. u ,. 12-! u. ....o..... . ‘3! at" : 4.11. .0? (If. {45“.}! 2 zl....t»..!il.hv I rd u...v.r to} I I‘I"OA‘I|' ‘0’." If; '1 511.3)..- list. in 3.7.4.103...‘ .u . sh . .- fr'411540oi1'iftb . 10.33.36; s. Its-3.} iu f.a£§|§.f.§i‘.r iii-ll; I ‘15???on 21].! I u . } .Jéz . . I: ire; 5 4.9 It 3 fit! . ’15-‘3‘87 . I... ‘1‘. x vii? 5.12.3... a In) it... $21!?!fvv8... L In ‘ «Eli-{tr}!- 45. LC‘...’ 22.3.! int: 433).... 3...};- ‘v .. at! f {2-3: a rig}! x - Icvh| ii! . .. :15...- if. its $€II~IIr£IIvIIp {bizilxr £01! d. :2. i. ‘93 26yr) Mean 2.84 2.92 3.00 3.08 (SD) (.52) (.44) (1.00) (1.16) (.11) (31) (36) (31) (36) Post-hoc analyses were also conducted to assess whether differences in marital status would affect the previous 68 findings. A repeated measures Anova was used to examine the relationship between marital/family status and intimacy in friendship and romantic relationships status and more importantly to assess whether marital/family status interacted with gender in accounting for differences in intimacy (see Table 3). The marital/family status groups were single, married, and married with children. Seven divorced individuals were excluded from the analyses. In addition to significant main effects for marital/family status (3(2, 127) = 3.2, p<.05) and for relationship type 13.25, p<.001), there was a significant (E(1, 127) interaction between marital status and relationship type (2(2, 127) 12.72, p<.001). One way anovas were used to identify the nature of this interaction. (The Student- Newman-Keuls Multiple Range Test was used to control for spurious findings generated by conducting multiple comparisons.) No significant differences were found among the marital groups with respect to the level of intimacy achieved in friendships (F(2, 131) = .95, n.s.). Significant differences in the marital/family group means were found with respect to the level of intimacy in love relationships (£(2, 131) = 9.22, p<.0001). Single individuals were significantly less intimate in their love relationships than were married persons or married individuals with children (p<.05). Although married individuals with children reported somewhat less intimacy 69 than married persons without children, this difference was not statistically significant. Although gender did not interact with relationship type or with level of intimacy, because of the focus on gender differences, one way Anovas were also run separately for women and men. These analyses showed that the level of intimacy exhibited in friendships did not differ as a function of marital/family group for women (3(2, 65) = 1.5, n.s.) or men (1(2, 63) = .99, n.s.). In addition, a one way Anova revealed that women’s intimacy in love relationships did not vary as a function of marital/family status (E(2, 65) = 1.64, n.s.). However, as can be seen in Table 3, men exhibited significantly different levels of intimacy in love relationships as a function of marital/family status (3(2, 63) = 7.81, p<.001). Single men exhibited significantly less intimacy in their love relationships than either married group (p<.05); this difference remained significant when age was entered into the analyses as a covariate. These findings suggest that marital/family status may be more closely associated with differences in men’s intimacy level in love relationships than women’s. A final set of analyses reexamined the effects of age on intimacy controlling for marital status. Results were the same (i.e. the sex x age group interaction was still significant) as in the analyses not including marital/family status as a covariate. 70 Table 3 Young Adult Intimacy Scores by Marital Status Friendship Romantic relationship Women Men Women Men Single Mean 3.30 2.89 3.11 2.60 (SD) (.54) (.53) (.85) (1.04) (E) (27) (35) (27) (35) Married Mean 3.00 2.93 3.63 3.79 (SD) (-75) (-62) (-83) (~89) (E) (19) (14) (19) (14) Married w/ Children Mean 3.05 2.69 3.36 3.25 (SD) (.65) (.48) (1.18) (1.07) (H) (22) (16) (22) (16) DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was two-fold. Firstly, it sought to examine gender differences in the level of intimacy in women’s and men’s same—sex friendships and romantic relationships. Secondly, it explored the contribution of intimacy in friendships and in love relationships to ego development and evaluated whether gender might moderate the nature of these relationships. Gender and Intimacy in Friendship and Love Relationships Data analyses indicated that women were more intimate than men both in their friendship and love relationships. Women’s greater intimacy in friendships was consistent with hypothesis 1 and with other research exploring sex differences and intimacy in friendship (Buhrke and Fuqua, 1987; Fischer & Narus, 1981). Women’s greater intimacy in romantic relationships, however, was contrary to hypothesis 1 and to White et al.’s (1986) finding that husband and wife pairs exhibited similar levels of intimacy. Although the level of intimacy in friendships and in love relationships varied according to gender, gender did not moderate within-individual differences in intimacy across different types of relationships. Individuals, 71 72 regardless of gender, displayed similar levels of intimacy in their friendships and in their love relationships. This finding was consistent with predictions concerning women, but not with hypotheses concerning men. It was anticipated that social norms and a developmental emphasis on forming dyadic rather than group friendships would allow women to achieve equal levels of intimacy in friendship and love relationships. In contrast, it was thought that social stereotypes/norms and men’s greater participation in group friendships would limit their intimacy in friendships, but not in love relationships. Displaying similar levels of intimacy across relationships suggests that some feature of the individual, and not relationship type, is responsible. Seemingly, people develop an orientation or customary way of understanding and responding to others which they then use in all relationships. Women’s greater intimacy in friendship and romantic 2 relationships is consistent with two complementary explanations. First, as has been argued elsewhere, women may have developed very good intimacy skills through participation in dyadic friendships during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. In addition, as reviewed earlier, Chodorow (1978) has asserted that a female’s resolution to the Oedipal crisis leaves her with a greater empathy, a greater capacity to understand the needs and feelings of another person. 73 The discrepancy between the present study’s and White et al.’s (1986) findings as to comparable levels of intimacy in men’s and women’s love relationships may reflect differences in sample composition. Both studies used similar systems to code intimacy. However, the present sample included single, married, and divorced individuals, but not their partners. In contrast, White et al. (1986) interviewed only married persons and their spouses. It was the single subjects in the present study who accounted most for gender differences; single women were significantly more intimate than single men in love relationships, but married women and married men did not differ. These analyses provide partial support for hypothesis 1 (which anticipated that men and women would exhibit similar levels of intimacy in romantic relationships) and appear consistent with White et al.’s (1986) data. White et al. (1986) asserted that husbands and wives report similar levels of intimacy because of homogamy (partners picking partners with similar intimacy skills). The current findings about married subjects, as group data, do not directly address White et al.’s (1986) hypothesis. However, similarity in the group means for married men and married women suggest that marital partners would be well matched on the level of intimacy and that they would be more intimate than dating partners. In contrast, the group means for the single women and single men suggest that as dating partners single women and single men would often be 74 mismatched in terms of intimacy. Taken collectively, these findings suggest a process of relationship development. It may be that men catch up to women in their capacity for intimacy and that this occurs through marriage. Therefore, the similar levels of intimacy that husbands and wives I described in White et al. (1986) may not be the product of like picking like (homogamy) initially, but rather the product of a growth or equalizing process. Intimacy and Age Young women were significantly more intimate in their friendships and in their love relationships than young men. However, older men and women exhibited similar levels of intimacy in their friendships and love relationships. These findings held true even when controlling for marital/family status. The increase in men’s intimacy with age is also In consistent with a developmental model. Young women have many opportunities to develop intimacy skills in dyadic friendships during childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. They also have been reinforced for monitoring and responding to emotions. Furthermore, if Chodorow (1978) is correct, the mother-daughter relationship is such that the child develops a greater empathy and more complex object relations that would facilitate greater intimacy sooner. In contrast, young men have had primarily group as opposed to dyadic friendships. It is only when they start dating in 75 adolescence that they begin to learn many of the skills needed for intimate dyadic relationships. Young men also have not been reinforced for being responsive to emotions and being intimate. In addition, the parent-child relationship encourages males to be separate and discourages connection with others (Chodorow, 1978). Consequently, men enter their early twenties having had less experience in close dyadic relationships and fewer opportunities to develop intimacy skills. It follows then that young men would be less intimate than young women. Over time, however, men may have more opportunities to engage in dyadic relationships and to develop the skills needed to be more intimate. For many men, this may mean learning intimacy skills from female friends and lovers. Changes in women’s intimacy levels may also partially account for the finding that women and men display similar levels of intimacy with age. There were data indicating that women are somewhat less intimate in their relationships as they get older. Although this might reflect a loss of intimacy skills, it is more likely that women are just not able to devote as much time and energy to relationships because of more extensive family and work commitments. Intimacy in Friendship and Love Relationships and Ego Development It was hypothesized that intimacy in friendships, and not intimacy in romantic relationships, would be the best 76 predictor of a woman’s ego development. In contrast, it was anticipated that intimacy in romantic relationships and not intimacy in friendships would account for more variability in men’s ego development. The data showed that intimacy in love relationships, but not intimacy in friendships, predicted ego development for both men and women. The predictive value of intimacy in love relationships and the- lack thereof for intimacy in friendships challenges hypotheses rooted in Chodorow’s (1978), Gilligan’s (1982), and Rubin’s (1985) ideas. It was argued that friendships (and relationships in general) play such a critical role in women’s identity development that they would also have an important role in ego development. In particular, very intimate friendships were thought to provide more opportunities for ego and identity development. These data, however, do not directly address the identity issue and no firm conclusions can be made about it. In addition, these data do not rule out the possibility that friendships may play an important, but transitory role in ego development. The present findings may be interpreted from a developmental perspective. The skills needed to be intimate in romantic relationships and the ego functioning achieved in adulthood can be understood as the products of developmental processes. As such, it is possible to envision a developmental process whereby love relationships come to predict ego development. This process would 77 necessarily reflect the ego’s continuing development through new types of relationships. Mead (1934) and Loevinger (1976) have hypothesized that the ego first develops in relationship with the parents. When the ground work for basic ego functioning has been established through interaction with parents, friendships may become the next major arena for children’s ego development. Friendships may foster development through what Loevinger terms the conformist stage of ego development. Hansell (1981) found a link between friendship and ego development in childhood. The complexity of girl’s friendship networks and reciprocity (operationalized as concrete behavioral equity) in the girls’ friendships were related to ego development. For girls, there was a curvilinear relationship between ego development and reciprocity. Girls in the middle range of ego development exhibited the highest levels of reciprocity. Reciprocity in friendships and ego development were linked for boys, but not in a curvilinear manner. (For details see the literature review.) Friends may only serve a transitional role in ego development. In particular, advancing development from preconformist to conformist levels of ego development. Learning to understand and relate to friends would promote ego development and prepare the individual to explore the new realm of love relationships. Puberty and social norms about forming romantic attachments might also push 78 adolescents to establish love relationships. Exploration of this new arena would further ego development and in particular facilitate movement into postconformist stages. With growth, the individual discovers the desire (sexual/emotional) to form close, committed romantic attachments to another person. Consequently, the person spends much time and energy learning about their partner, themselves, and their relationship. It may be through this investment that the love relationship becomes central to ego development. In effect, the love relationship becomes the primary relational arena for ego development once the individual has basically mastered friendships. Future Work A limitation of the present study is its use of an intrapsychic definition of intimacy. Intimacy was defined in terms of the person’s understanding of the partner and their communication with the partner. Other studies have operationalized intimacy in terms of behavior (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Fischer & Narus, 1981). It would be fruitful to explore the connection between intrapsychic and behavioral manifestations of intimacy. It would also be advisable to ascertain how behavioral manifestations of intimacy affect ego development. The current study did not explore intimacy in couples by interviewing both partners. Although White et al. (1986) have begun to examine this question in terms of romantic 79 relationships, no research could be located that examined intimacy in friendship by interviewing both partners. This might be another area for exploration. The present study raises an interesting question. The findings, in combination with Hansell’s (1981) work, suggest the possibility of a developmental process in which friendship contributes to ego development during childhood and love relationships become increasingly important for ego development during adolescence and young adulthood. The relationship of friendships to ego development in childhood and the implications of the hypothesized transition to love relationships for the highest levels of ego development should be explored. APPENDIX A 80 APPENDIX A Friendship and Romantic Relationship Interview 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Do you have friends with whom you’re especially close? How close do you feel? What makes you feel close? What does being close to someone mean to you? What kinds of things do you have in common with these friends? What kinds of things don’t you have in common? How do you feel about these differences? What kinds of things do you talk about with him/her? Ex? In particular, what kinds of personal things do you talk about? Can you discuss problems with each other? What kind of problems do each of you discuss? What makes you discuss your problems with this particular person in the first place? Are there any matters you couldn’t or wouldn’t share with him/her about yourself? What makes you avoid sharing those things? Would you share those things with someone else? What makes the difference? Do you find that you go out of your way to help each other out? In what ways? What makes you do these things? Do you generally prefer to be with friends or by yourself? What makes you feel this way? The friend you spend the most time with - What in particular do you like about him/her? What in particular do you dislike about him/her? How would you define friendship? In what way does your friendship include those things? Romantic/Love Relationship If subject is married, skip to 21. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 81 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? What kinds of things about a girl/guy would or do prompt you to ask her/him out again? Do you usually date several girls/guys at the same time? For what reasons do you date several girls/guys? In the course of your dating, have you ever met a girl/guy with whom you would like to have an enduring or longfterm relationship? What happened and how did you feel about that? What caused the break up? If dating one girl/guy exclusively: How long have you been seeing each other? (Use past tense if necessary) Do you see her/him often? Do you ever date other girls/guys? Why is that? 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?) What in particular do you find attractive about him/her? (How would you describe him/her?) What are things about him/her that you dislike? Pee Are you able to discuss this with him/her? Do you ever fight? What kinds of things do you fight about? (If never: How do you account for that?) In what ways do you function well as a couple? (eg. working together or playing together) 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? Tell me about the sexual side of the relationship. What is it like? What role does sex play in the relationship? 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 82 Is one of you more involved in the relationship than the other? Which of you is more jealous or possessive in general? How do you feel about that? In what ways are you committed to the relationship? Where do you want it to go in the future? 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? How crucial is this relationship to your present and future happiness? In what ways? What is a meaningful or good relationship as you see it? In what ways does your relationship include the characteristics listed above? What kinds of characteristics would you like to see in the way you relate to others? ' APPENDIX B ii'l m. nu. Inn-n. l 83 Sentence Completion Test for Men Instructions: Complete the following sentences. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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. Raising a family When a child will not join in group activities When they avoided me A man’s job Being with other people The thing I like about myself is If my mother Crime and delinquency could be halted if When I am with a woman Education When people are helpless Women are lucky because What gets me into trouble is A good father A man feels good when A wife should I feel sorry A man should always Rules are When they talked about sex, I Men are lucky because My father and I When his wife asked him to help with the housework Usually he felt that sex was At times he worried about If I can’t get what I want My main problem is When I am criticized Sometimes he wished that A husband has a right to When he thought of his mother, he The worst thing about being a man is If I had more money I just can’t stand people who My conscience bothers me if He felt proud that he "J ' mi r Sentence Completion Test for Women Instructions: Complete the following sentences. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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. 84 Raising a family A girl has a right to When they avoid me If my mother Being with other people The thing I like about myself is My mother and I What gets me into trouble is Education When people are helpless Women are lucky because My father A pregnant woman When my mother spanked me, I A wife should I feel sorry Rules are When I get mad, When a child will not join in group activities Men are lucky because When they talked about sex, At times she worried about I am A woman feels good when My main problem is My husband and I will The worst thing about being a woman A good mother Sometimes she wished that When I am with a man When she thought of her mother, she If I can’t get what I want, Usually she felt that sex, For a woman a career is My conscience bothers me if A woman should always r43 ~A .L. rm.-;__ LI ST OF REFERENCES 85 LIST OF REFERENCES Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., 8 Wall, S. (1978). a r a h e ° 0 'c stu tbe_strange_situation- Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum- Altman, I. (1963). Reciprocity of interpersonal exchange. Jonrnal of Social Behavior, 1, 250-261. Altman, I., 8 Taylor, D.A. (1973). Sooiol oonetrotion: The dexel9nment_9f_internersenal_relatignshins. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Arieti, S., 8 Arieti, J.A. (1977). Lov o n ' gnido IQ the mos; desired and nos; olnsiyo emotion. NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Aristotle. (1976). The Ethios of hrishorlo; Tho Eishgmashean_Ethiss (rev. ed.). (J.A.K. Thomson. Trans.).. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Babin, P. (1967). Eriendshio. NY: Herder 8 Herder. Bell, R.R. (1981). ds r' ° . Beverly Hills: Sage. Berndt, T.J. (1986). Children’s comments about their friendships. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Qognitiye . . , . . nerspect1yes_Qn_ch1ldren_s_secial_and_beha219ral 0.‘ ‘ 0".1‘! I’ all" 9 -. ‘H..A. -. 0! ,0 9. P‘ ‘_°".|‘I 0 Vol. 18 (pp. 189-212). Berndt, T.J., 8 Perry, T.B. (1986). Children’s perceptions of friendships as supportive relationships. Dexelenmsntal_2sxsnolee¥. 22(5). 640-648. Berscheid, E., 8 Walster, E.H. (1978). lnroroorsono1 aggroorion (2nd ed.). MA: Addison-Wesley. Block, J.D. (1980). Erionoohip. NY: Macmillan. Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. In R.S. Eissler et al. (Eds.). PsY9h9analitig_studx_gf_the_2hild. Vol. 22. New York: International Universities Press. 86 Bowlby, J. (1969). tta hment and 058: V0 . l. Attachmenr. New York: Basic. Bowlby, J. (1973). ttachme t an loss: Vo . 2. Separation. New York: Basic. Brain, R. (1976). Friends and lovers. NY: Basic Books. Branden, N. (1980). The psyohology of romnnrio loge. Los Angeles, CA: J.P. Archer. Buhrke, R.A., 8 Fuqua, D.R. (1987). Sex differences in same- and cross-sex supportive relationships. Sor_3oio§, i1(5/6), 339-352. Caldwell, M.A., 8 Peplau, L.A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roies, §(7), 721-732. Cancian, F.M. (1987). Love in Anoricn: Gonoer and self- doyeiopmonr. NY: Cambridge University Press. Carlozzi, A.F., Gaa, J.P., 8 Liberman, D.B. (1983). Empathy and 69° develovment- J9urnal_9f_§eunseling_2§xsbeleex. oo(1), 113-116. Chodorow, N. (1978). T e ° 0 e ' ° ' ' e . Berkeley: University of California Press. Dubow, E.F., Huesman, L.R., 8 Eron, L.D. (1987). Childhood correlates of adult ego development. th1§_poyo1opmonr, on, 859-869. Duck. 3. (1983)- EriendsI_f2r_lifei_The_nsxshelee¥_9f o1o§o_roiorion§hip§. Sussex, England: Harvester. Eder, D., 8 Hallinan, M.T. (1978). Sex differences in children’s friendshiPS- American_sgciolegical_flexier. 5;, 237-250. Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited or a theory of a theory- American_Esxsnologist. 23. 404-416- Erikson. E-H- (1963). Childhood_and_sesietx (2nd ed-). New York: W.W. Norton. Erikson, E.H. (1968). e ° ’ ' . New York: W.W. Norton. Erikson. E-He (1974). Dimenaigns_gf_a_neu_identitxo New York: W.W. Norton. 87 Fischer, J.L. (1981). Transitions in relationship style from adolescence to young adulthood. Jou na of and_Adelescence. 19(1). 11-23- Fischer, J.L., 8 Narus, L.R. (1981). Sex roles and intimacy in same sex and other sex relationships. 2sxsholeg¥_9f_flgmen_0uarterlx. 5(3). 444-455- Fox, M., Gibbs, M., 8 Auerbach, D. (1985) Age and gender dimensions of friendship. Es12h2199¥_Qf_flemen_guarterlx. 2, 489-502. Frank, S.J., 8 Jacobson, S. (1989). Inninnoy_oooing gygron. Unpublished manuscript. Freud, S. (1964). Femininity. In J. Strachey (Ed. and TranS-). Eeu_intr9du9t9rx_lectures.en_nsxsheanalxsis (pp. 99-119). New York: Norton. (Original work published 1925). Fromm, E. (1956). Iho_§rr_or_loying. NY: Bantam Books. Gibbs, M., Auerbach, D., 8 Fox, M. (1980). A comparison of’ male and female same-sex friendships. Inrornnrionol J9urnal_9f_flomenls_studies. 3(3). 261-272- Gilligan. C- (1982). In_a_different_xoicei_£§¥9helegical the9rx_and_w9menls_dexelenment. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Gouldner, H., 8 Strong, M.S. (1987). Spooking_of York:‘Greenwood. Hansell, S. (1981). Ego development and peer friendship networks. Socielegx_ef_fldusa_ien 51. 51- 63- Hauser, S.T. (1978). Ego development and interpersonal style in adolescence. I9urnal_Qf_xoutn_and_8delescence. 1(4), 333-352. Hauser, S.T., Powers, S.I., Noam, G.G., Jacobson, A.M., Weiss, 3., 8 Follansbee, D.J. (1984). Familial contexts of adolescent ego development. ghiid_noyglopmen§, 55, 195-213. Hazan, C., 8 Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Qonrnni_o£ EersQnaliL¥_and_Sgsial_£sxchelegx 52(3). 511- 524- Hollingshead A B- (1957) The_txe_factgr_index_ef_secial posirion. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven. 88 Holt, R.R. (1980). Loevinger’s measure of ego development: Reliability and national norms for male and female short forms. e a 't an i s , 19(5), 909-920. Jourard, S.M. (1964). Tho rronsporonr self, oponness, effectixen_ss_and_health e . Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Jung, C.G. (1961). Qollested.florks. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Kacerguis, M.A., 8 Adams, G.R. (1980). Erikson stage resolution: The relationship between identity and intimacy- lournal_of_xoutb_and_Adolessence. 2(2). 117- 126. Kelley. H-H- (1979). Eersonal_relationshins1_their structures_and_nrosesses. Hillsdale. NJ: ErlbaUM- Kelley, E.H., 8 Thibaut, O. (1978). Inrornorionnl relat1ons1_a_theorx_of_1nterdenendence. New York: Wiley. Levitz-Jones, E.H., 8 Orlofsky, J. L. (1985). Separation- individuation and intimacy capacity in college women. Iournal_of_Eersonalitx_and_§ooial_£§xcbolegx .12(1). 156- 169. Loevinger. J. (1970). Mensuring_ego_dexelonment (lst ed-). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Loevinger. J- (1976). Ego_dexelonment1_§onsentions_and rhooriog. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct validity of the sentence 1, completion test of ego development APPLIES r Esxsholoeioal_neasurement 3(3). 281- 311 Loevinger, J., 8 Wessler, R. (1970). Moosnring_figo Doyolopnonr (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lorr, M., 8 Manning, T. T. (1978). Measurement of ego development by sentence completion and personality test. Ionrnal_of_§linical_B§xohologx 11(2). 354-360- 5 Main, M., 8 Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mother’s representation of her own experience: Implications for the abused-abusing intergenerational cycle- Qn11d_Abuse_§_Negleot. 8. 203- 217. Mark, E.W., 8 Alper, T.G. (1985). Women, men, and intimacy motivation. Esxsholos¥_of_flomen_9uarterlx. 2. 81-88- 89 Mazur, E., 8 Olver, R.R. (1987). Intimacy and structure: Sex differences in imagery of same-sex relationships. Sex Roles, io(11/12), 539-558. McGill, M.E. (1985). M ' e o l ' ti . New York: Holt, Rinehart, 8 Winston. McMahon, J.M. (1982). Intimacy among friends and lovers. In M. Fisher 8 G. Stricker (Eds.), Thrinooy. New York: Plenum. Mead, G.H. (1934). i an s i . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mellen, S.L.W. (1981). The evolnrion or Long. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman 8 Co. Milardo, R.M., 8 Murstein, B.I. (1979). The implications of exchange orientation on the dyadic functioning of heterosexual cohabitors. In: M. Cook and G. Wilson (eds.), Loyo_ono_§rrroorion. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Miller, S. (1983). Mon_ono_£riono§hip. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Co. Mitchell, J.J. (1976). Adolescent intimacy. Aooloooonoo, Tl(42), 275-280. Orlofsky, J.L. (1978). The relationship between intimacy status and antecedent personality components. Adolescence. 13(51). 419-441. Orlofsky, J. L, Marcia, J. E., 8 Lesser, I. (1973). Ego identity status and the intimacy versus isolation crisis of Young adulthood. Jeurnal_ef_Eersenelit¥_end_Seeial Esxshelegx 21(2), 211-219. Raskin, P. M. (1985). The relationship between identity and intimacy in early adulthood. The_lonrnel_ef_§enetie EEYQDQLQQYI 141(2), 167-181- Redmore, C. (1976). Susceptibility to faking of a sentence completion test of ego development. gonrnol_ofi Bereenelitx_Aeeeeement. 49(6). 607-616. Redmore, C. D., 8 Loevinger, J. (1979). Ego development in adolescence: Longitudinal studies. fionrnol_of_Xon§h_ond Adolescenee 3(1). 1- 20. Redmore, C., 8 Waldman, K. (1975). Reliability of sentence completion measure of ego development. Jonrno1_of Bereanelitx_Aeeeeement 32(3). 236- -243. P 90 Reik, T. (1944). A_nerehelogiet_leeke_et_leye. NY: Farrar 8 Rinehart, Inc. Reis, H.T., Senchak, M., 8 Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in the intimacy of social interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. gonrnol of_Eereenelit2_end_Seeiel_BsxeheleeL _§(5), 1204- 1217. Reisman. J.M. (1979). Anetem¥_ef_friendsbin- NY: Irvington Publishers, Inc. Ricks, M. H. (1985L The social transmission of parental behavior: Attachment across generations. Monooroph§_or the_Seeietx_fer_Beeeareh_in_§hild_neyelenment 59(1/2). 211- 227. Rogers, G.R. (1961). Qn_beeeming_e_nersen. Boston. MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Rotenberg, K.J. (1986). Same—sex patterns and sex differences in the trust-value basis of children’s friendship. Sox_Bolo§, 15(11/12), 613-626. Rubin, L.B. (1983). (Inhimoho_§rrongoro. New York: Harper 8 Row, Publishers. Rubin. L.B. (1985). Just_fr1ende1_The_rele_ef_friendshin in_onr_liyo§. New York: Harper 8 Row. Sturm White, M. (1985). Ego development in adult women. Journel_ef_2ereenelitx. 53(4). 561-574- Sullivan, E.V., McCullough, G., 8 Stager, M. (1980). A developmental study of the relationship between conceptual, ego, and moral development. Child Dexelenment. 11, 399'411- Thomas, L. (1987). Friendship. Synrhooo, 12, 217-236. Vaillant, G. E., 8 McCullough, L. (1987). The Washington University Sentence Completion Test compared with other measures of adult ego development. Amorioon_1onrno1_of EexehiatrL 111(9). 1189-1194. Walster, E., Walster, G.W., 8 Berscheid, E. (1977). Eguitx1_theerx_end_reeeereh. Boston, MA: Allyn 8 Bacon. Werebe, M. J. G. (1986). Relations interpersonnelles: Amities et relations amoureuses entre jeunes. Internetienel_lenrnel_ef_2exehelegL 21. 91- 125. White, K.M., Speisman, J.C., 8 Costos, D. (1983). Young adults and their parents: Individuation to mutuality. In H.D. Grotevant 8 C.R. Cooper (Eds.), agolosoonr 91 v ' e ' . w ' t' 'ld ooyoiopnonr, No. 22 (pp. 61-76). San Fransisco: Jossey- Bass. White, K.M, Speisman, J.C., Jackson, D., Bartis,S., 8 Costos, D. (1986). Intimacy maturity and its correlates in Young married couples. Qegruel_ef_£ereonelitx_end SQQial_B§¥§thQQ¥. 59(1): 152-152- Wolf, E.S., Gedo, J.E., 8 Terman, D.M. (1972). On the adolescent process as a transformation of the self. Qeurnel_ef_Yeuth_end_Adeleeeenee. 1(3). 257-272- MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIB IIHNWIWIII“llllllllllllllWIIIIWIWWI 312930090326