Citation
Influence of feeling loved on the association between aversive interpersonal behaviors and relationship satisfaction

Material Information

Title:
Influence of feeling loved on the association between aversive interpersonal behaviors and relationship satisfaction
Creator:
Smith, Mary
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 163 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Crushing ( jstor )
Happiness ( jstor )
Love ( jstor )
Marital satisfaction ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Psychometrics ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Statistical significance ( jstor )
Counseling Psychology thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Counseling Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Mary Smith.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
003478336 ( ALEPH )
759216561 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











THE INFLUENCE OF FEELING LOVED ON THE
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AVERSIVE INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORS
AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

















By

MARY B. SMITH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Tntr'nTnD f DPT-ITT flQPDT-TV



































Copyright 2005

by

Mary B. Smith













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Martin Heesacker for his time,

patience, encouragement, belief in me, advisement, and support. I would also like to

thank my committee members, Dr. Lisa Brown, Dr. Franz Epting, and Dr. Connie

Shehan, for agreeing to serve on my committee. I thank them for their feedback and

encouragement.

I thank my co-workers at the University of Florida Counseling Center for their

encouragement and support. My thanks go especially to Paul Schauble, Nancy Coleman,

Toti Perez, Mike Murphy, Jaquie Resnick, Jennifer Sager, Brett Vicario, Kevin Stanley,


Dave Suchman, Carlos Hemandez,


Wayne Griffin, and Rachel Navarro. I also thank my


friends at the Alachua County Crisis Center for their friendship and encouragement.

I thank the instructors who provided access to their students and I thank the

students who participated in the studies. I thank my research assistants, Megan, James,

Kevin, and Brian, who were willing to be helpful and supportive. I thank Sarah Lee,

Susan Bragg, and Cheryl Phillips for their warmth and for all that they do.

I thank my Mom and Dad, my sisters and brothers, and the other relatives who

have been encouraging. I especially thank my cousin, Nancy Beardall, and her family for

their love and support. A thank you goes to my friends, Jane Calabrese and Maureen

Deluca for their friendship, love, and support.














TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................ ...................................ii

LIST O F TA B LE S ........................................................................................................... viii

A B STR A C T ................... ............ ....... .................... .... .... .......... ..... ... .... ..... ............ix

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION.............. .......... ............................... ............................................

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................8


Introduction......


A Basic Human Need ....
To .fea nd~nmanticRPelai


Romantic Relationships:
The Exchange of BehaviL
Impact of Conflict and A
Gottman's Taxonomy of
Gottman's Four Horseme
Another Look at Behavic
Further Support for the D
Every Day Aversive Inte:
Methodological Issues...
Support for Intervention
The Current Study..........


...9....... ...... ...... ........." .... ... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ....... .9
tionships ................... .......... ........... ........... ........... ..... ...10
Changes over Time............................................................. 1
or in Romantic Relationships........................................... 15
nger on Relationships ...................... ....................................16
Dysfunctional Romantic Relationship Patterns ..................18
n of the Apocalypse ........... ........ ........ ................................... 20
,r Exchange: What Predicts Relationship Demise?.............21
)etrimental Impact of Bad Behaviors on Relationships ......24
personal Behaviors ................... ...................................... 26
...................... ..... C. .......... ................ .. .. ... ... ......... .....2
..................".. "9'..............................................30
.. ............. .......... ....................... .......... ...... .............. .... ...33


Phase 1 ................................................................... ..................35
Participants ..........................................................................................................35
Measures.............................................................................................................37
Procedure...................................... ..................... ............................................38


METHODOLOGY .........,,,,.. ................... ................... ................... ................... ......35










Inventory of Desirable Responding in Relationships
Other Measures .........................................................
Procedure ............................................................................. C eta et...


Data
Phase 3..
Part
Mea


Proc
Data


i Analysis.


icipants....
cliVSC~


... .. .. ............ ,. *, ..., ,,.....-*t,, .9" ** ******** "**** t*"e"' "
LIIIII(III1111(111( 1111)(1111.


LJSV ,.,. 0.ea.. ., a..,a. ... ... ,,* 0 .... ate,,......*., "e"c 1'* "''....." 0-"- '"'' 0'"---
The Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS)..................
The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS).........
The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) ....................
The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMt
The Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS)......................


heetc*etteebt
Sac. .e..C..C
* *t C C ScSI sect
,cc. cc. acet e


ItC .t C C C 5CC
. a a.. a tc* aCes
c..tt Ct C S C t
...caa.t... C.
cam a etc a Sec St
IBIS) .. ...
te..aee.t.ctt


The Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC)
Predications about the Future Scale ..................... .............................
The Partner-Rated Self-Disclosure Index (PRSD)......................
The Self-Rated Self-Disclosure Index (SRSD)...........................
The Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDC
O their M measures ...........................................................................
:edure...................... .. .. ................................................... .................
2A nalysis.................. t........ ........... ...............................................


*....*"


RESULTS ............... ...................... ................ ............................................................


Phase 1: Item Generation....................
Phase 2: Scale Refinement..................
Exploratoratory Factor Analysis and:
Additional Phase 2 Analyses.......
Phase 3: Assessment of Psychometric
Normative and Reliability Data ..
Construct Validity .....................
Hypotheses Testing .....................
Confirmatory Factor Analysis.....
The Love Crushing Behavior Scale ...


[tern Selection


Properties of





,,...S... a....,a ....
,,, ..,.... acte...,.


.................................................68
.................................................68
.................................................71
Scale...................................... ...76
.................................................76
.................................................78
.................................................78
.............................................85
................................................ 87


D ISCU SSIO N ........ e... .......................... .~es............... ........ .... .... ............................... 89


Key Finding/Integration with Existing Research....
Limitations and Directions/Implications for Future
Potential Clinical Applications................................
Conclusion ................. .................................


Research.


............................ .........89
a...................................98
................................. 100
.................................102


APPENDIX


.................44
.................46
.................46
.................47
.................47
.................47

.................50
.................50
................51
.................53
.................54
.................55
.................56
................57
...........t.....58
.................58
) ..............59

.................60
.................61

,.................61










PHASE 1,


AND 3 COUPLES' COUNSELING RESOURCES ...........................110


PRELIMINARY UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR SCALE (PUBS) ......................... 111


PHASE


DESIRED LOVING BEHAVIOR SCALE (DLBS) .................. ................... ...........122

INVENTORY OF DESIRABLE RESPONDING IN RELATIONSHIP (IDRR) ...123


PHASE


DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELATIONSHIP STATUS


................................124


LOVE CRUSHING BEHAVIOR SCALE (LCBS) ........... ..................................... 127


PHASE

PHASE

PHASE


INFORM ED CON SENT .........................................................................128

DEBRIEFING STATEM ENT .................................................................129

QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 130


POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCALE (PANAS) ................................... 139

RELATIONSHIP ASSESSMENT SCALE (RAS) .................................................. 140

GLOBAL MEASURE OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION SCALE


(GMREL)


RELATIONSHIP HAPPINESS SCALE (RHS) ........ ........................................ 1 42

PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP QUALITY COMPONENT SCALE (PRQC)......143

PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE SCALE ............ .................... ...................144

PARTNER-RATED SELF-DISCLOSURE INDEX (PRSD) .................................. 145

SELF-RATED SELF-DISCLOSURE (SRSD) ............. ..........................................146

MUTUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE:


FORM


A ................................


..............,,.....cf7


PHASE 3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELATIONSHIP STATUS


PHASE 1 INFORMED CONSENT ................... ................... ................... ......109


2 QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................ 15


QUE STIONNAIRE ITEM S ................... .. ,


.........,,.,. 141








LIST OF REFERENCES........................................ ..................s......... .... ...................... 153

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH....... ............................ ................................................ 162














LIST OF TABLES


Table


Descriptive Statistics for the 22-Item Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS).......70


Means and Standard Deviations for Phase


Questionnaire Items.............. .............72


Descriptive Statistics of the IDRR Items and Subscales.......................................... 74

Descriptive Statistics of the Phase 3 Scales .............................................................76

Item to Total Correlations for the LCBS in Phase 3 ..............................................77

Inter-item Correlations for Phase 3 Scales ...............................................................86

LCBS Item Rank Comparisons................................................................................87


Daae













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE INFLUENCE OF FEELING LOVED ON THE
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AVERSIVE INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORS
AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

By


Mary B.


Smith


December 2005


Chair:


Martin Heesacker


Major Department:


Psychology


While much research on intimate relationships tends to focus on positive aspects

of relationships, there is evidence suggesting negative behaviors have a detrimental effect

on the quality of close relationships. Therefore, a goal of this study was to identify love-

crushing behaviors, which are defined as behaviors provided by romantic partners that

evoke in the receiving partners the feeling that they are unloved. The dissertation consists

of three phases. In Phase 1, participants generated received behaviors that elicited in them

the feeling that they were unloved by romantic partners. The resulting list of items was

presented to Phase 2 participants, who rated the items regarding how unloved they would

feel if the items were received from romantic partners. Factor analysis of these rated

items resulted in a 22-item uni-factorial Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS).













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

This dissertation investigates the relationship between feeling loved, love

crushing behaviors, and romantic relationship satisfaction. Over the years, romantic

relationship research has increased in both breadth and depth within the field of

counseling psychology. However, after reviewing 25 years of research focusing on the

investigation of marital conflict, Fincham and Beach (1999) wrote that the connection

between research findings and their clinical relevance for improving relationships were

controversial. As a result, Fincham and Beach challenged researchers to work toward

integrating research and theory in order to develop more unified frameworks for guiding

empirical investigation and clinical activities, rather than continuing to amass

observations in a relatively theoretical manner.

Coincidentally, a group of studies (Cawood & Heesacker, 1999; Heesacker &

Lawrence, 1994; Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998; Mejia-Millan, 1999; Samson,

1996; Smith, 2000; Tiegs, Heesacker, Lawrence, Smith, Cawood, & Mejia-Millan, 2004)


addressed Fincham and Beach'


challenge by conducting theory driven research and


proposing efficacious strategies for improving the quality of romantic relationships. This

group of studies investigated the association between the provision of specific desired

loving behaviors, feeling loved, and relationship quality. To date, this body of research





2


the assessment of the psychometric properties of the DLBS (Cawood & Heesacker, 1999;

Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998; Mejia-Millan, 1999; Samson, 1996; Smith, 2000;

Tiegs, Heesacker, Lawrence, Smith, Cawood, & Mejia-Millan, 2004), (c) the

establishment of a clear connection between the receipt of desired loving behaviors and

important relationship outcomes (Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998; Smith, 2000;

Tiegs, Heesacker, Lawrence, Smith, Cawood, & Mejia-Millan, 2004); and (d)

recommendations for clinically relevant applications of the DLBS (Cawood &

Heesacker, 1999; Heesacker & Lawrence, 1994; Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998;

Mejia-Millan, 1999; Samson, 1996; Smith, 2000; Tiegs, Heesacker, Lawrence, Smith,

Cawood, & Mejia-Millan, 2004).

Initially, DLBS researchers were interested in looking at the association between

emotion and behavior within the context of romantic relationships (Heesacker &

Lawrence, 1994). The goal of their research was to identify specific behaviors that

members of romantic relationship dyads desired from partners in order to feel loved.

Through a multi-phase process that included item generation and exploratory factor

analysis, 39 behavioral items were identified and labeled the Desired Loving Behavior

Scale (DLBS; Heesacker & Lawrence, 1994). Additional analyses of the scale resulted in

each of the 39 items falling into one of four factors. These factors were labeled: Caring


Actions, Relationship Support, Scripting, and


(Heesacker & Lawrence, 1994).


Analyses from subsequent studies (Cawood & Heesacker, 1999; Heesacker, Smith, &

Lawrence, 1998; Samson, 1996; Smith, 2000) investigating the psychometric properties





3


the DLBS possesses ample reliability and validity and that the DLBS shows promise as a

viable, efficacious clinical and research assessment instrument.

The efficacy of the DLBS has been demonstrated in several ways. First, the

DLBS identifies specific behaviors that are desired from romantic partners in order for

them to feel loved (Heesacker & Lawrence, 1994; Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998;

Smith, 2000). Second, the DLBS efficiently assesses how much each item is desired from


romantic partners (Smith, 2000).


Third, the scale can be utilized by participants to rate


subjective impressions of how much or how often the desired loving behaviors are being


received from romantic partners (Smith, 2000).


When the discrepancy between what is


desired (want) and what is received (get) is calculated, therapeutic interventions can be

developed and targeted specifically and directly toward the areas where the discrepancy

between want and get is the greatest. Thus, the possibility for impacting and improving

the quality of a given relationship is increased.

The positive consequences for relationship partners whose want-get discrepancies

have been identified and addressed through clinical interventions can be objectively

evaluated (Smith, 2000). Research has shown that there is a significant inverse

relationship between the want-get discrepancy and relationship satisfaction. That is, as

the discrepancy between what is desired from a romantic partner and what is received

from that partner increased, relationship satisfaction decreased (Smith, 2000). In contrast,

when the want-get discrepancy is decreased, relationship satisfaction increases. In

addition, research to date has demonstrated that intact romantic relationships have





4


Decreasing want-get discrepancies through the provision and receipt of desired

loving behaviors has been significantly linked to increased relationship satisfaction.

Nonetheless, the magnitude of the increases in satisfaction and the feeling that one is

loved varies based on the desirability of the specific behaviors that are being provided to

and received by romantic partners (Smith, 2000). Just as receiving desired loving

behaviors from romantic partners has a positive impact on how loved recipients feel and

influences how satisfied they are with their relationships, a corresponding inference may

be made that receiving negative behaviors will have a negative impact on the affective

state of relationship partners and on how satisfied they are with their relationships.

The empirical evidence suggests that negative behaviors may be even stronger

predictors of relationship satisfaction than positive behaviors. After exhaustively

reviewing the literature across multiple domains, Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer,

and Vohs (2001) found abundant, convincing empirical evidence supporting the greater

pervasiveness and power of the effect of negative or aversive stimuli compared to

positive or rewarding stimuli. In fact, according to these authors the concept, bad is

stronger than good is one of psychology's most basic and far reaching principles.

Baumeister and colleagues (2001) stated that bad events may be stronger than good

because people tend to treat bad experiences as if they are isolated events (Baumeister et

al., 2001). In contrast, good experiences tend to be seen collectively and they become

integrated into an ongoing general perception of goodness (Baumeister et al., 2001). As

most people have experienced, the impact of an entire day's worth of kindness and





5


inconsiderate act is attenuated only by the accumulation of an extensive array of positive

acts within which the negative act is embedded.

Others have demonstrated that focusing on negative behaviors is as important as

investigating positive behavior and potentially more so because of the impact that

negative behaviors can have on relationships. For example, (a) while both positive and

negative behaviors influence relationship satisfaction, the negative impact of negative

behaviors is much greater than the positive impact of positive behaviors (Baumeister et

al., 2001; Gottman, 1994a, 1999; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Rozin & Royzman, 2001);

(b) a difference between couples who are content and couples who experience marital

misery is a healthy balance between positive and negative feelings (Gottman, 1994a,

1999); (c) in order for marriages to remain stable over time, the minimum ratio of

positivity to negativity is five to one and when a relationship contains more negative

interactions than positive interactions, the relationship will very likely terminate

(Gottman, 1994a; 1994b; 1999).

There are also affective consequences for partners who are recipients of negative

behaviors (Kowalski, 1997). For example, recipients of negative or aversive behaviors

may feel aggravation, annoyance, anxiety, boredom, contempt, depression, disgust,

frustration, hostility, hurt, jealousy, and loneliness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kowalski,


1997


Kowalski, 2001; Leary, 1990). These consequences occur in all types of


interpersonal relationships but tend to be the greatest in relationships between close,

intimate partners as compared to individuals who are distant or less invested (Kowalski,





6


Achieving a healthy balance between good and bad behaviors appears to be

necessary given that close relationships are essential, vital parts of most people's lives

and that relationships are often the source of people's most meaningful rewards

(Kowalski, 2001). Despite the fact that research conducted to date has unequivocally

demonstrated that negative behaviors are more influential on relationships than positive

behaviors (Baumeister et al., 2001; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Gottman & Krokoff,

1989; Gottman, 1994a; Gottman 1994b; Holmes, 1991), much of the research on close

relationships has been directed at positive relationship qualities (Duck, 1994; Kowalski,

1997). In addition, little of this relationship research has been theory driven. Moreover,

clinical interventions have not consistently been guided by research findings (Fincham &

Beach, 1994).

In response to these circumstances, the purpose of the present study was to build

upon an emerging line of research whose goal has been the improvement of romantic

relationship quality. Findings to date have demonstrated that the impact of the exchange

of negative behaviors is detrimental to relationship quality and that the impact negative

behaviors have on relationships is greater than the impact of positive behaviors.

Therefore, this dissertation's primary goal has been to construct a valid and reliable scale

of love crushing behavioral items. The secondary goal has been to develop a theory

driven, empirically based instrument that will have utility for clinicians and their clients

in order to obtain a clearer understanding of and appreciation for the types of behaviors

that are most detrimental in their relationships.





7


The result of this investigation was the Love Crushing Behavior Scale. This scale was

developed over a series of three phases. In the first phase, items were generated by a

group of participants. In the second phase, the non-redundant items were rated by a

second group of participants. Results were analyzed to determine scale items and factor

structure. In the third phase, the psychometric properties of the resulting scale were

assessed.













CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The literature review that follows includes research supporting the current study.

A search of the literature was conducted as such: Initially, keywords and phrases (e.g.,


"behavior," "negative," aversivee," "relationship,


" "close relationship,


" "intimate


relationship,


" "romantic relationship,


" "romantic dyads," dyadss,


" "couples,"


"interpersonal," "emotion,"


"love," "feeling loved,


" "unloved," "feeling unloved,


"feeling,


" "satisfaction,


and "relationship satisfaction") were used individually and in


two- and three-word combinations. Numerous keyword searches were conducted using

these search terms with the PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES data bases. The study's

author conducted subjective analysis of the resulting articles and chapters. Decisions


were made by the study's


author regarding the relevance of resulting articles and chapters


by reviewing abstracts and/or various portions of the articles or chapters. Studies and

chapters that contained information on aversive behaviors in romantic relationships and

relationship outcomes were retained whereas studies and chapters that did not were

discarded. Article and book chapter reference lists were reviewed and any articles

included on those lists that appeared to be relevant were also reviewed. The topics that

are covered in this review include a brief overview of the exchange of interpersonal





9


(1994) "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," information on the impact of good and bad

behaviors on romantic relationships, an overview of aversive interpersonal behaviors, and

methodological issues.

A Basic Human Need

The need to belong is a very basic human need. Most would agree that "feeling

loved" by another likely contributes toward filling this basic need. Many would also

agree that feeling loved by a partner is a positive experience especially when this is

compared to the reciprocal alternative, which is to "feel unloved." However, relationships

are not always positive or satisfying experiences for all; participants in romantic

relationships do not always feel loved by their partners. At times partners may even feel

as if they want out of their relationships or that they do not belong in the relationship.

Sometimes there are even adverse consequences for people who are in relationships

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

One of the reasons why relationships are sometimes negative and unsatisfying is

because relationship partners are sometimes the providers or the recipients of negative,


aversive behaviors to or from their partners.


When aversive behaviors are provided by


one partner and experienced by the other, not only do these behaviors interfere with the

basic human need to belong, but these behaviors in fact produce several negative

affective consequences for the recipients of the behaviors (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;


Kowalski, 1997


2001). Resulting emotional consequences include anger, anxiety,


betrayal, boredom, depression, disgust, hostility, jealousy, loneliness, and sadness





10


Love and Romantic Relationships

For centuries, poets and philosophers have written about love, attempting to

describe it. More recently, scientists have attempted to define and conceptualize love. For

most people in Western cultures love is believed to be an essential element for romantic


relationships and "being in love"


is what makes a couple a couple (Simpson, Campbell,


& Berscheid, 1986).

To better understand the construct love, Sternberg (1986) used a comprehensive,

systematic approach in his theorizing, partitioning love into three components. Sternberg

identified several different types of love based on the absolute strength of these three

components and their relationships to one another. The three components making up

Sternberg's theory of love are intimacy, passion, and commitment.

The intimacy component is synonymous with warmth and is characterized by an

emotional investment in the relationship. Intimacy is defined as connectedness,

bondedness, and a feeling of closeness to another (Sternberg, 1986). Passion is often

referred to as the hot component of love. Passion is derived in part from the motivation to

be involved with another. Passion describes the drives that direct one to physical

attraction, romance, and sexual consummation. Passion includes forms of arousal and

sources of motivation that lead to passionate experiences. Commitment includes the

cognitive elements that are involved in decision making about committing to a

relationship. Sternberg identified two different types of commitment. These types are

dependent on whether a relationship is a new, short-term relationship or whether the








deciding whether or not to work toward maintaining that love. Because commitment

involves cognition, it is often viewed as the cold component relative to passion and

intimacy, the other two components (Sternberg, 1986).

Using these three components (intimacy, passion, and commitment) in various


combinations, Sternberg identified eight different types of love. For Sternberg,


love"


"perfect


is made up of high levels of all three of the components-intimacy, passion and


commitment. However, couples' experiences of perfect love tend to be ephemeral and/or

elusive and according to Sternberg, most people who describe themselves as being in love

either experience romantic love or companionate love. Romantic love generally occurs in

the beginning of relationships and companionate love tends to be experienced when

relationships are more enduring.

Romantic Relationships: Changes over Time

According to Sternberg (1986), romantic love is composed of intimacy and

passion and produces feelings of physical arousal in the presence of the beloved. The

early stages of romantic relationships tend to be made up of happy and blissful times as

partners are optimistic about their relationships. Couples experiencing romantic love are

characterized by a lack of objectivity and often have an idealized view of each other


(Sternberg, 1986). Partners are motivated to attend to and to notice each other'


qualities more than they notice each other's


positive


negative qualities (Huston, Caughlin, Houts,


Smith, & George, 2001; Huston, McHale & Crouter, 1986; Miller, 1997


Holmes, 1997


Murray &


Waller, 1938). During this period of time partners' expectations of each





12


however, after dating someone for some time, receiving only one phone call within the

span of two or three days might be quite irritating (Love, 2001).

Most people expect that the experiences they have with their romantic partners

will remain pleasurable. They do not anticipate that conflict or pain will be a part of their

experience (Attridge & Berscheid, 1994). Despite people's high hopes and expectations

at the beginning of relationships, as they progress over time, there may be decreases in

feelings of love for or feelings of being loved by one's partner, which can be


disheartening (Sprecher & Regan, 1998).


When this occurs romantic partners may begin


to wonder whether the relationship they thought is right for them was right after all and,

as a result, they may begin to feel threatened (Simpson, Campbell, & Berscheid, 1986).

In contrast to romantic love, the experience of love for couples who have been

together for a long time and describe themselves as happy tends to be transformed into

what Sternberg calls companionate love (1986). Companionate love is a combination of

intimacy and commitment and tends to be experienced by partners whose lives have

become intertwined with each other and who possess a deep friendship (Sternberg, 1986).

Initially, when partners fall in love, according to Brehm (1992), it is often "with

their own imagined constructions rather than with the concrete reality of another human


being"


(p. 103). However, after a couple has been together for an extended period of


time, the rewarding behaviors that may once have characterized courtship begin to

diminish as people's best behaviors become difficult to maintain over time. Best

behaviors tend to diminish and behaviors that are more reflective of and congruent with





13


behaviors begin to erode. The positive images partners had of their beloveds are replaced

with images, which are based on reality (Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994; Huston &

Vangelisti, 1991). The accumulated effect of exchanged behaviors (positive and negative)


has an impact on the overall quality of relationships (Kamey & Bradbury, 1995).


relationships progress over time, partners learn through their mutual experiences and on

the basis of their interactions with each other and their evaluations of these interactions,

whether or not their relationships are rewarding and satisfying (Bradbury & Fincham,

1992)..

Kayser (1993) used the terms "disillusionment" and "disaffection" when

describing the processes involved in the loss of love and the loss of a sense of closeness

between partners. Kayser (1993) explained disaffection as the replacement of positive

affect with neutral affect and added that for disaffection to occur positive feelings had to

exist at the beginning of the relationship. Kayser (1993) interviewed spouses and results

demonstrated that disillusionment typically occurs for spouses when partners' behavior

after marriage falls short of the expectations, dreams, and fantasies that were held prior to

marriage. Many researchers have found support for a disillusionment model (Brehm,


1992; Huston et al., 2001; Huston, McHale, & Crouter, 1986; Miller, 1997


Murray &


Holmes, 1997), and have suggested that in the early stages of romantic relationships, new

partners tend to behave in ways that are consistent with their idealized view of the

relationship. For example, in the beginning of relationships, displays of affection are

embellished, conflict between partners is avoided, and negative feelings are muted. The





14


attractive, and responsive traits and lacking negative, unattractive and disagreeable traits.

In addition, because newlyweds tend to accentuate positive psychological and behavioral

tendencies, they should feel deeply in love with each other and they should experience

little ambivalence about the relationship and about being together. That is, until

disillusionment sets in (Brehm, 1992; Huston, McHale, & Crouter, 1986; Huston et al.,


2001; Miller, 1997


Murray & Holmes, 1997).


In another study looking at disillusionment, Huston et al. (2001) followed 168

newlywed couples over 14 years. Participant data were collected two months after the

wedding and twice again over the next two years. Researchers' contact with the

relationship partners included face-to-face interviews, completion of questionnaires, and

telephone interviews, which were done to assess partners' interactions with each other.

During the phone interviews, spouses were read descriptions of affectionate and non-

affectionate behaviors, and asked to rate how often their partners had done each of the

behaviors in the preceding 24 hours. After couples had been married for 13 to 14 years,

164 of the original 168 couples were re-contacted and additional data were collected. The

additional data included an assessment of marital status. One hundred and five of the

original participants who were re-contacted were still married, 56 were divorced, and 3

were widowed. Results of this study demonstrated that the couples who divorced quickly

had the weakest initial romantic bonds, showed the least amount of affection toward each

other, and were the most antagonistic and negative toward each other compared to any

other category of participants. Even after only two months of marriage, those who





15


researchers also found that the average daily ratio of positive to negative behaviors for

the couples who divorced quickly was one to four for husbands and one to three for

wives, indicating that these couples were deeply distressed. This study lends support to

the disillusionment model, which is reflective of an abatement of love, a decline in

affection, an increase in ambivalence, and changes in the way spouses view each other.

The Exchange of Behavior in Romantic Relationships

Many studies have attempted to identify which factors distinguish happy couples


from unhappy ones and to answer a closely-related question,


"Why do some marriages


become more satisfying over time while others become less satisfying?" Several

approaches have been utilized to investigate these questions. One such approach

addresses the exchange of both positive and negative interpersonal behaviors and was

conducted mainly from a behavioral theoretical perspective (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).

Several like this have focused on the exchanges of behavior between romantic partners

during problem-solving discussions. These studies tend to test the hypothesis that when

positive behaviors are received by relationship partners, the impact on both relationship

satisfaction and relationship stability will be positive, whereas when negative behaviors

are received, the impact on relationship satisfaction and stability will be negative (Karney

& Bradbury, 1995). Results of these studies (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Markman, 1981;


Stuart, 1969; Wills,


Weiss, & Patterson, 1974) have generally supported the association


between the exchange of positive behaviors and enhanced relationships and the exchange

of negative behaviors and diminished relationship outcomes.





16


in relationship satisfaction (MacDermid, Huston, & McHale, 1990). Huston and Chorost

(1994) showed this when they compared couples' behavior shortly after marriage with

the behavior they exchanged two years later. The findings revealed that affection between

partners decreased by approximately half after newlyweds had been married for two

years.

Several other researchers (Gottman, 1979; Hahlweg, Revenstorf, & Schindler,

1984; Levenson & Gottman, 1983; Raush, Barry, Hertel, & Swain, 1974; Schaap, 1982;

Ting-Toomey, 1983) have looked at the association between positive and negative

behavioral interactions and relationship satisfaction. Their research has provided a great

deal of additional empirical evidence showing that negative interactions are much more

common among unhappily married couples than happily married couples. For example,

partners who indicated that they were more satisfied with their relationships tended to

express more positive verbal and nonverbal behavior toward each other. These behaviors

included more head nodding, increased expressions of caring behaviors, increased

concern for one's partner, and more smiling. Recipients of these positive behaviors also

had higher ratings of relationship satisfaction. In contrast, unhappy or unsatisfied partners

express more negative verbal and nonverbal behaviors toward each other. These negative

behaviors included more threatening, critical, and insulting comments, more frowning,

and harsher voice tones. In addition, partners receiving these negative behaviors rated

themselves as being less satisfied with their relationships (Brehm, Miller, Perlman, &

Campbell, 2002; Carton, Kessler, & Pape, 1999; Patterson, 1988).








reciprocity of negative behaviors, and decreased relationship satisfaction (Huston et al.,


1986, Huston & Vangelisti, 1991; Jacobson & Margolin, 1979; Jacobson,


Moore, 1980).


Waldron, &


Some researchers have implicated anger (Greenberg & Johnson, 1988;


Hendrix, 1988; Parrott & Parrott, 1995) and conflict (Raush et al., 1974) as the culprits

that lead to negative relationship outcomes. However, this assertion has been challenged.

Gottman and Krokoff (1989) were interested in identifying the components that make up

negative interactions and in finding out whether anger was a key determinant of marital

distress. To investigate this question, initial relationship satisfaction was controlled by

dividing participants into two groups, couples who (1) rated marital satisfaction lowest

and (2) rated marital satisfaction highest. Both groups were videotaped while discussing

an issue about which they had a high degree of disagreement. Randomly selected

segments of the video taped segments were later viewed by trained raters, who used a

reliable and valid coding system to categorize the interactions. Interactions were rated as

being either effectively neutral, effectively positive (e.g., affection, anticipation,

excitement, humor, .interest, and joy), or effectively negative (e.g., anger, contempt,


disgust, fear, sadness, or whining).


When groups were compared, although there was a


short-term, inverse relationship between expressions of anger and relationship

satisfaction, in the long term, anger was positively associated with relationship

satisfaction. In addition, anger was not predicative of divorce (Gottman, 1994b; Gottman

& Levenson, 1992). However, with regard to the expression of non-angry negativity and

relationship satisfaction over time, Gottman found a strong inverse relationship.





18


concurrent marital satisfaction and positive interactions. Another interesting finding from

this study was that engaging in conflict and expressing anger were actually quite

functional for marriages in the long run; but when conflict between partners included

whining, stubbornness, and withdrawal, particularly withdrawal by husbands, the conflict

was more likely to contribute to long-term relationship deterioration.

Gottman's Taxonomy of Dysfunctional Romantic Relationship Patterns

Gottman found abundant support for the greater potency of negative than positive

behaviors (Gottman, 1979; Gottman, 1994a; Gottman, 1999). In one study, Gottman

(1994a) videotaped married couples in their homes and in a laboratory setting as the

couples discussed several topics, including the nutritional value of food, how their days

had gone, general marital issues, and a specific issue or situation within their marriage

about which they had continuing disagreement. Fifteen minute segments of the tapes

were viewed, rated, and categorized by researchers, who identified different patterns that

the couples used while dealing with conflict. The categories included positive and

negative as well as verbal and nonverbal dimensions. Judges watched and rated the

degree to which partners engaged with each other during conflict, the ratio of the positive

to negative interactions exchanged between them, and partners' attempts at persuading

each other during their discussions. Gottman identified several categories of couples


based on their conflict interactions. Four of these categories were labeled: volatiless,


"validators,"


avoiderss," and hostiless.


Gottman combined the volatiles with the validators because the way that these





19


volatile couples expressed a high degree of both positive and negative emotions. The

husbands in this category were extremely involved and although they expressed a great

deal of negativity while engaging in discussion, they also expressed humor and affection


toward their partners.


With the validators, even though there was some belligerence


expressed by them during arguments, there were also attempts made by partners to

persuade each other and conflict between partners tended to be characterized by ease and

calm. In addition, interactions of the validators included validation of partners'

experiences, attempts to understand each other, and expressions of empathy for the

other's point of view.

In his work with avoiders, Gottman had a difficult time setting up conflict

situations. This was because avoiders tended to be unengaged with each other and

expressed very little emotion-regardless of whether the expected emotion was positive

or negative. These couples tended to "solve" problems on their own or they relied upon

the passage of time for resolving issues instead of having strategies to work through and


resolve conflict together.


When avoiders did come up with solutions, their solutions


typically were not specific. Gottman found that these individuals were not very

introspective or psychologically minded. In addition, when there were discussions

between them, after one or both finished stating their cases, the discussion was

considered over and the issue closed. Thus, exchanges between these couples involved

little give and take and, in general, no attempts were made to persuade each other.

When Gottman compared those categories (validators, volatiles, and avoiders)





20


hostile couples engaged actively with each other, others were more disengaged, detached,

and uninvolved. The interactions of the engaged hostile couples consisted of more

frequent direct conflict and more defensiveness. Interactions of the detached or

uninvolved hostile couples tended to include briefer episodes of reciprocated attacking

and defensiveness often over trivial issues. Hostile couples were also more likely to

experience "flooding," which has been defined as an unexpected eruption of negative

emotions that overwhelms and disorganizes partners (Holman & Jarvis, 2000). In

addition, hostile couples displayed more criticism, defensiveness, withdrawal, and

contempt in their interactions with each other.

Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

According to Gottman (1994a), the four processes of criticism, defensiveness,

withdrawal, and contempt greatly undermine the stability of relationships. Because

Gottman considered these four processes so destructive, he labeled them "The Four


Horsemen of the Apocalypse."


Gottman characterized criticism as a focused attention on


and attacking of the character or the personality of a partner rather than focusing on the

issues at hand. In his research, Gottman found that criticism was often followed by

contempt. Contempt included hostile humor, insults, and mockery. Gottman (1994a)

found that spouses tend to respond to perceived attacks, including criticism and contempt,

by either becoming defensive or by stonewalling. A defensive response to a perceived

attack may be for a partner to cross-complain, make a counter-attack, or to make excuses

for one's own behavior. Some partners, particularly men, make ill-fated attempts to





21


worse. This type of stonewalling behavior claimingg up or withdrawing) communicates to

partners a lack of concern, unresponsiveness, smugness, and disapproval and it can be

infuriating (Gottman, 1994a; Zadro & Williams, 2000).

In addition to the four horsemen (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and

stonewalling) just described, Gottman later added belligerence to the list of processes that

undermine the stability of relationships (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998).

According to Gottman (Brehm et al., 2002; Gottman et al., 1998), belligerence is defined

as an angry expression of the problem, stated in its most extreme form. Belligerence is


expressed as an attempt to provoke, intimidate, or aggressively reject one'


partner. As


such, belligerence communicates total rejection of the other partner and challenges the


receiving partner


's power and authority. Gottman's


subsequent research supported the


addition of belligerence because belligerence tends to ultimately follow the other four

horsemen (Gottman et al., 1998; Gottman, 1999).

Another Look at Behavior Exchange: What Predicts Relationship Demise?

Gottman and his colleagues (1994a; 1994b; 1999; Gottman et al., 1998; Gottman

& Levenson, 1992) observed couples' interactions, paying specific attention to the five

destructive processes just described and found that they could reliably distinguish

between couples headed for divorce and couples in stable relationships. These researchers

found that the volatile, validator, and avoider couples all tended to share a ratio of

positive to negative interactions (including criticism, contempt, defensiveness,

stonewalling, and belligerence) during conflict situations that was approximately five to





22


negative interactions was approximately one to one. That is, when hostile couples

interacted with each other there was one positive interaction for every negative

interaction that was expressed between them. In addition, when couples rated relationship

satisfaction Gottman found that volatile, validator, and avoider couples had much higher

ratings of relationship satisfaction than hostile couples.

Other studies (Barnett & Nietzel, 1979; Gottman, 1993; Gottman & Levenson,

1992; Wills et al., 1974) have investigated romantic relationships and looked at

behavioral balance theories. These theories posit that marriages function with a set point

balancing positivity and negativity. For example, in one study (Wills et al., 1974) 73

engaged couples had three 15-minute conversations with each other and discussed a daily

event, a conflict situation, and a pleasant topic. Four years later the participants were re-

contacted and asked to complete questionnaires assessing relationship satisfaction and

marital status. Results showed that while the initial positive behaviors that were displayed

between the couples co-varied with ratings of subsequent relationship satisfaction

particularly for couples who were happy (Wills et al., 1974), the exchange of negative

behaviors between partners was a more potent predictor of subsequent decreases in

relationship satisfaction ratings, especially for the couples who were distressed (Barnett

& Nietzel, 1979). These findings lend support for the ability of negative behaviors to

predict later relationship satisfaction.

In another study, Gottman (1999) found that the quality of a couple's relationship

was better predicted by the presence or absence of negative behaviors than it was by the








decreasing one (either increasing or decreasing positive behaviors or increasing or

decreasing negative behaviors) does not necessarily increase or decrease the other. An


important implication for Gottman


finding was that although increasing positive


behaviors does impact relationship quality, the impact of increasing positive behaviors is

not nearly as significant as would be the impact of decreasing negative behaviors. This is

because the assessed negative impact of negative behaviors on relationship quality was

greater than the positive impact of positive behaviors.

In a study looking at videotaped segments of the interactions of 124 newlywed

couples who were engaged in a discussion about a conflict, Carrere and Gottman (1999)

were able to make predictions with 83% accuracy about which couples would divorce six

years later after only watching three minutes of the videotaped segments. Their prediction

accuracy increased for the husbands when 12 more minutes of videotape was watched. In

the segments, couples who were headed for divorce exhibited noticeably more

defensiveness, contempt, and belligerence toward each other than did the couples who

remained together.

In another study, Gottman et al. (1998) looked at the interactions of 130

newlywed couples to determine which processes were the most accurate long-term

predictors of relationship stability and satisfaction for happy and unhappy married

couples. The couples were followed over a 6-year period. During the course of the study,

their interactions were videotaped and their affect during interactions was rated as being

either positive (e.g., affection, humor, interest, joy, and validation), negative (e.g., anger,





24


couples, including physiological data and participants' ratings of their own interactions.

Consistent with prior results from similar studies, results of this study showed that anger

was not predictive of divorce nor did it discriminate happy from unhappy couples.

However, for both husbands and wives, belligerence, defensiveness, and contempt were

the most destructive patterns utilized during conflict resolution. These patterns were most

predictive of divorce, but they did not discriminate between the happily and unhappily

married stable couples. Further, Gottman et al.'s (1998) findings suggest that the

reciprocity of negative affect does not generally predict negative marital outcome except

for during the first few months of marriage. That is, early in a marriage wives in

marriages that are headed toward instability were more likely to reciprocate negative

affect (e.g., anger, domination, disgust, fear, sadness, stonewalling, and whining)

compared to the wives who were in marriages that were stable. In addition, husbands'


refusal to accept influence from their wives, and husbands'


inability to self-soothe and


de-escalate from low intensity negativity (e.g., anger, disgust, domination, fear, sadness,

stonewalling, and whining) were predictive of negative relationship outcomes. Positive

affect (e.g., affection, humor, interest, joy, and validation) and the ability to de-escalate

predicted positive relationship outcomes. Another study looking at 19 couples who were

part of a previous study, found evidence suggesting that husbands, who were in

dissatisfying marriages, were more likely to withdraw emotionally much earlier than

wives were (Levenson & Gottman, 1985).

Further Support for the Detrimental Impact of Bad Behaviors on Relationships





25


al., (2001, p. 325) defined bad as a concept representing states or consequences that are

"undesirable, harmful, or unpleasant." Bad is contrasted with good, which is defined in

this context as a desirable state or consequence or as experiences that are beneficial or

pleasant. According to Baumeister et al., (2001) the impact of experiencing something

bad is greater than the impact of experiencing something good because bad is more

consistent, more multifaceted, and longer lasting.

In an extensive review, which referenced over 200 articles from the psychological

literature and covered multiple domains and disciplines, Baumeister et al., (2001)

provided impressive evidence supporting the premise that bad is stronger than good.

Because there is so much support for the greater power and impact of bad compared to

the impact of good, Baumeister referred to bad is stronger than good as a psychological

principle. In addition, these researchers found that this principle is applicable to the area

of close relationships.

Rozin and Royzman (2001), also discussed the greater power of negative events

and described another principle known as the negativity bias, which holds that in most

situations, negative events are more salient, potent, and dominant and more efficacious

than positive events (p. 297). These authors put forth a taxonomy for understanding this

phenomenon suggesting that the negativity bias is manifested by the following principles:

(a) negative potency, which posits that negative entities are stronger than positive

entities; (b) steeper negative gradients, which posits that the negativity of negative events

grows more quickly with regard to time or space than the positivity of positive events; (c)





26


valences would predict; and (d) negative differentiation, which posits that negative

entities are more complex, varied, and elicit more response options than positive entities.

Consistent with the principles of Rozin and Royzman (2001) and the findings of

Gottman (1999), Baumeister et al. (2001) concluded that when equal amounts of good

and bad behavior are compared, the impact of bad is more potent because bad is more

damaging, harmful, and hastens the demise of close relationships more powerfully than

good behavior can offset.

Every Day Aversive Interpersonal Behaviors

In her book, Behaving badly, Kowalski (2001) looked at bad behaviors that

occurred within the context of close, interpersonal relationships. Kowalski (2001)

conceptualized aversive or bad behaviors as behaviors that are enacted by one individual,

received by another individual, and perceived by the recipient as being stressful.

Although many aversive behaviors would be considered socially inappropriate, many are

not clearly socially inappropriate (Kowalski, 1997). In addition to being stressful,


aversive behaviors interfere with people's


basic psychological need to belong, and


negatively impact people's sense of control and their sense of self. Aversive behaviors

contribute to disconnections, disruptions, and to the demise of relationships (Kowalski,

1997).

According to Kowalski (2001), when most people think about aversive behaviors

they call to mind extreme, egregious acts of aggression or violence such as murder, rape,

or physical abuse. However, these behaviors are quite rare. Instead, most people are








relationship satisfaction and to the stability of relationships, especially when the


behaviors are exchanged between close, intimate partners (Kowalski, 1997


2001).


A list of mundane aversive interpersonal behaviors compiled by Kowalski (2001)

includes betrayal, chronic complaining, conflict, contempt, criticism, deception,

defensiveness, disappointment, excessive reassurance-seeking, forgetting commitments,

gossiping, hurting other's feelings, incompetence, infidelity, intentional embarrassment,

jealously, lying, moodiness, neglect, not listening, ostracism, passive-aggressiveness,

rudeness, spreading rumors, swearing, teasing, using the silent treatment, and violating

confidentiality. According to Kowalski (1997; 2001), these behaviors do occur frequently

in relationships. In addition, they are often done inadvertently and much of the time the


hurt that results is unintentional. Kowalski'


focus has been on understanding the


conditions under which these behaviors occur as well as the consequences of these

behaviors for the individuals and for the relationship.


In addition to the term,


aversivee interpersonal behaviors"


(Kowalski, 1997


2001), researchers have used terms such as,


"relational transgressions" (Metts, 1994) and


"social undermining" (Vinokur & van Ryn, 1993; Rook, 1998) to describe bad behaviors

that occur between partners in interpersonal relationships. Relational transgressions have

been defined as violations of rules for appropriate relational conduct (Metts, 1994).

Social undermining refers to interactions characterized by aversive behaviors (Vinokur &

van Ryn, 1993).

Methodological Issues





28


satisfaction, is an example of one method used by couples researchers. Cross-sectional

data from studies utilizing daily records have been analyzed to evaluate the relationship

between positive and negative interactions, and relationship satisfaction (Barnett &


Nietzel, 1979; Broderick & O'Leary, 1986; Wills,


Weiss, & Patterson, 1974).


Findings


from these studies have lent support to the greater power of negatively valenced

behaviors over positively valenced behaviors for predicting relationship satisfaction,

particularly for distressed couples. Although positive behaviors do co-vary with

relationship satisfaction, these studies have also shown that the strength of the


relationship is weaker for distressed than for happy couples (Wills et al.,


Another method that has been utilized in couples'


1974).


research is to compare the


behaviors of couples in distressed vs. happy relationships (Birchler, Weiss, & Vincent,


Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977).


When Gottman et al., (1977) compared


distressed with nondistressed couples they found a sex difference for the nondistressed


couples.


Wives in nondistressed relationships were less likely to respond negatively to


negative messages from husbands than were husbands in nondistressed relationships who

were responding to negative messages from their wives.

Several studies investigating romantic relationships have used longitudinal

research methods to look at the association between interactional behaviors and

relationship satisfaction. These longitudinal studies took information about couples

gathered early in their relationships to make predictions about later relationship


satisfaction (Kelly, Huston, & Cate,


1985; Markman, 1979,


1981). Generally these





29


early in marriage are powerful predictors of future relationship dissatisfaction and

instability.

Karney and Bradbury have utilized longitudinal research methods in their work

on why some marriages succeed while others fail, and to look at the origins of distress

and divorce in relationships. In one study, Karney & Bradbury (1997) recorded the

interactions of 60 newlywed couples and followed them over a span of four years,

contacting and assessing them eight times. At the end of the fourth year, 38 of the

original relationships were intact, 18 had dissolved, and four had withdrawn from the

study. Analyses of the data showed that for husbands and to a greater degree for wives,

behavior directed toward a partner during the initial interaction predicted rates of change


in marital satisfaction. Additionally, a husband'


negative behavior during problem


solving discussions was more predictive of rapid declines in a wife's marital satisfaction


over the first four years of marriage. This was true even when the wife'


initial levels of


satisfaction were controlled. A wife's negative behaviors were also predictive of declines


in a husband'


and a wife's marital satisfaction over the first four years of marriage, but


to a lesser degree. This study demonstrated that problem-solving behavior was strongly

associated with rates of change in marital satisfaction, independent of initial levels of

satisfaction.

Given the strong inverse association between negative behaviors and relationship

satisfaction, Huston and Vangelista (1991) became interested in causality. They wanted

to know if ratings of relationship satisfaction were responsible for negative behaviors





30


examined the relationship between the expression of positive and negative behaviors and

relationship satisfaction. Participants were interviewed approximately two months after

their marriages and then semi-annually over the next two years. The researchers

conducted phone interviews to gather information about the couples' behavioral

interactions and face-to-face interviews to collect information about relationship

satisfaction. The data were analyzed both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Cross-

sectional data analyses assessed the relationship between satisfaction and the expression

and receipt of positively- and negatively-valenced behaviors. Longitudinal analyses

explored whether changes in relationship satisfaction could better predict behavior or


whether behavior better predicted relationship satisfaction.


Vangelista and Huston found


that for both husbands and wives, the expression and receipt of negativity was

consistently and inversely associated with marital satisfaction, even for couples married

for as little as two months. The behavior of wives, whose husbands expressed relatively

more negative behaviors at the beginning of marriage, became more negative. Further,

the behavior of husbands whose wives were less satisfied at the beginning of marriages

became more negative over time. They also found that whenever negative behaviors were

expressed in marriages regardless of which spouse was expressing the negativity, wives

were less satisfied with the relationship (Huston & Vangelista, 1991).

Support for Intervention

Huston and colleagues (2001) also found support for what has been called the

enduring dynamics model, which posits that certain interpersonal patterns and problems








predictive of how happily married couples would be 13 years later if the couple stayed

together. In addition, when relationships terminated, researchers were able to predict

reliably how long the marriages would last prior to separation or termination based on


partners


' initial interactions. Several other studies (Huston & Chorost, 1994; Huston &


Houts, 1998; Karney & Bradbury, 1997


Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, & Clements,


1993; Noller & Feeney, 1998) have shown similar results, demonstrating that the initial

differences between couples did persist over time and that these differences were

predictive of later ratings of relationship satisfaction and of relationship stability.

In a study comparing early interventions, Markman and his colleagues (1993)

looked at the causes of marital distress, focusing on behavioral factors as opposed to

personality factors. They found that when there were deficits in the manner in which

couples communicated early in the relationship, there would be subsequent declines in

relationship satisfaction. Other researchers have found similar results showing that the

more positively couples initially interacted with each other, the more satisfied they would

be in the future (Markman, 1979; 1992; Markman, Floyd, Stanley, & Storaasli, 1988;

Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, & Clements, 1993; Storaasli & Markman, 1990).

In a longitudinal study Markman (1979) initially assessed 14 newlywed couples

and gathered information on their interactional patterns, the intensity of their problems,

and their ratings of relationship satisfaction. Markman (1979) used this information to


make predictions about their ratings of relationship satisfaction


2 2 years later. He found


that the more positively one partner's initial interactions were, the more satisfied that





32


development of future relationship distress. In another study Markman (1981) assessed

26 couples who were engaged to be married. The couples were then re-contacted and re-

interviewed three times over a 5 2 year period. At the end of the study, 21 out of the

original 26 couples' relationships were intact. Nine of those couples completed all of the

research data. Results from this study showed that there was a significant correlation

between early communication problems and distress later in the marriage.

Several other studies have investigated partners' communication patterns and

styles (Gottman, 1979; Riskin & Faunce, 1970; Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986;


Stafford & Canary, 1991; Ting-Toomey, 1983; Wills,


Weiss, & Patterson, 1974). Results


of these studies have provided convincing support for the generally held assumption that

positive communication is associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction.

These studies have also demonstrated that there is a correlation between people's

reported satisfaction and how positively or negatively they communicate with each other.

Markman and his colleagues (Markman et al., 1993) were interested in whether a

pre-marital intervention would have any impact on subsequent relationship quality. They

followed 114 engaged couples who were part of a larger study matching them on several

variables and assigning them to a treatment group, a control group, or a group of couples

who declined treatment. The treatment group underwent a five session intervention

designed to teach couples effective conflict management and communication skills. All


of the couples taking part in the study received follow-up contacts 1 V, 3,


4, and 5 years


after the study began. These contacts included completing questionnaires and





33


husbands at the 5-year follow-up. Those who had not received the intervention had lower

levels of relationship satisfaction then the participants who received the intervention. In

addition, couples who received the intervention were less likely than control or decline

group couples to terminate their relationships. Markman and colleagues (1993) also

found that participation in the intervention gave couples a significant future advantage in

communicating and conflict management skills even four years after receiving the

intervention. Married partners who received the intervention displayed less withdrawal,

denial, dominance, negative affect, conflict, and negative communication toward each

other than did the partners in the control group. Markman et al. (1993) attributed these

differences between the groups to the intervention, because the intervention specifically

and directly addressed these aforementioned behaviors. Another finding from this study

was that the tendency for partners to engage in physical relationship violence, which

Markman and Kraft (1989) defined in part as the result of partners' inability to handle

conflict constructively, was reduced for the participants who received the intervention

versus the control and decline treatment groups. Markman and his colleagues (1993)

again attributed this difference to the intervention, as these couples exhibited more

positive and fewer negative conflict management skills and communication behaviors.

The Current Study

Receipt of negative or aversive behaviors has an impact on people. It affects their

sense of self, sense of control, and sense of belonging. Receipt of aversive behaviors is

stressful. Negative behaviors decrease people's satisfaction with their relationships and





34


their relationship to feeling loved and relationship satisfaction. The following chapter

details the methods used to accomplish this goal.













CHAPTER 3
METHODS

This chapter is divided into three sections and details the methods used in scale

development. Each of the sections discusses one of three phases. The first section

describes the methods utilized in Phase 1 for item generation. The second section

describes the methods used in Phase 2 for scale item identification and assessment of

factor structure. The third section describes the methods utilized in Phase 3 for

assessment of psychometric properties of the resulting scale. Each section discusses

sample characteristics, measures, procedures, and data analyses as applicable.

Phase 1

Participants

Response data from 102 (69.61% female, 30.39% male) students enrolled in one

of two sections of an undergraduate psychology course in Abnormal Psychology or

Personality Psychology at the University of Florida were used in the first phase of the

study. The mean age of participants responding to the questionnaire item asking for age


was 20.03 (SD


1.51). Participants' ages ranged from 17 to 28 years of age. A majority


of the participants identified as White (52.94%), with 12.75% reporting Hispanic/Latino,

11.76% African Descent/Black, 9.80% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 12.75% identifying as

bi-racial, multicultural, or other. A majority (98.04%) of the sample identified as





36


participants reported being freshmen, 31 (30.39%) reported sophomore, 48 (47.06%)

reported junior, 16 (15.69%) reported senior, and one (0.98%) indicated post-

baccalaureate student status.

Fifty seven (55.88%) of the participants reported currently being in a romantic

relationship. Fifty six, or 98.25% of those in current relationships indicated that their

current relationship was heterosexual; one participant (1.75%) reported that the current

relationship was with a same sex partner. The mean length for current relationships was


months (SD = 20.2 months). The range was from less than one month to 10 years.


Forty six (80.70%) of those in current relationships reported exclusivity with their current

partners. Six (10.53%) of those in current relationships reported non-exclusivity in their

relationship with their current partners. Five (8.77%) of those in current relationships did

not indicate whether their relationships were exclusive or not. Seven (12.28%) of those in

current relationships reported living with their current partners, two (3.51%) reported

being engaged to their current partners, and one (1.75%) reported being married to the

current partner.

Regardless of whether participants were in a current romantic relationship, 70

participants (68.6%) indicated they have had at least one prior romantic partner. The

average length of prior romantic relationships was 12.74 months (SD = 12.37 months)

with a range from one month to 60 months. All participants who reported having had a

prior romantic relationship indicated that their relationship was heterosexual. Four

(3.92%) participants reported that they were neither currently in nor have they previously





37


Eighty (78.43%) of the 102 participants agreed to being re-contacted by the

researcher for a follow-up phone interview. The study's author randomly selected three


females and three males from those who agreed.


When the attempts were made to re-


contact those who were selected, all six were reached and all consented to participate in

the follow-up phone interviews.

Measures

Prior to meeting with the participants, a research questionnaire (Appendix A) was

developed. The questionnaire included an instruction intended to elicit response items.

The instruction asked participants to "Take a moment to think about your current

romantic relationship or a former romantic relationship. Using the space provided below,


record your responses to:


What could your partner DO that would make you feel


unloved? What could your partner SAY that would make you feel unloved?" Space was

provided for the participants to record their responses on the questionnaire following the

instruction and prompt items.

After recording the elicited response items, participants were instructed to

respond to a scale that assessed background, demographic, and relationship status

(Appendix B). Items on the scale included questions about participants' sex, age,

academic status, sexual orientation, racial and ethnic background, relationship status,

relationship satisfaction, and relationship length.

The six participants who participated in the follow-up phone interviews were

randomly selected and contacted by phone. These participants were asked to respond





38


Procedure

Prior to data collection, the study's author contacted course instructors to discuss

details about the study and arrange times to meet with students. At the scheduled times,

the study's author met with students and provided them with written informed consent

(Appendix C) and information about the study. Students were informed that the study

was about romantic relationships, that participation was voluntary and involved recording

their responses anonymously to questionnaire items, and that they would be given extra

credit in their class by their instructor if they agreed to participate. Students were also

informed that if they were agreeable, they could participate further in the research study.

Further participation would involve being contacted by phone for a follow-up interview

related to the study questionnaire that would last for approximately five minutes. Those

who decided that they wanted to participate in this way provided their consent by

recording their names, phone numbers, and the best times for them to be reached, on a

form provided to them separately from the questionnaire.

All students present consented to participate in the study. Each was given a


questionnaire (Appendix A).


Questionnaires provided instructions to participants for


recording their responses to questionnaire items. After recording responses, participants

placed questionnaires into one box and consent forms agreeing to be contacted for a

follow-up phone interview into a separate box. Each participant then signed a form that

was later given to course instructors for the provision of extra credit. Prior to leaving,

participants were given a list of couples' counseling resources (Appendix D), thanked,





39


14 days after questionnaire administration. Randomly selected phone interviewees were

each contacted separately by the study's author, who reintroduced herself, informed each

participant that participation was still voluntary, and that responses would be recorded

but identity and contact information would not be associated with responses. Each of the

six-randomly selected participants agreed to be interviewed by phone. Each was asked,

"What could your partner do or say that would make you feel unloved?" and responses

were recorded verbatim by hand.

The questionnaire generated 542 items. The interviews generated 19 items.

Redundant items were eliminated from the 561 resulting items. Items were corrected for

spelling and grammar, and made non-gender specific. The remaining list of 135 items

was labeled the Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS; Appendix E).

Phase 2

Participants

Data from 220 students (30.84% male, 69.16% female) were used in Phase 2 of


the study. The mean age of participants was 19.76 (SD


1.96) with a range of 16 to 30


years of age. A majority of participants identified as White (62.62%). The remaining

participants identifying as African Descent/Black (12.62%), Asian/Pacific Islander

(10.75%), Hispanic/Latino (10.75%), and "other" (3.27%). Ten (4.69%) participants

reported that they were international students. A majority of the participants responding

to the sexual orientation item identified as heterosexual (90.70%), with the remaining


identifying as bisexual (5.12%) and gay/lesbian (4.19%).


With regard to academic year in





40


One-hundred twelve (53.33%) participants reported that they were currently in a

romantic relationship and 98 (46.67%) reported they were not. Twenty-four (19.20%) of

the participants reported current relationship length of less than three months; 19

(15.20%) reported current relationship length of three to six months; 21 (16.80%)

reported current relationship length of six to 12 months; 29 (23.20%) reported current


relationship length of one to two years; and


(25.60%) reported current relationship


length of more than two years.

Eighty-seven (73.73%) respondents indicated that they were dating their current

relationship partners exclusively. Seventeen (14.41%) reported that they were in non-

exclusive relationships. Seven (5.93%) reported that they lived with their current

partners; two (1.69%) reported being engaged to their current partner, and five (4.24%)

reported being married to their current partner.

Regardless of whether participants were in a current romantic relationship, 174

(83.25%) indicated that they have had at least one prior romantic relationship. Thirty-

eight (18.36%) participants reported that the length of their past relationship was less than

three months; 42 (20.29%) reported that the length of their past relationship was three to

six months; 56 (27.05%) reported that the length of their past relationship was six to 12

months; 37 (17.87%) reported that the length of their past relationship was more than one

year.

When asked when their most recent past relationships ended, 30 (14.35%)

participants reported that their most recent past relationships ended less than three months





41


between six and 12 months ago, and 81 (38.76%) reported that their most recent past

relationships ended over one year ago.

Measures

A questionnaire (Appendix F) was developed and utilized in the second phase of

the study to collect response data. The Phase 2 questionnaire included instructions, the

Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS; Appendix E), which was the list of

items elicited from Phase 1 participants, the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS;

Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence, 1998; Appendix G), which is a scale comprised of 39

desired loving behaviors, the Inventory of Desirable Responding in Relationships (IDRR;

Loving & Agnew, 2001; Appendix H), which is a scale comprised of 10 items assessing

people's tendencies to deceive themselves and others about negative aspects of their close

relationships, and a scale that assessed demographic, background, and relationship status

(Appendix I).

Preliminary Undesirable Behaviors Scale

The PUBS (Appendix E) is a list 135 items generated by Phase 1 participants that

would elicit the feeling that one is not loved by one's partner. Phase 2 participants were

asked to read each of the PUBS items and rate how unloved they would feel if they

received these items from a romantic partner. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale

with values ranging from 0 to 4 with lower scores indicating that respondents would feel

more unloved and higher scores indicating respondents would feel more loved.

Desired Loving Behavior Scale





42


process of constructing the DLBS was similar to the process utilized in scale

development in the present study. Specifically, a group of participants generated items

that reportedly elicited the feeling of being loved by their romantic partners when the

behaviors were received from their partners. After items were generated a list of 158 non-

redundant items was compiled. A second group of participants rated the items indicating

how unloved they would feel if the items were received from a partner. Factor analysis

and an oblique rotation of the 158 items resulted in 39 items achieving simple structure

and loading on to one of four factors. These four factors were labeled: Caring Actions,

Relationship Support, Scripting, and Sex.

Since the DLBS was developed, the psychometric properties of this instrument

have been assessed in a series of studies and the DLBS has demonstrated adequate

reliability and validity. In addition, the DLBS has been utilized as an assessment

instrument in research and in clinical settings to identify specific behaviors that are

desired from relationship partners. Higher DLBS scores indicate that items are more

desired and lower scores indicate items are less desired. In clinical and research settings

the DLBS may be administered to one or both relationship partners. In addition, the

DLBS may be administered more than once to participants varying the instructions and

having respondents not only rate how much of each behavior is desired by them but also,


how often the behaviors are received from relationship partners.


When the scale is


administered in this way, a want-get discrepancy score can be calculated for either the

total scale, each of the subscales, or for individual items. Discrepancy scores are








the items.


When discrepancy scores are calculated, therapeutic interventions may be


targeted in areas where the discrepancy between what is desired and what is received is

greatest, thus maximizing the potential for significantly impacting and improving the

relationship.

As previously stated, prior research investigating the DLBS has demonstrated that

this instrument possesses ample validity and reliability. For example, the magnitude of

the DLBS discrepancy is significantly related in an inverse direction with relationship

satisfaction. This means that as the want-get discrepancy decreases, relationship

satisfaction increases and as the want-get discrepancy increases, relationship satisfaction

decreases. In one study, 42.27% of the variance measuring how satisfied participants

were with their relationships could be accounted for by the total want-get discrepancy

(Smith, 2000). Test-retest reliability for the DLBS as a whole measured .65 across a 26-

day interval for a sample of 158 college students. Internal consistency reliability for the

overall scale and for the subscales were also high (overall scale a = .91, (Caring Actions


a-= .78, Relationship Support a


.90, Scripting


a = .90, and Sex


a= .91).)


The 39 DLBS (Appendix G) items were included and placed randomly among the

PUBS items (Appendix E) on the Phase 2 questionnaire (Appendix F) to assess the

construct validity of the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J), which was

being constructed as a result of Phase 2 data analyses. All DLBS (Appendix G) and

PUBS (Appendix E) items were rated using a 5-item Likert scale in order to be

consistent. Participants were asked to read each of the items and rate how loved (or








feel less loved. It was anticipated that if there were significant correlations between the

PUBS and the DLBS items, those correlations would be inverse.

Inventory of Desirable Responding in Relationships

The Inventory of Desirable Responding in Relationships (IDRR, Loving &

Agnew, 2001, Appendix H) is a ten-item scale that was developed for use in dyadic


research. The scale measures socially desirable responding patterns, which are people'


tendencies to deceive themselves and deceive others about negative aspects of, in this

case, their close relationships. Prior to the development of the IDRR, most instruments


measuring socially desirable responding patterns were developed to assess individual'


general predispositions to misrepresent information about themselves. The IDRR was


developed with a more specific aim in mind, which was to measure individual'


tendencies to misrepresent aspects of their romantic relationships.

The IDRR was developed and validated over a series of 5 studies. The 10 items

making up the IDRR can be factored into two subscales. These two factors are

Impression Management (IM) and Self-Deception (SD). Impression Management, also

known as misrepresentation, is the tendency for respondents to directly make an effort to

enhance their image in the eyes of others. A 7-point Likert scale is used to rate the five


Impression Management items. Likert scores range from 1 to 7


, with higher scores


indicating more effort is being put forth to present the self in the best possible light by

exaggerating performance on desirable behaviors and discounting performance on

undesirable behaviors. It is believed that when people respond in this manner it is the





45


settings that are anonymous to settings that are more public in nature (Loving & Agnew,

2001).


The second factor, Self-Deception, is also made up of five items. These items


capture the extent to which individuals hold positive illusions about themselves.


Whereas


Impression Management measures conscious misrepresentations that are made by

respondents, Self-Deception measures unconscious misrepresentations made by

respondents about their relationships. This is because respondents often actually believe


the enhancing reports that are being presented to others about themselves.


When


respondents rate the items on the self-deception subscale, a Likert scale is used with

values ranging from 1 to 7. Higher scores indicate that respondent hold more positive

illusions about themselves.

Initial research by Loving and Agnew (2001) on the IDRR showed that there is a


significant intercorrelation among the five Self-Deception items (a =


.86) and among the


Impression Management items (a = .81), and that there are nonsignificant correlations

between the Self-Deception subscale and the Impression Management subscale (r = -.18,

ns). In research with both dating partners and married couples, the Self-Deception

subscale was found to correlate positively with measures of commitment, satisfaction,

investment, and dyadic adjustment, and this scale correlated negatively with alternatives.

Impression Management was not significantly associated with any relationship quality

index. According to Loving and Agnew (2001), this suggests that when Impression

Management occurs, it may be measuring a natural desire to enhance the public image of





46


Other Measures

In addition to responding to the aforementioned scales, participants read and

responded to demographic and background items as well as to items assessing

relationship satisfaction and status (Appendix I). The demographic and background items

assessed participants' sex, age, academic status, sexual orientation, race, and cultural


identity. The scales used to rate relationship satisfaction ranged from 1 to


with 1 =


extremely unsatisfied to 5 = extremely satisfied. Rating scales used to assess love for

partner, sense of love from partner, sense of caring from partner, and sense of feeling

loved when thinking about partner ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 = to the most negative

response option (i.e., not at all or strongly disagree) and 5 = to the most positive response

option (i.e., very much or strongly agree). In analyzing these data, a mean score for love

was calculated by averaging the sum of participants' scores on these items: sense of love,

sense of caring, and feeling loved when thinking about partner. The averaged score for


love ranged from 1 to


with 1 equal to the most negative response and


equal to the


most positive response.

Procedure

A procedure similar to the one utilized in the last phase was used to recruit the

majority of the Phase 2 participants whose response ratings on the PUBS (Appendix E)

would be used to identify which items would comprise the Love Crushing Behavior Scale

(LCBS; Appendix J). In addition to the participants enrolled in psychology courses, a few

participants were recruited through the Psychology Department's Introductory





47


(Appendix K) information. All students consenting to participate in Phase 2 were given

instructions, questionnaires (Appendix F), and scanable answer sheets for recording

responses. After responding to questionnaires, participants placed questionnaires and

answer sheets into a box and signed their names to a form indicating that they

participated in the study. Their signed forms were separated from their questionnaires and

answer sheets. The resulting list of names was used later to provide extra credit to

participants. Prior to leaving, all participants were handed a debriefing statement


(Appendix L) and a list of couples'


counseling resources (Appendix D), thanked, and


dismissed.

Data Analysis

PUBS items (Appendix E) were subjected to exploratory factor analysis to

determine the factor structure and scale items. Scores on the IDRR (Appendix H) and the

DLBS (Appendix G) were correlated with the PUBS. Results of analyses are presented in

Chapter 4.

Phase 3

Participants

Data from 277 students (31.88% male, 68.12% female) were used in the third

phase of the study. The majority of the participants (80.87%) were enrolled in one of four

sections of undergraduate psychology courses; 19.13% were obtained through the


Psychology Department's Introductory Psychology Participant Pool.


With regard to age,


3 (1.09%) participants reported being less than 18 years of age, 52 (18.84%) reported








years of age, and


(0.72%) reported age as 40 years of age or more. The mean age for


participants was 19.68 (SD = 1.35).


With regard to academic status, 60 (21.74%)


participants reported being freshmen, 80 (28.99%) reported being sophomores, 92

(33.33%) reported junior, 41 (14.86%) reported senior, and three (1.09%) reported having

post-baccalaureate student status. The mean rating for academic status was 2.45 (SD =


1.02) with 1


= freshman;


= sophomore; 3


= junior; 4


= senior; and 5 = post-


baccalaureate student. Two-hundred fifty-seven. (93.12%) participants identified

themselves as heterosexual, 9 (3.26%) identified themselves as bisexual, and 10 (3.62%)

identified themselves as gay/lesbian. A majority of participants identified themselves as

White (67.87%). The remaining participants identified themselves as African

Descent/Black (6.59%), Asian/Pacific Islander (8.36%), Hispanic/Latino (10.55%), and


"other"


(6.63%). Five (1.81%) participants indicated that they were international


students.

One-hundred fifty-one, or 54.51% of all respondents, indicated that they were

currently in romantic relationships; 115 (41.52%) reported that they were not currently in

romantic relationships. Eleven did not indicate whether or not they were in current

romantic relationships. The mean length for those in current relationships was 3.82


months (SD


= 3.35).


Fifteen (5.66%) participants reported that the length of their current


relationship was 1 month or less, 9 (3.40%) reported that the length of their current


relationship was


2 months, 13 (4.91%) reported that the length of their current


relationship was 3 months, 13 (4.91%) reported that the length of their current





49


relationship was 9 months to 1 year, 46 (17.36%) reported that the length of their current

relationship was 1 to 2 years, 26 (9.81%) reported that the length of their current


relationship as


years to 3 years, and 18 (6.79%) reported that the length of their current


relationship as 3 years or more.


Regardless of whether participants were in a current relationship,


(82.31%)


indicated that they have had a prior romantic relationship and 49 (17.69%) reported that

they have not. Eleven (4.15%) participants reported that their most recent past

relationship terminated within the past month, 12 (4.53%) reported that their most recent


past relationship ended


relationship ended 3 months ago,


months ago, 11 (4.15%) reported that their most recent past


(9.43%) reported that their most recent past


relationship ended between 4 and 5 months ago, 27 (10.19%) reported that their most

recent past relationship ended between 6 and 8 months ago, 21 (7.92%) reported that their

most recent past relationship ended between 9 months and 1 year ago, 49 (18.49%)

reported that their most recent past relationship ended between 1 and 2 years ago, 32


(12.08%) reported that their most recent past relationship ended between


and 3 years


ago, and 40 (15.09%) reported that their most recent past relationship ended more than 3

years ago.

Twenty-seven (10.23%) of the participants who reported having a past

relationship indicated that the most recent past relationship lasted for one month or less,

21(7.95%) reported that their most recent past relationship lasted two months, 23 (8.71%)


reported that their most recent past relationship lasted three months,


22 (8.33%) reported





50


that their most recent past relationship lasted nine months to one year, 39 (14.77%)

reported that their most recent past relationship lasted one to two years, 27 (10.23%)

reported that their most recent past relationship lasted two to three years, and 11 (4.17%)

reported that their most recent past relationship lasted three years or more.

Measures

The Phase 3 Questionnaire (Appendix M) consisted of the Love Crushing

Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) and several other measures mainly included to


assess


LCBS construct validity. The additional measures were the Positive and Negative


Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; Appendix N), the Relationship

Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988; Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998; Appendix

0), the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction Scale (GMREL; Lawrance & Byers,

1995; Lawrance & Byers, 1998; Appendix P), the Relationship Happiness Scale, (RHS;

Fletcher, Fitness, & Blampied, 1990; Appendix Q), the Perceived Relationship Quality

Component Scale-short version (PRQC-short version; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas,

2000; Appendix R), Predictions about the Future Scale (Aarestad, 2000; Appendix S), the

Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983; Appendix T), the Self-

rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983; Appendix U), the Mutual

Psychological Development Questionnaire: Form A (MPDQ: Form A; Genero, Miller, &

Surrey, 1992; Appendix V), and a scale assessing demographic, background, and

relationship status (Appendix W).

The Love Crushing Behavior Scale





51


presented to Phase 3 participants twice. Participants rated the items using a 5-point Likert

scale both times the items were presented. The first time participants indicated how loved

(or unloved) they would feel if romantic partners did or said each of the items. Likert

scale values ranged from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating that participants would feel

loved and lower scores indicating that they would feel unloved. The second time,

respondents indicated how often behaviors were received from romantic partners, using a

Likert scale with values ranging from 0 to 4. Higher scores indicated more frequent

receipt of LCBS behaviors, whereas lower scores indicated less frequent receipt of LCBS

behaviors.

The Positive and Negative Affect Scale

The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,

1988; Appendix N) is a measure made up of 20 words that describe 10 positive affect

items (e.g., inspired, interested, strong) and 10 negative affect items (e.g., distressed,

nervous, upset). The positive affect (PA) items refer to the extent which people feel

enthusiastic, active, and alert. High PA is characterized by experiencing high energy,

pleasurable engagement, and full concentration. Low PA indicates the presence of

sadness and lethargy. Negative affect (NA) assesses subjective distress and unpleasurable

contact with others. High NA includes feelings of contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, anger,

and nervousness. Low NA is characterized by a state of calmness and serenity.

In responding to the PANAS participants are asked to rate each of the emotion


words as they were presented and indicate to what extent they feel "this way.


" Different





52


and "in general" or "on the average." A 5-point scale with values ranging from "very

slightly" or "not at all" to "extremely" is used by respondents to rate the emotion words.

The PANAS is brief, easily administered, and has demonstrated reliability and


validity.


For example, in several different studies students were given different


temporal instructions when they rated the 20 PANAS emotion words and coefficient

alphas ranged between .86'and .90 for PA and .84 and .87 for NA. In these studies the

reliability of the scales was unaffected by the time instructions given to participants

(Watson, Clark, Tellegen, 1988). A non-student sample of participants was asked to rate

each of the affective items and to indicate how they had been feeling over the past few


weeks. Internal consistency reliabilities ranged between .86 and .87


Test-retest


reliabilities ranged from .47 to .71, with a 2-month time interval between administrations

for all time instructions. Retest stability tended to increase as the rated time frame

lengthened. These results indicate that the PANAS is a stable instrument at appropriate

levels over a 2-month time period. Convergent validity for the scales was demonstrated

by the significantly positive correlations (.76 to .92) between the PANAS and several

other positive and negative affect scales (including Diener & Emmons, 1985; McAdams

& Constantian, 1983; Stone, Hedges, Neale, & Satin, 1985). The PA and NA scales are

largely uncorrelated. PA-NA intercorrelations ranged from -0.12 to -0.23 with student

samples and -0.09 with a non-student sample. These discriminant values indicate that the

PA and NA are quasi-independent dimensions.

The PANAS was included on the Phase 3 questionnaire. However, the data





53


the data will be utilized in a subsequent study. No results for the PANAS are included in

this document.

The Relationship Assessment Scale

The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988, Hendrick, Dicke, &

Hendrick, 1998; Appendix O) is a 7-item unifactorial measure of relationship satisfaction

that has been used in both clinical and research settings by Hendrick and others (e.g.,

Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; Flora & Segrin, 2000; Meeks, 1996; Osland, 2001;

Shi, 1999). Examples of RAS items are: "How well does your partner meet your needs?"

and "How often do you wish you hadn't gotten in this relationship?" The 7-item RAS


uses a 5-point Likert scale, with values ranging from 1 to


Higher RAS scores indicate


greater relationship satisfaction. The RAS is scored by reversing participants' scores on

items 4 and 7 and calculating an average score for all items.

The RAS has demonstrated both adequate reliability and validity. RAS scores

over 4.0 tend to indicate that partners are non-distressed, whereas scores closer to 3.5 for


males and between 3.0 and


for females tend to indicate greater relationship distress


and relationship dissatisfaction (Hendrick et al., 1998). The RAS also effectively

discriminates between dating couples and couples who have broken up (Hendrick, 1988).

RAS inter-item correlation is .49 and internal consistency reliability has been estimated

to be between .86 and .90 (Hendrick, 1988). To assess test-retest reliability, the RAS was

administered twice to a sample of 65 undergraduate students with a 6-7 week time

interval between administrations. Test-retest reliability for this sample was .85 (Hendrick,





54


(KMSS, Schumm et al., 1986). In a study of 84 married couples, correlations between the


RAS and the DAS ranged from


for Anglo-American couples, .72 for Bi-cultural


couples, and .64 for Hispanic-American couples (Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998).

Validity was also demonstrated when the RAS and the KMSS were correlated.

Correlations between these two instruments were .74 for females and .64 for males.

The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction

The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL; Lawrance & Byers,

1998; Appendix P) is one of the subscales comprising the Interpersonal Exchange Model

of Sexual Satisfaction Scale (IEMSS; Lawrance & Byers, 1998). The IEMSS is a self-

report instrument made up of three subscales and a checklist of specific sexual rewards

and costs that might occur in a relationship. The GMREL subscale assesses overall


relationship satisfaction using the prompt,


"In general, how would you describe your


overall relationship with your partner?" Participants use a seven-point bipolar scale

anchored by the five dichotomous variables "good-bad," "pleasant-unpleasant,"


"positive-negative," "satisfying-unsatisfying,


and "valuable-worthless." Higher response


scores indicate endorsement of more positive relationship qualities or values (e.g., good,

pleasant, positive, satisfying, and valuable) whereas lower response scores indicate

endorsement of negative relationship qualities.

Reliability and validity for the GMREL was established in a study using a sample

of university students who had been dating and cohabitating for more than one year

(Lawrance & Byers, 1992) and a study using a community sample of married and








(a = .91) and the community sample (a = .96).


Validity of the GMREL is supported by


its significant positive correlation with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier,


1976), (r=.69, p


< .001).


The Relationship Happiness Scale

The Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS; Fletcher, Fitness, & Blampied, 1990;

Sumer, 1996; Appendix Q) is comprised of six items and was developed specifically to

be used by dating partners. The six items represent perceptions of love, happiness,

general satisfaction, relationship stability, seriousness of problems, and level of

commitment. Examples of RHS items are "I have a good relationship with my partner"

and "My relationship with my partner makes me happy." Respondents use a 7-item Likert

scale to rate each of the six items. Scores range from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating

greater relationship happiness. In order to score the RHS, ratings for the seven items are

summed. Respondent ratings tend to range from the low 20s to the high 30s (J. Fitness,

personal communication, July 23, 2003). In a sample of 568 students the reliability of the

RHS was .87 and test re-test reliability was .90 across two administrations a couple of

weeks apart (J. Fitness, personal communication, July 23, 2003). In another study, a

sample of 71 undergraduate students who were in long-term dating relationships rated

hypothetical interactive behaviors within relationships that were either positively or

negatively valenced. The partners who were happy in their relationships provided

attributions that were relationship enhancing. The unhappy partners' attributions

maintained their level of distress. In this study the relationship between relationships








convergent validity with the components of Sternberg's (1986) Triangular Love Scale:


intimacy (r =


.82), passion (r =


.72), and commitment (r =


The Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale

The Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC, Fletcher, Simpson,

& Thomas, 2000; Appendix R) is a six component, 18-item instrument. The scale

measures perceptions of specific evaluative domains in close relationships. These

components are: satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love. Each of the

six components is comprised of three items. According to the scale developers, there are

several advantages to utilizing the PRQC, including that three-item subscales are brief,

reliable, and possess high face validity as the scale measures perceptions of specific

evaluative domains in close relationships (Fletcher et al., 2000). The six components are

domain-specific, quasi-independent constructs. Separately, the components form semi-

independent, lower-level factors. Together, the components load onto one second-order

factor that has been labeled global perceived relationship quality. Three examples of

PRQC items are: "How sexually intense is your relationship?" "How dependable is your

partner?" "How much do you cherish your partner?"

In responding to the PRQC, respondents rate each of the items using a 7-point


Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to 7


. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction,


commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love. The model (six first-order factors loading

on one second-order factor) was tested to determine whether the factor structure was

stable and could be replicated with different samples and separate studies. Results of the





57


results showed that there was excellent replication of the results at every stage of the

confirmatory factor analytic procedure.

Although it is possible to administer the entire 18-item, 6-factor scale, the scale

developers have recommended in some situations using only the six best exemplars for

each of the relationship quality components, instead of the full scale. For example, the

scale developers stated that if researchers want to use self-report measures to assess

relationships evaluations, then the brief scales would be appropriate. However, if a

researcher wants to measure a single construct (e.g., trust) then a scale measuring that

particular construct would be preferable. For the purposes of this study, the short version

of the PRQC (Appendix R) composed of the six best exemplars of the PRQC was

utilized. The short form items are: Item 1 (measuring satisfaction): "How satisfied are

you with your relationship?" "Item 4 (measuring commitment): How committed are you


to your relationship?" "Item


(measuring intimacy): How intimate is your relationship?"


"Item 10 (measuring trust): How much do you trust your partner?" "Iteml3 (measuring

passion): How passionate is your relationship?" and "Item 16 (measuring love): How

much do you love your partner?" In a study using a sample of individuals in long-term

relationships, the PRQC short form demonstrated adequate aggregated internal reliability


(a=


.88, item-total rs ranged from .48 to .77). In another study using a sample of


individuals in short term (< 4 weeks) relationships internal reliability results were also


adequate (a


item-total rs ranged from .45 to .80).


Predictions about the Future Scale





58


their relationships. Participants' ratings on items 1, 2, and 3 reflect their prediction about

what the status of their relationships will be in the future. For example, the items ask

respondents to make predictions about (1) six months from now, (2) one year from now,

and (3) five years from now about whether they and their partner will be a couple or not

be a couple or whether they will be married. Items are rated using a 6-point Likert scale

with values ranging from 1 to 6. Lower values indicate a prediction that the relationship

will terminate, whereas higher scores predict stability and marriage. The fourth item asks

respondents to predict the likelihood that they will be together in one year. The fifth item


assesses the likelihood that the couple will marry in the future. Items 4 and


are rated


using 7-point Likert scales with values ranging from 1 to 7. Higher scores reflect more

positive predictions about future outcome. To score the scale all item ratings are summed.

Higher scores reflect predictions of more stable, long-lasting relationships. In one study,

internal consistency reliability for the scale was .90 for females and .91 for males


(Aarestad, 2000). In addition, the total model accounted for 18.3% (F (5,197)


.001) of the variance for females' and 21.8% (F (6, 193)


= 8.84,p<


= 8.96, p < .001) of the variance


for males' predictions about the future of their relationship (Aarestad, 2000).

The Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index and the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index

The Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983; Appendix

T) and The Self-rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983; Appendix U)

are measures that were developed to assess individual's perceptions of how much

partners disclose to a specific target person (Miller et al., 1983; Meeks, Hendrick, &





59


one's partner to oneself. These scales assess whether respondents' partners talk to them

and whether respondents talk to their partners about ten different subjects that represent

self-disclosure. Examples of Partner-rated Self-disclosure items are: My partner has

talked to me about the following subjects: "Things my partner wouldn't do in public;"


"My partner's


deepest feelings.


Examples of Self-rated Self-disclosure items are: I have


talked to my partner about the following subjects: "What I like and dislike about myself;"

My worst fears."


Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to


score the scales the ratings for all scale items are summed. Higher scores on both the

scales represent greater self-disclosure (self to partner or partner to self). Coefficient

a for both the Self-rated and Partner-rated Self-disclosure indices have ranged between


.86 and .93 for both men and women.


Variations in coefficient a estimates were


dependent on the target (Miller et al., 1983). In addition, the scale has demonstrated

convergent validity with the classic Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (JSDQ;

Jourard & Resnick, 1970).

The Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire: Form A

The Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire: Form A (MPDQ-Form A;

Genero, Miller, & Surrey, 1992; Appendix V) is an instrument that assesses mutuality in

close relationships. There are two forms for the MPDQ: MPDQ-Form A and MPDQ-

Form B. Each form consists of twenty-two items representing the six key conceptual

elements of mutual interaction described by Miller (1986) and Surrey (1985). These key





60


because of the bi-directionality of mutuality (e.g., mutuality includes responding to

another person and being responded to by another person). One response set has self-

prompts. For example: When we talk about things that matter to my spouse/partner, I am


likely to ...


"be receptive;" "get impatient;" "try to understand;" "get bored"). The other


set has other-prompts. For example: When we talk about things that matter to me, my


spouse/partner is likely to ...


"pick up on my feelings;" "feel like we're not getting


anywhere;" "show an interest;" get frustrated".

In responding to and rating MPDQ items, a 6-point Likert scale with values

ranging from 1 to 6 is used. Higher scores represent more mutuality in the relationship.

To compute mutuality scores, negative items are reversed and then the average is

calculated by dividing the summed ratings by the total number of items rated.

The reliability and validity of the MPDQ is supported by studies that have looked

at the relationship between spouses, dating partners, and relationships between close

friends. Research suggests that the MPDQ has excellent inter-item reliability, with

a scores ranging from .89 to .92. Construct validity has been demonstrated through

significantly positive correlations between perceptions of mutuality and measures of

social support, relationship satisfaction, and cohesion. In addition, self-reported ratings of

depression have been negatively correlated with relationship mutuality. For the current

study, Form A of the MPDQ was used.

Other Measures

Phase 3 participants also responded to a scale assessing demographics and





61


Procedure

Prior to Phase 3 data collection the study's author contacted course instructors and

arranged mutually suitable times to meet students. In addition, times were scheduled

through the Psychology Department's Introductory Psychology Participant Pool. At the

prearranged times, the study's author and a research assistant orally provided participants

with details about the study and garnered written informed consents (Appendix X).

Students were told that the study was about romantic relationships, that participation was

voluntary, that responses to questionnaire items would be anonymous, and that those

agreeing to participate would receive extra credit. Questionnaires (Appendix M) and

scanable answer sheets were provided to participants. Participants were instructed to read

and follow the directions on the questionnaire. Upon completion, participants placed

questionnaires and answer sheets into a box and signed a form, which was separated from

questionnaires and answer sheets, indicating that they had participated in the study so that

extra credit could be provided to them. Before leaving, participants were given a list of

couples' counseling resource information (Appendix D), a debriefing statement

(Appendix Y), thanked, and dismissed.

Data Analysis

Means and standard deviations were calculated for the Love Crushing Behavior

Scale (LCBS; Appendix J), the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Appendix 0), the

Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction Scale (GMREL; Appendix P), the

Relationship Happiness Scale, (RHS; Appendix Q), the short version of the Perceived





62


Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ: Form A; Appendix V) and

are reported in the next chapter.

Construct validity of the LCBS was assessed by examining the relationship

between the LCBS and relationship constructs. The relationship constructs were

measured using the scales just described. The constructs are: relationship satisfaction,

relationship happiness, relationship quality, relationship mutuality, predictions about the

future of the relationship, and self-disclosure between relationship partners. The value

utilized for the LCBS was initially computed by calculating the absolute value of the

difference between participants' ratings of how unloved they would feel from how often

they reported receiving the love crushing behaviors. Linear regression analyses were

conducted to assess the association between this LCBS discrepancy and the relationship

constructs. After the correlational analyses were conducted and the results showed little

association with the measures of related constructs, a second series of linear regression

analyses was performed to assess the association between the LCBS and the relationship

constructs using a recalculated LCBS score. The recalculated LCBS score was computed


by multiplying participants'


ratings of how unloved they would feel upon receiving a


particular behavior by how often they reported receiving that love crushing behavior and


summing the resulting products.


What follows is a description of how each hypothesis


was tested statistically using both the LCBS discrepancy score and the LCBS multiplier

score.

Hypotheses la and lb predicted that there would be a statistically significant






63

analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy and

relationship satisfaction as measured by the averaged scores on the Relationship

Assessment Scale (RAS; Appendix O). To test Hypothesis lb a Pearson product-moment

correlations coefficient analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the

LCBS discrepancy and relationship satisfaction as measured by the summed scores on the

Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL; Appendix P). Hypotheses la and

lb were reevaluated. To retest Hypotheses la and lb Pearson product-moment

correlations coefficient analyses were performed to evaluate the relationships between the

LCBS multiplier score and relationship satisfaction as measured by the summed scores

on both the RAS and the GMREL.


Hypothesis


predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse


relationship between the LCBS and ratings of relationship happiness. To test Hypothesis


a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis was performed to evaluate


the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy score and relationship happiness as

measured by summed scores on the Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS; Appendix Q).

Hypothesis 2 was retested using a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient

analysis to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and RHS.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse

relationship between the LCBS discrepancy score and perceived relationship quality. To

test Hypothesis 3 a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis was

performed to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy and the short form





64


analysis to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and the PRQC

short form.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse

relationship between the LCBS discrepancy score and predictions about the future of the

relationship. To test Hypothesis 4 a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient

analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between LCBS discrepancy and the

summed scores on the Predictions about the Future Scale (Appendix S). Hypothesis 4

was retested using a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis to evaluate

the relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and predictions about the future.

Hypotheses 5a and 5b predicted that there would be a statistically significant

inverse relationship between the LCBS discrepancy and self-disclosure. Hypothesis 5a

was tested by performing a Pearson-product moment correlations coefficient analysis to

assess the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy with the summed scores on the

Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index (Appendix T). Hypothesis 5b was tested by

correlating the LCBS discrepancy with the summed scores on the Self-rated Self-

disclosure Index (Appendix U). Hypotheses 5a and 5b were retested using a Pearson

product-moment correlations coefficient analyses to assess the relationship between the


LCBS multiplier with partners'


self-disclosure and self-disclosure.


Hypothesis 6 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse

relationship between the LCBS and relationship mutuality. Hypothesis 6 was tested using

a Pearson product moment correlations coefficient analysis to assess the relationship





65


using a Pearson product moment correlations coefficient analysis to assess the

relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and relationship mutuality.

The correlational analyses described above were all conducted to explore the

association between the LCBS and the six criterion variables. The magnitudes of

associations and statistical significance of each association is described in the next

chapter.

Phase 3 analyses of the data also included conducting a confirmatory factor

analysis via latent variable modeling to assess the stability of the uni-factorial structure of

the LCBS established during Phase 2 of the study. Goodness of fit was assessed by

examining the significance level of the chi-square and the scores on the comparative fit

index (CFI) and the non-normative fit index (NNFI). The CFI and NNFI are usually

considered to show a good fit when they are .90 or higher (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas,

2000; Bentler, 1995; Bentler & Bonnet, 1980). Coefficient a was calculated to assess the

internal consistency of the total scale.













CHAPTER 4
RESULTS



The Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) was constructed to

identify behaviors that would elicit the feeling that one was unloved by romantic partners

when the identified behaviors were received from romantic partners. This chapter

describes the results of the analyses used to construct the scale. This chapter is divided

into three sections. Each of the three sections describes one of the three phases of the

study. The three phases of the study were: Phase 1, which included item generation;


Phase


which included scale item identification and assessment of factor structure; and


Phase 3, which included the assessment of the psychometric properties of the scale.

Results for each phase are presented below.

Phase 1: Item Generation

The primary purpose of the first phase of the study was to generate a list of

negative behavioral items that when provided by one romantic partner and received by

another partner resulted in the receiving partner feeling unloved by the providing partner.

For the first phase, data were collected from 102 participants who responded to the Phase

1 questionnaire (Appendix A) and six (of the 102) participants who were contacted by

phone for a follow up interview. All participants were asked to generate behaviors that





67


from the list of 561 items and the 135 remaining items were corrected for spelling and

grammar and made gender non-specific. This list was labeled the Preliminary

Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS; Appendix E).

Phase 1 participants' also responded to items asking them to rate how satisfied

they were with their relationships. Thirty three percent of the respondents who responded

reported being extremely satisfied with their current relationships, 44% reported being

very satisfied, 18% reported being satisfied, and 5% reported being neither satisfied nor

unsatisfied with their relationships. None of the respondents rated themselves as being

unsatisfied, very unsatisfied, or extremely unsatisfied with their current relationship.

Participant responses indicated that 59% of respondents strongly agreed with the

statement, "I am very loved by my romantic partner," 20% agreed, 14% neither agreed

nor disagreed, 0% disagreed, and 7% strongly disagreed. Participants' responses

indicated that 66% strongly agreed with the statement, "My romantic partner cares a great


deal about me,"


23% agreed with this statement, 4% neither disagreed nor agreed, 0%


disagreed, and 7% strongly disagreed. Participants' responses indicated that 57% strongly


agreed with the statement, "When I think about my romantic partner, I feel loved,


agreed, 5% neither disagreed nor agreed,


" 27%


4% disagreed, and 7% strongly disagreed.


When participants were asked how much they loved their partners, participant

responses indicated that 64% reported loving their partners very much, 18% reported

loving their partners quite a bit, 9% reported a moderate amount of love toward their

partners, and 9% reported a little bit of love for their partners. None of the respondents





68


Phase 2: Scale Refinement

There were 231 participants who took part in Phase 2 of the study. These

participants completed a 202-item questionnaire (Appendix F) that included the 135-item

Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS; Appendix E), which is a list of negative

behaviors generated by Phase 1 participants. In addition, the 39 item Desired Loving

Behavior Scale and additional items assessing such information as relationship

satisfaction and participant demographics were included. The primary purposes of the

second phase of the study were to identify which of the 135 items making up the

Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS; Appendix E) would be retained to make

up the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) and to evaluate the factor

structure of the LCBS. Following is a description of the data analyses.

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Item Selection

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted with the 135-items making up the

PUBS (Appendix E). Exploratory factor analysis has two general functions, which are to

explain and to reduce data (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). One of the ways that data are

explained is to determine whether there are underlying factors, separable dimensions, or

latent variables that exist within a main scale (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). In the case of

this study, exploratory factor analysis was used to discover whether the negative

behaviors that made up the PUBS (Appendix E) could be separated into underlying

subscales or factors. The second use of exploratory factor analysis is to reduce data

(Floyd & Widaman, 1995). Because of the large number of initial items, a first step in





69


given factor only if that item's loading on the factor had an absolute value of .40 or

greater and the loading was less than an absolute value of .30 on any of the other factors.

The 135 PUBS items (Appendix E) were first factor analyzed using common

factor analysis. A scree test suggested a four-factor solution, with a secondary scree

plateau at eight factors. Unfortunately, neither oblique nor orthogonal four-factor

rotations yielded interpretable factors. Instead, too few items achieved simple structure

across the four factors. The first factor yielded a sufficient number of conceptually related

items, but later factors tended not to. Oblique and orthogonal rotations of three, five, six,

seven, and eight factors showed similar simple structure problems. Because of these

failures to achieve simple structure with a sufficient number of items, the data were

reanalyzed with an unrotated common factor analysis. This approach yielded a first factor

with maximized variance. Items were retained if they achieved simple structure with

respect to that first, unrotated factor and all other unrotated factors with an eigenvalues of

1.0 or greater. In all, 22 items were retained as a result of this procedure, which yielded a

single factor. This single factor structure, though not suggested and indeed not

suggestable by a scree test, is consistent in a larger sense, with the eigenvalues of the

unrotated factor analysis. The first factor produced eigenvalues seven times larger than

the next largest factor, 35.85 vs. 4.92, suggesting a very large difference between the first

and all other factor eigenvalues. The magnitude of this difference may simply reflect that

despite many efforts at rotation, the items really taped a single construct.

The resulting 22-item scale was labeled the Love Crushing Behavior Scale










Table 4.1


Descriptive Statistics for the 22-Item Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS)


Item n M SD FL r


Verbally abuse me

Spend little or no time with me


Knowingly


say things that are hurtful to me


Tell me that they do not love me

Talk badly about me to other people

Want to hang out or be with other people
more than they want to be with me

Refuse to spend anytime with my family

Never do anything special for my special
occasions or holidays

Cheat on me

Do not express enough affection toward me

Look at other people longingly

Ignore me in front of others

Not respect my family

Was not honest with me

Bring up ex-love interests

Tell me that they hate me


Focus


was on other things when I am around


Not call me often

Tell me that they want to discontinue our
relationship

Share information about themselves with others
but not tell me

Not tell me that he/she loves me

Watrh TV while tallkina tin m


u r~ rll nl~ lu





71


Additional Phase 2 Analyses

Whereas the primary purpose of Phase 2 was to identify items and explore factor

structure of the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS, Appendix J), statistical analyses

were also performed on data provided by Phase 2 participants, specifically participants'

responses to the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS, Heesacker & Lawrence, 1994;

Appendix G), a social desirability scale (IDRR; Loving & Agnew, 2001; Appendix H),

and items assessing various relationship variables.

Overall, participants' relationship satisfaction response ratings indicated that 40%

of respondents reported being extremely satisfied with their relationships, 34% reported

being satisfied, 15% reported being neither satisfied nor unsatisfied with their current

relationship, 9% reported being unsatisfied, and 2% reported being extremely unsatisfied

with their current relationship.

Regarding the amount of love felt for their romantic partners, 60% of participants

reported they love their partners very much, 17% reported loving partners "quite a bit,"

12% reported a "moderate amount," 9% reported a "little bit," and 3% indicated they did

not love their partners at all. Means and standard deviations for these items are detailed in

Table 4.2, which follows.

With regard to how loved respondents felt, 53% indicated that they strongly


agreed with the statement,


"I am very loved by my romantic partner," 29% agreed with


the statement, 12% neither agreed nor disagreed, 3% disagreed, and 3% strongly

disagreed. Participants' responses indicated that 62% strongly agreed with the statement,









Table 4.2


Means and Standard Deviations for Phase


2 Questionnaire Items


Variable n M SD


Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS)

Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS)


DLBS Subscales


Relationship Support


Scripting


Caring Actions


Relationship Satisfaction


Love for Partner


Sense of Love from Partner


Sense of Caring from Partner

Feel loved when thinking of Partner

Love Mean (mean of previous 3 items)

Social Desirability (IDRR)


IDRR Subscales


Self-Deception

Impression Management


Note. n


Total responding to item. M


= Mean item rating. SD


= Standard deviation.


T 11. l.~1. _t 1 1 rrll rn r II r 1 ,r 1 rn, I 1 '11





73


were averaged to calculate an overall level of love and caring participants felt from their

partners. This "love mean" was comprised of participants' sense of love from their

partners, sense of caring from their partners, and feeling loved when thinking of their

partners. Means and standard deviations are detailed in Table 4.2.

Pearson product moment correlations were used to explore the relationships

between the 22 Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) items, social

desirability (IDRR; Loving & Agnew, 2001; Appendix H), the DLBS subscales, and

items assessing various relationship variables (e.g., relationship satisfaction, sense of love

from partners, sense of caring for partners, feeling loved when thinking of partners, and

amount of love for partners). Correlational analyses indicated no significant relationship

between the LCBS and the IDRR Impression Management subscale (r = -0.03, p < .72).

In other words, there was no indication that participants felt a need to enhance their

representations of themselves. This result is not surprising as impression management

scores have been found to decrease when going from public to anonymous research

settings (Loving & Agnew, 2001). The participants in this research study completed

questionnaires individually and anonymously. However, there was a statistically

significant inverse relationship between the IDRR self-deception subscale and the LCBS


items (r = -


p < .001), suggesting that increases in the magnitude of responses on


the LCBS were accompanied by decreases in the level of self-deception demonstrated by

the participants. This finding suggests that participants who held fewer positive illusions

(e.g., unconscious misrepresentations) about themselves were also more likely to rate the









the possible operation of depressive realism. Table 4.3 presents the means and standard

deviations for the IDRR subscales and items.

Table 4.3


Descriptive


Statistics of the IDRR Items and Subscales


Note. Social Desirability items were scored on a 7-point scale with higher scores

reflecting higher levels of Relationship Self-Deception (REL-SD) and Relationship

Impression Management (REL-IM).


Total responding to item. M


= Mean item rating. SD


= Standard deviation.


0 an .-n f f~~l fl CAr~ A S' fr.lnC u ar n 4~ ar a~u a. a~ 1r n 4- a~ n -r 1~-. -t ~-4 in a1,


Variable n M SD

Social Desirability 204 4.63 0.87

Relationship Self Deception subscale 202 5.07 1.23

REL-SD Item 1 194 5.78 1.39

REL-SD Item 2 196 3.26 1.92

REL-SD Item 3 199 4.89 1.81

REL-SD Item 4 192 4.51 1.73

REL-SD Item 5 195 5.44 1.53

Relationship Impression Management 202 4.19 1.33

REL-IM Item 1 194 4.25 1.84

REL-IM Item 2 194 3.63 1.81

REL-IM Item 3 193 4.03 1.79

REL-IM Item 4 196 3.27 1.62

REL-IM Item 5 193 3.84 1.71





75


scores on the LCBS and their reported satisfaction with their relationships (r = 0.20, p


.033), love for their partners (r = -0.30, p <


.0009), sense of love from their partners


(r = -0.27, p < .0028), sense of caring from their partners (r = -0.36, p


< .0001), feelings


of love when thinking of their partners (r = -0.39., p < .0001), and their overall love

mean score, which is the mean of the three latter items, (r = -0.37, p < .0001). In other

words, participants who rated LCBS items as making them feel more unloved also

reported feeling less satisfaction with their current relationship, less love towards their

partners, and less love from their current partners.

The items from the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS; Heesacker &

Lawrence, 1994; Appendix G) were randomly embedded among the 135 PUBS items

(Appendix E) on the questionnaire. As anticipated, none of the DLBS items were retained

in the final factor structure of the LCBS, though the inclusion of the DLBS on the

questionnaire allowed for additional analyses. Specifically, Pearson product moment

correlation analyses were performed to explore the relationship between the LCBS and

the DLBS. Results of these analyses indicated several statistically significant inverse

correlations between the LCBS score and the DLBS scores. Specifically, the relationships

between the LCBS and the Relationship Support subscale (r = -0.60, p < .001), the DLBS


Scripting subscale (r = -0.62, p


< .001), the DLBS Caring Actions subscale (r = -0.58, p


< .001), and the DLBS total score (r = -0.62, p < .001) were all statistically significant

and inversely related. The relationship between the LCBS and the DLBS Sex subscale

was non-significant.








analytic techniques as described in detail above to determine a factor structure and


identify scale items. Twenty two items yielding a single factor were retained. These


items were labeled the Love Crushing Behavior Scale.

Phase 3: Assessment of Psychometric Properties of Scale

Normative and Reliability Data

Responses to a 151-item questionnaire (Appendix M) were used for Phase 3

analyses. The questionnaire included the LCBS and the eight measures previously

described. Means, standard deviations, and ranges are detailed in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4


Descriptive Statistics of the Phase 3 Scales

Scales n M SD Min Max

LC 277 1.89 .35 0 4
LCR 274 1.78 .48 1 5
LCDisc 274 0.43 .34 0
LCMult 274 3.72 1.11 1.61 9.12
RAS 245 3.71 .88 1 5
GMREL 244 25.74 9.34 1 36
RHS 244 25.62 8.98 1 37
PRQC 242 5.55 1.24 1 7
PAF 238 13.38 9.61 1 28
PRSD 243 2.39 1.14 1 5
SRSD '242 2.37 1.21 1 5
MPDQ 242 3.50 .68 1 5


Note. n


Total responding to items. M


= Mean item ratings. SD


= Standard deviation.


Min = Minimal score. Max = Maximum score. LC = Love crush item ratings. LCR =






77


The purpose of this phase was to assess the psychometric properties of the LCBS.


With regard to internal consistency reliability, the Cronbach's


a coefficient for the LCBS


was .88 suggesting that for this administration with this sample the LCBS possessed

adequate measurement precision. An alpha with a maximum value of .90 is

recommended to avoid redundancy among items (Steiner, 2003). Inter-item correlations

for the scale items are provided in Table 4.5 which follows. Mean inter-item correlations

Table 4.5

Item to Total Correlations for the LCBS in Phase 3


Item


Does not tell me that he/she loves me


Refuses to spend anytime with my family .56
Does not call me often .54
Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be with me .53
Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays .51
Looks at other people longingly .51
Talks badly about me to other people .49
Knowingly says things that are hurtful to me .49
Verbally abuses me .49
Spends little or not time with me .48
Does not respect my family .48
Ignores me in front of others .47
Does not express enough affection toward me .46
Cheats on me .45
Shares information about themselves with others but does not tell me .44
Brings up ex-love interests .43
Tells me that they do not love me .42
Is not honest with me .38
Tells me that they want to discontinue our relationship .37





78


should ideally be between .15 to .20 for scales measuring broad characteristics and

between .40 to .50 for scales tapping narrower ones (Clark & Watson, 1995).

Construct Validity

Construct validity of the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS) was assessed by

examining the relationship between LCBS and these constructs: relationship satisfaction,

relationship happiness, perceived relationship quality, predictions about the future of the

relationship, self-disclosure, and mutuality. Initially, to evaluate the relationships

between the aforementioned constructs and the LCBS, an LCBS discrepancy score was

calculated and correlated with the scores of each of the instruments utilized to measure

constructs. The LCBS discrepancy score was obtained by calculating the absolute value

of the difference between how loved/unloved respondents rated they reportedly would

feel if LCBS behaviors were received from their partners from the frequency of receipt of

the behaviors. For the most part, the results obtained when the data were analyzed in this

way were unexpectedly non-significant. Therefore, additional evaluations of the data

were conducted to examine further the relationship between LCBS and these related

constructs. Specifically, each of the previously listed variables was re-correlated with an

LCBS multiplier score. The LCBS multiplier score was calculated by multiplying

participants' ratings of how unloved they would feel upon receiving a particular behavior

by how often they reported receiving that love crushing behavior and summing the

resulting products.

Hypotheses testing





79


Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse

relationship between the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS) and relationship

satisfaction. For Hypothesis la relationship satisfaction was measured using the

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988, Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick,

1998; Appendix 0) and for Hypothesis lb relationship satisfaction was measured using

the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction Scale (GMREL; Lawrance & Byers,

1995; Lawrance & Byers, 1998; Appendix P).

To evaluate Hypothesis la a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS

discrepancy score and the averaged scores on the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS;

Hendrick, 1988, Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998; Appendix O). Results demonstrated

a low but statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and relationship


satisfaction (r = -0.13, p


< .0495) when relationship satisfaction was measured using the


RAS.

Hypothesis lb was initially evaluated using a Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient analysis to correlate the LCBS discrepancy score with relationship satisfaction

as measured by scores on the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL;

Lawrance & Byers, 1995; Lawrance & Byers, 1998; Appendix P). The relationship

between the LCBS and relationship satisfaction as measured using the GMREL did not

reach significance (r = -0.12, p < .057), although results indicated a relationship between

the variables that fell just short of significance in the direction predicted by the





80


Hypothesis la was reevaluated using a Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient to assess the relationship between LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score and

the scores on the RAS. Results indicated that as predicted, there was a statistically

significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and relationship satisfaction (r = -0.42,

p < .0001) as measured by the RAS. Hypothesis lb was reevaluated using a Pearson

product moment correlation coefficient analysis to assess the relationship between the

LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score and relationship satisfaction using the GMREL

scores. As predicted, results demonstrated a statistically significant inverse relationship

between the LCBS and relationship satisfaction as measured by the GMREL (r = -0.41, p

< .0001). Thus, Hypothesis la and lb were supported by the data when the LCBS

multiplier score was used. In other words, increases in how unloved one would feel

and/or increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors as measured using the LCBS

were associated with decreases in relationship satisfaction as measured by both the RAS

and the GMREL.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse

relationship between the LCBS and ratings of relationship happiness, as measured by the

Relationship Happiness Scale, (RHS; Fletcher, Fitness, & Blampied, 1990; Appendix Q).

Initially, Hypothesis 2 was assessed using a Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient analysis to correlate the LCBS as measured by the LCBS discrepancy score

with relationship happiness as measured by the sum of the RHS scores. Results indicated

that although the LCBS discrepancy score and relationship happiness appeared to be





81


Hypothesis 2 was reevaluated using a Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient to correlate the LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score with relationship

happiness using the RHS scores. Results indicated that as predicted, there was a

statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS as measured using the

LCBS multiplier score and relationship happiness as measured using the scores on the

RHS (r = -0.46, p < .0001). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported by the LCBS multiplier

data. In other words, increases in how unloved one feels and/or increases in the receipt of

love crushing behaviors as measured by the LCBS were associated with decreases in

relationship happiness as measured by the RHS.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse

relationship between the LCBS and perceived relationship quality as measured by the

Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas,

2000; Appendix R). Hypothesis 3 was assessed using a Pearson product moment

correlation coefficient to correlate the LCBS discrepancy score with the scores on the

short form of the PRQC. Results indicated that the relationship between the LCBS as

measured using the LCBS discrepancy score and perceived relationship quality as

measured using the short form of the PRQC was in the predicted direction although the


relationship did not achieve statistical significance (r = -.12, p


<.074).


Hypothesis 3 was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient analysis to assess the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS

multiplier score and the short form of the PRQC. Results indicated that as predicted, the





82


Hypothesis 3 was supported by the LCBS multiplier data. In other words, increases in

how unloved one would feel and/or increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors as

measured using the LCBS were associated with decreases in relationship quality as

measured by the PRQC short form.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse

relationship between the LCBS and predictions about the future of the relationship, as

measured by the Predictions about the Future Scale (Aarestad, 2000; Appendix S).

Hypothesis 4 was assessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient

correlating the LCBS discrepancy score with the sum of the scores on the Predictions

about the Future Scale. Results indicated that the relationship between the two variables

(LCBS discrepancy and the Predictions about the Future Scale) tended in the predicted

direction but the relationship was not statistically significant (r = -.06, p < .369).

Hypothesis 4 was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient analysis to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS

multiplier score and predictions about the future of the relationship using the sum of

scores on the Predictions about the Future Scale. Results indicated that as predicted, the

relationship between the variables, LCBS and predictions about the future, was

statistically significant in the direction predicted by the hypothesis (r = -.31, p < .0001).

Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported by the LCBS multiplier data. In other words,

increases in how unloved one would feel and/or increases in the receipt of love crushing

behaviors as measured using the LCBS were associated with decreases in favorable





83


Hypothesis 5a and 5b predicted that there would be a statistically significant

inverse relationship between the LCBS and self disclosure. Hypothesis 5a was assessed

by evaluating the relationship between the LCBS and ratings on the Partner-rated Self-

disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983; Appendix T), which measures disclosure

from one's partner. Hypothesis 5b was assessed by evaluating the relationship between

the LCBS and ratings on the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer,

1983; Appendix U), which measures disclosures made to one's partner. To assess

Hypothesis 5a a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient analysis was used to

correlate the LCBS discrepancy score with the sum of the scores provided on the Partner-

rated Self-disclosure Index. Results indicated that the relationship between the variables

was not statistically significant and that the variables were not correlated in the direction


predicted by the hypothesis (r =


.10, p <.112). Hypothesis 5b was assessed using a


Pearson product moment correlation coefficient to look at the relationship between the

LCBS discrepancy score and the sum of the scores on the Self-rated Self-disclosure

Index. Results indicated that the relationship between these two variables was not

statistically significant and that the variables were not related in the direction predicted


by the hypothesis (r = .02, p <


.778).


Hypothesis 5a was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient analysis to correlate the LCBS multiplier score with the summed scores on the

Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index. The results indicated that the relationship between

the two variables was statistically significant; however, these two variables were not








partners would feel and/or in how much they received love crushing behaviors as

measured using the LCBS. Hypothesis 5b was reassessed using a Pearson product

moment correlation to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS

multiplier score and the scores on the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index. Again, results

indicated that the relationship between these two variables was not in the direction

predicted by the hypothesis. In addition, the relationship between LCBS and self-rated


self-disclosure was statistically insignificant (r =


.11, p <.1035). Thus, regardless of the


manner in which the LCBS variable was calculated, Hypotheses 5a and 5b were not

supported by the data.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse

relationship between the LCBS and relationship mutuality. Hypothesis 6 was assessed

using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient to correlate the LCBS

discrepancy score with scores on the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire

(MPDQ: Form A; Appendix V). Results indicated that the relationship between LCBS

discrepancy and relationship mutuality tended in the direction predicted, though the

relationship did not achieve statistical significance (r = -.09, p < .156).

Hypothesis 6 was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS multiplier

score and scores on the MPDQ. Results indicated that as predicted, the relationship

between these two variables, LCBS and relationship mutuality, was statistically


significant and, as predicted by the hypotheses, the variables were inversely related (r = -





85


crushing behaviors as measured with the LCBS were associated with decreases in

relationship mutuality as measured with the MDPQ.

Table 4.6 provides inter-item correlations for the Love Crushing Behavior Scale

(LCBS), the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), the Global Measure of Relationship

Satisfaction Scale (GMREL), the Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS), the short version

Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC), the Predictions about the

Future Scale, the Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index, the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index,

and the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In order to assess the stability of the single factor structure across samples, for the

Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) a confirmatory factor analysis was

conducted. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis failed to confirm the single

factor structure. First, the chi square fit index was not only statistically significant,


X2(209)


= 562.15,p


< .0001, but it was also larger than double the n (562


> 209 X 2).


The two indicators, significant p value and Xvalue double the degrees of freedom,

indicates that the model does not fit the data. Likewise, Bentler's Comparative Fit Index

and Bentler and Bonett's Normative Fit Index were each smaller than .90 (.77 and .68,

respectively) again suggesting that this one-factor model fails to account for these data.

One important limitation on the use of confirmatory factor analysis and on the use

of these indicators of fit involves the distributions of the scores on items. Nonnormally

distributed items do not perform appropriately in CFAs. Unfortunately, most of the items






86









cr 8
a


S **
.3 fo
tc -
000





o N cag
a2 0
-'" 0
0l







a **
ae a e o

2~~ v.
c I.lU
r0I




o 0 c i 3 &





IIL
0 0c








0 --
ONN













o
em








C) 0 004 O )
A 9 1| 4to
II oo \o -: RS






9 0 0 0 r
I I
t 3 S *




11~ O~
*
aE











jI'
*.&


o o 0 0 6 o o ,"
Co 0 0O N- 'C *x
2 d 0



0 00 0 i0
a Ui




**** *
lI 0O m o- V N C N
-c 0 N e e n



Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oc

L. I
o P
Ct
03 S3"Q


ra r + 9 00 .e
03 O O CTn \O O O~ M

cr .2 fro



ag + u +
av (> Ou (N ^f CT <-"r
S C9 o -^ ^-'^ c\3 m d '- enC *


"a-
.1 a S<
uc~ E










the Coefficient a for this sample was .88, which suggests a high degree of inter-item


correlation, consistent with a single factor structure.


The Love Crushing Behavior Scale


The LCBS items are presented below in Table 4.7.


The columns of the table


Table 4.7


LCBS Item Rank Comparisons


Item ABCD


Cheats on me

Tells me that they do not love me
J
Talks badly about me with other people

Verbally abuses me

Tells me that they hate me

Tells me that they want to discontinue our relationship

Knowingly says things that are hurtful to me

Ignores me in front of others

Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be with me

Looks at other people longingly

Spends little or no time with me

Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays

Is not honest with me

Does not respect my family

Does not express enough affection toward me

Shares information about themselves with others but does not tell me

Brings up ex-love interests

Does not call me often

Does not tell me that he/she love me

Refuses to spend anytime with my family





88


include rankings for each item. Column 1 rankings are based upon the Phase 2 mean

ratings. Column 2 rankings are based upon the Phase 3 mean ratings. Column C rankings

are based upon the Phase 2 correlations with total scores. Column D rankings are based


upon the Phase 3 correlations with total scores. The items' ranks (i.e.,


," "3,")


connote how unloving the behaviors were rated by participants with 1 = most unloving

behavior, 2 = next most unloving, and so on.













CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Key Findings/Integration with Existing Research

The main purpose of this study was to develop a love crushing behavior scale. Prior

to LCBS development, it was presumed that a scale of love crushing behaviors would

likely be factorable. One of the reasons for this presumption was that the DLBS is a

multi-factorial instrument. Another reason is that Gottman (1994a; 1994b; 1999), who

has done extensive work with couples on relationships found that the most destructive

relationship behaviors fit into categories. As a result, it was anticipated that the LCBS

would be a multi-factorial instrument and that the emergent factors might complement

the DLBS factors (e.g., caring actions, relationship support, scripting, and sex); or that

the LCBS factors might be similar to Gottman's categories (criticism, defensiveness,

stonewalling, and contempt). However, a very interesting finding from this study was that

the LCBS items did not fall into any factors that made sense and instead, results from the

analyses support a uni-factorial scale.

Despite the fact that the LCBS is made up of only one factor, when the individual

DLBS and LCBS items were reviewed and compared, many items on these two scales

seemed to complement each other. That is, the DLBS caring actions item "Take walks


with me during the day,


" and the DLBS relationship support item "Spend time talking to








The DLBS relationship support item,


"Remember my birthday," seems to complement


"Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays.


the LCBS item,


DLBS scripting item,


the inverse of the LCBS items,


"The


"Say, "I love you with, my whole heart and soul"," seems to reflect


"Tells me that they hate me," "Tells me that they do not


love me," and "Does not tell me that he/she loves me." The DLBS scripting items,


to me,


"Say


"I want to be with you forever"," and "Talk about our future together," seem to


reflect the opposite sentiment expressed by the LCBS item,


"Tells me that they want to


discontinue the relationships.


" The DLBS scripting item,


"Say to me,


"I enjoy spending


time with you more than any other person"," seems to be the inverse of the LCBS item,

"Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be with me." Despite

examples of complementary items and the fact that there were statistically significant

inverse correlations between the LCBS and DLBS Caring Actions, Relationship Support,

and Scripting subscales there is no support for a reciprocal LCBS factor structure. In

addition, there did not appear to be any examples of DLBS Sex subscale and LCBS item

complements. Based on the study's results, this was not surprising as there was not a

statistically significant relationship between LCBS and the DLBS Sex subscale.

Gottman (1994a; 1999) identified categories of behaviors in his work with couples.

The types of behaviors that made up Gottman's categories were considered by him to be

the most destructive to relationship quality and to relationship longevity. Gottman's

categories, labeled the "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse," are criticism, defensiveness,


stonewalling, and contempt.


While reviewing the data and comparing Gottman's





91


when I am around" and "Wants to hang out with other people more than they want to be


with me"


might be interpreted as stonewalling behaviors.


"Is not honest with me," and


"Brings up ex-love interests," might be interpreted as behaviors displayed by one who is


behaving defensively. "Talks badly about me to other people"


might be considered a


criticism. In spite of the fact that these inferences could be made, these comparisons may

not be appropriate. However, comparisons between the LCBS items and the contempt

category appear to be more defensible.

Contempt has been described by Gottman (1999, pp. 128-129) as sulfuric acid for

love. Although some may think behaviors from other categories such as criticism are just

as bad as contempt, when Gottman observed partners showing contempt to each other he

considered it to be the single most important sign that the marriage was in trouble

(Gladwell, 2005). According to Gottman, contempt kills love and because he considers it

so detrimental to relationships, when Gottman interacts therapeutically with couples who

are behaving in contemptuous ways, he stops their behavior, identifies the contempt for


the couples, and labels it as "abusive"


(Gottman, 1999). Gottman describes contempt as


qualitatively different from criticism and the other categories because when partners are

contemptuous they are being hierarchical, speaking from a superior plane and

communicating that they are more important than their partners (Gladwell, 2005;

Gottman, 1999).

Any behavior with the power to kill love might also be a behavior that evokes the

feeling that one is unloved by one's partner. Indeed, when the contempt category was




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E1HA5YZ8T_2X34MC INGEST_TIME 2011-08-30T18:56:16Z PACKAGE AA00002031_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

THE INFLUENCE OF FEELING LOVED ON THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AVERSIVE INTERPERSONAL BERA VIORS AND RELATION SHIP SATISFACTION By MARY B. SMITH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Mary B. Smith

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Martin Heesacker for his time patience encouragement belief in me advisement and support. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Lisa Brown Dr. Franz Epting, and Dr. Connie Shehan, for agreeing to serve on my committee. I thank them for their feedback and encouragement. I thank my co-workers at the University of Florida Counseling Center for their encouragement and support My thanks go especially to Paul Schauble Nancy Coleman, Toti Perez Mike Murphy Jaquie Resnick Jennifer Sager Brett Vicario Kevin Stanley Dave Suchman Carlos Hernandez, Wayne Griffin and Rachel Navarro. I also thank m y friends at the Alachua County Crisis Center for their friendship and encouragement. I thank the instructors who provided access to their students and I thank the students who participated in the studies. I thank my research assistants, Megan James Kevin and Brian who were willing to be helpful and supportive I thank Sarah Lee, Susan Bragg, and Cheryl Phillips for their warmth and for all that they do. I thank my Mom and Dad, my sisters and brothers and the other relatives who have been encouraging I especially thank my cousin, Nancy Beardall and her family for their love and support A thank you goes to my friends Jane Calabrese and Maureen Deluca for their friendship love and support. I thank Jim my husband, and I thank Megan James Kevin Brian and Jo v an for their love encouragement support and for being in my life. lll

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................... ....... ... .. ..................... .................................. .... .... iii LIST OF TABLES .......................... . ... ....................... .. ...................... ... ................. ... .... viii ABSTRACT ...... ..... ............................ ... ... ... ... .................. ... ... ..... .. ......................... ........ ix CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................................. 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8 A Basic Human Need ................................................................................................... 9 Love and Romantic Relationships ...................................................... ..... .. .. . .... ....... 10 Romantic Relationships: Changes over Time ...................... ...................................... 11 The Exchange of Behavior in Romantic Relationships ............................................. .15 Impact of Conflict and Anger on Relationships ........................................................ .16 Gottman's Taxonomy of Dysfunctional Romantic Relationship Patterns ................. .18 Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ............................................................ 20 Another Look at Behavior Exchange: What Predicts Relationship Dernise? ............. 21 Further Support for the Detrimental Impact of Bad Behaviors on Relationships ... .. 24 Every Day Aversive Interpersonal Behaviors ...................................... .. ......... .. ...... .. .26 Methodological Issues ................................................................................................ 27 Support for Intervention ............................................................................ .. ............ .. 30 The Current Study ....................................................................................................... 33 3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 35 Phase 1 ........................................................................................................................ 35 Participants .......................................................................................................... 35 Measures ........................................................ ............................... ................... . 37 Procedure ...................................................... ........... ..... .. ........................ .. ...... .... 3 8 Phase 2 .................... ...... .... ..................................... .. .......... .. ............................ ... .. . 39 Participants .. ....... ..... .... .. .................................. ... . ... ............................... .. .... .. . 39 Measures ............................. ... ...................... ................ ..... .......... ................... 41 Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS) ... .......................... .... .... .. .41 Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS) ................ .............. ......... .. ......... .. .41 IV

PAGE 5

Inventory of Desirable Responding in Relationships .............. .. ...... ... .. .... .44 Other Measures . . . ...... ....... ........ . ..... ... . . . ... .. .. ....... .. ......... ... .. . . . . .... 46 Pro cedure .. ... ... ... . ... ...... ...... .. .......... ... .... .... ... .. .. .. ..... ........ .. .... ... .. .. .. ........ . . ... 46 Data Analysis ...... ....... ... ...... ..... ... .... ... . .. .. . ..... . . . .. ... ..................... ..... .......... .. 47 Phase 3 .... .. ......... .. . . ..... ... ... ... . . ... ..... . . ... .. ........ .. .. ...... .... . ... ..... ........ ... ... .. ..... .... 47 Part icipants ....... .... ... ..... ........ ... ...... ... ... ........... ..... ... ....... . ....... .... . .... ... ....... 47 Measures .. .. .................. .. .. . ... .. .. ..... .. .. ... ............ ..... ..... ... ... ... . ........... ....... .. 50 The Love Crushing Beha vi or Scale (LCBS) ....... .......... ....... ........... .... ....... 50 The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) ... ............... .. ...... . ....... . 51 The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) .. .. .. ....... ... ... .. .. .. .............. .. .. ... 53 The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL) ...................... 54 The Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS) .. ... .. ... .. .... ... ................... .. ...... 55 The Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (P RQC ) .. . .. ..... . . 56 Predications about the Future Scale ... ... ..... ..... .. .... ... ........ ... ... ..... .... .. ...... 57 The Partner-Rated Self-Disclosure Inde x (P RSD ) .. .. . ......... . ......... . .. .. .... 58 The Self-Rated Self-Disclosure Index (SRS D ) ...... ..... . .. . ... .. .. ... . ...... ... .. 58 The Mutual Psychological De vel opmen t Questionnaire (MPDQ) ........... .. 59 Oth er Measures ........................................................ .... .. .... .... .... .... ... . ...... 60 Pro cedure ..... .. .... . ...... ........ ... .......... ... ... .... ... .. . ... ... .................... ..... ... .. .. ... .. 61 Data Analysis .. ..... ..................... ....................... . ................... . ........ ... ...... ........ 61 4 RESULTS .. .... . ..... ... ..................................... .. . ... .. ....... ..... ... ... ....... ................. .. 66 Phase 1: Item Generation .. .. .... .. . ..... ... .. .... ........ ...... ..... .. .. ..... . .............. . ...... ....... .... 66 Phase 2: Scale Refinement. .... .. .. ... ... .... ... ..... . ...... ... .. .. . . ... . ..... ........................... 68 Exploratory Factor Analysis and Item Selection . ................................ ... ... .. . .. 68 Additional Phase 2 Analyses .. ....... ........ .... ...... ...... .... ..... ........ .... ..... .. .......... 71 Phase 3: Assessment of Psychometric Propertie s of Scale .... ... .... . . . .................... ... 76 Normative and Reliability Data .................... .... . ... ... ..... ....... . ........ ... . ............. 76 Construct Validity .. ............ .. ... ..... ........................................................ . .. ... ..... 78 Hypotheses Testing .. ....... .. . . . ........ .... . .. ...... ............... . ...... . ... .... .... ... .. ... ... 78 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ....... . ..... .............. . .......... .. .. . . ........... ....... ... .. .. .. 85 The Love Crushing Behavior Scale ... .. ... ... ... .... ... ....... ....... . ... .................... .... .... .. 87 5 DISC USSION ......... ... .. .. ..... .. ... ... ...... .... .......... .... ....... ...... .... . .. . ..... ............... ...... ... 89 Key Finding/Integration with Existing Research .. ....... .. ......... ...... ........... .. ...... ........ 89 Limitations and Dir ections/Im plications for Future Research .. ... ............... .. ........ ... . 98 Potent ial Clinical Applications .... .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .... . ........ ... .. ...... . ........................... 100 Conclusion .................. .. ......................................................... .. ................................ 102 APPENDIX A PHASE 1 QUESTIONNAIRE .... ... ...... ...... ....... ... ...................... .. . ... ... ............. ... .. 104 B PHASE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELATIONSHIP STAT US QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS ........... ........ ........... .... ................................... ... ... .. . .... 107 V

PAGE 6

C PHASE 1 INFORMED CONSENT ................. ................. . ... .. . . ........ .. . .. ... .. ..... 109 D PHASE 1 2, AND 3 COUPLES' COUNSELING RESOURCES ... . ... ...... .. .. .... 110 E PRELIMINARY UNDESIRABLE BERA VIOR SCALE (PUBS) . .. .......... . .... . 111 F PHASE 2 QUESTIONNAIRE ................................. . ... . ........ .... .......... .... . ... .... 115 G DESIRED LOVING BERA VIOR SCALE (DLBS) ........... ... .. ...... ........... ............ 122 H INVENTORY OF DESIRABLE RESPONDING IN RELATIONSHIP (IDRR) . .123 I PHASE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELATIONSHIP STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS .......................... ....... ........... .... ...... ..... ..... . .... . ..... 124 J LOVE CRUSHING BERA VIOR SCALE (LCBS) .............. ...... ... . .. ..... .. .. . ........ 127 K PHASE 2 INFORMED CONSENT ... ............ . .... ... ......... .. .. .. ........................ ..... 128 L PHASE 2 DEBRIEFING STATEMENT ............. . .. ...... . .. .......... ........ ........ .... .... 129 M PHASE 3 QUESTIONNAIRE ....... .......... .. .... ... ......................... .. ................... ..... 130 N POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCALE (PANAS) ... .. ..... . . . .. .. .. ..... ... 139 0 RELATIONSHIP ASSESSMENT SCALE (RAS) ..... ................ .. ........ ....... .. ...... . 140 P GLOBAL MEASURE OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION SCALE (GMREL) .. .. .. ...... ..... ..... .. .. .... ........................ .. ....... ............ ....... ................... 141 Q RELATIONSHIP HAPPINESS SCALE (RHS) .. . . .. . ........ ...... .. ... .. ..... ... ........ .142 R PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP QUALITY COMPONENT SCALE (PRQC) .. .. .143 S PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE SCALE .... .... .. .. ... .. . . .......................... .144 T PARTNER-RATED SELF-DISCLOSURE INDEX (PRSD) . .. ... ....... ..... . . ......... 145 U SELF-RATED SELF-DISCLOSURE (SRSD) ...... ............. . ...... . . ... .... . ...... ...... 146 V MUTUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE: FORMA ........................... ............... ............... . .... .. .. .. ... .... .. ..... ....................... 147 W PHASE 3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELATIONSHIP STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS . . .... .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. ... ... ... ......... . ..... ........ .... ... ... .. . 148 X PHASE 3 INFORMED CONSENT ................. ......... .. ..... . .. .. .. ............. ... .. ... ... 151 Y PHASE 3 DEBRIEFING STATEMENT .. .. .... . ... ..... . .... .. .. . .............................. 152 Vl

PAGE 7

LIST OF REFERENCES .... ........ ....... ........... .... ........ ..... ... . ......... . . .. .. ... . . .... ... . .. . .. 153 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .. .. ...... ......... ........... .. ... ... ......................... .......... ... .. ....... 162 Vll

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABL E S Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for the 22-Item Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS) ....... 70 4.2 Mean s and Standard De v iations for Phase 2 Que s tionnaire Items .. ... .... . .. . .. .. . ..... 72 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the IDRR Items and Subscales .... . .. .. .. ..... .. . . .. . ... .. ... ... 74 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the Phase 3 Scales .... .. ..... . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . ... ...... .. .... .. . . 76 4.5 Item to Total Correlations for the LCBS in Phase 3 . . . . . . ... .... . . .. .. ... ... ... ... ..... 77 4 6 Inter-item Correlations for Phase 3 Scales ... .. .. . ... .......... . . . . ... ... ........ ..... ....... 86 4 7 LCBS Item Rank Comparisons ......... .. .. .. . .. . ..... . . ... .. .. .. . . .. .. ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ...... ...... 8 7 viii

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INFLUENCE OF FEELING LOVED ON THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN A VERSNE INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION By Mary B. Smith December 2005 Chair: Martin Heesacker Major Department: Psychology While much research on intimate relationships tends to focus on positive aspects of relationships there is evidence suggesting negative behaviors have a detrimental effect on the quality of close relationships. Therefore, a goal of this study was to identify love crushing behaviors which are defined as behaviors provided by romantic partners that evoke in the receiving partners the feeling that they are unloved The dissertation consists of three phases In Phase 1 participants generated received behaviors that elicited in them the feeling that they were unloved by romantic partners. The resulting list of items was presented to Phase 2 participants, who rated the items regarding how unloved they would feel if the items were received from romantic partners Factor analysis of these rated items resulted in a 22-item uni-factorial Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS). Psychometric properties of the scale were assessed in Phase 3 and provide support for reliability and validity of the LCBS Limitations, recommendations for future research and clinical applications of the LCBS are discussed. IX

PAGE 10

I CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION \ This dissertation investigates the relationship between feelin g loved love crushing behaviors and romantic relationship satisfaction. Over the y ears romantic relationship research has increased in both breadth and depth within the field of counseling p s ychology. Ho w ever after reviewing 25 years ofresearch focusing on the in v estigation of marital conflict Fincham and Beach (1999) wrote tha t the connection between research finding s and their clinical relevance for improvin g relationships were controversial. As a result Fincham and Beach challenged researchers to work toward integrating research and theory in order to develop more unified frameworks for guiding empirical investigation and clinical activities rather than continuin g to amass observations in a relatively atheoretical manner. Coincidentally a group of studies (Cawood & Heesacker 1999 ; Heesacker & Lawrence, 1994 ; Heesacker Smith, & Lawrence 1998; Mejia-Millan 1999; Samson, 1996 ; Smith 2000 ; Tiegs Heesacker, Lawrence Smith Cawood & Mejia-Millan 2004) addressed Fincham and Beach's challenge by conducting theory driven research and proposing efficacious strategies for improving the quality of romantic relationships This group of studies investigated the association between the provision of specific desired loving behaviors feeling loved and relationship quality To date this body ofresearch has included ( a ) the development of the Desired Loving Behavior Scale ( DLBS ; Appendix G ; Heesacker & Lawrence 1994; Heesacker Smith & Lawrence 1998), (b) 1

PAGE 11

2 the assessment of the psychometric properties of the DLBS (Cawood & Heesacker, 1999; Heesacker Smith, & Lawrence, 1998; Mejia-Millan, 1999 ; Samson, 1996; Smith, 2000 ; Tiegs, Heesacker, Lawrence, Smith, Cawood & Mejia-Millan, 2004), (c) the establishment of a clear connection between the receipt of desired loving behaviors and important relationship outcomes (Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence 1998 ; Smith, 2000; Tiegs Heesacker Lawrence Smith, Cawood, & Mejia-Millan, 2004); and (d) recommendations for clinically relevant applications of the DLBS (Cawood & Heesacker 1999; Heesacker & Lawrence 1994 ; Heesacker Smith, & Lawrence 1998 ; Mejia-Millan 1999 ; Samson 1996; Smith, 2000; Tiegs Heesacker, Lawrence Smith Cawood & Mejia-Millan 2004). Initially, DLBS researchers were interested in looking at the association between emotion and behavior within the context of romantic relationships (Heesacker & Lawrence 1994). The goal of their research was to identify specific behaviors that members of romantic relationship dyads desired from partners in order to feel loved. Through a multi-phase process that included item generation and exploratory factor analysis, 39 behavioral items were identified and labeled the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS; Heesacker & Lawrence, 1994). Additional analyses of the scale resulted in each of the 39 items falling into one of four factors These factors were labeled: Caring Actions Relationship Support, Scripting, and Sex (Heesacker & Lawrence, 1994). Analyses from subsequent studies (Cawood & Heesacker 1999 ; Heesacker, Smith, & Lawrence 1998 ; Samson, 1996; Smith 2000) investigating the psychometric properties of the DLBS have provided support for this instrument. These studies have shown that

PAGE 12

3 the DLBS possesses ample reliability and validity and that the DLBS shows promise as a viable efficacious clinical and research assessment instrument. The efficacy of the DLBS has been demonstrated in several ways. First the DLBS identifies specific behaviors that are desired from romantic partners in order for them to feel loved (Heesacker & Lawrence 1994 ; Heesacker Smith & Lawrence 1998 ; Smith 2000). Second, the DLBS efficiently assesses how much each item is desired from romantic partners (Smith, 2000) Third, the scale can be utilized by participants to rate subjective impressions of how much or how often the desired loving beha v iors are being received from romantic partners (Smith 2000). When the discrepancy between what is desired (wan t ) and what is received (get) is calculated therapeutic interventions can be developed and targeted specifically and directly toward the areas where the discrepanc y between want and get is the greatest. Thus, the possibility for impacting and improving the quality of a given relationship is increased. The positive consequences for relationship partners whose want-get discrepancies have been identified and addressed through clinical interventions can be objectively evaluated (Smith, 2000). Research has shown that there is a significant inverse relationship between the want-get discrepancy and relationship satisfaction. That is as the discrepancy between what is desired from a romantic partner and what is received from that partner increased relationship satisfaction decreased (Smith 2000). In contrast when the want-get discrepancy is decreased, relationship satisfaction increases. In addition, research to date has demonstrated that intact romantic relationships have significantly lower want-get discrepancy scores compared to relationships that have terminated ( Smith 2000)

PAGE 13

4 Decreasing want-get discrepancies through the provision and receipt of desired loving behaviors has been significantly linked to increased relationship satisfaction. Nonetheless the magnitude of the increases in satisfaction and the feeling that one is loved varies based on the desirability of the specific behaviors that are being provided to and received by romantic partners (Smith, 2000). Just as receiving desired loving behaviors from romantic partners has a positive impact on how loved recipients feel and influences how satisfied they are with their relationships a corresponding inference may be made that receiving negative behaviors will have a negative impact on the affective state of relationship partners and on how satisfied they are with their relationships. The empirical evidence suggests that negative behaviors may be even stronger predictors of relationship satisfaction than positive behaviors After exhaustively reviewing the literature across multiple domains Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001) found abundant, convincing empirical evidence supporting the greater pervasiveness and power of the effect of negative or aversive stimuli compared to positive or rewarding stimuli. In fact, according to these authors the concept, bad is stronger than good is one of psychology's most basic and far reaching principles Baumeister and colleagues (2001) stated that bad events may be stronger than good because people tend to treat bad experiences as if they are isolated events (Baumeister et al., 2001). In contrast good experiences tend to be seen collectively and they become integrated into an ongoing general perception of goodness (Baumeister et al., 2001). As most people have experienced the impact of an entire day's worth of kindness and goodness can be eliminated when just one bad word or deed is received from a romantic partner. Holmes (1991) observed this and reported that the impact of a single selfish or

PAGE 14

inconsiderate act is attenuated only by the accumulation of an e x tensive array of positive acts within which the negative act is embedded. Others have demonstrated that focusing on negative behaviors is as important as investigating positive behavior and potentially more so because of the impact that negative behaviors can have on relationships. For example (a) while both positive and negative behaviors influence relationship satisfaction the negative impact of negative behaviors is much greater than the positive impact of positive behaviors (Baumeister et al. 2001; Gottman 1994a, 1999 ; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Rozin & Royzman 2001) ; (b) a difference between couples who are content and couples who experience marital misery is a health y balance between positive and negative feelings (Gottman, 1994a 1999) ; ( c) in order for marriages to remain stable over time the minimum ratio of positivity to negativity is five to one and when a relationship contains more negative interactions than positive interactions, the relationship will very likely terminate (Gottman, 1994a; 1994b; 1999). 5 There are also affective consequences for partners who are recipients of negative behaviors (Kowalski 1997). For example, recipients of negative or aversive behaviors may feel aggra v ation annoyance, anxiety, boredom, contempt depression disgust, frustration hostility hurt jealousy and loneliness (Baumeister & Leary 1995; Kowalski 1997; Kowalski 2001; Leary, 1990). These consequences occur in all types of interpersonal relationships but tend to be the greatest in relationships between close intimate partners as compared to individuals who are distant or less invested (Kowalski 1997)

PAGE 15

6 Achieving a healthy balance between good and bad behaviors appears to be necessary g iv en that close relationships are essential vital parts of most people s li v es and that relationships are often the source of people's most meaningful rewards (Kowalski 2001 ) Despite the fact that research conducted to date has unequi v ocally demonstrated that negative behaviors are more influential on relationships than positive behaviors ( Baumeister et al. 2001; Baumeister & Leary 1995 ; Gortman & Krokoff 1989; Gortman 1994a ; Gortman 1994b; Holmes 1991 ) much of the research on close relationships has been directed at positive relationship qualities (Duck 1994 ; Kowalski 1997). In addition little of this relationship research has been theory driven Moreover clinical interventions have not consistently been guided by research findings (Fincham & Beach 1994). In response to these circumstances the purpose of the present study was to build upon an emerging line of research whose goal has been the impro v ement of romantic relationship quality. Findings to date have demonstrated that the impact of the exchange of negative beha v iors is detrimental to relationship quality and that the impact negative behaviors have on relationships is greater than the impact of positive behaviors. Therefore this dissertation's primary goal has been to construct a v alid and reliable scale of love crushing behavioral items. The secondary goal has been to develop a theory driven empiricall y based instrument that will have utility for clinicians and their clients in order to obtain a clearer understanding of and appreciation for the type s of behaviors that are most detrimental in their relationships. In order to accomplish these goals this study investigated the relationship between feeling loved love crushing behaviors and romantic relationship satisfaction

PAGE 16

The result of this investigation was the Love Crushing Behavior Scale. This scale was developed over a series of three phases. In the first phase items were generated by a group of participants. In the second phase, the non-redundant items were rated by a second group of participants Results were analyzed to determine scale items and factor structure. In the third phase the psychometric properties of the resulting scale were assessed. 7

PAGE 17

CHAPTER2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The literature review that follows includes research supporting the current study. A search of the literature was conducted as such: Initially, keywords and phrases (e.g. "behavior," "negative," "aversive," "relationship," "close relationship "intimate relationship," "romantic relationship," "romantic dyads "dyads," "couples," "interpersonal ," "emotion," "love," "feeling loved," "unloved," "feeling unloved "feeling," "satisfaction," and "relationship satisfaction") were used individually and in two and three-word combinations. Numerous keyword searches were conducted using these search terms with the PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES data bases The study s author conducted subjective analysis of the resulting articles and chapters. Decisions were made by the study's author regarding the relevance ofresulting articles and chapters by reviewing abstracts and/or various portions of the articles or chapters. Studies and chapters that contained information on aversive behaviors in romantic relationships and relationship outcomes were retained whereas studies and chapters that did not were discarded. Article and book chapter reference lists were reviewed and any articles included on those lists that appeared to be relevant were also reviewed. The topics that are covered in this review include a brief overview of the exchange of interpersonal behaviors, the basic need to belong and romantic relationships, conceptualizing love, an overview of romantic relationships, information on anger in romantic relationships a taxonomy of dysfunctional romantic relationship patterns a summary of Gottman s 8

PAGE 18

9 (1994) "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse information on the impact of good and bad behaviors on romantic relationships an overview of aversive interpersonal behaviors and methodological issues. A Basic Human Need The need to belong is a very basic human need Most would agree that feeling loved by another likel y contributes toward filling this basic need Many would also agree that feeling loved by a partner is a positive experience especially when this is compared to the reciprocal alternative which is to feel unloved ." However relationships are not always positive or satisfying experiences for all ; participants in romantic relationships do not always feel loved by their partners. At times partners may even feel as if they want out of their relationships or that they do not belong in the relationship. Sometimes there are even adverse consequences for people who are in relationships (Baumeister & Leary 1995 ). One of the reasons why relationships are sometimes negative and unsatisfying is because relationship partners are sometimes the providers or the recipients of negative aversive behaviors to or from their partners. When aversive behaviors are provided by one partner and e x perienced by the other not only do these behaviors interfere with the basic human need to belong but these behaviors in fact produce several negati v e affective consequences for the recipients of the behaviors (Baumeister & Leary 1995 ; Kowalski 1997 ; 2001). Resulting emotional consequences include anger anxiety betrayal boredom depression disgust hostility jealousy, loneliness and sadness ( Baumeister & Leary 1995 ; Kowalski 2001). As a consequence there may be times when romantic partners do not feel as if they belong In such cases relationships may be far from the positi v e experiences that most romantic partners hope for.

PAGE 19

10 Love and Romantic Relationships For centuries poets and philosophers have written about love, attempting to describe it. More recently, scientists have attempted to define and conceptualize love. For most people in Western cultures love is believed to be an essential element for romantic relationships and "being in love" is what makes a couple a couple (Simpson, Campbell & Berscheid 1986). To better understand the construct love Sternberg (1986) used a comprehensive systematic approach in his theorizing partitioning love into three components. Sternberg identified several different types of love based on the absolute strength of these three components and their relationships to one another. The three components making up Sternberg's theory oflove are intimacy passion and commitment. The intimacy component is synonymous with warmth and is characterized by an emotional investment in the relationship. Intimacy is defined as connectedness, bondedness and a feeling of closeness to another (Sternberg 1986). Passion is often referred to as the hot component of love. Passion is derived in part from the motivat i on to be involved with ano.ther Passion describes the drives that direct one to physical attraction romance and sexual consummation. Passion includes forms of arousal and sources of motivation that lead to passionate experiences. Commitment includes the cognitive elements that are involved in decision making about committing to a relationship. Sternberg identified two different types of commitment. These types are dependent on whether a relationship is a new short-term relationship or whether the relationship is a longer-term relationship. According to Sternberg commitment for newer or short term relationships has to do with making decisions about whether one is in love or loves one s partner whereas commitment in long-term relationships has to do with

PAGE 20

deciding whether or not to work toward maintaining that love. Because commitment involves cognition it is often viewed as the cold component relative to passion and intimacy, the other two components (Sternberg 1986). 11 Using these three components (intimacy passion, and commitment) in various combinations Sternberg identified eight different types oflove. For Sternberg perfect love" is made up of high levels of all three of the components-intimacy passion and commitment. However couples experiences of perfect love tend to be ephemeral and/or elusive and according to Sternberg, most people who describe themselves as being in lo ve either experience romantic love or companionate love Romantic love generally occurs in the beginning of relationships and companionate love tends to be experienced when relationships are more enduring Romantic Relationships: Changes over Time According to Sternberg ( 1986), romantic love is composed of intimacy and passion and produces feelings of physical arousal in the presence of the beloved. The early stages of romantic relationships tend to be made up of happy and blissful times as partners are optimistic about their relationships. Couples experiencing romantic love are characterized by a lack of objectivity and often have an idealized view of each other (Sternberg, 1986) Partners are motivated to attend to and to notice each other's positive qualities more than they notice each other's negative qualities (Huston Caughlin, Houts Smith & George 2001; Huston McHale & Crouter, 1986; Miller 1997 ; Murray & Holmes 1997 ; Waller 1938). During this period of time partners' expectations of each other tend to be low and any action thought, or deed that is provided by one partner is likely to be received b y the other partner with delight (Love, 2001). For example, early i n relationships one sweet phone call from the beloved may keep partners happy for days ;

PAGE 21

however after dating someone for some time receiving only one phone call within the span of two or three days might be quite irritating (Love 2001) 12 Most people expect that the experiences they have with their romantic partners will remain pleasurable. They do not anticipate that conflict or pain will be a part of their e x perience (Attridge & Berscheid 1994) Despite people s high hopes and expectations at the beginning of relationships as they progress over time there may be decreases in feelings oflove for or feelings of being loved by one s partner which can be disheartening (Sprecher & Regan 1998). When this occurs romantic partners may begin to wonder whether the relationship they thought is right for them was right after all and as a result, they may begin to feel threatened (Simpson Campbell & Berscheid 1986) In contra s t to romantic love the experience of love for couples who have been together for a long time and describe themselves as happy tends to be transformed into what Sternberg calls companionate love (1986) Companionate love is a combination of intimacy and commitment and tends to be experienced by partners whose lives have become intertwined with each other and who possess a deep friendship (Sternberg 1986) Initially, when partners fall in love according to Brehm (1992) it is often "with their own imagined constructions rather than with the concrete reality of another human being" (p 103). However after a couple has been together for an extended period of time the rewarding behaviors that may once have characterized courtship begin to diminish as people s best behaviors become difficult to maintain o v er time Best behaviors tend to diminish and behaviors that are more reflective of and congruent with the stable and underlying personality traits of partners replace them As the best behaviors decrease the romantic images and positive illusions that were based on the best

PAGE 22

13 behaviors begin to erode. The positive images partners had of their beloveds are replaced with images which are based on reality (Swann De La Ronde & Hixon 1994; Huston & Vangelisti 1991 ). The accumulated effect of exchanged behaviors (positive and negative) has an impact on the overall quality ofrelationships (Karney & Bradbury 1995). As relationships progress over time partners learn through their mutual experiences and on the basis of their interactions with each other and their evaluations of these interactions whether or not their relationships are rewarding and satisfying (Bradbury & Fincham, 1992) . Kayser (1993) used the terms "disillusionment" and disaffection when describing the processes involved in the loss of love and the loss of a sense of closeness between partners Kayser (1993) explained disaffection as the replacement of positive affect with neutral affect and added that for disaffection to occur positive feelings had to exist at the beginning of the relationship. Kayser (1993) interviewed spouses and results demonstrated that disillusionment typically occurs for spouses when partners' behavior after marriage falls short of the expectations dreams and fantasies that were held prior to marriage Many researchers have found support for a disillusionment model (Brehm 1992 ; Huston et al., 2001; Huston McHale, & Crouter 1986 ; Miller 1997; Murray & Holmes, 1997), and have suggested that in the early stages of romantic relationships new partners tend to behave in ways that are consistent with their idealized view of the relationship For example in the beginning of relationships displays of affection are embellished, conflict between partners is avoided and negative feelings are muted The disillusionment model suggests that newly married partners will be motivated to see each other in a positive light. Consequently, spouses perceive each other as having positive

PAGE 23

14 attractive and responsive traits and lacking negative, unattractive and disagreeable traits. In addition because newlyweds tend to accentuate positive psychological and behavioral tendencies they should feel deeply in love with each other and they should experience little ambivalence abo_ut the relationship and about being together. That is until disillusionment sets in (Brehm, 1992 ; Huston, McHale & Crouter 1986 ; Huston et al., 2001; Miller 1997; Mur.ray & Holmes, 1997). In another study looking at disillusionment Huston et al. (2001) followed 168 newlywed couples over 14 years Participant data were collected two months after the wedding and twice again over the next two years. Researchers' contact with the relationship partners included face-to-face interviews completion of questionnaires, and telephone interviews which were done to assess partners' interactions with each other. During the phone interviews spouses were read descriptions of affectionate and non affectionate behaviors and asked to rate how often their partners had done each of the behaviors in the preceding 24 hours. After couples had been married for 13 to 14 years, 164 of the original 168 couples were re-contacted and additional data were collected The additional data included an assessment of marital status. One hundred and five of the original participants who were re-contacted were still married 56 were divorced and 3 were widowed. Results of this study demonstrated that the couples who divorced quickly had the weakest initial romantic bonds, showed the least amount of affection toward each other and were the most antagonistic and negative toward each other compared to any other category of participants Even after only two months of marriage, those who divorced quickly were behaving quite negatively toward each other compared to the couples who stayed married and the couples whose relationships terminated later. The

PAGE 24

researchers also found that the average daily ratio of positive to negative behaviors for the couples who divorced quickly was one to four for husbands and one to three for wives, indicating that these couples were deeply distressed. This study lends support to the disillusionment model, which is reflective of an abatement of love, a decline in affection an increase in ambivalence, and changes in the way spouses view each other. The Exchange of Behavior in Romantic Relationships 15 Many studies have attempted to identify which factors distinguish happy couples from unhappy ones and to answer a closely-related question, "Why do some marriages become more satisfying over time while others become less satisfying?" Several approaches have been utilized to investigate these questions. One such approach addresses the exchange of both positive and negative interpersonal behaviors and was conducted mainly from a behavioral theoretical perspective (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Several like this have focused on the exchanges of behavior between romantic partners during problem-solving discussions. These studies tend to test the hypothesis that when positive behaviors are received by relationship partners the impact on both relationship satisfaction and relationship stability will be positive, whereas when negative behaviors are received, the impact on relationship satisfaction and stability will be negative (Karney & Bradbury 1995). Results of these studies (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Markman, 1981; Stuart 1969; Wills Weiss & Patterson, 1974) have generally supported the association between the exchange of positive behaviors and enhanced relationships and the exchange of negative behaviors and diminished relationship outcomes. Although the amount of affectionate behavior expressed between partners varies greatly (Braiker & Kelley, 1979), there is support for the premise that affectionate exchanges tend to decrease over time. Along with those decreases is a concurrent decline

PAGE 25

16 in relationship satisfaction (MacDermid, Huston & McHale 1990) Huston and Chorost (1994) showed this when they compared couples' behavior shortly after marriage with the behavior they exchanged two years later. The findings revealed that affection between partners decreased by approximately half after newlyweds had been married for two years Several other researchers (Gattman, 1979; Hahlweg Revenstorf & Schindler, 1984; Levenson & Gattman 1983; Raush, Barry, Hertel, & Swain 1974 ; Schaap, 1982; Ting-Toomey 1983) have looked at the association between positive and negative behavioral interactions and relationship satisfaction. Their research has provided a great deal of additional empirical evidence showing that negative interactions are much more common among unhappily married couples than happily married couples For example partners who indicated that they were more satisfied with their relationships tended to express more positive verbal and nonverbal behavior toward each other. These behaviors included more head nodding, increased expressions of caring behaviors increased concern for one's partner, and more smiling. Recipients of these positive behaviors also had higher ratings of relationship satisfaction. In contrast, unhappy or unsatisfied partners express more negative verbal and nonverbal behaviors toward each other. These negative behaviors included more threatening, critical, and insulting comments more frowning and harsher voice tones. In addition, partners receiving these negative behaviors rated themselves as being less satisfied with their relationships (Brehm Miller Perlman & Campbell, 2002; Carton, Kessler & Pape, 1999; Patterson 1988). Impact of Conflict and Anger on Relationships When negative behaviors are expressed by one partner and received by the other partner several consequences may result including increased negative affect increased

PAGE 26

17 reciprocity of negative behaviors and decreased relationship satisfaction (Huston et al., 1986 Huston & Vangelisti 1991; Jacobson & Margolin, 1979 ; Jacobson Waldron & Moore, 1980). Some researchers have implicated anger (Greenberg & Johnson 1988; Hendrix 1988 ; Parrott & Parrott 1995) and conflict (Raush et al. 1974) as the culprits that lead to negative relationship outcomes. However, this assertion has been challenged. Gattman and Krokoff (1989) were interested in identifying the components that make up negative interactions and in finding out whether anger was a key determinant of marital distress. To investigate this question, initial relationship satisfaction was controlled by dividing participants into two groups couples who (1) rated marital satisfaction lowest and (2) rated marital satisfaction highest. Both groups were videotaped while discussing an issue about which they had a high degree of disagreement. Randomly selected segments of the video taped segments were later viewed by trained raters who used a reliable and valid coding system to categorize the interactions. Interactions were rated as being either affectively neutral, affectively positive ( e.g., affection anticipation, excitement humor, interest, and joy), or affectively negative ( e.g ., anger, contempt, disgust, fear, sadness or whining). When groups were compared, although there was a short-term, inverse relationship between expressions of anger and relationship satisfaction, in the long term anger was positively associated with relationship satisfaction In addition, anger was not predicative of divorce (Gattman, 1994b; Gortman & Levenson 1992). However, with regard to the expression of non-angry negativity and relationship satisfaction over time, Gattman found a strong inverse relationship Gottman's findings demonstrated that the correlation between concurrent marital satisfaction and negative interactions is much greater than the correlation between

PAGE 27

18 concurrent marital satisfaction and positive interactions. Another interesting finding from this study was that engaging in conflict and expressing anger were actuall y quite functional for marriages in the long run; but when conflict between partners included whining stubbornness and withdrawal, particularly withdrawal by husbands the conflict was more likely to contribute to long-term relationship deterioration. Gottman 's Taxonomy of Dysfunctional Romantic Relationship Patterns Gortman found abundant support for the greater potency of negative than positive behaviors (Gortman 1979; Gortman 1994a; Gattman 1999) In one study Gortman (1994a) videotaped married couples in their homes and in a laboratory setting as the couples discussed several topics including the nutritional value of food how their days had gone general marital issues and a specific issue or situation within their marriage about which they had continuing disagreement. Fifteen minute segments of the tapes were viewed rated and categorized by researchers who identified different patterns that the couples used while dealing with conflict. The categories included positive and negative as well as verbal and nonverbal dimensions. Judges watched and rated the degree to which partners engaged with each other during conflict the ratio of the positive to negative interactions exchanged between them and partners' attempts at persuading each other during their discussions. Gortman identified several categories of couples based on their conflict interactions. Four of these categories were labeled: "volatiles "validators "avoiders," and "hostiles." Gortman combined the volatiles with the validators because the way that these couples did conflict was similar For example these two groups openly confronted conflict were willing to disagree with each other and made attempts at persuading each other. However there were also differences between them. One difference was that

PAGE 28

19 volatile couples expressed a high degree of both positive and negative emotions. The husbands in this category were extremely involved and although they expressed a great deal of negativity while engaging in discussion, they also expressed humor and affection toward their partners. With the validators even though there was some belligerence expressed by them during arguments, there were also attempts made by partners to persuade each other and conflict between partners tended to be characterized by ease and calm. In addition interactions of the validators included validation of partners' experiences, attempts to understand each other, and expressions of empathy for the other's point of view. In his work with avoiders, Gortman had a difficult time setting up conflict situations. This was because avoiders tended to be unengaged with each other and expressed very little emotion-regardless of whether the expected emotion was positive or negative. These couples tended to "solve" problems on their own or they relied upon the passage of time for resolving issues instead of having strategies to work through and resolve conflict together. When avoiders did come up with solutions, their solutions typically were not specific. Gortman found that these individuals were not very introspective or psychologically minded. In addition, when there were discussions between them, after one or both finished stating their cases, the discussion was considered over and the issue closed. Thus, exchanges between these couples involved little give and take and in general, no attempts were made to persuade each other. When Gortman compared those categories (validators, volatiles, and avoiders) with couples who were hostile he found marked differences. Specifically the manner in which hostile couples interacted with each other was much more negative. While some

PAGE 29

20 hostile couples engaged actively with each other others were more disengaged detached and uninvolved. The interactions of the engaged hostile couples consisted of more frequent direct conflict and more defensiveness. Interactions of the detached or uninvolved hostile couples tended to include briefer episodes of reciprocated attacking and defensi v eness often over trivial issues. Hostile couples were also more likely to experience flooding ," which has been defined as an unexpected eruption of negative emotions that overwhelms and disorganize s partners (Holman & Jarvis 2000). In addition hostile couples displayed more criticisr_n defensiveness withdrawal and contempt in their interactions with each other. Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse According to Gottman (1994a) the four processes of criticism defensiveness withdrawal and contempt greatly undermine the stability ofrelationships. Because Gottman considered these four processes so destructive he labeled them "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ." Gottman characterized criticism as a focused attention on and attacking of the character or the personality of a partner rather than focusing on the issues at hand In his research, Gottman found that criticism was often followed by contempt. Contempt included hostile humor insults and mockery. Gottman (1994a) found that spouses tend to respond to perceived attacks, including criticism and contempt by either becoming defensive or by stonewalling. A defensive response to a perceived attack may be for a partner to cross-complain make a counter-attack or to make e x cuses for one s own behavior. Some partners, particularly men, make ill-fated attempts to impro v e difficult situations by refusing to engage further in arguments and either clam up or withdraw into silence (Heavy Layne & Christensen 1993) Despite the fact that partners ma y believe they are helping a situation, in real i ty, they are making it much

PAGE 30

21 worse. This type of stonewalling behavior ( claming up or withdrawing) communicates to partners a lack of concern unresponsiveness, smugness and disapproval and it can be infuriating (Gortman, 1994a ; Zadro & Williams, 2000). In addition to the four horsemen ( criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling) just described, Gattman later added belligerence to the list of processes that undermine the stability ofrelationships (Gortman, Coan Carrere & Swanson, 1998). According to Gortman (Brehm et al., 2002; Gortman et al., 1998) belligerence is defined as an angry expression of the problem, stated in its most extreme form. Belligerence is expressed as an attempt to provoke, intimidate, or aggressively reject one's partner. As such belligerence communicates total rejection of the other partner and challenges the receiving partner's power and authority. Gortman's subsequent research supported the addition of belligerence because belligerence tends to ultimately follow the other four horsemen (Gortman et al. 1998 ; Gortman 1999). Another Look at Behavior Exchange: What Predicts Relationship Demise? Gortman and his colleagues (1994a; 1994b; 1999; Gortman et al., 1998 ; Gortman & Levenson, 1992) observed couples' interactions, paying specific attention to the five destructive processes just described and found that they could reliably distinguish between couples headed for divorce and couples in stable relationships. These researchers found that the volatile, validator, and avoider couples all tended to share a ratio of positive to negative interactions (including criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling, and belligerence) during conflict situations that was approximately five to one. That is for every negative interaction that was exchanged between partners there were at least five positive interactions exchanged. This ratio was markedly different from the ratio Gortman found for hostile couples. For hostile couples the ratio of positive to

PAGE 31

22 negative interactions was approximately one to one. That is when hostile couples interacted with each other there was one positive interaction for every negative interaction that was expressed between them. In addition, when couples rated relationship satisfaction Gortman found that volatile validator and avoider couples had much higher ratings of relationship satisfaction than hostile couples. Other studies (Barnett & Nietzel, 1979; Gattman 1993; Gattman & Levenson 1992 ; Wills et al. 1974) have investigated romantic relationships and looked at behavioral balance theories These theories posit that marriages function with a set point balancing positivity and negativity. For example in one study (Wills et al. 1974) 73 engaged couples had three 15-minute conversations with each other and discussed a dail y event a conflict situation and a pleasant topic. Four years later the participants were re contacted and asked to complete questionnaires assessing relationship satisfaction and marital status. Results showed that while the initial positive behaviors that were displayed between the couples co-varied with ratings of subsequent relationship satisfaction particularly for couples who were happy (Wills et al. 1974) the exchange of negative behaviors between partners was a more potent predictor of subsequent decreases in relationship satisfaction ratings, especially for the couples who were distressed (Barnett & Nietzel, 1979) These findings lend support for the ability of negative behaviors to predict later relationship satisfaction In another study Gattman (1999) found that the quality of a couple's relationship was better predicted by the presence or absence of negative behaviors than it was by the presence or absence of positive behaviors. In addition Gortman demonstrated that expressions of positive and negative behaviors are independent-that is increasing or

PAGE 32

23 decreasing one ( either increasing or decreasing positive behaviors or increasing or decreasing negative behaviors) does not necessarily increase or decrease the other. An important implication for Gottman's finding was that although increasing positive behaviors does impact relationship quality the impact of increasing positive behaviors is not nearly as significant as would be the impact of decreasing negative behaviors This is because the assessed negative impact of negative behaviors on relationship quality was greater than the positive impact of positive behaviors. In a study looking at videotaped segments of the interactions of 124 newlywed couples who were engaged in a discussion about a conflict, Carrere and Gattman (1999) were able to make predictions with 83% accuracy about which couples would divorce six years later after only watching three minutes of the videotaped segments. Their prediction accuracy increased for the husbands when 12 more minutes of videotape was watched. In the segments couples who were headed for divorce exhibited noticeably more defensiveness contempt and belligerence toward each other than did the couples who remained together. In another study, Gottman et al. (1998) looked at the interactions of 130 newlywed couples to determine which processes were the most accurate long-term predictors of relationship stability and satisfaction for happy and unhappy married couples. The couples were followed over a 6-year period. During the course of the study their interactions were videotaped and their affect during interactions was rated as being either positive (e.g ., affection humor interest joy and v alidation), negative (e.g. anger belligerence contempt defensiveness, disgust, domination, fear sadness, stonewalling tension and whining) or neutral. Additional data were collected on the participating

PAGE 33

24 couples, including physiological data and participants' ratings of their own interactions. Consistent with prior results from similar studies, results of this study showed that anger was not predictive of divorce nor did it discriminate happy from unhappy couples However for both husbands and wives belligerence defensiveness and contempt were the most destructive patterns utilized during conflict resolution. These patterns were most predictive of divorce but they did not discriminate between the happily and unhappily married stable couples. Further Gattman et al. 's (1998) findings suggest that the reciprocity of negative affect does not generally predict negative marital outcome except for during the first few months of marriage. That is early in a marriage wives in marriages that are headed toward instability were more likely to reciprocate negative affect ( e g. anger domination, disgust fear sadness stonewalling and whining) compared to the wives who were in marriages that were stable. In addition, husbands refusal to accept influence from their wives and husbands inability to self-soothe and de-escalate from low intensity negativity ( e.g., anger disgust domination, fear sadness, stonewalling and whining) were predictive of negative relationship outcomes Positive affect ( e.g. affection, humor, interest joy and validation) and the ability to de-escalate pred i cted positive relationship outcomes. Another study looking at 19 couples who were part of a previous study found evidence suggesting that husbands who were in dissatisfying marriages were more likely to withdraw emotionally much earlier than wives were (Levenson & Gattman, 1985). Further Support for the Detrimental Impact of Bad Behaviors on Relationships The behaviors exchanged between partners in contentious relationships could be described as bad. The outlook for couples whose relationships have become contentious is grim (Gattman et al. 1998). In their article, Bad is Stronger than Good Baumeister et

PAGE 34

al., (2001, p. 325) defined bad as a concept representing states or consequences that are "undesirable harmful, or unpleasant." Bad is contrasted with good, which is defined in this context as a desirable state or consequence or as experiences that are beneficial or pleasant. According to Baumeister et al., (2001) the impact of experiencing something bad is greater than the impact of experiencing something good because bad is more consistent, more multifaceted, and longer lasting. 25 In an extensive review, which referenced over 200 articles from the psychological literature and covered multiple domains and disciplines, Baumeister et al., (2001) provided impressive evidence supporting the premise that bad is stronger than good. Because there is so much support for the greater power and impact of bad compared to the impact of good, Baumeister referred to bad is stronger than good as a psychological principle. In addition, these researchers found that this principle is applicable to the area of close relationships. Rozin and Royzman (2001), also discussed the greater power of negative events and described another principle known as the negativity bias, which holds that in most situations, negative events are more salient, potent, and dominant and more efficacious than positive events (p. 297). These authors put forth a taxonomy for understanding this phenomenon suggesting that the negativity bias is manifested by the following principles: (a) negative potency, which posits that negative entities are stronger than positive entities; (b) steeper negative gradients, which posits that the negativity of negative events grows more quickly with regard to time or space than the positivity of positive events; ( c) negative dominance, which posits that combinations of negative and positive entities results in evaluations that are more negative than the sum of the individual subjective

PAGE 35

26 valences would predict ; and ( d) negative differentiation, which posits that negative entities are more complex varied and elicit more response option s than positive entities. Consistent with the principles ofRozin and Royzman (2001) and the findings of Gottman (1999) Baumeister et al. (2001) concluded that when equal amounts of good and bad behavior are compared the impact of bad is more potent because bad is more damaging harmful and hasten s the demise of close relationships more powerfull y than good behavior can offset. Every Day Aversive Interpersonal Behaviors In her book Behaving badly Kowalski (2001) looked at bad behaviors that occurred within the context of close interpersonal relationships. Kowalski (2001) conceptualized aversive or bad behaviors as behaviors that are enacted by one individual received by another individual and perceived by the recipient as being stressful. Although many aversive behaviors would be considered socially inappropriate many are not clearly socially inappropriate (Kowalski, 1997). In addition to being stressful aversive behaviors interfere with people's basic psychological need to belong and negatively impact people s sense of control and their sense of self. Aversive behaviors contribute to disconnections disruptions, and to the demise of relationships (Kowalski 1997). According to Kowalski (2001 ) when most people think about aversive behaviors they call to mind e x treme egregious acts of aggression or violence such as murder rape or physical abuse. However these behaviors are quite rare. Instead most people are e x posed primarily and regularly to more mundane aversive interpersonal beha v iors. Experiencing these more commonly occurring behaviors can also be detrimental to

PAGE 36

relationship satisfaction and to the stability of relationships, especially when the behaviors are exchanged between close, intimate partners (Kowalski, 1997; 2001). 27 A list of mundane aversive interpersonal behaviors compiled by Kowalski (2001) includes betrayal chronic complaining, conflict, contempt, criticism deception, defensiveness disappointment excessive reassurance-seeking forgetting commitments gossiping, hurting other s feelings, incompetence, infidelity, intentional embarrassment jealously lying, moodiness, neglect not listening, ostracism, passive-aggressiveness, rudeness, spreading rumors, swearing, teasing, using the silent treatment, and violating confidentiality. According to Kowalski (1997; 2001), these behaviors do occur frequently in relationships. In addition, they are often done inadvertently and much of the time the hurt that results is unintentional. Kowalski's focus has been on understanding the conditions under which these behaviors occur as well as the consequences of these behaviors for the individuals and for the relationship. In addition to the term, "aversive interpersonal behaviors" (Kowalski, 1997; 2001), researchers have used terms such as, "relational transgressions" (Metts, 1994) and "social undermining" (Vinokur & van Ryn, 1993; Rook, 1998) to describe bad behaviors that occur between partners in interpersonal relationships. Relational transgressions have been defined as violations of rules for appropriate relational conduct (Metts, 1994). Social undermining refers to interactions characterized by aversive behaviors (Vinokur & van Ryn, 1993). Methodological Issues Several methods have been used by researchers to assess the relationship between the provision of behaviors and relationship quality. Daily records, in which partners record pleasant and unpleasant interactions that occur between them and rate relationship

PAGE 37

28 satisfaction, is an example of one method used by couples researchers. Cross-sectional data from studies utilizing daily records have been analyzed to evaluate the relationship between positive and negative interactions, and relationship satisfaction (Barnett & Nietzel, 1979 ; Broderick & O'Leary, 1986; Wills, Weiss, & Patterson 1974) Findings from these studies have lent support to the greater power of negatively valenced behaviors over positively valenced behaviors for predicting relationship satisfaction particularly for distressed couples. Although positive behaviors do co-vary with relationship satisfaction, these studies have also shown that the strength of the relationship is weaker for distressed than for happy couples (Wills et al., 1974) Another method that has been utilized in couples' research is to compare the behaviors of couples in distressed vs happy relationships (Birchler, Weiss & Vincent 1975; Gattman Markman & Notarius, 1977). When Gattman et al., (1977) compared distressed with nondistressed couples they found a sex difference for the nondistressed couples. Wives in nondistressed relationships were less likely to respond negatively to negative messages from husbands than were husbands in nondistressed relationships who were responding to negative messages from their wives. Several studies investigating romantic relationships have used longitudinal research methods to look at the association between interactional behaviors and relationship satisfaction. These longitudinal studies took information about couples gathered early in their relationships to make predictions about later relationship satisfaction (Kelly, Huston & Cate 1985; Markman 1979 1981) Generally these studies have shown that expression of negative behaviors and intense conflict prior to or

PAGE 38

early in marriage are powerful predictors of future relationship dissatisfaction and instability. 29 Karney and Bradbury have utilized longitudinal research methods in their work on why some marriages succeed while others fail, and to look at the origins of distress and divorce in relationships. In one study, Karney & Bradbury (1997) recorded the interactions of 60 newlywed couples and followed them over a span of four years contacting and assessing them eight times At the end of the fourth year, 38 of the original relationships were intact, 18 had dissolved, and four had withdrawn from the study Analyses of the data showed that for husbands and to a greater degree for wives, behavior directed toward a partner during the initial interaction predicted rates of change in marital satisfaction Additionally, a husband s negative behavior during problem solving discussions was more predictive of rapid declines in a wife's marital satisfaction over the first four years of marriage. This was true even when the wife's initial levels of satisfaction were controlled. A wife's negative behaviors were also predictive of declines in a husband's and a wife's marital satisfaction over the first four years of marriage, but to a lesser degree. This study demonstrated that problem-solving behavior was strongly associated with rates of change in marital satisfaction, independent of initial levels of satisfaction. Given the strong inverse association between negative behaviors and relationship satisfaction Huston and Vangelista (1991) became interested in causality. They wanted to know if ratings of relationship satisfaction were responsible for negative behaviors and/or if negative behaviors were responsible for declines in relationship satisfaction. Using a sample of 106 newlywed couples, whom they followed over a 2 year period, they

PAGE 39

30 examined the relationship between the expression of positive and negative behaviors and relationship satisfaction. Participants were interviewed appro x imately two months after their marriages and then semi-annually over the next two years. The researchers conducted phone interviews to gather information about the couples' beha v ioral interactions and face-to-face interviews to collect information about relationship satisfaction The data were analyzed both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Cross sectional data analyses assessed the relationship between satisfaction and the expression and receipt of positivelyand negatively-valenced behaviors. Longitudinal analyses explored whether changes in relationship satisfaction could better predict behavior or whether behavior better predicted relationship satisfaction Vangelista and Huston found that for both husbands and wives, the expression and receipt of negativity was consistently and inversely associated with marital satisfaction, even for couples married for as little as two months. The behavior of wives whose husbands expressed relatively more negative behaviors at the beginning of marriage, became more negative. Further the behavior of husbands whose wives were less satisfied at the beginning of marriages became more negative over time. They also found that whenever negative behaviors were expressed in marriages regardless of which spouse was expressing the negativity wives were less satisfied with the relationship (Huston & Vangelista 1991). Support for Intervention Huston and colleagues (2001) also found support for what has been called the enduring dynamics model, which posits that certain interpersonal patterns and problems are established during the courtship phase of relationships and continue into marriage. Huston et al. ( 2001) demonstrated that differences in the e x tent to which newlyweds expressed negati v e feelings toward each other and differences in romantic intensity were

PAGE 40

31 predictive of how happily married couples would be 13 years later if the couple stayed together. In addition when relationships terminated researchers were able to predict reliably how long the marriages would last prior to separation or termination based on partners initial interactions Several other studies (Huston & Chorost 1994 ; Huston & Houts 1998 ; Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Markman, Renick Floyd Stanley & Clements 1993 ; Noller & Feeney 1998) have shown similar results demonstrating that the initial differences between couples did persist over time and that these differences were predictive of later ratings of relationship satisfaction and of relationship stability. In a study comparing early interventions, Markman and his colleagues (1993) looked at the cau s es of marital distress focusing on behavioral factors as opposed to personality factors. They found that when there were deficits in the manner in which couples communicated early in the relationship there would be subsequent declines in relationship satisfaction. Other researchers have found similar results showing that the more positively couples initially interacted with each other, the more satisfied they would be in the future (Markman 1979; 1992 ; Markman, Floyd Stanley & Storaasli 1988 ; Markman Renick Floyd, Stanley, & Clements, 1993; Storaasli & Markman, 1990). In a longitudinal study Markman (1979) initially assessed 14 newlywed couples and gathered information on their interactional patterns, the intensity of their problems, and their ratings of relationship satisfaction Markman ( 1979) used this information to make predictions about their ratings of relationship satisfaction 2 years later He found that the more positively one partner s initial interactions were, the more satisfied that partner's partner would be with the relationship in the future. Markman concluded that interactional patterns that included unrewarding communication were precursors to the

PAGE 41

32 development of future relationship distress. In another study Markman (1981) assessed 26 couples who were engaged to be married The couples were then re-contacted and re interviewed three times over a 5 year period. At the end of the study, 21 out of the original 26 couples relationships were intact. Nine of those couples completed all of the research data. Results from this study showed that there was a significant correlation between early communication problems and distress later in the marriage Several other studies have investigated partners' communication patterns and styles (Gottman, 1979; Riskin & Faunce, 1970; Rusbult Johnson & Morrow 1986; Stafford & Canary 1991 ; Ting-Toomey, 1983; Wills Weiss, & Patterson, 1974). Results of these studies have provided convincing support for the generally held assumption that positive communication is associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction. These studies have also demonstrated that there is a correlation between people's reported satisfaction and how positively or negatively they communicate with each other. Markman and his colleagues (Markman et al., 1993) were interested in whether a pre-marital intervention would have any impact on subsequent relationship quality They followed 114 engaged couples who were part of a larger study matching them on several variables and assigning them to a treatment group, a control group or a group of couples who declined treatment. The treatment group underwent a five session intervention designed to teach couples effective conflict management and communication skills. All of the couples taking part in the study received follow-up contacts 1 3 4, and 5 years after the study began These contacts included completing questionnaires and participating in interactional tasks. The results showed differences in ratings of relationship satisfaction for husbands and for wives at the 4-year follow-up and for

PAGE 42

33 husbands at the 5-year follow-up. Those who had not received the intervention had lower levels of relationship satisfaction then the participants who received the intervention. In addition, couples who received the intervention were less likely than control or decline group couples to terminate their relationships Markman and colleagues (1993) also found that participation in the intervention gave couples a significant future advantage in communicating and conflict management skills even four years after recei v ing the intervention. Married partners who received the intervention displayed less withdrawal denial dominance negative affect conflict, and negative communication toward each other than did the partners in the control group Markman et al. (1993) attributed these differences between the groups to the intervention because the intervention specifically and directly addressed these aforementioned behaviors. Another finding from this study was that the tendency for partners to engage in physical relationship violence which Markman and Kraft (1989) defined in part as the result of partners inability to handle conflict constructively was reduced for the participants who received the intervention versus the control and decline treatment groups Markman and his colleagues (1993) again attributed this difference to the intervention as these couples exhibited more positive and fewer negative conflict management skills and communication behaviors. The Current Study Receipt of negative or aversive behaviors has an impact on people It affects their sense of self sen s e of control and sense of belonging Receipt of a v ersive behaviors is stressful. Negati v e behaviors decrease people s satisfaction with their relationships and can lead partners to feel disconnected The result of receiving these beha v iors includes decreased relationship quality relationship instability, and relationship termination The purpose of this study was to identify and measure specific love crushing beha v iors and

PAGE 43

their relationship to feeling loved and relationship satisfaction. The following chapter details the methods used to accomplish this goal. 34

PAGE 44

CHAPTER3 METHODS This chapter is divided into three sections and details the methods used in scale development. Each of the sections discusses one of three phases. The first section describes the methods utilized in Phase 1 for item generation. The second section describes the methods used in Phase 2 for scale item identification and assessment of factor structure. The third section describes the methods utilized in Phase 3 for assessment of psychometric properties of the resulting scale Each section discus s es sample characteristics measures procedures and data analyses as applicable Phase 1 Participants Response data from 102 (69.61 % female 30 39 % male) students enrolled in one of two sections of an undergraduate psychology course in Abnormal Psychology or Personality Psychology at the University of Florida were used in the first phase of the study The mean age of participants responding to the questionnaire item asking for age was 20.03 (SD= 1.51). Participants ages ranged from 17 to 28 years of age. A majority of the participants identified as White (52.94%) with 12.75% reporting Hispanic/Latino 11.76% African Descent/Black 9.80 % Asian/Pacific Islander and 12.75 % identifying as bi-racial multicultural or other. A majority (98.04 % ) of the sample identified as heterosexual ; one (0.98%) participant identified as bise x ual and one (0.98 % ) identified as gay/lesbian Of those responding to the item assessing academic status si x (5.88 % ) 35

PAGE 45

participants reported being freshmen 31 (30.39 % ) reported sophomore 48 (47.06 % ) reported junior 16 (15.69 % ) reported senior, and one (0.98%) indicated post baccalaureate student status. 36 Fifty seven (55 88%) of the participants reported currently being in a romantic relationship Fifty six or 98.25% of those in current relationships indicated that their current relationship was heterosexual; one participant (1.75 % ) reported that the current relationship was with a same sex partner. The mean length for current relationships was 22 months (SD= 20.2 months) The range was from less than one month to 10 years. Forty six (80.70 % ) of those in current relationships reported exclusivity with their current partners Six (10.53 % ) of those in current relationships reported non-exclusivity in their relationship with their current partners. Five (8.77%) of those in current relationships did not indicate whether their relationships were exclusive or not. Seven (12.28%) of those in current relationships reported living with their current partners two (3 51 % ) reported being engaged to their current partners and one (1.75%) reported being married to the current partner. Regardless of whether partici pants were in a current romantic relationship, 70 participants (68.6%) indicated they have had at least one prior romantic partner. The average length of prior romantic relationships was 12.74 months (SD= 12.37 months) with a range from one month to 60 months. All participants who reported having had a prior romantic relationship indicated that their relationship was heterosexual. Four (3.92 % ) participants reported that they were neither currently in nor have they previousl y had a romantic relationship.

PAGE 46

37 Eighty (78.43 % ) of the 102 participants agreed to being re-contacted by the researcher for a follow-up phone interview. The study's author randomly selected three females and three males from those who agreed. When the attempts were made to re contact those who were selected all six were reached and all consented to participate in the follow-up phone interviews Measures Prior to meeting with the participants a research questionnaire (Appendix A ) was developed. The questionnaire included an instruction intended to elicit response items. The instruction asked participants to "Take a moment to think about your current romantic relationship or a former romantic relationship. Using the space provided below record your responses to: What could your partner DO that would make you feel !!!!loved? What could your partner SAY that would make you feel !!!!loved?" Space was provided for the participants to record their responses on the questionnaire following the instruction and prompt items. After recording the elicited response items participants were instructed to respond to a scale that assessed background demographic, and relationship status (Appendix B) Items on the scale included questions about participants sex, age academic status sexual orientation, racial and ethnic background relationship status relationship satisfaction and relationship length. The six participants who participated in the follow-up phone interviews were randomly selected and contacted by phone. These participants were asked to respond orally to the question What could your partner do or say that would make you feel unloved?" Participants' responses were recorded verbatim.

PAGE 47

38 Procedure Prior to data collection the study's author contacted course instructors to discuss details about the study and arrange times to meet with students. At the scheduled times, the study's author met with students and provided them with written informed consent (Appendix C) and information about the study. Students were informed that the study was about romantic relationships, that participation was voluntary and involved recording their responses anonymously to questionnaire items and that they would be given extra credit in their class by their instructor if they agreed to participate. Students were also informed that if they were agreeable they could participate further in the research study Further participation would involve being contacted by phone for a follow-up interview related to the study questionnaire that would last for approximately five minutes. Those who decided that they wanted to participate in this way provided their consent by recording their names, phone numbers, and the best times for them to be reached on a form provided to them separately from the questionnaire. All students present consented to participate in the study. Each was given a questionnaire (Appendix A). Questionnaires provided instructions to participants for recording their responses to questionnaire items. After recording responses participants placed questionnaires into one box and consent forms agreeing to be contacted for a follow-up phone interview into a separate box. Each participant then signed a form that was later given to course instructors for the provision of extra credit. Prior to leaving, participants were given a list of couples' counseling resources (Appendix D) thanked, and dismissed. Six of the participants (three males, three females) who had agreed to be re contacted were randomly selected Follow-up interviews were conducted between 10 and

PAGE 48

39 14 days after questionnaire administration. Randomly selected phone interviewees were each contacted separately by the study's author who reintroduced herself informed each participant that participation was still voluntary, and that responses would be recorded but identity and contact information would not be associated with responses. Each of the six-randomly selected participants agreed to be interviewed b y phone. Each was asked "What could y our partner do or say that would make you feel unloved?" and responses were recorded verbatim by hand. The questionnaire generated 542 items. The interviews generated 19 items. Redundant items were eliminated from the 561 resulting items. Items were corrected for spelling and grammar and made non-gender specific. The remaining list of 135 items was labeled the Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS ; Appendix E) Phase 2 Participants Data from 220 students (30 84% male 69.16% female) were used in Phase 2 of the study. The mean age of participants was 19 76 (SD= 1.96) with a range of 16 to 30 years of age. A majority of participants identified as White (62.62%). The remaining participants identifying as African Descent/Black (12.62 % ) Asian/Pacific Islander (10 75%) Hispanic/Latino (10 75%), and "other (3 27 % ). Ten (4 69 % ) participants reported that they were international students. A majority of the participants responding to the sexual orientation item identified as heterosexual (90 70 % ) with the remaining identifying as bisexual (5.12 % ) and gay/lesbian (4.19%). With regard to academic year in school 55 (23.35 % ) indicated that they were freshmen 44 (20.28 % ) indicated that they were sophomores 55 (25 35 % ) indicated that they were juniors 60 (27.65%) indicated that they were seniors and 3 (1.38 % ) reported "other."

PAGE 49

40 One-hundred twelve (53.33%) participants reported that they were currently in a romantic relationship and 98 (46.67%) reported they were not. Twenty-four (19.20%) of the participants reported current relationship length of less than three months ; 19 (15.20%) reported current relationship length of three to six months; 21 (16 .80 %) reported current relationship length of six to 12 months ; 29 (23.20%) reported current relationship length of one to two years ; and 32 (25 60%) reported current relationship length of more than two years. Eighty-seven (73.73%) respondents indicated that they were dating their current relationship partners exclusively. Seventeen (14.41 %) reported that they were in non exclusive relationships. Seven (5.93%) reported that they lived with their current partners ; two (1.69%) reported being engaged to their current partner, and five (4.24%) reported being married to their current partner. Regardless of whether participants were in a current romantic relationship, 174 (83.25%) indicated that they have had at least one prior romantic relationship. Thirty eight (18.36%) participants reported that the length of their past relationship was less than three months; 42 (20.29%) reported that the length of their past relationship was three to six months; 56 (27.05%) reported that the length of their past relationship was six to 12 months; 37 (17.87%) reported that the length of their past relationship was more than one year When asked when their most recent past relationships ended, 30 (14.35%) participants reported that their most recent past relationships ended less than three months ago, 34 (16.27%) reported that their most recent past relationships ended between three and six months ago, 29 (13.88%) reported that their most recent past relationships ended

PAGE 50

between six and 12 months ago, and 81 (3 8. 7 6%) reported that their most recent past relationships ended over one year ago. Measures 41 A questionnaire (Appendix F) was developed and utilized in the second phase of the study to collect response data. The Phase 2 questionnaire included instructions the Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS ; Appendix E) which was the list of items elicited from Phase 1 participants the Desired Lo v ing Behavior Scale (DLBS ; Heesacker Smith & Lawrence 1998 ; Appendix G), which is a scale comprised of 39 desired loving behaviors the Inventory of Desirable Responding in Relationships (IDRR ; Loving & Agnew 2001; Appendix H) which is a scale comprised of 10 items assessing people's tendencies to deceive themselves and others about negative aspects of their close relationships and a scale that assessed demographic background and relationship status (Appendix I). Preliminary Undesirable Behaviors Scale The PUBS (Appendix E) is a list 135 items generated by Phase 1 participants that would elicit the feeling that one is not loved by one's partner Phase 2 participants were asked to read each of the PUBS items and rate how unloved they would feel if they received these items from a romantic partner. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale with values ranging from 0 to 4 with lower scores indicating that respondents would feel more unloved and higher scores indicating respondents would feel more loved. Desired Loving Behavior Scale The Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS; Heesacker & Lawrence 1994 ; Heesacker, Smith & Lawrence 1998; Appendix G) is a 39-item assessment instrument composed of behaviors that are desired from romantic partners in order to feel loved. The

PAGE 51

42 process of constructing the DLBS was similar to the process utilized in scale development in the present study. Specifically, a group of participants generated items that reportedly elicited the feeling of being loved by their romantic partners when the behaviors were received from their partners. After items were generated a list of 158 non redundant items was compiled. A second group of participants rated the items indicating how unloved they would feel if the items were received from a partner. Factor analysis and an oblique rotation of the 158 items resulted in 39 items achieving simple structure and loading on to one of four factors These four factors were labeled: Caring Actions Relationship Support Scripting and Sex. Since the DLBS was developed, the psychometric properties of this instrument have been assessed in a series of studies and the DLBS has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. In addition, the DLBS has been utilized as an assessment instrument in research and in clinical settings to identify specific behaviors that are desired from relationship partners. Higher DLBS scores indicate that items are more desired and lower scores indicate items are less desired. In clinical and research settings the DLBS may be administered to one or both relationship partners. In addition the DLBS may be administered more than once to participants varying the instruct i ons and having respondents not only rate how much of each behavior is desired by them but also how often the behaviors are received from relationship partners. When the scale is administered in this way, a want-get discrepancy score can be calculated for either the total scale, each of the subscales or for individual items. Discrepancy scores are calculated by talcing the absolute value of the difference between participants' ratings of what they desire (want) and what they receive (get) from romantic partners for each of

PAGE 52

the items. When discrepancy scores are calculated therapeutic interventions may be targeted in areas where the discrepancy between what is desired and what is received is greatest thus maximizing the potential for significantly impacting and improving the relationship. 43 As previously stated, prior research investigating the DLBS has demonstrated that this instrument possesses ample validity and reliability. For example the magnitude of the DLBS discrepancy is significantly related in an inverse direction with relationship satisfaction. This means that as the want-get discrepancy decreases relationship satisfaction increases and as the want-get discrepancy increases, relationship satisfaction decreases. In one study, 42.27% of the variance measuring how satisfied participants were with their relationships could be accounted for by the total want-get discrepancy (Smith, 2000). Test-retest reliability for the DLBS as a whole measured .65 across a 26day interval for a sample of 158 college students. Internal consistency reliability for the overall scale and for the subscales were also high (overall scale a= 91, (Caring Actions a= 78 Relationship Support a= .90, Scripting a= .90 and Sex a= .9 l ). ) The 39 DLBS (Appendix G) items were included and placed randomly among the PUBS items (Appendix E) on the Phase 2 questionnaire (Appendix F) to assess the construct validity of the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) which was being constructed as a result of Phase 2 data analyses. All DLBS (Appendix G) and PUBS (Appendix E) items were rated using a 5-item Likert scale in order to be consistent. Participants were asked to read each of the items and rate how loved ( or unloved) they would feel if their partner did or said each of the items. Higher scores indicate respondents would feel more loved. Lower scores indicate respondents would

PAGE 53

feel less loved It was anticipated that if there were significant correlations between the PUBS and the DLBS items, those correlations would be inverse. Inventory of Desirable Responding in Relationships The In v entory of Desirable Responding in Relationships (IDRR, Loving & Agnew 2001 Appendix H) is a ten-item scale that was developed for use in dyadic research The scale measures socially desirable responding patterns which are people's tendencies to deceive themselves and deceive others about negative aspects of, in this case their close relationships. Prior to the development of the IDRR, most instruments measuring socially desirable responding patterns were developed to assess individual's general predispositions to misrepresent information about themselves. The IDRR was developed with a more specific aim in mind, which was to measure individual's tendencies to misrepresent aspects of their romantic relationships. 44 The IDRR was developed and validated over a series of 5 studies. The 10 items making up the IDRR can be factored into two subscales. These two factors are Impression Management (IM) and Self-Deception (SD) Impression Management also known as misrepresentation, is the tendency for respondents to directly make an effort to enhance their image in the eyes of others. A 7-point Likert scale is used to rate the five Impression Management items Likert scores range from 1 to 7 with higher scores indicating more effort is being put forth to present the self in the best possible light by exaggerating performance on desirable behaviors and discounting performance on undesirable behaviors. It is believed that when people respond in this manner it is the direct result of them making attempts to enhance their own images in the eyes of others Impression Management scores have been shown to increase when respondents go from

PAGE 54

45 settings that are anonymous to settings that are more public in nature (Lo v ing & Agnew 2001) The second factor Self-Deception is also made up of five items. These items capture the extent to which individuals hold positive illusions about themselves Wherea s Impression Management measures consciou s misrepresentations that are made by respondents Self-Deception measures unconscious misrepresentations made by respondents about their relationships This is because respondents often actually believe the enhancing reports that are being presented to others about themselves When respondents rate the items on the self-deception subscale a Likert scale is used with values ranging from 1 to 7. Higher scores indicate that respondent hold more positive illusions about themselves. Initial research by Loving and Agnew (2001) on the IDRR showed that there is a significant intercorrelation among the five Self-Deception items ( q = .86) and among the Impression Management items ( a = .81 ) and that there are nonsignificant correlations between the Self-Deception subscale and the Impression Management subscale (r = 18 ns) In research with both dating partners and married couples, the Self-Deception subscale was found to correlate positively with measures of commitment satisfaction, investment and dyadic adjustment and this scale correlated negatively with alternatives. Impression Management was not significantly associated with any relationship quality index According to Loving and Agnew (2001 ), this suggests that when Impression Management occurs it may be measuring a natural desire to enhance the public image of relationships regardless of the quality of those relationships.

PAGE 55

46 Other Measures In addition to responding to the aforementioned scales, participants read and responded to demographic and background items as well as to items assessing relationship satisfaction and status (Appendix I). The demographic and background items assessed participants sex, age academic status sexual orientation race, and cultural identity The scales used to rate relationship satisfaction ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 = extremely unsatisfied to 5 = extremely satisfied. Rating scales used to assess love for partner, sense of love from partner, sense of caring from partner and sense of feeling loved when thinking about partner ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 = to the most negative response option (i.e., not at all or strongly disagree) and 5 = to the most positive response option (i e. very much or strongly agree). In analyzing these data, a mean score for love was calculated by averaging the sum of participants' scores on these items: sense of love sense of caring and feeling loved when thinking about partner. The averaged score for love ranged from 1 to 5 with 1 equal to the most negative response and 5 equal to the most positive response. Procedure A procedure similar to the one utilized in the last phase was used to recruit the majority of the Phase 2 participants whose response ratings on the PUBS (Appendix E) would be used to identify which items would comprise the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J). In addition to the participants enrolled in psychology courses, a few participants were recruited through the Psychology Department's Introductory Psychology Participant Pool. Prior to data collection, dates and times were prearranged for the study s author to meet with students. At the prearranged meeting times the study's author provided details orally about the study and provided written informed consent

PAGE 56

47 (Appendix K) information. All students consenting to participate in Phase 2 were given instructions questionnaires (Appendix F) and scanable answer sheets for recording responses. After responding to questionnaires, participants placed questionnaires and answer sheets into a box and signed their names to a form indicating that they participated in the study Their signed forms were separated from their questionnaires and answer sheets The resulting list of names was used later to provide extra credit to participants. Prior to leaving all participants were handed a debriefing statement (Appendix L ) and a list of couples' counseling resources (Appendi x D) thanked and dismissed. Data Analysis PUBS items (Appendix E) were subjected to exploratory factor analysis to determine the factor structure and scale items. Scores on the IDRR (Appendix H) and the DLBS (Appendix G) were correlated with the PUBS. Results of analyses are presented in Chapter 4 Phase 3 Participants Data from 277 students (31.88% male 68.12% female) were used in the third phase of the study. The majority of the participants (80.87%) were enrolled in one of four sections of undergraduate psychology courses; 19.13% were obtained through the Psychology Department's Introductory Psychology Participant Pool. With regard to age 3 (1.09%) participants reported being less than 18 years of age, 52 (18.84%) reported being 18 years of age 78 (28.26 % ) reported 19 years of age, 70 (25.36%) reported 20 years of age 56 (20.29%) reported age between 21 and 22 years of age 9 (3.26%) reported age between 23 and 24 years of age 6 (2.17 % ) reported age between 25 and 28

PAGE 57

48 years of age, and 2 (0.72%) reported age as 40 years of age or more. The mean age for participants was 19.68 (SD= 1.35) With regard to academic status 60 (21.74%) participants reported being freshmen, 80 (28.99%) reported being sophomores 92 (33.33 % ) reported junior, 41 (14 86%) reported senior and three (1.09%) reported having post-baccalaureate student status The mean rating for academic status was 2.45 (SD= 1.02) with 1 = freshman ; 2 = sophomore ; 3 = junior; 4 = senior ; and 5 = post baccalaureate student. Two-hundred fifty-seven (93.12 % ) participants identified themselves as heterosexual, 9 (3.26%) identified themselves as bisexual, and 10 (3.62 % ) identified themselves as gay / lesbian. A majority of participants identified themselves as White (67.87%) The remaining participants identified themselves as African Descent/Black (6.59 % ), Asian/Pacific Islander (8.36%) Hispanic / Latino (10.55%) and "other (6.63%) Five (1.81%) participants indicated that they were international students. One-hundred fifty-one or 54.51 % of all respondents indicated that they were currently in romantic relationships; 115 ( 41.52%) reported that they were not currently in romantic relationships. Eleven did not indicate whether or not they were in current romantic relationships. The mean length for those in current relationships was 3.82 months (SD= 3.35) Fifteen (5.66%) participants reported that the length of their current relationship was 1 month or less, 9 (3 .40%) reported that the length of their current relationship was 2 months 13 ( 4. 91 % ) reported that the length of their current relationship was 3 months, 13 ( 4.91 % ) reported that the length of their current relationship was 4 to 5 months 19 (7 .17%) reported that the length of their current relationship was 6 to 8 months 17 (6.42%) reported that the length of their current

PAGE 58

49 relationship was 9 months to 1 year, 46 (17.36%) reported that the length of their current relationship was 1 to 2 years 26 (9. 81 % ) reported that the length of their current relationship as 2 years to 3 years and 18 (6.79 % ) reported that the length of their current relationship as 3 years or more. Regardless of whether participants were in a current relationship, 228 (82 31 % ) indicated that they have had a prior romantic relationship and 49 (17.69 %) reported that they have not. Eleven ( 4.15 % ) participants reported that their most recent past relationship terminated within the past month 12 (4.53 % ) reported that their most recent past relationship ended 2 months ago 11 ( 4.15%) reported that their most recent past relationship ended 3 months ago 25 (9.43%) reported that their most recent past relationship ended between 4 and 5 months ago, 27 (10.19%) reported that their most recent past relationship ended between 6 and 8 months ago, 21 (7 92%) reported that their most recent past relationship ended between 9 months and 1 year ago, 49 ( 18.49 % ) reported that their most recent past relationship ended between 1 and 2 years ago 32 (12.08%) reported that their most recent past relationship ended between 2 and 3 years ago and 40 (15.09 % ) reported that their most recent past relationship ended more than 3 y ears ago Twenty-seven (10.23 % ) of the participants who reported having a past relationship indicated that the most recent past relationship lasted for one month or less 21(7 95%) reported that their most recent past relationship lasted two months 23 (8.71 % ) reported that their most recent past relationship lasted three months 22 (8.33 % ) reported that their most recent past relationship lasted four to five months 18 (6.82 % ) reported that their most recent past relationship lasted six to eight months 40 (15.15 % ) reported

PAGE 59

50 that their most recent past relationship lasted nine months to one year 39 (14.77 % ) reported that their most recent past relationship lasted one to two years 27 (10.23 %) reported that their most recent past relationship lasted two to three years and 11 ( 4.17 %) reported that their most recent past relationship lasted three years or more. Measures The Phase 3 Questionnaire (Appendix M) consisted of the Lo v e Crushing Beha v ior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) and several other measures mainly included to assess LCBS construct validity. The additional mea s ures were the Positive and Negati v e Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson Clark & Tellegen, 1988; Appendix N) the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS ; Hendrick 1988; Hendrick, Dicke & Hendrick, 1998; Appendix 0) the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction Scale (GMREL ; Lawrance & Byers 1995 ; Lawrance & Byers 1998; Appendix P), the Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS; Fletcher, Fitness & Blampied 1990 ; Appendix Q) the Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale-short version (PRQC-short version ; Fletcher Simpson & Thomas, 2000 ; Appendix R) Predictions about the Future Scale (Aarestad 2000; Appendix S) the Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg & Archer 1983; Appendix T) the Self rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg & Archer 1983 ; Appendix U), the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire: Form A (MPDQ: Form A; Genero Miller, & Surrey 1992; Appendix V) and a scale assessing demographic background and relationship status (Appendix W). The Love Crushing Behavior Scale The Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS Appendix J) i s a 22-item unifactorial scale of behaviors that elicit the feeling that one is not loved by his or her romantic partners when the behaviors are received from romantic partners. The 22-item scale was

PAGE 60

51 presented to Phase 3 participants twice Participants rated the items using a 5-point Likert scale both times the items were presented The first time participants indicated how loved ( or unloved) they would feel if romantic partners did or said each of the items. Likert scale values ranged from O to 4, with higher scores indicating that participants would feel loved and lower scores indicating that they would feel unloved. The second time, respondents indicated how often behaviors were received from romantic partners using a Likert scale with values ranging from Oto 4. Higher scores indicated more frequent receipt of LCBS behaviors whereas lower scores indicated less frequent receipt of LCBS behaviors. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS ; Watson Clark & Tellegen 1988 ; Appendix N) is a measure made up of 20 words that describe 10 positive affect items ( e.g. inspired, interested, strong) and 10 negative affect items ( e.g. distressed, nervous, upset). The positive affect (PA) items refer to the extent which people feel enthusiastic active, and alert High PA is characterized by experiencing high energy, pleasurable engagement, and full concentration. Low PA indicates the presence of sadness and lethargy. Negative affect (NA) assesses subjective distress and unpleasurable contact with others. High NA includes feelings of contempt disgust guilt, fear anger and nervousness. Low NA is characterized by a state of calmness and serenity. In responding to the PANAS participants are asked to rate each of the emotion words as they were presented and indicate to what extent they feel "this way Different temporal instructions may be provided when the PANAS is administered. For example respondents may be asked to rate how they feel "right now ," or today "during the past few days "during the past week "during the past few weeks "during the past year,"

PAGE 61

52 and "in general" or "on the average." A 5-point scale with values ranging from "very slightly" or "not at all" to "extremely" is used by respondents to rate the emotion words. The PANAS is brief, easily administered, and bas demonstrated reliability and validity. For example, in several different studies students were given different temporal instructions when they rated the 20 PANAS emotion words and coefficient alphas ranged between .86. and .90 for PA and .84 and .87 for NA. In these studies the reliability of the scales was unaffected by the time instructions given to participants (Watson, Clark, Tellegen, 1988). A non-student sample of participants was asked to rate each of the affective items and to indicate how they had been feeling over the past few weeks. Internal consistency reliabilities ranged between 86 and .87. Test-retest reliabilities ranged from .47 to 71, with a 2-month time interval between administrations for all time instructions. Retest stability tended to increase as the rated time frame lengthened. These results indicate that the PANAS is a stable instrument at appropriate levels over a 2-month time period Convergent validity for the scales was demonstrated by the significantly positive correlations (. 7 6 to .92) between the PANAS and several other positive and negative affect scales (including Diener & Emmons, 1985; McAdams & Constantian, 1983; Stone, Hedges, Neale, & Satin, 1985). The PA and NA scales are largely uncorrelated. PA-NA intercorrelations ranged from -0.12 to -0.23 with student samples and -0.09 with a non-student sample. These discriminant values indicate that the PA and NA are quasi-independent dimensions. The PANAS was included on the Phase 3 questionnaire. However, the data resulting from the administration of the PANAS was not analyzed for this study because

PAGE 62

53 the data will be utilized in a subsequent study. No results for the PANAS are included in this document. The Relationship Assessment Scale The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS ; Hendrick 1988 Hendrick Dicke & Hendrick 1998; Appendix 0) is a 7-item unifactorial measure ofrelationship satisfaction that has been used in both clinical and research settings by Hendrick and others ( e.g. Fletcher Simpson & Thomas 2000; Flora & Segrin 2000; Meeks 1996; Osland 2001 ; Shi 1999). Examples of RAS items are: "How well does your partner meet your needs? and "How often do you wish you hadn't gotten in this relationship?" The 7-item RAS uses a 5-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to 5. Higher RAS scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction. The RAS is scored by reversing participants' scores on items 4 and 7 and calculating an average score for all items. The RAS has demonstrated both adequate reliability and validity. RAS scores over 4.0 tend to indicate that partners are non-distressed whereas scores closer to 3.5 for males and between 3.0 and 3.5 for females tend to indicate greater relationship distress and relationship dissatisfaction (Hendrick et al. 1998). The RAS also effectively discriminates between dating couples and couples who have broken up (Hendrick, 1988). RAS inter-item correlation is .49 and internal consistency reliability has been estimated to be between .86 and 90 (Hendrick 1988). To assess test-retest reliability, the RAS was administered twice to a sample of 65 undergraduate students with a 67 week time interval between administrations. Test-retest reliability for this sample was .85 (Hendrick Dicke, & Hendrick 1998) Convergent validity has been demonstrated by the significant positive correlations (r = 80 ; Hendrick, 1988) between the RAS and both the full Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS ; Spanier 1976) and the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale

PAGE 63

54 (KMSS Schumm et al. 1986) In a study of 84 married couples correlations between the RAS and the DAS ranged from .77 for Anglo-American couples 72 for Bi-cultural couples, and .64 for Hispanic-American couples (Hendrick, Dicke & Hendrick 1998). Validity was also demonstrated when the RAS and the KMSS were correlated. Correlations between these two instruments were .74 for females and .64 for males The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL; Lawrance & Byers 1998 ; Appendix P) is one of the subscales comprising the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Scale (IEMSS; Lawrance & Byers 1998) The IEMSS is a self report instrument made up of three subscales and a checklist of specific sexual rewards and costs that might occur in a relationship. The GMREL subscale assesses overall relationship satisfaction using the prompt, "In general how would you describe your overall relationship with your partner? Participants use a seven-point bipolar scale anchored by the five dichotomous variables "good-bad," "pleasant-unpleasant," "positive-negative, "satisfying-unsatisfying," and "valuable-worthless." Higher response scores indicate endorsement of more positive relationship qualities or values ( e.g., good, pleasant positive satisfying, and valuable) whereas lower response scores indicate endorsement of negative relationship qualities. Reliability and v alidity for the GMREL was established in a study using a sample of university students who had been dating and cohabitating for more than one year (Lawrance & Byers, 1992) and a study using a community sample of married and cohabiting individuals (Lawrance & Byers, 1995). At 2-week and 3 month intervals test retest reliabilities were adequate for both samples on the GMREL (r = .81 and .70 p < .001 ). Internal consistency of the GMREL was also adequate for the sample of students

PAGE 64

(~ = 91) and the community sample (a= .96). Validity of the GMREL is supported by its significant positive correlation with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier 1976), (r = .69 p < 001). The Relationship Happiness Scale The Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS ; Fletcher Fitness & Blampied 1990 ; Sumer 1996 ; Appendix Q) is comprised of six items and was developed specifically to be used by dating partners. The si x items represent perceptions of love, happiness 55 general satisfaction, relationship stability seriousness of problems and level of commitment. Examples ofRHS items are "I have a good relationship with my partner" and "My relationship with my partner makes me happy." Respondents use a 7-item Likert scale to rate each of the six items. Scores range from 1 to 7 with higher scores indicating greater relationship happiness. In order to score the RHS ratings for the seven items are summed. Respondent ratings tend to range from the low 20s to the high 30s (J. Fitness, personal communication, July 23 2003). In a sample of 568 students the reliability of the RHS was 87 and test re-test reliability was .90 across two administrations a couple of weeks apart (J. Fitness, personal communication, July 23, 2003). In another study a sample of 71 undergraduate students who were in long-term dating relationships rated hypothetical interactive behaviors within relationships that were either positively or negatively valenced The partners who were happy in their relationships provided attributions that were relationship enhancing. The unhappy partners' attributions maintained their level of distress In this study the relationship between relationships happiness and attributions was not mediated by the participants' explanatory style or depression (Fletcher et al. 1990). In addition the scale has demonstrated adequate

PAGE 65

convergent validity with the components of Sternberg's (1986) Triangular Love Scale: intimacy (r = .82) passion (r = .72) and commitment (r = .77). The Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale 56 The Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC Fletcher Simpson & Thomas 2000 ; Appendix R) is a six component, 18-item instrument. The scale measures perceptions of specific evaluative domains in close relationships These components are: satisfaction commitment, intimacy, trust passion and love Each of the six components is comprised of three items. According to the scale developers there are several advantages to utilizing the PRQC including that three-item subscales are brief reliable and possess high face validity as the scale measures perceptions of specific evaluative domains in close relationships (Fletcher et al. 2000). The six components are domain-specific quasi-independent constructs Separately the components form semi independent lower-level factors. Together, the components load onto one second-order factor that has been labeled global perceived relationship quality Three examples of PRQC items are : "How sexually intense is your relationship?" "How dependable is your partner?" "How much do you cherish your partner?" In responding to the PRQC respondents rate each of the items using a 7-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to 7. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction commitment intimacy trust passion, and love. The model (six first-order factors loading on one second-order factor) was tested to determine whether the factor structure was stable and could be replicated with different samples and separate studies Results of the confirmatory factor analysis revealed a small drop (from .93 to .92) indicating substantial replication across samples. Another replication analysis was conducted across separate samples of men and women to determine if the factor structure was stable across sex and

PAGE 66

results showed that there was excellent replication of the results at every stage of the confirmatory factor analytic procedure. 57 Although it is possible to administer the entire 18-item, 6-factor scale, the scale developers have recommended in some situations using only the six best exemplars for each of the relationship quality components instead of the full scale For example, the scale developers stated that if researchers want to use self-report measures to assess relationships evaluations, then the brief scales would be appropriate. However, if a researcher wants to measure a single construct ( e.g., trust) then a scale measuring that particular construct would be preferable For the purposes of this study, the short version of the PRQC (Appendix R) composed of the six best exemplars of the PRQC was utilized. The short form items are: Item 1 (measuring satisfaction): "How satisfied are you with your relationship?" "Item 4 (measuring commitment): How committed are you to your relationship?" "Item 7 (measuring intimacy): How intimate is your relationship?" "Item 10 (measuring trust): How much do you trust your partner?" "Item13 (measuring passion): How passionate is your relationship?" and "Item 16 (measuring love): How much do you love your partner?" In a study using a sample of individuals in long-term relationships, the PRQC short form demonstrated adequate aggregated internal reliability (a = .88, item-total rs ranged from .48 to .77). In another study using a sample of individuals in short term ( < 4 weeks) relationships internal reliability results were also adequate (a= .85 item-total rs ranged from .45 to .80). Predictions about the Future Scale The Predictions about the Future Scale (P AFS; Aarestad, 2000; Appendix S) is a 5-item instrument that asks respondents to make predictions about the future status of

PAGE 67

58 their relationships. Participants' ratings on items 1, 2, and 3 reflect their prediction about what the status of their relationships will be in the future. For example the items ask respondents to make predictions about (1) six months from now (2) one year from now, and (3) five years from now about whether they and their partner will be a couple or not be a couple or whether they will be married. Items are rated using a 6-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to 6. Lower values indicate a prediction that the relationship will terminate, whereas higher scores predict stability and marriage. The fourth item asks respondents to predict the likelihood that they will be together in one year. The fifth item assesses the likelihood that the couple will marry in the future. Items 4 and 5 are rated using 7-point Likert scales with values ranging from 1 to 7 Higher scores reflect more positive predictions about future outcome. To score the scale all item ratings are summed. Higher scores reflect predictions of more stable, long-lasting relationships. In one study, internal consistency reliability for the scale was .90 for females and .91 for males (Aarestad, 2000) In addition, the total model accounted for 18.3% (F (5,197) = 8.84 p < .001) of the variance for females' and 21.8% (F (6 193) = 8.96,p < .001) of the variance for males' predictions about the future of their relationship (Aarestad 2000). The Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index and the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index The Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983; Appendix T) and The Self-rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller, Berg & Archer 1983; Appendix U) are measures that were developed to assess individual's perceptions of how much partners disclose to a specific target person (Miller et al. 1983; Meeks, Hendrick, & Hendrick 1998). In this study the target persons were participants' romantic relationship partners. The Self-rated Self-disclosure Index measures self-reported disclosure to one's partner. The Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index measures the perceived disclosure by

PAGE 68

59 one's partner to oneself. These scales assess whether respondents' partners talk to them and whether respondents talk to their partners about ten different subjects that represent self-disclosure. Examples of Partner-rated Self-disclosure items are: My partner has talked to me about the following subjects: "Things my partner wouldn't do in public;" "My partner's deepest feelings. Examples of Self-rated Self-disclosure items are: I have talked to my partner about the following subjects: What I like and dislike about myself; My worst fears." Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to 5. To score the scales the ratings for all scale items are summed. Higher scores on both the scales represent greater self disclosure (self to partner or partner to self). Coefficient a for both the Self-rated and Partner-rated Self-disclosure indices have ranged between 86 and .93 for both men and women. Variations in coefficient a estimates were dependent on the target (Miller et al. 1983). In addition, the scale has demonstrated convergent validity with the classic Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (JSDQ; Jourard & Resnick 1970). The Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire: Form A The Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire: Form A (MPDQ-Form A; Genero Miller & Surrey 1992 ; Appendix V) is an instrument that assesses mutuality in close relationships. There are two forms for the MPDQ : MPDQ-Form A and MPDQ Form B. Each form consists of twenty-two items representing the si x key conceptual elements of mutual interaction described by Miller (1986) and Surrey (1985). These key elements are empathy engagement, authenticity empowerment zest and divers i ty For each of the forms ( A and B) scale items are divided into two comparable response sets

PAGE 69

60 because of the bi-directionality of mutuality (e.g., mutuality includes responding to another person and being responded to by another person). One response set has self prompts. For example: When we talk about things that matter to my spouse / partner, I am likely to .. "be receptive;" "get impatient;" "try to understand;" "get bored"). The other set has other-prompts. For example: When we talk about things that matter to me, my spouse / partner is likely to ... "pick up on my feelings ; "feel like we're not getting anywhere;" "show an interest;" get frustrated" In responding to and rating MPDQ items, a 6-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to 6 is used. Higher scores represent more mutuality in the relationship. To compute mutuality scores, negative items are reversed and then the average is calculated by dividing the summed ratings by the total number of items rated. The reliability and validity of the MPDQ is supported by studies that have looked at the relationship between spouses, dating partners, and relationships between close friends. Research suggests that the MPDQ has excellent inter-item reliability, with a scores ranging from .89 to .92. Construct validity has been demonstrated through significantly positive correlations between perceptions of mutuality and measures of social support relationship satisfaction and cohesion. In addition, self-reported ratings of depression have been negatively correlated with relationship mutuality. For the current study Form A of the MPDQ was used. Other Measures Phase 3 participants also responded to a scale assessing demographics and romantic relationship status. These items were included on the Phase 3 Questionnaire and are found in Appendix W.

PAGE 70

61 Procedure Prior to Phase 3 data collection the study's author contacted course instructors and arranged mutually suitable times to meet students. In addition, times were scheduled through the Psychology Department's Introductory Psychology Participant Pool. At the prearranged times the study's author and a research assistant orally provided participants with details about the study and garnered written informed consents (Appendix X). Students were told that the study was about romantic relationships, that participation was voluntary, that responses to questionnaire items would be anonymous, and that those agreeing to participate would receive extra credit. Questionnaires (Appendix M) and scanable answer sheets were provided to participants. Participants were instructed to read and follow the directions on the questionnaire. Upon completion, participants placed questionnaires and answer sheets into a box and signed a form, which was separated from questionnaires and answer sheets, indicating that they had participated in the study so that extra credit could be provided to them. Before leaving, participants were given a list of couples' counseling resource information (Appendix D), a debriefing statement (Appendix Y) thanked, and dismissed. Data Analysis Means and standard deviations were calculated for the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J), the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Appendix 0), the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction Scale (GMREL; Appendix P), the Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS; Appendix Q), the short version of the Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC: Short Version; Appendix R) the Predictions about the Future Scale (Appendix S), the Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index (Appendix T) the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index (Appendix U), and Form A of the

PAGE 71

Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ: Form A; Appendix V) and are reported in the next chapter. 62 Construct validity of the LCBS was assessed by examining the relationship between the LCBS and relationship constructs. The relationship constructs were measured using the scales just described. The constructs are: relationship satisfaction relationship happiness relationship quality relationship mutuality, predictions about the future of the relationship, and self-disclosure between relationship partners. The value utilized for the LCBS was initially computed by calculating the absolute value of the difference between participants' ratings of how unloved they would feel from how often they reported receiving the love crushing behaviors. Linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between this LCBS discrepancy and the relationship constructs. After the correlational analyses were conducted and the results showed little association with the measures of related constructs a second series of linear regression analyses was performed to assess the association between the LCBS and the relationship constructs using a recalculated LCBS score. The recalculated LCBS score was computed by multiplying participants' ratings of how unloved they would feel upon receiving a particular behavior by how often they reported receiving that love crushing behavior and summing the resulting products. What follows is a description of how each hypothesis was tested statistically using both the LCBS discrepancy score and the LCBS multiplier score. Hypotheses la and lb predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS) and relationship satisfaction. To test Hypothesis la a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

PAGE 72

63 analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy and relationship satisfaction as measured by the averaged scores on the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS ; Appendix 0). To test Hypothesi s 1 b a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy and relationship satisfaction as measured b y the summed scores on the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL ; Appendi x P ) Hypotheses la and lb were ree v aluated. To retest Hypotheses la and lb Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analyses were performed to evaluate the relationships between the LCBS multiplier score and relationship satisfaction as measured by the summed scores on both the RAS and the GMREL. Hypothesis 2 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and ratings of relationship happiness To test Hypothesis 2 a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy score and relationship happiness as measured by summed scores on the Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS; Appendix Q) Hypothesis 2 was retested using a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and RHS Hypothesis 3 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS discrepancy score and perceived relationship quality. To test Hypothesis 3 a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy and the short form of the Percei v ed Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC ; Appendix R) Hypothesis 3 was retested using a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient

PAGE 73

analysis to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and the PRQC short form. 64 Hypothesis 4 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS discrepancy score and predictions about the future of the relationship. To test Hypothesis 4 a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between LCBS discrepancy and the summed scores on the Predictions about the Future Scale (Appendix S). Hypothesis 4 was retested using a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analysis to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and predictions about the future. Hypotheses 5a and 5b predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS discrepancy and self-disclosure. Hypothesis 5a was tested by performing a Pearson-product moment correlations coefficient analysis to assess the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy with the summed scores on the Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index (Appendix T). Hypothesis 5b was tested by correlating the LCBS discrepancy with the summed scores on the Self-rated Self disclosure Index (Appendix U). Hypotheses 5a and 5b were retested using a Pearson product-moment correlations coefficient analyses to assess the relationship between the LCBS multiplier with partners' self-disclosure and self-disclosure. Hypothesis 6 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and relationship mutuality. Hypothesis 6 was tested using a Pearson product moment correlations coefficient analysis to assess the relationship between the LCBS and the averaged scores on Form A of the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ: Form A; Appendix V). Hypothesis 6 was retested

PAGE 74

using a Pearson product moment correlations coefficient anal y sis to assess the relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and relationship mutuality The correlational analyses described above were all conducted to explore the association between the LCBS and the six criterion variables. The magnitudes of associations and statistical significance of each association is described in the next chapter. 65 Phase 3 analyses of the data also included conducting a confirmatory factor analysis via latent variable modeling to assess the stability of the uni-factorial structure of the LCBS established during Phase 2 of the study Goodness of fit was assessed by examining the significance level of the chi-square and the scores on the comparative fit index (CFI) and the non-normative fit index (NNFI). The CFI and NNFI are usually considered to show a good fit when they are .90 or higher (Fletcher Simpson & Thomas 2900 ; Bentler, 1995 ; Bentler & Bonnet 1980). Coefficient a was calculated to assess the internal consistency of the total scale.

PAGE 75

CHAPTER4 RESULTS The Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) was constructed to identify behaviors that would elicit the feeling that one was unloved by romantic partners when the identified behaviors were received from romantic partners. This chapter describes the results of the analyses used to construct the scale. This chapter is divided into three sections. Each of the three sections describes one of the three phases of the study The three phases of the study were: Phase 1, which included item generation; Phase 2 which included scale item identification and assessment of factor structure; and Phase 3, which included the assessment of the psychometric properties of the scale Results for each phase are presented below. Phase 1: Item Generation The primary purpose of the first phase of the study was to generate a list of negative behavioral items that when provided by one romantic partner and received by another partner resulted in the receiving partner feeling unloved by the providing partner. For the first phase, data were collected from 102 participants who responded to the Phase 1 questionnaire (Appendix A) and six ( of the 102) participants who were contacted by phone for a follow up interview. All participants were asked to generate behaviors that would elicit the feeling of being unloved by their romantic partners if their partners did or said the behaviors. This method resulted in the generation of 542 items via questionnaire response and 19 items via follow up phone contact. Redundant items were eliminated 66

PAGE 76

from the list of 561 items and the 135 remaining items were corrected for spelling and grammar and made gender non-specific. This list was labeled the Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS ; Appendix E) 67 Phase 1 participants' also responded to items asking them to rate how satisfied they were with their relationships. Thirty three percent of the respondents who responded reported being extremely satisfied with their current relationships 44% reported being very satisfied 18% reported being satisfied, and 5% reported being neither satisfied nor unsatisfied with their relationships. None of the respondents rated themselves as being unsatisfied, very unsatisfied, or extremely unsatisfied with their current relationship. Participant responses indicated that 59% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement, "I am very loved by my romantic partner," 20% agreed, 14% neither agreed nor disagreed, 0% disagreed, and 7% strongly disagreed. Participants' responses indicated that 66% strongly agreed with the statement, "My romantic partner cares a great deal about me," 23% agreed with this statement, 4% neither disagreed nor agreed, 0% disagreed, and 7% strongly disagreed. Participants' responses indicated that 57% strongly agreed with the statement, "When I think about my romantic partner I feel loved," 27% agreed, 5% neither disagreed nor agreed, 4% disagreed, and 7% strongly disagreed. When participants were asked how much they loved their partners, participant responses indicated that 64% reported loving their partners very much 18% reported loving their partners quite a bit, 9% reported a moderate amount of love toward their partners, and 9% reported a little bit of love for their partners. None of the respondents who were currently in a relationship indicated they did not love their partners at all.

PAGE 77

68 Phase 2: Scale Refinement There were 231 participants who took part in Phase 2 of the study. These participants completed a 202-item questionnaire (Appendix F) that included the 135-item Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS; Appendix E), which is a list of negative behaviors generated by Phase 1 participants. In addition, the 39 item Desired Loving Behavior Scale and additional items assessing such information as relationship satisfaction and participant demographics were included. The primary purposes of the second phase of the study were to identify which of the 135 items making up the Preliminary Undesirable Behavior Scale (PUBS; Appendix E) would be retained to make up the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) and to evaluate the factor structure of the LCBS. Following is a description of the data analyses. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Item Selection Exploratory factor analyses were conducted with the 135-items making up the PUBS (Appendix E). Exploratory factor analysis has two general functions, which are to explain and to reduce data (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). One of the ways that data are explained is to determine whether there are underlying factors, separable dimensions, or latent variables that exist within a main scale (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). In the case of this study, exploratory factor analysis was used to discover whether the negative behaviors that made up the PUBS (Appendix E) could be separated into underlying subscales or factors. The second use of exploratory factor analysis is to reduce data (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). Because of the large number of initial items, a first step in data analysis was to eliminate items not meeting a pre-specified set of factor-loading thresholds. Specifically, any item was considered to have achieved simple structure on a

PAGE 78

69 given factor only if that item s loading on the factor had an absolute value of .40 or greater and the loading was less than an absolute value of .30 on any of the other factors. The 135 PUBS items (Appendix E) were first factor analyzed using common factor analysis. A scree test suggested a four-factor solution with a secondary scree plateau at eight factors. Unfortunately, neither oblique nor orthogonal four-factor rotations yielded interpretable factors. Instead too few items achieved simple structure across the four factors. The first factor yielded a sufficient number of conceptually related items, but later factors tended not to. Oblique and orthogonal rotations of three, five, six seven, and eight factors showed similar simple structure problems. Because of these failures to achieve simple structure with a sufficient number of items, the data were reanalyzed with an unrotated common factor analysis. This approach yielded a first factor with maximized variance. Items were retained if they achieved simple structure with respect to that first, unrotated factor and all other unrotated factors with an eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater. In all 22 items were retained as a result of this procedure, which yielded a single factor. This single factor structure, though not suggested and indeed not suggestable by a scree test, is consistent in a larger sense, with the eigenvalues of the unrotated factor analysis The first factor produced eigenvalues seven times larger than the next largest factor, 35.85 vs. 4.92, suggesting a very large difference between the first and all other factor eigenvalues. The magnitude of this difference may simply reflect that despite many efforts at rotation, the items really taped a single construct. The resulting 22-item scale was labeled the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) and is detailed on Table 4 1.

PAGE 79

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for the 22-ltem Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS) Item n M SD FL r Verbally abuse me 214 1.44 72 67 65 Spend little or no time with me 220 1.70 74 66 63 Knowingly say things that are hurtful to me 216 1.49 61 .65 59 Tell me that they do not love me 220 1.29 65 64 .61 Talk badly about me to other people 219 1.28 .52 .63 59 Want to hang out or be with other people 220 1.88 75 61 60 more than they want to be with me Refuse to spend anytime with my family 219 2 13 73 61 .57 Never do anything special for my special 216 1.91 .72 61 .59 occasions or holidays Cheat on me 220 1.17 .54 60 .46 Do not express enough affection toward me 215 1.04 .67 60 59 Look at other people longingly 218 1.72 71 59 .56 Ignore me in front of others 220 1.53 .77 59 .53 Not respect my family 219 1.70 .70 56 52 Was not honest with me 214 1.47 63 .54 52 Bring up ex love interests 214 1.83 79 .53 52 Tell me that they hate me 220 1.20 50 51 .48 Focus was on other things when I am ar<;>und 214 2.01 .65 51 .50 Not call me often 220 2 29 .65 .50 .48 Tell me that they want to discontinue our 219 1.37 67 .49 .46 relationship Share information about themselves with others 220 1.86 .64 .46 .45 but not tell me Not tell me that he / she loves me 218 2 08 .80 .42 .40 Watch TV while talking to me 219 2.55 .70 .40 39 Note n = Total number in sample resp o nding to item. M = Mean item rating. SD= Standard deviation. FL = Factor loading. r = Item-total correlations for that item 70

PAGE 80

71 Additional Phase 2 Analyses Whereas the primary purpose of Phase 2 was to identify items and explore factor structure of the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS, Appendix J) statistical analyses were also performed on data provided by Phase 2 participants, specifically participants' responses to the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS, Heesacker & Lawrence 1994; Appendix G), a social desirability scale (IDRR; Loving & Agnew 2001; Appendix H) and items assessing various relationship variables. Overall, participants' relationship satisfaction response ratings indicated that 40% of respondents reported being extremely satisfied with their relationships, 34% reported being satisfied, 15% reported being neither satisfied nor unsatisfied with their current relationship, 9% reported being unsatisfied, and 2% reported being extremely unsatisfied with their current relationship. Regarding the amount of love felt for their romantic partners, 60% of participants reported they love their partners very much, 17% reported loving partners "quite a bit ," 12% reported a "moderate amount," 9% reported a "little bit," and 3% indicated they did not love their partners at all. Means and standard deviations for these items are detailed in Table 4.2, which follows. With regard to how loved respondents felt, 53% indicated that they strongly agreed with the statement "I am very loved by my romantic partner," 29% agreed with the statement 12% neither agreed nor disagreed, 3% disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed. Participants' responses indicated that 62% strongly agreed with the statement, "My romantic partner cares a great deal about me," 26% agreed, 8% neither disagreed nor agreed, 1 % disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed Participant's responses to the item

PAGE 81

72 Ta b le 4.2 Means and Standard De v iations for Phase 2 Questionnaire Items Variable n M SD Love Crushing Beha v ior Scale (LCBS) 220 1.73 .40 Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS) 220 4.01 39 DLBS Subscales Relationsh i p Support 220 4.10 .44 Scripting 220 4.46 53 Caring Actions 220 3 96 .48 Sex 220 3.52 54 Relationship Satisfaction 117 4.02 1.04 Love for Partner 121 4.20 1.16 Sense of Love from Partner 120 4.24 1.01 Sense of Caring from Partner 119 4.43 93 Feel loved when thinking of Partner 119 4 22 .88 Lo v e Mean (mean o f previous 3 items) 120 4.29 85 Social Desirability (IDRR) 204 4.63 .87 IDRR Subscales Self-Deception 202 5.07 1.23 Impression Management 202 4 19 1.33 Note n = Total respon d ing to item. M = Mean item rating SD= Standar d deviation. "When I think about my partner I feel loved" indicated that 45 % strongly agreed with this statement 36 % agreed, 15 % neither agreed nor disagreed 2 % disagreed and 2 % strongly disagreed. Participant responses to the three aforementioned questionnaire items

PAGE 82

73 were averaged to calculate an overall level of love and caring participants felt from their partners. This lo v e mean was comprised of participants sense of lo v e from their partners, sense of caring from their partners and feeling loved when thinking of their partners. Means and standard deviations are detailed in Table 4.2. Pearson product moment correlations were used to explore th e relationships between the 22 Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS ; Appendix J) items social desirability (IDRR ; Loving & Agnew, 2001; Appendix H), the DLBS subscales and items assessing various relationship variables ( e.g., relationship satisfaction sense of love from partners sense of caring for partners feeling loved when thinking of partners and amount oflove for partners). Correlational analyses indicated no significant relationship between the LCBS and the IDRR Impression Management subscale (r = -0 03, p < 72) In other words there was no indication that participants felt a need to enhance their representations of themselves. This result is not surprising as impression management scores have been found to decrease when going from public to anonymous research settings (Loving & Agnew 2001). The participants in this research study completed questionnaires ind i vidually and anonymously. However there was a statistically significant inverse relationship between the IDRR self-deception subscale and the LCBS items (r = .24 p < .001) suggesting that increases in the magnitude ofresponses on the LCBS were accompanied by decreases in the level of self-deception demonstrated by the participants. This finding suggests that participants who held fewer positive illusions (e g ., unconscious misrepresentations) about themselves were also more likel y to rate the negative relationship items of the LCBS as making them feel more unloved suggesting

PAGE 83

the possible operation of depressive realism. Table 4.3 presents the means and standard deviations for the IDRR subscales and items. Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the IDRR Items and Subscales Variable n M SD Social Desirability 204 4 63 0 .87 Relationship Self Deception subscale 202 5 07 1.23 REL-SD Item 1 194 5 78 1.39 REL-SD Item 2 196 3 26 1.92 REL-SD Item 3 199 4 89 1.81 REL-SD Item 4 192 4 51 1.73 REL-SD Item 5 195 5.44 1.53 Relationship Impression Management 202 4 19 1.33 REL-IM Item 1 194 4 25 1.84 REL-IM Item 2 194 3 63 1.81 REL-IM Item 3 193 4 03 1.79 REL-IM Item 4 196 3.27 1.62 REL-IM Item 5 193 3.84 1.71 Note. Social Desirability items were scored on a 7-point scale with higher scores reflecting higher levels of Relationship Self-Deception (REL-SD) and Relationship Impression Management (REL-IM). n = Total responding to item. M = Mean item rating SD = Standard deviation. Pearson product moment correlation analyses were also performed to explore relationships between the LCBS and the five self reported variables detailed above Results indicated statistically significant inverse relationships between participants' 74

PAGE 84

75 scores on the LCBS and their reported satisfaction with their relationships (r = 0.20 p < 033) love for their partners (r = -0 30 p < .0009) sense oflove from their partners (r = 0 27,p < .0028) sense of caring from their partners (r = -0.36 p < .0001) feel i ngs oflove when thinking of their partners (r = -0.39. p < .0001) and their overall love mean score which is the mean of the three latter items, (r = -0.37 p < .0001). In other words participants who rated LCBS items as making them feel more unloved also reported feeling less satisfaction with their current relationship, less lo v e towards their partners and less love from their current partners The items from the Desired Loving Behavior Scale (DLBS; Heesacker & Lawrence 1994; Appendix G) were randomly embedded among the 135 PUBS items (Appendix E) on the questionnaire. As anticipated none of the DLBS items were retained in the final factor structure of the LCBS, though the inclusion of the DLBS on the questionnaire allowed for additional analyses Specifically Pearson product moment correlation analyses were performed to explore the relationship between the LCBS and the DLBS. Results of these analyses indicated several statistically significant inverse correlations between the LCBS score and the DLBS scores. Specifically the relationships between the LCBS and the Relationship Support subscale (r = -0.60,p < .001) the DLBS Scripting subscale (r = -0 62, p < 001), the DLBS Caring Actions subscale (r = -0.58 p < .001 ) and the DLBS total score (r = -0.62 p < .001) were all statistically significant and inversel y related The relationship between the LCBS and the DLBS Sex subscale was non-significant. As described above 231 participants rated the 135 PUBS (Appendix E) items generated by Phase 1 participants. These rated items were subjected to se v eral factor

PAGE 85

analytic techniques as described in detail above to determine a factor structure and identify scale items Twenty two items yielding a single factor were retained These 22 items were labeled the Love Crushing Behavior Scale Phase 3: Assessment of Psychometric Properties of Scale N o rmative and Reliability Data Responses to a 151-item questionnaire (Appendi x M) were used for Phase 3 analyses The questionnaire included the LCBS and the eight measures previously described. Means standard deviations, and ranges are detailed in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the Phase 3 Scales Scales n M SD Min Max LC 277 1.89 .35 0 4 LCR 274 1.78 .48 1 5 LCDisc 274 0.43 34 0 LCMult 274 3.72 1.11 1.61 9 12 RAS 245 3.71 88 1 5 GMREL 244 25 74 9 34 1 36 RHS 244 25 62 8 98 1 37 PRQC 242 5 55 1.24 1 7 PAF 238 13.38 9 61 1 28 PRSD 243 2.39 1.14 1 5 SRSD 242 2 37 1.21 1 5 MPDQ 242 3.50 .68 1 5 76 Note n = Total responding to items. M = Mean item ratings. SD= Standard deviation. Min = Minimal score. Max= Maximum score. LC = Love crush item ratings. LCR = Frequency of receipt of LC items. LCDisc = Absolute value of difference between ratings of feeling and frequency of receipt. LCM ult = Product of feeling by frequency of receipt.

PAGE 86

77 The purpose of this phase was to assess the psychometric properties of the LCBS. With regard to internal consistency reliability, the Cronbach's a coefficient for the LCBS was .88 suggesting that for this administration with this sample the LCBS possessed adequate measurement precision. An alpha with a maximum value of .90 is recommended to avoid redundancy among items (Steiner, 2003) Inter-item correlations for the scale items are provided in Table 4.5 which follows. Mean inter-item correlations Table 4.5 Item to Total Correlations for the LCBS in Phase 3 Item Does not tell me that he / she loves me Refuses to spend anytime with my family Does not call me often Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be with me Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays Looks at other people longingly Talks badly about me to other people Knowingly says things that are hurtful to me Verbally abuses me Spends little or not time with me Does not respect my family Ignores me in front of others Does not express enough affection toward me Cheats on me Shares information about themselves with others but does not tell me Brings up ex-love interests Tells me that they do not love me Is not honest with me Tells me ~at they want to discontinue our relationship Watches TV while talking to me Tells me that they hate me Focuses on other things when I am around 58 56 .54 .53 51 51 49 .49 .49 .48 .48 .47 .46 .45 .44 .43 .42 38 37 36 .34 .34 Note. Items listed from highest to lowest with regard to items correlation with total score.

PAGE 87

should ideally be between 15 to .20 for scales measuring broad characteristics and between .40 to .50 for scales tapping narrower ones (Clark & Watson 1995). Construct Validity 78 Construct validity of the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS) was assessed by examining the relationship between LCBS and these constructs: relationship satisfaction relationship happiness perceived relationship quality predictions about the future of the relationship self-disclosure and mutuality. Initially to evaluate the relationships between the aforementioned constructs and the LCBS an LCBS discrepancy score was calculated and correlated with the scores of each of the instruments utilized to measure constructs The LCBS discrepancy score was obtained by calculating the absolute value of the difference between how loved/unloved respondents rated they reportedly would feel ifLCBS behaviors were received from their partners from the frequency of receipt of the behaviors. For the most part the results obtained when the data were analyzed in this way were unexpectedly non-significant. Therefore, additional evaluations of the data were conducted to examine further the relationship between LCBS and these related constructs. Specifically, each of the previously listed variables was re-correlated with an LCBS multiplier score. The LCBS multiplier score was calculated by multiplying participants' ratings of how unloved they would feel upon receiving a particular behavior by how often they reported receiving that love crushing behavior and summing the resulting products. Hypotheses testing Following are the hypotheses Included are the details regarding hypothesis testing and the results of hypotheses testing.

PAGE 88

Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be a statistically significant in v erse relationship between the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS) and relationship satisfaction. For Hypothesis la relationship satisfaction was measured using the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988, Hendrick, Dicke & Hendrick 1998 ; Appendi x 0) and for Hypothesis 1 b relationship satisfaction was measured using the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction Scale (GMREL ; Lawrance & Byers 1995 ; Lawrance & Byers 1998; Appendix P). 79 To evaluate Hypothesis la a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS discrepancy score and the averaged scores on the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS ; Hendrick, 1988, Hendrick Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998; Appendi x 0). Results demonstrated a low but statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and relationship satisfaction (r = -0.13 p < .0495) when relationship satisfaction was measured using the RAS. Hypothesis 1 b was initially evaluated using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient analysis to correlate the LCBS discrepancy score with relationship satisfaction as measured by scores on the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL; Lawrance & Byers 1995 ; Lawrance & Byers 1998; Appendix P) The relationship between the LCBS and relationship satisfaction as measured using the GMREL did not reach significance (r = -0.12 p < .057) although results indicated a relationship between the variables that fell just short of significance in the direction predicted by the hypothesis.

PAGE 89

80 Hypothesis la was reevaluated using a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to assess the relationship between LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score and the scores on the RAS. Results indicated that as predicted there was a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and relationship satisfaction ( r = -0.42 p < .0001) as measured by the RAS. Hypothesis lb was reevaluated using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient analysis to assess the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score and relationship satisfaction using the GMREL scores. As predicted results demonstrated a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and relationship satisfaction as measured by the GMREL (r = -0.41 p < 0001 ) Thus Hypothesis 1 a and 1 b were supported by the data when the LCBS multiplier score was used. In other words, increases in how unloved one would feel and/or increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors as measured using the LCBS were associated with decreases in relationship satisfaction as measured by both the RAS and the GMREL. Hypothesis 2 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and ratings of relationship happiness as measured by the Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS ; Fletcher, Fitness & Blampied 1990; Appendix Q) Initially Hypothesis 2 was assessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient analysis to correlate the LCBS as measured by the LCBS discrepancy score with relationship happiness as measured by the sum of the RHS scores. Results indicated that although the LCBS discrepancy score and relationship happiness appeared to be related in the direction hypothesized, the relationship was not statistically significant (r = -0 09 p < .156).

PAGE 90

81 Hypothesis 2 was reevaluated using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient to correlate the LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score with relationship happiness using the RHS scores. Results indicated that as predicted there was a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS as measured using the LCBS multiplier score and relationship happiness as measured using the scores on the RHS (r = -0.46 p < .0001) Thus Hypothesis 2 was supported by the LCBS multiplier data. In other words increases in how unloved one feels and/or increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors as measured by the LCBS were associated with decreases in relationship happiness as measured by the RHS. Hypothesis 3 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and perceived relationship quality as measured by the Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC ; Fletcher Simpson, & Thomas, 2000 ; Appendix R). Hypothesis 3 was assessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient to correlate the LCBS discrepancy score with the scores on the short form of the PRQC. Results indicated that the relationship between the LCBS as measured using the LCBS discrepancy score and perceived relationship quality as measured using the short form of the PRQC was in the predicted direction although the relationship did not achieve statistical significance (r = 12 p < .074). Hypothesis 3 was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient analysis to assess the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score and the short form of the PRQC. Results indicated that as predicted, the relationship between the LCBS and relationship quality was statistically significant and related in the direction predicted by the hypothesis (r = -0 29,p < .0001). Thus,

PAGE 91

82 Hypothesis 3 was supported by the LCBS multiplier data. In other words increases in how unloved one would feel and/or increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors as measured using the LCBS were associated with decreases in relationship quality as measured by the PRQC short form Hypothesis 4 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and predictions about the future of the relationship, as measured by the Predictions about the Future Scale (Aarestad 2000; Appendix S). Hypothesis 4 was assessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient correlating the LCBS discrepancy score with the sum of the scores on the Predictions about the Future Scale Results indicated that the relationship between the two variables (LCBS discrepancy and the Predictions about the Future Scale) tended in the predicted direction but the relationship was not statistically significant (r = -.06 p < .369). Hypothesis 4 was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient analysis to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score and predictions about the future of the relationship using the sum of scores on the Predictions about the Future Scale. Results indicated that as predicted the relationship between the variables LCBS and predictions about the future was statistically significant in the direction predicted by the hypothesis (r = 3 l p < 0001 ). Therefore Hypothesis 4 was supported by the LCBS multiplier data. In other words increases in how unloved one would feel and/or increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors as measured using the LCBS were associated with decreases in favorable predictions about the future of the relationship

PAGE 92

83 Hypothesis 5a and 5b predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and self disclosure. Hypothesis 5a was assessed by evaluating the relationship between the LCBS and ratings on the Partner-rated Self disclosure Index (Miller Berg & Archer 1983 ; Appendix T) which measures disclosure from one's partner. Hypothesis 5b was assessed by evaluating the relationship between the LCBS and ratings on the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index (Miller Berg & Archer 1983; Appendix U) which measures disclosures made to one s partner. To assess Hypothesis 5a a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient anal y sis was used to correlate the LCBS discrepancy score with the sum of the scores provided on the Partner rated Self-disclosure Index. Results indicated that the relationship between the variables was not statistically significant and that the variables were not correlated in the direction predicted by the hypothesis (r = .10, p < .112). Hypothesis 5b was assessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient to look at the relationship between the LCBS discrepancy score and the sum of the scores on the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index. Results indicated that the relationship between these two variables was not statistically significant and that the variables were not related in the direction predicted by the hypothesis (r = .02 p < .778) Hypothesis 5a was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient analysis to correlate the LCBS multiplier score with the summed scores on the Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index. The results indicated that the relationship between the two variables was statistically significant ; however these two v ariables were not related in the direction predicted by the hypotheses (r = .17, p < 0088) In other words Partner-rated Self-disclosures accounted for 2.56 % of the variance in how unloved

PAGE 93

84 partners would feel and/or in how much they received love crushing behaviors as measured using the LCBS Hypothesis 5b was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score and the scores on the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index. Again results indicated that the relationship between these two variables was not in the direction predicted by the hypothesis In addition, the relationship between LCBS and self-rated self-disclosure was statistically insignificant (r = .11 p < .1035). Thus regardless of the manner in which the LCBS variable was calculated Hypotheses 5a and 5b were not supported by the data. Hypothesis 6 predicted that there would be a statistically significant inverse relationship between the LCBS and relationship mutuality. Hypothesis 6 was assessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient to correlate the LCBS discrepancy score with scores on the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ: Form A ; Appendix V) Results indicated that the relationship between LCBS discrepancy and relationship mutuality tended in the direction predicted though the relationship did not achieve statistical significance (r = -.09 p < .156) Hypothesis 6 was reassessed using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient to evaluate the relationship between the LCBS using the LCBS multiplier score and scores on the MPDQ. Results indicated that as predicted, the relationship between these two variables, LCBS and relationship mutuality was statist i cally significant and as predicted by the hypotheses the variables were inversely related (r = .34 p < 0001). Thus Hypothesis 6 was supported by the LCBS multiplier data In other words increases in how unloved one would feel and/or increases in the receipt of love

PAGE 94

crushing behaviors as measured with the LCBS were associated with decreases in relationship mutuality as measured with the MDPQ. 85 Table 4.6 provides inter-item correlations for the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS) the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction Scale (GMREL) the Relationship Happiness Scale (RHS) the short version Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC) the Predictions about the Future Scale the Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index, the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index and the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ). Confirmatory Factor Analysis In order to assess the stability of the single factor structure across samples for the Love Crushing Behavior Scale (LCBS; Appendix J) a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis failed to confirm the single factor structure. First the chi square fit index was not only statistically significant X 2 (209) = 562.15 p < 0001 but it was also larger than double then (562 > 209 X 2). The two indicators, significant p value and X value double the degrees of freedom indicates that the model does not fit the data. Likewise Bentler's Comparative Fit Index and Bentler and Bonett's Normative Fit Index were each smaller than .90 ( 77 and .68, respectively) again suggesting that this one-factor model fails to account for these data. One important limitation on the use of confirmatory factor analysis and on the use of these indicators of fit involves the distributions of the scores on items. Nonnormally distributed items do not perform appropriately in CF As. Unfortunately, most of the items that correlated highest with the overall scale score were in fact skewed and thus not normally distributed Therefore the accuracy of the three fit indices is questionable Reliability data actually appear to contradict the fit index data because as stated earlier

PAGE 95

Table 4 6 Inter-item correlations for Phase 3 Scal e s -LCBS RAS GMREL RHS PRQC PAF SRSD PRSD MPDQ LCBS 1.00 RAS -0.42 ** 1.00 GMREL -0.41 ** 0.71 ** 1.00 RHS -0.46 ** 0.90 ** 0.73 ** 1.00 PRQC -0.29 ** 0 79 ** 0.65 ** 0 80 ** 1.00 PAF -0.31 ** 0 65 ** 0 51 ** 0 67 ** 0 68 ** 1.00 SRSD 0 10 0 16 0 18 -0 13 -0 19 -0.19 1.00 PRSD 0 17 -0.20 0.23 -0.18 0 15 -0 17 0.86 ** 1.00 MPDQ -0.34 ** 0 62 ** 0.53 ** 0 62 ** 0.48 ** 0.40 ** -0.21 -0.27 ** 1.00 Note. LCBS = Love Crushing Behavior Scale Multiplier Score RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale GMREL = Global Measure of Relation s hip Satisfaction RHS = Relationship Happiness Scale PRQC=Perceived Relationship Quality Component-short version P AF = Predictions about Future Scale SRSD = Self Rated Self-Disclosure Index. PRSD=Partner-Rated Self-Disclosure Index MPDQ = Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire : Form A. p < .01 ; ** p < .001 00 0\

PAGE 96

the Coefficient a for this sample was .88, which suggests a high degree of inter-item correlation, consistent with a single factor structure. The Love Crushing Behavior Scale The LCBS items are presented below in Table 4.7. The columns of the table Table 4.7 LCBS Item Rank Comparisons Item A B C D Cheats on me 2 18 14 Tells me that they do not love me 5 2 3 17 Talks badly about me with other people 4 3 5 7 Verbally abuses me 7 4 9 Tells me that they hate me 3 5 16' 21 Tells me that they want to discontinue our relationship 6 6 18 19 Knowingly says things that are hurtful to me 9 7 5 8 Ignores me in front of others 10 8 II 12 Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be with me 16 9 4 4 Looks at other people longingly 13 10 JO 6 Spends little or no time with me 11 II 2 10 Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays 17 12 5 5 Is not honest with me 8 13 12 18 Does not respect my family 11 14 12 11 Does not express enough affection toward me 15 5 13 Shares information about themselves with others but does not tell me 15 16 20 15 Brings up ex-love interests 14 17 12 16 Does not call me often 21 18 16 + 3 Does not tell me that he/she love me 19 19 21 Refuses to spend anytime with my family 20 20 9 2 Focuses on other things when I am around 18 21 15 22 Watches TV while talking to me 22 22 22 20 Note. + = Tie between items in column. 87

PAGE 97

88 include rankings for each item Column 1 rankings are based upon the Phase 2 mean ratings. Column 2 rankings are based upon the Phase 3 mean ratings Column C rankings are based upon the Phase 2 correlations with total scores. Column D rankings are based upon the Phase 3 correlations with total scores The items' ranks (i .e ., "1," "2," "3 ") connote how unloving the behaviors were rated by participants with 1 = most unloving behavior 2 = next most unloving, and so on.

PAGE 98

CHAPTERS DISCUSSION Key Findings/Integration with Existing Research The main purpose of this study was to develop a love crushing behavior scale. Prior to LCBS development it was presumed that a scale of love crushing behaviors would likely be factorable. One of the reasons for this presumption was that the DLBS is a multi-factorial instrument. Another reason is that Gortman (1994a; 1994b; 1999), who has done extensive work with couples on relationships found that the most destructive relationship behaviors fit into categories. As a result, it was anticipated that the LCBS would be a multi-factorial instrument and that the emergent factors might complement the DLBS factors ( e.g. caring actions, relationship support, scripting and sex); or that the LCBS factors might be similar to Gottman's categories (criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt). However, a very interesting finding from this study was that the LCBS items did not fall into any factors that made sense and instead, results from the analyses support a uni-factorial scale. Despite the fact that the LCBS is made up of only one factor, when the individual DLBS and LCBS items were reviewed and compared, many items on these two scales seemed to complement each other. That is, the DLBS caring actions item "Take walks with me during the day," and the DLBS relationship support item "Spend time talking to me," both seem to complement the LCBS item, "Spends little or no time with me." The DLBS relationship support items, "Spend time talking to me," and "Be a good listener to me," seem to be inversely related to the LCBS item, "Watches TV while talking to me." 89

PAGE 99

90 The DLBS relationship support item, "Remember my birthday," seems to complement the LCBS item "Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays. The DLBS scripting item "Say, "I love you with, my whole heart and soul" ," seems to reflect the inverse of the LCBS items, "Tells me that they hate me," "Tells me that they do not love me," and "Does not tell me that he / she loves me ." The DLBS scripting items, "Say to me "I want to be with you forever"," and "Talk about our future together," seem to reflect the opposite sentiment expressed by the LCBS item, "Tells me that they want to discontinue the relationships." The DLBS scripting item "Say to me "I enjoy spending time with you more than any other person"," seems to be the inverse of the LCBS item, "Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be with me." Despite examples of complementary items and the fact that there were statistically significant inverse correlations between the LCBS and DLBS Caring Actions, Relationship Support, and Scripting subscales there is no support for a reciprocal LCBS factor structure. In addition, there did not appear to be any examples ofDLBS Sex subscale and LCBS item complements. Based on the study's results this was not surprising as there was not a statistically significant relationship between LCBS and the DLBS Sex subscale. Gattman (1994a; 1999) identified categories of behaviors in his work with couples. The types of behaviors that made up Gottman's categories were considered by him to be the most destructive to relationship quality and to relationship longevity. Gottman's categories, labeled the "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse," are criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt. While reviewing the data and comparing Gattman' s categories with LCBS items, a few of the items appeared to conceptually capture what Gattman intended with his categories. For example, the items, "Focuses on other things

PAGE 100

91 when I am around and Wants to hang out with other people more than they want to be with me" might be interpreted as stonewalling behaviors "Is not honest with me, and "Brings up ex-love interests might be interpreted as behaviors displayed by one who is behaving defensively "Talks badly about me to other people might be considered a criticism. In spite of the fact that these inferences could be made these comparisons may not be appropriate. However comparisons between the LCBS items and the contempt category appear to be more defensible. Contempt has been described by Gattman ( 1999 pp. 128-129) as sulfuric acid for love. Although some may think behaviors from other categories such as criticism are just as bad as contempt when Gattman observed partners showing contempt to each other he considered it to be the single most important sign that the marriage was in trouble (Gladwell 2005). According to Gattman, contempt kills love and because he considers it so detrimental to relationships when Gattman interacts therapeutically with couples who are behaving in contemptuous ways he stops their behavior identifies the contempt for the couples and labels it as "abusive" (Gattman 1999). Gattman describes contempt as qualitatively different from criticism and the other categories because when partners are contemptuous they are being hierarchical speaking from a superior plane and communicating that they are more important than their partners (Gladwell 2005; Gattman 1999) Any behavior with the power to kill love might also be a behavior that evokes the feeling that one is unloved by one s partner. Indeed, when the contempt category was compared with LCBS behaviors, there were many LCBS behaviors that seemed to

PAGE 101

92 capture the essence of Gottman's contempt construct. Perhaps the LCBS items best fit a uni-factorial structure because they are measuring primarily contempt. Another interesting finding from this study is that many of the items that made up the final LCBS might be considered fairly common, everyday aversive behaviors. Despite the ordinary nature of the items on the scale, most participants indicated that if the LCBS behaviors were received from romantic partners they would feel either unloved or extremely unloved. This finding is consistent with Kowalski's research on aversive interpersonal behaviors. According to Kowalski (1997 ; 2001), the items that typically come to mind for most people when they think about aversive interpersonal behaviors are murder, rape, or physical abuse; however, these behaviors are relatively rare and in reality the behaviors that Kowalski has shown to be most aversive are generally rather mundane behaviors that occur more frequently. Some of the other factors identified by Kowalski (1997; 200 I) that contribute to whether a behavior is aversive or not include: (1) whether or not the behavior impacts a person's self-esteem (2) whether the behavior interferes with a person's basic human need to belong, and (3) whether the behavior interferes with a person's psychological need to feel in control. Several LCBS behaviors seem to fit one or more of these categories and thus support the use of the label aversive to describe LCBS behaviors. For example the items "Ignores me in front of others," "Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be with me," and "Brings up ex-love interest" might impact one's esteem elicit the feeling that one is unwanted or unneeded by another, and/or that one lacks the ability to control his or her situation.

PAGE 102

93 Another factor identified by Kowalski (1997; 2001) as contributing to whether a behavior is aversive has to do with the type of relationship in which the behavior is enacted. That is when negative interpersonal behaviors or interactions occur between individuals who are close intimate partners the impact of those behaviors is much more damaging to the relationship than when similar types of behaviors are exchanged between individuals who are merely acquaintances or strangers. For this reason, when behaviors are exchanged between intimates, they may be seen by partners as more aversive than when very similar behaviors are exchanged by strangers or acquaintances. For example when an intimate partner "Watches TV while talking to me," "Is not honest," or "Does not call often, the impact is presumably much more hurtful, and thus more aversive for the receiving partner than when similar behaviors are exchanged between those who are not close or romantically involved. Many of the behaviors making up the LCBS might well be exchanged between acquaintances or strangers with the reaction of mild frustration or annoyance but according to the results of the study, this is not so when the behaviors are received from intimate partners. The impact of these same behaviors will generally be much greater. Another factor Kowalski identified as a determinant of whether a behavior is aversive or not has to do with the intentions of the provider of the behavior. If the intention of the behavior's provider are perceived by the recipient as malicious, then the behavior will likely be considered more aversive. One LCBS item appears to tap intentions "Knowingly says things that are hurtful to me According to Kowalski s perspective, the fact that the partner hurts knowingly increases the behavior s aversiveness

PAGE 103

94 Another observation from the current study is that there was no clear cut most unloving behavior. The rankings of the items varied from Phase 2 and 3 as to which behaviors were rated most unloving by participants. However, the overlap among the items ranked in the top three was small. The following items were rated in the top three as most unloving for Phase 2 and 3: "Cheats on me," "Tells me that they hate me," "Tells me that they do not love me," "Verbally abuses me," "Talks badly about me with other people," "Does not tell me that he/she loves me," "Does not express enough affection towards me," "Spends little or no time with me," "Does not call me often," and "Refuses to spend any time with my family." In order to assess construct validity of the LCBS, the scale was correlated with eight other relationship measures. The constructs measured by these eight instruments were: relationship satisfaction, relationship happiness predictions about the future of the relationship, perceived relationship quality, self-disclosure, and relationship mutuality. For these correlations, an LCBS discrepancy score was calculated in a manner similar to the method utilized in DLBS scale validation. For the DLBS a discrepancy score was computed by calculating the absolute value of the difference between participants' ratings of how loved they would feel and how often they desired receiving the desired loving behaviors For the LCBS a discrepancy score was computed by calculating the absolute value of the difference between how unloved participants reported they felt from how often they reported receiving love crushing behaviors. All correlations between the LCBS and the relationship measures were predicted to be statistically significant and inversely related. However, with the exception of one small statistically significant inverse correlation between the LCBS and one of the relationship satisfaction measures, the

PAGE 104

95 results were surprisingly mostly not statistically significant. One explanation for this surprising finding i s that in contrast to the variations people have in their desire for desired loving behaviors people very likely have no desire whatsoever for undesirable love crushing beha v iors As a consequence of this mostly nonsignificant set of findings a second set of correlations was conducted. Instead of the LCBS discr e panc y score an LCBS multipli e r score was calculated. The multiplier score was computed by multiplying participants' ratings of how unloved they would feel upon receiving a particular behavior by ho w often the y reported receiving that love crushing behavior and summing the resulting products. Results of these analyses provided mostly strong support for the hypotheses in contrast to the LCBS discrepancy findings For example the correlation between the LCBS multiplier score and relationship satisfaction as measured with the RAS and the GMREL were both statistically significant. In addition, these two variables were inversely related with the LCBS which indicates that as there are increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors or in how unloved respondents feel when love crushing behaviors are received there will also be decreases in relationship satisfaction. In addition as the receipt of love crushing behaviors decreases respondents" ratings of how satisfied they are with their relationships mcreases. The relationship between the LCBS multiplier score and relationship happiness as measured using the RHS was also statistically significant and the variables were in v ersely related. Results indicate that increases in how unlo v ed respondents feel when love crushing behaviors are received or increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors is

PAGE 105

associated with decreases in how happy respondents feel about their relationship. Additionally when the receipt of love crushing behaviors decreases relationship happiness increases 96 The relationship between the LCBS and percei v ed relationship quality as measured using the PRQC short version was statistically significant and the variables were related in an inverse direction with the LCBS multiplier score Results indicated that increases in how unloved respondents feel after receiving love crushing behaviors or increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors are associated with decreases in relationship quality In addition decreases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors is associated with increases in relationship satisfaction commitment to one's relationship intimacy, trust passion, and love for one's partner, which are all the components making up relationship quality The relationship between the LCBS and respondents' predictions about the future of their relationships as measured by the Predictions about the Future Scale was statistically significant and the variables were inversely related These results indicate that when there are increases in how unloved respondents feel after receiving love crushing behaviors or when there were increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors there are associated decreases in the predictions made about the stability and longevity of the relationship In addition, when there are fewer love crushing behaviors exchanged predictions about the longevity and stability of the relationship are more favorable The relationship between the LCBS and relationship mutuality as measured b y the MPDQ was statistically significant and the variables were related in an inverse direction These results indicate that increases in receipt of love crushing behaviors or in how

PAGE 106

97 unloved respondents feel when love crushing behaviors are received is associated with decreases in relationship mutuality. In addition when the occurrence of love crushing behaviors is decreased the ability to be receptive to and pick up on partners feelings the amount of interest shown between partners, the ability to see humor the ability to be patient and open minded with one's partner and the ability to be understanding with each other increased Results of the correlations between the LCBS and the self-disclosure indices as measured by both the Partner-rated and the Self-rated Self-Disclosure Index were unexpected. First of all the relationship between the LCBS multiplier variable and the Self-rated Self-disclosure Index was statistically non-significant indicating that there is not a relationship between how much one discloses to one's partner and either how unloved one feels when love crushing behaviors are received or the frequency of the receipt of love crushing behaviors. Secondly the relationship between the LCBS and the Partner-rated Self-disclosure Index was significant but not in the direction predicted by the hypotheses. In other words, increases in the receipt of love crushing behaviors are associated with increases in the amount of disclosures being made by partners who are also the providers of the love crushing behaviors One way to understand the unexpected positive correlation between the LCBS and partners' self-disclosures is that partners may feel more unloved when partners disclosures increase because of the nature of the disclosures. For example, the Partner rated Self disclosures Index includes the following topics: revelations about partners personal habits things partner feels guilty about things partner wouldn t do in public partners' deepest feelings things partner likes and dislikes about themsel v es things

PAGE 107

98 important to partner partners worst fears things partner has done which they are proud of and information about partners close relationships with other people Such items when received from partners may contribute to feeling unloved. Limitations and Directions/Implications for Future Research Although there were many strengths inherent in the process utilized to construct the LCBS there were also some limitations. One limitation of this stud y is that all of the data were the product of self-reports. Future research would likely benefit from the use o f other methods for collecting data such as having partners rate each other s behaviors or having trained observers rate participants observed behaviors. Another limitation of the study is that all of the data were obtained from samples of undergraduate collegians and responses are based on their relatively limited relationship experience Relationship duration may be comparatively short for these participants compared to the average length of romantic relationships for the general population of people in relationships. In addition, most of the respondents were not living with romantic partners As a consequence it may be beneficial for future researchers to compare ratings given by participants who are in relationships of varying lengths and to compare ratings provided by those living with versus not living with romantic partners. Although the 22 behavioral items that emerged as a result of scale construction represent the 22 most love crushing behaviors it is unlikely that these 22 behaviors are the most love crushing for all people in every romantic relationship situation. Other possibilities exist. For one the 22 LCBS behaviors identified by the current samples are not lo v e crushing at all for some people ; another possibility is that there are additional behaviors that other people would consider more love crushing but these were not identified by this sample Future research would likely benefit from an assessment of the

PAGE 108

99 generalizability of the LCBS to different people as perceptions about what makes a behavior unloving may vary based upon dispositional traits affective and behavioral experiences and relationship experiences. Individual and partner factors that might influence how unlov i ng a behavior is perceived to be ma y include attachment style, chronological age developmental stage and/or maturity level educational background, romantic relationship experience whether partners are dating or married in v estment in the relationship relationship length sexual orientation, and the developmental stage of the relationship. There may also be differences between groups of people regarding which behaviors are considered most unloving based upon respondents membership in subgroups. Future research would likely benefit from comparisons made between groups to determine if this is the case Comparisons between groups could be based upon such v ariables as age marital status educational level race culture, sexual orientation or whether there are children involved. If the LCBS does not generalize to different individuals or sub-groups then it may be advantageous for future researchers to develop additional items that are more reflective of other people's experience Although de v eloping the LCBS with a collegiate sample could be viewed as a limiting factor because some of the items making up the scale may be specifically apropos only to college students, the LCBS is still a potentially useful instrument. This is because one of the possible uses for the LCBS is to present the list of items to individuals or relationship partners as a starting point for discussing the types of behaviors that have been found to be unloving by other people in relationships. By using the scale as a catal y st in this way e v en if individuals viewing the scale cannot identify with the specific

PAGE 109

100 behaviors on the scale they will likely be able to identify with the LCBS conceptuall y and generate love crushing items on their own that are personally relevant and applicable to their individual relationship situations Results of the current study have demonstrated that there are several relationship variables that co-vary inversely with love crushing behaviors. For example participants who indicated that they received more love crushing behaviors or who felt more unloved as a result of the receipt of love crushing behaviors also indicated that the y felt less satisfied with their relationships that they were less happy about being in their relationships that they were less committed to their partners and to their relationship and that they were less hopeful about the future of their relationships. They also indicated that they were less intimate passionate, and loving as relationship partners they felt less engaged with their partners their interactions with partners were less authentic their ability to be understanding about differences between themselves and their partners was decreased and they felt less empathy toward their partners. These respondents also indicated that they trusted their partners less and that interactions with their partners resulted in feeling disempowered and less energetic. These findings have to be viewed cautiously though because the results are correlational not causal. However because the consequences of negative behaviors appear to be so detrimental to romantic relationships it is important to fully investigate this area to gain a clearer understanding of the impact of love crushing behaviors and identify which behaviors are the most damaging to relationships. Potential Clinical Applications There is evidence suggesting that teaching relationship skills to couples and improving their ability to interact with each other in more positive ways is an efficacious

PAGE 110

101 therapeutic strategy (Gortman 1979; Riskin & Faunce 1970 ; Rusbult Johnson & Morrow 1986 ; Stafford & Canary 1991 ; Ting-Toomey 1983 ; Wills Weiss & Patterson 1974). There is also evidence that the power of negative behaviors and the impact these behaviors have on relationships is much greater than the impact of positive behaviors (Baumeister et al 2001; Gattman, 1994a; 1994b; 1997; 1999; Kowalski, 1997 ; 2001). Therefore identifying negative behaviors and decreasing their occurrence may well be a most effective therapeutic intervention strategy. The LCBS shows early promise as an assessment instrument in clinical settings The LCBS has the potential to identify behaviors that crush love for recipients even when the behaviors making up the 22-item scale are not pertinent to the partners who are viewing the list as the list may serve as a means for generating additional more personally-relevant items. As with the DLBS there are two advantages for using the LCBS as an assessment instrument. These are its utility and its ease of use. The LCBS is a brief 22-item self report measure that can be completed quickly by couples or individuals desiring relationship improvement. The information obtained from the results provided by the LCBS can be interpreted and used immediately with clients. By having clients rate how they would feel and how often they have received the love crushing behaviors the specific behaviors that have been identified as being most love crushing for them can be targeted first for intervention. Clinicians' treatment planning may be improved because they have knowledge of which behaviors are most unloving for partners and which behaviors are most detrimental to couples' relationships Clinical interventions that are informed by the identification of love crushing behaviors may be specific and targeted directly to decrease the occurrence of love crushing behaviors. In so doing clinicians

PAGE 111

may effect positive changes and facilitate greatly improved relationship quality for romantic partners by helping them change the ratio of positive to negative beha v iors Also by raising partners' awareness about the impact that some behaviors have on relationship partners providing partners will have an opportunity to be more discriminating and selective in the choices that they make about the behaviors they choose to provide to their relationship partners. 102 The LCBS shows promise as a clinical instrument. In clinical settings the LCBS can be utilized by clinicians to assist them in treatment planning and in the implementation of interventions By using the LCBS to identify love crushing behaviors clinicians may work with their couples toward eliminating the occurrence of love crushing behaviors. As a result of these positive changes the quality of the relationship may be improved for individuals and couples in romantic relationships where the ratio between positive and negative behaviors is out of balance. However, additional research on the efficacy of this instrument in clinical settings is required. Conclusion Prior research has shown that the impact of receiving negative behaviors is much greater than the impact of the receipt of positive behaviors. There is also evidence supporting the efficacy of teaching skills and behaviors to relationship partners as a means to improving relationships. By identifying negative behaviors and decreasing or eliminating their occurrence the positive impact on relationships is potentially very great. The LCBS shows a lot of promise as an assessment instrument because it can be used in both research and clinical settings. This instrument has the potential to identify the types of behaviors that are most love crushing for relationship partners With this information and the increased awareness that comes with it relationship partners can make choices

PAGE 112

103 about the behaviors they enact knowing the kind of impact they will have on their relationship partners and in their relationships As a result they may choose to be more discriminating about which behaviors they provide to their romantic partners. By being the providers of fewer love crushing behaviors they may find themselves with romantic partners who feel mor~ loved by them and who are consequently more loving romantic partners.

PAGE 113

APPENDIX A PHASE 1 QUESTIONNAIRE Please read through and complete the following materials m the order presented answering as honestly as possible Take a moment to think about your current romantic relationship or a former romantic relationship. Using the space provided below, record your responses to: What could your partner DO that would make you feel !!!!loved? or What could your partner SAY that would make you feel unloved? Continue on the back if necessary then complete the items on the next 2 pages. 104

PAGE 114

105 1. Gender: D Female D Male 2.Age: __ 3. Current year in school: D Sopl:iomore D Senior 0Post Bae ____ 4. Sexual Preference: D Heterosexual D Homosexual 5. Racial Background: D American Indian/ Alaskan Native D African Descent/Black D Asian/Pacific Islander D Hispanic/Latino D Multiracial-specify ______ 0 White D Other ----------6. Ethnic-Cultural Background: Are you an international student? D YES D NO Nationality: ________ Country of Birth: ______ 7. Are you currently in a romantic relationship? 0 YES (IF YES, CONTINUE) 0 NO (IF NO, GO TO ITEM 1fil 8. What is the gender of your current romantic partner? 0 FEMALE O MALE 9. How long have you been in your current romantic relationship? __ 10. Check all that apply. Currently, I am: 0 DATING MY PARTNER IN ADDITION TO OTHER PEOPLE 0DATINGMYPARTNEREXCLUSIVELY 0 LIVE WITH MY PARTNER 0 ENGAGED TO MY PARTNER 0 MARRIED TO MY PARTNER 0 NOT INVOLVED WITH ANYONE AT THE PRESENT TIME 11. Check one. Overall, how satisfied are you with your current romantic relationship? 0 EXTREMELY SATISFiED 0 VERY SATISFIED 0 SATISFIED 0 NEITHER SATISFIED OR UNSATISFIED 0 UNSATISFIED 0 VERY UNSATISFIED 0 EXTREMELY UNSATISFIED

PAGE 115

12. I am very loved by my romantic partner. 0 I STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE 106 0 I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE NOR AGREE AGREE 0 I STRONGLY AGREE 13. My romantic partner cares a great deal about me. 0 I STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE 0 I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE NOR AGREE 0IAGREE 0 I STRONGLY AGREE 14. When I think about my romantic partner, I feel loved. 0 I STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE 0 I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE NOR AGREE AGREE 0 I STRONGLY AGREE 15. How much do you LOVE your partner? D I do not love my partner at all D I love my partner a little bit D I love my partner a moderate amount D I love my partner quite a bit D I love my partner very much 16. If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, how long ago did your most recent past relationship end? _____ D Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 17. What was the length of your most recent past relationship? __ D Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 18. What is the gender of your most recent former partner? D Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship D Female 0Male Return questionnaire and sign your name to the list to receive extra credit for participating. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

PAGE 116

1. Gender: APPENDIXB PHASE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELATIONSHIP STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS D Female D Male 2.Age: __ 3. Current year in school: D Sophomore D Senior Drost Bae 00ther-Specify: ____ 4. Sexual Preference: D Heterosexual D Homosexual 5. Racial Background: D American Indian/Alaskan Native D African Descent/Black D Asian/Pacific Islander D Hispanic/Latino D Multiracial-specify ______ 0 White OOther __________ 6. Ethnic-Cultural Background: Are you an international student? D YES D NO Nationality: ________ Country of Birth: ______ 7. Are you currently in a romantic relationship? 0 YES (IF YES, CONTINUE) 0 NO (IF NO, GO TO ITEM 12) 8. What is the gender of your current romantic partner? 0 FEMALE O MALE 9. How long have you been in your current romantic relationship? __ 10. Check all that apply. Currently, I am: 0 DATING MY PARTNER IN ADDITION TO OTHER PEOPLE 0 DATING MY PARTNER EXCLUSIVELY 0 LIVE WITH MY PARTNER 0 ENGAGED TO MY PARTNER 0 MARRIED TO MY PARTNER 0 NOT INVOLVED WITH ANYONE AT THE PRESENT TIME 107

PAGE 117

11. Check one. Overall, how satisfied are you with your current romantic relationship? 0 EXTREMELY SATISFIED 0 VERY SATISFIED 0 SATISFIED 0 NEITHER SATISFIED OR UNSATISFIED 0 UNSATISFIED 0 VERY UNSATISFIED 0 EXTREMELY UNSATISFIED 12. I am very loved by my romantic partner. 0 I STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE 108 0 I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE NOR AGREE AGREE 0 I STRONGLY AGREE 13. My romantic partner cares a great deal about me. 0 I STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE 0 I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE NOR AGREE AGREE 0 I STRONGLY AGREE 14. When I think about my romantic partner, I feel loved. 0 I STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE 0 I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE NOR AGREE AGREE 0 I STRONGLY AGREE 15. How much do you LOVE your partner? D I do not love my partner at all D I love my partner a little bit D I love my partner a moderate amount D I love my partner quite a bit D I love my partner very much 16. If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, how long ago did your most recent past relationship end? _____ D Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 17. What was the length of your most recent past relationship? __ D Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 18. What is the gender of your most recent former partner? D Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship D Female OMale

PAGE 118

APPENDIXC PHASE 1 INFORMED CONSENT This is a study about romantic relationships. Participation in this study is voluntary If you choose to participate in this study you will be helping to advance the research on romantic relationships If you choose to participate in this study you will be given a questionnaire. You are free to discontinue participation at any time Your responses to the questionnaire items are anonymous Do not put your name or any other identifying information on the questionnaire When you have completed the questionnaire, turn it in and write your name on the list (which will be located next to where you tum in your questionnaire) to indicate that you were a participant in this study. The list of participants' names will be given to your course instructor and extra credit will be provided by the course instructor to those who participated. 109

PAGE 119

APPENDIXD PHASE 1, 2, AND 3 COUPLES' COUNSELING RESOURCES Individual and Couples Counseling Resources University of Florida Counseling Center P301 Peabody Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 (352)392-1575 http: // www. counsel. ufl .edu Student Mental Health 245 Student Health Care Center Gainesville Florida 32611 (352) 392-1171 http: / /www.health.ufl.edu/shcc/smhs.htm University of Florida Counselor Education Couples Clinic 1215 Norman Hall Box 117046 Gainesville, Florida 32611 392-0731 x237 (Dr. Doan) silvia@coe.ufl.edu Center for Sexual Assault/ Abuse Recovery and Education 245 Student Health Care Center 392-1161 x4231 http:/ / www health ufl edu/shcc/care.htm Alachua County Crisis Center 218 SE 24 th Street Gainesville, Florida 32641 (352)264-6785 264-6789 24-Hr. Crisis Line http: // www.co.alachua. fl. us / gov/DEPT /community_ services / crisis.asp Comer Drug Store 1300 N. W. 6th Street 334-3800 http:/ / www.comerdrugstore.org/ 110

PAGE 120

APPENDIXE PRELIMINARY UNDESIRABLE BERA VIOR SCALE (PUBS ) 1 Acted angry toward me 2 Acted annoyed with me 3 Acted competitively toward me 4 Acted differently towards me in public compared to w hen we were alone 5 Acted indifferently toward me 6. Acted irresponsibly about their own actions 7. Acted like they don't care about me 8. Acted selfishly 9. Always seemed to have something better to do than spend time with me 10. Argued with me 11 A voided important conversations 12 Avoided me 13 Belittled me 14 Broke previously arranged plans to spend time with me 15. Brought attention to something about me that embarrasses me 16. Brought up ex-love interests 17 Brought up or dwelled on mistakes that I ha v e made in the past in our relationship 18. Brought up things that I have done wrong in my life 19. Called me bad/mean/hurtful names 20. Canceled a date with me 21 Cheated on me 22. Compared me to a previous partner 23. Criticized me for things that I do 24 Criticized my appearance 25. Cursed at me 26. Decided to do something that they know I have strong feelings against 27. Did not ask me bow I am doing 28 Did not ask me bow my day was 29. Did not care about my feelings 30. Did not compliment me 31. D i d not express enough affection toward me 32. Did not gi v e me a bug or a kiss before leaving me 33. Did not bold my band 34. Did not introduce me to their friends 35. Did not kiss me 36. Did not listen to me when I am talking 3 7 Did not pamper me 38 Did not put an y effort into our relationship 111

PAGE 121

112 39. Did not really listen to me 40. Did not respond back when I say "I love you" 41. Did not respond to me when I am talking 42. Did not show any interest in my life other than the part that includes them 43. Did not speak to me 44. Did not stick up for me 45. Did not take me seriously 46. Did not talk to me 4 7. Did not treat me as an equal 48 Did not trust me 49 Discussed previous relationships 50. Flirted with another person 51. Focus was on other things when I am around 52. Forgot an important date like my birthday or an anni v ersary 5 3. For got something that they know is important to me 54 Forgot that they had plans with me 5 5 For got things about me 56. Forgot to call me 57. Held things back from me 58. Hung up the phone on me 59 Hurt me physically 60. Ignored me 61. Ignored me in front of others 62. Ignored my phone calls 63. Insulted me 64. Knowingly said things that are hurtful to me 65. Lied to me 66. Looked at other people longingly 67. Made demeaning comments about my beliefs 68. Made fun ofme 69. Made me cry 70. Made negative comments about my intelligence 71 Made promises and then does not keep them with me 72. Manipulated what I say 73. Mocked my viewpoints on a topic 74. Never did anything special for my special occasions or holidays 75. Never had any time for the two ofus to be together 76. Never initiate things and I always have to 77. Never shared their feelings with me 78. Never told me about what is happening in their life 79. Not called me often 80. Not complimented me 81. Not detect that something was wrong when I am feeling upset 82. Not include me in the things that they do 83 Not put their arm around me 84. Not respect my family

PAGE 122

113 85. Not tell me that he / she loves me 86. Not understand me 87. Not want to be physically intimate with me 88. Not want to cuddle with me 89. Not wanted to do things with my friends 90. Only talked to me on a limited basis 91. Ordered me around 92. Postponed things that we had planned to do 93 Questioned my abilities 94. Refused to spend anytime with my family 95. Rejected me sexually 96. Ridiculed the things that I do 97. Said disrespectful things to me 98 Said something mean about my personality 99 Said something to make me feel stupid 100. Said they have romantic feelings for someone else 101. Said to me "if you loved me, you would ... 102 Seemed apathetic toward me 103. Shared information about themselves with others but does not tell me 104 Showed a lack of interest in me 105. Spent little or no time with me 106. Spent time doing things with friends instead of spending time with me 107. Spoke down to me 108. Stole money from me 109. Stopped showing affection toward me 110. Talked badly about me to other people 111. Told me about being with a former partner 112. Told me hat they do not love me 113. Told me my opinion does not matter 114. Told me that they hate me 115. Told me that they want to discontinue our relationship 116. Told me to "shut up" 117 Told me what I can or cannot do 118. Told other people my secrets 119 Took the things I do for them for granted 120 Verbally abused me 121. Walked away from me 122. Wanted to hang out or be with other people more than they wanted to be together 123. Was always checking out other people of the opposite sex 124 Was not affectionate toward me 125. Was not aware of my needs and wants 126. Was not honest with me 127. Was not responsive to me when I was affectionate toward them 128. Was not sensitive and compassionate when I needed someone to talk to 129. Was not supportive

PAGE 123

114 130. Was not thoughtful 131. Was rude to me 132 Watched TV while talking to me with me 133. Would not spend the night with me 134 Yelled at me 135 Yelled at me in front of other people

PAGE 124

APPENDIXF PHASE 2 QUESTIONNAIRE This is an anonymous questionnaire. Please read and respond to each questionnaire item by bubbling the number that best fits your response on to your answer sheets. Your responses are anonymous. Do not fill in the space for your name on your answer sheets. When responding to the questionnaire items different sections have different instructions. Please read and follow the instructions for each section. Answer honestly, carefully yet quickly. Using the following scale: 1----------------------2---------------------3---------------------4--------------------5 extremely unloved unloved neither unloved or loved loved extremely loved Indicate how you would feel if your partner did or said each of the following: 1. Spent time talking to me 2. Yelled at me in front of other people 3. Was not sensitive and compassionate when I needed someone to talk to 4. Seduced me 5. Flirted with another person 6. Walked away from me 7. Ignored my phone calls 8. Said to me "You mean so much to me" 9 Did not talk to me 10. Told other people my secrets 11 Created a feeling of security between us 12 Acted like they don't care about me 13. Did not really listen to me 14. Spent time doing things with friends instead of spending time with me 15. Not understand me 16. Was not responsive to me when I was affectionate toward them 17. Said to me, "I love you with all my heart and soul" 18. Said they have romantic feelings for someone else 19. Did not show any interest in my life other than the part that includes them 20. Told me that they hate me 21. We had sex in strange places 22. Questioned my abilities 23. Not complimented me 115

PAGE 125

116 24. Took the things I do for them for granted 25 Said to me "I think that we make a great couple" 26. Not called me often 27. Not put their arm around me 28 Shared information about themselves with others but does not tell me 29 Put a note on my car 30. Manipulated what I say 31 Cursed at me 32. ridiculed the things that I do 33 Talked about our future together 34. Lied to me 35. Brought attention to something about me that embarrasses me 36. Not wanted to do things with my friends 37. Told me that I make them happier than anyone else 38. Was not aware ofmy needs and wants 39. Avoided important conversations 40 Never had any time for the two ofus to be together 41. Would not spend the night with me 42. Made our relationship a mutual project 43. Acted differently towards me in public compared to when we were alone together 44. Made demeaning comments about my beliefs 45. Told me to "shut up" 46. Said to me "I enjoy spending time with you more than any other person" 47. Wanted to hang out or be with other people more than they wanted to be with me 48 Was not supportive 49. Told me about being with a former partner 50. Not tell me that he / she loves me 51. Was open to trying new sexual positions 52. Ignored me 53. Spoke down to me 54. Did not respond back when I say, "I love you" 55 Stole money from me 56. Was a good communicator 57. Said something mean about my personality 58. Said to me, "I want to be with you forever" 59. Said to me "if you loved me you would ... 60. Not want to be physically intimate with me 61. Watched TV while talking to me 62. Ordered me around 63. Was supportive ofme and my decisions 64 Refused to spend anytime with my family 65. Was a good listener to me 66. Told me that they want to discontinue our relationship 67. Never shared their feelings with me 68. Good sex 69. Not respect my family

PAGE 126

117 70 Not detect that something was wrong when I am feeling upset 71. Talked badly about me to other people 72. Made negative comments about my intelligence 73. Brought up or dwelled on mistakes that I have made in the past in our relationship 74. Changed his/her religion 75 Not want to cuddle with me 76. Showed a lack of interest in me 77. Was rude to me 78. Remembered my birthday 79 Looked at other people longingly 80. Decided to do something that they know I have strong feelings against 81. Made a CD of corny love songs 82. Insulted me 83. Acted annoyed with me 84 Accepted my imperfections 85. Called me bad/mean/hurtful names 86. Only talked to me on a limited basis 87. Took walks with me during the day 88. Yelled at me 89. Hurt me physically 90 Avoided me 91. Never initiate things and I always have to 92. Not include me in the things that they do 93. Says that he / she wants to marry me 94. Forgot an important date like my birthday or an anniversary 95. Acted indifferently toward me 96. Left a rose on my pillow 97. Did not take me seriously 98. Told me what I can or cannot do 99. Did not treat me as an equal 100. Was not affectionate toward me 101. Told me what he / she likes and dislikes in bed 102. Did not listen to me when I am talking 103. Spent little or no time with me 104. Made me cookies and brownies 105. Told me that they do not love me 106. Ignored me in front of others 107. Cooked a special meal just for the two of us 108. Said something to make me feel stupid 109. Did not compliment me 110. Said to me, "I'll always love you" 111. Forgot things about me 112. Did not give me a hug or a kiss before leaving me 113. Postponed things that we had planned to do 114. Took a more active role in sex and foreplay 115. Seemed apathetic toward me

PAGE 127

116. Did my laundry every once in a while 11 7. Cheated on me 118. Never told me about what is happening in their life 119. Criticized my appearance 120. Wrote me poems 121 Did not stick up for me 122 Did not ask me how my day was 123. Made promises and then does not keep them with me 124. Brought up things that I have done wrong in my life 125. Oral sex 126 Did not introduce me to their friends 127. Acted selfishly 128. Knowingly said things that are hurtful to me 129 Argued with me 130 Never did anything special for my special occasions or holidays 131 Was sympathetic toward my feelings 132. Acted angry toward me 133. Said to me, "You are the best thing that ever happened to me" 134. Acted competitively toward me 135. Helped me through rough times 136. Did not express enough affection toward me 13 7. Hung up the phone on me 138. Canceled a date with me 13 9. Encouraged me to keep going during sex 140. Belittled me 141. Forgot something that they know is important to me 142. Broke previously arranged plans to spend time with me 143. Did not hold my hand 144. Initiated sex 145. Compared me to a previous partner 146. Did not ask me how I am doing 14 7. Was always checking out other people of the opposite sex 148. Acted irresponsibly about their own actions 149. Held things back from me 150. Brought up ex-love interests 151. Focus was on other things when I am around 152. Told me my opinion does not matter 153 Forgot that they had plans with me 154. Did not care about my feelings 155. Did not kiss me 156 Did not speak to me 157. Criticized me for things that I do 158. Mocked my viewpoints on a topic 159. Always seemed to have something better to do than spend time with me 160. Said disrespectful things to me 161. Was not honest with me 118

PAGE 128

162. Forgot to call me 163. Verbally abused me 164. Made fun ofme 165. Was not thoughtful 166. Did not respond to me when I am talking 167 Said to me, "I want to be with you forever" 168. Stopped showing affection toward me 169. Did not pamper me 170. Did not put any effort into our relationship 171. Rejected me sexually 172. Did not trust me 173. Discussed previous relationships 174. Made me cry Continue responding to questionnaire items following the directions given RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS by bubbling the number on your answer sheet that best fits your response. 175. My Gender: 176. My year in school: 177. My Sexual Preference: 178 My Racial Background: 1 = Female 2 = Male 1 = Freshman 2 = Sophomore 3 = Junior 4 = Senior 5 = Other 1 = Homosexual 2 = Heterosexual 3 = Bisexual 1 = White 2 = African Descent/Black 3 = Hispanic/Latino 4 = Asian/Pacific Islander 5 = Other 179 Are you an international student? 1 = NO 2=YES 180 Are you currently in a romantic relationship? 1 = NO (Go to item 189) 119 2 = YES ( continue with the next item) 181. What is the gender of your current romantic partner? 1 = FEMALE 2=MALE

PAGE 129

182. How long have you been in your current romantic relationship? 1 = less than 3 months 2 = 3 6 months 3 = 6 12 months 4 = 1-2 years 5 = more than 2 yrs. 183. Bubble ALL that apply: Currently, I am: 1 = DATING MY PARTNER and OTHER PEOPLE 2 = DATING MY PARTNER EXCLUSNELY 3 = LIVE WITH MY PARTNER 4 = ENGAGED TO MY PARTNER 5 = MARRIED TO MY PARTNER 184 Bubble ONE. Overall how satisfied are you with your current relationship? 1 = EXTREMELY UNSATISFIED 2 = UNSATISFIED 3 = NEITHER UNSATISFIED OR SATISFIED 4 = SATISFIED 5 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED 185. Bubble ONE. I am very loved by my partner. 1 = I STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 = I DISAGREE 3 = I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE OR AGREE 4=IAGREE 5 = I STRONGLY AGREE 186. Bubble ONE. My romantic partner cares a great deal about me. 1 = I STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 = I DISAGREE 3 = I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE OR AGREE 4=IAGREE 5 = I STRONGLY AGREE 187 Bubble ONE. When I think about my romantic partner, I feel loved. 1 = I STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 = I DISAGREE 3 = I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE OR AGREE 4=IAGREE 5 = I STRONGLY AGREE 188. Bubble ONE. How much do you LOVE your partner: 1 = I do not love my partner at all 2 = I love my partner a little bit 3 = I love my partner a moderate amount 4 = I love my partner quite a bit 5 = I love my partner very much 120

PAGE 130

189. How long ago did your most recent past relationship end? 1 = less than 3 months 2 = 3 6 months 3 = 6 12 months 4 = more than I year 5 = I have not had a prior relationship 190. What was the length of your most recent past romantic relationship? I = less than 3 months 2 = 3 6 months 3 = 6 12 months 4 = more than 1 year 5 = I have not had a prior relationship 191 What is the gender of your most recent former partner? 1 =FEMALE 2 = MALE 3 = Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship In order to RESPOND to each of the following items you will bubble the circle in the columns below those areas that best fits your response. Answer EACH item below in ORDER. Using the following rating scale: NOT VERY TRUE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 VERY TRUE 121 Bubble the number that best fits your response to the first item below in the FIRST COLUMN ("1 ") of the area labeled "UF ID," bubble your response to the SECOND item below into the SECOND column of the "UF ID" area and so on. 1. I am very confident in my judgment to be in this relationship. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. I don't always know the reason why I stay in this relationship. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 I never regret my decision to be in a relationship with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Compared to others relationships, my relationship doesn t lack anything. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. I feel very confident about my relationship with my partner when we are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 in the presence of others 6. It is important to me that others are not aware of any negative thoughts 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I may have about my partner. 7 I make it a point never to disagree with my partner in the presence 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 of others. 8 It is very important to me that others do not see my partner and I argue. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. I never tell others about disagreements or quarrels my partner and I have.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 It is important to me that others only see the good side of my relationship 01 2 3 4 5 6 with my partner. Finally, In the "SPECIAL CODES" section RECORD your AGE by bubbling the first number of your age on the top row and the second number of your age on the bottom row (For example if you are 19 bubble the "1 on the top row and the 9 on the bottom row ) Thank you for your time and your participation

PAGE 131

APPENDIXG DESIRED LOVING BERA VIOR SCALE (DLBS) 1 Tell me that I make them happier than anyone else. 2. Make our relationship a mutual project. 3. Say to me "You mean so much to me." 4. Do my laundry every once in a while. 5. Tell me what he / she likes and dislikes in bed. 6. Put a note on my car. 7 Seduce me. 8. Be a good listener to me. 9 Spend time talking to me. 10. Leave a rose on my pillow 11. Be open to trying new sexual positions. 12. Help me through rough times. 13. Be a good communicator. 14. Take a more active role in sex and foreplay. 15 Say that he / she wants to marry me. 16. Create a feeling of security between us. 17. Cook a special meal just for the two of us. 18. Say "I love you with all my heart and soul." 19. Accept my imperfections 20. Remember my birthday. 21. Good sex 22. Say to me, "I want to be with you forever." 23. Be supportive of me and my decisions. 24. Make a CD of corny love songs. 25. Talk about our future together. 26. Say to me "I enjoy spending time with you more than any other person." 27. Say to me, "I want to be with you forever." 28. Take walks with me during the day. 29. Write poems. 30. Be sympathetic to my feelings 31. Have sex in strange places 32. Oral sex. 33. Make me cookies and brownies 34 Encourage me to keep going during sex. 35. Say to me "You are the best thing that ever happened to me. 36. Say to me "I'll always love you." 3 7. Change his/her religion. 38. Say to me, "I think that we make a great couple." 39. Initiate sex 122

PAGE 132

APPENDIXH INVENTORY OF DESIRABLE RESPONDING IN RELATIONSHIPS (IDRR) Items are rated on a 7 item Likert scale with values ranging from 1 = not very true to 7 = very true Factor 1: Relationship Self-Deception (REL-SD) 1. I am very confident in my judgment to be in this relationship. 2. I don't always know the reason why I stay in this relationship 3. I never regret my decision to be in a relationship with my partner. 4. Compared to others' relationships, my relationship doesn't lack anything. 5. I feel very confident about my relationship with my partner when we are in the presence of others Factor 2: Relationship Impression Management (REL-IM) 6. It is important to me that others are not aware of any negative thoughts I may have about my partner. 7. I make it a point never to disagree with my partner in the presence of others. 8. It is very important to me that others do not see my partner and I argue. 9 I never tell others about disagreements or quarrels my partner and I have. 10. It is important to me that others only see the good side of my relationship with my partner. 123

PAGE 133

APPENDIX I PHASE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELATIONSHIP STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS 1. My Gender: 2. My year in school: 3. My Sexual Preference: 4. My Racial Background: 1 = Female 2 = Male 1 = Freshman 2 = Sophomore 3 = Junior 4 = Senior 5 = Other 1 = Homosexual 2 = Heterosexual 3 = Bisexual 1 = White 2 = African Descent/Black 3 = Hispanic/Latino 4 = Asian/Pacific Islander 5 = Other 5. Are you an international student? 1 = NO 2=YES 6. Are you currently in a romantic relationship? 1 =NO (Go to item 189) 2 = YES ( continue with the next item) 7. What is the gender of your current romantic partner? 1 =FEMALE 2=MALE 8. How long have you been in your current romantic relationship? 1 = less than 3 months 2 = 3 6 months 3 = 6 12 months 4 = 1 -2 years 5 = more than 2 yrs. 124

PAGE 134

9 Bubble ALL that apply: Currently I am: 1 = DATING MY PARTNER and OTHER PEOPLE 2 = DATING MY PARTNER EXCLUSIVELY 3 = LIVE WITH MY PARTNER 4 = ENGAGED TO MY PARTNER 5 = MARRIED TO MY PARTNER 10 Bubble ONE. Overall how satisfied are you with your current romantic relationship? 1 = EXTREMELY UNSATISFIED 2 = UNSATISFIED 3 = NEITHER UNSATISFIED OR SATISFIED 4 = SATISFIED 5 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED 11. Bubble ONE I am very loved by my partner. 1 = I STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 = I DISAGREE 3 = I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE OR AGREE 4=IAGREE 5 = I STRONGLY AGREE 12. Bubble ONE. My romantic partner cares a great deal about me 1 = I STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 = I DISAGREE 3 = I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE OR AGREE 4=IAGREE 5 = I STRONGLY AGREE 13 Bubble ONE. When I think about my romantic partner I feel loved. 1 = I STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 = I DISAGREE 3 = I AM NEUTRAL-NEITHER DISAGREE OR AGREE 4=IAGREE 5 = I STRONGLY AGREE 14 Bubble ONE. How much do you LOVE your partner: 1 = I do not love my partner at all 2 = I love my partner a little bit 3 = I love my partner a moderate amount 4 = I love my partner quite a bit 5 = I love my partner very much 125

PAGE 135

15. How long ago did your most recent past relationship end? 1 = less than 3 months 2 = 3 6 months 3 = 6 12 months 4 = more than 1 year 5 = I have not had a prior relationship 16. What was the length of your most recent past romantic relationship? 1 = less than 3 months 2 = 3 6 months 3 = 6 12 months 4 = more than 1 year 5 = I have not had a prior relationship 17 What is the gender of your most recent former partner? 1 =FEMALE 2=MALE 3 = Not applicable I have not been in a relationship 126

PAGE 136

APPENDIXJ LOVE CRUSHING BEHAVIOR SCALE (LCBS) 1. Brings up ex-love interests 2. Cheats on me 3. Does not call me often 4. Does not express enough affection toward me 5 Does not respect my family 6. Does not tell me that he / she loves me 7. Focuses on other things when I am around 8. Ignores me in front of others 9. Is not honest with me 10 Knowingly says things that are hurtful to me 11. Looks at other people longingly 12. Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays 13 Refuses to spend anytime with my family 14 Shares information about themselves with others but does not tell me 15. Spends little or no time with me 16. Talks badly about me to other people 17. Tells me that they do not love me 18. Tells me that they hate me 19. Tells me that they want to discontinue our relationship 20. Verbally abuses me 21. Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be with me 22 Watches TV while talking to me 127

PAGE 137

APPENDIXK PHASE 2 INFORMED CONSENT Hello, my name is Mary Smith and I am a graduate student conducting research in psychology. This study is about romantic relationships. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free to discontinue participation at any time. If you do participate in the study you will be given a questionnaire and an answer sheet. Do not put your name or any other identifying information on the questionnaire or the answer sheet as your responses to the questionnaire items are anonymous To complete the questionnaire, you will be asked to rate questionnaire items using your answer sheet. There are no right or wrong responses so please be as honest as possible. In addition to rating items you will also be asked to provide some demographic information about yourself. Although it will be very helpful if you answer every question, it is not necessary that you do so and you may stop participating at any time. When you have finished rating the questionnaire items you will turn in your questionnaire and your response sheet. In addition, you will be asked to write your name onto a list (located near where you tum in your questionnaire and answer sheet). The list will be given to your course instructor so that extra credit can be assigned. The amount of extra credit that you receive will be determined by your course instructor and will be commensurate with the average amount of time taken to complete the questionnaire. Completing the questionnaire should take approximately 10 to 15 minutes. I expect you to have no risk or discomfort related to your participation in this study. Other than receiving extra credit for your participation it is doubtful that participating in this study will result in any immediate benefit to you. I am willing to answer any questions you may have about the study. You can contact me at: P.O. Box 114100, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 or call me and leave a message for me at 392-1575, or email me at mbsmith @ ufl.edu For questions regarding your rights as a participant in this study contact the UF IRB Office at: Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611-2250; phone # 352-392-0433. Thank you for your time. Mary B. Smith, M.S. Supervised by: Martin Heesacker, Ph.D., Professor and Chair University of Florida Department of Psychology P. 0. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 Phone: 352-392-0601, ext. 200, E-mail: heesack @ ufl edu By completing the questionnaire and turning it in you are consenting to participate in this study 128

PAGE 138

APPENDIXL PHASE 2 DEBRIEFING STATEMENT Thank you for participating in this study My aim was to examine what behaviors when received by a romantic partner make the recipient feel unloved. Your responses will be used to develop a scale that will be used in couples' counseling and in research on romantic relationships Should you have any questions about this research please feel free to contact me at: (352) 392-1575 or mbsmith @ ufl.edu. Thank you for your time and your assistance. Mary B. Smith M S. Graduate student in Counseling Psychology Supervised by : Martin Heesacker, Ph.D. Professor and Chair Department of Psychology University of Florida P. 0 Box 112250 Gainesville FL 32611-2250 Phone: 352-392-0601,ext.200 Fax: 352-3927985 E-mail: heesack@ufl edu 129

PAGE 139

APPENDIXM PHASE 3 QUESTIONNAIRE Read the directions at the beginning of each section carefully and answer the items as honestly carefully and quickly as possible by bubbling the number that corresponds with your response on your response sheet. Use the scales pro v ided throughout the questionnaire to rate items. The following scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word Indicate to what extend you feel this way right now, that is at the present moment. Use the following scale to record your answers: 1 2 very slightly or not at all a little 1. interested 1 2 distressed 1 3. excited 1 4. upset 1 5. strong 1 6. guilty 1 7. scared 1 8 hostile 1 9. enthusiastic 1 10. proud 1 11. irritable 1 12. alert 1 13. ashamed 1 14. inspired 1 15 nervous 1 16. determined 1 17. attentive 1 18. jittery 1 19. active 1 20. afraid 1 3 4 5 moderately quite a lot extremely 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 130 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

PAGE 140

131 For the following items, USE THE SCALE BELOW AND RATE how you would feel if your partner (or a former partner, or a hypothetical partner) DID or SAID each of the following items. Bubble the NUMBER THAT CORRESPONDS with YOUR RESPONSE ON THE RESPONSE SHEET. lfmy partner DID or SAID the following I would feel: 0-------------1---------------------2-----------------------3-----------------------4 extremely unloved neither unloved loved extremely unloved nor loved loved 21. Tells me that they hate me 0 1 2 3 4 22 Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays 0 1 2 3 4 23. Cheats on me 0 1 2 3 4 24 Is not honest with me 0 1 2 3 4 25 Spends little or no time with me 0 1 2 3 4 26. Talks badly about me to other people 0 1 2 3 4 27. Ignores me in front of others 0 1 2 3 4 28 Does not call me often 0 1 2 3 4 29 Knowingly says things that are hurtful to me 0 1 2 3 4 30. Looks at other people longingly 0 1 2 3 4 31. Tells me that they do not love me 0 1 2 3 4 32 Refuses to spend anytime with my family 0 1 2 3 4 33. Verbally abuses me 0 1 2 3 4 34. Does not tell me that he / she loves me 0 1 2 3 4 3 5 Watches TV while talking to me 0 1 2 3 4 36. F o cuses on other things when I am around 0 1 2 3 4 3 7. Shares information about themselves with others but does not tell me 0 1 2 3 4 38. Does not respect my family 0 1 2 3 4 39. Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be 0 1 2 3 4 with me 40. Tells me that they want to discontinue our relationship 0 1 2 3 4 41. Does not express enough affection toward me 0 1 2 3 4 42. Brings up ex-love interests 0 1 2 3 4 Now, using the following scale, indicate how often you receive or have received each of the following behaviors from your relationship partner. Bubble the number that corresponds with your response on the response sheet. 0-------------------------1------------------------2-------------------------3------------------------4 never rarely sometimes often always 43. Tells me that they hate me 0 1 2 3 4 44. Never does anything special for my special occasions or holidays 0 1 2 3 4 45. Cheats on me 0 1 2 3 4 46. Is not honest with me 0 1 2 3 4 4 7. Spends little or no time with me 0 1 2 3 4 48. Talks badly about me to other people 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 141

132 49 Ignores me in front of others 0 1 2 3 4 50 Does not call me often 0 1 2 3 4 51 Knowingly says things that are hurtful to me 0 1 2 3 4 52. Looks at other people longingly 0 1 2 3 4 53 Tells me that they do not love me 0 1 2 3 4 54. Refuses to spend anytime with my family 0 1 2 3 4 55. Verbally abuses me 0 1 2 3 4 56. Does not tell me that he / she loves me 0 1 2 3 4 57. Watches TV while talking to me 0 1 2 3 4 58. Focuses on other things when I am around 0 1 2 3 4 59 Shares information about themselves with others but does not tell me 0 1 2 3 4 60. Does not respect my famil y 0 1 2 3 4 61 Wants to hang out or be with other people more than they want to be 0 1 2 3 4 with me 62. Tells me that they want to discontinue our relationship 0 1 2 3 4 63. Does not express enough affection toward me 0 1 2 3 4 64 Brings up ex-love interests 0 1 2 3 4 BUBBLE YOUR RESPONSE ON YOUR RESPONSE SHEET: 65 Are you currently in a romantic relationship? 0=No 1 =YES 66 Have you ever been in a romantic relationship? 0 = No I have not had a previous romantic relationship. 1 = Yes, I have had at least one prior romantic relationship If you are currently in a romantic relationship or have had a previous romantic relationship continue with the next item If you have not had a romantic relationship go to item #138 On your response sheet, bubble the response that best represents how strongly you disagree or agree with each of the following statements: 67. How well does your partner meet your needs? 0 1 2 3 POORLY AVERAGE 68. In general how satisfied are you with your relationship? 0 1 2 3 UNSATISFIED AVERAGE 69. How good is your relationship compared to most? 0 1 2 3 POOR AVERAGE 4 EXTREMELY WELL 4 EXTREMELY SATISFIED 4 EXCELLENT 70. How often do you wish you hadn't gotten in this relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 NEVER A VERA GE VERY OFTEN

PAGE 142

133 71. To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations? 0 1 2 3 4 HARDLY AT ALL AVERAGE COMPLETELY 72. How much do you love y our partner? 0 1 2 3 4 NOT MUCH AVERAGE VERY MUCH 73 How many problems are there in your relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 VERY FEW AVERAGE VERY MANY Next are six statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 7-point scale below indicated the extent of your agreement or disagreement by bubbling in the appropriate number on your response sheet. 0----------1--------------2---------------3---------------4----------------5----------------6 Strongly Disagree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Strongly Agree 74 I have a good relationship with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. My relationship with my partner is very stable. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 76 My relationship with my partner is strong 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 77 My relationship with my partner makes me happy. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 I really feel like a part of a team with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 79 Overall I am very satisfied with everything in my relationship 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Using the scale below respond to the following question by bubbling your response on your response sheet. In general how would you describe your overall relationship with your partner? 80. bad 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 good 81. unpleasant 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant 82. negative 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive 83. unsatisfying 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 satisfying 84. worthless 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 valuable Bubble your responses to the following items on your response sheet using the rating scale below : Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Extremely 85. How satisfied are you with your relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 86. How committed are you to your relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 87. How intimate is your relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 88 How much do you trust your partner ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 89. How passionate is your relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 90. How much do you love your partner? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 143

For the following items use the scale below and choose the number that best matches your prediction about the future of your relationship Bubble your response on y our response sheet. 91. Six months from now my partner and I : Will no longer be a couple O 1 2 3 4 5 Will be married 92. One year from now my partner and I : Will no longer be a couple O 1 2 3 4 5 Will be married 93. Five years from now my partner and I : Will no longer be a couple O 1 2 3 4 5 Will be married 94. How likely is it that you and your partner will be together in one year? Very unlikely O 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very likely 95. How likely is it that you and your partner will marry in the future ? Very unlikely O 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very likely For each statement below use the following scale and bubble your responses on your response sheet. 0 = STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT 1 = MODERATELY AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT 2 = NEUTRAL-NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE 3 = MODERATELY DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT 4 = STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT MY PARTNER HAS TALKED TO ME ABOUT THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS: 96. My partner's personal habits. 0 1 2 3 4 97. Things my partner has done that he / she feels guilty about. 0 1 2 3 4 98. Things my partner wouldn't do in public. 0 1 2 3 4 99. My partner's deepest feelings. 0 1 2 3 4 100. What my partner likes and dislikes about him/herself. 0 1 2 3 4 101. What is important to my partner in life. 0 1 2 3 4 102. What makes my partner the person he/she is. 0 1 2 3 4 103. My partner s worst fears. 0 1 2 3 4 104. Things my partner has done which he/she is proud of. 0 1 2 3 4 105. My partner s close relationships with other people. 0 1 2 3 4 I HA VE TALKED TO MY PARTNER ABOUT THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS : 106. My personal habits. 0 1 2 3 4 107 Things I have done that I feel guilty about. 0 1 2 3 4 108 Things I wouldn t do in public. 0 1 2 3 4 109 My deepest feelings 0 1 2 3 4 110. What I like and dislike about myself 0 1 2 3 4 111. What is important to me in my life. 0 1 2 3 4 112 What makes me the person that I am. 0 1 2 3 4 113 My worst fears 0 1 2 3 4 114. Things I have done which I am proud of. 0 1 2 3 4 115. My close relationships with other people. 0 1 2 3 4 134

PAGE 144

Using the scale below, bubble your best estimate of how often you and your partner experience each of the following: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Occasionally More often than not Most of the time All the time When we talk about things that matter to my partner I am likely to .. 116. be receptive 0 1 2 3 4 117. get impatient 0 1 2 3 4 118. try to understand 0 1 2 3 4 119 get bored 0 1 2 3 4 120. feel moved 0 1 2 3 4 121. avoid being honest 0 1 2 3 4 122. be open-minded 0 1 2 3 4 123 get discouraged 0 1 2 3 4 124. get involved 0 1 2 3 4 125. have difficulty listening 0 1 2 3 4 126. feel energized by our conversation 0 1 2 3 4 When we talk about things that matter to me, my partner is likely to ... 127 pick up on my feelings 0 1 2 3 4 128. feel like we re not getting anywhere 0 1 2 3 4 129. show an interest 0 1 2 3 4 130. get frustrated 0 1 2 3 4 131. share similar experiences 0 1 2 3 4 132. keep feelings inside 0 1 2 3 4 133. respect my point of view 0 1 2 3 4 134. change the subject 0 1 2 3 4 135 see the humor in things 0 1 2 3 4 136 feel down 0 1 2 3 4 13 7. express an opinion clearly 0 1 2 3 4 Complete the following items by bubbling your responses on the response sheet: 138. My Sex is: 0 = Female 1 = Male 139. My Age is: 0 = less than 18 years 1 = 18 years 2 = 19 years 3 = 20 years 4 = 21 22 years 5 = 23 24 years 6 = 25 28 years 7 = 29 34 years 8 = 3 5 40 years 9 = 40 years or more 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 135

PAGE 145

140. My year in school is: 141. My Sexual Preference is: 142. My Racial Background is: 0 = Freshman 1 = Sophomore 2 = Junior 3 = Senior 4 = Post Bae 5 = Grad student 6 = Other 0 = Homosexual 1 = Heterosexual 2 = Bisexual 0 = American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 = White 2 = African Descent/Black 3 = Hispanic/Latino 4 = Asian/Pacific Islander 5 = Multiracial 6 = Other 143 Are you an international student? 0 = NO 1 =YES 144. Bubble all that apply Currently, I am: 0 = dating my partner in addition to others 1 = dating my partner exclusively 2 = living with my partner 3 = engaged to my partner 4 = married to my partner 5 = not involved with anyone at this time 145. What is the gender of your current romantic partner? 0= FEMALE 1 = MALE 2 = not applicable 146. My current partner's age is: 0 = not applicable 1 = less than 18 years 2 = 18 years 3 = 19 years 4= 20-21 years 5 = 22 24 years 6 = 25 28 years 7 = 29 34 years 8 = 3 5 40 years 9 = 40 years or more 136

PAGE 146

137 14 7. How long have you been with your current romantic partner? O = Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 1 = 1 month or less 2 = 2 months 3 = 3 months 4 = 4 5 months 5 = 6 8 months 6 = 9 12 months 7 = 12 months 2 years 8 = 2 3 years 9 = more than 3 yrs. 148. How long ago did your most recent past relationship end? 0 = Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 1 = 1 month or less 2 = 2 months 3 = 3 months 4 = 4 5 months 5 = 6 8 months 6 = 9 12 months 7 = 12 months 2 years 8 = 2 3 years 9 = more than 3 yrs 149. What was the length of your most recent past romantic relationship? 0 = Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 1 = 1 month or less 2 = 2 months 3 = 3 months 4 = 4 5 months 5 = 6 8 months 6 = 9 12 months 7 = 12 months 2 years 8 = 2 3 years 9 = more than 3 yrs. 15 0. What is the sex of your most recent former partner? O=FEMALE 1 = MALE 2 = Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship

PAGE 147

151. My former partner s age at this time is: 0 = not applicable 1 = less than 18 years 2 = 18 years 3 = 19 years 4= 20-21 years 5 = 22 24 years 6 = 25 28 years 7 = 29 34 years 8 = 3 5 40 years 9 = 40 years or more 138 Thank you. Return questionnaire & response sheet and sign name to list for extra credit.

PAGE 148

APPENDIXN POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCALE (PANAS) This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each word and then mark the appropriate number in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent you have felt this way during the past week. Use the following scale to record your answers. 1 2 3 4 5 very slightly a little moderately quite a bit Extremely or not at all interested irritable distressed alert excited ashamed upset inspired strong nervous guilty determined scared attentive hostile jittery enthusiastic active proud afraid 139

PAGE 149

APPENDIXO RELATIONSHIP ASSESSMENT SCALE (RAS) Use the scales provided to rated each item. 1. How well does your partner meet your needs? A POORLY B C AVERAGE D E EXTREMELY WELL 2. In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship? A UNSATISFIED B C AVERAGE D 3. How good is your relationship compared to most? A POOR B C AVERAGE D E EXTREMELY SATISFIED E EXCELLENT 4. How often do you wish you hadn't gotten in this relationship? A NEVER B C AVERAGE D E VERY OFTEN 5 To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations? A B HARDLY AT ALL C AVERAGE 6. How much do you love your partner? A NOT MUCH B C AVERAGE D D 7. How many problems are there in your relationship? A B C D VERY FEW AVERAGE 140 E COMPLETELY E VERY MUCH E VERY MANY

PAGE 150

APPENDIXP GLOBAL MEASURE OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION SCALE (GMREL) Using the scales below respond to the following question: In general how would you describe your overall relationship with your partner? 1. bad 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 good 2. unpleasant 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant 3. negative 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive 4. unsatisfying 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 satisfying 5 worthless 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 valuable 141

PAGE 151

APPENDIXQ RELATIONSHIP HAPPINESS SCALE (RHS) Below are six statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 7-point scale below indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement by circling the appropriate number after each statement. 1. 2. 3 4 5. 6. Strongly Disagree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Strongly Agree l-----------2--------------3--------------4--------------5-------------6-----------7 I have a good relationship with my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My relationship with my partner is very stable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My relationship with my partner is strong. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 My relationship with my partner makes me happy. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I really feel like a part of a team with my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Overall I am very satisfied with everything in my I 2 3 4 5 6 7 relationship 142

PAGE 152

APPENDIXR PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP QUALITY COMPONENT SCALE (PRQC) Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale with values ranging from: 1 = not at all to 7 = e x tremely RelationshiQ Satisfaction Com12onent 1. How satisfied are you with your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 How content are you with your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. How happy are you with your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Commitment Com12onent 4. How committed are you to your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 How dedicated are you to your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 How devoted are you to your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Intimacy Com12onent 7. How intimate is your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. How close is your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. How connected are you to your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trust Com12onent 10 How much do you trust your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. How much can you count on your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 How dependable is your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Passion Com12onent 13 How passionate is your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. How lustful is your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 How sexually intense is your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Love Com12onent 16 How much do you love your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. How much do you adore your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. How much do you cherish your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perceived Relationship Quality Component Scale (PRQC)-Short Version 1 How satisfied are you with your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. How committed are you to your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. How intimate is your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. How much do you trust your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 How passionate is your relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. How much do you love your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 143

PAGE 153

APPENDIX S PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE SCALE For the following items use the scale below and choose the number that best matches your prediction about the future of your relationship. 1. Six months from now my partner and I : Will no longer 1 2 3 4 be a couple 2. One year from now my partner and I : Will no longer 1 2 3 4 be a couple 3. Five years from now my partner and I: Will no longer 1 2 3 4 be a couple 5 5 5 6 Will be married 6 Will be married 6 Will be married 4. How likely is it that you and your partner will be together one year from now? Very 1 unlikely 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very likely 5. How likely is it that you and your partner will marry in the future? Very 1 unlikely 2 3 4 144 5 6 7 Very likely

PAGE 154

APPENDIXT PARTNER-RATED SELF-DISCLOSURE INDEX (PRSD) For each statement: A= STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT B = MOD ERA TEL Y AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT C = NEUTRAL-NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE D = MOD ERA TEL Y DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT E = STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT MY PARTNER HAS TALKED TO ME ABOUT THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS: 1. My partner's personal habits. A B C D E 2. Things my partner has done that be/she feels guilty about. A B C D E 3. Things my partner wouldn't do in public. A B C D E 4. My partner's deepest feelings. A B C D E 5. What my partner likes and dislikes about him/herself. A B C D E 6 What is important to my partner in life. A B C D E 7 What makes my partner the person he/she is. A B C D E 8. My partner's worst fears. A B C D E 9. Things my partner has done which he/she is proud of. A B C D E 10. My partner's close relationships with other people. A B C D E 145

PAGE 155

APPENDIXU SELF-RATED SELF-DISCLOSURE INDEX (SRSD ) For each statement: A = STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT B = MODERATELY AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT C = NEUTRAL-NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE D = MODERATELY DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT E = STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT I HA VET ALKED TO MY PARTNER ABOUT THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS : 1. My personal habits. A B C D E 2. Things I have done that I feel guilty about. A B C D E 3 Things I wouldn't do in public. A B C D E 4. My deepest feelings. A B C D E 5. What I like and dislike about myself. A B C D E 6 What is important to me in my life. A B C D E 7. What makes me the person that I am A B C D E 8 My worst fears A B C D E 9. Things I have done which I am proud of. A B C D E 10. My close relationships with other people. A B C D E 146

PAGE 156

APPENDIXV MUTUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE: FORM A We would like you to tell us about your relationship with your partner. B y partner we mean a person with whom you live or have a steady relationship If married, how many years ? ____ _ What is your spouse s age? If not married how long have you known your partner? ____ What is your partner s age? _____ Are you currently living with you partner (Please circle) Yes No In this section we would like to explore certain aspects of your relationship with your spouse or partner. Using the scale below, please tell us your best estimate of how often you and your spouse / partner experience each of the following: 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Occasionally 4 = More Often Than Not 5 = Most of the Time 6 = All the Time When we talk about things that matter to my spouse / partner, I am likely to .. be receptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 get impatient 1 2 3 4 5 6 try to understand 1 2 3 4 5 6 get bored 1 2 3 4 5 6 feel moved 1 2 3 4 5 6 avoid being honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 be open-minded 1 2 3 4 5 6 get discouraged 1 2 3 4 5 6 get involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 have difficulty listening 1 2 3 4 5 6 feel energized by our conversation 1 2 3 4 5 6 When we talk about things that matter to me, my spouse/partner is likely to ... pick up on my feelings 1 2 3 4 5 6 feel like we 're not getting anywhere 1 2 3 4 5 6 show an interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 get frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 share similar experiences 1 2 3 4 5 6 keep feelings inside 1 2 3 4 5 6 respect my point of view 1 2 3 4 5 6 change the subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 see the humor in things 1 2 3 4 5 6 feel down 1 2 3 4 5 6 express an opinion clearly 1 2 3 4 5 6 147

PAGE 157

APPENDIXW PHASE 3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELATIONSHIP STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS Complete the following items by bubbling your responses on the response sheet: 1 My Sex is: 2. My Age is : 3. My year in school is: 4. My Sexual Preference is: 5. My Racial Background is: 0 = Female 1 = Male 0 = less than 18 years 1 = 18 years 2 = 19 years 3 = 20 years 4 = 21 22 years 5 = 23 24 years 6 = 25 28 years 7 = 29 34 years 8 = 3 5 40 years 9 = 40 years or more 0 = Freshman 1 = Sophomore 2 = Junior 3 = Senior 4 = Post Bae 5 = Grad student 6 = Other 0 = Homosexual 1 = Heterosexual 2 = Bisexual 0 = American Indian/ Alaskan Native 1 = White 2 = African Descent/Black 3 = Hispanic/Latino 4 = Asian/Pacific Islander 5 = Multiracial 6 = Other 6. Are you an international student? 0 = NO 1 =YES 148

PAGE 158

7 Bubble all that apply. Currently I am: 0 = dating my partner in addition to others 1 = dating my partner exclusively 2 = living with my partner 3 = engaged to my partner 4 = married to my partner 5 = not involved with anyone at this time 8 What is the gender of your current romantic partner ? 0= FEMALE 9. M y current partner s age is: 1 = MALE 2 = not applicable 0 = not applicable 1 = less than 18 years 2 = 18 years 3 = 19 years 4= 20-21 years 5 = 22 24 years 6 = 25 28 years 7 = 29 34 years 8 = 35 40 years 9 = 40 years or more 10. How long have you been with your current romantic partner? 149 0 = Not applicable I have not been in a relationship 1 = 1 month or less 2 = 2 months 3 = 3 months 4 = 4 5 months 5 = 6 8 months 6 = 9 12 months 7 = 12 months 2 years 8 = 2 3 years 9 = more than 3 years 11. How long ago did your most recent past relationship end? 0 = Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 1 = 1 month or less 2 = 2 months 3 = 3 months 4 = 4 5 months 5 = 6 8 months 6 = 9 12 months 7 = 12 months 2 years 8 = 2 3 years 9 = more than 3 yrs

PAGE 159

150 12 What was the length of your most recent past romantic relationship? 0 = Not applicable I have not been in a relationship 1 = 1 month or less 2 = 2 months 3 = 3 months 4 = 4 5 months 5 = 6 8 months 6 = 9 12 months 7 = 12 months 2 years 8 = 2 3 years 9 = more than 3 yrs. 13. What is the sex of your most recent former partner? 0=FEMALE 1 = MALE 2 = Not applicable, I have not been in a relationship 14. My former partner's age at this time is: 0 = not applicable 1 = less than 18 years 2 = 18 years 3 = 19 years 4 = 20 21 years 5 = 22 24 years 6 = 25 28 years 7 = 29 34 years 8 = 3 5 40 years 9 = 40 years or more

PAGE 160

APPENDIXX PHASE 3 INFORMED CONSENT Hello my name is Mary Smith and I am a graduate student conducting research in psychology. This study is a study looking at people's thoughts and feelings about romantic relationships and how you might respond to different things that might be done or said to you by a romantic partner. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free to discontinue participation at any time. If you do participate in the study you will be given a questionnaire and a response sheet. Do not put your name or any other identifying information on the questionnaire or the response sheet as your responses to the questionnaire items are anonymous. To complete the questionnaire you will be asked to rate questionnaire items and record your ratings on your response sheet. There are no right or wrong responses, so please be as honest as possible In addition to rating items you will also be asked to provide some demographic information about yourself. Although it will be very helpful if you answer every question it is not necessary that you do so and you may stop participating at any time. When you have finished rating the questionnaire items you will tum in your questionnaire and your response sheet. In addition, you will be asked to write your name onto a list (located near where you tum in your questionnaire and answer sheet). The list will be given to your course instructor so that extra credit can be assigned. The amount of extra credit that you receive will be determined by your course instructor and will be commensurate with the average amount of time taken to complete the questionnaire Completing the questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes. In this study, though you may have some strong feelings about some of the questions and your responses, I expect you to have no risk or discomfort related to your participation in this study Other than receiving extra credit for your participation it is doubtful that participating in this study will result in any immediate benefit to you. I am willing to answer any questions you may have about the study. You may contact me at: P.O. Box 114100, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 or call me and leave a message for me at 392-1575, or email me at mbsmith@ufl edu. For questions regarding your rights as a participant in this study, contact the UF IRB Office at: Box 112250 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone# 352-392-0433. Thank you for your time. Mary B Smith M.S. Supervised by: Martin Heesacker, Ph.D. Professor and Chair University of Florida Department of Psychology P 0 Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 Phone: 352-392-0601 ext. 200 Fax : 352-3927985, E-mail: heesack @ ufl.edu 151

PAGE 161

APPENDIXY PHASE 3 DEBRIEFING ST A TEMENT Thank you for participating in this study. My aim was to examine what behaviors when received by a romantic partner make the recipient feel unloved. Your responses will be used in the development of a scale that will be used in couples' counseling and in research on romantic relationships. Should you have any questions about this research please feel free to contact me at: (352) 392-1575 or mbsmith@ufl.edu Thank you for your time and your assistance. Mary B. Smith, M.S Graduate student in Counseling Psychology Supervised by: Martin Heesacker, Ph.D. Professor and Chair Department of Psychology University of Florida P. 0. Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 Phone: 352-392-0601, ext. 200 Fax: 352-392-7985 E-mail: heesack@ufl.edu 152

PAGE 162

LIST OF REFERENCES Aarestad, S L. (2000). The role of attachment, style, and sexual self-schemas in romantic and sexual relationships: A study of dating couples. Dissertation Abstracts International : Section B: The Sciences & Engineering University Microfilms International, US, Dec 2000, Vol. 61(5-B), p. 2742. Attridge, M. & Berscheid, E. (1994). Entitlement in romantic relationships in the United States: A social-exchange perspective. In M. J Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond: Justice in close relationships (pp. 117-147). New York: Plenum. Barnett L. R. & Nietzel, M. T. (1979). The relationship of instrumental and affectional behaviors and self-esteem to marital satisfaction in distressed and nondistressed couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 47, 146-157. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3) 497-529. Baumeister, R. F. Bratslavsky E., Finkenauer C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 5(4), 323-370. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3) 588-606. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc. Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L, & Vincent, J.P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between marital distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349-360. Bradbury, T N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 613-628. Braiker H. & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135-168). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brehm S.S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw Hill. 153

PAGE 163

Brehm, S. S., Miller, R S., Perlman, D., & Campbell S. M. (2002). Intimate relationships (3 rd Ed.) Boston: McGraw Hill. 154 Broderick, J., & O'Leary K. D. (1986). Treatment of marital violence. In N. S. Jacobsen & A. S Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marital therapy. (pp. 385-406) New York: Guilford Press. Carrere S. & Gattman J.M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process 38(3), 293-301. Carton J S ., Kessler, E. A ., & Pape, C. L. (1999). Nonverbal decoding skills and relationship well-being in adults. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 91-100. Cawood, R. L. & Heesacker, M. (1999) Construct validation of the Desired Loving B e haviors Scale. Unpublished manuscript University of Florida Gainesville FL. Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1995). Construction validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment 7, 309-319. Diener, E., & Emmons R.A. (1985). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 1105-1117 Duck S. (1994). Shades of darkness in interpersonal relations. In W.R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 3-24). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fincham, F. D. & Beach, S. R H. (1999). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 47-77. Fletcher, G J. 0., Fitness, J. & Blampied, N. M. (1990). The link between attributions and happiness in close relationships: The roles of depression and explanatory style. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 243-255. Fletcher, G. J. 0. Simpson J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Ps y chology Bulletin 26, 340-354 Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (2000). Relationship development in dating couples: Implications for relational satisfaction and loneliness Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17(6), 811-825 Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessments Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299. Genera, N. P. Miller J.B., & Surrey J. (1992). The Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire Work in Progress Project Report No. I. Wellesley MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.

PAGE 164

Gladwell M. (2005 ) Blink New York: Little Brown & Company Gortman, J.M (1979). Marital interaction : E x perimental investigations New York: Academic Press. Gortman J.M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement escalation and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clini c al Ps y chology, 61 6-15. 155 Gortman, J M. ( 1994a). Wh y marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon & Schuster. Gortman, J M (1994b) What predicts divorce? Th e r e lationship betwe e n marital processes and married outcomes Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum Gortman, J.M. (1999) The marriage clinic: A scientificall y -based marital therap y New York: W.W. Norton. Gortman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C (1998) Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Famil y, 60 5-22. Gortman, J. M. & Krokoff, L. J. ( 1989). The relationship between marital interaction and marital satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57(1) 47-52. Gortman, J M. & Levenson R. W. (1992) Marital processes predictive oflater dissolution : Behavior, physiology and health. Journal of Personali ty and Social Ps y chology 63, 221-233 Gortman, J.M. Markman H., & Notarius, C. (1977). The topography of marital conflict: A study of verbal and non-verbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 461-477 Greenberg L. S. & Johnson, S. M. (1988). Emotionally focused therapy for couples. New York : Guilford. Hahlweg, K. Revenstorf D., & Schindler, L. (1984). Effects ofbehavioral marital therapy on couples communication and problem-solving skills Journal of Consulting and Clinical Ps y chology 52(4), 553-566. Heavy C. L. Layne C. & Christensen A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital interactions: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Ps y chology 61 16-27. Heesacker M. & Lawrence A. (1994). Men women and behaviors they desire from a partner in order to feel loved In J. Robertson & G. Good (Chairs) Men masculinity and ps y chological services. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association Los Angeles CA.

PAGE 165

156 Heesacker, M., Smith M. B. & Lawrence, A. (1998). The desired loving behaviors scale (DLBS). In C. M. Davis W. L. Yarber R. Bauerman, G. Schreer & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Sexuali ty -related measures: A compendium (pp. 452-453) Thousands Oaks CA: Sage Publications Hendrick S. S. (1988). A generic measure ofrelationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Famil y, 50 93-98. Hendrick S.S ., Dicke A ., & Hendrick C (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale Journal of Social and Personal Relationships I 5, 137-142. Hendrix H. ( 1988). Getting the lov e y ou want. New York: Henry Holt. Holman, T. B., & Jarvis M 0 (2000). Replicating and validating Gattman s couple conflict types using survey data. Unpublished manuscript Brigham Young University, Provo UT. Holmes, J. G ., (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In W. H Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2). London: Jessica Kingsley. Huston, T L., Caughlin, J.P. Houts, R. M., Smith S E. & George L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(2), 237-252. Huston T. L. & Chorost, A. F. (1994). Behavioral buffers on the effect of negativity on marital satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Personal Relationships I 223-239 Huston T. L. & Houts, R. M. (1998). The psychological infrastructure of courtship and marriage: The role of personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. In T. N Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital d y sfunction (pp. 114-151). New York : Cambridge University Press. Huston T L. McHale, S M ., & Crouter A. C (1986). When the honeymoon's over: Changes in the marriage relationship over the first year. In R. Gilmore & S. Duck (Eds.) The emergingfield of personal relationships (pp 109-132). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti A L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (5), 721-733. Jacobson, N. S ., & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social l e arning and behavior exchange principles. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Jacobson, N. S ., Waldron H. & Moore, D. (1980) Toward a behavioral profile of marital distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Ps yc hology 48(6), 696-703

PAGE 166

Jourard S M. & Resnick J.L. ( 1970). Some effects of self-disclosure among college women. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 10(1 ), 84-93. 157 Karney B. R., & Bradbury T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability : A review of theory method and research. Ps y chological Bulletin 118 334. Karney B. R. & Bradbury T. N. (1997). Neuroticism marital interaction and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of P e rsonali ty and Social Ps yc holo gy, 7 2 ( 5 ), 1075-1092 Kayser K. (1993). Wh e n love dies: The process of marital disaffection. New York: Guilford Press. Kelly C. Huston T. L., & Cate R. M. (1985). Premarital relationship correlates of the erosion of satisfaction in marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2 167-178. Kowalski R. M. (1997) Aversive interpersonal behaviors: An overarching framework in R. M. Kowalki (Ed ) Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp 216-233) NewYork: Plenum Press. Kowalski R. M. (2001). Aversive interpersonal behaviors : On being annoying thoughtless, and mean. In R. M Kowalski (Ed ) Behaving badl y (pp. 3-25). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Lawrance K. & Byers E. S. (1992) Sexual satisfaction: A social ex change perspective Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association Quebec. Lawrance K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships 2 267-285. Lawrance K., & Byers E. S. ( 1998). Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber R. Bauerman G. Schreer & S L. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of se x uality-related measures. (pp 514519). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy loneliness depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 9(2) 221-229 Levenson, R. W. & Gattman J.M. (1983). Marital interaction : Physiological linkage and affect i ve exchange. Journal of Personali ty and Social Ps y chology 45 587597.

PAGE 167

158 Levenson, R. W. & Gottman, J.M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(1), 85-94. Love, P. (2001). The truth about love: The highs, the lows and how y ou can make it last forever. New York: A Fireside Book. Loving, T. J., & Agnew C R. (2001). Socially desirable responding in close relationships: A dual-component approach and measure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18 551-574. MacDermid S. M., Huston T. L. & McHale S. M. (1990). Changes in marriage associated with the transition to parenthood: Individual differences as a function of sex-role attitudes and changes in division oflabor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 475-486 Markman H.J (1979). Application of a behavioral model of marriage in predicting relationship satisfaction of couples planning marriage. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 47(7) 743-749. Markman, H.J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(5 ), 760762. Markman, H.J. (1992). Marital and family psychology: Burning issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(3 & 4), 264-275. Markman H.J., Floyd, F J., Stanley S. M., & Storaasli, R. D. (1988). Prevention of marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(2) 210-217. Markman, H.J., & Kraft, S. A (1989). Men and women in marriage: Dealing with gender differences in marital therapy. Behavior Therapist, 12~ 51-56. Markman, H.J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Clements, M. (1993). Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 70-77. McAdams, D.P., & Constantian, C.A. (1983). Intimacy and affiliation motives in daily living: An experience sampling analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 851-861. Meeks, B. S ( 1996). The effects of self-disclosure, perspective-taking, love attitudes conflict tactics, and relational competence on relationship satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering University Microfilms International US Sep. 1996, Vol 57(3-B), p. 2221.

PAGE 168

159 Meeks, B.S. Hendrick S.S. & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15(6) 755773 Mejia-Millan C M. (1999). Feeling loved, receiving desired loving behaviors and relationship satisfaction. Doctoral dissertation University of Florida Gainesville FL. Metts S. (1994). Relational transgressions. In W R Cupach & B H. Spitzberg (Eds.) The dark sid e of interpersonal communication (pp 217-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Miller J.B. (1986). What do we mean by relationship? Work in Progress No 22 Wellesley MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series. Miller, L. C ., Berg J H. & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers : Individuals who elicit intimate disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Ps y cholo gy, 44, 1234-1244 Miller, R S. (1997). We always hurt the ones we love: Aversive interactions in close relationships. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed ) Aversive interpersonal interactions (pp 1129). New York: Plenum. Murray S. L. & Holmes, J. G (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personali ty and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 586-604. Noller P., & Feeney J. A. (1998) Communication in early marriage: Responses to conflict, nonverbal accuracy and conversational patterns. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.). The developm e ntal cours e of marital dysfunction (pp 11-43). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Osland, J. A. (2001) Theoretical models of the relationships among attachment, empathy and relationship satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B : The Sciences & Engineering University Microfilms International, US Feb. 2002 Vol 62(7-B) p. 3412 Parrott L., & Parrott L. (1995). Becoming soul mates : Cultivating spiritual intimac y in the earl y years of marriage. Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan Publishing House Patterson, M. L. (1988). Functions of nonverbal behavior in close relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.) Handbook of personal relationships: Theory research and interventions (pp 41-56). New York: Wiley. Raush, H L. Barry W A. Hertel R. K. & Swain M A. (1974). Communication conflict and marriage San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Riskin J. & Faunce E. E. (1970). Family interaction scales: Discussion of methodology and substantive findings. Archives of General Ps y chiatry 22 527-537.

PAGE 169

160 Rook, K. S. ( 1998). Investigating the positive and negative sides of personal relationships: Through a lens darkly? In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp 369-393). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rozin P., & Royzman E B. (2001) Negativity bias negativity dominance and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4) 296-320 Rusbult C E., Johnson D. J., & Morrow, G.D. (1986). Impact of couple patterns of problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 744-753. Samson, A. W. (1996). An experimental validation of the Desired Loving Behaviors Scale. Unpublished master's thesis University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Schaap, C. (1982). Communication and adjustment in marriage. The Netherlands: Swets & Feitlinger. Schumm, W R. Paff-Bergen, L.A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J M. Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M.A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 381-387. Shi, L. (1999). Conflict resolution in romantic relationships: An examination of adult attachment and early attachment experiences. Dissertation Abstracts International : Section B: The Sciences & Engineering University Microfilms International, US, Oct. 1999, Vol 60(4-B), p. 1903. Simpson, J. A., Campbell, B., & Berscheid, E. (1986). The association between romantic love and marriage: Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin I 2, 363-372 Smith, M. B. (2000). The Desired Loving Behaviors Scale: Validity and reliability Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28. Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68 163-185. Stafford, L., & Canary, D J. (1991) Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217-242. Steiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the Beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99-103. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory oflove. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

PAGE 170

Stone A.A., Hedges S.M. Neale J.M. & Satin M.S. (1985). Prospective and cross sectional mood reports offer no evidence of a blue Monday" phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(1), 129-134 161 Storaasli R. D., & Markman H. J. (1990) Relationship problems in the early stages of marriage : A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Famil y Ps y chology 4(1) 80-98. Stuart R. B. (1969) Operant interpersonal treatment for marital discord. Journal of Consulting and Cl i nical Ps y chology 33 675-682. Sumer N. (1996). The impact of mental models of attachment on partner and self attributions and relationship satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International : Section B: Th e Scienc e s & Engineering University Microfilms International US Jan 1997 Vol 57(7-B) p. 4787 Surrey J. (1985). The "Self-in-relation": A theory of women's development. Work in Progress No. 13. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series. Swann W. B., De La Ronde C. & Hixon, J. G (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personali ty and Social Ps y chology 66, 857-869. Tiegs T. J., Heesacker M ., Lawrence Jr., A. W. Smith M. B ., Cawood R. L. & Mejia Millan C M. (2004 March). An analysis of sex differences in romantic dating relationships Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA. Ting-Toomey S. (1983). An analysis of verbal communication patterns in high and low marital adjustment groups. Human Communication Research 9 306-319. Vinokur A. D., & van Ryn, M. (1993) Social support and undermining in close relationships: Their independent effects on the mental health of employed persons Journal of Personali ty and Social Psychology 65 350-359. Waller, W. (1938) The famil y : A d y namic interpretation. New York: Cordon. Watson, D., Clark L.A. & Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1063-1070. Wills, T. A. Weiss R. L. & Patterson, G R. (1974). A behavioral analysis of the determinants of marital satisfaction. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Ps y chology 42 802-811. Zadro L. & Williams K D. (2000 June). The silent treatment: Ostracism in intimate relationships Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships Brisbane Australia

PAGE 171

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH After. leaving high school Mary Smith attended the University of Florida where she received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. Mary was married in 1982 to Jim Smith She was employed for several years in the retail field prior to leaving her position to work out of the home raising four of her children. During the years at home Mary was a volunteer in the community and in her children s schools and held various offices through the PTA and other organizations. She worked in and out of classrooms as home room mother and math superstars coordinator as well as tutoring math reading spelling, and computers helping in the library chaperoning and driving on field trips, sporting events and at dances, was a member of several booster organizations and chaired the Heart to Heart committee. Mary was volunteered through community organizations including the Alachua County Crisis Center, the March of Dimes Chain Reaction Youth Leadership Development Program, Zeta Tau Alpha the Junior Leagues of Plano Texas and Gainesville Florida Children's Home Society Teen Awareness Panel and Shands Hospital. She has been a member of the Mothers' of Twins Clubs and served on the Board of Directors for Interfaith Hospitality Network. She is a member of the American Psychological Association (AP A) the Parent-Teachers Association and Concerned United Birthparents (CUB). During Mary's graduate career she worked as a teaching assistant undergraduate advisor, and provided psychological services through the University of Florida Counseling Center the Alachua County Crisis Center, and the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center. Currently Mary is employed at the 162

PAGE 172

163 University of Florida Counseling Center, where she has served on various committees including Wellness Multicultural, Redecorating, Internship Selection and Training. Mary has been a supervisor to trainees and has conducted outreaches for the Gainesville and university communities. She has been a member of the University of Florida Trauma Response Team and was a liaison to the University of Florida Department of Housing. Courses taught by Mary include Ethical Decision and First Year Florida through the University of Florida Dean of Students Office and Intimate Relationships through the Department of Psychology Mary has provided consultation to the Dean of Students Office and to the Department of Psychology's Undergraduate Advising Office Currently she serves as a mentor to a student through the J. Wayne Reitz Scholars Program. Mary is most happy to be the mother of Megan a University of Florida senior, James a University of Florida sophomore Kevin a University of Notre Dame freshman Brian a freshman midshipman at the United States Naval Academy and Jovan a police officer in Massachusetts Mary enjoys spending time with her family and friends, traveling, reading cooking working out, and her work.

PAGE 173

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarl y presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Phi~ ~~-Martin Heesacker Chairman Professor of Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosoph y I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosoph~ A, L Lisa M. Brown Research Assistant Professor I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. c~~'Z-~ Professor of Sociology This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December 2005 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 174

J LD UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA II I ll lllll l Ill I l l ll l ll l l lll l l ll l l ll l ll l ll l l Ill l l lll ll lllll l l ll I l 3 1262 08554 2032