behaviors, establishes a means for accounting for differences in
intimacy by assessing beliefs and attitudes rather than simply
describing sex differences. Parsons’ and Bales’ (1955)
conceptualization of women as socio-emotional (expressive)

specialists and men as task (instrumental) specialists represents

52

the early work in this field. In fact, it is often cited to
account for the differences in the experiences of men and women in
close relationships. Similarly, the developmental account of
differences in the capacity for intimacy frequently refers to
Bakan’s (1966) concepts of agency and communion which represent the
masculine and feminine aspects of personality, respectively, and
essentially parallels the Parsons-Bales dimensions of
instrumentality and expressiveness. Both of these theories
describe how socialization differences influence differences in the
relational styles of males and females. Generally stated, these
schemas propose that the interaction between culture and
personality results in gender-based differentiation of roles.

Males characteristically are instrumental or agentic, and females
are communal or expressive. Bakan tempered the earlier
formulation, however, by proposing that every individual has both
feminine and masculine aspects which ideally become integrated with
mature personality development. In keeping with Bakan’s work, the
construct of androgyny has gained prominence in the sex role
literature, and sex-role research increasingly focuses on the
degree to which individuals report high levels of both masculine
and feminine traits. Presumably, the androgynous person can then
call upon expressive (feminine) or agentic (masculine) attributes,
depending on the demands of the situation. Relatedly, recent work
challenges the traditional differentiation of male-female roles,
and argues that the changing roles of men and women, the feminist

movement and the rising divorce rate make it likely that gender-

53

based role assignments will hinder rather than enhance close
relationships (Peplau & Gordon, 1985; Parelman, 1983).

Similarly, more recent studies show that the pattern of
differences in close relationships is not adequately described by a
male versus female dichotomy. Rather, these studies have begun to
identify patterns of consensus and similarities rather than
differences among men and women along various dimensions of
intimacy (e.g., Parelman, 1983; Peplau, 1983). Accordingly, the
focus of contemporary studies has been the study of sex roles to
explain differences in men’s and women’s perceptions of and
experiences in close relationships. Furthermore, these efforts
have been guided by a number of studies which report minimal
overall sex differences in what men and women want in marriage and
other close relationships, and which therefore contradict earlier
studies which upheld the stereotyped view of the “resistant" male,
averse to marriage and involvement (Peplau, 1983; Komarovsky, 1976;
Raush et al., 1974; Levinger, 1964). Underlying this trend is the
belief that greater role flexibility or non-sex-stereotyped
interactions (androgyny) facilitates sharing and closeness between
men and women (Parelman, 1983; Bem, 1974). This line of thinking
suggests that it is not gender per se which explains differences;
rather researchers need to examine how sex role socialization
mediates differences in values and goals, which in turn affect how
men and women act and view close relationships (Gilligan, 1982;

Thorbecke & Grotevant, I982).

54

Several studies examining the relationship between sex role
and intimacy assess the Eriksonian claim that adolescents establish
their identity before resolving the intimacy-isolation crisis in
young adulthood (e.g., Costos, 1986; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985;
Fischer & Narus, 1981; Hodgson & Fischer, 1979; Orlofsky, 1978;
Prager, 1977). The central issue in these studies is the
clarification of male and female developmental pathways.

As Matteson and Marcia (1987) point out, the focus in this
endeavor changed in correspondence with changes in sociocultural
norms and values, such as those represented by the feminist
movement. Thus, rather than simply attempting to delineate a male
versus female style of development, I'it seemed wise to move beyond
a study of ’sex differences’ and to focus, instead, on different
styles of development within each sex' (Matteson & Marcia, 1987, p.
6).

In this regard, several researchers have amended or used
expanded versions of the standard Identity Status Interview to
include the assessment of sex-role ideology (Grotevant, Thorbecke,
& Meyer, 1982; Matteson, 1977; Schenkel & Marica, 1972).
Justification for this modification can be found in Erikson’s
belief that the identity process consists of resolving several
“part conflicts", including attempts “to face what it means to be
male or female, to learn and be comfortable with particular sex
roles while rejecting others" (p. 41, Hodgson & Fischer, 1979).
The rationale for the inclusion of sex-role thinking also reflects

two basic hypotheses of this research: 1) female development

55

occurs in a relational context, and therefore requires the
measurement of the interpersonal domain (Fischer & Hodgson, 1979),
and 2) sex-typed individuals typically avoid gender-inappropriate
behaviors, making it likely that masculine persons will avoid
nurturant and emotionally expressive interactions required in
intimate relationships (Schiedel & Marcia, 1985).

In a recent review of the research on sex differences in
identity, however, Matteson and Marcia (1987) issue a strong caveat
about interpreting past studies relating identity and intimacy.
Basically, they believe that existing models of identity
develOpment as currently operationalized are inadequate to explain
women’s development, and therefore that it is fruitless to persist
in efforts to describe development based on assumptions that
identity precedes intimacy. Rather, they propose that the evidence
suggests the concurrent development of agentic and communal traits
for both sexes, and furthermore, that development in one area is
likely to complement rather than hinder the other (Matteson &
Marcia, 1987).

Based on the above arguments, Matteson and Marcia believe
that identity as presently conceptualized in Eriksonian theory is a
masculine, agentic, decision-making model, and hence, that future I
investigations whose goal is to understand and explain
developmental pathways would do best to depart from Erikson’s
system. However, the existing research in this tradition does
provide findings which suggest hypotheses about the effects of sex

role and the development of intimacy in young adult men and women:

56

1) Femininity and androgyny will be positively related to the
development of intimacy in men and women and 2) More women than men
will be classified as "intimate". While there appear to be some
contradictions in the literature about the effects of femininity on
intimacy in women (Schiedel & Marcia, 1985; Fischer & Narus, 1981),
the findings generally show that men who are feminine or
androgynous are more likely to have higher levels of intimacy
(Schiedel & Marcia, 1985; Hodgson & Fischer, 1979). For women, the
only relevant distinction noted across studies is that women who
are undifferentiated with regard to sex role orientation are less
likely to have developed higher levels of intimacy than women who
are sex-typed or androgynous (Schiedel & Marcia, 1985; Fischer &
Narus, 1981; Hodgson a Fischer, 1979). Along these same lines,
Matteson and Marcia (1987) suggest that, because masculine and
feminine characteristics are additive rather than bipolar as once
thought, both males and females who have high levels of both are
more likely to achieve both identity and intimacy. In this same
vein, Hhite et al. (1986) find that for both husbands and wives,
the degree of communion (femininity) was positively, although only
moderately, related to intimacy maturity. Hith respect to the
second hypothesis, the literature consistently finds that more
women than men are ranked in the highest intimacy statuses
regardless of sex role ideology (Schiedel & Marcia, 1985; Fischer &
Narus, 1981; Hodgson & Fischer, 1979), indicating that the effects
of sex role and gender on intimacy are independent of one another.

Matteson and Marcia (1987) propose that Hestern cultural values and

57

norms maintain the artificial dichotomy of masculinity and
femininity, which results in making intimacy a priority for women,
and conversely, ”retarding intimacy development among those men not
sufficiently high in masculine and feminine characteristics” (p.
48).

Alternatively, Hhite et al. (1986) find in a sample of 31
couples that husbands and wives did not differ on levels of
intimacy, but also report that the pattarna among correlates of
intimacy, including sex-role orientation and marital adjustment,
varied greatly by gender. In particular, although the overall
relationship for communion (femininity) and intimacy maturity was
significant as noted above, the strength of the association varied
according to gender. They found a strong, significant relationship
between men’s level of communality (femininity) and overall
intimacy maturity, whereas the relationship was only marginal for
women. In addition, they found that the more other-oriented
(feminine) the wives, the lower the level of husbands’ intimacy.
Conversely, husbands’ higher levels of communality (femininity)
were positively associated with wives’ intimacy maturity.

Although the distinction between gender and sex-role
orientation in the literature is not altogether clear, one can
summarize the findings related to intimacy with the following
general conclusion: The roots of the capacity for intimacy lie
within the realm of socialization, with gender influences taking
precedence over, yet not necessarily accounting for those of sex

role orientation. Similarly, Fischer and Narus (1981) draw the

58

conclusion from their study of intimacy among college age men and
women that being male or female is itself probably more related to
individuals’ experience of close relationships than femininity,
masculinity, or androgyny. Accordingly, I expect that more females
than males will be intimate, but that this relationship will be
mediated in part by sex role, with more feminine young adults also
scoring in the higher levels of intimacy (i.e., 'individuated-
connected").

Generally, the difficulty in making sense of all the various
discussions of gender-linked differences in men’s and women’s
intimate relationships stems from two sources: a lack of data for
the adult years and the ambiguous use of the term 'sex role" as an
all-purpose label for male-female differences (Nash & Feldman,
1981). The use of diverse measures to assess sex roles adds to the
confusion. Furthermore, both gender and sex role are linked to
socialization influences. However, whereas gender is a discrete
bipolar dimension, for which the norms regarding behavior are
dictated by global societal norms, sex role is more subject to
intrafamilial influences and differences in individual
interpersonal histories. It is therefore necessary to describe the
roles which both gender and sex role play in the development of
intimacy as well as how they might interact.

In a related vein, it is likely that variations in
individuals’ life circumstances, such as whether a person is
single, married, and/or a parent, and relatedly, how old a person

is, will also effect sex role orientations (Horell, 1981). To

59

date, however, the reliance on adolescent and undergraduate samples
makes it difficult to assess the contribution of these person-
situation variables adequately. Accordingly, a comprehensive
account of social and psychological contributions to differences in
intimacy includes gender, sex role, and variations in life cycle

stage and age.

MW

Age and family life cycle stage are obviously confounded: as
individuals get older, they are more likely to make commitments
such as marriage and parenthood. Hence, age functions in effect as
a ”predictor" of family life cycle stage, and is treated as such in
this study. Accordingly, I expect that older young adults are more
likely to be in the later family life cycle stages (marriage and
parenting), and that they will describe more intimate
relationships. Furthermore, it is predicted that the relationship
between life cycle stage and intimacy will be partly explained by
the mediating influence of sex role orientation, with more
individuals who are married and parents having higher levels of

femininity.

Age. Recent efforts to describe the development of intimacy
have included age and generally hypothesize the existence but often
not the direction of a relationship for age and intimacy (Schiedel
& Marcia, 1985; Parelman, 1983; Fischer, 1981; Fisher & Narus,
1981). The primary theme in the theoretical and empirical

literature on the development of adult love relationships is that

60

deeper levels of intimacy characterize relationships over time
(Reedy, Birren, & Schanie, 1981).

Not surprisingly, however, studies using samples of differing
ages find contradictory results. For example, a study of male and
female college students, ages 18-24, shows that older males are
more intimate, and that there is a general trend for both males and
females to achieve increasing intimacy as they get older (Schiedel
& Marcia, 1985). Similarly, Fischer (1981) finds that college
women are more likely to be involved in relationships characterized
by mutuality, a sense of uniqueness, open communication,
attachment, and affection than are males in college and males and
females in high school. Yet a questionnaire study of 332
undergraduates ranging in age from 18 to 54 years old shows that
younger women were more likely to be in more intimate heterosexual
relationships (Fischer a Narus, 1981). Although the three studies
are not directly comparable for a number of reasons, one possible
explanation for the discrepancy is a tendency for younger
respondents to idealize their relationships and thus report higher
intimacy (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987). In addition, the results of
the Fischer and Narus (1981) study may represent a cohort effect,
rather than a clear effect for age. Notably, the only other study
which reports a negative relationship for age and intimacy is a
study of marital intimacy, which qualifies this finding by noting
that age in this sample is correlated with length of marriage,
cohort effects, number of children, and remarriage (Parelman,

1983). Consequently, it is impossible from such data to tease out

61

the actual contribution of age to marital intimacy. However, these
methodological problems are noteworthy because they call our
attention to the "natural” confound of age and life situation, and
the accompanying likelihood that variations in both of these
factors impact the nature of intimate relationships. Hence, age is
included in the present study to account primarily for its
influence on family life cycle rather than to assess the direct
relationship with intimacy in the relatively narrow range of young

adulthood.

L1£e_eye1e_eeage. Both the theoretical and empirical

literature stress the role of major life events in creating intra-
and interpersonal changes. Studies which elaborate on the
relationship between family life cycle stage and sex role
substantiate the crucial role of life situation suggested by life-
span theories. Especially striking are the results found in
several studies showing that pregnancy and parenthood mean an
increase in femininity for both men and women, an increase in-
cross-sex behavior for men and, conversely, a decrease in crossesex
behavior and increase in sex-typed behavior for women (Nash &
Feldman, 1981; Hyde & Phillis, 1979; Abrahams, Feldman, & Nash,
1978). Extrapolating from these findings regarding sex role,
increases in men’s capacity for intimacy might also be expected to
co-occur with the early years of marriage and parenthood.

There is a continuing debate in the literature regarding

precisely how variations in life cycle stage, in particular

62

marriage and parenting, affect intimacy in close relationships.
Early studies based on Parsons’ and Bales’ (1955) depiction of the
sex role differentiation of the family show that parenting has a
”traditionalizing effect” on men and women’s sex role orientation
(Guttman, 1975; Blood & Holfe, 1960). According to this line of
thought, in marriage, women identify with a socio-emotional
orientation and men identify with the provider or instrumental-task
orientation. Moreover, women are likely to have a greater capacity
for intimate relationships than men, given a social structure which
encourages such role differentiation. Several challenges to this
conceptualization suggest that there is actually a great deal of
overlap in family roles for men and women (Levinger, 1977; Raush et
al., 1974; Rossi, 1968). The majority of the work in this area
focuses on delineating how sex role behaviors or ideologies are
modified as individuals’ life situations change. For instance,
Balswick and Peek (1970) believe that the marriage relationship
creates needs and demands for emotional expressiveness on the part
of been partners. Similarly, Levinger (1964) proposes that
successful marriages are characterized by reciprocity and mutuality
rather than a sex-typed division of socioemotional behavior akin to
the traditional division of labor in Hestern families. And
finally, Fischer (1981) suggests that young women socialize their
male partners for intimacy once they are involved in relationships.
Thus as relationships evolve, it appears that differences due to
sex typing decrease with increasing closeness or marriage, the

formal institution for the expression of intimacy.

63

In sum, although very few studies directly address their role
in shaping differences in levels of intimacy, both theoretical and
empirical sources suggest the importance of assessing ways in which
age and life cycle stage influence variations in individuals’ level
of intimacy. In addition, researchers’ continued efforts to
understand sex differences in development highlights the importance
of considering variations in life cycle stage and age. Moreover,
because sex role is identified as one of the keys to understanding
differences in the capacity for intimacy, the inclusion of
mediating factors such as life stage is crucial.

Family Variables
WW

Developing a rationale for studying the association between
the parental marriage and the level of intimacy in young adulthood
rests primarily on two ideas about development and about
relationships found in both the clinical and empirical literature.
First, there appears to be a widespread belief, which only recently
has been addressed by research efforts, that individuals develOp
ideas or schemata in their families of origin of what it means to
be a man in relation to a woman, and vice versa (Raush et al.,
1974). Once these internal plans for interpersonal relationships
are formed, individuals will choose partners whose behavior is
congruent with that learned in the family (Elder et al., in press;
Lurie, 1974). Secondly, with regard to the level of intimacy, the

behaviors and values likely to be most salient for developing

64

schemata are those found in the most obvious intimate dyad, the
parental marriage.

I expect, therefore, that the parental marriage will play a
significant role in young adults’ levels of intimacy via direct and
indirect routes of influence. In particular, I expect that parents
with better marriages will have young adult children with higher
levels of intimacy (i.e., more 'individuated-connected"). Also,
the relationship between the parental marriage and young adults’
intimacy status will be partly mediated by triangulation in the
family of origin and by its influence on young adults’ experiences
of conflict in their own relationships. (The relationship for
triangulation will be discussed in the section following this one,
and the relationship explained by young adults’ experiences of
conflict are discussed in the earlier sections on intimacy.)

Previous studies have examined the role of parenting styles
on adolescent development, but rarely have considered the spousal
system’s or the marital unit’s potential for influencing
development in young adulthood. Moreover, when studies do include
questions about the parental relationship, they generally involve
simple yes or no responses to an adjective checklist and rely on
retrospective reports (Elder et al., in press; Coleman, Ganong, &
Ellis, 1985).

In a study using the same data set as the present study,
Pedigo (1986) identifies three components of the parental marriage
which are consistently found to correlate with marital satisfaction

and which presumably are important for developing intimate

65

relationships. These aspects of the parents’ marital relationship
are used in the present study to measure relationships between the
parental marriage and young adults’ capacity for intimacy, and are
as follows: the degree and quality of communication, conflict
resolution, and companionship. Furthermore, these variables are
assessed by interviews with the parents of the young adults being
studied rather than the young adults’ retrospective reports.

To date, there is very limited empirical evidence documenting
the.association between the parental marriage and relational styles
in young adulthood. The studies that do exist often refer to
related topics such as the transmission of marital instability
(Mueller & Pope, 1977; Pope & Mueller, 1976), attitudes toward
marriage (Hallin, 1954), and self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965); and
generally rely on retrospective perceptions of the parental
marriage. For example, Pope and Mueller (1976) report that their
analyses of five large national survey samples only provide weak
support for the role model rationale of the transmission of marital
stability. The role model rationale suggests that children learn
marital and sex roles best in an environment consisting of two
loving, competent parents. To address the plausibility of this
thesis, Pope and Mueller carried out regression analyses with
marital dissolution in the child generation as the dependent
variable and intact versus disrupted (divorced, separated, or death
of one spouse) parental families as the predictor. Their results
fail to substantiate most of their research predictions, and they

therefore claim that the role model rationale is not very useful.

66

However, their analyses involve rather crude categorical data, and
do not begin to address the complexities inherent in family
processes and interactions likely to mediate such relationships.
Furthermore, it is important to note that one cannot make
inferences about the capacity for intimacy based on data about
marital disruption, as there are a multitude of reasons marriages
break up. In sum, it appears that neither a "dissolution begets
dissolution" rationale nor the survey data are sufficiently
elaborated to account for relational outcomes.

Other studies focus on relationships between the parental
marriage and patterns of dating in adolescence. Both Landis (1963)
and Coleman et al. (1985) find that adolescents who perceive their
parents’ marital relationship positively are more likely to have
more active dating histories, measured by age at first date, number
of long term dating relationships, etc. In addition, both
developmental and psychodynamic theories stress family influences
in development, but for the most part focus on the parent-child
interaction and generally study development prior to adulthood. An
extensive literature describing the development of identity and
autonomy in adolescence emphasizes the role of adolescents’
perceptions of their parents as autocratic, democratic or
permissive (Enright, Lapsley, Drivas, & Fehr, 1980), as warm,
consistent, concerned (Lavoie, 1976), or as harsh, fair,
encouraging of independence, and controlling (Adams & Jones, 1983),
to name a few. Similarly, a number of studies examine the

contribution of the mother-child relationship to interpersonal

67

outcomes, such as the formation of attachment in infancy and early
childhood. However, the parental marriage and its potential for
shaping values and attitudes regarding intimate relationships is
largely overlooked.

A notable exception in this regard is the work of Grotevant
and Cooper (1986). Grotevant and Cooper (1986) formulate a model
which links family relationships and adolescent psychosocial
competence. Specifically, they propose that "the opportunity to
observe an individuated relationship of their parents and to
participate in individuated relationships with their parents" (p.
91) will promote the development of the critical skills involved in
identity exploration and role-taking. Their results indicate that
adolescents who scored lowest on a measure of psychosocial
functioning were in families who avoided conflicts and had weaker
differentiation of boundaries between family members. Furthermore,
of special interest to the present study were the relationships
found for the development of role-taking skills in this
investigation. Role-taking is defined as the ability to “conceive
of the distinctive perceptual, cognitive and affective experiences
and perspectives of another person and to consider those
perspectives in subsequent thinking and behavior" (Grotevant &
Cooper, 1986, p. 86). Defined in this way, role taking appears to
be closely related to the capacity for empathy, which has been
found to be related to intimacy (Hoffman, 1977). Grotevant and
Cooper (1986) find that adolescents who scored high on role taking

had fathers who were sensitive and respective of other’s beliefs

68

and ideas, suggesting that the skills and abilities which enhance
the development of intimacy are affected by relationships in the
family.

In a similar vein, but on a more theoretical plane, Hill and
Aldous (1969) believe that the family is the primary socialization
agent for training individuals for heterosexual relationships by
virtue of the continuous exposure and availability of the parental
marriage as a model. Due to its prominence and repetition,
parental displays of love and affection as well as ways of
resolving differences serve as models for establishing intimate
relationships outside the family. Haring, Tillman, Frelick,
Russell, and Heisz (1980) provide additional support for the
important role played by the parental marriage. They report that
fifty couples in an unstructured interview about what intimacy
means identified childhood exposure to intimacy in the parental
marriage as one-of five key concepts of intimacy.

The following sections review the literature related to
communication, conflict resolution, and companionship in the
parental marriage and present an argument for including these
components in a model of the development of the capacity for

intimacy in young adulthood.

museum
Perhaps the mast widely studied aspect of intimacy is
communication, conceptualized as self disclosure (Jourard, 1971;

Levinger & Senn, 1967) or expressiveness (Halberstadt, 1986;

69

Balswick & Avertt, 1977). Gilbert (1976) in a thoughtful
discussion of the debate about whether more self-disclosure
necessarily leads to higher levels of intimacy suggests that
intimacy by definition requires communication involving risk,
affective responses, acceptance, and commitment. She concludes,
like Jourard (1971), that truly intimate relationships probably are
characterized by increasing amounts of self disclosure and open
communication.

Only two studies directly address the question of how
parental expressiveness influences children’s interpersonal skills
and expressiveness. Halberstadt’s (1986) study of nonverbal
communication in college students links subjects’ reports of the
degree of family expressiveness and the students’ ability to
communicate different emotions in a videotaped discussion. He
finds that subjects from families perceived as highly affective and
expressive are more skilled at nonverbally communicating their
feelings. In contrast, he finds that subjects from families who
tend to be more reserved are better able to decode emotionally
laden messages. Making an inferential leap and applying these
results to intimate relationships, it appears that while both
skills are important to successful two-way communication,
individuals who fall at the extremes of these dimensions are more
likely to experience problems communicating with their partners.
That is, low-expressive/high receptive and high-expressive/lo

receptive individuals will probably feel resentment and frustration

70

and less intimacy, due to problems in making themselves understood
or in understanding others, respectively.

Balswick and Avertt (1977) also examine the contribution of
parental expressiveness, but focus on verbal communication. They
use self-report questionnaires to assess the respondents’
expressiveness as well as their perceptions of parental
expressiveness. Importantly, they show two separate pathways to
expressiveness: a) an association between gender and
expressiveness, with females consistently more expressive than
males, and b) an association between parental expressiveness and
expressiveness in young adulthood, with gender and parental
expressiveness each contributing independently to subjects’ reports
of expressiveness. Both studies help clarify how patterns of
uneven communication in intimate relationships become established,
where one partner withdraws (typically, the male) and the other
discloses even more (typically, the female) (e.g., Peterson, 1983).
Furthermore, the evidence for two independent pathways to
expressiveness helps us understand differences not adequately
explained by gender-linked or sex-stereotyped explanations alone.

To briefly summarize, the belief that the opportunity to
observe open and expressive communication between one’s parents
will facilitate one’s own interpersonal communication skills in
adulthood is corroborated by empirical evidence. These studies are
limited both in number and by methodological problems due to cross-
sectional data and retrospective perceptions of the parental

communication. However, they suggest that communication in the

71

parental marriage has a significant impact on the development of
interpersonal skills in young adulthood, and therefore justify the
inclusion of parental communication in a model of the development
of intimacy. Specifically, I expect that parents who engage in
higher levels of communication in their marriages will have young
adult children who are more "individuated-connected'I in their own

close relationships.

W

Closely related to the ability to communicate is the capacity
to work through conflicts and resolve differences. As Peterson
(1983) points out, however, the lack of longitudinal and ”close
descriptive" studies of patterns of conflict in close relationships
make it difficult to clearly distinguish among types of
relationships and degree of conflict. That is, patterns of
conflict are likely to differ along the dimensions of intensity,
frequency, diversity, and duration, with the implication that all
conflictual relationships are by no means alike (Peterson, 1983).
Nevertheless, one can infer from the clinical accounts of treatment
programs for distressed couples that the capacity to resolve
conflict constructively leads to more moderate levels of conflict,
as opposed to either extreme in which conflicts are avoided or
occur at high rates. For example, a number of clinicians as well
as researchers believe that teaching people (e.g., spouses) to
communicate accurately and without distortions will effectively

ameliorate one cause for conflict and additionally provides

72

individuals with a general skill for avoiding minor conflicts and
for dealing constructively with important problems (e.g., Peterson,
1983; Guerney, 1977; Gottman, Notarius, Gonso, & Markman, 1976).

According to Gilbert (1976), being able to confront and cope
with problems is an inherent part of any relationship which
requires commitment. Said in another way, with greater levels of
emotional involvement, or with increased frequency and diversity of
interaction, there is also greater opportunity for conflict
(Peterson, 1983; Gottman, 1979). Burgess (1981) concurs with this
conceptualization, and further notes the potential of the marital
relationship for serving as an ”intimate battleground" versus an
"intimate oasis”. Accordingly, the possible outcomes of conflict
range from a weakening or destruction of any affective bond to
improvement in the relationship through a strengthened bond and
deeper levels of understanding (Peterson, 1983; Braiker & Kelley,
1979; Raush et al., 1974).

The clinical literature provides the strongest support for a
link between styles of conflict resolution in the parental marriage
and children’s strategies for conflict resolution in relationships
outside the family. Virginia Satir (1981) is perhaps the best
spokesperson on this subject as she has formulated a model of how
conflict functions in distressed families. She proposes that
negative interactions in the parental marriage due to ineffective
means of resolving problems interferes with the parents’ ability to
function as effective role models and socializers. On a more

positive note, she believes that parents’ ability to confront

73

problems openly and work through conflict has a direct impact on
children, which is carried into the child’s own intimate 2
relationships and style of solving problems.

The empirical literature offers scant support for the
proposed relationship between parental conflict resolution and
children’s styles of resolving conflict in intimate relationships
in young adulthood mostly because it has not been studied.
However, the capacity to solve problems constructively has
repeatedly been shown to influence marital satisfaction (Billings,
1979; Ort, 1950; Raush et al., 1974; Snyder, 1982). Moreover,
marital tensions often lead to problems in parenting (Elder et al.,
in press; Belsky, 1984; Emery, 1982), and problems in parenting
potentially lead to ineffective socialization, as discussed by
Satir above. A recent work by Elder et al. (in press)
substantiates this pattern, and additionally establishes evidence
for the intergenerational transmission of marital tensions. These
authors find evidence in four generations of families that marital
tensions in one generation are carried over into the next
generation through the ”socialization of unstable offspring" (p.
18). These children then enter into their own relationships
outside the family bringing with them ineffective problem solving
strategies, and so on. Referring to social interaction theory’s
notion of the self-other dynamics of family life (Cottrell, 1969),
Elder and his colleagues suggest that interaction patterns learned
in the family are likely to be elicited in similar situations later

in life. Following this logic, growing up among parents who can

74

not constructively deal with their problems is likely to be
replayed in one's own close heterosexual relationships. Although
the focus of this extensive work on unstable personalities does not
directly address conflict in the parental marriage and its link to
intimacy in young adulthood, the authors’ emphasis on the way
individuals learn to cope with problems in the family of origin and
the evidence for the intergenerational transmission of marital
tensions serve as heuristic stepping stones to the questions posed
in the current study, and argue for the validity of an
intergenerational approach. In particular, I expect that parents
who resolve conflicts in their marriages through constructive
discussion, open confrontation, and compromise will have young
adult children who are more “individuated-connected” in their own

intimate relationships.

MM]!

The third aspect of the parental marriage in this three-
pronged approach to the relationship between the parental marriage
and young adult children’s capacity for intimacy is companionship.
Companionship refers to the quality of sharing time and interests
together, or the way in which spouses relate to each other. Like
communication and conflict, companionship is reported in numerous
studies to be a positive correlate of marital satisfaction (Snyder,
1982; Miller, 1976; Hawkins, 1968). Companionship also maintains a
prominent place in the close relationship literature as a

distinguishing feature in numerous marital typologies (Nalster &

75

Nalster, 1978; Scanzoni & Scanzoni, 1976; Stapleton & Bright, 1976;
Young & Nilmott, 1973; Blood & Wolfe, 1960). In Peplau’s (1983)
summary of marital typologies, both the modern marriage and the
egalitarian marriage emphasize companionship and togetherness.
Furthermore, both these marital types are attempts to depart from
conventional patterns of marital role specialization and to
overcome traditional sex-linked inequality in emotional
expressiveness. The implication of relevance to the current study
is that companionship is a significant component of close
relationships, and presumably, intimacy. Moreover, its expression
is likely influenced by the degree of companionship in the parental
marriage.

Attachment theory and its extension into adulthood is of
special interest here as a theory of the development of affectional
bonds. Companionship may be viewed as an operational aspect of an
affectional bond. As such, Bowlby’s notion of mental models of the
social world of infancy and childhood suggests that the quality of
the affective bond between an individual’s parents and the manner
in which it is expressed will "play an important part in
determining the fate of a person’s feelings and relationships
across the life span” (Shaver, Hazan & Bradshaw, 1988, p. 8). In
this regard, Hazan and Shaver report that respondents’ descriptions
of their parents’ marital relationship differentiated between
respondents who had avoidant and secure adult romantic
relationships and between respondents who had anxious/ambivalent

and secure adult romantic relationships in a large sample of

76

university students. Subjects categorized as secure used terms
such as friendship and trust to describe their relationships, and
emphasized acceptance of their partner’s faults. Avoidant
relationships included a fear of getting close, jealousy, and
emotional lability. Anxious/ambivalent adults described their
relationships as consuming, and as involving ”extreme sexual
attraction and jealousy" and a "desire for reciprocation and union"
(Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988, p. 14). Avoidantly attached
respondents described their parents’ marital relationships as
"unaffectionate', and anxiously attached subjects characterized
their parents’ marriage as "unhappy“. The securely attached
subjects who described their parents’ marriages more positively,
Hazan and Shaver suggest, appear to have romantic relationships in
adulthood similar to Tennov’s (1979) definition of 'love' as calm
friendship and support. Tennov’s version of love is contrasted
with 'limerence', a more passionate, painful attachment, apparently
based on efforts to compensate for needs not previously met in
other relationships. Thus, individuals who grow up in homes
characterized by affectionate and happy parental marriages are more
likely to involve themselves in close relationships based on mature
rather than neurotic needs.

Studies such as Hazan and Shaver’s and others (Coleman et
al., 1985) which use simple adjective checklists to measure the
parental marriage make it difficult to draw any clear conclusions
regarding specific aspects of the relationship. Furthermore, these

studies typically rely on subjects’ recall of their parents’

77

marriages and therefore inevitably involve distortion and
unreliability. Aside from these shortcomings, the life-span
attachment model’s attention to the quality of the parental
marriage rather than child rearing practices is an important
contribution to the study of close relationships. In addition,
others’ endeavors to describe the affective flavor of parental
interaction in the family of origin to account for adult relational
style establish a foundation from which to make further and finer
distinctions. Accordingly, the inclusion of companionship in the
current study is an attempt to elaborate relevant aspects of family
relationships for the development of the capacity for intimacy. I
expect that parents who experience their marriage as a partnership
which enhances their development both as spouses and as individuals
will have young adult children who are more “individuated-

connected" in their own close relationships.

Semen!

The prevailing belief among theorists, clinicians, and
researchers alike is that patterns and styles of relating to others
develop in individuals’ family of origin (Bell & Bell, 1982; Bowen,
1981; Satir, 1981; Haring, Tillman, Frelick, Russell, & Heisz,
1980; Hess & Haring, I979; Uddenberg et al., 1979; Bengtson &
Troll, 1978; Framo, 1976; Hill a Aldous, 1969). Coleman et al.
(1985) summarize this consensus: '...children who grow up
observing their parents interacting lovingly and positively will be

more likely to value and seek ’healthy’ heterosexual dating and

78

‘courtship experiences than children who observe an unhappy parental
relationship...“ (p. 537). In accordance with these beliefs and
because an intimate relationship consists of the joining of two
life histories which “reflect socialization experiences of each
[partner] in their own family of origin“ (Elder et al., in press,
p. 17), it makes sense to more systematically examine the ways in
which these experiences affect individuals’ levels of intimacy.
The current study will focus specifically on the ways in which
young adults integrate and assimilate styles and patterns of
communication, conflict, and companionship in their parents’

marriage into their own intimate relationships outside the family.

T e - h h -

Equally as important as the affective family climate
established by the quality of the parental marriage is the child’s
role in the family system, which is also mediated by the parental
marriage. The link between marriage and dysfunctional parent-child
relationships is extensively documented in both the clinical and
empirical literature (Elder, et al., in press; Belsky, 1984; Emery
& O’Leary, 1982; Satir, 1981; Haley, 1980; Minuchin, Rosman, &
Baker, 1978; Solomon, 1973). Broadly speaking, there appear to be
two general explanations for this link, but whether an
overinvestment in parenting creates distressed marriages or poor
marriages lead to overinvolved parenting and cross-generational

coalitions between parent and child is not clear.

79

In this regard, Minuchin and Fishman’s (1981) discussion of
family structure and its relation to healthy development highlights
the critical aspects of family relationships relevant to the
development of intimacy. These authors define the family in terms
of differentiated subsystems called holons (a term coined by Arthur
Koestler to capture the concept of ”part-whole”, (Minuchin, 1981)),
of which the spousal holon is primary. The spousal holon consists
of the husband-wife dyad and plays a vital role in children’s
development. One crucial task of the spousal holon is to create
and maintain boundaries to protect the spouses, giving them space
within which to meet each other’s needs without the intrusion of
children or others. Reasons for failing to maintain these
boundaries include the spouses’ inability to resolve problems or
communicate effectively. According to Minuchin and Fishman, "if
there is any major dysfunction within the spouse subsystem, this
will reverberate throughout the family“ (p. 18). Furthermore, in
such situations a child is often "co-opted into an alliance with
the spouse against the other“ (p. 18). To put it simply, in
families where there is a poor parental marriage, one parent may
ally with a child in order to get his/her psychological needs met
and to enlist the child’s sympathy against the other parent. Bell
and Bell (1982) refer to this particular form of cross-generational
alliance as triangulaeien.

The significance of triangulation for the development of
intimacy is the psychological and developmental consequences to the

child involved. In particular, I expect that young adults who are

8O

triangulated in their family of origin will also have close
relationships characterized by lower levels of intimacy, i.e.,
"self-focused”. Additionally, I expect that more young women will
report being triangulated in their families of origin, based on the
work of psychoanalytic (Chodorow, 1978) and developmental theorists
(Franz & Hhite, 1985; Gilligan, 1983). Briefly, according to this
body of work, girls’ developmental pathways qualitatively differ
from boys’ development in terms of the close relationship and
identification girls maintain with their mothers. Hence, while
boys identify with the more distant father, girls remain more tied
to and, perhaps, tied up in family relationships. The outcome for
females is potentially greater capacities for empathy and
closeness, but also a tendency for young females to become and
remain entangled in relationships in the family of origin.
Essentially, the triangulated child experiences himself in a
very "close” relationship with one parent, privy to the complaints
and disappointments in the parental marriage. Because the child is
being related to in response to the parent’s needs, rather than
through empathy and respect for the child as an autonomous person,
the triangulated relationship is invalidating to one’s sense of
self (Bell & Bell, 1982; Satir, 1981). In addition, such a close
relationship between a parent and child inevitably restricts the
developing child’s opportunities for differentiation and autonomy,
a great deal of which normally take place via relationships and
experiences outside the family. As Hoffman (1981) describes the

situation, "members of a family in which a child is one of the

81

possible factors that is mediating a parental conflict may resist
or even block the child’s departure” (p. 162). Obviously, these
limitations on the child’s sense of autonomy will severely detract
from attempts to establish relationships outside the family.

Similarly, Grotevant (1983) in a review of studies of family
relationships and adolescent development suggests that moderate
levels of connectedness promote adolescent growth, whereas high or
low levels of parental openness and closeness are likely to inhibit
crucial adolescent exploration. Furthermore, Satir (1981) includes
in a summary of the effects of the triangulated child’s
I'contradictory experiences" the tendency of the child to reject the
other parent and from a long term perspective, the child’s
inability to integrate a healthy model of a heterosexual
relationship. Projecting into the future, children involved in
triangulated relationships in the family of origin will choose
partners in adulthood to compensate for their invalidating
experiences in childhood and adolescence rather than make choices
based on a differentiated sense of self. Alternatively, it is
possible that the consequences of triangulation will be expressed
by repeating patterns from the family of origin and choosing a
person one can relate to as a parent rather than a mutual partner.
Essentially, triangulation serves to effectively stunt the
development of intimacy by restricting individuals’ opportunities
for social and emotional growth.

Attempts in the empirical literature to measure systemic

aspects of family functioning are only just emerging, and therefore

82

offer more guidance and direction than substantiation for the
relationship between triangulation and intimacy. The literature on
adolescent development establishes the significance of parental
warmth and the encouragement of autonomy for psychosocial maturity
and growth (Becker, 1964; Schaefer, 1959). These dimensions of
healthy parenting represent the converse of what occurs in the
triangulated parent-child constellation. In this same vein, Gold
and Yanoff (1985) specifically address the issue of intimacy, and
find that adolescent girls who reported that their mothers are
respectful and discussed concerns with them also had more intimate
relationships with friends. Thus mothers who relate to their
children authentically and with empathy apparently promote their
children’s sense of a differentiated self and encourage further
exploration of this self via close relationships outside the
family.

In one of the two studies which could be located measuring
triangulation as it is defined here and its consequences for
interpersonal functioning, Bell and Bell (1982) collected interview
and questionnaire data from ninety-nine families with an adolescent
female, age 15-17. The adolescent girls who described themselves
as less psychologically mature and as less skilled interpersonally
on a composite measure derived from scales on the California
Personality Inventory were also found to be in triangulated family
relationships. Of these "lower functioning" triangulated girls,
four out of five had father-daughter coalitions, whereas only two

of the ”higher functioning” girls were in cross-generational

83

coalitions, and these were mother-daughter dyads. Satir (1981)
suggests that girls suffer the most if their mothers are the
depreciated, disparaged member of the system, and similarly, for
boys, it is worse if their fathers are belittled and berated.

These clinical impressions are in line with Bell and Bell’s (1982)
belief that coalitions which cross generations and sex are the most
detrimental for adolescent development.

Kleiman’s (1981) study involved twenty high school males only
and therefore cannot shed any light on outcomes of cross-sex versus
same-sex triangulation. Importantly, though, Kleiman pinpoints the
extent to which parents are able to exclude their adolescent
children from the marital relationship as a critical variable in
explaining adolescents’ levels of psychological adjustment. He
reports that boys who were ranked 'healthy' on the Offer Self-Image
Questionnaire (Offer, 1973) had parents who, on the basis of
structured interviews, were rated as better able to keep their
children out of parental decision-making, to maintain marital
problems within the boundaries of the marriage, to argue more
constructively, and also who reported higher levels of marital
satisfaction as compared to parents of "normal" boys. These
results are limited due to the small, nonclinical, males-only
sample and because they globally measure adjustment rather than
intimacy, but they nevertheless substantiate clinical claims that
adolescent development is affected by the parental marriage and the
extent to which the boundaries of the marital relationship are

appropriately maintained with respect to the child.

84

Although triangulation has received little attention in the
literature on adult development thus far, the above discussion of
the clinical and empirical literature on adolescence makes it
apparent that the effects of the parental marriage on development
are potentially mediated by dysfunctional family systems. In
particular, the negative ramifications of triangulation for the
development of intimacy are strongly suggested by clinical
formulations (e.g., Green, 1981; Hoffman, 1981; Minuchin & Fishman,
1981; Satir, 1981), and backed up by the empirical literature on
adolescence that currently exists (e.g., Grotevant, 1983; Bell &
Bell, 1982). The current study proposes to extend these results
into the realm of the young adult’s development of the capacity for
intimacy by directly assessing how triangulation is related to
intimacy in young adulthood as well as how it explains the effects

of the parental marriage on intimacy.

W

In conclusion, the capacity for intimacy, long a domain of
interest to artists and therapists, is only recently emerging as a
topic of investigation among psychologists. These recent studies
generally fall under the rubric of "close relationships" (e.g.,
Kelley et al., 1983; Levinger, 1977) or attachment (e.g., Hazan &
Shaver, 1987; Kalish & Knudtson, 1982) and focus on interactional
process, defining the stages of close relationships, or tracing
continuity in relational style from childhood to adulthood. No

work in this area to date looks specifically and comprehensively at

85

the factors which influence what each person brings into intimate
relationships. Both the clinical literature and socialization
theorists direct our attention to the critical part played by the
family of origin in shaping the capacity for intimacy. Only recent
attempts to extend attachment theory to adult romantic
relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) and a small number of studies
which focus on adolescent development (Gold & Yanoff, 1985; Bell &
Bell, 1982) touch on this proposed association. In this regard,
those few studies which are beginning to look at the impact of
family relationships on interpersonal skills and the discussions by
family therapists (Hoffman, 1981; Minuchin & Fishman, 1981; Satir,
1981; Minuchin et al., 1978) and socialization theorists (Coleman
et al., 1985; Cottrell, 1969; Hill 8 Aldous, 1969) stress the role
of the parental marriage. Studies which examine continuity in
development and the intergenerational transmission of interpersonal
skills (e.g., Elder et al., in press; Pope & Mueller, 1977; Heiss,
1972) further suggest the possibility that the influence of the
parental marriage may be both direct and indirect. Additionally,
those who study life-span development increasingly emphasize the
importance of accounting for ”person/situation” variables, such as
age and family life cycle stage, yet few investigations to date
have heeded this suggestion. Finally, gender and sex-role
orientation have each been discussed to account for differences in
the experience of close relationships, but how accurate these

distinctions between male and female or masculine and feminine

86

differences continue to be in a society whose sex-linked
conventions are currently in flux needs further edification.

The current study addresses the above issues by constructing
a model to assess the development of the capacity for intimacy in
young adulthood which includes the following variables: quality of
communication, conflict, and companionship in the parental
marriage, and triangulation in parent-child relationships. The
moderating influences of gender, and the effects of sex-role
orientation, age, and family life cycle stage are also examined.
Additionally this study sought to overcome the limitations as well
as the gaps in the previous literature on intimacy. First,
intimacy status is assessed by an interview measure developed by
Orlofsky et al. (1973), which is based on Erikson’s formulation of
intimacy development. The system used to operationalize intimacy
in the present study defines six levels which differ in the degree
to which individuals describe relationships characterized by both
depth and commitment. This method is in contrast to previous
questionnaire studies’ use of unidimensional constructs (e.g.,
Rubin, 1973; Jourard, 1971) and additionally avoids confounding
depth and commitment, which has been noted as problematic in other
systems. Secondly, whereas previous studies rely on adolescent and
college student samples, this investigation appropriately utilizes
a community sample of young adult men and women between twenty-two
and thirty years of age, in keeping with the theoretical definition
of intimacy as a young adult developmental acquisition (Kimmel,

1979; Erikson, 1968). Also, adequate numbers of young adults, and

87

women in particular, are included in this study, in contrast to
previous work which looks exclusively at male development or at
small samples. A third problem which the current study seeks to
redress is a tendency in the empirical literature to compare groups
rather than account for variations in individual development.
Accordingly, the current study asks about gender-linked
differences, but also attempts to go beyond explanations which rely
simply on male-female differences. Therefore, to account for the
complexity in individual development, questions are also posed
regarding the role of the parental marriage and triangulation with
regard to the development of intimacy. Lastly, on a more
exploratory basis, this study examines the relationship between
intimacy status and young adults’ conflict resolution styles in
close relationships. The ability to resolve problems is a well
documented correlate of marital satisfaction, but how differences
in interpersonal and intrapsychic conflict resolution influence the
level of intimacy in close relationships has not been explored.

In sum, the purpose of the present investigation is to
examine the associations among intimacy status, the parental
marriage (communication, conflict, and companionship), and
triangulation, while also accounting for the influences of gender,
sex-role orientation, age, and family life cycle stage.
Relationships between intimacy and young adults’ conflict
resolution strategies in close relationships also will be examined.

The specific goal is to test a causal model to determine the direct

88

and indirect influences on variations in levels of intimacy. The

hypotheses are as follows:

Emmeflil

Gender, family life cycle stage, and sex role identity are
expected to directly influence differences in the levels of
intimacy in the following ways: Young adults who are female, who
are further along in the family life cycle (i.e., are married or
parents), or who have a feminine sex role identity will report

higher levels of intimacy.

Hypothesia 2

I also predict that age, family life cycle stage, sex role
orientation and gender will have several indirect effects on young
adults’ levels of intimacy:

a) Older young adults are more likely to be married or
parents, and adults who are married or parents will
report higher levels of intimacy.

b) More young adults who are married or parents are more
likely to have a feminine sex role orientation. This
relationship will partly explain the relationship
between sex role orientation and intimacy described
above.

c) Sex role orientation will partly mediate the
relationship between gender and intimacy, with feminine

young adults reporting higher levels of intimacy.

89

d) In addition, gender is expected to indirectly effect
intimacy through its relationship with triangulation, as

described below.

Hypothesis 3
Family systems variables such as the parental marriage and
triangulation will influence young adults’ levels of intimacy in
the following ways:
Young adults whose parents have better marriages and who are
not triangulated in their families of origin will have higher
levels of intimacy. Each aspect will contribute
independently, but triangulation will partly mediate the

relationship between the parental marriage and intimacy.

unetbeflsfi

Young adults whose parents report better marriages (higher
levels of communication, companionship, and conflict resolution)
will describe higher levels of interpersonal and intrapsychic

conflict resolution in their own close relationships.

Main
Intimacy and conflict resolution will be related in the
following ways:
Young adults who approach conflicts in their close
relationships via active discussion, open confrontation, or
other effective strategies and young adults who experience

conflict as growth enhancing will have higher levels of

intimacy.

90

Each aspect will contribute independently, and

each will partly explain the relationship between the

parental marriage and intimacy.

These hypotheses will be tested using the total sample, as

well as for males and females separately.

The overall model with the hypothesized variable

relationships is illustrated below in Figure 1.

 

PARENTAL
MARRIAGE

 

 

 

TRIANGULATION

 

 

 

 

SEX ROLE

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

GENDER

 

 

J
I

DEPTH # ' COMMITMENT

 

/ fix

 

INTERPERSONAL INTRAPSYCHIC
CONFLICT CONFLICT
RESOLUTION RESOLUTION

 

 

 

 

LIFE CYCLE STAGE

 

 

7

 

[AGE

 

 

Figure 1. A Model of Influences of the Family-Systems and
Individual Differences Variables on Intimacy in Young
Adulthood.

 

91

111211129
Participants

The current study is part of a larger study of
intergenerational relationships between young adults and their
parents. Seventy eight female and 72 male young adults and their
parents participated in this study. The young adults’ names were
randomly selected from the 1970-71 (N-50), 1973-74 (N-49), and
1978-79 (N-51) graduation lists of a midwestern high school. At
the time of the interview for this study, the mean age for those in
the earliest graduation cohort was 29.5 (range-28-32 years old) as
compared to 26.5 (range-26-28 years old) for those in the middle
cohort, and 23.5 (range-22-25 years old) for those in the latest
cohort. There were approximately the same number of men and women
in each cohort.

2 Men and women did not differ significantly in social class
background, number of siblings, marital or parental status, nor
level of education (35% of the sample had some college experience,
46%.had a four-year college degree, and 9% had a postgraduate
degree). Men, however, had higher status occupations (M—3.9;
I§Q-2.3) than women (M-4.7; SD-Z.4; p < .01).

The average age of the middle-aged mothers was 54.22 (SD -
5.87), and the fathers’ average age was 58.04 (SD - 6.9). All were
white and most were middle class households. Mothers’ average
educational level was 2.89 (SD - 1.05). The fathers’ mean
educational and occupational levels were 2.6 (ea - 1.3) and 2.6 (SQ

a 1.15), respectively (Hollingshead, 1957).

92

Of those located, the study included young adults and their
families only if both natural parents were still living together
and the young adult lived within two hours driving distance of the
parents’ home. A fairly large number of the families who were
contacted to participate in the study failed to meet the three
eligibility criteria. These were: 1) attended the community high
school at least 3 years; 2) live within 2 hours driving distance
from parental home; and 3) parents still living together and are
the natural parents or primary caretakers since age 5. Overall,
694 families were asked to participate. Approximately one-third of
the families contacted met eligibility criteria. The three major
reasons for ineligibility were a) the young adult had moved out of
the area (37%), b) the father was deceased (23%), or c) the parents
were divorced (18%). The one hundred fifty young adults in the
study represented 65% of those asked to participate. Sixty-seven
were currently married, 7 were divorced, and 44 were parents of

young children.

Instruments

Demographic information including the young adults’ age,
gender, and family life cycle stage was collected in the Intimacy
Interview. For the present study the family life cycle stages were
coded as: single, separated/divorced, married-childless, and
parents. Because only four women and three men were divorced,
these participants’ data were not included in the analyses and were

treated as missing data. Three measures assessed the young adults’

93

sex-role orientation, perceptions of triangulation in the parent-
young adult relationship, capacity for intimacy, and degree of
conflict experienced in their close relationships. (Data for
coding both the intimacy scales and conflict resolution scales were
derived from the Intimacy Interview, originally developed by
Orlofsky et al., 1973.) To assess the degree of companionship,
communication, and conflict in the parental marriage, the middle-
aged parents were asked about their own marriages as part of a
larger Lifestyles Interview (see measures and coding manuals in

Appendices).

W

Sex;nele_en1en1aeien. The PRF-Andro Scale (Berzins, Helling,
& Hetter, 1978; Berzins, Hetter, & Helling, 1977) was used to
measure participants’ sex-role orientation. The Andro scale
includes two subscales: a 29-item masculinity scale and a 27-item
femininity scale obtained from the item pool of the Personality
Research Form (Jackson, 1967). These items were included as part
of an 85-item Personal Description Inventory (see Appendix A).
Item selection was based on a conceptual analysis of the Bem Sex
Role Inventory (Bem, I974). Masculine items describe dominant,
instrumental behaviors indicative of autonomy, social intellectual
ascendancy, individualism, or orientation toward risk. Feminine
items describe caring, expressive behaviors indicative of
nurturance, affiliation, or self-subordination. Each item is a

sentence describing a particular behavior. Participants respond

94

true or false to indicate whether the item describes their own
behavior.

Berzins et al. (1978) sampled over 2,000 college students and
found the subscales of the PRF-Andro to be reliable, independent,
and minimally influenced by socially desirable response biases. In
addition, evidence of construct validity was substantiated by the
findings that the PRF-Andro subscales were significantly related to
the corresponding subscales of Bem’s Sex Role Inventory and to
major personality dimensions. Further support for the construct
validity was obtained in 18 additional samples that included

clinical and other non-college samples.

Iniangglaeien. A measure of triangulation in the parent-
child relationship was developed using data collected in the Young
Adult/Parent Relationship Interview (Frank, Avery, & Laman, 1988;
see Appendix B). The relationship interview tapped the degree of
autonomy and the extent of relatedness in the young adult/parent
relationship, based on the young adult’s perceptions. The present
research focused on the dimension of triangulation only, and only
used questions from the relationship interview which asked the
young adult about conflicts and pulls between his/her own
obligations and needs and the needs and obligations to the parents.

Triangulation is defined as a cross-generational coalition
between one parent and the young adult in which the parent seeks to
fulfill his/her own unmet needs by co-opting the son’s or

daughter’s attention and loyalty and enlisting the child’s sympathy

95

against the other parent. I developed a scoring manual to code the
existence and degree of triangulation in each family (see Appendix
C.) On a 3-point scale, a score of 1 indicates the absence of
triangulation; a mid-range score (2) denotes some attempt (but only
moderately successful) by the young adult to resist the parent’s
efforts to inappropriately ally with him or her against the other
parent; and a high score (3) indicates a triangulated parent-young
adult relationship in which the young adult appears to accept
his/her role of being 'in the middle" of his parents’ problems and
disagreements, and generally identifies with one parent while
deprecating the other.

Using the coding manual developed by the author, a trained
rater coded 20 randomly selected protocols that I had independently
rated to establish interrater reliability. The rater then coded

all the remaining protocols.

Intimaex. Intimacy status was measured, with some
modifications, by the semi-structured interview and rating manual
developed by Orlofsky et al. (1973) (see Appendices D and E). The
revisions were directed at making the interview more applicable to
young adults, rather than adolescents, and additional changes were
made after piloting the revised interview. Questions were re-
organized to fit together logically and probes were standardized.

The coding procedures used to assess intimacy status draws
from the coding system developed by Orlofsky et al. (1973) and from
the system developed by Hhite et al. (1986). Descriptions of the

96

stages in the intimacy scales, as Hhite et al. (1986) also note,
are parallel to other developmental systems, such as Loevinger and
Hessler’s (1970) ego development schema. Accordingly, the stages
in the present study represent increasing levels of psychological
complexity and maturity, in this case with regard to close
relationships. The scoring system focuses on two components of
intimate relationships: depth and commitment. Each dimension is
scored individually on a scale consisting of six stages, ranging
from a low of stage 1 to a high of stage 6. Following Hhite et
al., the six stages were grouped into three broad developmental
levels: self-focused (stages 1 8 2), role-focused (stages 3 8 4),
and individuated-connected (stages 5 a 6), which represent the low,
medium, and high levels, respectively.

“Depth" is defined by two aspects of relationships: 1)
orientation, which refers to an individual’s ability to understand
the partner as a complex person and to appreciate the partner’s
feelings and perspectives, even when these differ from one’s own;
and 2) communication, which refers to an individual’s level of
self-disclosure and openness in the relationship. Raters assign an
overall rank based on their assessment of both components
considered together, resulting in a single score per subject
ranging from stage 1 to stage 6. The progression from stage 1 to
stage 6 is characterized by respondents’ emphasis on content and
behavior in the lower stages and on process and feelings in the

upper stages.

97

Leyel_l: At the self-focused level, cognitions and affects
are global, simple and undifferentiated. The individual at this
level describes the partner in concrete, behavioral terms and sees
the partner as a means to personal and self-serving ends, or as an
obstacle to those ends. The individual who views his/her partner
as a source of supplies or as a hostile rival for supplies would be
coded at this level. Communication is characterized by a lack of
trust and a tendency to discuss superficial, non-controversial
topics (see Appendix E for examples from protocols that illustrate
each stage.)

Leyel_z: At this level, individuals have a basic
understanding that the other has needs and feelings too, but
descriptions of relationships lack complexity and depth. Responses
rated as role-focused tend to focus on concrete, external things as
the source of problems or as the way to express support. Role-
focused descriptions of relationships often take the form of
stereotyped images of a happy marriage. They are socially
acceptable responses, lacking specific examples that would
demonstrate an appreciation of the partner’s individuality. The
role-focused individual’s responses are characterized by lack of
introspection and a tendency to generalize. The level 2 individual
lacks an imaginative, intuitive sense of what it is like to be
inside the other’s skin. He or she needs to have the partner’s
needs or feelings spelled out. (Replies that fall in the role-
focused level but show positive appreciation for the partner and

the marriage are usUally rated stage 4.)

98

Leyel_§. Individuals at the individuated-connected level
provide evidence that a free choice is made to be close to the
specific partner--a choice made from a position of autonomy, rather
than out of need or convenience. These young adults demonstrate a
greater understanding and psychological mindedness than individuals
in the first four stages. For example, even though individuals at
the higher end of Level 2 (stage 4) are characterized by greater
empathy and psychological complexity, these young adults still view
their relationships in terms of two separate entities. In
contrast, young adults at stages 5 and 6 recognize the "systemic"
qualities of their relationships and describe them in terms of
mutual interdependence and reciprocity. These individuals also
demonstrate the ability to recognize the partner’s individuality,
to appreciate the other’s unique qualities and to take pleasure in
enhancing the development of the other’s talents and powers. At
this level individuals have a concern with more than the concrete,
visible signs of the relationship’s quality. They have a concern
with the emotional and frequently, the spiritual satisfactions to
be gained from intimacy with this partiegla: partner.
Individuated-connected individuals pay a lot of attention to the
relationship and how it is going. At this level, individuals
express a very high value on open communication, including
affective and relationship-centered discussion.

”Commitment" refers to the extent to which persons have
committed themselves, their affection, and their loyalty to the

relationship and to their particular partner. This scale is

99

identical to the commitment scale developed by Hhite et al. (1986)
as a component of their five-part intimacy maturity scoring system.
The commitment scale is also parallel to the depth scale, as it,
too, is defined by the three broad levels of intimacy described
above. Along these lines, Level 1 responses indicate self-
centered, self-serving reasons for staying in the relationship, or
are representative of a lack of commitment and individuals who are
ready to end the relationship. Level 2 responses are role-focused,
and include individuals who refer to the sanctity of marriage and
to stereotypic images (e.g., "a good provider”) to describe their
commitment to their partner. Level 3, or individuated-connected
responses reflect a sense of commitment via an autonomous choice to
be with a particular partner, I'warts and all".

Le1e1_1: Individuals who are ready to leave the relationship
or who appear to stay in the relationship out of dependency or
reasons of convenience receive the lowest rating of stage 1. Those
individuals who are still struggling with the idea of commitment
and who have difficulty describing any interpersonal or emotional
concerns related to their conflict are coded as stage 2.

Leyel_2: Role-focused individuals appear to have difficulty
describing what is unique about their partner, and generally rely
on stereotypes, such as a “good father" or a "real family man”.
Individuals with stage 3 commitments also describe a commitment to
marriage as an institution--understood in terms of personified and
cliche-ish notions of "till death do us part“ and "marriage is

forever"--, rather than to their partner as a unique and complex

100

individual. Individuals who indicate a troubled relationship but
who also indicate they are making an effort to improve things are
also coded at stage 3. Stage 4 young adults’ notions of commitment
are less stereotyped and personified and indicate their beliefs
that commitment is to the relationship or the marriage institution-
-understood more abstractly and in societal rather than personal
terms.

Leye1_3: At the lower end of this level, individuals
acknowledge special feelings, appreciation for and loyalty to their
partner as an individual, and commit themselves to the relationship
via investments in marriage, home, and children, for example.

There may be acknowledgment of problems in the relationship which
need attention, as well as a willingness to devote some energy to
working things out. Stage 6 includes all of the above, but also is
characterized by the expression of a solid intention to stay in the
relationship. Both a firm commitment to stay in the relationship
and a clearly stated positive appreciation of and commitment to
preserving the partner’s individuality are the hallmarks of this
highest stage.

In the present study, individuals’ intimacy score consists
solely of the score based on descriptions of sexual relationships.
The section on friendship included in the Intimacy Interview is not
used in the present study.

One rater coded depth and one rater coded commitment. To
train the raters, each read the depth or commitment coding manual

several times, completed twelve practice protocols, and then

101

discussed the ratings with me. The ”final consensus" ratings on
twenty reliability protocols, that I and the senior investigator of
the larger study rated for depth and for commitment, were used as
the criteria for.reliability. After establishing reliability, each
trained rater then coded all the remaining protocols for depth, in
one case, and for commitment, in the other case. Spot checks on
reliability at various points in the coding process insured that

coders maintained the criteria specified in the coding manual.

flic l ion nt t

Two coding systems were used to assess the two aspects of
conflict resolution in intimate relationships, and applied to young
adults’ responses on the Intimacy Interview (see Appendix F).
Questions such as: "Do you ever fight? Hhat kinds of things do
you fight about?'; "In what ways do you function well as a
couple?”; "In what ways do you function less well as a couple?";
and 'Hhat do you see as the main problem you two have to work out
as a couple? In what ways could your relationship be improved?"
were the primary sources of data for coding conflict resolution,
but in all cases, the entire interview was reviewed.

Both the interpersonal conflict resolution scale and the
intrapsychic conflict resolution scale are based on a cognitive-
developmental approach to coping and interpersonal relationships.
Specifically, the ego psychology developmental model of
interpersonal relationships (e.g., Hhite et al., 1986; Loevinger &

Hessler, 1970) and the cognitive model of stress and coping (e.g.,

102

Lazarus, 1980; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) provide the conceptual and
theoretical rationales for describing a continuum that reflects the
degree to which individuals report conflict resolution strategies
that are adaptive and contribute to growth and development. The
development of the interval scales used here was guided by the ego
development model’s notion of conflict resolution, which proposes
that at higher levels, individuals have I'the courage to acknowledge
and cope with conflict, rather than blotting it out or projecting
it onto the environment" (p. 6, Loevinger 8 Hessler, 1970).
Similarly, the research based on the stress and coping model (e.g.,
Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) consistently has
found that responses that are hostile and confrontive or involve
avoidance and withdrawal exacerbate stress, whereas the most
effective responses appear to include reflectiveness, negotiation,
and compromise. Pearlin and Schooler (1978) specifically address
the nature of adaptive conflict resolution in the context of a
close relationship: "In marriage it is a reflective probing of
problems, rather than the eruptive discharge of feelings created by
the problems, that is among the more effective responses" (p. 11).
The lower levels of both conflict scales include individuals
whose attempts to deal with conflicts are maladaptive and generally
unsuccessful at resolving difficulties or reducing the level of
tension. Typically, these strategies are confrontational and
hostile, and similar to Folkman and Lazarus’ (1988) ”confrontive
coping”. Strategies represented by the intermediate levels of the

scales rely on suppression and/or denial and minimization of

103

negative emotions and behaviors. These strategies parallel the
developmental model’s notion of the conformist whose view of
interpersonal relations does not include an analysis of feelings
and motives and whose aim is to maintain socially appropriate
appearances. The stress and coping model also describes strategies
such as distancing (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), selective ignoring
(Pearlin & Schooler, 1978), neglect (Rusbult et al., 1986), and
avoidance coping (Holahan & Moos, 1987) that are conceptually
similar to this study’s intermediate conflict resolution scales.

As pointed out by Moos and Moos (1984), these avoidance strategies
presumably lead to greater psychological dysfunction over time,
despite their potentially adaptive role in the initial phases of a
conflict. These strategies are accordingly assigned a mid-range
position in the conflict scales in the present study. Finally, the
higher level or adaptive strategies are characterized by attempts
to confront problems in a constructive, change-oriented manner and
to work through feelings of anger, guilt, and resentment.

The Interpersonal Conflict Resolution scale is a 5-point
scale developed by Pedigo (1986) and focuses on the way that
individuals deal with and resolve conflicts in close relationships.
(This scale also was used to measure conflict in the young adults’
parents’ marriages (Pedigo, 1986)). At the lowest level,
strategies are maladaptive or ineffective at resolving the
conflict. Individuals at this level rely on ways of coping with
problems which escalate difficulties or create barriers to problem

solving (e.g., screaming, leaving in anger, deprecating the

104

partner). Individuals at Level 2 tend to resort to ways of
resolving conflict which for the most part exacerbate the conflict
but also make some attempt either to approach problems more
adaptively (e.g., calm discussion) or to avoid conflict and keep
the peace. The midpoint of this dimension reflects strategies
based on palliative techniques in order to avoid confrontation and
negative interactions. At this level, therefore, problems often go
unresolved. The highest levels of interpersonal conflict
resolution, Levels 4 and 5, are characterized by adaptive
confrontation, in which conflicts are resolved and negative
situations are changed, via discussion and compromise, for example.
Level 4 is distinguished from Level 5 by the presence of a few
areas in which one or both partners resort to more palliative means
of coping with conflict, characteristic of Level 3.

The Intrapsychic Conflict Resolution scale was developed for
this study and assesses the extent to which individuals’
descriptions of the ways they experience conflict in intimate
relationships reflect tension and are maladaptive or reflect a
sense of well-being and are adaptive. This scale presumes that
positive morale, in Lazarus’s (1981) terms, or a sense of well-
being, is an adaptive outcome and that experiencing distress and
anxiety are maladaptive outcomes in close relationships. However,
as the scale reflects, it is not conflict itself which is
considered maladaptive, but how individuals regulate and experience
their feelings about conflicts in their close relationships that

determine whether a particular strategy is adaptive or not. A low

105

score on this 5-point scale indicates that individuals experience
conflict and disagreements in close relationships as distressing,
overwhelming, and as potentially threatening to the relationship.
Individuals at Level 2 are often overwhelmed by negative feelings,
but make some effort to deintensify their negative feelings in
order to maintain the relationship. A mid-range score describes
individuals who minimize or deny the importance of conflict and who
typically see conflict as something to accept, even if that means
problems remain unresolved. Individuals at the higher levels,
Levels 4 and 5, view conflicts as part of the relationship and
attempt to master negative feelings through self-reflection and
empathy. At Level 4, individuals recognize the potential for
conflicts to be growth-enhancing, but still find it difficult to
integrate them into the relationship in adaptive ways. In
contrast, individuals at Level 5 view problems as a means to
greater understanding of their partner and relationship
enhancement, and master negative feelings by understanding that
conflicts are part of the close relationship.

Scores on twenty protocols that I and the senior investigator
of the larger study rated served as the standard for evaluating the
interrater reliability on both conflict scales. Two raters, one
for each conflict resolution scale, completed twelve practice
protocols, discussed the ratings with me, and then established
reliability using the twenty ”standard” protocols. Each rater then

coded the remaining interviews. As a check of reliability, spot

106

checks at various points in the coding process insured that coders

maintained the criteria specified in the coding manuals.

The Ieung Adules’ P322055

he re ta arr . The degree of communication,

companionship, and conflict in the parental marriage was measured
by mothers’ and fathers’ responses to twelve open-ended questions
about their relationship with their spouse. These questions were
part of a larger Lifestyles Interview (see Appendix G) which
included additional sections about work, health, parenting, filial
responsibility, religion, leisure, pleasure, and sex roles. Only
responses to the questions about the marriage are included in the
present study’s results.

Spouses were asked about how they decided to get married, why
they stayed married, what pleasures they provided each other, the
extent to which feelings are shared, the meaning and pleasure of
sex in the relationship, and about stresses and conflicts in the
marriage and how they resolve them. Responses that were pertinent
to issues of communication, companionship, and conflict resolution
were identified and typed on separate protocols. The examplar
method of coding was then used to code each aspect of the marriage.
Raters were instructed to master the concepts in the coding manual
defining each point of the five-point scale relevant to each
component and to refer to prototype interviews selected to
illustrate each point on the scale. Three raters, one for each

dimension of the parental marriage, established reliability with

107

the author of the coding manual. Once reliability was established,
these 3 raters then proceeded to code the remaining interviews.
Raters periodically met with one of the authors of the manual to
check reliability and discuss ratings as an aid in preventing rater
drift.

Communieation. The dimension of communication reflects the
level and quality of marital communication. At low levels of
communication the respondent’s perception indicates closed
communication channels and very little sharing of feelings or
thoughts. Mid-range scores describes marriages in which the
communication is generally open and accompanied by a desire to work
things out. However, at this level communication is largely
focused on conflicts or conventional areas of the marriage, rather
than a genuine exchange of thoughts and feelings. High levels of
communication are characterized by open, mutually active,
pleasurable exchanges, and includes sharing of deep feelings,
values, and ideologies, as well as problems and conflicts.

gemeanienenip. Distinctions in companionship are based on
the different kinds of bonds which keep the couple together in the
marriage. Low levels of companionship are found in couples who are
emotionally isolated from one another and in marriages where
bonding is based on obligation or meeting basic needs rather than
enjoyment of each partner. Mid-range levels of companionship
describe marriages in which bonding transcends role obligations of
husband/wife, but in which there is primarily sharing of activities

rather than emotions. Companionship based on appreciation of each

108

other’s unique qualities and sharing of experiences and feelings is
rated at the high end of the scale. At the highest level the
relationship is experienced as a joint partnership involving mutual
growth and development of each individual.

£90111£I_££§Ql!1190- The same measure used to assess
Interpersonal Conflict Resolution in the young adults was used to
code their parents’ level of conflict resolution. The only
difference was that “partner" in this instance meant spouse, and
"relationship" meant the marriage (see previous section describing

Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Scale.)

Roseanne;

Ihe_yeeng_aeelt§. The young adults met with two different
interviewers on two separate occasions to report (in
counterbalanced orders) on a) aspects of life such as friendships,
intimate relationships, work, etc. and b) relationships with their
parents. (Only the data regarding intimate relationships and young
adults’ reports of triangulation are considered here.) The
majority of young adults were interviewed in their homes. Fourteen
trained interviewers (7 males and 7 females) administered the
Intimacy Interview and 8 trained interviewers (4 males and 4
females) administered the Young Adult/Parent Relationship Interview
to a young adult of the same sex. In the latter interview,
approximately half of the participants talked first about their
mother, and approximately half talked first about their father.

109

The sex-roles orientation questionnaire (PRF-Andro) was
included in a battery of questionnaires used in the larger study.
At the time of the first interview respondents received a
questionnaire packet and completed and returned the packet at the
second interview or by mail.

The young adults’ narente. Mothers and fathers of the young
adults were contacted separately to schedule interviews. For the
most part, interviews were conducted in the participants’ homes.
Two interviews were administered to each parent, usually in 3
sessions. The first interview concerned the parent’s relationship
with the young adult child; the second involved questions about the
parent’s lifestyle, including the marriage. This second interview

typically was conducted in two sessions lasting about 2 hours each.

Results
Reliability coefficients established on sets of twenty

protocols for depth, commitment, intrapsychic conflict resolution,
and interpersonal conflict resolution were quite high. Interrater
reliability coefficients for depth and commitment were .92 and .93,
respectively. The correlations for coders on the interpersonal
conflict scale and the intrapsychic conflict resolution scale were
.96 and .88, respectively. In addition, the reliability
coefficient for triangulation was .86, based on twenty randomly
selected protocols that I and a trained rater coded. Similarly,
Pearson correlations showing the degree of interrater agreement

between each rater’s scores and scores on the twenty reliability

110

protocols for each parental marriage dimension were also fairly
high (.90 for communication, .85 for companionship, and .78 for
conflict resolution).

Demographic characteristics described in the section on
participants had little or no effect on the dependent or
independent variables. Although young adults who were more
educated reported more depth (r(138) - -.19, p<.05) and commitment
(r(138) - -.16, p<.05), these associations were relatively weak.
In addition, neither educational nor occupational level was
significantly related to any of the predictor variables, and
therefore were not included in the tests of the proposed model of

young adults’ intimacy.

W
£8£§D£.!§£1§hl§§- Correlations among communication,

companionship, and conflict resolution for mothers and for fathers
can be seen in Table 1. Based on the high intercorrelations among
the parent marital variables, a marital harmony score was created
by averaging communication, companionship, and conflict resolution
separately for mothers and fathers. As might be expected, mothers’
and fathers’ marital harmony scores were significantly correlated,
r(105) - .57, p<.001. To reduce the number of predictor variables
and simplify the results, I then combined mother and father scores
for communication, companionship, and conflict resolution into a
single parent marital harmony score (PMH). The correlation for

father marital harmony (N - 105) with the combined score was .87,

111

 

 

Table I
I ' 0 on Itlf ’ .nq I I: .1]:
MCONRES MCOMMUN MCOMPAN MMH
MCONRES --- .48*** .44*** .77***
MCOMMUN --- --- .60*** .86***
MCOMPAN --- --- --- .83***
DCONRES DCOMMUN DCOMPAN DMH
DCONRES --- .47*** .31*** .73***
DCOMMUN --- --- .53*** .86***
DCOMPAN --- --- --- .77***

 

Note: *p < .05. **p <

.01, ***p < .001.

112

p<.001. Mother marital harmony (N - 128) was also strongly related
to the total marital harmony variable, r - .91, p < .001.
Relationships among the variables remained the same regardless of
whether the composite score or the separate mother and father
marital variables were used. Therefore, the more robust total
parent marital harmony variable was used for the remaining
analyses. Because it made little difference whether marital
harmony was defined by mothers’ or fathers’ scores alone or by an
average for both parents combined, in cases where data for one
parent is missing, the other parent’s score (usually the mother’s)
was used.

Xenng_aen1§_1an1an1e§. Depth was correlated with commitment
(r(14l) - .60, p < .001), and, as expected, interpersonal and
intrapsychic conflict resolution (r (137) - .51, p < .001) were
significantly interrelated. In order to preserve important
conceptual distinctions between depth and commitment and between
the two conflict resolution variables, these variables were not

combined.

BMW
Intercorrelations between the predictor variables (parent
marital harmony, triangulation, sex role identity, gender, family
life cycle, age, conflict resolution) and intimacy variables (depth
and commitment) for the total sample, and for males and females are
presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In addition, these

tables show correlations among the various predictor variables.

12123

.aoc. v

Qfififi

 

 

 

. dc. V BIC.
.m9 v a. "coo:
22422
...ce. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- gonna
2mM22 2mm22 22:8
eeevv. eee'v. III III III III III III ILOHCH
22M22 .2n22 22n22 22:8
eeecm. teemm. eeeum. III III III III III Inhap;
22M22 22m22 24n22 2nn22
2o. «2. 49.- no. --- --- --- --- aca2a2
2on2. 2on2. 2om22 2mn22 29.22
29 - o9 ~°.- no. :2. --- --- --- a
2Nm22 22n22 2mn22 24m22 2mn22 .Ne22
m9 - c2.- ~°.- 22. .9 - 29 - --- --- z
2em22 24n22 22n22 2on22 2¢n22 .Lm22 2on2.
eeemm . ee¢~ . ecu . eemN . 3. I eeMN . eO~.1 III 04...
22.22 22422 2om22 22m22 22.22 24422 2n422 2m422
eeemm . no. MO . v0. 1 do. I No. I VO. 1 eeeNm . 00¢
22422 .2422 2mn22 22m22 2m422 2.422 2n422 2n422
mc. mu. we . 1 mo. eeNN . eeemm . eeeon . 1 Nu. xum
22~22 22~22 2o222 22222 2m~22 2n~22 2-22 24~22
29 - n9- ~c. 49 - ...mm.- n9 «2. no. :12
a 2.5.8 53o $.38 32:8 9.2.; u x 3...
neou=~ -ucu:_
p .L > or c . — LL

~ o2e.2

ILJu4

 

 

“CO. V fife...
.2c. v a..
.mo. v a. "cue:
-- -.. -- -- -- -.. -- I...- -..- £23.23
282
«case. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- gamma
Away Awmv noccou
«aauv. «econ. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -eou:_
$8 33 $8 222:8
eeecm. eeewm . eeeO'. III III III III III III Iflkucm
822 28 .82 28
m2.- 22.- mo.- 92.- -- -- -- -- -- agape»
:22 :3 232 so 28
mo.- .- o~.- m~.- «2.- -- -- -- -- u
822 so :3 23 28 282
a". ma.- mo.- o~.- oo.- oo. -- -- -- 1
«may «on. Amm. Ann. “ac Rom 5mm
ccawo. «edn. «won. «2m. n~.- no. No. -- -- can
.mmv “mo Aoov .mo ANN .ac Ace. Am».
eeemv . “MN . «a . NO . no . so . I ma . eeesm . III 05¢
222... am 33 33 a2. :23 33 2S :2.
2o. ~o. mc.- .- o~.- we. «KN. no. cc. :1;
“2.580 232.8 3.38 no.— :8 9.2.... .._ x 3... mg
-Lou:_ -ec»:_

 

 

c .aopoeco

n o—nop

:Hoc v aeee

211.5

 

 

.29 v a..
.mo. v ac 2ouoz
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 225508
2N2.
...mm. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- e2aoa
.wsv .Nsv auccou
eeemc. eeeHQ. III III III III III III III ILOu—z
A~Nv Ausv A2“. «mecca
eeehm. eeevm . eee'm. III III III III III III Ignac—
1co2 2mm. 2mm. .24.
n2. .o~. 29 - 22. --- -- -- -- -- aca2a»
2222 2222 2222 .82. .222
42. o9 29 42. 22. -- -- -- -- a
.222 2222 2222 2022 2222 2422
o9 m9 - c9 - 22.- 22. co. -- -- -- x
2o42 2mm. 2mm. 22m. 2442 2222 2222
...om. N2. 28. cu. N9 - .om. .nn. - -- -- 82L
2~22 2N2. 2~22 2222 2n22 2m“. .m22 .42.
.NN. 2c~. - m9 - 4°.- 29 - 4°. 42. - ...°m. -- 444
2~m2 2~42 2242 2282 2422 24m. 24m. 24m. 2442
~9 - w~. - no. 2a.- ...m4.- mo. 2°. 42. o2. :xa
225508 e2aoa ”cacao ”cacao 4:4222 a z 822 244
-eou:_ -ocu:_

 

 

4 o2e4h

116

Beta weights for the predicted model are shown in Tables 5, 6, and
7 for the total sample and for males and females, respectively.
The correlation matrix is based on pairwise rather than
listwise correlations. Correlations with the parent marriage
variables are based on 117 participants. N’s for pairs of
correlations for the other variables range from 121 to 150.
Accordingly, the path analyses are based on estimates from
subsamples used to compute correlations in the total sample;
because even the smallest N’s are greater than 100, the
relationships are assumed to be representative of the sample as a
whole. Because the correlations and beta weights reflect similar
findings, the results reported subsequently are based on the path

analyses.

flynetnee1e_1. Tests of the predicted model only partially
supported predictions that more females, young adults who are
married or parents, or who have a feminine sex role orientation
would report higher levels of intimacy. Gender tended to be
related to depth (p<.10), with females reporting slightly more
depth than males. In contrast, family life cycle stage was
significantly related to commitment, but not depth for the total
sample, as well as for males and females separately. Hhen the data
for males are analyzed separately, only the effects of being
married or a parent influenced variations in levels of commitment.
The prediction that more feminine young adults would report higher

levels of intimacy was not supported.

117

.25. v a. ee

 

 

 

.8. v a:
.49 v .2. 822.
«9:28
42. 4mm. -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.3.:
3.58
eeefim. eeemfi. III III III III III III Ida—Hp:
8. mo. -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.2...—
mof Sf -- -- -- -- -- -- £25...
22. co. -- -- -- -- -- -- one:
.229 8. -- -- -- .8. .229- -- 9:
III III III III III III III eeeNm. 00‘
4c. um". -- -- «2. «LN. .59.:- -- 28m
.- Sf No. vof eecvnf -- -- -- E...

a .5228 5.28 8.22.8 3.28 9.2 .2» u x 3...
L32: LE»:—
. 2 s .

m 032.

JJIEB

 

Nu. eww. --

22. .mN. --
~2.- mo.- --
mo.- oo. --
42. cc. --
...w4. no. --

oo.- mo. me.-

so.-

mu.-

aoecou
-couc_

noccou
-ucu:_

ace—2p
c2501
one:
can
um<
2:;

 

u.zsou xenon noccou
-Lou=~

noccou
-ueu=_

uc-22h

can

 

.auHua-uau-auuaa-uumuflumuuuumunaq-mmnmqum-ummn
m apnoh

1.119

.2oo. v a...
.mo. v nee
.229v 22. 2322

 

 

 

noccou
4.4.. 824.. -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.32.2
«02:00
«44M. «cow. -- -- -- -- -- -- -ue»:2
no. o2. -- -- -- -- -- -- acc2Lh
c9- 29 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.8“.
2°. 2°. -- -- -- -- -- -- one:
«4.2m. mo. -- -- -- «44m. «442m.- -- 921
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- «cawm. ou<
mo.- «m~.- no. 2o.- .44n4.- -- -- -- :2;
«2.2.2.8 fame 3.22.8 «2:8 9.2.; .2 x 3...
-Lou=~ -ueu=_
. L o» c a c. 2 a»

u epoch

120

es s . For the most part, the predicted indirect
effects of age, family life cycle stage, sex role orientation, and
gender on intimacy were unsubstantiated by the results. The
failure to support the predictions are due primarily to the non-
significant findings for intimacy, whereas the antecedent links
were frequently significant. For example, the path predicting
family life cycle as a function of age was significant and in the
expected direction for both males and females, but family life
cycle was unrelated to depth. Similarly, being female and being
further along in the family life cycle were related to more
femininity and less masculinity, but sex role orientation did not
predict intimacy. And finally, gender was related to triangulation
in the expected direction, but triangulation did not predict

intimacy in this model.

H!!QLD§§1§.§- As expected, the predicted model indicated
that parent marital harmony was significantly and negatively
related to triangulation for the total sample. The results were
replicated for males and females when the data were analyzed
separately, although relationships for the young women tended to be
somewhat stronger. As noted above, however, the results did not
support the prediction that young adults who were not triangulated
in the parental marriage would report higher levels of intimacy,
nor was the relationship between the parental marriage and intimacy
as predicted. Unexpectedly, in the analyses for depth, young women

whose parents had better marriages described their own close

121

relationships in terms of lower levels of sharing, openness,
interdependence, and tolerance of differences. This relationship

was not replicated for males.

flynoeneeie 4. The hypothesis that young adults whose parents
reported better marriages would describe more adaptive
interpersonal and intrapsychic conflict resolution strategies in

their own close relationships was not supported.

t e 5. Young adults’ conflict resolution styles were
the only successful predictors of intimacy in the model, other than
family life cycle stage. In the total sample, young adults who
described more adaptive intrapsychic and interpersonal conflict
resolution styles reported more depth and commitment, although the
relationships between intrapsychic conflict resolution and intimacy
tended to be stronger than those for interpersonal conflict
resolution. In analyses using the male sample, conflict resolution
styles are unrelated to commitment. The results for females
generally replicated those for the total sample, with both types of
conflict resolution influencing commitment and depth, although the
relationship between interpersonal conflict resolution and the

latter is not as strong.

T F ll 0 el
Beta weights from the path analyses based on predictions of
each endogenous variable from all the antecedent variables (i.e.,

the "full" model) are shown in Table 8 for the total sample and in

1222

- MOO. V nfifi.‘

 

 

2a... a.-
.8. v .2. 822.
noecou
emu . emu. III III III III III III ILQHCH
noecou
eeewm. eeeufi. III III III III III III IQLHCm
2a.- no. 08. no. -- -- -- -- 4:42;»
vo.- ~o.- mo.- oo.- oo. -- -- -- :.Emm
Hm. cc. no.1 we.- cc. -- -- -- one:
eeemv . no . emu . eeecv . mo . I eemu . and . I III 0.:
uu. do. -.- «m~.- on. m~.- No. «team. ou<
me. you. mo.- wo.- e—m. aemw. «mn.- umu. xom
~o.- o~.- co. "c.- cm.- mo. nu. no. ::m

“25.50 .338 ”0.2500 mph—.00 Deaf-h “— : 04..—
-Lou:~ -oeu:~

 

 

a: .

a «2242

123

Tables 9 and 10 for males and for females, respectively. Tests of
the "full" model elaborated on the relationships between the
predictors and intimacy in some unexpected ways, which are
described below.

Age, which is assigned only an indirect role in the predicted
model and therefore not included in the first hypothesis,
significantly influenced males’ descriptions of their close
relationships. Older males reported higher levels of investment in
their close relationships, and also tended to describe greater
depth (p<.10). In contrast, age did not effect females’ reports of
intimacy.

Results of the "full“ model analyses also suggested
additional explanations for variations in young adults’ sex role
orientation and family life cycle stage. For example, better
parental marriages accounted for variations in young men’s
masculinity, whereas family life cycle stage did not. And gender
tended to be related to family life cycle stage. Although this
finding was not predicted, given the theories that women attain
intimacy earlier, it is not surprising to find that more females
have attainep spousal or parental status.

Finally, both aspects of conflict resolution were predicted
in the 'full' model analyses by family life cycle stage. In the
total sample, young adults who are married or parents tended to
describe more adaptive styles of resolving intrapsychic conflicts

in their close relationships. Moreover, family life cycle stage

124

.2cc. v a...

 

 

. "O . V nee.
.mo. v a. "mac:
”2:8
~2. .mN. -- -- -- -- -- -- -..»=2
noccou
eemn. eeeQV. III III III III III III I95“:—
42.- .- 2o.- .o.- -- -- -- -- 4:4...
2a.- no. ”2.- o~.- .- -- -- -- :22».
42. 2o. mo.- .o.- no. -- -- -- 0.4:
eum. mo.I eemv. eeeNQ. nu.I mm. NO. III 04;
mN. 2m~. m2.- ¢~.- 42. .2.- 4°.- ....m. ~44
oo.- no. 4a.- oo.a .m~.- 20. ..~. co. 2:.

22.53 52.8 82.8 8.28 9.2.; . 4. 2.2.
-.ou:_ -oeu:_

 

 

m m—noh

125

.288. w “444
.8. 2.
.mo. v a. "82°:

 

 

noceou

mm. «Nu. -- -- -- -- -- -- -.ou=_
noccou

91mm. kkmm. III III III III III III lflLup—H
no. Nd. no. c2. -- -- -- .-- ace—L»
o2.- 2o.- 4o. cc. m2. -- -- -- c2501
28. 28. co. “8.. m~. -- -- -- one:
eeecm. NM . OO- NN. OD. teMV. emm.I III . OAK
«c. c~.- 22.- m~.- so. m2.- no. «442m. ou<
mo.- um~.- a". mo.- aamv.- me. no. co. :2;

2.Esou guano ”mecca ”cacao 8:4... L x 82.
-Luu:_ -ocu:_

 

 

on open»

126

appeared to suppress the effect of age on intrapsychic conflict
resolution; after controlling for family life cycle stage, the data
suggested that younger men and women are better at coping with
intrapsychic conflict. However, as can be seen in Tables 9 and 10,
when the data are analyzed separately for males and females, this
finding seemed to be a function of the males.

In sum, and as can be seen in Tables 11, 12, and 13, there is
very little discrepancy between the amount of variance accounted
for by the “full" versus the predicted model of intimacy. Overall,
neither the "full" nor the predicted model was particularly
successful in predicting depth or commitment. Only the conflict
resolution styles of the young adults, and in the case of
commitment, family life cycle, were significantly related to
intimacy. In the one notable exception to the overall similarity
between the variance predicted by the "full" and predicted models,
the hypothesis that parents’ marital harmony would influence young
adults’ levels of intrapsychic conflict resolution was not
supported by the predicted model. In contrast, the "full” model
accounted for 12% of the variance in intrapsychic conflict
resolution, as compared to 0% in the predicted model. This was due
to the effects of age and family life cycle and to the failure to
find a relationship in the predicted model between parent marital

harmony and intrapsychic conflict resolution.

127

Table 11

’r‘q. ‘0 .r . - 1 h' u _1 I ’ 'Ii ‘0 . I Tri ‘0 '. II‘ S
f im f A1 5 b' Ct

 

 

 

_EuJ___o_." l" M del W Tri d l

Commit r2 - .56*** r2 - .55*** r2 - .53***

11 1-9 11 1,2,5-9 11 4,8,9
Depth r2 - .39*** r2 - .39*** r2 - .37***

10 1-9 10 1,2,4-9 10 2,8,9
Inter- rz - .06 r2 - .00 r2 - .04*
Conres 9 1-7 9 1 9 4
Intra- r2 - .12t r2 - .00 r2 - .10**
Conres .8 1-7 8 1 8 3,4
Triang r2 - .18*** r2 - .16*** r2 - .16***

7 1-6 7 1,2 7 1,2
Femin r2 - .15*** r2 - .13*** r2 - 13*“

6 1-4 6 2,4 6 2,4
Mascul r2 - .18*** r2 - .16*** r2 - 16***

5 1-4 5 2,4 5 2,4
FLC r2 - .30*** r2 - .28*** r2 - .3o***

4 1-3 4 3 4 2.3
Note: *p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Subscripts refer to the following: l-PMH, 2-Gender,
3-Age, 4-FLC, 5-Mascul, 6-Femin, 7-Triang, B-Intra-Conres,
9-Inter-Conres, IO-Depth, ll-Commit.

128

 

 

 

 

Table 12
Eregisted_1arianse_1n_the 'Full1..Preaicteg_and_lrimmed_£ath_ueeel§
n im l
”Full” Hegel Eregicted_negel Irimmed_fledsl
Commit r2 - .57*** r2 - .53*** r2 - .52***
11 1,3-9 11 1,4-9 11 3,4,8
Depth r2 - .45*** r2 - .41*** r2 - .44***
10 1,3-9 10 1.4-9 10 3,8,9
Inter- r2 - .17 r2 - .00 r2 - .13**
Conres 9 1,3-7 9 I 9 4
Intra- r2 - .19t r2 - .00 r2 - .10**
Conres 8 1,3-7 8 l 8 4
Triang r2 - .12 r2 - .07 r2 - .07
7 1,3-6 7 1 7 1
Femin r2 - .02 r2 - .00 ----------
6 1,3,4 6 4
Mascul r2 - .07 r2 - .00 r2 - .07
5 1,3,4 5 4 5 1
FLC r2 - .33*** r2 - .33*** r2 - .33***
4 1,3 4 3 4 3
Note: 1';p < .05.
**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Subscripts refer to the following: l-PMH, Z-Gender,
3-Age, 4-FLC, 5-Mascul, 6-Femin, 7-Triang, B-Intra-Conres,
9-Inter-Conres, 10-Depth, II-Commit.

129

 

 

 

 

Table 13
Eredieted Varjanee in the "Full". Pregjegeg ang Trimmen 2318 Models
1 c r le
M mm mm
Commit r2 - .58*** r2 - .58*** r2 - .56***
11 1,3-9 11 1.4-9 11 4.8.9
Depth r2 - .44*** r2 - .41*** r2 - .40***
10 1,3-9 10 1.4-9 10 1.8.9
Inter- r2 - .02 r2 - .01 -----------
Conres 9 1,3-7 9 l
Intra- r2 - .10 r2 - .00 -----------
Conres 8 1,3-7 8 l
Triang r2 - .23* r2 - .19*** r2 - .19***
7 1,3-6 7 1 7 1
Femin r2 - .14 r2 - .11** r2 - .11**
6 1.3.4 6 4 6 4
Mascul r2 - .10t r2 - .10** r2 - .10**
5 1.3.4 5 4 5 4
FLC r2 - .27*** r2 - .27*** r2 - .27***
4 1.3 4 3 4 3
Note: *p < .05.
**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Subscripts refer to the following: l-PMH, Z-Gender,
3-Age. 4-FLC, S-Mascul, 6-Femin. 7-Triang, B-Intra-Conres,
9-Inter-Conres, IO-Depth. ll-Commit.

130

Results from trimmed models are summarized below in Figures 2
and 3 for the total sample, Figures 4 and 5 for males, and Figures
6 and 7 for females. Analyses to derive trimmed models included
only variables that were significant at the p < .10 level in the

“full” model analyses.

Additional Analyses

Family life cycle stage proved to be a significant predictor
in a number of paths in the model for intimacy, and along with
conflict resolution, appeared to account for a large portion of the
variance in intimacy. A series of one way analyses of variance
with family life cycle as the independent variable were carried out
to explore further the effects on commitment, interpersonal and
intrapsychic conflict resolution, and sex-role orientation. The
results are shown below in Tables 14, 15, and 16 for the total
sample, males, and females, respectively.

Family life cycle stage was significantly related to young
adults’ levels of commitment for the total sample (F(l34) - 89.73,
p<.001), and for males (F(66) - 54.89, p<.001) and females (F(68) -
36.94, p<.001) alone. The relationships were in an unexpected?
direction. The results for males were similar to the results for
males and females combined. In the total sample and in the male
subsample, married subjects reported greater levels of investment
in their close relationships than single young adults or parents.
In addition, young adult males with children described higher

levels of commitment than single individuals. In the female

131

42,-eo2e

 

3

 

 

 

 

.e2e54m 2.26. .6. genes 4:228.482. 2446: ewes.ee .N e.=4..

2238.22.22. 222... 2222223 A1 .- - 52. 2.32.822. A
Bodeee .369; .369... 2302

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

4m.-.44
- - .- 1 u_ 9:
229-444. - - - - - - -
a I A I I \ \ \
A . mmezou h- .ON - - 4
.13 «ME: mos-m 2.
2242.
.42m.
A eemv. _
A 92:.

 

 

 

 

 

132

.mpasem peach Low pcmsuwsaou mcwuowumcm pmuoz umssweh .m meamwm

mpowumea 2o: mcumn.nt .- - sung umuo_umea A
4 2oo.a... .2o.4e.. .mo.vee 2e2ez

 

4m.-.44

 

 

 

 

      

QO.MQHH —\ mm.flm®U
4
22 mmmzou

, .22. .2222

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uozzl—Ib—szF

 

 

 

 

 

 

~4.-4.4

 

N A ema.
uz<2mh A 4444M.-

133

 

 

Quay-:1:

 

 

 

.mm—az com seam: mcvuueumem choz emssvep .4 mezmwm

 

 

 

 

 

223889.22 2.2. «52. A1 .- .- 232.2. 223089.22 Alll
moodeee .359; .mo.va# ”muoz
~m.-e44
- .. - u. 82.
v
x.
I m
I .- I .. mc<
2.3.2
mo
. N 7 7 7 ~
om no u :28

 

ez<2e2 .42.-

134

.mmpmz Low acmsupseou mcwuuwuoea .muoz umsswch

 

 

 

UOZZHI—ZUJZH-

 

 

 

 

2.38822. 2:... 4.52. A.- .- -. 222.3 22388.22. A
Sodas; 23.8.3. .mo.vqe.
29 .4422
eeenm. I I I I H
I I .I I I I \ \lflm‘.
¥¥Om \ \ x.

 

 

 

 

 

.m mesmwm

"muoz

n--.-----
.282 ----
m 8.
229-4 2.x
.2 22.-2.2
282.. 4, - 2.22
4&4 7
2 7 - - 2
49-4 2. =22.
A A1 emu.-

8255-

135

 

 

 

 

.mmmemm 2cm enema mcwuuPuwee _mcoz tosses» .o mesmw.

umuuwvmeg no: ”swag A...- -. span umuu_uoea.A---I
o“. a v u ~oo.aeee .mo.vaee .mc.vne "muoz

mm.-e4u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a
A mumzou m
«Hm. zuhzu em.um u
- A_- o
eevm zmzmm
A 22 . 2422 m
«eem¢.- mmmzou co. wo<
<xpz~
mm.-eme
A — m
Aaum<z N
xmm Away
, . 222.
2 a
om.nm v . :28
u A-I‘ time.-

uz<Hmh

 

136

mo.umH~c.\

 

UOZZHI-‘ZLLJZF—

 

.mm—msmm so» unwEupsEou mcpuuwcmca pmcoz omsspch

cwuo_umea ac: mgumg_A1 .- 1

game nmuu_umLa_A

 

.2 mezmwm

2oo.aeem .2o.vg4« .mo.va4 282°:

mm.-e44

 

 

m
A muzzmw
N. «up
.4 222.
eeem.
AIIIIIIII m «
eeeom. mumzou
<¢pz~

 

 

om.-m24 ,

eeemc.

 

 

 

 

A111

uz<~mh

 

 

 

2442
82.

 

 

137

Table I4

Oneway Analyaea ef Varianee fer Cgmmitment, Cnnflice Resnlneinn,
ang Sex Reie erentatign ny Family Life Cycle Stage: All
Subjeet§.*

 

 

 

Single Married Barents

Commit 1.82a 4.70b 3.89c
(N - 63) (N - 33) (N - 38)

Intra 2.74a 3.67b 3.29b
Conres (N - 59) (N = 33) (N - 38)

Inter 2.48a 3.09”‘ 2.97b
Conres (N - 60) (N - 33) (N =38)

Mascul 16.88a 16.44ab 14.36b
. (N - 61) (N - 36) (N - 39)

Femin 15.10a 16.69ab 17.02b
(N -.62) (N - 36) (N - 39)

 

*Groups with same superscripts do not significantly differ (p <

.05).

Table 15

.l' .4 ‘

._l '

138

° 11.11

“I l

aha sea le Oriengaeign ax Family Ler Ere ag Male§.*

 

 

' le St e:

Single Married Barents
Commit 1.89a 4.93” 3.94c

(N - 36) (N - 14) (N - 16)
Intra 2.73a 3.73” 3.31”
Conres (N - 33) (N - 14) (N - 16)
Inter 2.39a 3.43” 3.25”
Conres (N - 33) (N - 14) (N -16)
Mascul 17.68a 18.80a 17.69a

(N - 34) (N - 15) (N - 16)
Femin 14.66a 14.40a 15.19a

(N - 35) (N - 15) (N - 16)

 

*Groups with same superscripts do not significantly differ (p <

.05).

 

139

 

 

Table 16
Qnerax_£mefl i n r fl
and Sex 39' nt i m'l e a .*
Snnnle Married Barents
Commit 1.74a 4.53” 3.86”
(N - 27) (N - 19) (N - 22)
Intra 2.77a 3.53” 3.273”
Conres (N - 26) (N - 19) (N - 22)
Inter 2.59a 2.84a 2.77a
Conres (N - 27) (N - 19) (N -22)
Mascul 15.88a 14.763” 12.04”
(N - 27) (N - 21) (N - 23)
Femin 15.67a 16.623” 18.30”
(N - 27) (N - 21) (N - 23)

 

*Groups with same superscripts do not significantly differ (p <

.05).

140

subsample, family life cycle stage did not differentiate between
young women who are married and who are parents. However, both
women who are married and women with children described more
committed relationships than single women.

Variations in family life cycle stage also contributed to
differences in young adults’ intrapsychic styles of coping with
conflict in close relationships for the total sample (F(130) -
9.64, p<.001), for males (F(63) - 7.69, p<.001), and for females
(F(66)-3.05, p<.05). Family life cycle stage was significantly
related to interpersonal conflict resolution for the total sample
(F(131)-4.04, p<.05) and for males (F(62) - 6.38, p<.01). The
results for intrapsychic and interpersonal conflict resolution for
the total sample and for males were similar. Young adults in the
total sample and males, in particular, who are married or parents,
described higher levels of resolving both interpersonal and
intrapsychic conflict in their close relationships. Hhen the
female subsample is examined separately, significant differences
appeared only in the case of intrapsychic conflict resolution, with
married women reporting more adaptive ways of coping with conflict
than single women.

The findings for the effects of family life cycle on sex-role
orientation were in the expected direction, though not as
consistent or clear-cut as predicted. Family life cycle stage was
significantly related to masculinity for the total sample (F(136) -
3.19, p<.05) and for females (F(4l) - 4.38, p<.05). Relationships

between family life cycle and femininity were significant for the

141

total sample (F(137) - 4.06. p<.05) and for females (F(71) - 3.56,
p<.05). In the total sample and in the female subsample. parents
described themselves as more feminine and as less masculine than
single young adults. However, married young adults did not differ
significantly from either single young adults or parents.
Masculinity (F(65) - .33, ns) and femininity (F(66) s .33, ns)
among males did not differ as a function of differences in family

life cycle.

01.55.155.190

In general, the proposed model of individual differences and
family systems variables accounted for 53% and 37% of the variance
in commitment and depth, respectively. Unexpectedly, young adults’
conflict resolution styles and family life cycle stage accounted
for substantial portions of the variance in intimacy status. In
contrast, tests of the model for the most part did not support the
proposed links between gender. sex role orientation, parent marital
harmony, triangulation, and intimacy status. Possible explanations

for the relatively weak findings are considered below.

WW
eyele atage in jntinaey. The hypothesis that sex differences play

an important role in explaining variations in intimacy was only

partially supported. As expected, young women tended to describe
their close relationships in terms of higher levels of depth, but
gender did not influence levels of commitment. It may be that the

notion of depth in this study most closely resembles definitions of

142

intimacy, such as ”closeness” or self-disclosure, being measured by
other studies of intimacy which report strong sex differences.
Furthermore, depth as defined in this study includes the capacity
for empathy, expressiveness, valuing communication and support. all
of which reportedly are more likely to characterize women than men
(e.g., Parelman, 1983; Hoffman, 1977; Baslwick & Peek, 1971). In
addition, being masculine or feminine had no effect on young
adults’ reports of intimacy. Other researchers have qualified
their statements about the influence of sex-role orientation on
intimacy based on their findings. For example, Hhite et al. (1986)
found stronger patterns of relationships between husbands and wives
as opposed to within the samples of husbands and wives. The
present study did not examine intimacy in the context of the dyad.
which represents a possible explanation for the failure to find an
effect for sex-role orientation as well as points out a weakness of
the design.

Family life cycle stage turned out to be one of two critical
factors which accounted for substantial portions of the variance in
commitment. Depth, however, was not influenced by differences in
the young adults’ phase of life. In the total sample and in the
sample of males only, married respondents reported higher levels of
commitment than either single young adults or those who were
parents. Parents’ levels of commitment were higher than single
young adults as expected, but unexpectedly lower than married young
adults. The pattern of results was similar for women, though not

as strong. Hhereas having children was expected to strengthen

143

' young adults’ perceptions of commitment, it appears that the levels
of commitment described by young adults perhaps reflected the
lowering in marital satisfaction reported in the literature (e.g.,
Rossi, 1968) that accompanies the arrival of children into a
family. Moreover, as males in this sample were more likely to
carry the primary financial burden and females were more likely to
the primary caretakers, the addition of children meant greater
financial responsibility and perhaps less time as a couple, and may

have stressed their perceptions of their relationship and lifelong

commitment.
n ir ff c f e e l e nd
ggy;rg1g_ggieneaeien_en_1neinaey. The predicted indirect effects

of the individual differences variables were largely
unsubstantiated. The relationships with variables that preceded
intimacy in the model were for the most part in the expected
direction, but the link with intimacy was not supported. For
example, sex role orientation did not partially explain the
relationship between family life cycle and intimacy, but there was
a linear relationship between family life cycle and sex role. The
findings that parents endorsed more feminine and less masculine
items and that single young adults endorsed more masculine and less
feminine items supported the prediction that variations in
individuals’ lifestyles would affect changes in values and
ideologies, but did not translate into differences in young adults’
levels of intimacy. Similarly, more females described feminine

orientations, more males described masculine orientations, and more

144

young women reported being in triangulated relationships. However,
these relationships did not influence variations in levels of
intimacy as expected.

The prediction that older young adults were more likely to be
further along in the family life cycle and to report higher levels
of commitment was supported in terms of the total sample. However.
as discussed below, age also played a significant role in
explaining men’s levels of investment in their close relationships

independently of family life cycle stage.

r l r . In general, the
prediction that the quality of the parents’ marriage would play a
significant role in explaining young adults’ levels of conflict
resolution strategies or intimacy was not supported. The only ,
predicted finding was that young adults whose parents reported 1

l

poorer marriages were more likely to describe being in triangulated /

parent-child relationships in their family of origin. /
Triangulation, however, was unrelated to intimacy. j
Parent marital harmony influenced young women’s reports of

depth, but not in the expected direction. Young women whose
parents described higher levels of marital harmony tended to report
lower levels of depth in their own close relationships. Hhereas a
positive relationship between parents’ marital harmony and intimacy
was predicted based on both the role model and the ”indirect”
transmission hypotheses, these results bring up the possibility

that the young women in this study were "trained” for intimacy in

145

homes where the parent’s marriage was conflictual and low in
companionship and communication. As a result. one, or even both,
parents turned to their daughter for closeness, and effectively
prepared her for her own close relationships. Alternatively, it
may be that growing up with parents whose marriage was less
satisfying and positive, provided some young women with counter
examples of close relationships. By the time these young women
reached young adulthood, they had had opportunities for examining
and reflecting on their parents’ marriages, and perhaps had
rejected various aspects in favor of more communication, sharing,
and problem solving in their own Close relationships.

That the negativerelationshipbetween parent maritalyharmony
and depth was not- fond for "14195. 199153111912 is—nnLtemex
surprising. Given that daughters’ development occurs via
connectedness and in the relational context of the family, and~§0ns
move from atta ., Stiver, 1984; Chodorow,
1978). daughters are more likely to be directly influenced by the
affective climate and relationships in the family. Presumably,
sons are not immune to family influences, but experience the
effects of the parental marriage more indirectly.

Missing in the present study are tests of possible mediators
of experiences in the family, such as the young adults’ level of
mental health and the young adults’ perceptions of their
relationships with their parents, in particular, their experiences
of autonomy and relatedness with their parents (Frank, Avery, &

Laman, 1988). As Bowlby (1969) and Hazan and Shaver (1987)

146

suggest, it is individuals’ internal or mental models of their ‘
family relationships which impact on the kinds of relationships
developed outside the family of origin. Preliminary analyses in
the larger study from which this research stems suggest that young

adults’ experiences of relatedness and autonomy with their parentsv/
/

.
‘7
9;

at least for males, do in fact influence intimacy status.

It is also important to point out that the relationships
described by the parents in this study are not derived from a
clinical sample. In more distressed populations, I expect that
parents’ reports and young adults’ perceptions of their parents’
marriages would similarly reflect poor marriages, whereas it may be
essential to measure young adults’ perceptions in a normal sample
in order to tap the critical factors underlying differences in
intimacy. It also may be that the level of disharmony described by
parents in the present study would fall in the moderate range when
compared to a clinical sample. Hence, it is possible that a
relatively poor marital relationship in this sample still allows
for young adults to experience optimal levels of connectedness in
the family, which in turn facilitates autonomy and presumably, the
development of Close relationships outside the parental home (e.g.,
Grotevant, 1983). Relatedly, Frank and Tuer (1988) found in a
sample of college students that more conflict between parents was
associated with differentiation for daughters, which presumably
facilitates age appropriate separation and launching into the world

of relationships outside the family.

147

Finally, it is also important to point out that the measure
of marital harmony reflects the quality of the young adults’
parents’ marriage at the time of the study. It may be that some of
the families in this sample include couples who have ”stuck it
out”, but who had more conflictual or distressed marriages when
their children were younger. An important question then arises
regarding the degree of continuity that can be expected in a normal
young adult sample. On the one hand, it can be argued that by the
time individuals reach young adulthood, they have developed a "new"
life, and are no longer simply products of their childhood.
Particularly in non-clinical samples, normal ups and downs of
family life and a relatively large amount of instability in terms
of the degree of family conflict can be expected. Hhatever
negative effects conflict exerts in less distressed populations are
likely to be transitory. On the other hand, what remains to be
assessed is the possibility that an earlier period of conflict in
the parental marriage impacts on children’s internalized models of
relationships and influences attempts to form their own close
relationships. Hhile the negative effects of family conflict on
intimacy are beginning to be documented in clinical samples, such E

as Hallerstein’s ten year follow-up of children in divorced i
1
families (e.g., Hallerstein 8 Blakeslee, 1989). it is unclear if

earlier experiences of ”normal" family conflict threaten young

adults’ ability to have intimate relationships. EN

148

o u ’ l o o . The
young adults’ styles of coping with both interpersonal and
intrapsychic conflict in their close relationships proved to be a
critical factor in understanding variations in levels of intimacy.
Together with family life cycle stage, young adults’ conflict
resolution styles accounted for substantial portions of the
variance in intimacy status. One explanation for the strong
relationship between young adults’ conflict resolution styles and
levels of intimacy is shared method variance. Both intimacy status
and the conflict resolution scores were based on young adults’
responses to questions in the Intimacy Interview. Furthermore,
both the intimacy and conflict resolution scales share to some
degree an underlying theoretical rationale based on the ego
psychology developmental model (Hessler & Loevinger, 1970).
Accordingly, moderate correlations between young adults’ conflict
resolution styles and levels of intimacy are to be expected to the
extent that each scale is actually measuring aspects of ego
development.

Nevertheless, these findings also substantiate Folkman and
Lazarus’ (1988) notion that coping, which includes conflict
resolution, functions as a mediator of individuals’ emotional
responses and cognitive appraisals. For example, in the case of
conflict resolution in close relationships, this theory posits that
following a conflictual encounter. individuals appraise the
situation and the other person involved, form an emotional

response, and then proceed to resolving the problem. Individuals

149

then reappraise, re-formulate their emotional response, and in the
case of adaptive conflict resolution, ultimately arrive at
perceptions of an improved relationship. Intimacy, as measured in
the present study, can be thought of as a conglomerate or ”average"
of the feelings (emotional responses) and thoughts (cognitive
appraisals) individuals have about a particular close relationship.
The strong positive relationship between conflict resolution and
intimacy in the present study provides compelling support that
coping, and particularly conflict resolution, is a powerful
mediator of young adults’ perceptions of intimacy.

Additionally, although it is likely that more adaptive
approaches to resolving conflict in close relationships creates the
context for relationship growth and increasing levels of intimacy
(e.g., Braiker 8 Kelley, 1979), it is also possible that the
relationship is bi-directional. That is, individuals at the
individuated-connected level of depth value open communication and
relationship-centered discussion and hence, are more disposed
towards adaptive confrontation of problems, integrating problem-
solving into the relationship, and recognizing the potentially
growth-enhancing aspects of working through conflicts. Similarly,
young adults who described committed relationships have resolved to
stay in the relationship and perhaps are more motivated to find
adaptive ways of resolving conflicts, or alternatively, feel freer
to openly discuss and negotiate problems based on respect and

appreciation for the partner’s needs.

150

ne te i i . Tests of the ”full" model revealed
several unexpected paths in the model that explained differences in
intimacy, sex-role orientation, and young adults’ conflict
resolution styles. For example. in describing the levels of depth
in their close relationships, older males were more likely to
describe close relationships characterized by higher levels of
openness, trust, reciprocity, and appreciation of the partner’s
differences. In addition, older males were more likely to describe
higher levels of investment. Age did not influence women’s reports
of depth or commitment. Hence. for males, it appears that there
continue to be developmental differences in intimacy status
independent of the effects of family life cycle stage. The
different results for men and women in this case is not surprising,
based on the Eriksonian model of development which suggests that
males first focus on consolidating an identity by pursuing career
goals before turning towards more interpersonal tasks. And, as
others have argued, males’ developmental pathway is characterized
by achieving greater levels of autonomy and separateness (e.g.,
Chodorow, 1978) prior to seeking connectedness in close
relationships outside the family. Furthermore, some researchers
-(e.g., Fischer, 1981) have suggested that males are "socialized"
and shaped towards higher levels of intimacy by the female partner .
only after they are in close relationships, rather_than by forces,
such as the family of origin, outside the relationship. And
finally, age presumably reflects the additional relationship

experiences young men encounter as they get older, some of which

151

likely contribute to the development of intimacy either by
providing "intimacy mentors”, to borrow from Rossi (1980) or by
providing opportunities for empathy and self-disclosure.

A second contribution of the ”full“ model was the partial
explanation, again in the case of males, of sex role orientation.
The predicted model was altogether unsuccessful at predicting
males’ levels of femininity and masculinity. Tests of the ”full"
model showed that parent marital harmony accounted for 7% of the
variance in young men’s attributions of masculine role
orientations. Developmental theories are again useful in providing
explanations of this finding. One possibility, based on the
psychoanalytic model of development, postulates that boys develop
by identifying with their masculine fathers who then encourage
individuation and autonomy (e.g., Stiver, 1984; Chodorow, 1978).
It follows that young men whose parents described harmonious
relationships and who were therefore less likely to become
entangled in the parental marriage as a confidant or ally, would
identify with the more instrumental provider role of the father
rather than identify with the more nurturant feminine role or
relational needs of either parent. Hhat remains unclear is how
this pathway affects males’ levels of intimacy.

Thirdly. family life cycle stage turned out to be an
important determinant of young adults’ perceptions of their
problem-solving styles in close relationships. Being married or a
parent predicted adaptive interpersonal and intrapsychic conflict

resolution when the data for males and females were combined.

152

Being younger also predicted intrapsychic resolution for the total
sample. Hhen paths for males and females are examined separately,
the model was unsuccessful in predicting conflict resolution styles
for females altogether. The findings for males replicated the
total sample in the case of interpersonal conflict resolution. Age
dropped out of the path predicting males’ intrapsychic conflict
resolution, indicating the presence of a suppressor effect.

In this sample, as young adults made commitments such as
marriage and parenthood, they tended to describe more adaptive
styles of conflict resolution. This finding reflects the
likelihood that the areas of conflict differ across family life
cycle stages (Raush et al., 1974), and suggests that for
individuals who are married or parents, issues perhaps revolved
around more instrumental decisions, such as division of labor and
child rearing, rather than issues of separateness versus
connectedness (Raush et al., 1974). As such, young adults may be
better able to openly discuss problems, negotiate, and compromise,
when less is at stake emotionally. It may even be the case that
these (theoretically) less “personal“ opportunities for problem
solving afford partners opportunities for practicing more adaptive
strategies, which then potentially facilitates relationship growth
and intimacy.

In light of this interpretation of the results, the finding
that younger individuals reported more adaptive intrapsychic
conflict resolution strategies appears to reflect a tendency for

younger subjects to idealize their close relationships or report

153

socially desirable behavior (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Alternatively,
this finding could reflect cohort differences and an increase in
younger individuals’ expectations for intimate relationships
secondary to change in sociocultural norms. Presumably, such
changes are related to the growing recognition of equality between
men and women, and the tendency to value an emerging cross-
pollination of what were previously strictly ”masculine" or
“feminine” domains. For example, Fitzpatrick (1988) suggests that
two emerging facets in American marital relationships are the
"therapeutic” and "companionship“ roles. These involve
responsibilities such as listening to the partner or spouse,
helping one’s partner cope with worries and anxieties, and sharing
leisure time with one’s partner. In line with these changing
attitudes, younger adults are perhaps more likely to embrace views
that conflict is an inevitable part of Close relationships and to

experience problem solving as relationship-enhancing..

.: 9'010' . -, :-- ., .. - .1 . : 2 -; h.
In addition to the questions raised above, the limitations of the
cross-sectional data and research design make it difficult to make
conclusive statements about intimacy in young adulthood at the
present time. For one, the recursive model demanded by the
structural modeling technique used here does not adequately capture
the complex, reciprocal effects that presumably are necessary to
more fully explain the development of intimacy. Additionally,

while this model can function as the springboard for future models

154

which can undergo more rigorous inferential tests, it does not
adequately clarify the interrelationships posited due to problems
in measurement, such as shared method variance. As such, this
model does not adequately test the conceptual distinction proposed
between commitment and depth, and raises additional questions about
the nature of intimacy. For example, future studies might examine
the relationship between commitment and depth, as one way to
continue developing the somewhat elusive definition of intimacy.
Ideally, future research will attempt to fill in some of the
gaps identified in the present study. In order to truly test the
developmental model, a longitudinal, multi-method research design
will be required. Based on the review by Sroufe and Fleeson (1986)
of the construction of relationships and the present model’s
hypotheses that relationships in the family of origin are critical
to explanations of variations in intimacy, observational
methodology such as the Ainsworth strange situation (Ainsworth et
al., 1978) in the earliest years of infancy and toddlerhood make a
logical starting point. Sroufe and Fleeson argue that what
individuals bring to close relationships can be explained by their
"relational histories" and that all personality development is
ultimately based on the earliest attachment relationship with the
primary caretaker. According to their model, individuals develop a
"framework of expectations for self and other that emerges from the
primary relationship" (p. 52) of infant and caretaker.
Furthermore, because individuals are motivated to maintain

coherence and stability (Cottrell, 1969), these internalized

155

relationships influence the establishment of new relationships by
ensuring that they are congruent with past experiences, according
to this theory. Sroufe and Fleeson cite a body of literature
showing that assessments of the quality of the infant-caretaker
relationship predict reliably over time the kinds of relationships
children have with peers, teachers, and parents up to the pre-
school years. Although costly in terms of time and money. it would
be important to build on this work to explore the development of
intimacy in adolescence and young adulthood. For example, over
time, I would expect that infants with secure attachments have
internalized responsive relationships, developed models of what it
is like to give and receive empathy, formed intimate 'chumships' in
adolescence (Sullivan, 1953), and in terms of the present model,
would be most likely to have individuated-connected and committed
close relationships.

In addition, future research on a less grand scale should
study intimacy in the context of the close relationship dyad. The
present study suffers somewhat from a reliance on self report and
bias towards the verbally facile in addition to attempting to
measure a relationship construct out of context. This may explain
in part why some of the findings did not replicate Hhite et al.’s
work on intimacy maturity. Future studies also would certainly be
enriched by exploring the relationship between partners’
perceptions and interactions. Hhile there are drawbacks to

analogue laboratory data, the combination of self-perceptions,

156

partner perceptions, and observational data would address a number

of lacunae in existing studies to date.

Semnany_ann_egnelneign. In sum, method variance

notwithstanding, the findings underscore the importance of
examining further the relationship between young adults’ approaches
to resolving problems in their close relationships and intimacy.
Secondly, these results also substantiate the significance of
viewing variations in perceptions of intimacy in terms of the
family life cycle. Family life cycle stage predicted commitment
but not depth in the present sample. The role of family life cycle
stage in explaining variations in intimacy, while clearly important
in the present study, needs to be explored further. In particular.
these findings suggest the possibility that a bi-directional
relationship exists between family life cycle stage and intimacy.
For example, higher levels of depth, which is not related to family
life cycle stage, probably facilitate individuals readiness for
commitment, which in turn may lead to marriage and parenthood.
Research that develops models of intimacy is valuable to the
extent that individuals strive for intimate relationships.
Furthermore, recent work on marital typologies substantiates the
belief that individuals can be in close relationships (i.e.,
marriage), can report high levels of marital satisfaction, and low
levels of intimacy (e.g., Fitzpatrick, 1988). These distinctions
have important implications for clinical applications of research

on close relationships. Like models of ego development (e.g.,

157

Loevinger & Hessler, 1970), most intimacy coding systems reflect
"optimal" development. and are based on the value systems and
ideology of its developers. which may not in fact be the same
values and attitudes of most individuals who come to a clinic
seeking help for marital or relationship difficulties. It may be
useful to develop research on close relationships that reflects a
more "pluralistic view" of what intimacy is or perhaps, that
captures attitudes and beliefs about what constitutes a "good close
relationship".

However, the study and development of models of intimacy that
attempt to understand the complex relationships between
intrapersonal and interpersonal variables continue to make valuable
contributions to our understanding of individual development and
family systems. The approach used in the present study
demonstrated its usefulness by substantiating the significant role
played by variations in young adults’ conflict resolution
strategies in their close relationships. The findings presented
here are congruent with Braiker and Kelley’s (1979) belief that a
strong association exists between conflict resolution styles and
the level of ease or difficulty that partners in close
relationships have making the transition to deeper levels of
involvement and interdependence. In addition, these findings are
presented in the context of a theoretical framework, in contrast to
much of the marital literature, which is atheoretical or focuses on
micro-analyses of couple behavior (e.g., self-disclosure). The

model of intimacy in close relationships in the present study was

158

based on ego-analytic, cognitive developmental, attachment and
family systems theories. The effects of gender on intimacy were
also examined. As predicted, the findings revealed that more women
reported deeper close relationships. However, while the paths for
commitment and depth differed somewhat for males and females, there
were also similarities and consistencies across gender, as found by
other researchers (e.g., Peplau & Gordon, 1985). The results also
suggested that several additions to the model are needed to explain
the lack of direct relationships between parents’ marriages,
triangulation. and sex-role orientation, particularly for males.
Finally. in order to address the many unanswered questions
generated by this research and to refine current definitions of
intimacy, future models should also include a longitudinal design,
dyadic data, and interactional data. If the burgeoning number of
recent articles and books about intimacy in the popular press is
any indication of the desire to understand close relationships, it
becomes especially important to provide methodologically sound,
empirically based information from which others can learn about

being close.

159

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abrahams, B., Feldman, S. S., 8 Nash, S. C. (1978). Sex-role self
concept and sex-role attitudes: Enduring personality
characteristics or adaptations to changing life situations?

Oerelennental_Berennldgx- 11. 393-400.

Adams. G. R., 8 Jones, R. M. (1983). Female adolescents’ identity
development: Age comparisons and perceived child-rearing
experience. Derelnnmental_Bexenelnnr. 40- 969-1025.

Ainsworth, M. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and
attachment: A theoretical review of the infant-mother

relationship. §n11n_neye1nnment, 59, 969-2036.

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Haters, E., 8 Hall, S. (1978).
Eaeeenn§_ef_a;taennene Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Altman, 1., 8 Taylor, D. A. (1973).

Rinehart. 8 Hinston.

New York: Holt,

Anastasiow, N. J. (1982). Attachment research and mental health:
A speculation: In R. N. Emde and R. J. Harmon (Eds.), Ine

(pp. 295-
299). New York: Plenun.

Andreyeva, G. M., 8 Gozman, L. J. (1981). Interpersonal
relationships and social context. In S. Duck and R. Gilmour

(Eds.)- Berennal_relat19nenine- rel._1 (pp. 47-661- New

York: Academic Press.

Antonucci, J. (1976). Attachment: A life-span concept. Hanan
dereldnnent- 12. 135-142.

Bakan. D. (1966). Ihe_nnalitx_n£_numan_eaiatenee- Chicagoz Rand
, McNally.

Balswick, J., 8 Avertt, C. P. (1977). Differences in
expressiveness: Gender, interpersonal orientation, and

perceived parental expressiveness as contributing factors.
a ' , 32, 121-127.

160

161

Balswick, J., 8 Peek, C. (1971). The inexpressive male: A
tragedy of American society. Eamjly Cnnndjnatnr, 29, 363-
368.

Becker, H. C. (1964). Consequences of different kinds of parental
discipline. In M. L. Hoffman and L. H. Hoffman (Eds.),

Review of enjld develnnment, ygl. 1 (pp. 169-208). New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Bell, L. G., 8 Bell, D. C. (1982). Family climate and the role of
the female adolescent: Determinants of adolescent

functioning. Eamily Relatjene, 31, 519-527.

Bell, 0. C., 8 Bell, L. G. (1983). Parental validation and
support in the development of adolescent daughters. In H. D.

Grotevant and C. R. Cooper (Eds.), Adelescent developmenti
_e_a_xth f mil . Mreetjmmflifldnmtdnnent 22. 27- 53
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bellew-Smith, M., 8 Korn, J. H. (1986). Merger intimacy status in
adult women. WWW-
SQ, 1186-1191.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process.
91111091892119.8- 155. 83-96.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
dnnrnfieLCnnsnltjnandfljnjeaLBs-rsnnlenx- .42- 155-162.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of

sex typing. anehnlngjeal Bulletin, 88, 354-364.

Bengtson, V. L., 8 Troll, L. (1978). Youth and their parents:
Feedback and intergenerational influence in socialization.

In R. M. Lerner and G. B. Spanier (Eds.), gniig jnflueneea on

marital and family jntenactinn; A life-span nereneetiye (pp.
215-237). New York: Academic Press.
Bernard, J. (1972). Ine_fntnre_ef_mann1age. New York: Horld

Berscheid. E., 8 Peplau, L. A. (1983). The emerging science of

relationships. In H. H. Kelley et al. ,Cln§e_re1at1enenine
(pp. 1-19). New York: H. H. Freeman.

Berzins, J. 1., Helling, M. A.. 8 Hetter, R. E. (1977). The PRF
An are Seale; Deer; Manna]. University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Department of Psychology.

162

Berzins, J. I., Helling, M. A., 8 Hetter, R. E. (1978). A new
measure of psychological androgyny based on the Personality
Research Form. ournal n in a nic

W1. i6. 125-138-

Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’ s friendship expectations: A
cognitive developmental study. ghjlg Development, _§, 246-
253.

Billings, A. (1979L Conflict resolution in distressed and

nondistressed married couples. Jen rnel of Cenegltjng egg
gljni eel Peyehelegy, 51, 368- 376.

Billings, A. G., 8 Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping
responses and social resources in attentuating the stress of

life events. MW. .5. 157-189.
Blood, R. 0., 8 Holfe, D. M. (1960). s wi : The
gynamies of merrjeg ljyjng. New York: Free Press.

Bloom, B. L., Asher, S. J., 8 Hhite, S. H. (1978). Marital
disruption as a stressor: A review and analysis.

WM. 85. 867-894.

Booth, A., 8 Hess, E. (1974). Cross-sex friendship. Jen:ne1_ef
MW. 3.6. 38-46.

Bowen, M. (1981). The use of family theory in clinical practice.

In R. J. Green and J. L. Framo (Eds. ), fem jly thereey; Major
ee_;:_egt_en§ (pp. 264- -311). New York. International
Universities Press.

Bowlby.J. (169). WWW- New
York: Basic Books.

Braiker, H. B., 8 Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the
development of close relationShips. In R. L. Burgess and T.
L- Huston (Eds.), MW
(pp. 135-168). New York: Academic Press.

Broderick, C., 8 Hicks, M. (1970). Toward a typology of behavior
patterns in courtship in the United States of America. In G.

Leuschen (Ed-l. We. Opladen:
Hestdeutcher Verlag.

Burgess, R. L. (1981). Relationships in marriage and the family.

In S. Duck and R. Gilmour (Eds. ), Eereel1_a_l_1;e_galfr,j_e31_sli_j__t_1__s__L
vol, 1 (pp. 179- -196). London: Academic Press.

163

Cate, R. M., & Koval, J. E. (1983). Heterosexual relationship
development: Is it really a sequential process?

Adolescence. 15. 507-514.

Chodorow, N. (1978). 1W

Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

Coleman, M., Ganong, L. H., & Ellis, P. (1985). Family structure
and dating behavior. Adolescence, 29, 537-543.

Constantinople, A. (1969). An Eriksonian measure of personality

development in college students. ngglgpmgnt§1_£§yghglggy,
1, 357-372.

Costos, D. (1986). Sex role identity in young adults: Its
parental antecedents and relation to ego development.

W. 5.0. 602-611.

Cottrell, L. S. (1969). Interpersonal interaction and the
development of the self. In D. A. Goslin (Eds.),
MW

(pp. 543-570). Chicago:
Rand McNally.

Cozby, P. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review.
W11. 19. 73-91.

Cuber, J. F., & Harroff, P. B. (1966). §gx_and_1hg_§1gn1fi§ant
Americans. New York: Penguin.

Dion, K. K. & Dion, K. L. (1979). Personality and behavioral
correlates of romantic love. In M. Cook and G. Nilson

(Eds.). Won (pp. 213-220)-

Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). Ihg_3d91g§gen1_gxpgrigncg. New
York: Wiley.

Elder, G. H., Caspi, A., a Downey, G. (in press). Problem
behavior and family relationships: Life course and
intergenerational themes. In A. Sorenson, F. Heinert, and L.

Sherrod (Eds.), l
perspective

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of
discord and divorce. Esyghglggjg31_figllgtin, 22, 310-330.

Emery, R. E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1982). Children’s perceptions of
marital discord and behavior problems of boys and girls.
, 10, 11-24.

164

Emmerich, N. (1973). Socialization and sex-role development. In

P. B. Baltes and K. N. Schaie (Eds. ), Lifg_§pa__dgyg_gpmg_tal
W. New York:

Academic Press.

Enright, R., Lapsley, D., Drivas, A., & Fehr, L. (1980). Parental
influences on the development of adolescent autonomy and

identity. WW. 9. 529-545.
Erikson, E. (1963). £h11dhggd_and_§ggigty. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. (1968). 1dgntity;__lguth_and_g:1§1§. New York:

Norton.

Erikson. E. (1974). 01W. New York:

Norton.

Erikson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egelund, B. (1985). The
relationship between quality of attachment and behavior
problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. flogggrapn§_gf

' v , 59, 147-166.

Feldman, L. B. (1979). Marital conflict and marital intimacy: An
integrative psychodynamic-behavioral-systemic model. family
Ema. 10. 69-78.

Fischer, J. (1981). Transitions in relationship style from

adolescence to young adulthood. Journ31_gf_lguth_and
mm. 1.0. 11-23.

Fischer, J., & Narus, L. R. (1981). Sex roles and intimacy in
same sex and other sex relationships. £51;h91ggy_g£_flgmgn

mm. .5. 444-455.

Fitzpatrick, N. A. (1988). °
° Newbury Park, California: Sage

Publication.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1988). Coping as a mediator of
emotion. MW. 5.1.
466-475. ‘

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., &
Gruen, R. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter:
Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal
Wham. 5.0. 992-1003.

Fowles, J. (1965). Ihggmggus. New York: Dell.

165

Framo, J. L. (1976). Family of origin as a therapeutic resource
for adults in marital and family therapy: You can and should

go home again. anjly Pnoooss, 15, 193-210.

Frank, S. J., Avery, C. 8., & Laman, M. S. (1988). Young adults’
perceptions of their relationships with their parents:
Individual differences in connectedness, competence, and

emotional autonomy. Qoyoloomon1o1_£syono1ooy, 24, 729-737.

Frank, S. J, McLaughlin, A. M., & Crusco, A. (1984). Sex role
attributes, symptom distress, and defensive style among
college men and women. of rson lit 0 l

Esyonolooy,47,182-192.

Frank, S. J., & Tuer, M. (1988). Family predictors of adolescent
adjustment. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

Franz, C. E., & Hhite, K. M. (1985). Individuation and attachment
in personality development: Extending Erikson’s theory.

Journal of Eersonolity, 53, 224-256.

Gadlin, R. (1977). Changes in the social meaning of interpersonal
closeness.. In G. Levinger and H. L. Rasch (Eds.), gloss

WWW (pp.
33-72). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Gaensbauer, T. J., & Harmon, R. J. (1982). Attachment behavior in
abused/neglected and premature infants: Implications for the
concept of attachment. In R. N. Emde and R. J. Harmon
(Eds.). MW
(pp. 263-280).

Gilbert, S. (1976). Self-disclosure, intimacy and communication
in families. Esm11y_goono1noton, 25, 221-231.

Gilbert, R., Christensen, A., a Margolin, G. (1984). Patterns of
alliances in nondistressed and multiproblem families. Eomily

km. 23. 75-87.
Gilligan, C. (1982). 1n_o_o1ffonon1_yo1oo. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Glick, E. D., & Kessler, D. R. (1974). Monito1_ono_fom11y
tnonooy. New York: Grune a Stratton.

Gold, M., & Yanoff, D. S. (1985). Mothers, daughters, and
girlfriends. l P o ,
59, 654-659.

166

Gottman, J. M. (1979). °
inyosoioooions. New York: Academic Press.

Gottman, J. M., Notarius, C., Gonso, J., & Markman, H. (1976). A
’ ' ' i . Champaign, Illinois:

1

Research Press.

Gove, H. (1972). The relationship between sex roles, mental
illness, and marital status. Soo131_£onoos, 51, 34-44.

Green, R. J. (1981). An overview of major contributions to family
therapy. In R. J. Green and J. L. Framo (Eds.), Eomily
- ' (pp. 1-38). New York:
International Universities Press.

Grotevant, H. D. (1983). The contribution of the family to the
facilitation of identity formation in early adolescence.
l . 2. 225-237.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, K. R. (1986). Individuation in family
relationships: A perspective on individual differences in
the development of identity and role-taking skill in
adolescence. flomnn_poyo1oomont, 22, 82-100.

Grotevant, H. D., Thorbecke, H., 8 Meyer, M. L. (1982). An
extension of Marcia’s identity status interview into the
interpersonal domain. Journa1_o£_louth_and_Adolessence..11.

 

33-47.
Guerney. B. G. (1977). 32131.1.me
WW.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gutmann, D. (1975). Parenthood: Key to the comparative
psychology of the life cycle. In N. Datan and L. Ginsberg
E s. , - ° f
onisis. New York: Academic Press.

Haith, M. M. (1982). Attachment research: Prospect and progress.

In R. N. Emde and R. J. Harmon (Eds.), v of
at1achmenL_and_a££iliatixe_sx§tems (pp. 301-308). New York:

Plenum

Halberstadt, A. G. (1986). Family socialization of emotional
expression and nonverbal communication styles and skills.
r t , 51, 827-836.

Haley, J. (1980). Looyino_nomo. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal clues.
Esxshologis§l_fiulletin. 85. 845-857.

167

Hartup, H., & Lempers, J. (1973). A problem in life-span
development: The interactional analysis of family
attachments. In P. Baltes and C. Schaie (Eds.), Lifo-soan

° 0 i c i ti
New York: Academic Press.

Hauser, S. T. (1976). Loevinger’s model and measure of ego

development: A critical review. Esyohologiool Eullotin, 83,
928-955.

Hawkins, J. (1968). Associations between companionship,
hostility, and marital satisfaction.

W. .32. 647-550.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as
an attachment process.
, 52, 511-524.

Heiss, J. (1972). On the transmission of marital instability in
black families. AmeL1:3n.§osiologisal_flex1ew. 31. 90-126.

Hendrick, S. S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction.
Journal_o£_Eersonal111.3nd_§osial_£sxsholes!. 40. 1150-1159.

Hess, B. 8., & Haring, J. M. (1979). Parent and child in later
life: Rethinking the relationship. In R. H. Lerner and G.
8. Spanier (Eds. ),
(pp. 241-273). New
York: Academic Press.

Hill, R., a Aldous, J. (1969). Socialization for marriage and
parenthood. In D. Goslin (Ed. ),

Handbook_oj;sosialization
theorx_and__esearsh (pp. 885- -950). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hinde. R. A. (1979). Iowands.understanding_relaiionshies. New

York: Academic Press.

Hodgson, J. & Fischer, J. (1979L Sex differences in identity

and intimacy developmento in college youth. Jon:nnl_oj;1ootn
and_Adolessense. 8. 37 -5

Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related
behaviors. Esxshologisal_fiulletin. 81. 712-722.

Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Foundations of family therapy: A
conceptual framework for system change. New York: Basic.

Holahan, C. J, & Moos, R. H. (1987). Personal and contextual
determinants of coping strategies. r

aod_§_cial__sxsbologx. 52.9 45-955

168

Huston, T. L., & Burgess, R. L. (1979). Social exchange in
developing relationships: An overview. In R. L. Burgess and
T. L. Huston (Eds.), Soojol ozongngo jn devolooing

nolntionshios (pp. 3-30). New York: Academic Press.

Huston, T. L., & Cate, R. M. (1979). Social exchange in intimate
relationships. In M. Cook and G. Hilson (Eds.), Loyo_ono
otsnoooion (pp. 263-269). New York: Pergamon Press.

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

ro]st jonsnjos , vol, 2 (pp. 53- 88). London: Academic.

Hyde, J, & Phillis, D. (1979L Androgyny across the life span.
Whom. 15. 334-336.

Jackson. 0. N- (1967). W31. Goshen.
New York: Research Psychologist Press.

Johnson, M. M. (1963). Sex role learning in the nuclear family.

Wm. 3.1. 319- 333

Jourard, S. M. (1971). Ino_1n3nsoonon1_so1f. New York: Van
Nostrand Rheinhold.

Kacerguis, M. A., 8 Adams, G. R. (1980). Eriksonian stage
resolution: The relationship between identity and intimacy.
WW. 2. 117-126.

Kalish, R. A., & Knudtson, F. H. (1976). Attachment versus
disengagement: A life-span conceptualization. flomnn
mm. 1.1. 171-181.

Kaplan, A., & Klein, R. (1985). The relational self in late
adolescent women. Honk_1n_onoonoss, No. 17, Hellesley
College.

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H.,
Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., &
Peterson, D. R. (1983L Analyzing close relationships. In
H. H. Kelley et al.,§_oso_nolo;1onsn1os (pp. 20- -67L New

York: N. H. Freeman.

Kimmel, D. C. (1979). Relationship initiation and development: A
life- -span developmental approach. In R. L. Burgess and T. L.
Huston (Eds. ). WWW
(pp. 351-377). New York: Academic Press.

 

Kleiman, J. I. (1981). Optimal and normal family functioning.
Amonjoon goonnol of Fomjly ]norsoy, 9, 37-44.

169

Komarovsky, M. (1976). Dilommos_of_mosoolin1ty. New York:

Norton.

LaGaipa, J. J. (1981). A systems approach to personal
relationships. In 5. Duck and R. Gilmour (Eds.), Persons!

0 (pp-
67-89). New York: Academic Press.

Landis, J. (1963). Dating maturation of children from happy and
unhappy marriages. r M ’a , 25,
351- 353.

LaVoie, J. C. (1976). Ego identity formation in middle
adolescence. Journal_oleouth_and_Adolescenge. 5. 145-160.

Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm. In C.

Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, and P. Maxim (Eds.), Mooo1s_fon_o11n1ool
nsyohooatholooy, (pp. 177-214). New York: Spectrum.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In
N. D. Gentry (Ed ). Ihe_handbook_o£_behaxioral_medisine (pp.
282-325). New York: Guilford.

Lee, J. A. (1976). The colors of love: An exploration of the
ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario: New Press (popular
edition).

Lerner, R. M. (1976).
Reading, MA: Addison-Hesley.

Levinger, G. (1964). Task and social behavior in marriage.
, 21, 433-448.

Levinger, G. (1977L Re- -viewing the close relationship. In G.
Levinger and H L Raush (Eds ). slose_relationshins (pp
138- -161). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Levinger, G, & Senn, D. J. (1967). Disclosure of feelings in
marriage Merrill_Ealmer_0uarterlx. 237-249

Levinger, G., & Snoek, J. D. (1972).

Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press.

Levitz- -Jones, E. M. & Orlofsky, J. L. (1985L Separation-
individuation and intimacy capacity in college women.
,_2, 156-169.

170

Lewis, R. A. (1975). Social influences on marital choice. In S.

E. Dragastin and G. H. Elder (Eds.), Adelescence egg the life
cycle. New York: Riley.

Loevinger. J., & Hessler, R. (1970). W
[e], 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Lowenthal, M. F., & Haven, C. (1968). Interaction and adaptation:
Intimacy as a critical variable. i i l

M: 3.39 20’30-

Lowenthal, M. F., Thurner, M., Chiriboga, & Associates. (1975).
r ' ° 'v

fecing_ccenejtjene. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lurie, E. (1974L Sex and stage differences in perceptions of

marital and family relationships. Jeernel_cf_flerciege_ene
1113.121111]): 3.6. 260- 269

Lynch. J. J. (1977). W
cf_1ene11nee§ New York: Basic Books.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). Ihe_eeycne1egx_ef_§ex
differencee. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Marcia, J. (1976). Identity six years after: A follow-up study.
WW. 5. 145-159.

Mash, E. J. (1984). Families with problem children. In A. Doyle,
0. Gold, D. S. Moskowitz (Eds.), Ch11eren_1n_femiliee_ende:
etreee (pp. 65-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Matteson, D. E. (1977). Exploration and commitment: Sex
differences and methodological problems in the use of

identity status categories. Jeunnel_ef_xegth_end
Adolescence. é. 349-370.

Matteson, D. E., & Marcia, J. E. (1987).
' Unpublished
manuscript. ~

Menaghan, E. (1982). Measuring coping effectiveness: A panel
analysis of marital problems and coping efforts. Jeurne! cf
MW. 23. 220-234.

Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. P., a Huston, T. L. (1983).
Developing close relationships. Changing patterns of
interaction between pair members and social networks.

MW! 91, 964- 976

171

Miller, B. C. (1976). A multivariate developmental model of
marital satisfaction. -dcdcnel of Marriage end the Eemily,

 

35, 643-657.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Eemiliee_end_femily_chereey. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Minuchin, S., & Fishman, C. (1981). Eemily_che£epy_cecnnigdee.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Minuchin, S., Rosman, B. L., & Baker, L. (1978). Belchccemecic

femilies: Ancrexie nergcce jn ccncext. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Mitchell, R. E., Cronkite, R. C., & Moss, R. H. (1983). Stress,
coping and depression among married couples. degree1_df

Abnormal Psychology, 22, 433-448.

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1984). The process of recovery from
alcoholism: III. Comparing family functioning in alcoholic
and matched control families. dedrne1_ef_§;dd1ee_en_A1cene1,
55, 111-118.

Morgan, B. S. (1976). Intimacy of disclosure topics and sex
differences in self-disclosure. Sex_flelec, 2, 161-166.

Morgan, E., & Farber, B. A. (1982). Toward a reformulation of the
Eriksonian model of female identity development.

Adelesceoce. 11. 199-211.

Mueller, C. H., & Pope, H. (1977). Marital instability: A study

of its transmission between generations. degene1_ef_uenniege
end Lhe Eemily, 32, 83-93.

Nash, S. C., & Feldman, S. S. (1981). Sex role and sex-related
attributions: Constancy and change across the family life
cycle. In M. E. Lamb and A. L. Brown (Eds.), Adyencee_1n

(pp. 1-35). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Offer. D. (1973). Ibe_Qffer_Sel£;1meee_nueeciennaire. Chicagoz
Michael Reese Medical Center.

O’Leary, K. D., & Emery, R. E. (1984). Marital discord and child
behavior problems. In M. D. Levine & P. Satz (Eds.), Middle

childhodd: Qevelcpment edd dycfdnction (pp. 345-364).

Baltimore: University Park Press.

Orden, S. R., & Bradburn, N. M. (1968). Dimensions of marriage
happiness. Americen_deurnel_e£_§ecieleex. 13. 715-731.

172

Orlofsky, J. (1976). Intimacy status: Relationship to

interpersonal perception. W.
5, 73-88.

Orlofsky, J. (1978). The relationship between intimacy status and
antecedent personality components. Adeleecence,,§, 420-441.

Orlofsky, J., Marcia, J., & Lesser, I. (1973). Ego identity
status and the intimacy versus isolation crisis of young

adulthood. WM. 21.
211-219.

Ort, R. (1950). A study of role-conflicts as related to happiness
in marriages. Mmfliflbnemflmdjecchfluchojccx. .46.

691-698.
Parelman, A. (1983). ° -
percpeccixe. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Eem111c_eec1elizetienc_end
W.

Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Patterson, G. R. (1985). A microsocial analysis of anger and
irritable behavior. IN M. A. Chesney 8 R. H. Rosenman
(Eds.). WWW

diccrdere (pp. 83-100). Hashington: Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation. '

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping.
WM. 12. 2-21.

Pedigo, T. (1986).
l - e . Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology.

Peplau, L. A. (1983). Roles and gender. In H. H. Kelley et al.,
£19§e_reletienehip§ (pp. 220-264). New York: H. H. Freeman.

Peplau, L. A. 8 Gordon, S. L. (1985). Homen and men in love:
Gender differences in close heterosexual relationships. In
Y. E. 0’ Leary, R. K. Unger, & B. S. Nallston (Eds. ), Heme_c
i (pp. 257- -291). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

PeplaU. L. A.. & Perlman. D. (1982). W
W New York: Wiley-
Interscience.

Peterson, 0. R. (1983). Conflict. In H. H. Kelley et al., Clcse
relecienenipe (pp 369- 396). New York: N. H. Freeman.

173

Pope, H., 8 Mueller, C. H. (1976). The intergenerational
transmission of marital instability: Comparisons by race and

sex. W. 32. 49-66.

Powers, E. A., 8 Bultena, G. L. (1976). Sex differences in

intimate friendships in old age. degenel of Merriege end Lhe
Eemflx. 3.8. 739-747.

Prager, K. J. (1977). Ih§_£31311903h tw n n
cellege_nemen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Texas at Austin.

 

Raush, H. L., Barry, M. A., Hertel, R. K., 8 Swain, M. A. (1974).
W San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Reedy, M. N., Birren, J. E., 8 Schaie, K. H. (1981). Age and sex
differences in satisfying love relationships across the adult

life span. W. 25.. 52-66.

Reis, H. T., Senchak, M., 8 Solomon, 8. (1985). Sex differences
in the intimacy of social interaction: Further examinations

of potential exolanations. MW
W931. 9.8. 1204-1217.

Reisman, J. M., 8 Shorr, S. I. (1978). Friendship claims and

expectations among children and adults. §n11d_Qexe1eemene,
12, 913-916.

Rivenbark, H. H. (1966). -
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida.

Rossi, A. (1968). Transition to parenthood. den:ne1_cf;uenniege
mm. 3.0. 26-39.

Rossi, A. (1980). Aging and parenthood in the middle years.
MW. 3. 137-207.

Rubin, L. (1976). '
fenily New York: Basic Books.

Rubin, L. (1983). 1n;1me1e_ecnengene. New York: Harper and Row.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love.
, 15, 265-273.

nv i

Rubin, Z. (1973). '
neycnelegy New York: Holt, Rinehart, 8 Hinston.

174

Rubin, J. 2., Provenzano, F. J., 8 Luria, J. (1974). The eye of
the beholder: Parents’ views on sex of newborns. Amenicen

W. 9.4.. 512-519.

Rusbult, C. E, Johnson, D. J, 8 Morrow, G. D. (1986). Impact of
couple patterns of problem solving on distress and non-
distress in dating relationships. r r n

SocjeLEuebelocx. 59. 744- 753.

Rutter, M. (1980).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1981). Toward a social psychology of
relationships. W. 3. 377-384.

Sales, E. (1978). Homen’ s adult development. In I. H. Frieze, J.
E. Parsons, P. B. Johnson, L N. Ruble, and G. L Zelman
(Eds. ). WW

nereneccixe. New York: Norton.

Satir, V. (1981). Self- -esteem, mate selection, and differences.
In R. J. Green and J. L. Framo (Eds. ), Eenjlx Lheneny; Mejor
cenenibneiene (pp. 237- 264). New York: International
Universities Press.

Scanzoni, L., 8 Scanzoni, J. (1976).

Menc_wcmen_and_chenge_:_A
socielegv of merriege end cne femjly. New York: McGraw-
Hi .

 

Schaefer, E. S. (1959). A circumplex model for maternal behavior.
, 52, 226-235.

Schenkel, S., 8 Marcia, J. E. (1972). Attitudes toward premarital
intercourse in determining ego identity status in college
women. MW. 3. 472-482.

Schiedel, D. G., 8 Marcia, J. E. (1985).. Ego identity, intimacy,
sex role orientation, and gender. Dexelenmence1_£cycnelegy,
21, 149-160.

Shaver, P., Hazan, C., 8 Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment:
The integration of three behavioral systems. In R. Sternberg
8 M. Barnes (Eds.), Ih§_2§1£h9129¥_9£_12!§- New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.

Shulman, N. (1975). Life cycle variation in patterns of close
relationships. MW. 31. 813-
821.

175

Snyder, D. (1982). Multidimensional assessment of marital .
satisfaction. WW. i1. 813-
821.

Solomon, M. (1973). A developmental conceptual premise for family

therapy. family Ergsgss, 12, 9-18.

Sroufe, L. A., 8 Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the
construction of relationships. In N. N. Hartup and Z. Rubin

(Eds.). WW1); (no. 51-71).

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Stambul. H. B. (1975). Show
r a ' a r at' i . Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of California, Los Angeles.

Stapleton, J., 8 Bright, R. (1976). £ggal_m3:riagg. New York:
Harper 8 Row.

Stierlin. H. (1981). WW
9‘ 1‘ ° ‘ 01.111'.; .1 H1 ‘ a a o A 11‘
New York: Jason Aronson.

Stiver, I. P. (1984). The meanings of ”dependency“ in female-male

relationships. flgrk_1n_prgg;gss, No. 83-07, Hellesley
College.

Sullivan. H. S. (1953). W.

New York: Norton.

Tennov, D. (1979). v an e ° h ri f i
jn_1gyg New York: Stein 8 Day.

Tesch, S. A., 8 Hhitbourne, S. K. (1982). Intimacy and identity
status in young adults. MW

112191111991. 5.3. 1041-1051.

Thibaut, J. N., 8 Kelley, H. H. (1959). Ihg_sg91§1_nsyghglggy_s£
grggns. New York: wiley.

Thorbecke, N., 8 Grotevant, H. D. (1982). Gender differences in
adolescent interpersonal identity formation. Jggrn§1_gf

MW. 11. 479-492.

Troll, L., 8 Smith, J. (1976). Attachment through the life-span:
Some questions about dyadic bonds among adults. Human

mm. 12. 156-170.

 

 

 

176

Uddenberg, N. Englesson, I., 8 Nettelbladt, P. (1979). Experience
of father and later relations to men: A systematic study of
women’s relations to their fathers, their partners, and their

son. W. 5.2. 87-96.
Hallerstein, J., 8 Blakeslee, S. (1989). n nc - M
W. New York:

Ticknor and Fields.

Nallin, P. (1954). Marital happiness of parents and their

children’s attitude to marriage. Amgrlgsn_§gglglggl§gl
ME!» 1.2: 29'23 -

Nalster, E., 8 Nalster, G. (1978). A_ngw_1ggk_31_1gyg. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.

Waring, E. M., Tillman, M. P., Frelick, L., Russell, L., 8 Heisz,
G. (1980). Concepts of intimacy in the general population.
WW. 1&8. 471-474.

Haring, E. M., 8 Chelune, G. J. (1983). Marital intimacy and

self-disclosure. MW. 3.2. 183-
190.

Haring, E. M., McElrath, D., Lefcoe, D., 8 Heisz, G. (1981).
Dimensions of intimacy in marriage. Esyshigtgy, 55, 169-175.

Haring, E. M., 8 Russell, L. (1980). Family structure, marital
adjustment, and intimacy in patients referred to a

consultation-liaison service. Gengr§1_flgsn1131_£sy§histry,
3, 198-203.

Neinraub, L. 5., Brooks, S. A., 8 Lewis, R. A. (1977). The social
network: A reconsideration of the concept of attachment.

W. 29. 31-47.

Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parke
and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),

c
humgn_bgnsyigr (pp. 171-184). New York: Basic Books.

White, K. M., Speisman, J. C., Jackson, D., Bartis, S., 8 Costos,
D. (1986). Intimacy maturity and its correlates in young
married couples. W1

11mm. 5.0. 152-152.

Hills, T. A., Heiss, R. L., 8 Patterson, G. R. (1974). A
behavioral analysis of the determinants of marital
satisfaction. n o l' ’ al h l ,
52, 802-811.

177

Horell, J. (1981). Life-span sex role: Development, continuity,
and change. In R. M. Lerner and N. A. Busch-Rossnagel

(Eds.). lndixiduals_as_produsts of their dexelonment (pp-
313-347). New York: Academic Press.

Young, M., 8 Hilmott, P. (1973). Ihg_symmgtri§§1_j3mfily. New

York: Random House.

 

178

APPENDICES

179

APPENDIX A
PERSONAL DESCRIPTION INVENTORY

180

APPENDIX A

Sex: Age: Code No.

 

Date:

 

PERSONAL DESCRIPTION INVENTORY

Qinsstigns: Please read each statement and decide whether or not

it describes you. If you agree with a statement or decide that it
does describe you, answer TRUE. If you disagree with a statement

or feel it is not descriptive of you, answer FALSE. Answer every

statement by putting a circle around either true (T) or false (F),
even if you are not completely sure of your answer.

1. Self-control is not a big
problem to me. T F 1.

2. I like to be with people who
assume a protective attitude

toward me. T F 2.
3. I try to control others rather

than permit them to control me. T F 3.
4. Surf-board riding would be too

dangerous for me. T F 4.
5. Often I don’t trust my emotions. T F 5.

6. If I have a problem, I like to
work it out alone. T F 6.

7. I seldom go out of my way to do
something just to make others happy. T F 7.

8. Adventures where I am on my own are
a little frightening to me. T F 8.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.
24.

25.

181
I usually know what to say to
people.

I feel confident when directing
the activities of others.

I will keep working on a problem
after others have given up.

I would not like to be married
to a protective person.

There are many things I would
change about myself if I could.

I usually try to share my problems
with someone who can help me.

I don’t care if my clothes are
unstylish as long as I like them.

When I see a new invention I
attempt to find out how it works.

I can make up my mind and stick
to it.

People like to tell me their troubles
because the know that I will do
everything I can to help them.

Sometimes I let people push me around
so they can feel important.

I am only very rarely in a position
where I feel a need to actively
argue for a point of view I hold.

I am usually disorganized.

I dislike people who are always
asking me for advice.

I seek out positions of authority.

I believe in giving friends lots
of help and advice.

I am poised most of the time.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.
27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.
37.
38.

39.

40.

41.

182

I am too shy to tell jokes.

I get little satisfaction from
serving others.

I make certain that I speak softly
when I am in a public place.

I am afraid of what other people
think about me.

I am usually the first to offer
a helping hand when it is needed.

Nhen I see someone I know from a
distance, I don’t go out of my
way to say "Hello".

I would prefer to care for a sick

child myself rather than hire a nurse.

I am in control of what happens to
me in my life.

I prefer not being dependent on

anyone for assistance.

When I am with someone else, I do
most of the decision-making.

I make all my own clothes and shoes.
I don’t mind being conspicuous.

I am afraid of a full-fledged
disagreement with a person.

I would never pass up something
that sounded like fun just because
it was a little bit hazardous.

I get a kick out of seeing someone
I dislike appear foolish in front
of others.

When someone opposes me on an issue,
I usually find myself taking an
even stronger stand than I did at
first.

‘ 26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.
36.
37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.
43.

44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
.50.

51.
52.

53.
54.
55.
56.

57.

183

I feel adequate more often than not.

When two persons are arguing, I often
settle the argument for them.

I will not go out of my way to behave
in an approved way.

I am quite independent of the people
I know.

I frequently doubt my sexual
attractiveness.

I have never ridden in an automobile.

If I were in politics, I would
probably be seen as one of the
forceful leaders of my party.

I prefer a quiet, secure life to
an adventurous one.

I prefer to face my problems by
myself.

I’m pretty sure of myself.

I try to get others to notice
the way I dress.

Hhen I see someone who looks
confused, I usually ask if I
can be of any assistance.

It is unrealistic for me to
insist on becoming the best

in my field of work all of the
time.

I often kick myself for the
things I do.

The good opinion of one’s friends
is one of the chief rewards for
living a good life.

If I get tired while playing a
game, I generally stop playing.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.
51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.
59.

60.
61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.
69.

70.

71.

72.
73.
74.

75.

184

I was born over 90 years ago.

When I see a baby, I often ask
to hold him or her

I have a good deal of initiative.

1 am quite good at keeping others
in line.

Most animals are rather uninterest-
ing to watch.

All babies look very much like
little monkeys to me.

I usually have the feeling that
I am just not facing things.

I think it would be best to marry
someone who is more mature and
less dependent than I.

Going barefoot in cool grass is
great fun.

I don’t want to be away from my
family too much.

I am sexually attractive.

I have attended school at some
time during my life.

Once in a while, I enjoy acting
as if I were tipsy.

I feel incapable of handling many
situations.

I delight in feeling unattached.
I often feel inferior.

I would make a poor judge because

I dislike telling others what to do.

Seeing an old or helpless person
makes me feel that I would like
to take care of him or her.

58.

59.
60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.
68.

69.

70.

71.
72.
73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

185

I usually make decisions without
consulting others.

I feel emotionally mature.

It doesn’t affect me one way or
another to see a child being
spanked.

My goal is to do at least a little
bit more than anyone else has done
before.

I rarely use food or drink of any
kind.

To love and be loved is of greatest
importance to me.

I take a positive attitude toward
myself.

I avoid some hobbies and sports
because of their dangerous nature.

One of the things which spurs me
on to do my best is the realiza-
tion that I will be praised for
my work.

People’s tears tend to irritate me
more than to arouse my sympathy.

76.
77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

186

APPENDIX D
YOUNG ADULT/PARENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEN

187

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
Y d - t er
Izsnsitign
n rv
Name Age
Interviewer Code
Date Parent Name
I odu :
HE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT THIS ON THE PHONE. . . . HHAT KINDS

OF CONTACTS DO YOU HAVE NITH YOUR PARENTS NON, SUCH AS VISITS,
WRITING LETTERS, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND SUCH. LET’S START WITH YOUR
flQTHER.

What kinds of contacts do you have with your Mother? (List
each below.) For each one mentioned, ask: "About how often do you
do this?

CONTACT PER MONTH PER YEAR

If each is living in the parental home, ask:

"About how much time do you spend with your mother?

188

What kinds of things do you do when you’re together with your
mother?

What do you enjoy about your contacts with your mother?

What does your mother enjoy about these contacts?

Of course, there’s usually something we don’t enjoy about
others. . . . what might these things be about your mother?

Hhat do you think might not be so enjoyable about these
contacts for your mother?

Nho initiates the contacts between you and your mother? Can
you give me an example?

Do you wish you had more or less contact with your mother?

IF MORE OR LESS: th would you prefer (more/less) contact?

10.

11a.

11b.

12.

189

If SAME: What makes it seem about right?

In general, how much does your mother talk about her personal
concerns with you? Hhat kinds of things does she discuss?
How do you feel about that?

And how much do you talk about your personal concerns with
her? What kinds of things do you discuss? (How do you feel
about that?)

Are there things that you avoid talking about with your
mother? Hhat kinds of things?

Hhat do you think makes you avoid these topics? (Can you
give me one or two examples? How do you feel about that?)

In what ways do you feel close to your mother? Hhat kinds of
things bring you together?

And how do you and your mother express closeness?

13a.

13b.

13c.

14.

15.

16a.

16b.

190

Are there any feelings of tenseness when you and your mother
are together? Can you give me an example?

How often does that occur?

What do you think that feeling of tenseness is about?

Hhat ways would you like to be closer to your mother? (Can
you give me an example?)

What gets in the way of closeness between you and your
mother?

At what point were you closest to your mother?

At what point were you the most distant from your mother? In
what ways?

16c.

17.

18.

19.

20.

191

(Take latest referent point, or age, whether close or
distant, and ask) Your relationship has changed singe (age .
. or time. . .). How do you account for the difference?

In what ways are you like your mother? What does that tell
you about yourself?

Hhat ways are you different from your mother? (What does
that tell you about yourself?)

In what ways does your mother show concern for your needs or
welfare? (Can you give me a few examples. How do you feel
about this?

In what ways do you show concern for your mother’s needs or
welfare?

Do you think she gets the message?
If NO: Nhat makes you say that? Do you wish it were
different?

21.

22a.

22b.

22c.

23a.

192

If YES: How do you know?

Can you think of a time recently when you felt conflicted
about your mother’s needs and your needs? What was that
about? (How did you handle it? How did you feel about the
way it was resolved?)

Which parent do you feel closer to? (Probe. . . “Lots of
people feel closer to one parent than the other. . . If says
Neither. . . Hhat makes this so?)

What makes you feel closer to than to
(other parent)?

 

How do you think it came about (that you’re closer to

).

To change focus somewhat. . . Can you think of a time you
talked over an important decision with your mother?

If says NEVER: Imagine what would happen if you did. . .
what might happen?

If says Can’t Imagine: "Hhat makes that impossible to
imagine?"

23b.

24.

25a.

25b.

26.

27.

193

What other kinds of decisions do you discuss with mother. . .
for example, your financial affairs, personal relationships,
work or career choices?

Can you think of a time you and your mother disagreed about
something very important? Tell me about that (How did you
handle that, How did you feel about your response, How did it
get resolved, Is that how disagreements usually get resolved
between you and your mother?)

In what ways are your values different from those of your
mother? (Did you ever discuss that?)

In what ways are your values similar to those of your mother?

Ne’ve talked about things that you discuss with your mother.
Besides advice, what other kinds of things does she help you
with? (Do you ask for help, or does she always offer--who
initiatese-How do you think she feels about doing that for
you? How do you feel?)

What happens when your mother is not available? (If says
Nothing, ask. . . Imagine. . .)

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

194

Are there ways in which you wish you could rely more on your
mother. . . or maybe less? (How do you expect that to come
about?)

What are some of your mother's weaknesses? What do you think
makes her that way?

. In what ways would you like her to change? Do you think she

ever will? (How will that come about? If says I don’t know.
. . Hhat do you think you, she might do to change?) If says
NO: Hhat might prevent her from changing?

In what ways has she let you down?

What kinds of things about your mother make you feel proud?
Hhat are her strengths?

195

APPENDIX C
TRIANGULATION CODING MANUAL

196

APPENDIX C
TRIANGULATION CODING MANUAL

Triangulation is defined as a cross-generational coalition
between a child and parent in which the parent seeks to fulfill
his/her own needs by co-opting the child’s attention and loyalty
and enlisting the child’s sympathy against the other parent. One
or both parents may attempt to ally with the child, although the
child will typically feel closer to only one parent. The overall
picture can take two general forms: One variation is a family in
which both parents confide in the child, thereby putting the child
in the middle of the parent’s problems; the second is a family in
which the balance of power is unevenly distributed due to a parent-
rchild coalition on one hand, and an outcast or deprecated parent on
the other hand.

From the child's perspective, triangulation is evidenced by a
slog: prgfgrgnce for one parent, and feelings of sympathy,
identification, and understanding for this parent. This is true
even in families where both parents confide their marital troubles
to the child. In contrast, the other parent is often disparaged,
belittled, or avoided. Additionally, the child typically reports
that the "favored" parent confides in the child and shares his/her

problems and disagreements regarding the other parent. Notably,

197

the child gnjgys these discussions and is an interested
participant.

55mm
Triangulation is rated on a 3-point scale, with "1"
indicating the absence of triangulation and ”3" indicating
triangulation. The criteria for rating a protocol as l, 2, or 3 on

the triangulation scale are described below.

Indjgatgrs gt LEVEL 1:

Young adults at this level are not caught up in or involved
in their parents’ marital relationship. The young adult may
describe his/her own conflicts with the parent but is not a party
to conflicts bgtwggn the parents. In this regard, the young adult
does not appear to feel more loyalty to or closeness to one parent;
rather, there is a quality of "evenness" in the young adult’s
description of their relationship and feelings towards his/her

parents.

W:

Young adults at this level are emotionally caught up in their
parents’ conflicts, but are struggling to avoid taking sides. As a
result, the young adult typically tries to maintain "neutral"
relationships with bgth parents, but often acts as confidant or

advice-giver to either or both parents.

198

ndicators f L E 3:

Young adults at level 3 are triangulated in the parents’
marriage. This is manifested in one of 2 ways (see a and b). In
both cases, however, the young adult’s feelings of loyalty and
understanding are clearly allotted to only one parent, with the
result that the I'other" parent-child relationship is characterized
by feelings of disrespect, lack of understanding, or disapproval on
the part of the young adult.

a) The young adult acts as confidant to bgth parents
regarding their marital conflicts, and is essentially ggught jn tug
migglg of the conflictual marital relationship. Each parent seeks
the young adult’s support, understanding, and loyalty and attempts
to enlist the young adult’s sympathy against the other parent. In
contrast to level 2, the young adult does not.attempt to remain
neutral. At this level the young adult functions as an active
member of the “triangle” and typically chooses sides, although
he/she may be solicited and pulled by both parents’ needs.

b) Alternatively, the young adult may be clearly aligned
with only one parent. In this form'of triangulation, the young
adult offers support and loyalty to only one parent, and casts the
other parent in the role of a deprecated outsider. In addition,
the young adult is privy to the I'favored" parent’s complaints and
disagreements with the other parent, and acts as an advisor and

interested participant in such discussions.

199

APPENDIX D
INTIMACY INTERVIEH

PLEASE NOTE:

Copyrighted materials in this document have
not been filmed at the request of the author.
They are available for consultation, however,
in the author‘s university library.

These consist of pages:
200- 21 0

212-222
224-230
233-241

U-M-I

200

 

 

 

Intimacy Interview Code No.
APPENDIX D
GIVEN: FIRST SECOND Code No.
Sex
n a r
W
Date Interviewer

 

 

I’d like to ask you some questions about the kinds of relationships
you have with other people and what some of your attitudes are
concerning your relationships. Again, I want to assure you that
whatever you say will be strictly confidential.

Whom do you live with?

 

How long have you been living with him/her?

 

1. Do you have friends with whom you’re especially close?

What kinds of things do you have in common with
these friends? (If they bring up girlfriend or spouse, ask
them to choose another friend).

 

201

 

Intimacy Interview Code No.

2. What kinds of things don’t you have in common? How do you
feel about the differences?

3. What makes you feel close to these friends?

4. In general, what does being close with someone mean to you?

5. Think of the friends you feel closest to. Hhat kinds of
things do you talk about with them? Can you give me an
example? (Respondent can focus on one friend, if necessary).

202

Intimacy Interview Code No.

 

6. In particular, what kinds of personal things do you talk
about? (If necessary, can say, ”You mentioned ----------
previously, are there other personal things you discuss?

7. Can you discuss your problems with each other? What kind of

problems do each of you discuss? (figt_gxgmglg_gf_gggh).

8. What makes you discuss your problems with these particular
persons in the first place? .

9. Are there any matters that you couldn’t or wouldn’t share
with them about yourself? Hhat makes you avoid sharing these
things? (Would you share these things with someone else? If
Yes, "what makes for the difference)?"

203

Intimacy Interview Code No.

 

10. Do you find that you go out of your way to help each other
out? In what ways? What makes you do these things?

11. Do you ggggrslly_prefer to be with friends or by yourself?
(Hhat makes you feel that way)? If subject says, ”It
depends", say, "How about in general)'?

12. The friend that you spend the most time with: Hhat in
particular do you like about him?

13. What in particular do you dislike about him?

Intimacy Interview Code No.

14.

15.

16.

204

 

How would you define friendship? In what ways does your
friendship with ' include those things?

 

IF SUBJECT 15 MARRIED, SKIP TO QUESTION #21.
Do you date much?

a. If NO, Have you ever dated (or spent time with one
girl/guy?

b. Would you like to date more? Are there any particular
reasons why you haven’t dated much up to now?

Have you ever dated one girl/guy exclusively?

a. If NO, How often do you date?

b. How long do you see a particular girl/guy?

 

205

 

Intimacy Interview ' Code No.

17. What kinds of things about a girl/guy would or do prompt you
to ask her/him out again?

18. Do you usually date several girls/guys at the same time? For
what reason do you date several girls/guys?

19. In the course of your dating, have you ever met a girl/guy
with whom you would like to have an enduring or long—term
relationship? What happened and how did you feel about that?

What caused the break-up?

20. IF DATING ONE GIRL/GUY EXCLUSIVELY: How long have you been
seeing each other? USE PAST TENSE IF RELATIONSHIP IS OVER;
BUT CONTINUE WITH THE REMAINING QUESTIONS.

Do you see her/him often?

Do you ever date other girls/guys? Why is that?

206

Intimacy Interview Code No.

 

21. How close do you feel to steady/spouse? (Are you open with
each other? Share worries and problems? Can the other come
to you with his/her problems)?

22. What in particular do you like or find attractive about
him/her? (How would you describe him)?

23. What are the things about him/her that you dislike?

24. Are you able to discuss this with him/her?

207

Intimacy Interview Code No.

25.

26.

27.

28.

 

Do you ever fight? Hhat kinds of things do you fight about?
(If says never, PROBE: How do you explain that)?

In what ways do you function well as a couple? (like working
together, playing together well) .

In what ways do you function less well as a couple?

What do you see as the main problem you two have to work out
as a couple? In what ways could your relationship be
improved?

Intimacy Interview Code No.

29.

30.

31.

32.

208

 

Tell me about the sexual side of the relationship? What's it
like?

What role does sex play in the relationship?

Is one of you more involved or in love in the relationship
than the other?

Which one of you is more jealous or possessive in general?
How do you feel about that?

209

Intimacy Interview Code No.

 

33. In what ways are you committed to the relationship? Where do
you want it to go in the future?

34. What relationships with other men/women did you have before
you were married? How does this relationship compare with
previous ones? What makes for the difference?

35. How crucial is this relationship to your present and future
happiness? In what ways?

FOR ALL SUBJECTS

36. What is a meaningful or good relationship as you see it?

210

Intimacy Interview Code No.

 

37. In what ways does your relationship include (characteristics
listed above)?

38. What kinds of changes would you like to see in the way you
relate to others?

211

APPENDIX E
INTIMACY CODING NANUALS FOR DEPTH AND CONNITMENT

212

APPENDIX E
INTIMACY STATUS CODING NANUAL: DEPTH

Based on intimacy coding systems by Orlofsky et al. (1973)
and White et al. (1986), this scoring system focuses on two
components of intimate relationships: depth and commitment. These
two dimensions are assessed through an open-ended interview by
Orlofsky. Each is scored individually on a scale consisting of six
stages, ranging from a low of stage 1 to a high of stage 6. The
six stages can be grouped into three broad developmental levels:
self-focused, role-focused, and individuated-connected, which
represent the low, medium, and high levels, respectively. To score
each dimension, first identify the level and then decide whether
the subject’s response is at the lower or upper end of that level.
The progression from stage 1 to stage 6 of the scale is
characterized by an emphasis on content and behavior in the lower
stages and on process and feelings in the upper stages.

"Depth" is defined by two aspects of relationships: 1)
orientation, which refers to an individual’s ability to understand
the partner as a complex person and to appreciate the partner’s
feelings and perspectives, even when these differ from one’s own;
and 2) communication, which refers to an individual’s level of
self-disclosure and openness in the relationship. Raters assign an
overall rank based on their assessment of both components
considered together, resulting in a single score per subject
ranging from stage 1 to stage 6.

IEVEI 1 - SQII-EQEHSEQ

At the self-focused level, cognitions and affects are global,
simple and undifferentiated. The individual at this level sees the
partner as a means to personal and self-serving ends, or as an
obstacle to those ends. The individual who views his/her partner
as a source of supplies or as a hostile rival for supplies would be
coded at this level.

 

213

Stage 1

griggsgtign. At stage 1, the self-focused individual
typically relates to his/her partner as an extension of him/herself
or as an object and is unable to see the world from the other’s
view. The subject may have difficulty when asked to describe the
partner. Alternatively, the person at this level may describe the
partner in primarily sgggrgtg behavioral or black and white
(extremely bad or good) terms. The self-focused individual
considers the partner wrong or bad for behaving in ways that
contradict his/her own wishes. This person is sensitive to the
other’s personality only as it affects the self.

ngmggiggtign. The self-focused individual generally places
a low value on communication in the relationship. At stage 1, such
a person usually has very poor communication skills and indicates
that he or she has little interest in communicating with the
partner. However, sometimes a person is rated at the self-focused
level because he or she uses lying or attacks the other’s position.
Level 1 communicators usually focus exclusively on concrete issues
and matters external to the relationship (as opposed to affective
and relationship-centered material).

Examples:

Stage 1: 'She has a very happy, unassuming type of personality,
very chipper, rarely in a bad mood. Can listen to what
I have to say. Keeps a nice house and cooks o.k.'

Stage 1: "If I feel a fight brewing I usually leave the house
for a while, rather than having a battle which will
serve no purpose. I don’t enjoy talking about our
problems and so I avoid it. I see little value in
talking about things. If something’s wrong, it should
just be changed.”

tae

inggtgtign. At stage 2,.the self-focused individual’s

description of the partner is mostly behavioral and concrete as in
stage 1, but he or she makes a minimal effort to understand the
partner as a psychological being in a simplistic, mostly behavioral
way. For example, persons at this level will often describe the
relationship as “close”, based on observations that the partners
"share everything". The shared activities, however, are generally
superficial, such as "we cook together“. The focus at stage 2 is
still on how the partner’s feelings and behaviors affect the self.

Communicgtig . At stage 2, the self-focused individual
communicates with the partner around superficial, non-controversial

214

subjects and there are clear limits on what can be talked about.
Persons at this stage may indicate a sense of discomfort or
distrust in talking about more personal or meaningful issues.

Examples:

Stage 2: ”On one hand, she wants to be a liberal woman. On the
other, all the reasons she loves me are traditional. I
make good money, provide a home, have a car. I share
what I have with her. In the same breath, those
conflicting things is why I have contemptuous outlook.
That’s the reason I don’t know if I would use the word
love."

Stage 2: “I can keep a sense of privacy which I enjoy. I don’t
like having to tell anyone my every thought and
feeling."

VE - l -Focu e

At this level, individuals have a basic understanding that
the other has needs and feelings too, but descriptions of
relationships lack complexity and depth. Responses rated as role-
focused tend to focus on concrete, external things as the source of
problems or as the way to express support. Role-focused
descriptions of relationships often take the form of stereotyped
images of a happy marriage. They are socially acceptable
responses, lacking specific examples that would demonstrate an
appreciation of the partner’s individuality. The role-focused
individual’s responses are characterized by lack of introspection
and a tendency to generalize. The level 2 individual lacks an
imaginative, intuitive sense of what it is like to be inside the
other’s skin. He or she needs to have the partner’s needs or
feelings spelled out. (Replies that fall in the role-focused level
but show positive appreciation for the partner and the marriage are
usually rated stage 4.)

Stage 3

Orientation. Individuals at stage 3 often describe their
relationship in simplistic terms, and refer to the partner’s needs
or the partner’s role (e.g., I'a good husband, a good father") to
describe him or her. Stereotypical, socially acceptable
descriptions of the partner or the relationship are typical stage 3
responses. Responses at this level also tend to be behavioral and
somewhat judgmental, although subjects at this level may
acknowledge their partner’s right to a point of view.

215

. Stage 3 communicators include many concrete
and external topics in their conversations with partners. However,
they place a value on communication in their relationships, and
typically include some sharing of feelings with their partners.
Individuals at stage 3 make generalizations about their
communication without giving specific examples to support the
claim.

Examples:

Stage 3: 'Stubbornness -- it’s not really a big problem. She
just likes to do things her own way so I just kind of
let her do things her own way.“

Stage 3: ”We are very close. She is somebody I can talk to
about anything."

Stage 3: ”He’s sharp, he’s got class, he’s attractive, he’s
really no slouch, he’s good with people. You’d never
worry about going somewhere, introducing him to my
friends, he just takes over. He knows how to act.

(How do you function as a couple?) It’s o.k. We ggglg
function excellently. I wish I could talk about
parents, sex, religion, or any of the crucial things.

$1392.!

Onlgntatign. Individuals at stage 4 understand that the
partner may have a different view and recognize the other’s
individuality, but remain fairly concrete and behavioral in
describing him or her. Socially acceptable and stereotyped
descriptions of the relationship as ”happy“ or 'solid' are also
found at this level. Stage 4 individuals are not likely to
anticipate the partner’s needs, especially if such needs depart
from the expected role. However, once informed, persons at this
level can respond accordingly to the partner.

QQDDUDIEQLIQD- The emphasis in a stage 4 response is on
revealing who you are to one another and on self-disclosure, rather
than on changing together in the relationship as a result of
communication. Individuals who describe efforts to communicate
even if they are not always successful are ranked as stage 4.

216

Examples:

Stage 4: "She’s a very close friend, intimately. We share view
points. We’re going to have a child together.“

Stage 4: "We always talk. We ask if there is something the
other doesn’t like.“ .

Stage 4: "There is nothing we haven’t lived through, discussed.
We talk about everything. She sits there while I get
it all out of my system. Then she explains her point
of view. We do everything together. Just did our
whole apartment over-painting, papering-worked well
together. She might feel better if we had a house--
we’re working toward that.

- i a - n

To rate individuals at the Individuated-connected level,
scorers must see evidence that a free choice is made to be close
with the specific partner--a choice made from a position of
autonomy, rather than out of need or convenience. The individual
should demonstrate the ability to recognize the partner’s
individuality, to appreciate the other's unique qualities and to
take pleasure in enhancing the development of the other’s talents
and powers. At this level individuals have a concern with more
than the concrete, visible signs of the relationship’s quality.
They have a concern with the emotional and frequently, the
spiritual satisfactions to be gained from intimacy with this
nantignlar partner. Individuated-connected individuals place high
value on these intangible qualities and generally demonstrate a
willingness to pay a lot of attention to "our relationship" and how
it is going.

Individuals at the individuated-connected level express a
very high value toward communication in their relationships. Their
communication style includes concrete and external topics as well
as a great deal of affective and relationship-centered discussion.
There is usually evidence of a commitment to making time to talk,
despite busy schedules and other obstacles.

Stagg 5

QIifiDIiIiQD- At this level a person gives evidence of an
intuitive sense of his or her partner. These individuals tend to
describe the rglatignshin, faalings they have for the partner, or
characteristjgs and gualities of the partner, rather than concrete
behaviors. At stage 5, the individuated-connected individual does
not necessarily understand everything without being told, but
understanding is of an active nature that goes beyond simply

217

repeating a description of what the partner has explained. In
addition, individuated-connected persons must show some evidence
that the partner’s expectations contribute to and influence the
growth of the individual. Changes and growth are described as
occurring in the context of developing and recognizing the "rules"

and raginnggjty of the relationship.

Cgmmgniga;1_n. At stage 5, the individual describes open and
deep communication with the partner, but qualifies this response by
indicating that there is a specific area or topic which is off
limits or more difficult to talk about. At this stage, the
individual also notes the detrimental effect of this limitation on
an otherwise open and close relationship.

Examples:

Stage 5: “Some of her strong points are my weak points, so they
really complement each other. My openmindedness and
patience vs. her stubbornness and impatience. My
passiveness and complacency vs. her aggressiveness.

Stage 5: "We are very close, but some things we don’t talk
enough about: ultimate family goals, like children and
career aspects for her. We love each other, we would
do anything for each other. We have respect for one
anot er.”

§1§9§_§

Oriantatign. At stage 6, the highest level, the individual
view his or her partner as an individual in his or her own right
outside the dyad. He or she can also anticipate the other’s needs
and explain motivations that the partner may not be clearly aware
of. These individuals describe their partners in process rather
than behavioral terms and focus on complex motives, feelings,
values, and ideologies.

n . At stage 6, the individual describes a
relationship based on open communication and characterized by the
ability to express differences in views and values. Communication
is characterized by a mutual sharing of deep and meaningful
concerns and feelings, including relationship issues. At this
level, communication is much more than two people sharing their
thoughts and feelings; rather, each partner is gafinag by the
process of their communication and the relationship is viewed as a
unit, not simply "my perspective“ and "his/her perspective".

 

218

Examples:

Stage 6: "There are certain things that will never change, like
some of her outlooks on values and things. Because the
way we were raised, somewhat similar, but yet vastly
different backgrounds. We can understand each other’s
feelings fairly well and can easily tell when each of
us is bothered by something. We don't think any less
of each other because of these differences—-we view
each other as independent people and therefore accept
those differences more easily.

INTIMACY STATUS CODING MANUAL: COMMITMENT

"Commitment" refers to the extent to which persons have
committed themselves, their affection, and their loyalty to the
relationship and to their particular partner.

 

LEVEL 1 - Sg]f-Fgggsg§**:
Stags 1

Someone who is ready to leave the relationship ranks at the
lowest end of the commitment scale. Similarly, a person who needs
to stay in the relationship out of dependency or reasons of
convenience receives a stage 1 ranking. Responses by individuals
who in their hearts have not made a commitment to the relationship
are ranked stage 1. Responses throughout the interview which
reveal strong wishes and fantasies about divorce, love affairs, or
the partner’s death also indicate that a person is at stage 1 of
the self-focused level.

Examples:

Stage 1: I was unhappy with the group and I wanted to get out.
So I thought I’d get married and then get out of the
group, go on my own musically, and she would keep the
home fort down. The group moved to New Jersey, and I
saw her more. There was a real big class difference
between us, but I thought I could change the way she
talked and acted. A week before the marriage I wanted
out of it, but I did it anyway.

Stage 1: We weren’t at all sure of our futures. His inability
to decide on what he was going to do made it hard for
us to plan a future. Deep down I knew I had to become
a full person before I could think of settling down. I

219

had to go back to the States. I got committed to come
back. It was time to get some career skills. Because
I left the country, I left the right to be committed.
You know when you have to go and I knew when I had to
grow.

51393.2

Individuals who are not yet committed but who are struggling
with and appear to be moving toward the idea of commitment are
ranked as stage 2. These individuals typically focus on external
rather than affective or interperson concerns as they describe
their conflict and indecision about commitment to a particular
partner.

Examples:

Stage 2: The jury is still out. I’m asking myself how committed
am I to it? I guess I realize she’s totally devoted to
this thing. Not being married, I don’t feel I have an
ultimate commitment. The question I’m asking myself is
if I ever will get married. It’s kind of the
uncertainty that the whole institution of marriage is
suffering.

Stage 2: We both don’t want to go too fast and have a big
downfall, but we both want to keep going with the
relationship. I’m at the age where I feel I need to
really start thinking about whether I want to get
married and have a family and that I need to stay with
one guy and get to know him. I’d like this guy to be
Mr. Right.

** If a subject is referring to a gas; relationship, it must be
coded as "1'I or a '2". If the response indicates that there
was some effort to work things out and to make the
relationship last, it should be ranked as stage 2.

LEIEL z.- Rolg-Eggusgg:
Stage 3

Individuals who describe the relationship as troubled but who
also indicate that they are devoting some energy to repairing the
damage are ranked as stage 3. In general, commitment at this level
appears to be more to marriage as an institution than to a
particular individual. Similarly, these individuals are committed
to their partners in a stereotypic way and often have difficulty
talking about what is unique about his or her partner.

 

Examples:

Stage 3:

Stage 3:

§I§92_&

220

Family-wise, very committed. I would hate to leave
him. It’s part of my life, family, and all. I’m
interested in seeing him happy. That’s a commitment.
He’s the father of my children. He handles most of my
affairs.

Right now we’re in a holding pattern--being pregnant,
getting the house, working a lot. We don’t have a lot
of time. Hopefully, it will all come together in a
year. The long range outlook is good, but somewhere
along the line we might see a counselor. (How crucial
is this relationship to your happiness?) Fundamental.
If anything happened to it I would find my life was
made miserable by him. But a lot of my feelings have
shifted to my son. He would see me through.

Individuals who are clearly invested in the relationship, but
appear to be committed to the 1ns11;g§1gn_gf_nann1aga rather than a
particular partner are ranked as stage 4. From the perspective of
stage 4 individuals, the end result is a stronger relationship,
because there is more at stake than the individuals involved.

Examples:

Stage 4:

Stage 4:

We both have a, more than an understanding that if any
serious problems arrive, that we would be better off
working them out rather than breaking off. I imagine
just to get closer together, to help each of us become
the best of whatever we’re interested in career-wise or
whatever.

I love him and trust him very much. I feel a strong
loyalty to him and I don’t want to see anything
separate us. I always want to see us in a solid stable
marriage. The idea of divorce instills an apprehension
in me and I hope nothing ever will cause the marriage
to break up. I have a lot of trust in him and I know
he does too. I want us to always be able to talk and
work out our problems.

221

Stage 5

At this stage individuals indicate an appreciation for the
partner as an individual, but may not be committed to sticking it
out ”no matter what”. (e.g., These subjects may acknowledge
problem areas of the relationship which need work, but indicate a
commitment to the relationship by demonstrating a willingness to
problem-solve.) These individuals generally express their
commitment as a commitment to the institution of marriage via their
desire to buy a home and have a family together, but also
acknowledge special feelings for their partner.

Examples:

Stage 5: In so far as children and length of time, and I’m happy
with the way the relationship is going and don’t see
the need to look elsewhere. I have affection for her
and she for me and it’s developing. To just continue
its growth, learning; relationships always require work
and as long as we continue working at it, it can
continue to grow and flourish. By discussing problems,
by assuring that she knows I’m appreciative of things
that she does that I like, by asking questions if
there’s anything I can do to make her happy.

Stage 5: We want to have a family some day, see our family grow.
I expect to be married to him forever. Right now,
we’re so much into our relationship. I think we can
always grow closer. We have some differences. I know
I want to have a family, whereas before we were married
he didn’t know if he wanted them. We worked on that
before we got married. (You said "grow closer'?)
Feelings about particular things, like in a particular
situation if I’m hurt and I don’t bring it up right
t en.

§139£_§

To rate the highest score in commitment, subjects must show a
solid intention to stay in the marriage through thick and thin—-as
shown by investment in such concrete things as children and a home,
combined with a loving investment in this particular partner. BQLh
a commitment to stay in the marriage and a positive appreciation of
the partner’s individuality are the hallmarks of stage 6.

222

Examples:

Stage 6: I’m married to my best friend and I wouldn’t do
anything to hurt her. Because I enjoy being with her,
I don't feel obligated. I’m Catholic. My parents
taught me the sanctity of marriage. You don’t fool
around--this is the person you’ll spend the rest of
your life with. We plan to have kids. I don't think I
could be happy if she was to go. It would take a long
time to get over it. She’s my best friend--would be
like losing my right arm. She’s my buddy.

Stage 6: It’s great. I’m really happy. I believe the reason I
have self-confidence and assuredness right now is
because of my marriage. I think I’m happier now than
I’ve ever been so naturally I’d like it to stay this
way. He’s very understanding and sensitive. He’s
really open and easy to talk to. He’ll listen about
the dishes if I want to talk about washing dishes.
He’s good—looking, funny and an awful good father. He
takes time with his kids. He loves them.

223

APPENDIX E
CONFLICT RESOLUTION CODING MANUALS

224

APPENDIX F
NF 0 N

I PSYCHIC ONF R O UT

Definition:

This dimension reflects the degree of tension versus

satisfaction expressed (directly or indirectly) about the way
conflict is typically resolved in one’s close heterosexual
relationships. This scale is based on Lazarus’s (1981: 1983)
concept of emotion-focused coping, which refers to the ways
individuals appraise their efforts to cope with problems. In
particular, this dimension focuses on the way an individual
experiences or evaluates the impact of his/her attempts to resolve
conflicts with his/her partner (e.g., as stressful, challenging,
etc.) on his/her own well-being.

1.515th

Individuals at this level experience conflict in their
relationships as overwhelming and painful, and as Lnngaganing to
the relationship. For example, responses at this level may include
examples of good communication or a good relationship, but there
are also reports of extremely problematic or negative coping
strategies which are distressing or painful.

Examples:

Level 1:

Level 1:

”He didn’t care if there was company at the house.

He’d yell and scream. Sometimes he can really be
tactless, say things that are inappropriate to people
or to a place. If you criticize him a little, he’d sit
and mope all evening about it. He doesn’t take
criticism well. He doesn’t take rejection well. He
just feels the world is against him, he gets mopey and
depressed and withdraws into himself."

"I didn’t feel close at all to him. I kept most of my
feelings to myself. He didn't tell me half the things
he did. I knew then I didn’t want to stay married to
him. He wasn’t going to change and I didn’t want to be
married to a person like that. We discussed and argued
about it constantly. The discussion would help for a

 

225

while, but it wasn’t a long term change. He was that
way about everything. If something was wrong in the

house, he’d wait until I finally had to nag. I felt

like I had to tell him what to do."

LHELB

Individuals at Level 2 are often overwhelmed by negative
feelings, but not to the degree that they are ready to end the
relationship. However, the result is often a devaluing of the
relationship. These individuals indicate that they still make some
effort to keep their negative feelings under control. For example,
these responses include attempts to diminish, deintensify, or deny
negative feelings in order to maintain the relationship.
Accordingly, individuals at level 2 may feel emotionally out of
control, but tend to rationalize as they are clearly not yet ready
to leave the partner or the relationship. Level 2 may also be a
combination of 1 and 3.

Examples:

Level 2: “Three problems. Most important is financial, we need
money. I have to grow up a little, but about her
situation,she’s got to relax, meaning she’s bored at
night. She shouldn’t go out to singles bars at night.
I’ve got to be more accepting and open of her and her
life; of the idea that guys she went out with would
call. When they would call I’d want to kill them.
(how could relationship be improved?) The way we deal
with each other. We’ve changed a lot since summer. We
don’t watch Saturday Night Live. If she would realize
I do all this work and not bother me if I watch a
football game. She doesn’t like it if I watch
football. Because she’s a little spoiled. She wants
attention I’m giving to the TV. She doesn’t like it
when I bring newspapers round there.“

Level 2: "I would say I’m very dependent and insecure. I’m also
the great compromiser. It doesn’t seem fair to him.
I’m a lot more expressive about my needs and maybe he
just isn’t expressing his needs. Also it’s not fair
that he’s not contributing his half."

226

BELLE:

The individual at Level 3 minimizes or denies the importance
of conflicts. However, individuals at Level 3 often inadvertently
acknowledge that conflicts exist. Level 3 individuals typically
see conflict as something to accept rather than as something to
confront or to view as growth-producing. Often these individuals
give the impression that they are content with the way problems get
handled, even if that means problems remain unresolved or continue
to surface.

Examples:

Level 3: ”We seem to get along in most respects. I don't think
we have any problems to work out. She tries to be
friendly even if she’s not feeling well or angry about
something. She compromises. It seems pretty ideal,
not alot of fireworks. (what are things you dislike
about her?) Well, her Southern Baptist background
sometimes gets in the way. It’s not there’s anything
wrong with it. I was brought up around here with
fairly liberal parents the way I look at the world is a
little different: manners, alcohol, taste in food.
Those are examples where you can be rubbed the wrong
way.”

LEI-J:

Individuals at Level 4 try to masLan their negative feelings
through self-reflection and empathy. These individuals recognize
the potential for conflicts to be growth-enhancing, but still tend
to avoid or experience conflict in non-adaptive ways rather than
integrate them into the relationship.

Example:

Level 4: (main problems?) ”right now it would be me overcoming
my pickiness and attention to detail. Maybe for him to
work out his non-confrontiveness if he’s.upset about
something. I might bring up problems that are minor
and we can live with them. No relationship is perfect.
If anything major develops in our sexual or personal
communications, hopefully we’ll be able to work them
out.”

MILE:

227

Individuals at Level 5 view conflicts as part of the
relationship. Level 5 responses typically reflect an acceptance of
conflicts in the relationship as inevitable and as opportunities
for relationship development and growth. Individuals at Level 5
experience their approach to problems as a means to greater
understanding of their partner and relationship enhancement.
Mastery of negative feelings is accomplished through integrating
conflicts into the relationship.

Example:

Level 5:

Level 5:

(discuss problems?) Oh yeah. I harp on them. They
are basic. He changed alot. His being there for
everybody but me. That really annoyed me. He gets
lots of calls at home, a lot. He’s in insurance and
he’s always working. So we talked about that. And
he’s changed. (what is a good relationship as you see
it?) When you can share your problems and when you can
understand somebody. (In what ways does your
relationship include these characteristics?) I’d say
100%. I was describing my marriage.“

"We are extremely close. We share problems. They are
usually problems that come about through money, family,
friends. We both realize that we need time apart and
we work on that too. (can you discuss problems?) Yes,
we do. The result is that she gets mad and then we
talk about it again. We try and not do things that
bother each other. We work things out."

228

E F T S N

Definition: This dimension focuses on the ways in which the
partner deals with and resolves conflicts within the relationship
or marriage. At lower levels the respondent’s (or the couples’)
way of dealing with disagreements or tensions in the relationship
exacerbate rather than resolve difficulties, whereas at higher
levels difficulties are confronted in ways that lead not only to '
diminished tension, but also to adaptive changes in the situation.
This scale is conceptually similar to Lazarus’s (1981; 1983)
problem-focused coping, which refers to individuals’ efforts to
change the situation or master the problems.

229

S IFIC T NG CR T IA

The respondent’s perception of the couple’s way of resolving
conflicts in the relationship is rated on a 5 point scale with 1
referring to ”low" conflict resolution and 5 referring to "high"
conflict resolution. The criteria for rating a protocol as 1, 2,
3, 4, or 5 on the Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Scale are
described below.

d 0 ve

Ways of resolving conflict escalate rather than diminish
difficulties or create clear barriers to conflict resolution (e.g.,
yelling and screaming, angrily leaving the scene, cutting off
discussion, deprecating the other, physical repercussions, doing
one’s own thing at the expense of the other, etc.).

I'lCOY'OV

a) As at Level 1, ways of resolving conflict for the most
part exacerbate the negative situation, but unlike at Level 1,
there is at least some attempt to resolve some differences in a
more adaptive way (e.g., via calm discussion, etc.).

b) Strategies are a combination of those from Levels 1 and

cat r v 1

To keep the peace, the respondent or both partners avoid
conflict via palliative techniques that reduce or prevent negative
affect but then leave the situation unresolved (e.g., don’t
confront or bring up controversy, sacrifices or deny the importance
of his or her own needs or wishes, rationalizes or resentfully
accepts or denies limitations, etc.).

Indigatons of Lava] 4

In most areas the couples is able to adaptively confront and
resolve conflicts via discussion, compromise or other effective
ways of changing negative situations or resolving differences.
However, there are a few isolated areas in which one or both
partners deal with conflict in palliative ways characteristic of
Level 3; OR some cases in which attempts to resolve problems
adaptively elicit friction and/or tension, such as an emotional
outburst or raised voices. These emotionally-charged episodes of

230

conflict typically concern a snacifig issue and do not represent
the usual style of effective problem solving in these couples.

ndi ors v

The couple adaptively confronts and resolves conflicts
via discussion compromise, reframing, or other effective means of
changing a negative situation or resolving differences.

232

APPENDIX G
PARENT LIFESTYLE INTERVIEH - MARRIAGE

Parent Life Style Interview: Code No.

42.

233

 

APPENDIX G

Is this your first marriage?
IF NO: What year were you first married?

How old were you?

 

How long were you in that marriage?

 

How did the marriage end?

 

How many times have you been married?

 

IF MORE THAN 2, get duration and outcome for EACH ONE:

All: When did you enter this marriage?

How old were you?

 

 

How long have you been in this marriage?

ASK FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT CURRENT MARRIAGE:

43.

Why did you marry (current spouse)--rather than someone else,
or remaining single?

234

Parent Life Style Interview: Code No.

 

44. Today many pe0ple are getting divorced--Why do you think you
have remained married, rather than separating or getting
divorced?

45. a) What gives you most pleasure in your relationship with
your (husband/wife)?--e.g. what do you feel most
positive about?

b) Has it always been this way?

c) How do you account for the change? (or lack of change)

A

 

235

Parent Life Style Interview: Code No.

 

d) What have you done to make sure this is part of your
relationship?

46. In what ways is your (husband/wife) important to you now?

What does (he/she) provide in your life? '

47. a) What sorts of things do you uisn (he/she) could provide?

b) In what ways have you let (him/her) know how you feel?

IF HAS NOT SHARED FEELINGS:

c) What makes you avoid letting (him/her) know?

236

Parent Life Style Interview: Code No.

48.

 

d) What would happen if you did?

e) What could you do to change the situation?

How about sex--

a) How important is sex to you now?

b) What changes have there been in how you feel about sex--
the pleasure you derive from it, or what it means to
you?

c) When did you notice the changes?

d) How do you account for the changes?

237

Parent Life Style Interview: Code No.

 

e) What are your feelings about the changes? (or lack of
changes?)

f) If you could, would you change the present situation?
How would you do that?

49. In what ways are you important to you (husband/wife)? What
do you provide in his/her life?

50. a) What sorts of things do you think (he/she) lifihgi you
could provide?

b) What prevents you from satisfying those wishes?

Parent Life Style Interview: Code No.

51.

o)

d)

a)

b)

238

 

What does (he/she) do to change the situation?

How do you respond?

What do you think gives your (husband/wife) most
pleasure (his/her) relationship with you?

Has it always been this way?

IF NOT: How do you account for the change?

239

Parent Life Style Interview: ‘Code No.

52.

53.

d)

a)

b)

 

What has your (husband/wife) done to make this part of
the relationship?

What other kinds of stresses are there in your
relationship with your (husband/wife) now?

How do you handle these stresses?

What are your feelings about the ways they are resolved?

In what ways would being alone, that is, without your
(husband/wife) change your life?

240

Parent Life Style Interview: Code No.

 

b) What would be the biggest change for you?

c) In what ways are you prepared for this possibility?

54. a) Can you think of a particular time recently when you
felt conflicted about your needs and your spouse’s
needs?. . . What was that about?

b) How did you handle it?

241

Parent Life Style Interview: _ Code No.

 

c) What were your feelings about the way it was resolved? -
- e.g. Ideally, how would it have been resolved?

55. a) What is your reaction when your (husband/wife) is
irritable or nags you or is sharp-tongued with you?

b) What would you raally like to do?

c) What would happen if you did that?

GIVE INVOLVEMENT AND FEELINGS ABOUT MARRIAGE QUESTIONNAIRES,
COUNTERBALANCED