¥). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (a ). Issues in studying relationships: Conceptualizing and measuring closeness. The relationship Closeness Inventory is a short survey you can take to evaluate It is loosely based on the work of Bersheid, Snyder and Omoto as published in. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements. X will influence my future financial security. Strongly disagree. Strongly agree.
Behavioral research in the last three decades has changed one aspect of this picture profoundly by demonstrating that many people have strong other-regarding preferences [ 2 — 5 ]. However, much of this research abstracts from the social relationships people actually have and measures social preferences towards unidentified, anonymous other people.
Thus, relationship closeness is disregarded even if other-regarding motives matter strongly. Similarly, behavioral investigations of strategic thinking largely disregard the psychological nature of the relationships among individuals and, in experiments, usually only study anonymous agents and their interactions.
Thus, in our view, a significant open research question is how social preferences or strategic thinking change with the nature of real, non-anonymous relationships. Some evidence suggests that the degree to which individuals can identify each other matters for social preferences e. Some contemporary research measures a concept akin to relationships, namely the network structures in which people are embedded people are asked to list the names of their friends or people with whom they interact and then this network structure is related to a variable of interest, e.
These are excellent tools to advance our understanding of the importance of social relationships. However, network structures highlight who is linked to whom and who is "central" and do not consider the psychology of relationships, that is, how "close" people feel to be to a specific other person.
In this paper we are motivated by a complementary strategy for advancing our understanding of relationships, which involves borrowing tools from social psychology to measure the closeness of bi-lateral personal and social relationships between individuals.
It is a simple pictorial tool, which is very easy to implement making it a potentially highly useful instrument. We illustrate our version of the IOS task in Fig 1 exactly as it was seen by the participants of our three studies ; further details are given in the next section.
In each pair of circles, one circle refers to the respondent and the other circle to X. Respondents are asked to select the pair of circles that best describes their relationship with X. Items were scored on a seven-point scale rang- ing from strongly disagree 1 to strongly agree 7.
Four original items were zyxw modified for use with adolescent subjects: Intercorrelations indicated that the three subscales were only modestly associated. For mothers, activity diversity was linked to interaction frequency 7. In sum, the num- ber of different weekly activities was associated with the amount of daily social interaction and the level of perceived influence in each adolescent relation- ships, but influence and social interaction were linked only in relationships with fathers and romantic partners.
Interdependence was defined as the sum of converted scores for interaction frequency, activity diversity, and influence strength. Raw scores on these sub- scales were converted to a standard ten-point scale and summed range: For each subject, the relationship with the greatest total score was desig- nated interdependent Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto, b. All of the rela- tionships included in this survey contained some degree of interdependence, so this label is shorthand for the relationship with the most interdependence as measured by the RCI.
Closeness describes responses to a checklist Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto, a containing twelve relationships mother, father, sibling, best zyxwv friend, romantic partner, teacher, aunt or uncle, cousin, grandparent, coach or extracurricular activity sponsor, employer, and coworker.
For each subject, the relationship selected as the closest identify the person with whom you have the closest, deepest, most involved and most intimate relationship was designated close. All of the relationships included in this survey contained some degree of closeness, so this label is shorthand for subject reports of the perceived closest relationship.
Concordance describes the match between individual reports of close and interdependent relationships. Agreement indicates that both measures identi- fied the same relationship, disagreementindicates that different close and inter- dependent relationships emerged. The first analyses describe characteristics of interde- pendence. MANOVAs multipleanaly-zy zy ses of variance and ANOVAs analyses of variance determine grade, sex,and 9 romantic partner status differences in the interaction frequency, activity diver- sity, and influence strength of adolescent relationships.
Degre of freedom are adjusted conservatively from approximately 1, to ; repeated mea- sures analyses, substituting the number of subjects minus the number of con- zyx ditions for the larger number of subjects multiplied by the number of conditions. Degrees of freedom differ slightly because of variations in missing zyxwvut data. These comparisonsexamine whether relationships identified as close and inter- dependent differ from one another, differ across grades, and differ as a func- tion of participation in romantic relationships.
Chi-square contrasts determine grade, sex, and romantic partner status difIerences in close relationships, inter- dependent relationships, and measurement concordance. The analyses were repeated three times to replicate the results reported in the text. The first repetition involved adolescents, including 54 partici- pants without a mother or stepmotherfather or stepfathersibling or stepsiblingor friend.
The second involved adolescents. The third involved 20 1 adolescents reporting biological parents and siblings, excluding 44 participants with stepmothers, stepfathers,or stepsiblings. Findings from these samplesand the adolescents with two parents, a sibling, and a friend were virtually identical. Results The first analyses quantify characteristics of interdependence in adolescent relationships, with contrasts elaborating interaction frequency, activity diver- sig and influence strength with mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and roman- tic partners.
A repeated measures MANOVA was zyxwvu conducted with three between-subject independent variables of grade sev- enth, ninth, tenth and eleventh, and twelfthsex male and femaleand romantic partner status present and absentand one within-subject inde- pendent variable of relationships mother, father, sibling, and friend.
The three interdependence characteristics interaction frequency, activity diversity, and influence strength were the dependent variables. In each case, follow-up comparisons of relationship differ- ences involved participants in contrasts among mothers, fathers, siblings, and friends, and participants in contrasts of romantic partners with moth- ers, fathers, siblings, and friends.
An ANOVA was conducted with three between-sub- zy ject independent variables of grade, sex, and romantic partner status, and one within-subject independent variable of relationships. Interaction frequency was the dependent variable.
Relationship Closeness Inventory Online Test
There was also a three- way interaction for relationships, sex, and romantic partner status, F 3. Two separate ANOVAs explored the three-way interaction of relationships, sex, and romantic partner status. Each ANOVA entailed two between-subject independent variables of grade and sex, and one within-subject independent variable of rela- tionships.
OOl for seventh graders, tenth and eleventh graders, and twelfth graders. Paired t-tests indicated that social interaction among seventh graders was greatest with siblings and mothers, whereas tenth, eleventh, and twelfth graders reported social interaction to be most frequent with romantic partners. Ol for males and females. Paired t-tests indicated that males reported social interaction to be most frequent with romantic partners, whereas females reported the greatest levels of social inter- action with mothers, romantic partners, and friends see Table 1.
In analy- ses of adolescents without romantic partners, there were neither statistically significant main effects nor interactions involving the frequency of daily social interaction see Table 1. Within each grnde and sex rows. To summarize, among those in romantic relationships, older adolescents and males interacted most kquently with romantic partners, whereas younger adolescents and females divided social interaction among several relationships; among adolescents without romantic relationships, there were no differences in rates of social interaction with mothers, fathers, siblings,and friends.
When scores are collapsed across grades, adolescents with- out romantic partners reported an average of almost 68 minutes more daily social interaction with family members and friends than adolescents with zyx romantic partners, which works out to an additional 6. An ANOVA was conducted with three between-subject independent variables of grade, sex, and romantic partner status, and one within-subject independent variable of relationships.
Activity diversity was the dependent variable. Paired t-tests indicated that among seventh graders, mothers were involved in the greatest number of different weekly activities; among ninth graders, the scope of different activities was greatest for friends and romantic partners; among tenth, eleventh, and twelfth graders, activity diversity was greatest with romantic partners. OOl for males and females.
Paired t-tests indicated that males reported the most activity diversity with romantic partners, and females reported the greatest number of different weekly activities with romantic partners and mothers see Table 1. Older adolescents and males reported the greatest number of different activities with romptic part- 13 zyx ners; younger adolescents reported the greatest number of different activities with mothers; females reported the greatest number of different activities with romantic partners and mothers.
An ANOVA was conducted with three between-subject zyxwv independent variables of grade, sex, and romantic partner status, and one within-subject independent variable of relationships. Influence strength was the dependent variable. Tukey's contrasts p's c. To summarize,influence strength differed across relationships and grades but not as a function of sex or romantic partner status. The overall influence Grade 7th zyxw Table 1. Father M SD 6. P Friend M SD 6.
Relationship Closeness - The Common Cold Project - Carnegie Mellon University
Comparisons among mothers,fathers, siblings, and friends involved all participants; means and standard deviations for these relationships include adolescents. Comparisons of romantic partners with mothers, fathen,siblings, and friends involved only participants with romantic rela- tionships; means and standard deviations for romantic partners include adolescents.
Within each grade and sex rows ,different superscripts denote significant p c. Subjects consistently rated parents and romantic partners as their most influential relationships, regardless of grade, sex, and romantic partner status.
Interdependent and Close Relationships. Analyses of interdependent relationships included adolescents 19 were eliminated because of miss- zyx ing data on one or more subscales. Analyses of close relationships included zy adolescents 14 were eliminated because of missing data and 27 were eliminated because someone other than a mother, father, sibling, friend, or romantic partner was selected as the closest relationship.
Analyses of mea- zyxwv surement concordance included adolescents 54 were eliminated due to a lack of data on the close or interdependent relationship.
- Relationship Closeness Inventory
Relationships with mothers emerged as interdependent for most seventh graders; mothers and friends prevailed for ninth graders; the interdependent relationships of tenth graders were divided among mothers, romantic partners, and friends; and relationships with romantic partners were most likely to be interdependent for twelfth graders see Table 1.
Relationships with mothers emerged as interdependent for most females. A similar proportion of male friends, mothers, romantic partners, and fathers were interdependent see Table 1. There were no statistically significant chi-square differences between adolescents with and without romantic partners in interdependent relationships. In sum, interdependent relationships differed according to grade and sex, but not according to romantic partner status.
Mothers emerged as the interde- pendent relationship of most younger adolescents and females, romantic part- ners tended to be the interdependent relationship of older adolescents, and parents and peers were equally represented as the interdependent relationship of males. Mothers were selected by most seventh graders as a close relationship, friends and mothers prevailed during the ninth grade, friends and romantic partners were chosen by most tenth and eleventh graders, and romantic partners were identified most frequently as the closest relationship of twelfth graders see Table 1.
There were no statistically significant chi-square differences in the close relationships of males and females; neither were there differences between adolescents with and without romantic partners. To summarize, close relationships differed across grades, but not as a functionof sex or romantic partner status.
Younger adolescents tended to iden- tify mothers as their closest relationship, whereas older adolescents were most likely to name romantic partners. For each participant nan interdependent relationship represents the relationship P with the greatest composite score on the interaction frequency, activity diversity,and influence strength scales.
Parents were more apt to be rated as interde- pendent than as close, whereas there was a greater tendency for peer relation- ships to be a close but not interdependent. A similar number of participants scored siblings as close and interdependent see Table 1.
The proportion of interde- pendent relationships identified as close ranged from 20 percent with fathers to 72 percent with romantic partners. Disagreement between indices varied with relationships: Three separate chi-square analyses failed to find statistically significant difierences in the distribution of concordance rates as a function of romantic partner status, grade, and sex.
Sibling 6 32 0 0 8 42 3 16 2 11 zyxwvutsr Friend 4 11 0 0 8 22 14 39 '10 28 RomanticPartner 1 3 3 8 1 3 6 15 28 72 Note An interdependentrelationshiprepresents the relationshipwith the greatest composite score on the interaction frequency, activity diversity, and influence strength scales. A cbse relationship represents the self-reported closest relationship. Concordancescores include only those partici- pants n I reporting interdependent and close relationshipswith mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, or romantic partners.
Peers were apt to be close, and family members especially mothers tended to be interdependent. Concordance was greatest for roman- tic partners, indicating that most interdependent romantic relationships were also perceived as close. Discussion zyxwv Reports from eleven- to nineteen-year-olds, delineating interconnections in adolescent close relationships, addressed three questions: Do relationship interdependence and closeness dijfer across adolescence?
Overall, interdependence and closeness appeared to shift from family mem- bers to peers. Specifically,younger adolescents rated mothers as close and interdependent, whereas older adolescents scored romantic partners as close and interdependent. Developmental alterations in specific interconnections, however, were not uniform.
Activity diversity and interaction frequency declined with parents, increased with romantic partners, and peaked at mid- adolescence with friends.
That adolescents spend less time with family mem- bers and more time with age-mates is well documented Larson and Richards, ; Montemayor and Brownlee,but the results of the present study are among the first indications that these changes extend to the number of dif- ferent social activities.
The patterns are consistent with the premise that as con- straints on voluntary relationships are lifted, adolescents widen connections with peers and curtail them with family members Laursen, They also lend credence to assertions that adolescents prefer the reciprocity-based exchanges of horizontal relationships to the authority-based exchanges of ver- tical relationships Youniss, Influence strength provides an intriguing contrast to measures of companionship.
The findings, added to an already differentiated picture of 17 control, conformity, and relative power during adolescence see Collins and zyxwvu Repinski,for reviewindicate that developmentalshifts in companion- ship and closeness favoring voluntary and horizontal relationships over invol- untary and vertical relationships are not accompanied by analogous developmental shifts in influence. Do adolescents with romantic partners report less interdependence and closeness withfamily members andfriends than adolescents without romantic part- ners?
The effects of romantic relationships appear to be relative rather than absolute.
Direct comparisons of family and friend relationships reveal more similarities than differences among adolescents with and without romantic partners. Romantic relationshipswere not associated with differences in close- ness and interdependence with mothers, fathers, siblings, and friends, except insofar as they were linked to interaction frequency.
Apparently adolescents with romantic partners maintain activities, influence, and closeness with friends and family members, but sacrifice time devoted to each in order to accommodate romantic relationships.
These findings suggest that family and zyx friend relationships are largely unaffected by participation in romantic rela- tionships. Yet when romantic relationships are considered from the wider perspec- tive of relative closeness and interdependence, clear differences emerge zy between adolescents with and without romantic partners. Participation in romantic relationships more than doubled across adolescence, dramatically revising the calculus of close relationships: As ado- lescents grow older, romantic relationships are increasinglyapt to lead all rela- tionships in characteristics reflecting interdependence and closeness.
Thus, romantic relationships are probably more important for what they represent than for any of the specific changes they may produce in other relationships. Romantic relationships appear to alter the dynamics of adolescent communal relationships in that they represent a new type of voluntary, horizontal rela- tionship that combines influence with closeness and companionship. Seen in this light, romantic relationships emerge as the first truly interdependent peer relationship at a time of waning interdependence with parents.
Are relatiaships with tht greatest levels of interdependenceperceived to be the closest relationships?