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

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
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
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 003478336
System ID:
AA00002031:00001

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