COMMUNICATION AND RELATIONAL CHANGE PROCESSES! CONCEPTUALIZATION AND FINDINGS A Disserfohon for the Degree of DH. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Malcolm Ross Parks I976 11mm"! UHIIJJLIIIIHMIIIIIMIMI 312 This is to certify that the thesis entitled COMMUNICATION AND RELATIONAL CHANGE PROCESSES: CONCEPTUALIZATION AND FINDINGS presented by MALCOLM R . PARKS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Eh‘_DI__degree in Communication flan/217 d5 Wg/éx’ Major professor Date September 8, 1976 0-7639 ABSTRACT MIG-WEN AND FELATICNAL CHANGE PMSSES : CINCEIP'I‘UALIZATIQ‘I AND FINDINGS By Malcolm R. Parks This research investigated the role of ccmmmication in relational change processes. A central problem has been the ambiguity with which the concepts of "relationship" and "relational change" have been used. The study began by offering a general perspective on these concepts. 'Ihis perspective made the initial assurption that persons entered into, naintaired and terminated contacts with others for the purpose of goal- achievarent. Exchange theory was then utilized as a basis for concept- ualizing the interface of individuals ' goal-seeking activities . From this orientation relational change was conceptualized in terms of changes in the variety (breadth), subjective value (depth) and frequen- cy of exchanges. mlational change was also conceptualized in terns of informational and negotiative requirements of exchange managenent. 'Ihese factors were referred to as a "communication contract. " Oonponents of oonrmnication contracts selected for investigation were : 1) uncertainty; 2) percein understanding; 3) the frequency of netacamunication; and 4) perceived miqueness. The main focus of the study was on the relationship of exchange and contract variables to two general indicators of relational development. These were: 1) the level of perceived closeness; and 2) the level of friaidship. A secondary interest was in relational decay processes. It focused on an attenpt to categorize subject explanations for decay in Malcolm R. Parks terns of the exchange and cummication contract variables. 'Ihe data for this study were obtained from 105 undergraduates en- rolled in commnication courses. Each subject coupleted itens pertain— ing to the exchange and ccntract factors for three relationships : 1) an acquaintance; 2) a friend; and 3) an intimate friend. These three levels of frieidship were selected‘on the basis of a pilot study. This procedure yielded a total of 315 relationships for analysis. Of these 68 were identified as exhibiting some form of decay. These 68 were analyzed independently. 'Ihis left 247 ncn-decay relationships for the analysis of relational development patterns . Each subject catpleted three questionnaires. Multiple waves were wed so that items could be repeated to obtain reliability estimates. mliability estimates were also obtained from a sample of 42 relaticn- ships in which both participants had conpleted a questionnaire. Analysis of relational development patterns was of three types: 1) an examinatim of the correlations between perceived closeness and the several exchange and contract variables; 2) an examination of the be- havior of the exchange and contract variables across the three levels of friendship; and 3) a series of factor analytic atterpts to explore the relationships anong the exchange and contract variables . Although a carprehensive analysis was not possible, the behavior of these vari- ableswasalsoecaminedinternsofthesexofthesubjectandthe sexual conposition of the relationship. Brief written explanaticms of the causes of decay were obtained for 58 of the 68 decay relationships. Explanaticms were coded in terms of categories defined by the exchange and contract factors . The exploratory Malcoler, Parks analysis of these data involved an examination of the distribution of the 34 consistently coded responses. ‘When perceived.closeness was used as an indicator of relational development, it was found that increases in perceived closeness were associated with increases in perceived uniqueness, the breadth of com— munication, the average and maximum depth of commmication, the frequen— cy of metacommunicaticn and the level of perceived understanding in a statistically significant fashian. Perceived closeness and uncertain- ty were strongly and.negatively associated. When the level of friendr ship was used as an indicator of relational development, it was found that increases in the level of friendship were accompanied by increases in the level of perceived uniqueness, perceived understanding, the average depth of communication and the frequency of metacommunication. level of friendship was found to be negatively related.to the level of uncertainty. 'Ihe frequency of communication was found to be unrelated to either indicator. Factor analytic attempts to isolate statistically independent sets of component variables met with failure. In general exchange and con- tract variables represent a highly interrelated set. The analysis of data for decay relationships revealed that the most frequent explanation for relational decay was nobility or physical dis— tance coupled with the development of alternative relationships. An examination of sex.differences revealed that males and females differed in terns of the average depth of carmunication, the breadth of ccnmmnication, the frequency of metaconnmwursmicn.and the level of unr certainty experienced in the relationship. Several of these variables Malcolm R. Parks also differed as a functian of whether the relationship was carposed of same- or opposite-sex persons. It was concluded that these differences may be reflective of actual differences in developmental patterns. The last several sections of the report evaluated the study in an attenpt to outline methodological and theoretic priorities for future research. Four general methodological suggestions for future research were offered: 1) replications involving samples of friendship relations; 2) replications involving samples of relationships with a variety of other social designations-—such as dating, marriage and business associ- ations; 3) the development of more precise operationalizations of vari- ables; and 4) the greater utilization of longitudinal designs. At a theoretic level an atterpt to further refine the conceptualization of relational change processes was made. It was suggested that the orig- inal conceptualization was too broad and ambiguous to be maximally use- ful in theory construction. In an effort to rectify this difficulty the conceptualization of relational change was restricted to focus only on clnanges in the breadth or depth of exchange. Frequency of exchange was dropped as a factor because it appeared to be at a lower level of abstraction than the other variables . Several of the variables that had been viewed as communication contract factors were then classified as antecedents or consequents of relational change. This modified concep- tualization was believed to better allow specification of relationships anong variables inportant in the process of relational change . COMMUNICATION AND RELATIONAL CHANGE PROCESSES: CONCEPTUALIZATION AND FINDINGS BY Malcolm Ross Parks A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1976 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the require- ments for the Doctor of PhilOSOphy degree. Xian/[IQ (I? ‘ lag/g4“ Director of Dissertation Guidance Committee: @7174 R Mflgy’ , Chairman W 1/ 64“. W Z . @é/lm (@326 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge my deep appreciation to Dr. Gerald R. Miller for serving as my committee chairman and disserta- tion director. Drs. Richard V. Farace, L. Edna Rogers and Katrina Simmons are to be thanked for ceaseless questions and proddings throughout this undertaking. I could not imagine a more supportive or challenging committee. I would also like to especially thank Drs. Miller and Farace for making resources available for this study. Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. Charles R. Berger for stimulating and re— fining my interest in this area. I would like to express my appreciation in a less formal way to all those creatures who comprised my social milieu at Michigan State. Among these partially mythical and partially real figures are the Fox, Sunshine, the Condor, the Cleveland Greaseball, the Toke, Magnet, M2, the Kid, the Germ, Rugs, Lips, Hands, J. Urp, F.B. Plous, Dandy Don, Sweet Cassie Lou, Jolly, Hammerin' Henry, Babs, Pandora, Spearchucker, Catfish, Drac, Bosco the Clown, Chuckles the Clown, Myra, Yonkers, the Enforcer, Jumpin' George, Nicky the Greek, the Sheik, the Weasel, the Woodpecker, Sherry the Blush, Johnnie Science, Ichabod McPhee, Lemonade, Raoul the Gardener, the Apollo Rocket and the Satin Doll. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. A Dynamic Conceptualization of Inter- personal Relationships . . . . . . l Conceptualizing Relationships . . . . 2 Exchange in Social Settings . . . . 2 Communication Contracting . . . . 5 Relationship Change Process . . . . . l4 Developmental Processes . . . . . 15 Maintenance Processes . . . . . 24 Decay Processes . . . . . . . 26 Summary and Hypotheses . . . . . . 29 Growth and Maintenance Factors . . . 30 Decay Factors . . . . . . . 32 2. Research Methodology . . . . . . 35 Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . 35 Rationale . . . . . . . . 35 Subjects . . . . . . . . . 36 Data Collection Procedures . . . . 36 Results . . . . . . . . . 37 Discussion . . . . . . . . 39 The Main Study . . . . . . . . 41 Selection and Description of Sample . . 41 Data Collection Procedures . . . . 43 Instrumentation . . . . . . . 45 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 53 iii Chapter 3. Research Findings . Developmental Analyses . . Measurement Reliability . . Bivariate Variable Relations Multivariate Variable Relations Decay Analyses . . . . . Coding Written Responses . Coder Agreement . . . . Distribution of Coders . . Evaluation of Coding Scheme . 4. Summary and Discussion . . Summary of Major Findings . . Research Hypotheses . . . Multivariate Relations Among Variables Sex Differences . . . . Decay Analyses . . . . General Methodological and Theoretic Implications . . . . . Methodological Priorities . Theoretic Priorities . . Summary . . . . . . Appendices . . . . . . . . I Pilot Study Questionnaire . . II Wave One Questionnaire . . . III Wave Two Questionnaire . . . IV Wave Three Questionnaire . . V Mail QueStionnaire . . . . VI Coding Instructions and Data on Decayed Relationships . . . References . . . . . . . iv Page 55 55 55 59 97 102 103 103 103 106 108 108 108 117 118 120 122 122 124 138 142 142 153 170 185 201 208 220 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Means and Standard Deviations for Friendship Designations . . . . . Subject Judgment Reliabilities . . . Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of Subject/Other Judgments . . . . Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Major Variables for Non-decay Relationships Correlation Matrix for Major Variables for Non-decay Relationships . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations by Friendship Level for Non-decay Relationships . . Analysis of Variance: Closeness . . . Analysis of Variance: Maximum Depth . . Analysis of Variance: Average Depth . . Analysis of Variance: Communication Breadth Analysis of Variance: Communication Frequency . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance: Metacommunication Frequency . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance: Uncertainty/ Predictability . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance: Perceived Understanding . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance: Uniqueness . . Analysis of Variance: History . . . Page 38 56 58 60 61 63 64 67 68 73 78 82 85 89 92 95 Table 17. 18. 19. Page Factor Loadings and Communalities . . . . 99 One Factor Solution: Loadings, Communalities and Scores . . . . . . 101 Distribution of Decay Codings . . . . . 104 vi Figure 1. Means for perceived closeness by friend- ship level for non-decay relationships Means for average and maximum depth by LIST OF FIGURES friendship level for non-decay relationships. Means for communication breadth by friend- ship level for non-decay relationships Means for communication frequency by friend- ship level for non-decay relationships Means for metacommunication frequency by friendship level for non-decay relationships. Means for uncertainty/predictability by friendship level for non-decay relationships. Means for perceived understanding by friend- ship level for non-decay relationships Means level Means level for for for for perceived uniqueness by non-decay relationships relationship history by non-decay relationships vii friendship friendship Page 65 70 74 79 83 86 90 93 96 Chapter 1 A Dynamic Conceptualization of Interpersonal Relationships Whether one begins from the examining eye of social science, the sonnets of Shakespeare or the brazen beat of rock and roll, it is an inescapable fact that individuals live out their lives, achieve their best, and endure their moments in relationships with others. From the scholarly Lyceum to the crowded patio of a modern suburban cocktail party, men and women have pondered the nature of relation- ships and how these fragile social constructions form and crumble. Despite the timeless centrality of the discussion, relatively little social scientific attention has been de- voted to explicating just what relationships are and how they change over time. The research reported here seeks to de- scribe a number of aspects of the process of relational change. The first task, involves to explicating the concept of "relationship." If we are to understand how relationships change, we must first be able to offer an understanding of what a relationship is. The second goal of this chapter is to present a conceptualization of relational change processes. In doing so, a number of research hypotheses will be derived. 1 2 The remainder of the work is devoted to a description of an empirical test of these hypotheses. The work is primarily definitional and exploratory. Conceptualizing Relationships The word "relationship" has been used so often and in so many contexts that one rarely thinks of providing a rigorous explication of the concept. Certainly no term in social science has received so much use and so little explication (Scheff, 1970). The conceptualization offered here has two major foci: 1) an orientation toward an exchange theoretic conception as the foundation of relationships; and 2) a con— sideration of the way in which exchange is developed and man- aged over time through communication. This later set of processes has been labeled as the process of communication contracting. Exchange in Social Settings Exchange as a theoretic foundation. An initial assump- tion of the present work is that persons enter into, maintain and terminate contacts with others in order to pursue their personal desires, needs, or goals (Miller & Steinberg, 1975; weinstein, 1966; weinstein, 1969; White, 1959). This assump- tion implies that relationships are vehicles for goal-achieve- ment. A consideration of an exchange perspective (e.g., Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) would appear to 3 follow rather straightforwardly from such an assumption. In their most general sense exchange formulations seek to de- scribe the way in which participants pursue their goals in social settings. Exchange formulations speak to the "mesh- ing" of behaviors relevant to goal—achievement. An exchange perspective extends the assumption of individual goal-seeking to multiple party interactions and, thus, provides a conceptu- al foundation for explicating the notion of a relationship. Moreover, because of its general use, exchange theory as a foundation can be related to substantial amounts of existing research. Several investigators have adopted this perspective for their examination of relational change processes (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973; Levinger, 1965; Moss, Apolonio & Jensen, 1971). Basic exchange concepts. Exchange concepts have enjoyed wide use. Several of the relevant concepts are summarized in terms of the goal-achievement orientation below. Following Thibaut and Kelley (1959) a "reward" may be de- fined as any behavior which one finds desirable, pleasant or satisfying. "Costs" may be defined as those behaviors which one finds unpleasant or undesirable or which inhibit a desired sequence of behavior. Thus, to achieve one's goals is viewed as rewarding, while failure or inhibition is viewed as costly to the individual. Individuals can be assumed to have expectations about interactions in terms of the ratio of rewards to costs 4 (outcomes). Evaluations are made not only for current inter- actions, but are also projected to future ones as well (Altman & Taylor, 1973). These are, of course, subjective (McCall & Simmons, 1966). At least two types of evaluation warrant mention. One type of comparison is between the expected or desired outcomes (reward/cost ratios) and the level of perceived actual out- comes--the comparison level (CL) (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). A second type is between the outcomes of a given interaction and the potential outcomes from alternative interactions--the com- parison level for alternatives (CLa ) (Thibaut & Kelley, 1t 1959). Dimensions of dyadic exchange. In social contexts the mesh of the participants' behavioral repertoires constitutes a matrix of exchanges. Each of the cells represents a unique combination of behaviors and has an at least theoretically specifiable value for each of the participants. These values may be similar or different for the participants depending on the degree to which participants possess similar goals. Three general dimensions of exchange are identified: 1) breadth-~the relative prOportion of each individual's behavior- al repertoire which is involved in a given interaction or series of interactions; 2) depth-~the extent to which an inter- action or series of interactions is characterized by exchanges of greater or lesser subjective value to the participants; and 3) frequencye-the rate at which exchanges occur. 5 Though the discussion above is more generally stated, the dimensions of exchange outlined here are similar to Altman and Taylor's (1973) conceptualization of intimacy. Communication Contracting Communicative requirements of exchange. While exchange formulations provide a foundation, they are insufficient to fully build a conceptualization of relationships. They provide little insight into how persons manage exchanges over time. As a result relatively little is said about the dynamic quali— ties of exchange. This section seeks to provide a general outline of the processes by which persons develop and manage interactions. If we assume that interactions are arenas where persons seek to obtain their goals, we can then ask what requirements must be met in order for persons to fulfill their objectives. Four necessary informational and negotiative requirements of exchange management are outlined below. First, mutual goal-achievement is facilitated by knowl- edge of the behavioral alternatives available to self and others. Without such information, one would have difficulty predicting the consequences of his or her actions. At best, an information deficit of this type might lead to inefficiency in exchange as participants might need to test a greater number of behaviors in seeking their goals. At worst, such a deficit might lead to a total inability to achieve goals. 6 Second, mutual goal-achievement is facilitated by knowl— edge of the subjective values other parties associate with behaviors. Information of this type contributes to predict- ability, and thus efficiency, in the same way as information regarding behavioral alternatives. Moreover, information about subjective values is necessary if one is to appropriate- ly reward others. Since fulfilling one's own objectives often depends on assisting others to fulfill their objectives (Carson, 1969; Jones & Gerard, 1967; McCall & Simmons, 1966), information about others' exchange preferences may be essen- tial to the ultimate fulfillment of one's own goals. Third, mutual goal-achievement is facilitated by agree— ments regarding exchange sequences. In many instances, ex- change sequences display a certain "quid pro quo" or "this for that" quality (weiss, Birchler & Vincent, 1974). That is, participants explicitly or implicitly agree to reward each other in a certain sequence. In some cases, for example, person A may engage in a behavior which is costly to him with the understanding that person B will reciprocate by engaging in a costly behavior which is rewarding to A. Agreements of this form illustrate the negotiative qualities of exchange. These understandings will be important if both parties in a dyad are to obtain their objectives over time. It should be noted that the concept of agreement is being used in a rather general sense. Like McCall and Simmons (1966) we shall View agreement as the lack of a disruptive dissensus rather than 7 the necessary presence of true consensus. Fourth, mutual goal-achievement is facilitated by agree- ments (in the general sense defined above) regarding changes in behavioral repertoires, preferences, or sequences. Assum- ing that change in persons and environments is inevitable (Bernard, 1964; Duvall, 1967), participants must develop agree— ments by which exchanges can be modified. If, for example, person A loses the ability to reward person B in way X, then A and B will need to come to some sort of agreement regarding a substitute for X or a mutually acceptable loss of rewards for A. This is simply to say that over time exchanges form patterns of mutual reward and when these patterns are disrupt- ed by personal or environmental change, persons must come to new agreements. These agreements may be explicitly negotiated or more implicitly inferred from communication about past changes. These four requirements constitute minimal necessary in- formational and negotiative requirements for the management of exchange over time. They are referred to as communicative re~ quirements in order to acknowledge the centrality of communica- tzion processes in their formation and maintenance. Throughout this discussion it has been presumed that these rexzuirements are necessary because they contribute to the pre- dixrtability of interaction. When persons are uncertain about tjuair'choice of behaviors, the consequences of their behavioral choices, or the meaning of others' behavioral choices, there is 8 a decreased probability that they will be able to achieve their goals at minimum cost. The role of communication in this process is emphasized by Berger and Calabrese (1975): we strive to make our own behavior and the behavior of others predictable, and we try to develop causal structures which provide explanations for our own behavior as well as the behavior of others. Within this framework, interpersonal communication be— havior plays at least two different roles. First, we must attempt to develop predictions about and explanations for our own and others' communication behavior. . . . Second, com- munication behavior is one vehicle through which such predictions and explanations are themselves formulated (p. 101). Thus, in order to achieve their goals at minimum cost over time, persons must be able to predict--within some margin of error--the potential consequences of their own and others' behavioral choices. Communication is the vehicle through which this predictability is developed and maintained. Such a conceptualization is very similar to Heider's (1958) notion that persons need to "make sense“ out of their physical and social environments in order to predict and control them. The contract concept. In this section, we will define the informational and negotiative requirements discussed above in terms of a "communication contract" which guides interaction. To view interaction in terms of a "contract" implies that -the results of negotiation have a normative or compelling devise a procedure whereby a considerable variance in levels of relationship develOpment could be identified. In the previous chapter it was suggested that one could lyresume that various levels of friendship (e.g., casual ac- qnmaintance, friend, good friend, etc.) could be arrayed along 35 36 the developmental continuum. That is, the connotations given to the social designations of friendship level were presumed to delineate differing levels of relationship development. To examine this assumption and in order to develop a proce- dure for identifying a variety of developmental levels, a pilot study was undertaken. This study sought to distinguish between several more or less commonly used social labels for friendship in terms of the generalized perceived "closeness" of the relationship. Subjects Questionnaires were given to 86 undergraduate students enrolled in lower division communication courses at Michigan State university in the Winter of 1976. All participants vol- unteered for the study and received extra credit in their course for participation. The mean age of the sample was 18.79 years (SD = 1.26). Fifty-eight (67.4%) of the subjects were female and 28 (32.6%) were male. Almost all (96.5%) were unmarried. Most of the participants (70.9%) were freshmen, while 17.4% were in their sophomore year of college. Of the remaining 11.7% of the sample, 7.0% were juniors and 4.7% were in their senior year. 'Data Collection Procedures Students who had volunteered to participate in the study ‘were given a questionnaire (Appendix I) in class and instruct- ed to complete it outside of class. Once the questionnaire 37 had been completed, participants were instructed to return it to class or to the investigator's office. Participants were instructed to evaluate 10 different types or levels of friendship in terms of closeness. These were: 1) intimate friend; 2) acquaintance; 3) friend; 4) best friend; 5) close friend; 6) just friends; 7) casual friends; 8) good friends; 9) very good friends; and 10) casual acquaintances. While this list was not presumed to be exhaustive, it was assumed to be representative of the broad variety of social designations for friendship relations. For each relationship participants were presented with a 100nmiline bounded by the phrases "Not Close at All" and “Extremely Close." The closeness judgment was made by placing a slash through the line at the point along the closeness con— tinuum which the participant judged to be appropriate for a given relationship. All participants fully completed this portion of the pilot study questionnaire. There were no missing data for these 10 items. Results The primary focus of the analysis was to examine the way in.which the 10 friendship designations were arrayed in terms of closeness. The means and standard deviations of judgments for each of the designations are presented in Table 1. As this table reveals, these friendship designations are extrayed along almost the entire closeness continuum. Grouped 38 Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Friendship Designationsa Designation Mean Standard Deviation Acquaintance 17.05 12.78 Casual Acquaintance 17.61 12.56 Casual Friend 31.83 13.98 Just Friends 39.37 14.49 Friend 52.28 14.47 Good Friend 63.59 13.56 Close Friend 78.84 11.53 Very Good Friend 80.49 11.93 Best Friend 86.74 11.21 Intimate Friend 90.52 12.73 a = 86 for all statistics. 39 at the lower end of the continuum are relationships like ac- quaintance and causal acquaintance. The mean for the "friend" designation fell very near the mid-point of the continuum, while terms like close friend, very good friend, best friend and intimate friend were grouped near the upper end of the continuum. The least close relationship was "acquaintance" while the closest was "intimate friend." Each of the 10 designations was also examined for sex differences. Given that most of the subjects (67.4%) were female, results of these comparisons with lopsided group sizes must be viewed as exploratory at best. Of the 10 t-tests, only one revealed a difference which was statistically sig- nificant at the .05 level. This test was for judgments of intimate friendship where females tended to perceive the rela— tionship as closer (M_= 90.77, SD = 5.97) than did males (M = 85.86, §Q_= 20.34). This difference was statistically sig- nificant, t (84) = 2.43, p < .025. A comparison of the standard deviations for the two groups reveals that males tend to perceive greater variance in terms of closeness for intimate friendship than do females. None of the other terms differed in terms of sex. Discussion As the results of this pilot study indicate, the various social designations for friendship relations can be arrayed along a broad variety of points on a closeness continuum. To the extent that closeness is assumed to indiciate relationship 40 development, these social designations for friendship repre- sent a considerable variety of points along the developmental continuum. The major usefulness of these findings for this study was in terms of design considerations for the primary study. In order to conduct the primary study it was decided that a limited number of relationships would be tapped. The results of the pilot study were used to identify a set of social labels which: 1) contained substantial variance within judg- :ments of the label; and 2) were arrayed at different points along the developmental continuum. All of the friendship designations appeared to possess ample variance. Thus, the decision regarding which particular labels to use was based on their placement along the closeness continuum. It was somewhat arbitrarily decided to use the following 3 labels: 1) acquaintance; 2) friend; and 3) intimate friend. This de- cision was based on two considerations. First, the designa- tions of acquaintance and intimate represented the extreme ends of the closeness continuum and thus were most likely to :maximize variance for this measure. Second, the three terms ‘were approximately equally spaced along the closeness continu- um. Use of these terms would simplify any comparisons based on friendship designation. It should be noted that while these terms can be dis- tinguished in terms of closeness, closeness may not be the only relevant dimension. It may be that these terms are 41 similar or different on other dimensions. However, this unidimensional analysis was most relevant for the present research. The Main Study This section outlines the research methodology employed for the main study and is divided into three parts: 1) a discussion of the selection and nature of the sample; 2) a discussion of data collection procedures; and 3) a discussion of instrumentation. Selection and Description of Sample Selection of sample. A sample of college students pro- vided data to test the hypotheses and gather information relevant to the research questions outlined in the previous chapter. This choice was predicated on two factors. First, there seemed to be no reason to believe that the processes of relational formation, maintenance and decay would vary as a function of the sample. The conceptualization is a general one and not limited to a specific type of relation- ship such as friendship or marriage. While the content of exchange and communication contracting processes may differ as a function of demographic variables, neither the conceptual- ization itself, nor previous research would indicate that the structure of these processes would vary as a function of sample type. This, of course, does not imply that they don't-- only that there is no obvious reason for examining one popula- tion in preference to another for theoretic reasons. 42 Second, while a limited amount of data will be discussed here, the overall needs of the study were quite large. A large number of variables were examined inasmultiple-wave format. Given the limited resources available, problems of contact and tracking participants through the study were judged to be less severe with a student sample. The final sample of 105 students was drawn on a volunteer basis from lower division undergraduate communication courses at Michigan State university in the Spring of 1976. The final sample consisted of persons who fully completed a series of three questionnaires. The final sample of 105 persons represented a 92.9% completion rate when compared to the 113 persons who began the study. All participants in this sample received extra credit for full completion of the questionnaires. Participants were asked if one of their friends could be contacted. This was totally voluntary and had no impact on the extra credit aspect of the study. Participants were allowed to choose any one of the three persons they had designated. Slightly less than 50% (49) of the participants allowed one of their friends to be directly contacted. These friends were sent a questionnaire by mail. Forty-three (87.8%) questionnaires were returned--although one of these ‘was later removed because the participant who had named the friend failed to complete the study. Thus, a smaller sample of 42 reciprocated contacts was obtained. 43 Description of sample. The final sample consisted of 63 females and 42 males. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 30 (M_= 19.29, SD = 1.60). Virtually all (97.1%) of the respondents had never been married. Most of the participants were in their first (62.9%) or second (21.0%) year of college. Of the remaining 15.3%, 6.7% were juniors and 8.6% were seniors, while about 1.0% of the sample was completing the fifth or later year of undergraduate work. At least in terms of these characteristics, the individ- uals comprising the final sample did not appear to differ inarkedly from the pilot sample. Data Collection Procedures Main sample. The overall design of the study was non- experimental and cross-sectional in nature. Each subject completed three questionnaires (Appendices II, III, IV). Questionnaires were distributed approximately seven to 10 days apart. Data collection adhered to the following general pattern. Participants were given questionnaires in class and instruct- ed to return them at the next class meeting or to a drop-off point. Persons who failed to either pick-up or return a given questionnaire were contacted by phone. If contact could not be made, the participant was drOpped from the study. In no case was the subject allowed to have more than one «questionnaire at a time for many of the items from wave to ‘wave were similar and the investigator wished to avoid the 44 possibility of participants merely copying responses from one questionnaire to the next. Each participant was instructed to evalute three rela- tionships: 1) an intimate friendship; 2) a friendship; and 3) an acquaintance relationship. For each relationship, the participant was instructed to name a person with whom he or she enjoyed that particular type of relationship. After the first wave, the name of the friend, acquaintance, and inti- mate friend was written in for the participant on the ques- tionnaire. This was done in an effort to lessen the recall demand on the subjects over the period of the study. Thus, each participant completed items relevant to the research hypotheses and questions for three different rela- tionships. As a result, the 105 participants in the final sample generated information about a total of 315 relation- ships. Mail sample. A sample of 42 reciprocated contacts was obtained. That is, data for this group was collected on both participants in the relationship. This was done in an effort to more fully assess the reliability of measurement and to extend the possibilities for secondary analysis and explanation. Persons named by the participants were sent a question— naire by mail. This questionnaire asked the same questions asked in the 3 waves of the main study. A copy of this ques- tionnaire can be found in Appendix V. In addition to the 45 questionnaire each contact received a personal letter ex- plaining the study and urging cooperation. Telephone follow- ups for unreturned questionnaires had been planned but were not done owing to the high initial return rate. Persons named by the participants were given no incentive such as extra credit for participation. Instrumentation. All variables contained in the research hypotheses and questions were measured. Single item measures were repeated in different questionnaires in order to obtain a test-retest reliability estimate. The final value for these variables ‘was the mean of the two items. A discussion of the opera- tionalization of variables follows below. Closeness. "Closeness" was suggested to be an indicant of the general developmental process. In the first and second waves of the study as well as in the mail questionnaire, participants were asked the following for each relationship: "How 'glgsgf is your relationship with this person?" Respons- es were given on a nine-point scale bounded at the end points with the phrases "Not Close at All" and "Extremely Close." Breadth and depth of communication. Since depth and breadth of communication were operationalized by means of the same set of items, the measurement of these variables is jointly discussed here. A set of 40 items were randomly selected from a pool of items drawn from a set of intimacy-scaled statements developed 46 by Taylor and Altman (1966a, 1966b). The pool for this selection was drawn from a larger pool develOped by Taylor and Altman. Their pool consisted of 671 items pertaining to 13 different topics which people might discuss as they formed interpersonal relationships. The pool for this study was drawn from the larger pool according to the following general criteria: 1) items were included only if Taylor and Altman reported that they could be scaled for intimacy with "high" or "moderate" reliability; 2) items were selected to include a variety of topics; and 3) items were chosen to include items from all levels of intimacy. A given item could have an inti- macy score ranging from 1.0 to approximately 11.0. From this pool, four items whose intimacy value fell be- tween l.0 and 2.0 where randomly selected, four items whose intimacy value fell between 2.0 and 3.0 were also selected. This process was repeated for each of the 10 integer intervals along the Taylor and Altman scale. Thus, a total of 40 items were randomly selected from the pool generated by applying the criteria listed above--with four at each integer level of intimacy. All but one of the 13 topics delineated by Taylor and Altman were included in this final set. The non-selected tOpic pertained to "own marriage and family." Using Taylor and Altman’s scale values for the items, the final scale values ranged from 1.23 to 10.69. These scale values were derived from judgments in populations consisting of college students and Naval personnel. The 40 final items are arrayed 47 in the questionnaires used in this study in order of increas- ing intimacy. These items appeared in the first, third and mail questionnaires. This admittedly somewhat crude scale construction pro- cedure resulted in a set of 40 items arrayed in terms of an increasing order of intimacy. Participants were instructed to indicate whether or not they had ever discussed each of the 40 items with the other person. They were told that they need not have discussed them extensively or recently--just as long as the topic had been discussed at some point in time. A general measure of communication breadth was obtained by simply summing the number of items checked by the partici- pant. The greater the number of topics checked, the greater the breadth of communication. Two measures of depth of com- munication were derived. Maximum depth was simply measured as the intimacy-value for the highest item checked. Average dgpth was operationalized as the mean value (using Altman and Taylor's scale values) for all of the checked items on a given administration. Thus, breadth was operationalized in terms of the number of items checked and depth was operational- ized in terms of the intimacy value for topics which had been discussed. Frequency of communication. The frequency with which Participants in a given relationship communicated was opera- tionalized in terms of the average rate of face-to-face com- munication. Participants were asked: "On the average, how 48 often do you talk face-to-face with this person during the school year?" This item was followed by 8 response options: 1. "Once a month or less." (01.00) 2. "About once every 3 weeks." (01.42) 3. ”About once every 2 weeks." (02.14) 4. "About once each week." (04.29) 5. "About twice a week." (08.58) 6. "About 4 times a week." (17.14) 7. ”Once a day." (30.00) 8. "Two or more times each day." (60.00) Numerical values were assigned to each of these catego- ries in terms of their ratio relationship to each other. These values appear in parentheses above. The first category ("Once a month or less") was assigned a base value of 1.0. Other categories were assigned a value according to their ratio to this base value. Thus category seven, "Once a day," has a numerical value of 30.00, representing a frequency 30 times as great as the first category. This measure of communication frequency was included in the first, second and mail questionnaires. Distance between participants. As the conceptual dis- cussion noted, a major determinant of communication frequency is propinquity or distance. In this study the distance be- tween participants was measured in terms of miles. Partici— pants were instructed to estimate the number of miles in whole numbers and decimal fractions between themselves and the other Party to the relationship. This item was included in the se- cond and third questionnaires. 49 Frequency of metacommunication. A limited operational- ization of metacommunicative frequency was utilized in this study. Given the great variety and subtlety of nonverbal metacommunicative cues as well as the paucity of previous research on nonverbal metacommunication, it was decided to focus on verbal metacommunication. Participants were asked to respond to the following item: "How frequently do the two of you actually talk about the state or nature of your rela- tionship?" Responses were given on a nine-point scale bound- ed by the phrases "Almost Never" and "Quite Frequently." This measure of verbal metacommunication frequency was included in the first, second and mail questionnaires. Uncertainty. A total of 19 items drawn from a larger 65 item scale developed by Clatterbuck (1975) was utilized to assess the participants' confidence in their ability to predict various actions and characteristics of the other party in the relationship. Previous use of these items by Clatterbuck and the present investigator had indicated that they were strongly unidimensional and highly reliable in terms of internal consistency criteria. Items dealt with a variety of topics. Several entailed biographic information--such as the other's age, birthday, and the amount of trouble the person got into as a child. Ckhers focused on the other's activities and interest, while Still others dealt with how the person would react in a number of different situations--such as infidelity, marriage, 50 borrowing money from friends, etc. Several items related to the other's general values and attitudes toward issues such as politics, religion, and friendship. Participants were instructed to indicate their level of confidence in their ability to provide information on the other's actions or characteristics. A nine-point scale bounded by the phrases "I am not at all confident of my an- swer" and "I am extremely confident of my answer." was utilized. Presuming an acceptable level of internal consist- ency, the final value for this variable will be the sum of the 19 individual item scores. The uncertainty items were included in the second and mail questionnaires. Perceived understandigg. The extent to which partici- pants in a relationship felt they understood each other was conceptualized in terms of communication contracting and un- certainty reduction. A general measure of this variable was obtained by means of the following item: "How well do you think this person understands what kind of a person you are?" Responses were given on a nine-point scale bounded by the phrases "Not Well at All" and "Extremely Well." This measure of perceived understanding in the global sense was included in the first, third and mail questionnaires. Perceived uniqueness. A hypothesized correlate of in- creasing particularization in exchange and communication con- tracting in the developmental process was perceived uniqueness. 51 A global measure of this variable was obtained by means of the following item: "How unique--different from all others-- is this relationship?" Responses were recorded on a nine- point scale bounded by the phrases "Very unique" and "Not unique." This global measure of perceived uniqueness was included in the first, third and mail questionnaires. Relationship decay. The research conducted in this study can be generally divided between hypotheses relevant to relationship development and research questions pertain— ing to relationship decay. Obviously some way to differen- tiate relationships which had experienced decay from those that had not was needed. A generalized distinction was made by asking participants to respond to the following question: "Has this person ever been a better friend than he or she currently is?" Responses were given in a simple "yes" or "no" format. The question was phrased in terms of "goodness" of relationship because many of the terms for friendship are differentiated in terms of this dimension as the pilot study indicated. A positive response to this item was interpreted as indicative of decay. Participants who responded affirmatively were instructed to explain briefly what happened to change the relationship. These decay items were included in the second and mail ques- tionnaires. 52 Written responses for participants answering the above question in the affirmative were coded by an undergraduate female and a female from the graduate program at Michigan State University. Neither coder was familiar with the nature of the study. A copy of all written responses as well as the coding scheme has been included in Appendix VI. The coding scheme utilized was a rather straightforward extension of the con- ceptual discussion in the first chapter. Exchange factors associated with relationship decay were coded into the fol— lowing categories: 1) reduced rewards; 2) enhanced costs; and 3) attractive alternative relationships. Each of these factors could lead to decreases in the breadth, depth, or frequency of exchange. Communication contracting factors associated with relationship decay were coded into the follow- ing categories: 1) enhanced uncertainty; 2) reduced or im- balanced disclosure; 3) decreased metacommunication; and 4) decreased communication idiosyncrasy. A final response cate- gory ("other") was included to cover those instances where no written response was given or where the response could not be coded into one of the other categories. The focus of coding was on the previously articulated conceptualization. As a coding scheme many of the categories are very general and interrelated. Given the exploratory nature of this portion of the research as well as the lack of theoretical development necessary to devise a mutually 53 exclusive and exhaustive scheme, this orientation appeared to present an adequate point of departure for future research. In this vein, coders were instructed to use as many or as few categories as they believed appropriate. Coding instructions included a definition of each category as well as several examples for each category. Other research variables. Several biographic factors relating to the participant and the person named by the par- ticipant were measured. Among these were: 1) age; 2) sex; 3) marital status; and 4) year in school. These were included in an effort to more fully describe the nature of the sample. Participants were also asked to indicate how long they had known each person they had designated. Values for this variable across the various levels of friendship and decay may provide insight into nature of the friendship life cycle. Summary This chapter outlined the research methodology and pro— cedures employed. Investigation of the research hypotheses and questions was conducted with a sample of undergraduate college students. The focus of the study was on friendship relations--acquaintanceship, friendship, and intimate friend- ship. For each of these three types of relationships par- ticipants were instructed to think of a specific person and then reSpond to a series of questions pertaining to each relationship. These particular levels or types of friendship had been selected on the basis of a pilot study. The main 54 study was a three-wave survey design examining a total of 315 relationships and a smaller survey of 42 reciprocated contacts which was developed in part from a mail survey. Chapter 3 RESEARCH FINDINGS Findings relevant to the research hypotheses and ques- tions are presented in this chapter. It is divided into two major sections: 1) an examination of the hypotheses relat- ing to relationship development; and 2) a consideration of the research questions pertaining to relationship decay. Developmental Analyses This section of the chapter focuses on analyses rele- vant to the research hypotheses advanced in the first chapter. It progresses in three parts: 1) an examination of measurement reliability; 2) an analysis of bivariate rela- tions between variables; and 3) an exploration of multivari- ate relations among the major research variables. Each of these analysis categories is taken up below. lEasurement Reliability Either a test-retest reliability coefficient or an in- ternal consistency reliability coefficient was available for each of the major research variables. These reliability estimates are summariezed in Table 2. Each estimate is based on the total sample of relationships evaluated by the 55 56 Table 2 Subject Judgment Reliabilities variable Reliability Closenessa .86 Average Deptha .61 Maximum Deptha .74 Breadtha .90 Communication Frequencya .89 Metacommunication Frequencya .72 Distancea .99 Uncertaintyb .91 Perceived Understandinga .77 Perceived Uniquenessa .57 Historya .95 aTest-retest correlation. All correlations reached 2‘: .001 (g_= 315). bInternal Consistency Coefficient-~Cronbach Alpha (Cronbach, 1951). 57 participants (5 = 315). Obviously with a sample size this large even very modest associations become statistically sig- nificant. However, with the exception of the average depth and perceived uniqueness measures, all of the reliabilities reached an acceptable level. While the reliability coeffi- cients for average depth (.61) and perceived uniqueness (.57) are relatively high, they were inadequate in terms of tra- ditional notions about reliability (of. Nunnally, 1967, p. 226). In an attempt to explore more fully the reliability of several of the major variables and the comparability of eval- uations made by both parties to a given relationship, the cor- relations between the subject's evaluations and the other party's evaluations were examined. The data base for these comparisons was the 42 relationships on which evaluations by both members were available. The correlations are presented in Table 3. It should be noted that there is no reason to believe that several of the potential subject/other judgments should be highly correlated. For example, there is no reason to believe that both participants in a relationship should nec- essarily perceive it to be equally close or unique. Nor is there any reason to expect that both members of a relation- ship should experience the same level of uncertainty or understanding. The subject/other comparisons for six of the variables, however, do constitute valid reliability estimates. These are: 1) average depth; 2) maximum depth; 3) breadth; 58 Table 3 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of Subject/Other Judgmentsa Variable r p Average Depth .38 <.01 Maximum Depth .30 <.05 Breadth .65 <.001 Communication Frequency .93 <.001 Metacommunication Frequency .57 <.001 History .90 <.001 a n = 42 for all correlations. 59 4) communication frequency; 5) metacommunication frequency; and 6) history. Since each of these variables refers to an evaluation about a joint aspect of the relationship, one should expect that members' evaluations would be highly cor- related. Although all of these correlations are statistical- ly significant, those for average and maximum depth, breadth and metacommunication frequency were lower than traditionally acceptable reliability estimates. As a result it is not clear that findings involving these variables can be general- ized beyond the individual to the relationship as a whole. Bivariate Variable Relations Of the 315 relationships sampled, 68 were identified by participants as exhibiting decay. The remaining 247 relation- ships were examined in terms of the associations hypothesized in the first chapter. Means and standard deviations for each of the variables are presented in Table 4. The zero-order correlation matrix among these variables is presented in Table 5. Each hypothesis will be examined in terms of the correlation between perceived closeness and "level" of friend- ship and the other research variables. Where possible, sex differences in the values of these variables will also be examined. Although no specific sex differences were hypothesized, results pertaining to sex differences are presented in an attempt to extend the explor- atory value of the research. In addition to perceived closeness, the "level" of friendship was suggested as a general criterion for 60 Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Major Variables for Non-decay Relationshipsa Variable M S.D. Range Closeness 6.03 2.12 1.00 - 9.00 Average Depth 4.27 1.19 0.00 - 6.03 Maximum Depth 9.79 1.36 0.00 - 10.69 Breadth 22.40 10.32 0.00 - 40.00 Communication Frequency 25.25 24.43 1.00 - 60.00 Metacommunication Frequency 3.61 2.44 1.00 - 9.00 Distance 192.99 1,035.34 0.00 - 1,735.00 Uncertainty 112.75 31.05 30.00 - 169.00 Perceived Understanding 6.35 2.13 1.00 - 9.00 Perceived Uniqueness 4.95 2.27 1.00 - 9.00 History 3.36 4.21 0.16 - 19.84 a g’= 247 for all statistics. vv-.-I . m Hoo v U 8. v do . m we v Q 65333.80 do How wen H mm 61 gem. amm. com. com. amm. cam... 8. eR. can... can. 59H .3 a3. a3. emm. cos. n3. 8. cam. as»... ea. eggs .3 can... at”. new: so. 8. com. 0%.. can. .g .5832 .m c8. e8. W8. 3. as. near e8. 28 8394 .m was. one. mo. own. “65.- mam. find 568: .5 oz. n2. com. was... one. flog G 8.- 8. 8.- 03. 6% .58 .m 8. 8.- 8. 8:335 .4 aomf com. 8% .m was... 5385 .u mmwflwgfiu 2H S 2 a m a. s m a m .N H Shanna, caggafl $52 now messenger none: How in: 833958 mOHQNH 62 relationship development. Each participant was asked to evaluate three levels of friendship--acquaintance, friend and intimate friend. It was noted in the first chapter that each of these levels could be conceived of as being arrayed along a continuum of increasing levels of relational develop- ment. In a cross-sectional sense, then, relational develop- ment can be examined in terms of differences in the various research variables across the three levels of friendship. Of the 105 total participants, 53 were able to evaluate rela- tionships at all three levels in which there was no decay. That is, there was no decay in any of the three designated relationships for 53 of the 105 participants in the study. Cross-sectional comparisons of relationship development by friendship level were made for these 53 participants. Means and standard deviations for the research variables across these three friendship levels are presented in Table 6. Thus, each hypothesis was examined in terms of both per- ceived closeness and level of friendship. In order to ex- plore the relationship between these two potential criterion variables for relational development, a l-way treatment-by- subjects ANOVA was computed (Table 7). Differences between the three levels of friendship in terms of perceived close- ness proved to be statistically significant, 3(2/104) = 11.55, p < .0001. As Figure 1 reveals, closeness increases with level of friendship.' This increase appears to generally ap- proximate a linear function. Thus, levels of friendship and Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations by Friendship level for Nan—decay Relationships Variable Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Closeness 4.15 (1.69) 6.47 (1.31) 7.76 (0.90) Average Depth 3.45 (1.18) 4.12 (1.06) 5.01 (0.84) MaxinunDepth 6.58 (2.06) 6.63 (1.89) 6.32 (1.57) Oarm. Frequency 17.14 (19.85) 25.13 (25.20) 29.34 (26.97) Breadth 32.72 (15.16) 31.05 (15.76) 36.66 (16.71) Metacarm. Frequency 2.33 (1.69) 3.69 (2.39) 4.56 (2.59) Uncertainty 90.62 (23.69) 116.64 (24.98) 135.70 (16.38) Understanding 4.75 (1.89) 6.76 (1.45) 7.85 (1.25) Uniqueness 3.87 (2.12) 4.86 (1.83) 6.02 (2.05) History 2.20 (2.99) 3.26 (3.72) 5.70 (5.67) Note: 3 = 53. This represents participants who reported no decay at any of the three levels. 64 Table 7 Analysis of Variance: Closeness Source of Variation ss df MS F p Between People 1318.94 52 25.36 Within People 1877.85 106 17.71 Between Levels 341.37 2 170.69 11.55 <.0001 Residual 1536.47 104 14.77 Total 3196.78 158 20.77 Perceived Closeness 65 Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Level of Friendship Figure 1. Means for perceived closeness by friend- ship level for non-decay relationships. 66 perceived closeness were found to be positively and strongly associated in this study. Depth of communication. It will be recalled that the depth dimension of communication intimacy was Operationalized in two ways in this study. Depth was first measured in terms of the maximum level of intimacy reported in the relationship. As Table 5 indicates maximum depth and perceived closeness were positively correlated, £_= .57, E.< .001. Although the informational value of the significance value for a correla- tion with a sample size this large is reduced, the magnitude of the association and its direction are supportive of the first hypothesis. As Table 8 indicates, however, no significant difference was found between the three levels of friendship for maximum depth of communication, 2(2/104) = 0.54, n.s. The second operationalization of communication depth was the average intimacy level. .As Table 5 indicates average depth and perceived closeness were strongly and positively associated, £.= .66, p < .001. Average depth of communication was also found to increase across the three levels of friend— ship as Table 9 reveals, §(2/104) = 42.64, E.‘ .0001. Thus, the average depth of communication was found to increase with the level of relationship development--regardless of whether relationship develOpment was measured in terms of perceived closeness or level of friendship. 67 Table 8 Analysis of Variance: Maximum Depth Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 246.26 52 4.74 Within People 290.10 106 2.74 Between Levels 3.00 2 1.50 0.54 n.s. Residual 287.10 104 2.76 Total 536.36 158 3.39 Analysis of 68 Table 9 Variance: Average Depth Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 89.02 52 1.71 Within People 144.24 106 1.36 Between Levels 64.99 2 32.49 42.64 <.0001 Residual 79.25 104 0.76 Total 233.26 158 1.48 69 Results pertaining to maximum and average depth of com- munication across the three levels of friendship are dis- played graphically in Figure 2. At least in terms of the assumptions made about relationship development in this re- search, it appeared that average depth of communication was a more sensitive index of relational deve10pment than was the maximum depth of communication. In general the results of these analyses can be viewed as supporting the first hypothesis which suggested a positive relationship between depth of communication and relational development. Sex differences for maximum depth and average depth were examined in three ways: 1) the sex of the subject; 2) male vs. female same-sex dyads; and 3) opposite vs. same-sex dyads. Findings relevant to each of these groupings are discussed below. Of the 247 non-decay relationships, 102 were evaluated by male participants while 145 were evaluated by female members. Although females did tend to report greater maximum depth (M_= 9.89, S2.= 1.29) than males (M_= 9.64, §2'= 1.45), this difference was not significant, E (245) = 1.45, n.s. A significant difference between males and females was found, however, for the average depth of communication, E (245) = 3.68, E.‘ .001. Females reported greater average depth (§’= 4.50, 2 = 1.19) than did males (g = 3.94, §2 = 1.12). Depth 70 7.5 Maximum Depth 3.5 Average Depth Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Level of Friendship Figure 2. Means for average and maximum depth by friendship level for non-decay relation- ships. 71 Of the non-decay relationships, 199 of the 247 (80.6%) involved same-sex relationships. Of these 117 were all fe- male, while 82 were all male. Although the maximum depth of communication in female same-sex friendship was somewhat greater (M_= 10.07, §2I= 0.93) than in male same-sex friend- ships (M_= 9.76, §E_= 1.43), this difference was not signifi- cant, E_(l97) = 1.83, n.s. However, as one might expect given the results outlined above, a significant difference between male and female same-sex relationships was found for average depth, 3 (197) = 3.25, p < .001. The average depth of communication was greater in female relationships (M 1.11) than in male same-sex relationships (M 4.63, s2 4.11, SD. 1.11). Since almost all (80.6%) of the non-decay relationships were same—sex, a systematic statistical comparison of same- and opposite-sex relationships was precluded. Differences are explored, however, for their potential exploratory value. The maximum depth in same-sex relationships was greater (3.: 9.94, SD = 1.17) than in opposite-sex friendships (M'= 9.15, §2_= 1.84). A similar finding resulted from the average depth.comparison. Same-sex friendships were reported to exhibit a greater level of average depth (M 4.42, §Q_= 1.14) than opposite-sex friendships (M'= 3.66, §D_= 1.22). As a result of the distribution of the sexes across the three levels of friendship, a systematic comparison of depth in terms of the sexual composition of relationships across 72 the three friendship levels was not possible. However, the results discussed above are suggestive of the value of such a test in future research. Although few sex differences were found for maximum depth, the reported level of average depth was found to vary as a function of: l) the sex of the person making the evaluation; 2) whether the relationship was composed of males or females; and 3) whether the rela- tionship was composed of same— or opposite-sex individuals. Breadth of communication. Breadth of communication was operationalized in terms of the reported number of disussion categories that had actually been discussed in the relation- ship. There were 40 possible categories and the mean number discussed in non-decay relationships was 22.4 (§Q = 10.32). A strong positive correlation, 5 = .72, E.< .001, was found between perceived closeness and breadth of communica- tion for the 247 non-decay relationships. However, this finding was not replicated in the analysis of breadth across the three friendship levels. A test of differences proved to be unable to isolate statistically significant differences, §(2/104) = 1.91, n.s., as Table 10 reveals. Moreover, as Figure 3 indicates, the means were not in the expected order. .Although the greatest breadth was achieved in intimate friend- ship (M’= 36.66, §2'= 16.71), the next greatest breadth of communication was reported in acquaintances (M = 32.72, S2 = 15.16) rather than in the friend relationships (M = 31.05, SD = 15.76) as expected. 73 Table 10 Analysis of Variance: Communication Breadth Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 15380.40 52 295.78 Within People 24882.50 106 234.74 Between Levels 880.63 2 440.31 1.91 n.s Residual 24001.87 104 230.79 Total 40262.90 158 254.83 Communication Breadth 74 4O 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 mem C 4 L Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Level of Friendship Figure 3. Means for communication breadth by friend- ship level for non-decay relationships. 75 Thus, the results of this study failed to provide con- sistent findings for the second hypothesis linking relation- al development with communication breadth. When using per- ceived closeness as an indicant of relationship development, the results supported the hypothesis. The results stemming from the analysis across levels of friendship tend toward rejection of the hypothesis. In addition to the test of the hypothesis, a number of sex differences with respect to communication breadth were examined. Female participants reported a greater breadth (M’= 24.01, SD = 10.84) in their relationships than did male participants (M_= 20.11, §2_= 9.10). As one might expect given the sizes of these two groups, this difference was significant, E (245) = 2.97, p < .025. Same—sex relation- ships among females also exhibited greater breadth (M’= 25.08, §2’= 10.63) than same-sex friendships among males (M_= 21.66, §2'= 9.02). This difference was also statistically signifi— cant, E (197) = 2.37, E.< .025. The final comparison was be- tween same- and opposite-sex friendships. Again, the differ- ences in the sizes of these two groups precluded a statistical test of differences between the two groups. Although it could not be tested, a difference between these two groups was found. Participants involved in same-sex friendships reported a greater breadth (M.= 23.67, §2_= 10.12) than did persons involved in opposite-sex friendships (M = 17.11, §2’= 9.51). 76 These findings suggest that the reported breadth of communication in friendship partially depends on: 1) the sex of the participant; 2) whether the dyad is same- or opposite-sex; and perhaps 3) whether a same-sex dyad is fe- male or male. Communication frequency. A positive relationship be- tween the frequency of face-to-face communication and rela- tional development was hypothesized. However, it was noted that the frequency of communication would also be a function of other factors. Chief among these was the distance sepa- rating the participants. In order to examine these relation- ships two correlations were considered. First, the zero- order correlation between frequency and closeness was examin- ed. Although this correlation, £.= .16, p_< .01, was statistiCally significant, its magnitude was not large enough to provide strong support for the hypothesis. Second, the partial correlation between frequency and closeness control- ling for distance was examined. This correlation was also in the expected direction and statistically significant, £.= .17, p_< .01. Again, this result is not particularly supportive of the hypothesis and its significance is probably best interpreted in terms of a large sample size rather than in terms of theoretic importance. As one might expect given these results, distance was essentially uncorrelated with either frequency, g = -.08, n.s., or perceived closeness, r = .07, n.s. 77 As Table 11 reveals, however, significant differences in communication frequency were found across the three levels of friendship. Rates ranged from about four times a week for acquaintances to almost once a day for intimate friends. Although these differences are statistically significant, {HZ/104) = 4.13, p_<.05, this outcome can not be interpreted as substantial support for the hypothesis. First of all, given the size of the groups (n.= 53) even a rather small difference among the conditions would achieve statistical significance. Moreover, means for the three groups all fell between two scale values (see Figure 4). In terms of magni— tude, then, differences between the three levels of friend— ship were not especially large--even though they were statistically significant. As a result relatively little support for the hypothesis positively relating communication frequency and relational development was found in this study. As with previous hypotheses several potential sex dif- ferences were examined. Although there was a slight tendency for females to report greater frequencies of communication (M'= 26.75, SD = 24.77) than males (M.= 23.13, SD = 23.89), this difference was not statistically significant, 2 (245) = 1.15, n.s. A comparison of female and male same-sex dyads yielded similar results. While female dyads exhibited a somewhat greater rate of communication (M_= 29.85, §2_= 25.15) than male same-sex dyads (M_= 26.76, S2,: 24.87), the 78 Table 11 Analysis of Variance: Communication Frequency Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 40155.98 52 772.23 Within People 55253.67 106 521.26 Between Levels 4068.52 2 2034.26 4.13 <.05 Residual 51185.15 104 492.16 Total 95409.65 158 603.86 Communication Frequency 60.00 30.00 17.14 08.58 04.29 02.14 01.42 01.00 79 Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Figure 4. Level of Friendship Means for communication frequency by friend- ship level for non-decay relationships. 80 differences in group sizes, the difference in communication frequency between same- and opposite-sex was much larger. The frequency of communication in same-sex friendships (M_= 28.58, S2,: 25.02) was more than twice as great as the fre- quency of communication in opposite-sex friendships (M = 11.46, §2_= 15.66). While the massive difference in the size of the two groups (199 vs. 48) precluded an adequate test, these findings at least suggest the value of further, more rigorous research into the area. The results of this study, then, failed to support hy- pothesis concerning differences in frequency of communication across levels of friendship or the relationship between fre— quency and closeness. Distance appeared to be essentially unrelated with either frequency or perceived closeness. With the exception of the difference between Opposite- and same-sex friendships, few substantial sex differences were observed with respect to the frequency of communication. Frequency of metacommunication. A global measure of the frequency of verbal metacommunication was employed in this study. The mean on a nine-point scale was 3.61 (SE = 2.44), suggesting that the frequency of metacommunication across all 247 non-decay relationships was rather low. Despite the rather low levels of metacommunication ob- served, the frequency of metacommunication was found to be strongly and positively associated with perceived closeness, r = .59, E < .001. An analogous result emerged from a test 81 of differences in the frequency of metacommunication across the three levels of friendship. As Table 12 indicates, dif- ferences between the three levels were significant, 2(2/104) = 17.63, p'< .0001. Means for the three levels are graphi— cally portrayed in Figure 5. An increasing, generally linear function relating the frequency of metacommunication with the level of friendship development is displayed. This figure also illustrates the rather low level of metacommunication frequency across all sets of relationships. Keeping the limited range of the operationalization of metacommunication frequency in mind, the results of this study's analyses provide support for a hypothesis positively relating the frequency of metacommunication with the level of relationship development. Several sex differences in the frequency of metacommun- ication were also found. Female participants reported great- er frequencies of metacommunication (M_= 3.95, §2’= 2.45) than did male participants (M= 3.11, §2|= 2.36). Although the magnitude of this difference was not large, it was sta- tistically significant, t_(245) = 2.69, E.< .01. A similar result emerged from a comparison of same-sex female and same- sex male friendship dyads. Greater frequencies of metacom- munication were reported by members of all female dyads (M = 4.13, §Q_= 2.51) than by members of all male dyads (M_= 3.21, §2'= 2.45). This difference was also statistically significant, 3 (197) = 2.57, E < .025. A slight difference Ta Analysis of Variance: 82 ble 12 Metacommunication Frequency Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 401.73 52 7.73 Within People 527.16 106 4.97 Between Levels 133.48 2 66.74 17.63 <.0001 Residual 393.68 104 3.79 Total 928.90 158 5.88 Metacommunication Frequency 83 I l A Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Figure 5. Level of Friendship Means for metacommunication frequency by friendship level for non-decay relation- ships. 84 was also found in a comparison of same- and opposite-sex dyads. The frequency of metacommunication was somewhat greater in same—sex friendship dyads (M_= 3.75, §2_= 2.52) than in opposite-sex friendships (M = 2.99, S2,: 2.00). Again, these findings are more suggestive than conclusive. They do testify, however, to the merit of further research in the area of sex differences in the relational development process. Uncertainty. A negative association between uncertainty and the level of relational development was hypothesized. Lower scores on this variable were indicative of greater un- certainty, while higher scores were indicative of lower un- certainty or greater predictability. As hypothesized a large negative correlation between uncertainty and perceived close- ness was observed, 5 = -.79, py< .001. An analogous finding was observed across the three levels of friendship. A significant difference in the level of uncertainty or predictability was observed as Table 13 in- dicates, [(2/104) = 74.17, p < .0001. Figure 6 illustrates the relationship among the means across the three levels. Keeping in mind that higher scores are indicative of greater predictability (i.e., lower uncertainty), the findings are very similar to those involving the perceived closeness measure. Both analyses lend credibility to a hypothesis of a negative association between uncertainty and the level of relational development. 85 Table 13 Analysis of Variance: Uncertainty/Predictability Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 37524.64 52 721.63 Within People 92318.00 106 870.92 Between Levels 54270.83 2 27135.42 74.17 <.0001 Residual 38047.17 104 365.84 Total 129842.64 158 821.79 Uncertainty/Predictability 86 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 , Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Level of Friendship Figure 6. Means for uncertainty/predictability by friendship level for non-decay relation- ships. 87 No significant sex differences were observed. Males tended to report slightly greater uncertainty about others (M_= 112.25, SE = 26.69) than females (M = 113.09, S2 = 33.87), but this difference was not significant, 5 (245) = 0.21, n.s. Participants in male same-sex relationships (M = 115.24, S2 = 26.44) and participants in female same-sex relationships (M = 115.22, §2_= 33.52) reported almost the same level of uncertainty, 3 (197) = 0.00, n.s. Although it could not be directly tested, a somewhat larger difference was found in a comparison of same- and opposite-sex friend- ship dyads. Greater uncertainty was reported in opposite- sex dyads (M = 102.44, S2 = 30.55) than in same-sex dyads (M’= 115.23, ES = 30.73). In general these findings would not support a notion of hypothesized sex differences with regard to uncertainty--although it should be stressed that the topic has not been fully explored in this research. Perceived understanding. Closely related to the discus- sion of uncertainty was the hypothesis suggesting a positive association between the level of perceived understanding and the level of relational development. As Table 5 indicates, a large positive association, 5 = .87, p < .001, between perceived understanding and perceived closeness was observed. This was the largest zero-order correlation observed in the matrix linking perceived closeness with the other research variables. 88 The analysis of variance summarized in Table 14 indicat- ed significant differences in perceived understanding across the three levels of friendship, 2(2/104) = 56.82, p < .0001. Figure 7 portrays the relationships among the means across these three levels of friendship. The level of perceived understanding was found to increase with level of friendship. Taken together both analyses provide evidence supporting the hypothesis of a positive association between perceived understanding and the level of relationship deve10pment. This appeared to be the case for both the perceived closeness and level of friendship measures of relationship development. Males and females did not appear to differ significantly with respect to the level of perceived understanding in their relationships. A non-significant difference, E (245) = 0.98, n.s., was observed between male participants (M =6.20, S2 = 2.00) and female participants (M'= 6.47, S2.= 2.24). The difference between same-sex male dyads (M = 6.46, SE = 1.88) and same-sex female dyads (M = 6.65, g2 = 2.25) also proved to be non-significant, E_(197) 0.62, n.s. A larger dif- ference, however, was observed between same- and Opposite- sex friendship dyads. A greater level of perceived under— standing was reported for same—sex friendships (M = 6.57, SE = 2.10) than for opposite-sex friendships (M’= 5.47, SE = 2.00). Although a statistical test of this difference was not possible, the magnitude of the difference would seem to merit further exploration. 89 Table 14 Analysis of Variance: Perceived Understanding Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 135.23 52 2.60 Within People 503.67 106 4.75 Between Levels 262.99 2 131.50 56.82 <.0001 Residual 240.68 104 2.31 Total 638.90 158 4.04 Perceived Understanding 90 Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Figure 7. Level of Friendship Means for perceived understanding by friendship level for non-decay relationships. 91 Perceived uniqueness. It was hypothesized that a posi- tive association existed between the level of relationship development and the level of perceived uniqueness. Despite the low reliability of the latter variable, an examination of the correlation between perceived closeress and perceived uniqueness, r = .60, p < .001, supports this hypothesis. Results of the analysis of variance comparing the level of perceived uniqueness across the three levels of friendship also revealed significant differences as Table 15 indicates, 3(2/104) = 22.21, p < .0001. Figure 8 revelas an almost linear increase in perceived uniqueness as the "level" of friendship increases. Several sex differences with respect to perceived unique- ness were observed. Female participants reported higher levels of perceived uniqueness in their relationships (M = 5.26, SD = 2.24) than did male participants (M = 4.50, SD = 2.24). This difference was statistically significant, 3 (245) = 2.61, p < .01. A similar finding from a comparison of female and male same-sex friendships. Participants in same-sex female friendships expressed greater perceived uniqueness (M = 5.22, §2'= 2.25) than did participants in same-sex male friendships (M = 4.56, §2’= 2.31). This dif- ference was also significant, 2 (197) = 2.02, p < .05. A comparison of same- and opposite-sex relationships revealed almost no difference in the levels of perceived uniqueness. Values for same-sex friendships (M = 4.95, SE = 2.29) and 92 Table 15 Analysis of variance: Uniqueness Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 339.60 52 6.53 Within People 410.50 106 3.87 Between Levels 122.86 2 61.43 22.21 <.0001 Residual 287.64 104 2.77 Total 750.10 158 4.75 Perceived Uniqueness 93 I 1 I Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Figure 8. Level of Friendship Means for perceived uniqueness by friendship level for non-decay relationships. 94 opposite-sex friendships (§.= 4.95, SE = 2.19) were almost exactly the same. While differences between female and male individuals and dyads were statistically significant, their magnitude was not particularly great. The large sample size must be recog- nized as having an important influence on these findings. A thorough assessment of the impact of these findings awaits more systematic research. History. Although no specific hypothesis was addressed to the relationship between the duration or history of a friendship and the level of relationship development, analy- ses were conducted for their descriptive and exploratory value. A moderate positive correlation, 5 = .38, p_< .001, was observed between the duration of the relationship and the level of perceived closeness. An analysis of variance (Table 16) of history across the three levels of friendship also produced an overall sig— nificant difference, 2(2/104) = 11.55, E.< .0001. The rela- tionship among the means for history across these levels is portrayed in Figure 9. Increases in the level of friendship were associated with increases in the duration of the rela- tionship. ‘Males tended to report that their relationships had been in existence for a longer time (§1= 4.13, SE 4.62) than did females (M= 2.81, S_D = 3.82). This difference was stasti- cally significant, E (245) = 2.45, E.< .025, as one might Sou: Bet) Hit} 95 Table 16 Analysis of Variance: History Source of Variation SS df MS F p Between People 1318.94 52 25.36 Within People 1877.85 106 17.72 Between Levels 341.37 2 170.69 11.55 <.0001 Residual 1536.47 104 14.77 Total 3196.78 158 20.23 Relationship History (Duration in Years) 96 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 \l mm Acquaintance Friend Intimate Friend Level of Friendship -Figure 9. Nbans for relationship history by friendship level for non-decay relationships. 97 expect given the size of the two groups. Similarly, partici— pants in same-sex male relationships reported a greater his- tory (M’= 4.40, §2’= 4.78) than did participants in same-sex female relationships (M_= 2.89, SE = 3.84). This difference was also significant, 3 (197) = 2.47, p < .025. Overall, same-sex friendships were characterized by a greater duration (13! = 3.51, g II 4.31) than were opposite—sex friendships 0.4 2.72,§_13 3.74). Multivariate Variable Relations The previous section examined several correlates of rela- tional development. As indicants of the same overall process, one might expect that at least some of these variables would be interrelated. And, in fact, almost all of the predictor variables are highly interrelated. Table 5 presents the cor- relation matrix for these variables. If one utilizes the typical critical alpha (p'= .05), approximately three of the 55 correlations in the matrix could be expected to be statis- tically significant by chance alone. However, an examination of the table reveals that 44 of the 55 correlations achieved this level of statistical significance. This observation implies that the variables in the matrix are highly interre- lated. Clearly relationships among the variables extend far beyond those hypothesized in the first chapter. Such a high degree of intercorrelation proved to be problematic. It had been hoped that regression procedures could be applied to isolate the most powerful predictors of perce relat of m ables mated seveu is a impra 98 perceived closeness. The examination of the zero-order cor- relation matrix (Table 5), however, indicated a high degree of multicollinearity between the potential independent vari- ables. Substantial multicollinearity tends to make esti- mated regression coefficients quite imprecise and creates severe interpretation problems (Neter & Wasserman, 1974). As a result, the planned regression analysis appeared to be impracticable and was not conducted. In order to more fully explore the relationships among the various independent variables, a factor analytic approach was taken. Eight variables were subjected to factor analysis: 1) communication breadth; 2) communication frequency; 3) average depth of communication; 4) uncertainty; 5) metacommun- ication frequency; 6) distance; 7) perceived uniqueness; and 8) perceived understanding. These variables were selected since they were encased in the research hypotheses. A principal-factor solution isolated two factors. Factor loadings and communalities are presented in Table 17. With the exception of the frequency of communication all vari— ables loaded considerably higher on the first factor than on the second factor. In fact the first factor accounted for 90.6% of the variance, while the second factor accounted for the remaining 9.4%. This appeared to be essentially a one factor solution. Almost all of the loadings are quite dis- tinct--i.e., most load very clearly on the first factor. 99 Table 17 Factor Loadings and Communalities Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Communality Breadth .94336 -.27220 .96401 Average Depth .88581 -.29233 .87012 Uncertainty .83780 .06728 .70644 Uniqueness .62169 .33308 .49744 Communication Frequency .16760 -.22799 .08007 Metacommunication Freq. .64640 .19555 .45607 Distance .09969 -.00077 .00994 .Understanding .82093 .19999 .71392 100 These results further confirmed the high degree of inter- relationship among these variables. As a set they do not appear to break down into any statistically identifiable sub- sets. This was believed to preclude further attempts to treat these variables independently at this time. Several implications of these findings for future research and theo- retical development will be discussed in the following chapter. Given that attempts to isolate specific independent vari- ables or sets of independent variables were not particularly successful, it was decided to examine the relationship be- tween perceived closeness and the other independent variables as a unified set. This process involved three steps. First, another factor analysis was conducted. This fac- tor analysis differed from the first in two ways. Instead of using the distance variable, it was decided to use the his- tory variable. This was done because the latter variable was more highly correlated with the other variables in the set. Most importantly, the second factor analysis was con- ducted with the intent of obtaining a one factor solution. That is, a single factor was requested. Results of this analysis in terms of factor loadings and communalities are portrayed in Table 18. Second, factor scores for each of the variables were also computed. These are also reported in Table 18. These scores were then utilized to form a composite index. This index was the sum of the products of each variable's factor 101 Table 18 One Factor Solution: Loadings, Communalities and Scores Variable Factor Loading Communality Factor Score Metacommunication Frequency .65610 .43046 .10718 Uniqueness .61425 .37730 .07794 Understanding .82842 .68627 .22508 Average Depth .85061 .72354 .05978 Breadth .91730 .84144 .47747 Uncertainty .85774 .73571 .17529 History .39179 .15350 -.00016 Communication Frequency .12656 .01602 -.04442 102 score and their standardized values. Finally, in order to explore the relationship between this overall index and perceived closeness, the two were correlated. As expected, this resulted in a large positive correlation, r = .85, p < .001, between the two variables for the 247 non-decay relationships. As a group, then, these variables accounted for approximately 72% of the variance in the perceived closeness measure. To the extent that per- ceived closeness can be viewed as a valid measure of rela- tional development, then, the variables examined in this study appeared to be highly related to the deve10pmental process as a group. Decay Analyses The final portion of the chapter is devoted to an ex- ploratory analysis of the relationships in which some sort of decay was indicated. Of the 315 relationships sampled, a total of 68 were identified as exhibiting decay. This sec- tion examines these 68 relationships. These 68 relationships were identified by asking par- ticipants if their relationship with the other party had ever been "better" than it was at the present time. Relation- ships for which an affirmative response were given were con- sidered as "decay" relationships. For each of these relationships participants were asked to provide a brief written explanation of what had happened to change the 103 relationship. Ten of the 68 received no written explana- tion. This left 58 written responses for analysis. These responses have been listed in Appendix VI. Coding Written Responses As noted in the previous chapter, each written response was independently coded by two female coders. Neither coder was familiar with the nature of the study. Coders were instructed to use as many or as few of the eight code categories as they believed appropriate. Defini- tions of the categories and examples have been outlined in Appendix VI. Coder Agreement Of the 58 written responses, coders totally agreed on 34 (59%). In cases where more than one code had been used for an item, it was necessary for all of the codes used by the two coders to agree in order for the response to be in- cluded in the agreement category. In an effort to focus only on those responses which could be reliably coded, further analysis dealt only with the subset of 34 responses for which total coder agreement existed. Distribution of Coders Table 19 summarizes the distribution of codes across the eight code categories. Almost all of the codes fell into the first three categories which represented generalized exchange categories. The most frequently given reason for relational 104 Table 19 Distribution of Decay Codingsa Category Raw Frequency Relative Frequency 1. Reduced Rewards 5 .122 2. Enhanced Costs 24 .585 3. Attractive Alterna- tive Relationships 9 .220 4. Enhanced Uncertainty 0 .000 5. Reduced or Imbal- anced Disclosure 0 .000 6. Decreased Meta- communication 0 .000 7. Decreased Communica- tion Idiosyncrasy 0 .000 8. Other 3 .071 41 .998 an = 41 which exceeds the total number of written responses upon which coders totally agreed as a result of several responses being multiply coded. 105 decay (58.5% of the responses) was "enhanced costs." This category generally pertained to increases in the amount of effort--either physical or mental--necessary to maintain the relationship. Specific examples given to coders were: 1) an increase in the physical distance separating the par- ticipants; and 2) the development of undesirable attitudes or behaviors in the other. Inspection of the responses cod- ed into this category revealed that the majority (20 of 24) dealt with a theme of geographic mobility or physical dis- tance. Thus, when all responses are viewed as a set, the most commonly given reason for relational decay was mobility or distance. The second most commonly given reason for relational decay was the presence of alternative relationships. Response- es often described decay in terms of both increased distance and the development of alternative relationships. A common theme was that as persons moved away from each other they sought new friendships which ultimately replaced older rela- tionships. Responses which fell into one or both of these categories accounted for about 80% of the total. The next most commonly given reason for relational decay was "reduced rewards." Responses were coded into this cate- gory if they mentioned some aspect of the relationship which appeared to be attractive at one time, but which was no longer attractive or available. Typical of the responses in these categories were reasons mentioning changed personalities or F;. de on Al (D (I) 1a] “A, I‘U‘. 106 interests. Approximately 12% of the written responses were coded in this category. It is worth noting that none of the 34 responses which were reliably coded fell into the categories dealing with contract or communication factors (categories 4-7). These categories were used by the coders, but did not enter into any of the responses for which there was total coder agree- ment. Evaluation of Coding Scheme The analysis of the written responses pertaining to relationship decay was primarily intended as an exploratory device. The goal was to identify major themes in the reas- ons participants provided for changes in their friendships. Although a major theme of distance or mobility was identified, the overall coding scheme proved to be problematic in several ways. First of all, the categories were so general and so interrelated that coding was often difficult. This is un- doubtably reflected in the fact that only 59% of the respons- es could be reliably coded into one or more of the categories. Second, the coding scheme did not appear to be particu- larly sensitive to contract related decay factors. At least none of the responses for which agreement existed fell into these categories. There are, of course, several potential explanations for this. It could be that contract factors play only a secondary role in relationship decay or that CE SC C0 0f pm 911i ‘ 0 L13 107 persons do not tend to describe decay in these terms. It might also be that the categories were too vaguely defined to permit reliable identification. Other potential explana- tions exist, but it is clear that contract factors were not evident in the decay process either because they play a secondary role or because of the inability of the coding scheme to detect them. Finally, although the "other" category was only infre- quently used, it is not at all clear that this was because -the coding scheme was adequate. It may have been that this category was rarely used because the other categories were so vague or so general that almost any response could be coded into them. In short, while the coding scheme did identify a number of reasons participants gave for relationship decay, it was of generally limited utility. While it may have served its purpose as an exploratory device, further research will re- quire the development of more precise and clearly differen— tiated terms. Chapter 4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSS ION This chapter summarizes the investigatory journey of earlier chapters and discusses the implications of the journey for further research and theory. Tne first part of the chapter summarizes the major findings of the study, ac- knowledges their limitations and suggests several specific avenues for future research. The final portion of the chapter outlines a number of general implications or direc- tions for research and theory. Summary of Major Findings Research Hypotheses The theoretical discussion in the Opening essay led to seven hypotheses. Findings relevant to these are summarized below. Depth of communication. The first hypothesis posited a positive relationship between the depth of communication and the level of relational deve10pment. Depth was operational- ized both in terms of maximum and average measures. Perceived closeness and level of friendship were employed as indicators of the level of relational deve10pment. This combination of variables allowed four tests of the hypothesis. With the 108 109 exception of the test comparing differences in maximum com- munication depth across the three levels of friendship all of the comparisons provided support for the hypothesized relationship. A test for differences in maximum depth across the three levels of friendship revealed no signifi— cant overall difference. Obviously a measure of maximal depth and a measure of average depth are not completely comparable. Since it is possible, if not probable, that persons can achieve greater depth in one area than another, the average depth measure is perhaps a more accurate general measure. It provides a more overall representation of communicative depth for the rela- tionship as a whole. The general pattern of results was gratifying largely because of the fashion in which the concept of relational change was explicated. Depth of communication was conceptu- alized as a defining characteristic of relationships. The fact that it was generally related to other indicants of re- lational change (i.e., perceived closeness and level of friendship) does not deny the belief that relationships and relational change processes can be usefully conceptualized in terms of depth of communication. However, one important qualification on these results deserves mention. Discussion categories were arbitrarily, though randomly, selected by the investigator. The earlier theoretic discussion noted a need to examine depth and 110 breadth in terms of topics directly relevant to a given re- lationship. It is possible that the categories used in this study were not particularly relevant to the general commun- ication patterns of the participants. Because such a possi— bility questions the generalizability of one's findings, future research should include some sort of check on the relevance of topics used. Breadth of communication. The second hypothesis sugges- ted a positive association between the breadth or variety of communication and the level of relational development. Interpretation of results was problematic. Although per- ceived closeness and breadth were strongly correlated in the expected direction, the overall comparison of breadth at each of the three levels of friendship revealed no significant differences. A discrepancy of this type should not occur if perceived closeness and level of friendship are both general indicators of the same overall process. Such an assumption has clearly been made in this research. The evidence for the assumption came from two sources. First, the pretest data indicated that persons could scale the various social designations for friendship in terms of closeness. The pretest data, however, dealt with the labels in the abstract, while the main study focused on specific persons within each social designation. Second, a significant difference in the level of perceived closeness was observed across the three levels of friendship 111 (Table 7). However, it is possible that such a result could occur without perceived closeness and level of friendship being strongly associated. To test this possibility an Omega-Squared procedure (Hays, 1973) was employed. The re- sults of this procedure showed that the two variables were only minimally associated, 92 = .097. These considerations would lead one to believe that the two measures are not com- parable indicators of relational development. It is possible that social designations such as "friend" or "acquaintance" imply qualitative distinctions above and beyond the quantitative difference in perceived closeness. A comparison of the average depth and breadth results may be insightful in this regard. Acquaintances discussed a rela- tively large number of topics at a relatively low level of depth. Friends, however, seemed to have somewhat more fo- cused relationships in which fewer tOpics were discussed, but those that were discussed were dealt with at a deeper level. With intimate friendship may come a combination of great variety and depth. This interpretation might indicate the presence of some sort of filtering effect. Although such speculation obviously requires direct investigation, it is at least consistent with the findings concerning breadth and average depth across the three levels of friendship. It should also be noted that the two analyses did not use identical subjects. The relationship between perceived closeness and breadth was computed over all 247 non-decay 112 relationships. The comparison for friendship level were com- puted for subjects who indicated no decay in any of the three relationships. The first analysis examined 247 relationships across 105 subjects, while the second examined a subset of 159 relationships across 53 subjects. Thus, some 87 relation- ships examined in the first analysis were ignored in the second. It may be that persons who report decay in their relationships form quantitatively different relationships with others. In general those who did not experience decay in any of their relationships reported greater breadth than the sample as a whole. Thus, both conceptual and sample differences can be ob- served. Given such discrepancies, little support for the second hypothesis can be provided by this study. Frequency of communication. Relatively little evidence supporting the hypothesized relationship between the frequen- cy of communication and perceived closeness or level of friend- ship was found in this study. Although the relationship between frequency and each of the indicators of relational development was statistically significant, the findings are perhaps best interpreted in terms of a large sample size rather than substantive theoretic import. Acquaintances, for example, reported a communication frequency of about four times a week, while intimate friends reported an only slight- ly greater rate--about once a day. While the difference was statistically significant, it is not clear that a difference 113 of this magnitude would have an impact on the relational development process. When distance was used as a control variable, the rela- tionship between perceived closeness and frequency did not appreciably change. A fair test of the hypothesis may have been confounded by the large differences in the variances of the measures. The ratio of the variances for distance and closeness was massive, Emax(314) = 238,736.94, 2 < .001. So was the ratio of the distance and frequency variances, Emax(3l4) = 1,796.07, R < .001. Differences between variances for the frequency and closeness measures were also significant, Fmax(314) = 132.92, p < .001. Specific variances for each of these measures can be computed from Table 4. Gross violations of the homogeneity of variances assumption such as those witnessed here obviously reduce the probability of isolating statistically significant relationships. An adequate test of the hypothesis could be attained with more careful attention to the comparability of scales. The comparisons done in this study were probably not capable of providing such a test. Future research might also extend the operationalization of communication frequency to include forms other than face- to-face communication (e.g., telephone conversations, corre- spondence, use of third parties). A more theoretically relevant measure of frequency might be one that assessed frequency in terms of specific topics. Such a measure would promote a systematic comparison of the frequency, depth and 114 breadth dimensions. Frequency of metacommunication. A positive association between the frequency of metacommunication and the level of perceived closeness and the level of friendship was posited in the fourth hypothesis. Support for this relationship was found for both indicants of relational development. These results should not, however, be interpreted as a complete test of the hypothesis. First, the test dealt only with verbal metacommunication. Given that a substantial amount of metacommunication is presumed to be nonverbal (Condon, 1966), future research should attempt to develop nonverbal measures. Second, the measure used was quite general. More confidence might be placed in findings derived from specific, behavioral Operationalizations of the variable. Uncertainty. A negative association between the level of uncertainty and the level of relationship deve10pment was hy- pothesized. Support for this hypothesis was found for both indicators of relational development. These results were consistent with the general hypothesis linking uncertainty and relational development suggested by Berger and Calabrese (1975). The uncertainty measure used in this study was a general one. It would be interesting to develop an uncertainty measure which was more directly tied to the four information- al and negotiation requirements outlined in the opening essay. At least such a measure could be more clearly integrated with 115 the conceptualization of relationship development offered in the first chapter. Perceived understanding. Conceptually, the sixth hypoth- esis was closely related to the fifth. A positive association between the level of perceived understanding and the level of relational development was hypothesized. Both analyses sup- ported this hypothesis. This finding testifies to the value of further research involving understanding. The measure utilized here was an extremely global one. As such, it may be difficult to con- ceptually or empirically distinguish from a general measure of uncertainty. At least the two variables were highly re- lated in this study, 5 = -.76, p < .001. Although the point will be more fully explored later in this discussion, future research should strive for more precise operationalizations of understanding. Moreover, future research should also attempt to employ measures of actual understanding. Actual understanding, rather than perceived understanding, is more clearly implicated in the conceptualization of developmental processes offered earlier. Perceived uniqueness. In the final research hypothesis, a positive association between the level of perceived unique- ness and the level of relational development was posited. Both analyses supported the hypothesis. The nature of the reasoning leading up to this hypothesis must be recognized when interpreting these findings. It was 116 hypothesized that as relationships develop their normative or rule systems become more particularized. As a conse- quence of greater particularization, it was suggested that participants would come to View the relationship as more unique-—unlike any they had ever had. The association ac- tually tested was that between the level of relational de- velopment and perceived uniqueness. While the results of this test do not necessarily imply that the underlying chain of reasoning was valid, neither do they disconfirm it. Thus, the results were gratifying to the extent that they at least did not rule out the reasoning outlined above. A failure to support the hypothesized relationship between relational de- velopment and perceived uniqueness would have clearly ques- tioned the validity of this chain of reasoning. History. No specific hypotheses regarding the relation- ship of history (i.e., how long the relationship had existed) to the level of relational deve10pment were offered. When these analyses were conducted, a positive association between history and the indicators of relational development was observed. One might speculate that these results question the valid- ity of discussions of "instant" relationships or "instant" intimacy. Among non-decay relationships, the achievement of greater levels of relational development was observed to re- quire significantly more time than the establishment of lower level relationships. While a number of situational or 117 individual variables might influence the rate of relational development, the general pattern is for relationships to de- velop over time with greater levels of deve10pment requiring more time than lower levels of development. Multivariate Relations Among Variables Findings. As an examination of the correlations among the research variables (Table 5) reveals, the various corre— lates of relationship development were highly interrelated. Factor analytic attempts to isolate statistically independ- ent sets of variables were unsuccessful. When a composite index of several of these hypothesized correlates was com- pared to perceived closeness, a large positive association was observed. Taken together these variables accounted for approximately 72% of the variance in the perceived closeness measure. Discussion. These findings contain at least two impli- cations for future empirical and conceptual efforts. First, most of the variables were conceptualized in a rather global fashion. More precise and specific treatments might contrib- ute much to the process of isolating and relating specific aspects of the developmental process. Second, future theo- retic and empirical efforts could benefit from a more rigor- ous Specification of the relationships among variables. The findings of this study were limited to tests of associa- tion. Although this is essential information, the next step toward theory will involve the specification of time-order 118 and the impact of extraneous variables. Sex Differences Findings. Sex differences in the values of each of the major variables were explored in comparisons of three sets of sexual groupings: 1) male vs. female participants; 2) same— sex male dyads vs. same-sex female dyads; and 3) same-sex dyads vs. opposite-sex dyads. Findings for the first two comparisons were extremely sim- iliar as one might expect. Females as individuals and as par- ticipants in same-sex relationships were found to: 1) achieve greater average depth; 2) greater communication breadth; 3) metacommunicate more often; and 4) perceive their relation- ships as more unique than did males. Males tended to report a higher level of history than females in general and with other males in particular. All of these differences were statistically significant. No differences were found for maximum depth, uncertainty or perceived understanding. Although not amenable to a statistical test, several sub- stantial differences between same-sex and opposite-sex rela- tionships were observed. Same-sex dyads tended to: l) achieve greater maximum and average depth of communication; 2) greater breadth of communication; 3) communicate more fre- quently; and 4) perceive higher levels of understanding then did Opposite sex dyads. Greater uncertainty, however, was exhibited in opposite-sex friendships. Differences for the other research variables were either quite small or virtually .10 EX tt .0. 1'4 119 non-existent. Discussion. The investigation of sex differences was exploratory owing to the fact that there were more female than male participants and more same-sex than opposite-sex relationships in the sample. This precluded a systematic evaluation of sex differences in the relational deve10pment process. Still, the findings do suggest a need for further study of sex differences. Along several of the dimensions employed in this study, females as individuals and as participants in same—sex relationships reported higher values. Some observ- ers (e.g., Brenton, 1974; Jourard, 1971) have suggested that males are not as expressive or disclosing as females. Cozby (1973) has reviewed a large number of conflicting studies of sex differences in self-disclosure. He notes that studies either show greater disclosure by females or no difference and concludes: The fact that no study has reported greater male disclosure may be indicative of actual sex dif- ferences. The nature of any sex differences might be found if researchers were to pay greater attention to the types of items which reliably discriminate between males and females, and types of situations in which males and females would or would not differ in disclosure output (p. 76). Berger and Larimer (1974) report that although females and males do not differ in terms of the number of words spoken during initial interactions, females appear to be more in— formative about themselves. mi 0; 120 Together with the findings of this study, these findings might suggest that females are more facile in forming rela- tionships. That is, they may be able to achieve greater levels of breadth and depth with each other more rapidly than males. The fact that females reported a lower level of his- tory than males would appear to support the viability of this hypothesis. Moreover, future research might also examine fruitfully differences in same- and opposite-sex friendships. Again, the structure and rate of the developmental process may differ as a function of sexual composition. In short, although the comparisons made in this research were not directly linked to the developmental process, they do indicate that sex differences exist in a number of vari- ables which are involved in the developmental process. Decay Analyses Findings. Of the 68 relationships in which some level of decay was indicated, written responses were obtained for 58 and of these 34 were consistently coded. These 34 were used for analysis. The most frequent reasons given for relational decay were distance or mobility coupled with the development of alterna- tive friendships. Almost all the consistently coded responses dealt with the exchange factors. Although changes in ex- change relations may have a secondary impact on contract or communication factors, the coding scheme was distinctly 01 Si 121 insensitive to this latter set of factors. The coding scheme's generality and vagueness imposed major limitations. Discussion. Even with these rather severe limitations, the analysis of participants' responses was useful in terms of identifying at least one major factor in the decay process. This was the theme of mobility or distance and the development of alternative relationships as a result. Although a student sample like this one exhibits greater mobility than the pop- ulace as a whole (Packard, 1972; Parks, 1975), mobility has become a major theme in contemporary American culture (Packard, 1972; Toffler, 1970). While the popular press has given this phenomenon a good deal of attention, very little systematic research has been devoted to exploring the impact of mobility on interpersonal relationships. The findings of the decay analyses testify to the social value of research on this topic. Several specific lines of inquiry can be suggested. First, studies which systematically examine rates of relation- al formation and decay in terms of differences in mobility or distance might be instructive. Do highly mobile persons, for example, form or attempt to form relationships at a faster rate than less mobile individuals? Is sheer distance linearly related to the probability of decay or is there some non- linear "cutoff" point at which the probability of decay in— creases dramatically? Second, studies which attempt to isolate how persons compensate or cope with mobility or dis- tance would further illuminate the process. Under what 0—4 (I) I ._ s.— Ff- 122 conditions do persons increase their use of other channels of communication when face-to-face communication is reduced? Is there some minimal level of relational development that must be attained before individuals expend effort to main- tain the relationship? Under what conditions do persons still consider a relationship to exist even when contact is reduced? Is there a limit to the number of relationships at a given level of development that one can maintain at once? Each of these issues would appear relevant to an explanation of the general process of relational decay. General Methodolggical and Theoretic Implications Methodological Priorities In several ways the methodology of this study was limited and exploratory. Four general methodological suggestions for future research are discussed below. First, replication of these findings is necessary--owing to the large sample size which allowed even very small dif- ferences to attain statistical significance. Although this factor was recognized in the interpretation of the results, further tests are necessary to examine the robustness and generalizability of the findings. This is especially true with respect to the study of sex differences. Second, comparable research which extends the findings of this study to relationships other than friendship is nec- essary. The conceptualization offered in the opening essay '1 r" (‘0’ ‘3 r9- 1') n1 tr! LII 123 was assumed to be a general one--not limited to any specific form of social designation for relationships. To test such an assumption obviously requires replications with other socially designated types of relations such as dating, mar- riage and business associations. Investigations of this nature would also help identify situational variables which influence the relational life cycle. Third, future investigators should attempt to employ more precise Operationalizations of variables. To a great extent, the operationalizations used in this study were limited by the generally low level of conceptualization found in this area. Nonetheless, several operational improvements can be made independent of conceptual refinement. Several of the variables are amenable to direct behavioral measurement. The breadth, depth and frequency of communication, for example, could all be more or less directly observed. Moreover, opera- tionalizations tailored to specific aspects of relationships or to specific relational objectives. The overall level of uncertainty, for instance, may not be as important as the level of uncertainty about aspects of the relationship which are central to the participants. Such an assumption, of course, brings us squarely to an important theoretical issue. But to resolve the issue will require alternative operation- alizations which can be systematically compared. Finally, investigations employing longitudinal designs are needed. Although the cross-sectional design used here ve.‘ dui m: tit the Ii: 124 offers a useful and economical first step, it is incapable of truly capturing the processual nature of relational change processes. It requires one to assume that different rela— tionships are similar across different levels of relational development or decay. That is, one must assume that an ac- quaintance with one person and an intimate friendship with another differ only in terms Of the level Of relational de- velopment. This is, of course, a rather large and perhaps dubious assumption. Although it obviously entails its own unique limitations, a longitudinal design avoids this assump— tion. In doing so, it allows for more precise examinations Of change processes and of individual differences. In future research, then, methodologies which replicate the present study with different populations and with a va- riety of different types of relationships, which employ more precise and varied Operationalizations, and which utilize a longitudinal approach might most fully contribute to the de— velopment of a theory of relational change processes. Theoretic Priorities Although further methodological refinement in the study Of relational change processes is clearly necessary, little benefit will be derived unless it is accompanied by substan— tial theoretic development. Aside from its substantive find- ings the present study has been useful in terms of emphasizing this need. This final section contains several modifications of the conceptualization offered in the Opening essay. 54 OLA ’U 125 The concept of relationship. The concept of relationship offered in the first chapter included the frequency, breadth (i.e., variety), and depth (i.e., subjective value) of social exchange as well as a number of "communication contract" fac- tors which generally focused On the question Of uncertainty reduction. The utility of this conceptualization can be questioned on several grounds. First, the concept of exchange frequency appears to be at a distinctly lower level of abstraction than the concepts Of breadth and depth. That is, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which increases in breadth or depth do not nec- essarily involve an increase in the amount of exchange (fre- quency or duration) almost by definition. If two people talk about a greater variety of things or if they add dis- cussions of more personal topics to their discussion, for example, an increase in the duration or frequency of commun- ication would almost automatically occur. Thus, a change in the frequency or duration of exchange is perhaps more of an artifact of conceptualization than a separate conceptual component. The concept of exchange frequency loses much Of its ap- peal as a defining characteristic of a relationship when one attempts to consider it as a separate conceptual component. Suppose, for instance, that we are interested in an exchange between a butcher and a customer. For some period of time the customer has been making a purchase from the butcher 126 once a week. Now let's suppose that the customer increases his frequency of purchase from once a week to three times a week. Certainly the frequency Of exchange has increased. But would we say that there was now "more" of a relationship between butcher and customer? Probably not. Rather, we would say that the relationship had become more developed if, and only if, the two parties began to talk about a greater variety of things or about some topic more personal than the simple purchase of hamburger. When viewed in isolation fre- quency does not seem to be closely related to our intuitive meaning for the concept of relationship. Frequency or the amount of exchange has a different status as a variable than breadth or depth of exchange. Because of its lower level Of abstraction, and because of the fact that changes in breadth or depth almost necessarily imply changes in frequency, the concept of frequency or amount of exchange can be eliminated from our definition of what a relationship is. A second general source of ambiguity lies in the concept Of contracting. The notion of a communication contract was used in the first chapter to encompass a variety of variables. Chief among these was uncertainty. It may be that the con- tract notion is simply too broad to be useful in a defini- tional sense. While it has a certain intuitive appeal to it, it includes several variables which are perhaps most useful when excluded from the definition of what a relationship is. Uncertainty is a prime example of such a variable. It might 127 be more parsimonious to examine the relationship between the level Of uncertainty and breadth or depth Of exchange than to search for variables which predicted changes in the en- tire complex of definitional variables including breadth, depth and uncertainty. The issue of concern is, of course, how one chooses to draw the line between what is and is not included within the definition of what a relationship is. When definitions are tOO inclusive, theoretically important relationships may be confused or ignored. Like frequency, the uncertainty variable loses much of its intuitive appeal when it is considered in isolation. Most of us would probably be hesitant to say that a change in uncertainty implies that there is any "more" or "less" of a relationship. It would seem to make better sense to say that a change in uncertainty altered the relationship if, and only if, it had some impact on the exchange process. This is not to say that uncertainty is unrelated to relation- al change processes. Rather, it is to imply that greater parsimony and clarity might be Obtained if uncertainty is viewed as an antecedent to relational change, rather than as a defining characteristic Of the relationship itself. If the concept Of exchange frequency or its broader ver- sion, amount of exchange, and if the notion of contract fac- tors is removed from the definition of what a relationship is, one is left with a simplified conceptualization. This conceptualization explicates the concept Of relationship in 128 terms of the variety and subjective value Of exchange. A relationship can be said to exist when individuals enter into exchange. Relational development is then conceptualiz- ed as an increase in the variety or subjective value Of ex- change. Relational decay is conceptualized as a decrease in the variety or subjective value of exchange. Variety and subjective value are viewed as conceptually independent com- ponents of relationships. This modified explication Offers several theoretic ad- vantages. First, and most important, it is sufficiently narrow to allow systematic examination of relationships with antecedent or consequent variables. To a great extent the original conceptualization Offered in this report precluded or confused such an examination. Second, the modified con- ceptualization is more compatible with existing uses of the concept. This latter point becomes clear when we examine ex- changes involving communication. Both the original and the modified conceptualizations Of what a relationship is are general in that they apply to ex- change relations Of all types. The central concern for the communication scholar is, of course, the exchange of verbal communication behavior. In addition to being an important class of behavior in its own right, verbal communication has the quality of being a marker for other types of behavior. This is simply to say that people talk about their actions and that a change in the nature of nonverbal behaviors is 129 often reflected in a change in verbal behavior. An in- crease in the variety of behaviors exchanged, for example, will probably be reflected by a corresponding increase in the variety of conversational topics. Whether one studies communication in its own right or whether one studies verbal communication as a general symptom or indicator Of broader exchange relations, the study Of changes in the breadth or depth of verbal communication will provide one of the broad- est perspectives Of relational change processes. Many of the more common views Of relational change pro- cesses reflect this orientation. Altman and Taylor (1973), for example, talk about verbal indicators Of intimacy-—breadth (the variety Of topics discussed) and depth (how personal or private topics of discussion are). Conceptualizations of relational development in terms of self-disclosure also re- flect this orientation. While it is capable of encompassing other types of behavior as well, the conceptualization of relational change in terms Of changes in the breadth and depth of communication is compatible with most existing conceptual- izations. Given this further specification, the relationship be- tween relational change as it was conceptualized above and the other indicators of change can now be discussed. These indicators were: 1) the level of perceived closeness; and 2) the level of friendship. Much Of the value of this re- search rested on its ability to validate the definitional a: C" n rjr {11 b: 71E 130 aspects of the conceptualization Of relational change. Such an ability, of course, rests on the validity of the criterion or indicator variables. Several limitations on these indi- cators can be noted. Perceived closeness, for example, typically presumes a positive affective orientation among participants. That is, we rarely describe relationships with persons we dislike as close. Yet one can easily imagine relationships in which there is both substantial negative affect and great depth and breadth. Although both breadth and depth were found to be strongly and positively correlated with perceived close- ness in this study, percieved closeness is a limited indica- tor of the relational change process. It is perhaps most appropriate as a criterion when positive affect can be assumed. A further, more serious, limitation of perceived close- ness lies in its monadic nature. Perceived closeness is an individual perception. One party's perception of closeness bears no necessary relationship to another party's perception Of closeness. Breadth and depth, however, are dyadic in nature. They represent externally observable and common aspects of interaction. There is a difference in the locus of conceptualization and there is no reason to believe that the levels should necessarily be related. Level of friendship is also subject to several limitations as a general criterion variable. Most importantly, the social 131 designations Of friendship may contain qualitative aspects which are independent Of the level of relational development as conceptualized here. This point was made earlier in our discussion of the interpretation Of the findings regarding communication breadth. In general, social designations for relationships may reflect a number of factors in addition to the level Of relational development. They may, for example, reflect a content factor in exchange. Or, they may reflect some unique configuration of breadth and depth. In any case, there is little justification for arguing that increases in breadth and depth lead to systematic changes in the social labels for relationships. A second limitation Of the "social label" approach to assessing relational development is the fact that it is not generalizable. Other forms of relationships (e.g., court- ship, marriage, business associations) may not have socially recognized or comparable labels. Third, social designations for the developmental aspects of the relational life cycle may not be comparable to decay aspects Of the cycle. Although friends can be "demoted" in terms of the social designations, it is not clear changes in social designation on the developmental side of the cycle mean the same thing as those on the decay side. Finally, as Weiss and Lowenthal (1975) point out, persons often come to think Of others as close friends simply because the relationship has lasted for a considerable duration. In suc] veh Q I fill 40.] tiOI 132 such cases, it is not so much a change in the level of de- velopment that creates a change in social designation as the simple fact that the relationship has endured. In summary, while perceived closeness and level Of friend- ship were generally found to enter into the predicted rela- tionships with variables involved in the relational change process, they should be recognized as limited indicators of the relational change process as it has been conceptualized here. Moreover, perceived closeness and level Of friendship can not be presumed to be similar indicators--as the results Of the Omega-Square procedure demonstrated. Antecedents and consequents of relational change. Having substantially restricted the conceptualization of what a rela- tionship is, it is now possible to focus more systematically on those variables which might predict relational change. That is, the following paragraphs will attempt to explicate the relationship between several of the other variables dis- cussed earlier and breadth and depth of exchange. Although the ambiguity of the concept of a communication contract may limit its conceptual utility, several of the variables which were discussed in contract terms are still extremely relevant to relational change processes. Perhaps the most central of these is uncertainty. In the earlier discussion of exchange management, it was suggest- ed that goal-achievement was dependent on information regard- ing the behavioral alternatives and preferences of the 133 participants. Information of this type was presumed neces- sary because it reduced uncertainty. Understanding can also be viewed in similar terms. The ability to generate expla- nations for the behavior of others is another general way in which uncertainty is reduced. A recent discussion of levels Of interpersonal knowledge (Berger, et a1., in press) further clarifies the relationship between understanding and uncertain- ty. This discussion outlines three levels of interpersonal knowledge: 1) description——the ability to describe or ident— ify behaviors or identities of others; 2) prediction--the ability to anticipate responses of others to situations or persons; and 3) explanation--the ability to generate causal explanations for the behaviors Of others. Understanding is probably most clearly related to this third level Of inter- personal knowledge. Knowledge at any of the three levels can be viewed as reducing uncertainty. As one moves from de- scription through prediction to explanation, the magnitude Of uncertainty reduction is increased. Following Berger and Calabrese's (1975) theory of develop- mental interpersonal communication, it was hypothesized that decreases in uncertainty or increases in understanding would be associated with increases in the level of relational de- velopment. The results of this study supported the hypothe- sized association. A finding Of association does not, Of course, fully specify the relationship between uncertainty and relational often causa creas Barge size ance} unceJ to de in b: 0f C: is, , muni has . redu 134 deve10pment (i.e., increases in breadth and depth). Most often, the relationship is conceptualized as a recursive causal one in which decreases in uncertainty lead to in— creases in the breadth and depth of communication (cf. Berger & Calabrese, 1975). However, one could also hypothe- size that increases in breadth or depth lead to decreases in uncertainty. An increase in depth, for example, may reduce uncertainty by providing information which allows the person to develop explanations of the other's behavior. Increases in breadth might well provide information regarding the level of consistency in the other's behavior or attitudes. That is, increases in breadth of exchange--especially verbal com- munication-~result in an increase in the amount of data one has about the other. This in turn may allow for uncertainty reduction. From this reasoning one would hypothesize that the rela- tionship between uncertainty and breadth and depth is one of nonrecursive causation. Decreases in uncertainty lead to in- creases in breadth and/or depth which in turn feed-back creating further reductions in uncertainty. Obviously, a finding of simple negative association in this study does not support this more complex hypothesis. On the other hand, the finding does not rule out such a hypothesis. Future re- search which attempts to offer a full test of this hypothesis is clearly warranted. 135 The conceptualization of the relationship between un- certainty and relational development (i.e., increases in breadth and depth) implies a major alteration in the way we generally view the relational life cycle. Some other per- spectives (e.g., Berger & Calabrese, 1975) conceptualize the relationship to be recursive. The conceptualization of the relationship as non-recursive, however, implies that rela- tional change is self-generating with respect to these var- iables. In this perspective relational growth will continue to occur until it is decelerated or reversed by the influence of some other set of variables. This conceptualization would also extend this dynamic to include relational decay processes as well. That is, a decrease in breadth or depth or an in- crease in uncertainty should launch the relationship along a spiral of ever greater decay if unchecked. This perspective represents a quite different outlook from several existing conceptualizations of relational change processes--including the developmental theory of interpersonal communication offer- ed by Berger and Calabrese (1975) and Altman and Taylor's (1973) social penetration theory. Neither of these perspec- tives views relational change as a self-generating process. This difference underscores the need for research which fully tests the hypothesized relationship between uncertainty re- duction and relational change. Moreover, it calls attention to the need for research which identifies variables which function as antecedents to uncertainty or the level of ft Li. 0““ 136 relational development. Variables like the favorability of actual or projected outcomes, for example, serve such a func- tion within social penetration theory. The frequency or amount of metacommunication was also conceptualized to be a contract factor. If we use Giffin and Patton's (1971, p. 7) definition of metacommunication as "qualifiers or interpretational signals about the verbal message" which specify "what is really meant or how it is to be understood," then it becomes clear that metacommunication serves an uncertainty reduction function. In fact it might be difficult to distinguish this conceptualization from a general conceptualization of communication. Rossiter and Pearce (1975), however, suggest a somewhat more specific conceptualization of metacommunication. One of the ways these authors discuss the concept is in terms of communica- tion which Specifically focuses on the topic of the relation- ship. Although the operationalization used in this study requires further refinement, it appears to be closely related to this latter use of the concept. It refers to the extent to whiéh participants talk about the state or nature of their relationship. Metacommunication in this sense is hypothe- sized to be negatively associated with the level of uncertain- ty. The results of this study provided support for this hypothesis. It is necessary to clearly distinguish the dif- ferent meanings of the concept. A general one (e.g., Giffin & Patton's definition) is of little utility because it can not bec IiOI’E foc; tior ini call St!) COM Coul 137 be distinguished clearly from communication in general. A more specific conceptualization of communication explicitly focued on a discussion of the nature or state of the rela- tionship has a more justifiable status as an independent variable. A final component of the contracting notion articulated in the first chapter was something which can loosely be called "the level of agreement about exchange sequence or structure." This is a conceptually distinct aspect of the contract idea. That is, it is possible that participants could have little uncertainty regarding each other's options and preferences, but still disagree about the course that exchange relations should take. Although it is a conceptu- ally distinct variable, one could hypothesize that it was negatively associated with the level of uncertainty. That is, an increase in the level of agreement regarding exchange sequence or structure should lead to a decrease in the level of uncertainty experienced in the relationship. This rela- tionship is hypothesized to be causal, negative and recursive. This hypothesis was not examined in this study and war- rants direct investigation. One of the primary research challenges is to develop the concept to the point where clear operationalizations can be derived. In this regard, we can fruitfully ask if actual and perceived agreement func- tion in the same way with respect to uncertainty. Although an increase in the actual level of agreement would most 138 obviously reduce uncertainty, an increase in the level of perceived agreement should also at least temporarily reduce uncertainty. Studies which seek to clarify the relative importance of these two types of agreement in uncertainty reduction are necessary. Summary This work has sought to conceptualize the nature of re- lational change processes and then to examine the empirical relations among its components. It has probably been most useful as a stimulus for examining a number of conceptual and empirical difficulties in the study of relational change processes. A central problem raised early in this report was the general ambiguity with which the concepts of "relationship" and "relational change" were used. The present work began by noting this problem and offering a general perspective on the concepts. This perspective suggested that persons entered into, maintained and terminated relationships for the purpose of goal—achievement. Exchange theory was utilized as a per- spective for conceptualizing the interface of individuals' goal-seeking activities. From this orientation, relational change was conceptualized in terms of changes in the breadth, depth and frequency of exchange and in terms of changes in the ways in which exchange was managed over time. On the basis of this conceptualization several of its component variables were empirically related to what were 139 presumed to be general indicators of relational deve10pment. When perceived closeness was used as an indicator of rela- tional development, it was found that as perceived closeness increased in value the perceived uniqueness, breadth of com- munication, average and maximum depth of communication, fre- quency of metacommunication and perceived understanding exhibited in the relationship also increased in a statisti- cally significant fashion. Perceived closeness and uncer- tainty were strongly and negatively associated. When the level of friendship was used as an indicator of relational development, it was found that increases in the level of friendship were accompanied by increases in the average depth of communication, the frequency of metacommunication, perceived understanding and perceived uniqueness. Level of friendship was found to be negatively associated with the level of uncertainty experienced in the relationship. Factor analytic attempts to isolate statistically inde- pendent sets of component variables met with failure--sug- gesting that these variables comprised a highly interrelated set as a whole. Frequency of communication was found to be essentially unrelated to the other variables conceptualized as part of or as indicators of relational development. Although ex— treme violations of the assumption of homogeneous variances largely precluded an adequate test of the role of communica- tion frequency, the entire usefulness of the variable can be 140 questioned. It was noted that frequency operated at a lower level of abstraction than communication breadth and depth. Future research might benefit from attempts to examine the role of frequency when depth and breadth were controlled. This is especially important in light of the results of the decay analyses. These demonstrated the role of mobility or separation as causes of relational decay. Sheer frequency is obviously a component in the effects of physical separa- tion or spatial mobility The study also focused attention on several potential sex differences in the relational development process. Al- though the design of the study did not allow for a compre- hensive examination of sex differences, it did show that males and females differed in terms of the average depth and breadth of communication, the frequency of metacommunication and the level of uncertainty experienced in the relationship. Several of these variables also differed as a function of whether the relationship was composed of same- or opposite- sex persons. Since the model of relational change proposed here includes these variables, these results are suggestive of sex differences in the patterns of relational change. Further, more systematic, research is needed to fully examine this issue. It is probably fair to say that both the conceptualiza- tion offered in the opening essay and the findings of this study are exploratory. The last several sections of this 141 report have attempted to refine the conceptualization of relational change. It was argued that the original concept- ualization was too broad and ambiguous to be maximally use- ful in theory construction. In an effort to rectify this difficulty the conceptualization of relational change was restricted to focus only on changes in the variety (breadth) and/or subjective value (depth) of exchange. Having made such a restriction, it became easier to provide a more pre- cise specification of the impact of several antecedent and consequent variables. When these refinements are coupled with the several methodological suggestions made earlier in this chapter, it is hoped that progress can be made on a general theory of relational change processes. APPENDIX I PILOT STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE 142 APPENDIX I PILOT STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE FRIENDSHIP STUDY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Communication Dear Participant: We are presently beginning a study which will explore communication patterns across different levels of friendship. That is, we will be examining differences in communication between different types of friends--casual friends, good friends, etc. In preparing for that study, we need to gather some very basic--but very important--information from you. The ques- tions on the following pages provide information which will help us to better design the larger study. All information you give will be kept strictly confiden- tial. In return for your participation, you will receive 1 hour's worth of extra credit. WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE QUESTIONNAIRE, PLEASE EITHER: 1. Return it to me at 423 South Kedzie Hall; or 2. Give it to your Comm. 100 instructor at the next class meeting. IN ORDER TO EARN THE EXTRA CREDIT YOU MUST RETURN THIS TO ME OR TO YOUR COMM. 100 INSTRUCTOR ON OR BY THE DAY OF THE NEXT CLASS MEETING. Thank you for your cooperation. We hope that this is an interesting as well as easy task for you. Sincerely, Mac Parks Principal Investigator 143 APPENDIX I PILOT STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE 9'1- 1-2 Subject I.D. # 4-5 1. Your AGE IS: __ Years 7 2. Your SEX IS: __ Male __ Female (Check one) 9 3. Your YEAR IN SCHOOL IS: (Check one) __ Freshman __ Senior __ Sophomore __ Other Junior 11 4. Your MARITAL STATES IS: (Check one) Single, never married __ Presently Married __ Divorced or Separated __ Other 13 5. Can a person have more than one best friend? (Check one) __ Yes No In the space below, briefly explain why you answered the last question the way you did: 22- 17-18 20-21 22-23 144 INSTRUCTIONS : People use many different terms to describe their friendships--"casual friend," "good friend," "just a friend," etc. Nbst of us can distinguish between these terms along a general dimension of "closeness." That is, some types of friendship are "closer" than others. You will find several of these terms for levels of friendship below. YOUR JOB IS TO INDICATE HON "CLOS " EACH OF THE LEVELS OF FRIENDSHIP IS. Below each of the terms you will find a line. At the left end of the line is the phrase "Not Close At Al_l_." On the right end of the line you will sge—the phrase "Ebctremely Close." FOR EACH TYPE OF FRIENIBHIP, YOU SHOULD DRAW A SLASH ("/") THROUGH THE LINE T0 SHCM HOV CLOSE YOU THINK THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF FRIENIBHIP IS. The farther you put the slash to the left, the LESS close the relationship is. The farther you put the slash to the right, the NDRE close you think the relationship is. Be; sure _t_c_>_ read and think about items carefully. IN'I'IMA'I'E FRIENIB. Not Close Extremely At All Close ACDIRINTANCE. Not Close Extrenely At All Close FRIEND Not Close Extremely At All Close BEST FRIEND Not Close Extremely At All Close Cbl. 25-26 27-28 30-31 32-33 35-36 37-38 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 145 REMEMBER.TO READ AND CONSIDER.EACH ITEM CAREFULLY. CILXHEIFRIENDS Not Close At.A11 JUST FRIENDS NOt Close At All CASUAL FRIENDS Not Close At All GOOD FRIENDS NOt Close At.All CASUAL.AOQUAINTANCES NOt Close AtAAll VERY GOOD FRIENDS NOt Close At All Extremely Close Extremely Close Extremely Close Extremely Close Extremely Close Extremely Close THANK YOU. NOW PLEASE CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 146 NON WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO EVALUATE THESE TERMS FOR FRIMHIP IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THESE TERIVB WERE: goi- 40-41 1. Close friends 52-53 6. Friends 42-43 2. Best friends 55-56 7. Casual friends 45-46 3. Just friends 57-58 8. Acquaintances 47-48 4. Casual acquaintances 60-61 9. Intimate friends 50-51 5. Good friends 62-63 10. Very good friends PLEASE KEEP THESE TERMS IN MIND. NCM, ASSUME THAT 'Im PEDPLE START OUT AS 'IUI‘AL STRANCEIS. FURTHER, ASSUME 'IHAT OVER TIME THEY DEVELOP THE VERY HIGIEST LEVEL OF FRIENDSHIP POSSIBLE. OBVIOUSLY, THIS DEVELOPMENT VDULD (I) THROUG'I SEVERAL STATES. mgogrsgmgMIATSTAGESAFBIENDSHIPOOESDIROUGIBEIWEEN TOTAL STRANGER AND THE HIGHEST LEVEL POSSIBLE. YOU WILL FIND lg BLANKS 13mm. _I_N_ THE FIRST BLANK, YOU SHOULD WRITE _IN _TH_E_ mm. 9}: FRIENDSHIP WHICH YOU THINK WOULD COME FIRST. IN THE SECOND BLANK, YOU SHOULD wmmmEIELMOEERIENDSHIPm'ITEYOUTHMWOLIDOONENEm. l. YOUIDNCTI'NEED'IOLBEALLlOTEHVBm-USEASMANYORASFEWAS YOUTHINKYOUNEEDTOIESCRIBETHEDEVEIOPMENTOFAFRIENIBHIP. 2. [BE TERNB CNLY FIDM THE LIST ABOVE. ****** a. f. b. g. c. h. d. 1. (.53 63-1 ‘- Col. 65-66 67-68 70- 71 72-73 75-76 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. l 4 7 INSTRLCI‘IONS : (he thing that characterizes friendship is "doing favors" or helping a friend. The following questions are about favors friends might do for each other. Some favors Igluire more EFFORT than others. That is, _iEmay takenoregfyourtineogenegyormneygdgsone favors than others . YOUR JOB IS '10 INDICATE HOV MUG-i EFFORT EACH OF THE 'IASKSBEIWWOLLD'HXKE. BEIOAIEACHTASKYOUWIILFINDA LINE. AT'I'HEENDSOFTHELINEYOUWIILFIND'IHEPHRASES "VERY LITI‘IE EFFORT" AND "A LOP OF EFFORT." YOU SHOULD PUT A SLASH ("/") THICUG'I THE LINE 'IO SHCW HOW MUCH EFFORT YOU 'IHINKEACH 'IASKVDULDTAKE. REMEDBER‘IHATWEAREIBING'IHE TERM "EFFORT" D] A VERY GENERAL SENSE. IT INCLUDES TIME, ENEMY AND MINEY CINSIIERATICNS. PLEASE READ AND (DNSIIIIR EACH 'HASK CAREFULLY BEFORE REBPQIDING. BE SURE YOU IFSPCND '10 ALL ITEI’B. ****** MAILINGA LETI‘ER FOR A PEFGON. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort HELPINGAPEISCNNUVEFIDMLNEPARI‘OFIWTOANOI‘HER. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort LENDING $1 TO A PEFBCN. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort ARRANGINGADATEFORAPEIGON. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort IENDINGA REODRD TO A PEIBON. Very Little A lot Of Effort Effort |5’_ 13 16 Col. 77-78 11-12 13-14 16-17 18-19 21. Card 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 148 LENDING $10 TO A Pm. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort 2 (l-2: Subject I.D., 4 = 2 as Constant.) TELLING A "WHITE LIE" TO HELP A PERSON OUT OF TROUBLE. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort HELPING A PEIEON WITH HIS OR HER HOMEVDRK. Very Little ' A Lot Of Effort Effort LENDING ANOTHER Pm YOUR CAR FOR 'IHE EVENING. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort PICKING UP CLASS WI'EB FWTHE INSTRIIIIOR FORAPEIBCN. Very Little Effort A lot Of Effort GDINGTOADDVIE‘IHATYOUIIDNOTPARI‘ICUIARLYWANTTO SEEWI'IHAPEIECNWHOIIDESI‘UI‘WXNT'IOCDAIDNE. verléfi‘lgle A Lot Of 0 Effort LENDING $5 ‘10 A PERSON. Very Little Effort A lot Of Effort Col. 21-22 23-24 26-27 28-29 31- 32 33-34 36- 37 38-39 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 149 MEND'ITETELEPHONEFORAPEFBONFORACCIJPIEOFHOURS. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort GOING ACIDSS CAMPUS 'IO HAND IN A PAPER FOR A SICK PERSON. Very Little A lot Of Effort Effort HELPING A FEW TYPE A TERM PAPER. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort CDLNTEIBIG‘IING A I.DAN FOR A PEIBON. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort LENDING ANOTHER PEIBON YOUR CAR FOR 'ITE WEEKEND. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort INVITING A PEI-6w 'IO A PARTY AT YOUR HOLBE . Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort BABYSITI'ING A PEPSON'S CHILD WHILE HE OR SI'E IS OUT OF 'IWN FOR TIE DAY. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort 'EXKINGCAREOFAPEIBON'S HOUSE PLAN'IS WHIIEHEOR SHE ISOUI’OF'IUVNPOR'IHEWEEKEND. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort IQ fin. .‘x LII Col. 41-42 43-44 46-47 48-49 51-52 53-54 56-57 58-59 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 150 BUYING SOMETHING WITH YOUR CNN IVDNEY FOR A PEIGON WHO WILL REPAY YOU BUT IS 'Im BUSY 'IO (ET IT THEIVBELVES. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort (DINGACROSSCAMPUS'IORETI'URNALIBRARYBCDKEORAPERSON. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort SPENDING AN EVENING TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER PEIBON' S PEIECNAL PKDBLENB. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort IOANING AN ARTICLE OF CIUI'HING 'IO ANOITER PEIBCN. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort LENDING $20 '10 A PEmON. very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort TMINGAPEISON'IOTHEHEALTHCENTERMIENYOUHAVEAN DEPORIANTTEBT'IOSTUDYEOR. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort IEI'I'ING A PEIBON STAY AT YOUR HOUSE FOR TIE VEEKEND. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort INVITING A PEIBCN 'IO DINNER AT YOUR HOUSE. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort 001. 61-62 63-64 66-67 68-69 71-72 73-74 76-77 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 151 DRIVING A PERSON TO.AN APPOINTMENT DURING YOUR.SPARE TIME. very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort CANCELING A DATE WITH SOMEONE IN ORDER.TO HELP A PERSON WHTH HIS OR.HERLPERSONAL PROBLEMS. very Little A.Iot Of Effort Effort CALLING A PERSON'S EMPLOYER.TO NOTIFY THE EMPLOYER.OF THE PERSON'S SICKNESS. very Little A.Lot Of Effort Effort DOANING‘ONE OF YOURLTEXTBOOKS FORHA.CLASS YOU ARE PRESENTLY TAKING TO A.PERSON FOR.4-5 DAYS. very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort DRIVINGrA.PERSON TO AN APPOINTMENT'WHEN YOU ARE VERY BUSY. very Little A.Lot Of Effort Effort LENDING A.PERSON YOUR CLASS NOTES THE DAY BEFORE THE EXAM. very Little A.Lot Of Effort Effort BEING INVOLVED IN A.PERSON'S WEDDING IF THEY ASKED YOU. Very Little A Lot Of Effort Effort PLEASE LOOK BACK THROUGH THE QUESTIONNAIRE NOW TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED EACH QUESTION TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY. CHECK TO'MAKE SURE YOU HAVE NOT MISSED ANY IIEWEL (I)CIIIC>THE NEXT AND LAST PAGE. FRIENIBHIP STUDY MAC PARKS SUBJ'ECII RECORD SHEET THANK YOU VERY MLIH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. IT ms GREATLY APPRECIATED. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU MLBT TURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IN TO ME OR TO YOUR WICATION 100 INSTRUCTOR BY THE DAY OF YOUR NEXT CLASS. ‘IHIS SHEET WILL BE KEPT SO THAT YOUR EXTRA CREDIT FOR PARTICIPATION IS mm. TO 11) THIS WE NEED: 1. YOUR NAME: Please Print Clearly 2. YOUR STUIIINT NUMBER: 3. YOUR CDMVI. 100 INSTRIXHOR'S NAME(S) APPENDIX II WAVE ONE QUESTIONNAIRE 153 APPENDIX II WAVE ONE QUESTIONNAIRE FRIENDSHIP STUDY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Communication Dear Participant; You are being asked to participate in a study which deals with the develqment of camunication patterns in friendship. This is a seldom studied area of great irrportance in ooummication. Participating in the study has at least three benefits. First, you will have a chance to learn Irore about yourself and your relation- ships with others. Participating in the study will give you the oppor- tunity to think about the quality and nature of your relationships with others. You will also be given a more extensive description of the study when it is finished. Second, you will be helping us to better understand the process of commmicatim in friendships . Further, you will be given extra-credit for participating. In re- turn for your help, you will receive 4 hours worth of extra-credit. In order to get this credit, you must canTete a series—of 3 questi onnai‘ré's over thgfit FIVE—9325.— E‘aauwillbe asTofigorab'i'E'éhorter than this one. No extra-credit will be given unless all 3 questionnaires are fully oarpl'e‘t'efand retumed—ifi E. _ All of the information you provide will be kept strictly confiden- tial.—'We—wiIl—be asking sate questions of a Eérsonal nature. However, HIE—responses you give will be kept private. No me will have access to the information. Please answer completely and honestly. ' WHEN YOU HAVE C(NPLETED MS QUESTIQQNAIRE, RETUIN IT '10 YOUR (DIVE. 100 INSTKIIIOR OR '10 MY OFFICE (423 South Kedzie Hall). ITMBTBEIETUINEDBY: IFIT ISNOI‘RETUINEDBY‘IHIS TIDE, WEWILLASSUME'IHATYOUAIENOI‘ PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY. Thank you, [Vac Parks Principal Investigator 14 154 [1—3 S.ID. 1 [ 5 Cardl] PLEASE READ ALL ITEIVB CAREFULLY AND mMPLEI'ELY BEFORE YOU RESPOND. First, since this study involves three questionnaires, we need sane information so that we can keep track of you. This will also help us make sure you get your extra credit. a. YOUR NAME IS: (Please Print Clearly) b. YOUR COMM. 100 INSTRUCIOR IS: (Print) 0. YOUR TELEPIDNE NUMBER IS: 1. YOUR AGE IS: 2. Your S_e_x_ is: Male Female (Check one) 3. Your Year _i_n_ 53921. is: (Check one) __ Freshman ______ JLmior ______ Other _ Sophomore __ Senior 4. Your Marital Status is: (Check one) __ Single , Never married __ Separated, Divorced , _ Presently married or Widowed On the following pages you will find a nurber of statenents. Each represents a camonly held opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably disagree with same items and agree with others. Read each statement carefully. Then indicate the extent to which you agree by writyg’ _in a number E the space beside each statement. The nunbers and their neaning are indicated below: Strongly agree with the statement Agree sarewhat with the statement Ages sli tl with the statement Neutral--neither agree nor disagree with the statement Disagree slightly with the statement Disagree scuewhat with the statement Disagree strongly with the statement bmmq II II II II 3 2 1 READ EACH STATEMENT, IECIIE IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE. DEIDE 'IHE STRENGTH OF YOUR OPINION]. THEN WRITE IN THE APPRDPRIATE NUMBER. USE (I‘lLY 91E NLMBER PER STATEMENT. GIVE YOUR OPINION FOR EVERY STATEMENT. 001. 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 155 Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so. 'Ihe best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. (he should take action only when sure it is morally right. Mast people are basically good and kind. It is safest to assune that all people have a vicious streak and it will cane out when they are given a chance. Honesty is the best policy in all cases. There is no excuse for lying to someone else. Generally speaking, people won't work hard Lmless they're forced to do so. All in all, it is better to be hutble and honest than to be inpcrtant and dishonest. When you ask scueone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which carry more weight. Mast peOple who get ahead in the world lead clean, noral lives. Anyone who cmpletely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught. Mast persons are brave. It is wise to flatter inportant people. It is possible to be good in all respects. P.T. Barmm was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every Irinute. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death. Nbst people forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property. I would rather decide things when they come up than always try to plan ahead. I have always felt pretty sure my life would work out the way I wanted it to. Iseantobethekindofpersonthathasmorebad luck than good luck. 156 Cbl. 44 28. I never have any trouble making up my mind about inportant goals. 46 29. I have always felt that I have nore will power than nost people have. 47 30. There's not nuch use for me to plan ahead because there' 5 usually something that makes me change my plans. 48 31. I nearly always feel pretty sure of myself even when people disagree with me. 49 32. I have often had the feeling that it's no use to try to get anywhere in this life. End Card #1 PEASEGMWNMKESURE THAT YOU HAVE ANSWEREDEACHI'IEM. WWEAREREADYTOGET'IOTHEQUESTICNSABOUTFRIENIBHIPS. GDOVTOTHENEXTPAGE. . . Col. 1-3 S.ID. 7-9 R. ID." C01. 13-17 19-23 157 NAMEAPERSOVMIOISCURRENIL_____Y_A_N_INTD1ATEFRIEND9_FY__GJRS. THIS PERSON MAY LIVE LIX—TALLY OR SCME— DISTANCE AWAY-BUT MUST BE EINTIMATE FRIEND. mflLISTAPERSONWEMYOUAREDATIm, ENGAGEDORMARRIED'IO. SUCHPERSONSMAYBEIN'TD’IATEFRJENDS,” AREMANYOI‘HERTHDBSASWELL. ASARESULT,WEWILLNOI'BESTUDY- IBBTHOSE RELATIONSHIPS. BESURETOLISTAPERSCN ONLY IFHEOR SHEISANINTD’IATEFRIEND. ITISUP‘IOYOU'IODEIIIDEIFAPERSCN ISORISKDTSIIIHAFRIEND. YCIJNEEDN_OT_LIST'IHEPERSON'SFULLNAME—JUST ENCIJGHSOTHAT YCIJCANREIIXENIZEITONHJ'IUREQJESTIONNAIRES. PLEASEPRJNI‘ CLEARLY. NAMEOFINTIW-XTEFRIEND: Now we have a series of questions about your relationship with this person. Please answer honestly. All: of the information you give is confidential. 1. How long have you kmm this person? Years bbnths 2. On thea verage, how often do you talk face-to—face with this person durirg the school year? (Check one) __ Once a month or less __ About once every three weeks __ About once every two weeks __ About once each week __ About twice a week [Please give your best estimate] About 4 times a week ’ Q'lceaday ‘No or more times each day. 158 LLXDKOVER‘IHE ITENS BELm. THEY DEAL WITH DIFFERENT ISSUES, BUTTHEYAIEALLCIZNSTRIKZTEDINASMLARW. FOREACH ITEM, YOURJOBIEECIKZLET‘I—IEQQENLMBERMIIQ—I BEST INDICATES Hm YOU FEEL. BE SURE TO CIRCLE ONLY ONE NUMBER PER _I—TEM. READ EACH I'm-”CAREFULLY. 25 3. How "close" is your relationship with this person? Not Close Extreme At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Close 26 4. How frequently do the two of you actually talk about the state or nature _c_>_f_ your relationship? Almost Quite Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequently 27 5. How well do you think this person understands what kind of a person you are? Not Well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 28 6. How wiggle—different from all others—-is this relationship? Very ‘ Not Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unique 29 7. Suppose you told this person something personal about yourself. fl sure are you that it would be kept confidential? Not Sure Very At All l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sure [Check to be sure that you have circled just one number] (N THE NEW? 'IWO PAGES YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL DIFFERENT TOPI$ OF CCNVERSATION . CHECK THOSE THAT YOU HAVE DISCLBSED WITH THIS PEIECN. YOU NEED NOT HAVE DISCLBSED THEM RECENTLY OR EXI'ENSIVELY. JLBTASLLNGAS'IHE'NDOFYOUHAVE TMICEDAWUTTI‘IH’IATSOMETIME. m PEI; CHEXZK ANY TOPICS, YOU HAVE NOT DISCUSSED. 159 8. Numbers of brothers and sisters. 9. Your nationalities. 10 . Favorite hobbies . 11. Sports in which one or both of you participate. 12. Types of magazines that one or both of you enjoy. 13. Types of food one or both of you dislike. 14. The TV prograns that interest one or both of you. 15. How the sight of blood effects one or both of you. 16. The place of religion in everyday life. 17. Cpinicns on the best way to solve racial problems. 18. Weather that frightens one or both of you (Winds, thunder, tornados , etc.) 19. Most satisfying job or work experiences. 20. Feelings about peOple who are careless in picking up after themselves. 21. Whether or not religion should be able to influence politics. 22. melings about going to the doctor. 23. Whether or not one or both of you ever pokes fun at others. 24. Pet peeves of one or both of you. 25. How often we or both of you go out on dates with others. 26. Views on borrowing money from friends. 27. Qualities in other people that you find annoying. 28. Views about peOple who try to take advantage of one or both of you. 29. Whether or not there are situations in which lying is O.K. 160 30. The kinds of things that make you or the other person just furious. 31. Possible misfortunes that you or the other person worries about. 32. How you or the other person feels when you lose a game or ccntest. 33. Feelings about responsibilities and obligaticns . 34. If you or the other person gets panicky in tight situations. 35. How often you or the other person has spells of the blues and what they are about. 36. How smart you or the other person is cmpared to others. 37. What feelings, if any, you or the other person has trouble expressing or controlling. 38. Whether or not you or the other has ever lied to an employer. 39. Whether or not you or the other has ever cried when sad (as an adult). 40. Which of your parents you like best or feel closest to. 41. Lies you or the other person has told to parents. 42. Disappointments or bad experiences in love affairs. 43. How often you or the other person has sexual relations. 44. Feelings about your adequacy in sexual behavior. 45. Things the two of you dislike about your mothers. 46. Thingsinthepastorpresent thatoneorbothofyou feel most guilty about. 47. Personswithwhamyouortheotherpersonhashadsexual experiences. Cols. 31-32: Nun. MW WE WOthD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS AHJUT 34-38: H.L. ANOIHER REIATICNSHIP. (1) ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. End Card #2 161 NAME A PERSON WHO IS PRESENI‘LY AN ACQUAINTANCE OF YOUIG. THIS PEECNMAYLIVELII‘ALIYORSOMEDISTANCEAWAY. YOUCANCHCDSE ANYCNE YOU WISH—AS LING AS HE OR SHE IS AN ACQUAINI‘ANCE. II) E LIST A PEIBON WHO HAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU. AGAIN, YOUNEEDI‘UTLISTTHEPEIBON'S EULLNAME—JIETGIVE ENOIII‘I SO THAT YOU CAN RECQNIZE IT ON FUTURE QUESTIONAIRES. 5 Card 3 NAME OF ACQUAINPANCE: 7-9 R.ID. Please Print NONWEMDUIDLIKETOASKASERIES OFQUESTICNSABOUTYOUR RELATICIISHIP WITH THIS PEISCN. 13:17 1. How long have you known this person? Years anths 19-23 2. On the averag, how often do you talk face-t_o-face with this person during the school year? (Check one) Once a month or less About once every three weeks About once every two weeks About once each week [Please give your best About twice a week estimate] About4timesaweek mceaday Tiwo or more times each day. 26 27 28 29 162 IOOK OVER THE ITENB 3mm. THEY DEAL WITH DIFFERENT ISSUES, BUIHEYAREALLCONSTHJCI‘ED INASIMILARWAY. FOR EACH ITEM, YOUR JOB _I_S_ _Tp CIRCLE THE ONE NUNBER WHIGI BESTINDICATESHQVYOUFEEL. BESUREECIKIEOMYWENIMBER PERITEM. MADEACHITEMCYXREFULLY. 3. How "close" is your relationship with this person? Not Close Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Close 4. How frequently do the two of you actually talk about the state gr: nature gf your relationship? Almost Quite Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequently 5. How well do you think this person understands what kind 9}: 3 person you are? Not Well Ectremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 6. How mi 'fferent from all others--is this relationship? Very Not Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unique 7. Suppose you told this person satething personal about yourself. Egg sure are you that it would be kept confidential? Not sure Very At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sure [Check to be sure that you have circled just one number.] ON THE NEXT Two PALES YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL DIFFERENT TOPICS OF CDNVEIBATICN. CHECK THOSE THAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THIS PERSON. YOU NEED NOT HAVE DISCUSSED THEM RECENTLY OR EXTENSIVELY. JIBTASIKNGASTHETWOOFYOUHAVETIAIKEDABOUTTHEMATSCNETIME. DO M CHECK ANY TOPICS YOU HAVE NOT DISCUSSED. 163 8. Numbers of brothers and sisters. 9. Your nationalities. 10 . Favorite hobbies . 11. Sports in which one or both of you participate. 12. Types of magazines that one or both of you enjoy. 13. Types of food one or both of you dislike. 14. The TV programs that interest one or both of you. 15. How the sight of blood effects one or both of you. 16. The place of religion in everyday life. 17. Cpinions on the best way to solve racial problems. 18. Weather that frightens one or both of you (Winds, thunder, tornados, etc.) 19. Nbst satisfying job or work experiences. 20. Feelings about people who are careless in picking up after themselves. 21. Whether or not religion should be able to influence politics. 22. Feelings about going to the doctor. 23. Whetler or not one or both of you ever pokes fun at others. 24. Pet peeves of one or both of you. 25. How often one or both of you go out on dates with others. 26. Views on borrowing money from friends. 27. Qualities in other people that you find annoying. 28. Views about people who try to take advantage of one or both of you. 29. wretler or not trere are situations in which lying is O.K. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. C015. 31-32 34-38 End #3 164 Tie kinds of things that make you or the other person just furious. Possible misfortunes that you or the other person worries about. How you or tie other person feels when you lose a game or contest. Feelings about responsibilities and obligations. If you or the other person gets panicky in tight situations. How often you or the other person has spells of the blues and what they are about. How smart you or the other person is catpared to others. What feelings, if any, you or the other person has trouble expressing or controlling. Whether or not you or the other has ever lied to an employer. Whether or not you or the other has ever cried when sad (as an adult). Which of your parents you like best or feel closest to. Lies you or the other person has told to parents. Disappointments or bad experiences in love affairs. Num. H.L. How often you or the other person has sexual relations. Feelings about your adequacy in sexual behavior. Things the two of you dislike about your mothers. Things in the past or present that one or both of you feel most guilty about. Persons with whom you or tte other person has had sexual experiences. NOV WE mULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT STILL ABUTHER RELATICNSHIP. BEAR WITH (B, YOU ARE ALNDST FINISHED. (IDCNTOTHBNEX'TPAGE. . . 165 S.ID. Card 5 R.ID. RELLEV _2_ NAME A PE$ON WHO IS PRE‘SENTIX A FRIEND OF YOURS. THIS PEIBCNMYLIVEHIIAILYORSOMEDISTANCEAWAY. YOUCANNAME ANYONE YOU CH®SE-AS IONG AS HE OR SHE IS SIMPLY A FRIEND. II) M LIST A PEIBON WHO HAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF REIATICNSHIP WITH YOU. AGAIN, YOU NEED NOI' LIST THE PERSON'S FULL NAME—JUST GIVE EDDUGI SOTHATYOUCAN REXDC-NIZE ITO‘I FUIUREQUESTICNNAIRES. NAME OF FRIEND: Please Print NOVWEWUIDIIKETOASKYOUTHESAMEQUESTIQVSWEASKEDABOUTTHE OI'HER 'Im IELATIONSHIPS. HVIEBBER, ALL OF THE FOLIO/ENG QUESTICNS IEALJIBTWITHYOURREIATTQISHIPWITHTHISFRIENDOEYCIJIG. l3-l7 1. 1+ka long have you known this person? Years Mnths 19-23 2. (h the averag, how often do you talk face-t_o_-face with this person during the school year? (Check one) (hoe a month or less About once every three weeks About mce every mo weeks About once each week [Please give your best About twice a week estimate.] About4timesaweek (hoeaday 'No or more times each day. 166 YOU ARE PKJBABLY BECDMING FAMILIAR WITH THESE QUESTICIIS BY W. JIBTREMINDYOUIBEIFTHATYOURJOB IS TOCIICLETHEQTE NII‘BERM‘IICJ-I BEST INDICATES HmYOU FEELABOUI‘EACH ITEM. BE SURE TO CIRCLE (NLY ONE NUNBER PER ITEM. READ EACH ITEM CAREFULLY. 25 3. How close is your relationship with this person? Not Close Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Close 26 4. How freguently do the mo of you actually talk about Elle state or: nature 9}: your relationship? Almost Quite Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequently 27 5. How well do you think this person understands what kind _o_f_ _a person you are? Not Well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 28 6. How uni e-different from all others—is this relationship? Very Not Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unique 29 7. Suppose that you told this person something personal about yourself. Egg sure are you that it would be kept cmfidential? Not Sure Very AtAll l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sure [Check to be sure that you have circled just one number.] (11 THE NEXI‘ TWO PAGES YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL DIFFERENT TOPICS OF CINVERSATIOS. YOU SHOULD ALREADY BE FAMIIJAR WITH THESE. THIS TIME, YOUR JOB IS TO CHECK THOSE THAT YOU HAVE DISCLBSED WITH THE W WHO IS YOUR FRIEND. YOU NEED NOI‘ HAVE DISCUSSED THEM IE- CENI‘LY OREXI'ENSIVELY. JLBTAS IWGAS THETMDOFYOUHAVETALKED AmUI'THE'MATSOMETIIVIE. mflGMANYTOPICS YOU HAVENOT DISCIBSED. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 167 Numbers of brothers and sisters. Your nationalities . Favorite hobbies . Sports in which one or both of you participate. Types of magazines that one or both of you enjoy. Types of food one or both of you dislike. The TV programs that interest one or both of you. How the sight of blood effects one or both of you. The place of religion in everyday life. Opinions on the best way to solve racial problems . Weather that frightens one or both of you (Winds, thunder, tornados, etc.) Mast satisfying job or work experiences. Feelings about peOple who are careless in picking up after flmselves. Whether or not religion should be able to influence politics . Feelings about going to the doctor. Whether or not one or both of you ever pokes fun at others. Pet peeves of one or both of you. How often one or both of you go out on dates with others. Views on borrowing money from friends . Qualities in other people that you find annoying. Views about people who try to take advantage of one or both of you. Whether or not there are situations in which lying is O.K. The kinds of things that make you or the other person just furious. Possible misfortunes that you or the other person worries about. #4 168 32. How you or the other person feels when you lose a game or contest. . 33. Feelings about responsibilities and obligations. 34. If you or the other person gets panicky in tight situaticns. 35. How often you or the other person has spells of the blues and what they are about. 36. How smart you or the other person is cotpared to others. 37. What feelings, if any, you or the other person has trouble expressing or controlling. 38. Whether or not you or the other has ever lied to an employer. 39. Whether or not you or the other has ever cried when sad (as an adult). 40. Which of your parents you like best or feel clOsest to. 41. Lies you or the other persm has told to parents. 42. Disappointments or bad experiences in love affairs. 43. How often you or the other person has sexual relations. 44. Feelings about your adequacy in sexual behavior. 45. 'Ihings the two of you dislike about your mothers. 46. Things in the past or present that one or both of you feel most guilty about. 47. Persons withwhomyou or the otherpersonhashad sexual experiences. Cols. 31-32: Num. JLBT A (DUPIE MDRE QUESTICNS . . . 34-38: H.L. End Card 169 8. Name: S.ID.: R. ID.: ASPARI‘OFTHESTTJDY, WEWOUIDLIKETOCDNTACI'ONEOFTHE PEIEONS YOU HAVE NAMED IN THIS STUDY. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT PEIBON SOME OF THE SAME QUESTIONS WE HAVE ASKED YOU. THIS PART OF THE STUDY IS ENTIRELY OPTICIIAL FOR YOU. WHETHER ORNUI‘YOUAIIWUSTOCH‘ITACTG‘IEOFTHEPERSONS IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. IT WILL EOE EFFECT YOUR EXTRA-CREDIT. THIS ASPECT OF THE STUDY IS ENI'IRELY VOLUNTARY. a. Do you mind if we contact one of the persons you have named? Yes, I would prefer that you did not. No, you may cmtact one of the people. b. If you answered "No" to the question above, please give us the following information about the person you select. We will contact one person of your choice. FIELNAME: Please Clearly Print ADDRESS : Zip: TELEPHCNE : c. This person is a: (Check one) ____IntimateFriend _Friend _Aoquaintance ************************* THIS WIRES PAM I OF THE STUDY. YOU WILL RECEIVE PARI‘ II IN 7-10 DAYS. 1. PLEASE ImK BACK THROUGH-I THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED EVERY ITEM. 2. PE'IURN IT TO ME (423 S. Kedzie) OR TO YOUR CDNM. lOO INSTHJCIOR B_Y_ APPENDIX III WAVE TWO QUESTIONNAIRE 170 APPENDIX III WAVE TWO QUESTIONNAIRE FRIENDSHIP STUDY - PART TWO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERS ITY Department of Communication mar Here is the second questionnaire in the friendship study. ‘Ihere will cnly be one more after this one. Like the last questionnaire, this questionnaire begins with sore questions about you and then asks several questions about each of the relationships you listed last time. Again, it is extremely important that you answer all questions completely and honestly. Remember that all of the information you give us will be kept strictly confidential. PLEASE READEAfl-IQUESTICN CAREFULLYANDCOMPIEI'EIX BEFORE YOU ANSWER. BESURETOANSWERALLITE‘NB. If you have any difficulties with the questionnaire or if you find any part of it confusing, please call me and I will try to help. My office phone is 355-1862 and my hare phone is 355-0789. WHEN YOU HAVE CIJMPLETED THIS QUESTICNNAIRE, RETUIW IT TO YOUR CDMM. 100 INSTRUCIOR OR TO MY OFFICE (423 South Kedzie Hall). THERE IS AN ENVELOPE FOR QUESI‘IQINAIRE‘S OUI‘SIIE W OFFICE. THIS QUESTICNNAII-‘E MIST BE RETUFNBD NO IATERTHAN MNDAY, APRIL 26TH. Please rematber that you must —5a1plete all three questionnaires in order to receive any extra credit. Your time and effort is deeply appreciated. Thank you. Mac Parks Principal Investigator 171 [1-3 S.ID ] [ 5 Card; ] PLEASE READ ALL ITEDB O‘REFUILY AND COMPIETELY BEFORE YOU RESPOND. First of all, we would like you to give us some general in- formation about your relationships with others. We are interested in finding out hm many of several different types of friends you have. We would also like to find out how many you want. Belm, we have listed five types of relationships. ELI job is 1:2 indicate how many Ersons you have that fit each type o_f_ re- lationship. Also, we; would like you t_c_>_ indicate hm many friends of each EYE m optimally desire. You may want more or less of a given type of friend than you already have. Or, you may be satis- fied with the present nurber. We realize that it _i¢_s_ difficult _t_o_ think of exact nurbers. But please think about-your answer and give _u_s_ your best possible estimate. Do no; count a given person for more than me type of relationship. [Write in 7-8 1. How many INTIM'IE FRIENIB do you presently have? your best estimate] lO-ll 2. In the best of all worlds, how many INI‘IMATE FRIENIB would you like to have at any one time? 13-14 3. How many GOOD FRIENIB do you presently have? 16-17 4. In the best of all worlds, how many CIDD FRIENIBwouldyouliketohaveatanyonetime? l9-20 5. I-bw many FRIENIB do you presently have? 22-23 6. In the best of all worlds, how many FRIENIE would you like to have at any one time? 25-27 7. Hm many CASUAL FRIENIB do you presently have? 29-31 8. In the best of all worlds, how many CASUAL FRIENIB would you like to have at any one time? 33-35 9. How many ACQUAIN'I'ANCES do you presently have? 37—39 10. In the best of all worlds, hm many MUHAM- ANCES would you like to have at any one time? End PLEASE CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN Card YOUR BEST AND DDST REALISTIC RESPONSE TO EACH #5 ITEMABOVE. 172 'T w 5” H P 5 Card=§ T‘ \D P H P E “‘9. All.OF1Hfi3CMESEHlEBONTHHCNEXTIEMIPAGESII§UJWITHTKIHI IEIAHTONSHIP‘WTTH THE PERSON YOUIWMMEDPEiAN'INTIMATEIFRIEND. THIS PERSON IS: 13—14 1. This person's ACE is: 16 2. 11113 person's SEX is: Male Female (Check one) 18 3. 'lhis person's YEAR IN SCHOOL is: (Check one) __ Freshman _ Junior Other, or not __ Saphomore __ Senior in school 20 4. This person's MARITAL STATUS is: (Check one) __ Single , Never Married __ Separated, Divorced __ Presently Married or Widowed 22 5. Hasthispersoneverbeenabetter friendthanheorshe currently is? _ Yes (Check one) No IF YOU.ANSWERED "YES" TO THE LAST'QUESTION, BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IN THE SPACE BELOW“WHATIHAPPENED TO‘CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP: 173 Col. 6. How many MILES does this person presently live away from $33? Please give your very best estimate. If you need to indicate fractions, please use decimal form—Le. , 12.25 rather than "12 l/4." 24-31 LIVES MILES FROM ME} AT THE PRESENT TIME. NONWEMDUIDLDCETOASKSCNEQUESTICNSWHIGIEALWITHHCM WELL YOU COULD _P______REDICI‘ VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THIS PEIBCN' S ATTITUIIS, FEELINGS OR BEHAVIOR. FOR EACH OF THE ITEDB BEEN, YOUR JOB _I__S TO _W_RI____TE INTHEWHOLE NUNBERWHICH BEST INDICATES YOURLEVEILQE CON-— m. WRI'IEINANYWHOIENUDBERBE‘IWEENIAND9. l=I amnotatall omfidentofmyanswer. 9 = I amextrarely oonfidentofmy answer. YOUCANLEEANYWIDIENUDBERBEIWEENIAND9. THEBIGCERTHE NUBERYOUWRITE, THEDDIE (DNFIIENT 1N YOURANSWERYOU ARE. THE SMER'IHENLEBERYOUWRITE, THELEBSCII‘IFIDENI‘YOUAREINYOUR ABILITY ‘10 MY ANSQER THE QUESTICN. @mmrmommgmmmomsflm. YOUJUSTHAVE 195A}: Hmmmgyounmakyoumgggyounm ANSWER THEM. 33 7. What is this person's age? 34 8. In what way would this person like to live after marriage? 35 9. How does this person feel about gambling? 36 10. What is this person's lucky number? 38 11. What is this person's View on the present 0.5. govern- ment--President, courts , campaigns , etc. ? 39 12. Which does this person value more—friendship or money? 40 13. Did this person's parents spank him/her as a child? 41 14. What was this person's date of birth? 43 15. How strong (physically) is this person? 44 16. What things would this person never tell his/her _girlfriend/boyfriend? Col. 45 46 48 49 50 51 53 54 55 174 17. How religious is this person, compared to most other people? 18. What long-range worries or concerns does this person have about his/her health, e.g. , cancer, ulcers, heart trouble , etc. ? 19. What would this person Cb if he/she caught his or her girlfriend/boyfriend playing around with another man/ woman? 20. How much trouble did this person get into at school as a child? 21. How does this person feel about telling lies to get out of an uncomfortable situation? 22. Would this person like to move about the country and live in different places? 23. How would this person feel about leaving children with a babysitter? 24. What different kinds of play and recreation does this person enjoy? 25. What is this person' 5 general attitude about school? EOREAQ-I F 'IHE EOLIWING ITEIVB, CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBERWHICH INDICATES How YdU FEEL. _ag SURE _'n_o_ CONSIDER THEM WY. 56 58 59 26. How "close" is your relationship with this person? Not Close Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Close 27. I expect this relationship to continue far into the future. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 28. I would try to maintain this relationship even if it became inconvenient to do so. Strongly Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Agree (DON'IO'IHENEXPPAGE. . . 61 63 175 29. How frequently do the two of you actually talk about the state or nature _o_f_ your relationship? Almost Quite Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequently 30. Suppose you told this person something personal about yourself. _I_igw sure are you that it would be keg confidential? Not Sure Very At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sure 31. How much do you like this person? Not Well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well ****************************** 65-69 End 32. On the averag, how often do you talk face-_tg-face with this person during the school year? (Check one) (hoe a month or less [Please give your About once every 3 weeks best estimate.) __ About once every 2 weeks __About once eachweek _About twiceaweek _About4timesaweek _____Onceaday Two or more times each day. Card THIS (IJNCLUlES OUR QUESTIONS ABOUI‘ THIS RELATIONSHIP. PLEASEmm'IO‘IHENEXTPAGE. . . Col. 1-3 S.ID. 5 Card = _6_ 7-9 R.ID. 11 mv = 1 13-14 16 18 20 22 176 ALLOF'IHEQUESTIONISON'IHENEXI‘FEWPAGESDEALWITHYOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PM YOU NAMED AS AN ACQUAINTANCE. 'IHIS PEIBON IS: ‘Ihis person's AGE: is: This person's SEX is: Male Female (Check one) 'Ihis person's YEAR IN SCHOOL is: (Check one) Freshman Junior Other, or not SOphonore Senior in school This person's MARITAL STATUS-is: (deck one) Single , Never Married Separated, Divorced Presently Married or Widowed Has this person ever been a better friend than he or she currently is? Yes NO IF YOU ANSWERED "YES" TO THE LAST QUESTICN, BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IN THE SPACE 13mm WHAT HAPPENED TO CHANCE THE RELATIONSHIP: 177 6. How many MILES does this person presently live away from y_o_u_? Please give your very best estimate. If you need to indicate fractions, please use decimal form—-i.e. , 12.25 ratl'er than "12 1/4." 24-31 LIVES MILES E‘EDM ME AT THE PRESENT TIME. 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 43 44 NWWEWOILDIM'IOASKSOMEQUESTIONSWHICHIEALWITH HOV WELL YOU COULD PREDICT VARIOIB ASPI‘ITI‘S OF THIS PEPBCN'S ATI‘ITUDES, FEELINCB OR BEHAVIOR. FOR EACH OF THE ITEIVS BEIm, YOUR JOB IS TO WRITE IN THE WHOLE NUMBER WHICH BEST INDICATES YOUR LEVEL _O__F W.WRITEINANYWHOLENUM3ERBEIWEEN1AND_9_. l I am not at all confident of my answer. 9 I am extremely cmfident of my answer. YOUCANUSEANYWHOIENUMBERBE‘IWEENlAND9. THEBIGGIRTHE NIMBERYOU WRITE, THEMDRE (DNFIIENT INYOUR ANSVER YOU ARE. THESWXLLER'IHENUBBERYOUWRI’IE, THELESSCIJNFIDENTYCIJARE INYOURABILITY'IOACBURA’ELYANSWERTHEQUESTION. YOU AIE NOI‘ REDUIIED _‘Ip_ ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. YOU JIBT HAVE TO SAY HCM (INFIIIINT IN YOUR ANSVER YOU WOULD BE _I_F YOU _D__ID 7. What is this person's age? 8. In what way would this person like to live after marriage? 9. How does this person feel about gambling? 10. What is this person's lucky number? 11. What is this person's View on the present U.S. government--President, courts , campaigns , etc. ? 12. Which does this person value more—friendship or morey? 13. Did this person's parents spank him/Ier as a child? 14. What was this person's date of birth? 15. How strong (physically) is this person? 16.—What things would this person never tell his/her __girlfriend/boyfriend? 90.1.. 45 46 48. 49. 50. 51 53 54 55 56 58 59 178 17. How religious is this person, compared to most other people? 18 . What long-range worries or concerns does this person have about his/her health, e.g., cancer, ulcers, heart trouble, etc.? 19. What would this person do if he/she caught his or her girlfriend/boyfriend playing around with another man/ waran? 20. How much trouble did this person get into at school as a child? 21. How does this person feel about telling lies to get out of an uncomfortable situation? 22. Would this person like to move about tie country and live in different places? 23. How would this person feel about leaving children with a babysitter? 24. What different kinds of play and recreation does this person enjoy? 25. What is this person's general attitude about school? mREAmgngI-"ommrm ITEMS, CIKZIE’IHEONEMJMBERWHICH BEST INDICATES Howyou FEEL. BESUREECDNSIDER'I'IEMCAREEUILY. 26. How "close" is your relationship with this person? Not Close Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Close 27. I expect this relationship to continue far into tie future. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 28. I would try to maintain this relationship even if it became inconvenient to do so. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 61 63 65—69 179 29. How fregpently do the two of you actually talk about the state p£_nature 9f_your relationship? (Ahmost Quite Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequently 30. Suppose you told this person something personal about yourself. Egg sure are you that it would be kept confidential? NotSure Very AtAlll 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Sure 31. How much do you like this person? ‘Not well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well ********************************* 32. On the average, hoW'often do you talk facefigpfface with this person during the sdhool year? (Chedk one) Once a.month or less .About once every 3 weeks About once every 2 weeks [Please give your best estimate.] ____ About once each week _____About twice a.week ____ About 4 times a week _____Once a day TWO or more times each day THIS CONCLUDES OUR.QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE GO‘ON TO'THE NEXT PAGE . . . 180 ALL OF THE QUESTICNS ON THE NEXT FEW PAGES DEAL WITH YOUR RELATIQQSHIP WITH THE PM YOU NAMED AS A FRIEND. THIS FEM IS: 13—14 1. This person's AGE is: 16 2. This person's SEX is: Male __ Fatale (deck one) 18 3. This person's YEAR IN SCHOOL is: (deck ore) __ Freshman __ Junior __ Other, or not __ Sophcnore __ Senior in school 20 4. This person's MRI'IAL STATIB is: (Check ore) _ Single, Never Married __ Separated, Divorced _ Presently Married or Widowed 22 5. Has this person ever been a 2311295 friend than he or she currently is? —— Yes (deck one) No IF YOU ANSWERED "YES" TO THE LAST QUESTICN, BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IN THE SPACE BEIUN WHAT HAPPENED TO CHANGE THE RELATICNSHIP: 24-31 33 34 35 36 38 39 4O 41 43 44 181 6. How many MILES does this person presently live away from you? Please give your very best estimate. If you need to indicate fractions, please use decimal form—Le. , 12.25 rather than "12 1/4." LIVES MIIESFROMMEAT‘TIEPRESENTTIME. NCM WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS WHICH DEAL WITH HON WELL YOU (IDULD PREDICT VARIOIB ASPECTS OF THIS PEIEON'S ATTITUDES, FEELINCE OR BEHAVIOR. PVC—R _ELQ‘I O_F THE ITENB BELOW, YOUR JOB _I__S TO WRITE _I_N_ TIE WHOLE NUMBER WHICH BEST INDICATES YOUR LEVEL OF COVFIDENCE. WRITEJNANYWHOIENUMBERBETWEENIAND9. 1 I am not at all confident of my answer. 9 I am extremely confident: of my answer. YOUO-XNLBEANYWHOLE NUMBERBEIWEEN lAND 9. TIEBIGGERTIE NUMBER YOU WRITE, TIE IVDRE CII‘IFIIENT IN YOUR ANSWER YOU ARE. TIE SMALLER TIE NUMBER YOU WRITE, TIE LIES CDNFIIENI' YOU ARE IN YOUR ABILITY TO ACCURAT'ELY ANSNER TIE QUESTICN. YOUARENOI'REDUIREDTOANS‘VERTIEQUESTIONS. YOUJUST HAVE TO SAY HCN CONFIDENT _I_N_ YOUR ANSWER YOU VDULDB _I_F___ YOU DID _ADEWER THEM. 7. __ What is this person's age? 8. _ In what way would this person like to live after marriage? 9. __ How does this person feel about gambling? 10. __ What is this person's lucky number? ll. __ What is this person's view on the present U.S. govermentnPresident, courts, campaigns, etc.? 12. __ Which does this person value nore—-friendship or my? 13. __ Did this person's parents spank him/her as a child? l4. __ What was this person's date of birth? 15. __ How strong (physically) is this person? l6. __ What things would this person never tell his/her girlfriend/boyfriend? 48 49 50 51 53 S4 55 ’56 58 59 182 17. How religious is this person, conpared to most other people? 18. What long-range worries or concerns does this person have about his/her health, e.g., cancer, ulcers, heart trouble, etc.? 19. What would this person do if he/she caught his or her girlfriend/boyfriend playing around with another man/ wcman? 20. How much trouble did this person get into at school as a child? 21. How does this person feel about telling lies to get out of an uncanfortable situation? 22. Would this person like to move about the country and live in different places? 23. How would this person feel about leaving children with a babysitter? 24. What different kinds of play and recreation does this person enjoy? 25. What is this person's general attitude about school? FOR EACII OF TIE FOLIUNING ITEIVB, CIRCLE TIE (NE NUMBER WHICH 26. How "close" is your relationship with this person? Not Close Extrately At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 close 27. I expect this relationship to cautinue far into the future. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 28. I would try to maintain this relationship even _i_f it became inconvenient to do so. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree (DOVTOTIENEXI‘PAGE. 183 60 29. How frequently do the two of you actually talk about the state _9_}; nature 9_f_ your relationship? Alnost Quite Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequently 61 30. Suppose you told this person sonething personal about yourself. How sure are you that it would be kept confidential? Not Sure Very At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sure 63 31. How much do you like this person? Now Well Extrenely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well ********************************* 65-69 32. Ch the average, how often do you talk face-t_g—face with this person during the school year? (Cteck one) Once a month or less About once every 3 weeks [Please give your best estimate.] About once every 2 weeks __ About once each week __ About twice a week __ About 4 times a week __ Once a day __ '1Wo or more tines each day End _Ca_rd 'IHIS CDNCLUDES OUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS RELATICNSHIP. PIEASECDQTT‘OTIEWPAGE. . . 184 THIS CQdPIEI‘ES THIS QUESTICNNAIRE. *** PLEASE ILDK BACK THROIHI TIE QUESTIONNAIRE TO MAKE SURETHATYOUHAVE ANSWEREDEACHANDEVERY ITEMTO TIE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY. *** REI’IEMBER THAT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE MUST BE REPORTED _N_O_ LATER THAN MNDAY, APRIL 26TH. Please be sure toturn itinontirre, sinceyoumustbedropped from the study if you do not. YOU MAY BRING THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO MY OFFICE (423 S. Kedzie) OR TO YOUR mm. 100 INSTRIXJIOR. YOU WILL RECEIVE TIE THIRD (AND FINAL) QUESTICNNAIRE IN ABOUT 10 DAYS. APPENDIX IV WAVE THREE QUESTIONNAIRE 185 APPENDIX IV WAVE THREE QUESTIONNAIRE FRIENDSHIP STUDY - PART THREE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Communication Dear Here is the third and final questionnaire in the friendship study. (hoe you have completed this questionnaire, you will have completed your participation in the study. As in the past, it is extremely important that you answer all questions completely and honestly. Remember that all of the infonna- tion you give us will be kept strictly confidential. Sate of the questions will seem familiar to you. Please go aread and answer trem. It is important that you read each qiestion carefully and completely before you answer. EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE QUESTICNS MAY SEEMFAMIIIARTOYOU, IT IS IMPORJ‘ANI‘TIIATYOU RESPONDTOA_IL_ITEDB. Within a couple of weeks, you will be given a handout which will more fully explain the nature of the study. Since we have collected so much information, however, it will be sure time until tl'e final results of the study are available. If you have any difficulties with the questionnaire or if you find any part of it confusing, please call me and I will try to help. My office phone is 355-1862 and my hare phone is 355-0789. WHEN YOU HAVE mMPIEI'ED THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, RETURN] IT TO YOUR CDMVI. 100 INSTRIL'IOR OR TO MY OFFICE (423 South Kedzie Hall). THERE IS AN ENVEIOPE FOR QUESTICNNAIRES OUI'SIIE MY OFFICE. TIHSQIESIIWAIRENIBTEERETURTEDALQIMERTHANWMESDAY,WXYSTH PIEASEREDEDBERTHNPYOUMETTUWINTIHSQIESTIOWAIREWTDEANDCOM— PIE'IFLY FILLED OUT IN ORIERTO RECEIVE ANY EXTRA-CREDIT FOR YOUR mRK. Your time, effort and cooperation has been sincerely and deeply appreciated. Thank you, who Parks Principal Investigator 186 (1-3 S.ID ) (5Card9) PLEASE READ ALL ITEIVB CAREFULLY AND COMPLETELY BEFORE YOU RESPOND. First of all, we would like you to give us some general infome- tion about your relationships with others. We are interested in find- ing out how many of several different types of friends you have. We would also like to find out how many you want. Below, we have listed five types of relationships. Your lob_ bis to indicate how many persons you have that fit each type of relation- ship. Also, we would like you to indicate how many friends of ea___c__h 351E you optimally desire. You— may want more or less of a given type of friend than you already have. Or, you may be satisfied with the present number. We realize that it is difficult to; think of exact numbers. But please think about Eu}— answer and give us your urbest possible estimate. Do not count a given person for more than one type of relationship. Col. (Write in 7-8 1. How many INTIMATE FRIENDS do you presently have? your best estimate) 10-11 2. In the best of all worlds, how many INTIMA'I‘E FRIENDS would you like to have at any ore time? 13-14 3. How many (DOD FRIENIB do you presently have? l6—l7 4. In the best of all worlds, how many GOOD FRIENDS would you like to have at any one time? 19-20 5. How many FRIENIB do you presently have? 22-23 6. In the best of all worlds, how many FRIENIB would you like to have at any one time? 25—27 7. How many CASUAL FRIENDS do you presently have? 29-31 8. In the best of all worlds, how many CASUAL FRIENIB would you like to have at any one time? 33-35 9. Hm many ACQUAINTANCES do you presently have? 37—39 10. In the best of all worlds, how many ACQUAINT— ANCE‘S would you like to have at any one time? End Card PLEASE CIECK TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE #9 GIVEN YOUR BEST AND POST REALISTIC RE- --—- SPONSE TO EACH ITEM ABOVE. 187 AILOFTHIEQUESTIONS ONTHENEHFEWPAGES DEALWITH YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEIGCN YOU NAMED AS AN INTIMATE FRIEND. 'IHIS PEFBON IS: 13-17 1. How long have you known this person? Estimate the time in mmths and years and write in the appropriate numbers: Years anths 19-26 2. Egg many MILES does this person presently live away from you? Please give your very best estimate. If you need to indicate fractions, please use decimal form--i.e. , 12.25 rather than " 12 1/4. " LIVES MIEF'KX’IMEAT'IHEPRESENI‘TIME. FOREACI‘IQETHEFOWGITEPB, CIRIE'IHEONENUNBERWHIGI BEST INDIGXTE‘S HOVYOU FEEL. BESURELIECDNSIIEREACHCAREFUILY. 28 3. I expect this relationship to continue far into the future. Strmgly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 29 4. I would try to maintain this relationship even if it became inconvenient to do so. Strongly Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 Agree 30 5. How much do you like this person? Not Well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 32 188 6. HDw'well do you think this person understands what kind of a person you are? Net well Extremely At.All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 well 7. How unigyef-different from.all others-~is this relationship? very' Not Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Uhique (Please check to be sure you circled just one number per item) ON THE NEXT COUPLE OF PAGES YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL DIFFERENT TOPICS OF CONVERSATION. CHECK THOSE THAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSED ‘WITH THIS PERSON. YOU NEED NOT HAVE DISCUSSED THEM RECENTLY‘OR EXTENSIVELY. JUST AS LONG AS THE TWO‘OF YOU HAVE TALKED.ABOUT THEWIAT'SCME TIME. DO NQE_CHECK ANY TOPICS YOU HAVE NOT DISCUSSED. 8. NUmbers of brothers and sisters. 9. Your nationalities. 10. Favorite hobbies. 11. Sports in whidh one or both of you participate. 12. Types of magazines that one or both of you enjoy. 13. Types of fcod one or both of you dislike. 14. The TV'programs that interest one or both of you. 15. How the sight of blood effects one or both of you. 16. The place of religion in everyday life. 17. Opinions on the best.way to solve racial problems. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 189 weather that frightens one or both of you (Winds, thunder, tornados, etc.) .Most satisfying job or work experiences. Feelings about people who are careless in picking up after themselves. Whether or not religion should be able to influence politics. Feelings about going to the doctor. Whether or not one or both of you ever pdke fun at others. Pet peeves of one or both of you. How often one or both of you go out on dates with others. Views on borrowing money from friends. Qualities in other people that you find annoying. Views about people who try to take advantage of one or both of you. Whether or not there are situations in whiCh lying is O.K. The kinds of things that make you or the other person just furious. Possible misfortunes that you or the other person worries about. HCW'YOU or the other person feels when you lose a game or contest. Feelings about responsibilities and obligations. If you or the other person gets panicky in tight situations. How often you or the other person has spells of the blues and.what they are about. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE . Cols. 34-35: 37-41: #10 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. H.L. ’ 190 How smart you or the other person is compared to others. What feelings, if any, you or the other person has trouble expressing or controlling. Whether or not you or the other has ever lied to an employer. Whether or not you or the other has ever cried when sad (as an adult). Which of your parents you like best or feel closest to. Lies you or the other person has told to parents. Disappointments or bad experiences in love affairs. How often you or the other person has sexual relations. Feelings about your adequacy in sexual behavior. Things the two of you dislike about your mothers. Things in the past or present that one or both of you feel most guilty about. Persons with whom you or the other person has had sexual experiences. THIS CONCLUDES OUR QUESTIONS ON THIS RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. . . . 22;- 1-3 7-9 11 13-17 19-26 28 29 30 191 S.ID. Card = 11 R.ID. RELLEV = 1 ALL OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE NEXT FEW PAGES DEAL WITH YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEI-EON YOU NAMED AS AN ACDUAINI‘ANCE. THIS PEPSON IS : 1. How long have you known this person? Estimate the time in months and years and write in the appropriate numbers: Years lVbnths 2. How many MLES does this person presently live away from you? Please give your very best estimate. If you need to indicate fractions, please use decimal form-«Le. , 12.25 rather than "12 1/4.n LIVES MILES FROM ME AT ‘IHE PRESENT TIME. FOR EACH _O_E'_ THE EOIWING ITEIVB, CIICLE THE (NE NUMBER WHICH BEST INDICATES HOV YOU FEEL. I_3_E_ SURE lg CWSIDER EACH CAREFULLY. 3. I expect this relationship to continue far into the future. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 4. I would try to maintain this relationship even i_f it became inconvenient to do so. Strongly Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Agree 5. How much do you like this person? Not Well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 32 192 6. How well do you think this person understands what kind of a person you are? Not Well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 7. How unique--different from all others--is this relationship? Very Not Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unique (Please check to be sure you circled just one number per item) ON THE NEXT COUPLE OF PAGES YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL DIFE‘ERENI‘ TOPICS OF CCNVERSATION. CHEIIK THOSE THAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THIS PEIEON. YOU NEED NOI‘ HAVE DISCUSSED THEM RECENTLY OR EX- TENSIVELY. JLBT AS LONG AS THE TWO OF YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT THEM AT SOME TIME. 11) E1; CHECK ANY TOPICS YOU HAVE NOI‘ DISCIBSED. 8. Number of brothers and sisters. 9. Your nationalities. 10. Favorite hobbies 11. Sports in which one or both of you participate. 12. 'Iypes of magazines that one or both of you enjoy. 13. Types of food one or both of you dislike. 14. The TV programs that interest one or both of you. 15. How the sight of blood effects one or both of you. 16. The place of religion in everyday life. 17. Opinions on the best way to solve racial problems. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 193 Weather that frightens one or both of you (Winds, thLmder, tornados, etc.) Most satisfying job or work experiences. Feelings about peOple who are careless in picking up after themselves. Whether or not religion should be able to influence politics. Feelings about going to the doctor. Whether or not one or both of you ever poke fun at others. Pet peeves of one or both of you. Hm often one or both of you go out on dates with others. Views on borrowing money from friends. Qualities in other people that you find annoying. Views about people who try to take advantage of one or both of you. Whether or not there are situations in which lying is O.K. The kinds of things that make you or the other person just furious. Possible misfortunes that you or the other person worries about. Hm you or the other person feels when you lose a game or contest. Feelings about responsibilities and obligations. If you or the other person gets panicky in tight situations. Hm often you or the other person has spells of the blues and what they are about. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. Cols . 34-35 : 37-41: End #11 Num: H.L. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 194 Hm smart you or the other person is compared to others. What feelings, if any, you or the other person has trouble expressing or controlling. Whether or not you or the other has ever lied to an employer. Whether or not you or the other has ever cried when sad (as an adult). Which of your parents you like best or feel closest to. Lies you or the other person has told to parents. Disappointments or bad experiences in love affairs. Hm often you or the other person has sexual relations. melings about your adequacy in sexual behavior. 'Ihings the mo of you dislike about your mothers. Things in the past or present that one or both of you feel most guilty about. Perscns with whom you or the other person has had sexual experiences. THIS CDNCLUDES OUR QUESTION ON THIS RELATICNSiIP. PLEASEGDONTOTHENEXT PACE . . . . Col . 1-3 7-9 11 195 ALL OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE NEXT FEW PAGES DEAL WITH YOUR RELATIQQSHIP WITH THE PEFSON YOU NAMED AS A FRIEND. THIS PEISON IS : 13-17 1. Hm long have you knmn this person? Estimate the time in months and years and write in the appropriate numbers: Years Months 19-26 2. Hm many MILES does this person presently live away from you? 28 29 30 Please give your very best estimate. If you need to indicate fractions, please use decimal form--i.e. , 12.25 rather than "12 l/4." LIVES MILES FKDM ME AT THE PRESENT TIME. FOR EACH 93 THE FOLIONING ITEP-‘S, CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER WHIQ-I BEST INDICATES HON YOU FEEL. BE SURE TO CONSIDER EACH CAREFULLY. ——————. 3. I expect this relationship to continue far into the future. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 4. I would try to maintain this relationship even i_f it became inconvenient to do so. Strongly Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Agree 5. Hm much do you like this person? Not Well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 31 32 196 6. Hm well do you think this person understands what kind g a person you are? Not Well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 7. How _Lgi_i_q_u_e_--different from all others——is this relationship? Very Not Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unique [Please check to be sure you circled just one number per item] (19 THE NEXT (DUPLE OF PACES YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL DIFFERENT TOPICS OF C(I‘NERSATION. CHECK THOSE THAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THIS PEISON. YOU NEED NOT HAVE DISCUSSED THEM RECENTLY OR EX- TENSIVELY. JUSTAS WGAST‘HETWOOFYOUHAVE TALKEDABOUTTHEM AT SOME TIME. 11) NOT CHECK ANY TOPICS YOU HAVE NOT DISCUSSED. 8. Nutbers of brothers and sisters. 9. Your nationalities. 10. Favorite hobbies 11. Sports in which one or both of you participate. 12. Types of magazines that one or both of you enjoy. 13. Types of food one or both of you dislike. 14. The TV programs that interest one or both of you. 15. Hm the sight of blood effects one or both of you. 16. ‘lhe place of religion in everyday life. 17. minions on the best way to solve racial problem. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 197 Weather that frightens one or both of you (Winds, thunder, tornados, etc.) Nbst satisfying job or work experiences. Feelings about people who are careless in picking up after themselves. Whether or not religion should be able to influence politics. Feelings about going to the doctor. Whether or not one or both of you ever poke fun at others. Pet peeves of one or both of you. How often we or both of you go out on dates with others. Views on borrming money from friends. Qualities in other people that you find annoying. Views about peOple who try to take advantage of one or both of you. Whether or not there are situations in which lying is O.K. The kinds of things that make you or the other person just furious. Possible misfortunes that you or the other person worries about. Hm you or the other person feels when you lose a game or contest. Feelings about responsibilities and obligations. If you or the other person gets panicky in tight situations. Hm often you or the other person has spells of the blues and what they are about. (DON'IOTHENEXI'PAGE. . . . Cols . 34-35: 37-41: End Card #12 Nm. H.L. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 198 How smart you or the other person is compared to others. What feelings, if any, you or the other person has trouble expressing or controlling. Whether or not you or the other has ever lied to an employer. Whether or not you or the other has ever cried when sad (as an adult). Which of your parents you like best or feel closest to. Lies you or the other person has told to parents. Disappointments or bad experiences in love affairs. Hm often you or the other person has sexual relations. Feelings about your adequacy in sexual behavior. Things the two of you dislike about your mothers. Things in the past or present that one or both of you feel most guilty about. Persons with whom you or the other person has had sexual experiences. THIS CONCLUDES OUR QUESTION ON THIS RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE GO (1‘1 TO THE NEXT PAGE. . . . 199 WE ARE NON FINISHED WITH THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIPS . PERHAPS YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGITS OR CONTENTS ABOUT THE STUDY. ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIPS . PLEASE EEELFREETOWRITEANYGJMMENTSYOUMIGHTHAVEINTHESPACE BEIO'V: CDONTOTHENEXTPAGE. . . 200 Friendship Study M. Parks Spring, 1976 STUDENT PARTICIPATION RECORD AS YOU KNON, YOU ARE REEEIVING 2.5 HOUIS OF EXTRA CREDIT FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. IF YOU HAVE COMPLETELY FILLED OUT ALL 3 QUESTIONNAIRES AND RETURNED THEM TO ME YOU WILL GET THIS EXTRA CREDIT. THIS SHEET WILL BE THE OFFICIAL RKORD OF YOUR PARTICIPATION. PLEASE PFDVIIIJ THE INFORVIATION BERLIN IN ORDER TO MAKE OUR RECORm COMPLETE: YOUR NAME: YOUR COMM. 100 INSTRUCIOR: THIS PAGE WILL BE TURNED IN FOR YOU. II) NOT TEAR IT OFF. APPENDIX V MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE 201 APPENDI X V MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE FRI ENDSH I 1’ STUDY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERS ITY Department of Communication Dear Participant: You are being asked to participate in a study which deals with the development of communication patterns in friendship. This is a seldom studied area of great importance in communication. Only recently have researchers become interested in the way in which friendships and other close relationships grow and change over time. By participating you will help us better understand this area. In addition to helping us pursue our scientific studies, your participation will benefit you directly. By participating in the study you will have the opportunity to think about the quality and nature of your relationships with others . All of the information yo_ provide will be kept strictly confi- dential. We will be asking a few questions of a personal nature. Hm- ever, the responses you give will be kept private. No one will have access to the information. This includes the person who named you as a friend. Please answer completely and honestly. PLEASE FILL OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE. WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED 'IHIS QUESTIONNAIRE, SIMPLY SLIP IT INIO THE RETURNENVEIDPEANDNRILIEBACKTQME. IT IS IMPOM'ANT THAT YOU RETUIN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AS S(I)N AS YOU POSSIBLY— CAN. Your time, effort and cooperation are deeply appreciated. Thank you, We Parks Principal Investigator 13 15-19 21 202 PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS FULLY ALL OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE F‘OLIUNING PAGES DEAL WITH YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH: 1. This person is a: (Check one) Intimate Friend Acquaintance Friend Other 2. How IONG have you known this person? Estimate the time in months and years and write in the appropriate numbers : Years anths 3. Has this person ever been a BEITER friend that he or She CURRENTLY is? Yes (Check one) NO IF YOU ANSWERED "YES" '10 THE LAST QUESTION, BRIEFLY EXPIAININTHESPACEBELUNWHATHAPPENEDTOCHANGETHE REIATICNSHIP: 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 203 NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS WHICH DEAL. WITH HOW WELL YOU OOULO PREDICT VARIOUS ASPECI‘S OF THIS PERSON'S ATTITUDES, FEELINGS OR BEHAVIOR. _POR EACH _03 THE ITEIVS BELOW, YOUR JOB IS TO WRITE IN THE ONE WHOLE NUMBER WHICH BEST INDICATES—YOUR LEVEL'OP OONEIDENCE. WRITE ANY WHOLE NUMBER BETWEEN i _AN_D gi— l I am not at all confident of my answer. 9 = I am extremely confident of my answer. YOU CAN USE ANYWHOLE NUMBER BEIWEEN 1 AND 9. THE BIGGER THE NUMBER YOU WRITE, THE IVDRE CONFIDENI‘ IN YOUR ANSWER YOU ARE. THE SMALLER THE NUMBER YOU WRITE, THE LESS CONFIDENT YOU ARE IN YOUR ABILITY TO ACCURATELY ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED _Tp ACTUALLY ANS'VER THE QUESTIONS . YOU JUST HAVE 1? SAY HOW OONPIEENT _I_N_ YOUR ANSWER YOU WOULD BE _I_F_‘ YOU DID ANSWER THEM. 4. What is this person's age? 5. In What way would this person like to live after marriage? 6. How does this person feel about gambling? 7. What is this person's lucky number? 8. What is this person's View on the present U.S. government—President, courts, campaigns, etc.? 9. Which does this person value more--friendship or money? 10. Did this person's parents spank him/her as a child? 11. What was this person's date of birth? 12. How strong (physically) is this person? 13. What things would this person never tell his/her girlfriend/boyfriend? 14. HOW religious is this person, compared to most other people? 15. What long-range worries or concerns does this person have about his/her health, e.g. , cancer, ulcers, heart trouble, etc.? 39 40 41 43 44 45 47 48 49 204 16. What would this person do if he/she caught his or her girlfriend/boyfriend playing around*with another man/ ‘Woman? 17. How muCh trouble did this person get into at school as a Child? 18. How does this person feel about telling lies to get out of an uncomfortable situation? 19. would this person like to move about the country and live in different places? 20. HOW”W0uld this person feel about leaving Children with a babysitter? 21. What different kinds of play and recreation does this person enjoy? 22. What is this person's general attitude about school? IOOK OVER THE ITEIVB BELOW. THEY DEAL WITH DIFFERENT ISSUES, BUT THEY ARE ALL OONSTRUCIED IN A SIMILAR WAY. FOR EACH ITEM, YOUR $313 IS_ 1'9 CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER WHICH BEST INDICATES HON YOU FEEL. BE SURE _I_O CIRCLE ONLY (NE NUMBER FEB ITEM. PLEASE READ EACH ITEM CAREFULLY. ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. 23. How "close" is your relationship with this person? Not Close Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Close 24. How frequently do the two of you actually talk about the state 9£_nature of your relationship? Almost Quite Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ‘ 9 Frequently 25. HOW“Well do you think this person understands what kind of a person you are? Not well Extremely At All 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 well Col. 50 51 52 53 54 56-60 205 26. How unique—-different from all others--is this relationship? Very Not Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unique 27. Suppose you told this person something personal about your- self. How sure are you that it.would be kept confidential? Not Sure very At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sure 28. I expect this relationship to continue far into the future. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 29. I would try to maintain this relationship even if_it became inconvenient to do so. Strongly Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree 30. How much do you like this person? NOt well Extremely At.All l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well at******************************** 31. On the average, how often do you talk face-tofface'with this person during the school year? (Check one) Once a month or less _. __About once every 3 weeks [Please give your ___W About once every 2 weeks best estimate.] VAbout once each week .-———-.-— _ About twice a week About 4 times a week _“-o<- __w Once a day TWO or more times each day cu.” 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 206 YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL DIFFERENT TOPICS OF CONVEFGATION BE- W. CHECK ME THAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSED WI'IH THIS PRISON. YOU NEED NOT HAVE DISCUSSED THEM RECENTLY OR EXI'ENSIVELY. JUST AS LONG AS THE 'IWO OF YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUI‘ THEM AT SOME TIME. 11) _N_(_II'_ CHECK ANY TOPICS THAT YOU HAVE NOI‘ ACTUALLY DISCUSSED. __ Numbers of brothers and sisters. Your nationalities. Favorite hobbies . __ Sports in which one or both of you participate. __ Types of magazines that one or both of you enjoy. __ Types of food one or both of you dislike. The TV programs that interest one or both of you. __ How the sight of blood effects one or both of you. __ The place of religion in everyday life. Opinions on the best way to solve racial problems. Weather that frightens one or both of you (Winds , thunder, _— tornados , etc.) Mast satisfying job or work experiences. Feelings about people who are careless in picking up after themselves. __ Whether or not religion should be able to influence politics. __ Feelings about going to the doctor. __ Whether or not one or both of you ever poke fun at others. __ Pet peeves of one or both of you. How often one or both of you go out on dates with others. Views on borrowing money from friends . __ Qualities in other people that you find annoying. Views about people who try to take advantage of one or both of you. Whether or not there are situations in which lying is O.K. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. C015. 62-63: 65-69: End Card 207 The kinds of things that make you or the other person just furious. Possible misfortunes that you or the other person worries about. HOW’YOU or the other person feels when you Lose a game or contest. Feelings about responsibilities and obligations. If you or the other person gets panicky in tight situations. How often you or the other person has spells of the blues and.what they are about. HOW smart you or the other person is compared to others. What feelings, if any, you or the other person has trouble controlling or expressing. Whether or not you or the other has ever lied to an employer. Whether or not you or the other has ever cried when sad (as an adult). Which of your parents you like best or feel closest to. Lies you or the other person has told to parents. Disappointmenbsor bad experiences in love affairs. HOW often you or the other person has sexual relations. Feelings about your adequacy in sexual behavior. Things the two of you dislike about your mothers. ___— Things in the past or present that one or both of you feel most guilty about. Persons with whom you or the other person has had sexual experiences. THIS OONCLUDES THE QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE RETURN IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. USE THE ENCLOSED RETURN ENVELOPE. YOUR.HELP IS VERY DEEPLY AND SINCERELY APPRECIATED! APPENDIX VI CODING INSTRUCTIONS AND DATA ON DECAYED RELATIONSHIPS 208 APPENDIX VI CODING INSTRUCTIONS AND DATA ON DECAYED RELATIONSHIPS CATECDRIES: l = Reduced Rewards Exchange Factors 2 = Enhanced Costs 3 = Attractive Alternative Relationships 4 = Enhanced mcertainty Contract Factors 5 = Reduced or Imbalanced Disclosure 6 = Decreased Metacommmmication 7 == Decreased Communication Idiosyncrasy 8 = Otter EXPLANATION AND EXAMPLES : Note: Nbre than one code category can be used for any given item. 1. Reduced Rewards: Aspects of the relationship which were once attractive are no longer available at previous levels. Examples: a) Person has gained undesirable weight. b) Person has stOpped taking part in common or previously shared activities . c) Person has developed different attitudes or interests. 2. Enhanced Costs: The amount of effort--in physical or mental terms- that is necessary to maintain the relationship has increased. Examples : a) Person has moved. b) Person has developed undesirable or intolerable attitudes or behaviors. Note: if they are just different, then code it as a reduced reward; but if they are undesirable to the person, then code it as an enhanced cost. 209 3. Attractive Alternative Relationships: One or more of the individuals has developed or found another, alternative relationship. Examples : a) Person gets married. b) Person is involved in alternative dating relationship. c) Person develops a new or different set of friends. 4. Greater Uncertainty: The other person changes in unspecified ways and the person is now less predictable in their attitudes or behavior. Examples: a) Person becomes unpredictable--subject reports being unable to predict what the other is going to do. b) Person can not be e: