Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Tables
Appendices
Relevant Links
Keywords
email:
kgalanes@anselm.edu
Return
to Senior Theses
Psychology
Homepage
|
Romantic relationships of children of divorce:
Is intimacy a problem?
By Katie Galanes
Abstract
This study looked at the effects of parental
divorce and gender on college students’ ability to be intimate in heterosexual
romantic relationships. Past research has yielded mixed results,
with some indicating children of divorce having more difficulty in being
intimate than children from intact families and some claiming there is
no difference between these two groups. With regards to the issue
of gender, literature has suggested that gender roles and socialization
patterns have enticed females to think and act one way in romantic relationships
and hold
different expectations with regards to intimacy than males. Therefore,
the hypotheses for the present study were as follows: (1) that children
of divorce (COD) will experience more concern, uncertainty, and inability
to create,
maintain and receive intimacy with a partner in a heterosexual romantic
relationship than children of intact families (CIF), (2) females will experience
more difficulty in intimacy than males for both groups and (3) out of the
four possible groups (male/female COD/CIF), female COD will experience
the most difficulty in creating, maintaining, or receiving intimacy in
heterosexual romantic relationships, based on the notions of perceived
gender roles and the impact of having parents who are divorced.
Participants received and completed the Miller
Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS) (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982) and the Personal
Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale (PAIR) (Schaefer & Olson,
1981). A 2(gender) x 2(marital
status of parents) ANOVA yielded no significance for the two scales.
Correlational analyses were strong and ANOVA’s performed on individual
questions on the MSIS showed significance for an interaction between parent’s
marital status and gender on the individual’s ability to be intimate in
romantic relationships. An ANOVA on the PAIR also showed a significant
interaction for parent’s marital
status and gender, as well as a main effect for gender. The results
of this study did not completely support the hypothesis of a difference
between groups for the
construct of intimacy. Findings were discussed in comparison
with results from previous studies. Limitations and confounds were
also mentioned the present study in terms of their potential influence
on the results.
Return to top
Introduction
Relationships
constitute the basic foundations of human life. Interpersonal romantic
relationships are seemingly the cornerstones on which happiness is built;
thus people are continually seeking to find such relationships to complete
their lives. For this reason, both developmental and social psychologists
have long had a vested interest in researching how these relationships
come into existence and the various problems accompanying them. By
fully understanding the complexity of human relationships and the components
involved, psychologists will be more effective in counseling and aiding
individuals experiencing difficulties in maintaining successful relationships,
romantic relationships in particular, as they appear to be a central component
for happiness.
In order
to achieve successful romantic relationships, each person must establish
a comfortable level of intimacy with the other. Intimacy, defined
most often by researchers as the ability to trust and fully self-disclose
to another individual (Brown, 2001; Johnston & Thomas, 1996; Sinclair
& Nelson, 1998; Arditti, 1999), lies at the heart of romantic relationships
and for some people, this is where the problem arises. Problems in
romantic relationships can exist in creating, maintaining and/or being
open to receiving intimacy from another person. Reasons for this
are copious including, but not limited to, having been hurt in romantic
relationships previously, never having been in an intimate relationship,
having received any form of abuse (verbal, emotional or physical) in any
type of relationship previously which could conceivably affect feelings
in all ensuing relationships, family changes such as parental divorce or
loss of loved ones through death, and gender differences in regards to
perceptions and beliefs of respective gender roles in romantic relationships
(Brown, 2001). The purpose of the present research focuses on college students’
ability for intimacy in their heterosexual romantic relationships and how
that ability may have been impacted by parental divorce.
Divorce,
the legal dissolution of marriage, has been shown to have longitudinal
effects on both the couple and any children involved (Wallerstein et al.,
2000; Hetherington, 1993; Christensen & Brooks, 2001; Jacquet &
Surra, 2001; Brown, 2000; Brown & Amatea, 2000; Arditti, 1999).
There are many ways that romantic relationships could potentially be affected
for children of divorce (COD). As stated above, it seems feasible
that COD may have difficulty self-disclosing and trusting a partner as
a result of their parents’ divorce. Much research has been conducted
examining this concept, as well as potential differences between COD and
children from intact families (CIF) on intimacy levels in heterosexual
romantic relationships.
One study
(Sinclair & Nelson, 1998) found no significant difference in intimacy
levels in romantic relationships between children from divorced families
and children from intact families. Defining intimacy as a “sustained
love between partners, mutual trust, and partner cohesiveness” (Sinclair
& Nelson, 1998, p. 111), 300 college students were grouped according
to parent’s marital status (divorced vs. non-divorced) and were given the
following questionnaires: the Personal Assessment of Iintimacy in Relationships
Scale (PAIR) and the Miller Social Intimacy Scale ( MSIS). Analyses yielded
no significant difference between the two groups on the intimacy measure.
Gender however was a significant predictor of scores on the PAIR, a topic
that will be addressed momentarily in this review.
Next, Johnston
and Thomas (1996) administered four scales (Perceived Risk Scale, Dyadic
Trust Scale, Parental Conflict Scale and a Demographic questionnaire) to
a COD group and a CIF group who had reported low parental conflict post
divorce, all of whom had been in heterosexual monogamous relationships
for at least 3 months prior to participating. Results indicated that
the COD possessed an overall lack of trust in intimate relationships, as
well as a higher expectancy of personal marriage failure. Holding
this belief permitted them to enter into relationships with pre-existing
lower levels of trust than the CIF potentially impacting the love relationships
of COD negatively and immediately (Johnston & Thomas, 1996).
Jacquet
and Surra (2001) used the structured interview to look at intimacy in terms
of level of trust, ambivalence about involvement, commitment and satisfaction.
They spoke with 202 couples and administered a questionnaire
to each individual that included items from love, friendship, and trust
scales. Separated into two groups, COD and CIF, data analysis yielded
a small but significant difference between the two groups in terms of intimacy
in relationships. However, a significant gender difference was found
across all measures
except commitment, indicating that
female COD experienced less trust and intimacy in their romantic relationships
than did male COD. Possible explanations for this finding that the
consequences of divorce are worse for females stem from theories on women’s
psychology and the different socialization processes for each gender, which
attribute more sensitivity and emotionality to females in terms of romantic
relationships and relationships in general (Jacquet & Surra, 2001).
Seeing this as an important concept in COD research, the present study
will seek to expand on the notion that female COD experience less trust
and intimacy in their romantic relationships through an analysis of gender
differences.
As mentioned
earlier there is another factor that repeatedly comes to light in examining
the impact of divorce on children and their subsequent romantic relationships:
Gender. Gender differences, in terms of how each perceives
his/her role and ability for intimacy in romantic relationships, has long
been a topic of interest in the fields of developmental and social psychology
(Christensen & Brooks, 2001). Research on gender roles in interpersonal
relationships has made the claim that males and females are socialized
very differently in terms of thoughts, emotions and relationship beliefs
right from birth and consequently view their roles in relationships as
different from each another (Lips, 2001). Significant gender differences
in intimacy levels has been found in romantic relationships of COD as aforementioned
in previous research (Jacquet & Surra, 2001; Sinclair & Nelson,
1998). Other studies have reported no significant difference for
gender on measures of intimacy in romantic relationships for COD.
One such
study was that of Kunkle & Gerrity (1997). Defining self-disclosure
as “the willingness to share information about one’s personal states, dispositions,
events of the past and plans for the future” (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979),
this study examined the relationship of gender and self-disclosure
as a possible predictor of intimacy. The Self-Disclosure Questionnaire
was administered to 81 females and 35 males. Analyses revealed no
significant difference between males and females, indicating that gender
was not significant predictor of self-disclosure for those participants.
In all
the studies discussed above there were numerous limitations and potential
confounds. Perhaps the main limitation in past research on love relationships
of COD is the small number of participants, especially in the COD group.
Divorce, an extremely sensitive issue, is understandably one that people
do not wish to discuss and so studying it poses a problem in terms of methodology.
Researchers must also account for the variability in feelings of children
of divorce when collecting, analyzing, and interpreting their data so as
to accurately describe the real impact of divorce on children’s ability
to be intimate in romantic relationships.
Taking
this information into account, I propose to conduct a quasi-experiment
to determine the potential differences in ability for intimacy between
COD and CIF in their heterosexual romantic relationships. Gender
will also be taken into account and analyzed for significant differences.
Intimacy will be defined for the purposes of this research as a person’s
ability to trust in his/her partner, with high levels of intimacy stemming
from completely trusting one’s partner; combined with the amount of full
self-disclosure, as defined in Kunkle & Gerrity’s study (1997) permitted
by that person.
My hypothesis
is three-fold: First, I hypothesize that COD will experience more concern,
uncertainty, and inability to create, maintain and receive intimacy with
a partner in a heterosexual romantic relationship than CIF based on the
results of previous research (Jacquet & Surra, 2001; Brown, 2000; Johnston
& Thomas, 1996). Second, I hypothesize that females will experience
more difficulty in intimacy than males for both groups, based upon past
research (Jacquet & Surra, 2001) as well as social psychology’s theories
of perceived gender roles in romantic relationships. Third, out of the
four possible groups (male/female COD/CIF), female COD will experience
the most difficulty in creating, maintaining, or receiving intimacy in
heterosexual romantic relationships, based on the notions of perceived
gender roles and the impact of having parents who are divorced.
With such
mixed results in past research, it is clear that further research is needed
in this area to reach a more accurate depiction of the long-term effects
of divorce on children’s ability to be intimate in romantic relationships.
This would be useful information in particular for children of divorce
as well as for parents and counselors who may be sought out to give advice
to those who may be experiencing intimacy problems in their romantic relationships.
Return to top
Method
Participants
Participants were 63 undergraduate students
enrolled in an introductory psychology class at a small, Catholic liberal
arts college in New England. There were 24 males and 39 females,
ranging from 18-22 years of age. All students (n= 176) in the introductory
classes were pre-tested ( see Appendix A for sample pretest) with the intention
of determining (1) marital status of parents and (2) any experience in
being in a heterosexual romantic relationship. Those not meeting
at least one of these criteria (n= 47) were not considered for this study.
The remaining 129 students were then randomly selected and a total of 63
students participated in this study, for which they received class credit.
Materials
The Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS) was
used and is a 17-item scale designed to assess level of intimacy in adult
relationships. It was used to access overall ability to be intimate
in a heterosexual romantic relationship. Six items on the MSIS refer to
frequency of intimacy contacts while the remaining 11 seek to determine
the intensity of those contacts. Total scores were calculated using a 5-point
Likert scale, with high total scores indicating high levels of intimacy.
High internal reliability (r = .86 and .91 in two separate samples) and
convergent and discriminant validity (r = .71 and .48 respectively) of
this scale has been reported (Sinclair & Nelson, 1998). (For example
items see Appendix B).
The second instrument used was the Personal
Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR) which is a 36 item scale
measuring five types of intimacy: emotional, social, sexual, intellectual,
and recreational. This scale measures the perceived versus expected
degrees of intimacy in relationships (Schaefer & Olson, 1981).
Responses are added up according to a 5-point Likert scale, with high total
scores indicating high degrees of intimacy. Reliability (r = .73,
.67, .77, .80 and .55 for each type of intimacy respectively) and construct
and convergent validity have been demonstrated through previous research
(Moore & McCabe & Stockdale, 1998). (For example items see
Appendix C).
Procedure
Prior to beginning the study participants
were informed that the purpose of the research was to examine differences
in intimacy levels in the romantic relationships of college students.
Upon completion of informed consent ensuring voluntary participation and
complete anonymity of information, each participant received a packet containing
the MSIS and the PAIR. They were instructed to answer all questions
to the best of their ability and to take as much time as necessary to do
so. Once all information had been collected from participants, a
debriefing sheet (see Appendix D) was distributed for the participants
to read at their seat, explaining the hypothesis of this study and thanking
them for their participation. Credit slips were then issued to each
participant to fulfill their class requirement and they were free to ask
questions and/or leave.
Return to top
Results
A 2 (COD, CIF) x 2 (gender) Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was conducted on both the MSIS and the PAIR to determine differences
in level of intimacy between children of divorce (COD) and children from
intact families (CIF). For the MSIS, no difference was found for
marital status of parents (F(1,59)= .123, p < .05). This
does not support the hypothesis that COD experience more concern, uncertainty
and inability to create, maintain and receive intimacy with a partner in
a heterosexual romantic relationship than CIF. On the contrary, the
means of the two groups for marital status of parents (COD = 66.087;CIF
= 64.474) indicate that CODs reported more intimacy in relationships than
CIF.
The hypothesis that females would experience
more difficulty with intimacy than males in heterosexual romantic relationships
was also not supported (F(1,59)= .837, p < .05). For the
PAIR, a 2 x 2 ANOVA was performed on each of the five different subscales:
emotional, social, sexual, intellectual and recreational intimacy, as well
as on a score for conventionality. For gender, a significant differences
were found for emotional (F(1,59)=.011, p < .05) and recreational
intimacy (F(1,59)= .032, p < .05) as well as conventionality
(F(1,59)= .017, p < .05). The means for these effects show
males scoring higher for each variable (see Table 1). These effects
are consistent with the hypothesis that females will score lower than males,
indicating more of a difficulty in being intimate in heterosexual romantic
relationships.
Interaction effects between marital status
of parents and gender yielded significance was found for the subscales
of intellectual and recreational intimacy ((F(1,59)=.021, p < .05)
and (F(1,59)=.008, p < .05) respectively). An interesting finding
on these subscales was that the means for male COD were higher than all
other groups, indicating that in comparison with female COD and both male
and female CIF, male COD experienced more intimacy in their heterosexual
romantic relationships. This does not support the hypothesis that
COD will score lower than CIF on measures of intimacy.
Pearson correlation analyses were then performed
between the MSIS and the PAIR. Significance was found for nine questions
and further analysis yielded significance on three questions. These
findings supported the hypothesis that male COD would report more intimacy
in their heterosexual romantic relationships than female COD and did not
support the hypotheses that female COD will report the lowest levels of
intimacy in their heterosexual romantic relationships than all other groups
and that female COD will report the lowest levels of intimacy in
their heterosexual romantic relationships of all four groups.
Return to top
Discussion
Initially, no significant differences were
found on the MSIS using an ANOVA. In fact, the means for COD and
CIF on the MSIS seemed to indicate exactly the opposite of the prediction:
that is, the COD reported more intimacy than the CIF did. While there
was no statistical significance to support this finding, it is quite possible
that COD work harder than CIF to create, maintain and receive intimacy,
in an effort to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy stemming from
watching their parent’s intimate relationship deteriorate. Perhaps
this extra work at having an intimate relationship resulted in a truly
intimate relationship with a romantic partner or perhaps the individual
has the illusion of intimacy because he/she is working extra hard at it,
therefore, intimacy must naturally ensue.
Strong correlations were noted on specific
questions and an ANOVA on these individual questions indicated significance
on three of them. These findings lend support to the hypotheses that
male COD would report more intimacy in their heterosexual romantic relationships
than female COD but did not support the hypothesis that female COD would
report the lowest levels of intimacy in their heterosexual romantic relationships
than all other groups.
The results of the present study are consistent
research indicating no difference between COD and CIF (Sinclair & Nelson,
1998). The results on the MSIS run concurrent with past research
revealing a difference between the two groups (Jacquet & Surra, 2001;
Johnston & Thomas, 1996). In looking at the effects of gender
on college student’s ability to be intimate in heterosexual romantic relationships,
the results of the present study indicate that gender by itself was not
a significant predictor of an individual’s ability to be intimate in his/her
romantic relationships which was similar to previous research findings
( Kunkle & Gerrity, 1997). A possible explanation for the finding of
male COD reporting more intimacy could be that gender roles and socialization
patterns have changed over the years and males are now being reared and
encouraged to self-disclose and be intimate with a partner in a romantic
relationship. Or perhaps male COD are working harder at having intimate
relationships to avoid ending a romantic relationship, like he saw happened
with his parents.
The finding of females reporting less intimacy
is consistent with gender role theories previously mentioned as learned
through socialization patterns for females (Brown, 2001; Lips, 2001).
Females are socialized to trust and self-disclose to their partners because
they perceive their role to be the caring, nurturing and emotionally open
one in the relationship. If a female has experienced hurt or betrayal
of intimacy, perhaps as a result of one of her past romantic relationships
or due to the divorce of her parents, it seems feasible that she will then
experience more difficulty on creating, maintaining or being open to receiving
intimacy with a partner. The security of trusting someone with personal
information has been violated in someway, and in its place is fear of getting
hurt again. Females may then demonstrate more difficulty in having
intimate relationships than males.
The finding that female COD did not report the lowest
scores of intimacy of all four groups could stem from the same ideas regarding
male COD scoring higher than the other groups: perhaps female COD are also
working extra hard at creating, maintaining and receiving intimacy in romantic
relationships in an effort to keep the relationship intact.
Possible explanations for these findings could
be that male COD and males overall in this study work harder at having
intimacy in romantic relationships to dispel male socialization patterns
and gender role theories. Using these same concepts, another reason
females tend to score lower on intimacy measures could potentially be because
females are reared to be more trusting and disclose more to a partner (Brown,
2001; Lips, 2001). If the child experiences a betrayal of trust either
in a direct relationship or between people close to her say in her parent’s
marriage, she could conceivably transfer her feelings about that experience
into her ensuing relationships without even intending too. The circumstances
surrounding divorce (conflict between parents, illness or financial concerns
for example) and its exact effects are difficult to account for without
directly inquiring (which, due to the sensitivity of the issue, may place
participants in an awkward and uncomfortable position and he/she may choose
not to answer); consequently the measurements of the effects of divorce
present a challenge to accurately measure due to the nature of the issue
itself, any number of circumstances surrounding it and sensitivity of the
situation for all involved.
Potential confounds and limitations for this
study were that the number of participants in the male COD was quite a
bit smaller than any other group. Another potential confound for
the present study could again be for the individuals in the COD group in
that their exact age at the time of their parent’s divorce was not recorded.
The circumstances surrounding the divorce may also be a noteworthy piece
of information to take into account. It seems feasible that they are important
factors in determining one’s thoughts, feelings and perceptions about things
such as intimacy in romantic relationships because an individual’s thoughts,
feelings and perceptions are largely based on their direct experiences
or experiences they have witnessed.
In terms of limitations in this research,
an obvious one deals with the individual’s understanding of the effects
(if any) of his/her parent’s divorce on his/her ability to be intimate.
Since the participants did not know until after they had completed the
survey packet that the primary interest of the research was the effects
of parental divorce on their romantic relationships, it seems plausible
that their responses were not influenced by the issue of divorce.
If they had had this notion in their mind two things are possible: (1)
perhaps they would have altered their answers in an effort to show that
their parents divorce didn’t affect their behavior (because perhaps they
think it did have an effect but do not want to admit to it out of fear
of being different from other children) or (2) maybe if they had known
they would have interpreted the questions a little differently and likewise
answered them based on what has changed for them as a result of their parents
divorce. The present study operated under the assumption that the
COD kept this in mind without being told to do so, but perhaps that was
too broad an assumption and future research should seek to be more specific
in its instructions to its participants.
Lastly, the construct of intimacy is just
that: a construct. Constructs in and of themselves are difficult
to measure for numerous reasons (such as people having different definitions
of them, people holding different views in regards to whether a given concept
is important, valid and relevant to them in their life, and how accurate
any measuring instrument can be in measuring the exact concept).
This latter reason could have potentially played a role in the present
research.
And yet it is imperative that research continue
despite such uncertainties because it is through research like this that
peoples’ (professionals and otherwise) understanding of contemporary issues
such as the effects of divorce on children’s ability to be intimate in
heterosexual romantic relationships can be deepened and strengthened.
Research of this kind is important because it can help psychologists, sociologists,
parents, children of divorce and the romantic partners of child of divorce
better understand what issues may be present and why they exist.
This could in turn enable them to better aid individuals who struggle with
intimacy in romantic as well as any other kind of relationship as a result
of parental divorce or who struggle with just the issue of parental divorce
by itself. Understanding the potential effects of parental divorce
on children could also be used to avert children presently going through
a parental divorce from struggling with emotions such as intimacy as some
children of divorce experience currently. Any research that could
help minimize the effects of divorce for children would be of great benefit
and that is why it should continue.
Return to top
References
Arditti, J.A. (1999). Parental divorce and
young adults’ intimate relationships:
Toward
a new paradigm. Marriage and Family Review,29, 35-55.
Brown, J. (2001). Intimacy, gender and self
psychology: Considerations for
relationship
counseling. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family
Therapy,22,
137-146.
Brown, N.M. (2000). Love relationships of children
of divorce: How are they
different
from others. (Doctoral Dissertation, Union Institute, 2000).
Dissertation
Abstracts International,60, 6419.
Brown, N.M. & Amatea, E.S. (2000). Love
and Intimate Relationships:
Journeys
of the Heart. Pennsylvania: Brunner/Mazel.
Christensen, T.M. & Brooks, M.C. (2001).
Adult children of divorce and
intimate
relationships: A review of the literature. Family Journal of
Counseling
& Therapy for Couples & Families,9, 289-294.
Derlega, V.J. & Grzelak, J. (1979). Appropriateness
of Self-Disclosure. In
G.J. Chelune
& Associates (eds), Self-Disclosure: Origins, Patterns, and
Implications
of Openness in Interpersonal Relationships, 151-176. SF:
Jossey-Bass.
Hetherington, E.M. (1993). An overview of the
Virginia longitudinal study of
divorce and
remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of
Family Psychology,7,
39- 56.
Jacquet, S.E. & Surra, C.A. (2001). Parental
divorce and premarital couples:
Commitment and
other relationship characteristics. Journal of Marriage &
Family,63,
627-631.
Johnston, S.G. & Thomas, A.M. (1996). Divorced
versus intact parental
marriage and
perceived risk and dyadic trust in present heterosexual
relationships.
Psychological
Reports,78, 387-390.
Kunkle, S. & Gerrity, D.A. (1997). Gender, expressiveness,
instrumentality and
group social environment
as predictors of self disclosure. Journal for
Specialistsin Group
Work,22, 214-224.
Lips, H.M. (2001). Sex & Gender: An
Introduction. London: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Moore, K.A. & McCabe, M.P. & Stockdale,
J. E. (1998). Factor analysis of
the personal
assessment of intimacy in relationships scale (PAIR):
Engagement,
communication and shared friendships. Sexual & Marital
Therapy,13,
361-368.
Schaefer, M.T. & Olson, D.H. (1981). Assessing
intimacy: The PAIR
inventory. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 47-60.
Sinclair, S.L. & Nelson, E.S. (1998). The
impact of parental divorce on
college
students’ intimate relationships and relationship beliefs. Journal of
Divorce &
Remarriage,29,103-129.
Wallerstein, J. & Lewis, J. & Blakeslee,
S. (2000). The Unexpected Legacy
of Divorce:
A 25 Year Landmark Study. New York: Hyperion.
Return to Top
Tables
Table 1
Means for PAIR Subscales of Emotional and Recreational Intimacy
and
Conventionality With Respect to Gender
PAIR Subscale
Gender Mean
Std. Error
Emotional Intimacy Female
29.77 5.79
(n=39)
Emotional Intimacy Male
58.02 9.09
(n=24)
Recreational Intimacy Female
20.56 5.74
(n=39)
Recreational Intimacy Male
43.98 9.01
(n=24)
Conventionality Female
55.10 3.15
(n=39)
Conventionality Male
69.47 4.95
(n= 24)
Return to Top
Appendices
Appendix A
Sample Pretest
Hello, I am a senior psychology major gathering some background data
for my thesis. I need to find out different characteristics associated
with students currently taking Intro to Psych here at St. A’s. Please
take a moment to answer the following questions and return this sheet to
me or your professor.
Sex:
Age:
Major:
Home State:
Year of Grad:
Have you ever been in a heterosexual romantic relationship?
Have you ever been to a funeral?
Have you had a best friend in the past 6 months?
If so, male or female?
Are your parents divorced?
What particular religious affiliation do you identify with?
What political party do you identify with?
Thank you. If you’d like to be contacted for the 2nd phase of
this study please print your name and extension in the space below.
If you meet the criteria I am looking for, you will contacted by October
14th 2002. At that time, should you choose to participate in my study
you may count that as credit hours toward your class requirements.
Thanks again.
Name:
Extension:
______________________________________________________________
Appendix B
Sample Questions from MSIS
Very rarely Sometimes
Almost Always
How often do you keep
very personal information
1 2
3 4
5
to yourself and do/did not
share it with him/her?
How often do/did you show
him/her affection?
1 2
3 4
5
How often do/did you confide
very personal information to
1 2
3 4
5
him/her?
How often are/were you able
to understand his/her feelings? 1
2 3
4
5
his/her feelings?
How often do/did you feel
close to him/her?
1 2
3
4
5
______________________________________________________________
Appendix C
Sample questions from PAIR
Strongly Somewhat
Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Agree Agree
My partner listens
to me when I
0
1
2
3 4
need someone
to talk to
I am satisfied with
the level of
0
1
2 3
4 affection in our
relationship
My partner helps me
clarify my thoughts
0
1
2
3 4
and feelings
I feel it is useless
to discuss some
0
1
2
3 4
things with my partner
My partner and I
understand each
0
1
2
3 4
other completely
______________________________________________________________
Appendix D
Feedback to Participants
Thank you for your participation in my study. The purpose of my research
is to examine the ways college students view themselves in heterosexual
romantic relationships and to identify any possible effects of parental
divorce on their views. Past research has suggested that some people
are negatively affected in their romantic relationships by their parents
divorce and others are not. This study is seeking to identify group
differences, as well as gender differences regarding any effects parental
divorce may have on their children’s ability to form and maintain intimate
romantic relationships of their own.
Based on the information you provided during the prescreening stage
of this study, you were selected to complete three different surveys designed
to measure your level of intimacy with a past or current heterosexual partner.
Some of you come from divorced families; others do not. It is not
the intent of this research to decipher individual differences and please
be aware that your personal information has and will remain anonymous throughout
this study. I am only interested in finding group differences in
college students and possible gender differences. It is also important
to note that there are no right or wrong answers to these questions as
many factors impact how people view themselves in romantic relationships.
I am only looking at the issue of parental divorce.
In order to maintain the integrity of this study the details of it need
to remain confidential until I have collected all my participants’ information.
If other participants were to know exactly what characteristic is being
examined in relation to their ability to be intimate in heterosexual romantic
relationship, the information they report may be biased in some way. Therefore,
I am enlisting your aid in keeping this information about the study quiet
until mid November. At this time, feel free to openly discuss this
study with friends, relatives, professors etc. If you have any questions
or would like to know the results of my study, feel free to contact me
at any time at kgalanes@anselm.edu.
Thanks again!
Return to top
Relevant Links
American Psychological
Association
The Better
Divorce Network
Divorce and Children.Com
Social Psychology Network
Return to top
Keywords
children of divorce
intimacy
gender
romantic relationships
Return to top
|