IIHFHIWII HIHHIIII \ l I — # — — \. LIBRARY 'll‘li Michigan State ” ' ” University This is to certify that the thesis entitled INTERACTION TO ACHIEVE SELF-VERIFICATION IN THE ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS presented by TATSUYA IMAI has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MA. degree in Communication ' Major Professor's Sig Q-S’~O%k Date MSU is an afiirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue,indd INTERACTION TO ACHIEVE SELF-VERIFICATION IN THE ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS By Tatsuya Imai A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 2008 ABSTRACT INTERACTION TO ACHIEVE SELF-VERIFICATION IN THE ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS By Tatsuya Imai This thesis examines how people communicate to verify their self-concept in romantic relationships, using Self-Verification Theory advocated by William B. Swann Jr. Sixty-two couples were asked to fill out a questionnaire examining self-esteem, evaluation of partners, perceived feedback from partners, and communication style including self-disclosure and feedback. Results suggested that the more positive evaluation and positive perception of feedback from partners the participants had, the closer they were to their partners. In cases in which there was a consistency between valences of self-esteem and evaluation from partners, communication fimctioned to verify participants’ self-concept. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed. ACKNOWLDGEMENTS Dr. Steven McCornack has significantly supported me and has always respected my research interests as my academic advisor. His professional, sincere, and passionate attitude to research has showed me how I should address my research in the future. Without the help of Dr. Tim Levine, I would have never been able to conduct my research with appropriate statistics and research methods. Dr. Nicole Ellison allowed me to polish my thesis by intensive and careful advice. Dr. Hee Sun Park has kindly helped me in many senses such as teaching me statistics, advice for my career plan, and constant encouragement. I am honored to work with these wonderful faculty members. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. v Chapter]: Introduction ............................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................ 3 Positivity Strivings ........................................................................... 3 Self-Verification Strivings — Self-Verification Theory ................................ 4 Three Strategies of Self-Verification ..................................................... 6 A Function of Communication as Self-Verification .................................. 10 Self-Disclosure for Self-Verification ......................................... 11 Feedback for Self-Verification ................................................ 12 Perception of Feedback ......................................................... 13 Chapter 3: Rationales and Hypotheses ........................................................... 14 Chapter 4: Method .................................................................................... 16 Participants ................................................................................ 16 Procedure .................................................................................. 17 Questionnaire .............................................................................. 1 7 Independent Variable .......................................................... 17 Dependent Variable ............................................................ 18 Chapter 5: Results ................................................................................... 19 Independence of Data .................................................................... 19 Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................... l9 Reliabilities ................................................................................ 21 Dichotomizing Participants .............................................................. 21 Tests of Hypothesis 1-4 .................................................................. 22 Chapter 6: Discussion .............................................................................. 34 Influence of Self-Esteem on Closeness ................................................ 34 Positivity Strivings ........................................................................ 35 Communication ........................................................................... 35 Implications ................................................................................ 38 Limitations and Future Directions ...................................................... 39 Chapter 7: Conclusion .............................................................................. 41 APPENDD( ........................................................................................... 43 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 57 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................... 20 Table 2. Reliabilities of Variables ................................................................ 21 Table 3. Closeness of Different Self-esteem and Evaluation fi'om Partner Groups ........ 23 Table 4. Valence of Self-disclosure of Different Self-esteem and Evaluation fiom Partner Groups ...................................................................................... 26 Table ‘5. Valence of Feedback from Partner of Different Self-esteem and Evaluation fiom Partner Groups ............................................................................ 29 Table 6. Closeness of Different Self-esteem and Perception of Feedback fiom Partner Groups ...................................................................................... 32 Interaction to Achieve Self—Verification in the Romantic Relationships Chapter 1: Introduction We often assume that people want others to see them positively, as kind, warm, smart, and good looking. For example, when we are students in high school, we try to avoid being perceived as unintelligent, untrustful, and arrogant by classmates and teachers. We study hard so that teachers will think that we are intelligent and we try to go to school on time so that classmates will think we are not lazy. We make our best effort to keep high grade points to go to prestigious universities because being in such schools makes us look smart and capable. People are always making efforts to be seen positively. However, it is also true that people cannot be perfect. We have socially negative characteristics we do not want to show to others such as disease, physical feattn'es, and unchangeable personality. In a society where people always make efforts to make themselves look positive, these negative characteristics remain hidden but others. As you may know and feel, keeping these characteristics hidden and showing only positive aspects often is so difficult that we feel tired of living. Therefore, it seems natural to think that it would be wonderful if we did not have to hide our negative characteristics and we could be natural and be ourselves. Actually, we can show our natural face and be ourselves when we are with a few close and trusted people. For example, we do not have to make much effort to make ourselves look cool, smart, and generous to our parents, because they already know we are not so cool and generous. We also know even though they know we are not perfect, they accept us. The closer we are to others, the more we might want them to know about our real attributes. Such people who we want to show our natural aspects could be family members, close fiiends, trustworthy teachers, and romantic partners. Based on this assumption, I want to examine how people interact with their romantic partners in order to manage their self-concept. For example, if people have a positive self-concept, and believe themselves to possess attributes such as intelligence and good looks, they would have no trouble showing their positive aspects to others because such aspects are socially valuable and desirable. On the other hand, if people have a negative self-concept, and believe themselves to be unintelligent and unattractive, they would try to hide these characteristics fiom their romantic partner, especially when the partner forms a positive image of them. However, if one partner perceives their partner to be negative, they do not have to hide their negative features, and they can disclose the features to their partner. Moreover, such a consistency between self-concept and evaluation from partners is expected to relate to closeness of participants to their partners. Specifically, this thesis examines how interpersonal communication functions to verify self-concepts in romantic relationships. Though previous studies of Self-Verification Theory (SVT) by William B. Swarm Jr. demonstrated the motivation which caused people to verify their self-concept and the interactions which allowed them to do so in laboratory settings, they did not focus on daily communication in romantic relationships (Swarm, 1983; Swarm, 1987; Swarm, Chang-Schneider, & Angulo, in press). Therefore, this current study examines communication which is used daily as a tool for people in romantic relationships to verify their self—concept through interactions with their partners. In chapter 2, previous literature will be reviewed, discussing two primal strivings, positivity strivings and self-verification strivings. SVT is detailed as well, including how it is applied to interpersonal communication. Chapter 3 focuses on rationales and hypotheses related to communication contributing to self-verification. Methods including descriptions of participants and procedures are shown in chapter 4. Chapter 5 shows results, and finally a general discussion with limitations, implications, and future directions is discussed in chapter 6. Chapter 2: Literature Review In this chapter, I review previous literature related to self-concept and interpersonal communication. First, I review previous studies examining positivity strivings and self-verification strivings. Second, SVT is detailed on the basis of studies conducted by William B. Swarm Jr. Finally, previous research studies about self-disclosure, receiving feedback, and a perception of agreement are focused on to consider how communication might help people to verify their self-concept on the basis of self-verification strivings. Positivity Strivings Many researchers support the idea that people are motivated to be seen positively (Goffman, 1955; Jones, 1973; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Shrauger, 1975). Self-Enhancement Theory, which was suggested by Shrauger (1975), introduced people’s basic desire to think of themselves favorably. Specifically, regardless of different valences of a self-view (negative and positive self-esteem), people prefer positive evaluation. Jones and Pittman (1982) mentioned that much of people’s social behavior is motivated by a concern that others form a positive impression and attribute to them characteristics such as kindness, humor, trust, charm, and physical attractiveness. In short, people behave to make others like them. Moreover, in the article, “On Face-Work: an Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction,” Goffman (1955) analyzed human interactions in a society from a perspective of the motivation for people to be seen positively. The author mentioned that “The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contac ” (Goffman,1955, p. 319). In short, a person takes the actions that will make whatever she or he is doing consistent with face, which is a socially positive attribute. Ellison, Heino, and Gibbs (2006) conducted interviews with people who use an online dating site in order to investigate how people manage their online presentation of self to find their dating partners. Thirty-four interviews were conducted, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed. The findings showed that people consistently presented themselves positively and attractively such as posting a profile photo showing their attractive aspects and even reporting their weight as less than their actual weight. As shown above, the idea that people want others to see them positively is supported by previous research and the motivation is called positivity strivings (Swarm, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992; Swarm et al., in press). Self- Verification Strivings — Self- Verification Theory Alternatively, some researchers argue that people are motivated by the desire to be seen in a fashion consistent with their self-concept, which is called self-verification strivings (Swarm, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992; Swann et al, in press). Lecky (1945) was the first person who argued that people have the motivation to make efforts to be self-consistent. Other previous research studies also have mentioned the people’s desire to be consistent with their self-concept (e.g., Secord & Backman, 1965). Based on the argument of previous research, William B. Swarm Jr. has developed the Self-Verification Theory (Swarm, 1983; Swarm, 1987; Swann, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992; Swarm et al., in press). The basic assumption of the theory is that people know that internalizing how others react to them into their self-concept is important to maintain their self-concept (Swarm, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992). The main argument is that people manage their environment in which they can confirm their self-concept though interactions with others (Swarm, 1983; Swann, 1987; Swarm, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, I992; Swarm et al, in press). The distinct argument of the theory, which contradicts the argument of the positivity strivings, is that people with a negative self-view want to be seen negatively because they want others to see them as they see themselves (Swarm, 1983; Swarm, 1987; Swarm, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992; Swarm et al, in press). Using the following example, Swarm (1983) explained how people develop their self-verification strivings. A small boy wants to realize his dream to become his television idol, which is the Incredible Hulk. When he was small, his parents told him that someday be can be the Hulk because of the intention of parents that children should not lose their dream. However, through the interactions with others and the events in his environment such as his school, he comes to know reality. That is, his classmates would tell him that he is not that strong and he is just a human; and the evaluation of his achievement in the gym class from teachers suggests that he is just above the average compared with other classmates. As he has grown, his self-concept gradually coalesces into a compromise between his ideal image like the Hulk and his real features which are predicted from the feedback. Finally, when he is matured, to bolster his prediction of himself and events around him, he comes to be guided basically by his self-concept. Swarm, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler (1992) introduced two considerations people have when they interact with others. The first consideration, called epistemic consideration, is that people are mentally worried about the discrepancy between their self-concept and the image others form of them (Swarm, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992). For example, if a woman thinks of herself as an unintelligent person and her best friend thinks of her as an intelligent person, the fiiend’s expectation challenges her self-concept. Consequently, she might be concerned about the discrepancy between two opposite images. The second consideration, called pragmatic or interpersonal consideration, is that people are afiaid of the future interactions with the person whose image of them contradicts their self—concept (Swarm, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992). In the same example, the woman who considers herself to be unintelligent is worried about how she can smoothly interact with her fiiend who thinks of her as an intelligent person. As shown above, the self-verification strivings are that people want others to see them as they see themselves in order to confirm their self-concept without epistemic and pragmatic problems. Three Strategies of Self- Verification Three strategies helping people to verify their self-concept have been found on the basis of previous empirical research. The first strategy is information processing (Swarm & Read, 1981; Swarm, Wenzlaff, Krull, & Pelharn, 1992). One of the information processing strategies is information seeking (Swann & Read, 1981; Swarm, Wenzlaff, Krull, & Pelham, 1992). In the Swarm and Read’s (1981) study (investigation 1), sixty-four female undergraduates participated and rated themselves; the goal being to classify them into self—likable and self—dislikable groups. Then, they were also asked to complete other questionnaires which checked their opinions about controversial issues such as religious values. After that, they were told that they were rated by a conversation partner who was going to talk with them about topics related to the responses they answered about the controversial issues. The participants were distributed statements of evaluation which indicated positive or negative evaluation, which were actually vague and general evaluative statements. The amount of time that participants spent on reading the statements was measured as the dependent valuable. The findings suggested that self-likable participants spent a longer time reading the statements when they expected that the evaluation of them would be positive than self-dislikable participants. The self-dislikable participants spent a longer time reading the statements when they expected that the evaluation of them would be negative than the self-likable participants. As shown above, people are motivated to seek self-verification information. Another strategy of information processing is selective recall (Swarm & Read, 1981). In investigation 2 of the same study conducted by Swarm and Read (1981), fifty-eight female college students were recruited, classified into likable and dislikable participants, and were informed that they were going to meet an interaction partner who evaluated participants positively or negatively like the investigation 1. The difference from the investigation 1 was that alter the manipulation of expectancy of evaluation, participants were asked to listen to a tape which included the vague and general statements which were the same statements used in the investigation 1. After they listened to the tape, they were asked to write down as many as they could remember and what they wrote was measured. The result found that self-dislike participants recalled more contents of statements when they believed they were evaluated negatively than the self-dislike participants when they believed they were evaluated positively. The self-like participants recalled more contents of statements when they believed they were evaluated positively than the self-like participants when they believed they were evaluated negatively. As shown above, people are likely to remember the information of themselves when they perceive that the information is relevant to their self-concept. The second strategy of self-verification is that people communicate their self-view to verify their self-concept (Swarm & Hill, 1982; Swarm & Read, 1981). In the experiment of Swarm & Hill (1982), forty-six female college students were recruited and classified into self-dominant and self-submissive groups on the basis of responses of self-dominant scale. First, the participants were asked to practice playing a game with a confederate and in the game they played as a leader. After that practice, before a real game, the confederate recommended the participant to play one of two roles on the basis of the participant’s behavior in the practice session. Then, participants had a chance to interact with the confederate and the conversation was tape recorded and coded on the basis of the degree of dominance the participants showed. The result showed that participants who received self-discrepant feedback were more likely to behave to disconfirm the feedback and confirm their self-concept. Specifically, self-dominant participants who were recommended to play the assistant behaved more dominantly than self-dominant participants who were recommended to play the leader. Self-submissive participants who were recommended to play the leader behaved more submissively than self-submissive participants who were recommended to play the assistant. In other words, people tried to verify their self-concept by communication. The third strategy of self-verification processes, which is called selective affiliation, is to construct an environment which verifies self—concept by being in a relationship with others who confirm the self-concept (Swarm, Hixon, & Rond, 1992; Swarm & Pelham, 2002; Swan, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992). Swan, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler (1992) used eighty-four male participants and classified them into participants with a positive or negative self-view on the basis of their responses to a questionnaire which checked their perceived sociability. Then, they were informed that they were evaluated and were going to meet the evaluator as an interaction partner. The participants were told that one of evaluators rated participants positively and another evaluator rated them negatively, and were asked to choose one of them as an interaction partner. The result showed that negative self-view participants were more likely to choose the unfavorable evaluator than the favorable evaluator and positive self-view participant were more likely to choose the favorable evaluator than the unfavorable evaluator. In addition, there were some research studies that examined if marital couples were likely to choose a partner who sees them as they see themselves. Swarm, Hixon, & Rond’s (1992) study examined how marital couples chose their partner on the basis of the self-verification strivings. They recruited ninety-five married couples and asked them to rate themselves and their partner regarding their self-concepts by using Self-Attribute Questionnaire (SAQ; Pelham & Swarm, 1989), which measured perceived central attributes of self-worth: intellectual capability, physical attractiveness, athletic ability, social skills, and aptitude in arts and music. The authors also asked them to fill out a questionnaire which measured participants’ commitment to their marital relationship as the dependent variable. The result showed that people committed themselves to their marital relationship when their partner verified their self-concept. Specifically, participants who had a positive self-concept committed themselves more to the relationship when their partner viewed them positively. Participants who had a negative self-concept committed themselves more to the relationship when their partner viewed them negatively. Moreover, the selective affiliation was also found in the study using pairs of college roommates (Swarm & Pelham, 2002). In short, previous research supports the finding that marital couples and roommates are likely to choose partners who see them as they see themselves. A Function of Communication as Self- Verification Although previous research has shown that people are likely to choose the interaction partner who sees them as they see themselves, the research has not examined communication contributing to close relationships supported by the self-verification strivings. In short, communication which allows people in a close relationship to perceive that their partner correctly or wrongly knows their self-concept has not been addressed enough in previous research. The communication for people to verify their self-concept, which is the second strategy of self-verification, has been examined by previous research (Swarm & Hill, 1982; Swarm & Read, 1981). The previous research addressed the two aspects of self-verification communication. First, previous research has examined communication of self-verification between participants and a stranger (confederate) (Swarm & Hill, 1982; Swarm & Read, 1981). However, if researchers want to know how people in a close relationship communicate with each other in order to verify their 10 self-concept, they should not see the communication of strangers but of people in a close relationship. Second, previous research investigated self-verification behavior in cases where people receive self—discrepant feedback (Swarm & Hill, 1982; Swarm & Read, 1981). Results found that when people received self-discrepant feedback from others, they tried to behave in a way that disconfirrned the feedback and confirmed their self-concept. However, the research design has not enabled researchers to examine how people in close relationships communicate with each other. If researchers want to know how dating partners daily communicate with each other, they should investigate the daily communication in close relationships, which is not temporarily caused by receiving self-discrepant feedback. Consequently, this thesis focuses on communication functioning to verify self-concept through interactions with romantic partners. In this study, self-disclosure (output) and feedback from a partner (input) are considered to compose communication. Self-Disclosure for Self- Verification Self-disclosure can be defined as to “voluntarily tell(s) another person things about himself which the other is unlikely to know or to discover from other sources” (Pearce & Sharp, 1973). Derlega and Grzelak (1979) introduced five fimctions of self-disclosure. The first function is “Expression,” which means saying how we feel. The second function, “Self-Clarification,” is talking about our beliefs and attitudes in order to clarify our opinion. “Relationship Development” is another ftmction which means that disclosing ourselves causes a positive outcome for a relationship. The next function, which is called “Social Control,” means that self-disclosure is used to control and exploit others. The final function, which is “Self-Validation,” means efforts to elicit feedback 11 from others and validate our self-concept by self-disclosure. The final ftmction is exactly what this current research is concerned about. Rosenfeld and Kendrick’s (1984) eight fimctions also included Self-Validation, which means that people disclose themselves to seek confirmation of a view they hold about themselves. Other previous research suggested the importance of self-disclosure as a relationship maintenance tool for close relationships such as dating couples and people in marriage (Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1991; Daiton & Stafford, 1993). As previous studies suggested, self-disclosure would allow partners in dating couples to verify their self-concept. Feedback for Self- Verification Much previous research of self-verification theory supports the importance of receiving self-consistent feedback from a partner for maintaining close relationships (e.g., Swarm & Hill, 1982; Swarm & Read, 1981). Swarm and Read’s (1981) experiments about information seeking and selective recall of self-verification behavior suggests that people desire feedback which is consistent with their self-concept. Swarm and Hill’s (1982) study about communicative behaviors of self-verification strivings showed people’s dislike of self-discrepant feedback. Based on these findings, receiving feedback which is consistent with the self—concept is important to maintain one’s self—concept. Swarm and Predrnore’s (1985) study showed that interactions with intimates who correctly recognize their partners (targets) insulate them against self-discrepant feedback. In other words, even if targets receive self-discrepant information, interactions with their intimates enables them to avoid both the information and changing their self—concept. Undergraduate couples were recruited and half of them were targets and the other half were their intimates. The intimates were separately asked to rate their partners (targets) 12 on the basis of the same scale of self-esteem. The targets were classified into a high self-esteem group and a low self-esteem group and they were given self-discrepant feedback from confederates. After that, some of targets had a conversation with their intimates who congruently rated the targets, other targets had a conversation with their intimates who incongruently rated the targets, and the rest of the targets had a conversation with a stranger. The results showed that targets who interacted with intimates who had rated the targets correctly changed their self-esteem less than targets who interacted with incongruent intimates or strangers. Specifically, congruent intimates were as effective in insulating low self-esteem targets against self-discrepant positive feedback as they were in insulating high self-esteem targets against self-discrepant negative feedback. As shown above, interactions with intimates, such as receiving feedback, were important to verify people’s self—concept. Perception of Feedback Additionally, perception of feedback from partners is considered as an important factor in functioning to verify self-concept. Sillars, Jones, and Murphy’s (1984) study demonstrated that an important predictor of marital adjustment was perceived agreement. The research examined how understanding and agreement of marital couple’s opinions about marital issues influenced their marital adjustment. Results showed that perceived agreement was the most influential predictor of marital adjustment. Perceived agreement was defined as the correlation between a spouse’s rating of issues and their estimate of their partner’s rating. In other words, regardless of real agreements, if spouses perceived that their spouse had the same opinions as theirs, their marital adjustment was high. 13 As shown above, perception of communication with dating partners is considered as an important factor influencing closeness to the partners. In short, previous research implies that communication plays an important role to allow people to utilize strategies which verify their self-concept. Chapter 3: Rationales and Hypotheses Reviewing previous studies allows us to predict that interpersonal communication, such as self-disclosure and receiving feedback, helps people to verify their self-concept. This study examines several predictions that derive directly from prior theory and research. First, this study investigates whether or not partners in dating couples prefer partners who verify their self—concept. Findings of previous studies of SVT examining how people choose their dating and marital partners implied that people are likely to choose partners who verify their self-concepts (Swarm, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994). Although it was found that people in marital couples rather than dating couples were likely to select their partners based on self-verification strivings, this study attempts to replicate the phenomenon in dating couples. Hypothesis 1 is that there will be a significant relationship between consonance of self-esteem valence and partners’ rating valence, and relationship closeness, such that as the consonance increases, closeness also will increase. If this is so, we can predict that: HlA: Negative self-view participants with partners who rate them negatively will be closer than negative self-view participants with partners who rate them positively. 14 H1 B: Positive self-view participants with partners who rate them positively will be closer than positive self-view participants with partners who rate them negatively. Second, based upon the arguments of SVT and the self-confirmation fimction of self-disclosure, it is assumed that people in close relationships want to disclose themselves in ways that confirm their self-concepts. Hypothesis 2 is that there will be a significant relationship between consonance of self-esteem valence and partners’ rating valence, and valence of self-disclosure. Specifically: H2A: Negative self-view participants with partners who rate them negatively will perceive themselves as disclosing more negatively than negative self-view participants with partners who rate them positively. H2B: Positive self-view participants with partners who rate them positively will perceive themselves as disclosing more positively than positive self-view participants with partners who rate them negatively. Third, previous studies suggested that receiving self-consistent feedback fi'om people in close relationships allows people to maintain their self-concept. Consequently, self—consistent feedback from romantic partners is assumed to be essential to maintain dating relationships. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is that there will be a significant relationship between consonance of self-esteem valence and partners’ rating valence, and valence of feedback from a partner. Specifically: H3A: Negative self-view participants with partners who rate them negatively will report receiving more negative feedback than negative self-view participants with partners who rate them positively. 15 H3B: Positive self-view participants with partners who rate them positively will report receiving more positive feedback than positive self-view participants with partners who rate them negatively. Finally, previous research has suggested that perception of communication with partners is an important factor in determining satisfaction in relationships. Specifically, if participants perceive that their partners give them self-consistent feedback, they will feel satisfied with their relationship. Consequently, hypothesis 4 is that there will be a significant relationship between consonance of self-esteem valence and valence of perception of feedback from a partner, and relationship closeness, such that as the consonance increases, closeness also will increase. If this is so, we can predict that: H4A: Negative self-view participants who perceive themselves as receiving negative feedback will be closer than negative self-view participants who perceive themselves as receiving positive feedback. H4B: Positive self-view participants who perceive themselves as receiving positive feedback will be closer than positive self-view participants who perceive themselves as receiving negative feedback. Chapter 4: Method Participants. Sixty-two heterosexual dating couples were recruited at a large public university in the midwestem United States. At least one participant in each couple was enrolled in an introductory communication course or registered in a participant pool, and participants were given course credits for the participation. To participate in the study, individuals must have been in a dating relationship for at least two weeks and not cohabited. Most were Caucasian (67.7%), African American (12.1%), Asian American 16 (4.8%), and other ethnicity (15.4%)). The average length of dating duration was 19.1 months (1 years and 7.1 months), and the range was 60 months (minirntnn and maximum durations were 1 month and 61 months, respectively). Procedure. Participants were scheduled to visit a room, which had a wall to separate the room into two sections. A male investigator explained that this study was designed to examine communication in a romantic relationship and they were allowed to ask questions in this study. After this brief introduction and upon having participants accept the consent forms, the investigator distributed a questionnaire which had a number assigned to each couple so that the matching of answers between partners in a couple was possible. The investigator distributed the questionnaire in a way that he could not know which number was assigned to each couple and asked participants to rettn'n their questionnaire in a box in order to maintain their anonymity. After they received questionnaires, one of the partners in a couple was asked to move behind a wall in the room in order to avoid seeing the partner’s answer. No time limit was given for them to complete the questionnaire. Questionnaire. The questionnaire was composed of a self-esteem scale, a self-worth scale, a scale to rate partner, a scale to rate partner’s worth, a self-disclosure scale, a scale to examine feedback to partner, a scale to investigate perceived feedback from a partner, and a closeness scale. Independent Variables. Valence (positivity and negativity) of self-concept was examined by using the ten item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Items included “I feel that I have a number of good qualities” and “At times, I think I am no good at all.” Respondents also completed the five item Self-Attribute Questionnaire l7 (SAQ; Pelham & Swarm, 1989). The SAQ measures perceived central attributes of self-worth: intellectual capability, physical attractiveness, athletic ability, social skills, and aptitude in arts and music. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was modified to allow participants to rate their partners; for examples, “My partner has a number of good qualities” and “At times, my partner is no good at all.” This score of evaluation of partner was treated as “evaluation from partner” within the study. Dependent Variables. A seven item adapted self-disclosure scale developed by Wheeless (1976) was used to investigate perception of self-disclosure valence (positiveness and negativeness), and included items such as “I usually disclose positive things about myself when I talk with my partner” and “On the whole, my disclosures about myself are more negative than positive when I talk with my partner.” Feedback to partner was measured by a modified version of the adapted self-disclosure scale; for examples, “I usually say positive firings about my partner when I talk with my partner” and “On the whole, what I say abom my partner is more negative than positive when I talk with my partner,” and the modified scale has six items. Feedback to one’s partner was treated as “feedback from partner” in the study. Perception of feedback from a partner was also examined by a modified version of the self-disclosure scale, including items such as “My partner usually says positive things about me when I talk with my partner” and “On the whole, what my partner says about me is more negative than positive when I talk with my partner.” The scale was composed of six items. Finally, relationship closeness was measured by 13 items of a closeness scale which was composed by Dibble and Levine (2007). 18 For all items for the independent variables and dependent variables, a 7-step Likert-type response format was used (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) except Self-Attribute Questionnaire, which used a lO—scale ranging from 1 (bottom 5%) to 10 (top 5%). Chapter 5: Results Independence of Data. To examine independence of the data, the intraclass correlation of each scale was calculated as follows. Self-Esteem: Intraclass r = .50, F (61, 123) = 2.98, p < .00]; Evaluation from Partner: Intraclass r = .32, F (61, 123) = 1.96, p < .01; Self-Disclosure: Intraclass r = .26, F (61, 123) = 1.69, p < .05; Feedback fiom Partner: Intraclass r = .37, F (61, 123) = 2.19, p < .01; Perception of Received Feedback: Intraclass r = .27, F (61, 123) = 1.74, p < .05; Closeness: Intraclass r = 22, F (61, 123) = 1.65, p < .05. Because the results demonstrated the non independence between data of participants in each couple, each couple rather than each individual was used as the unit of analysis. One participant in a couple was randomly selected as the “actor” and another participant in the couple was designated as the “partner.” Descriptive Statistics. Descriptive statistics for each scale are shown in Table 1. Two types of means and standard deviations are calculated on the basis of the data using couple as the unit of analysis, which is divided into an actor and a partner. 19 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics. Actor or partner in each couple Actor Partner Self-esteem (Rosenberg’s scale) M 5.67 5.79 SD 0.88 0.86 Self-worth (SAQ) M 6.98 7.19 SD 1.29 1.1 1 Evaluation fi'om partner (Rosenberg’s Scale) M 6.24 6.16 SD 0.55 0.73 Partner’s worth (SAQ) M 7.32 7.50 SD 1 .1 8 1 .1 8 Self-disclosure M 5.20 5.25 SD 0.96 1.04 Feedback from partner M 5.49 5.56 SD 0.99 1.06 Perception of feedback fi'om partner M 5.67 5.73 SD 1 .1 3 1 . 1 3 Closeness M 5.96 5.95 SD 0.78 0.78 20 Reliabilities. Reliabilities of each scale are shown in Table 2. Two types of reliabilities are calculated like the descriptive statistics. Table 2. Reliabilities of Variables Actor or partner in each couple Actor Partner Self-esteem (Rosenberg’s scale) .87 .88 Self-worth (SAQ) .63 .57 Evaluation from partner (Rosenberg’s .79 .66 Scale) Partner’s worth (SAQ) .64 .65 Self-disclosure .80 .86 Feedback from partner .88 .86 Perception of feedback from partner .90 .92 Closeness .91 .92 As shown above, because of low reliabilities of SAQ, data of self-worth and partner’s worth were not included in my analysis. Dichotomizing Participants. Negative self-esteem participants and positive self-esteem participants were defined by dichotomizing participants on the basis of responses of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale using the median as the point to dichotomize. A median of self—esteem scale was 5.8, so participants with 5.8 or less of self-esteem were considered as “lower” self-esteem people (N = 32) and participants with more than 5.8 of self-esteem were considered as “higher” self-esteem people (N = 30). Because 5.8 out of 7.0 (7-step Likert-type response format) was not low, it was not appropriate that 21 participants with 5.8 or less self-esteem were defined as “negative” self—esteem people. Therefore, in this study, lower and higher self-esteem were used to categorize participants rather than “negative” and “positive” self-esteem. Using the same procedure, lower (N = 35) and higher (N = 27) evaluation from partner (Median = 6.33) and lower (N = 31) and higher (N = 31) perceived feedback from a partner (Median = 5.92) were defined. Tests of Hypothesis 1 . Hypothesis I predicted a relationship between consonance of self-esteem valence and partners’ rating valence, and relationship closeness. Specifically, H1 A predicted lower self-view participants with partners who rate them lower will be closer than lower self-view participants with partners who rate them higher. HlB predicted higher self-view participants with partners who rate them higher will be closer than higher self-view participants with partners who rate them lower. First, an independent-sample t-test was conducted to examine the effect of participants’ self-esteem and evaluation from their partners on the participants’ closeness to their partners. The result showed a significant difference between lower (M = 5.71, SD = 0.81) and higher (M = 6.22, SD = 0.65) self-esteem participants in their closeness to their partners, t (60) = 2.70, p < .01, 112 =.108 as shown in Table 3. 22 .320 w. 088sz exabgmxmi Mmfimfimmi oak M