Romantic Love Communication:
Examination of Equity and Effects on
Relational, Sexual, and Communication Satisfaction
A dissertation submitted to the College of Communication and Information of
Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Michele L. Williams
May 2012
Dissertation written by
Michele L. Williams
B.A., Malone University, 1992
M.A., Malone University, 1997
Ph.D., Kent State University, 2012
Approved by
______Nichole Egbert, Ph.D., Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee
______Mei-Chen Lin, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee
______Jeffrey Child, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee
______Kristen Mickelson, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee
Accepted by
______Paul Haridakis, Ph.D., Director, School of Communication Studies
______Stanley Wearden, Ph.D., Dean, College of Communication and Information TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. Introduction to the Study……………………………………………………………..…1 Statement of Problem………....…………………………………………..…… 1 Purpose of Study…..……………..…...... ……………………..……..……….. 9 Significance of Study .……………..……...…………………………………..10 II. Literature Review………………………………………………..……………………11 Conceptualization of Romantic Love……………………………………………11 Historical Foundation…………………………………………………….12 Caritas Synthesis………...………………………………………12 Biological Approach……...……………………………………..13 Sociological Approach…….…………………………………….14 Modern Conceptualizations of Love……………………………………..15 Lee’s Love Styles………………………………………………..15 Z Rubin’s Love vs. Liking……………………………………....15 Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love…………………………16 Marston’s Ways of Loving……………………………………...17 Key Constructs of Romantic Love………………………………………17 Intimacy…………………………………………………………18 Passion………………………………………………………….18 Communication of Romantic Love…………………………………….………...20 Intimacy ………………………………………………………...……… 20 Verbal Communication ………………………………….…..…. 21 Kinesics ………………………………………………….…..…. 23 Time Together …………………………………………..….…... 24 Emotional Support ……………………………………..………. 26 Affectionate Touch …………………………………….….…… 27 Passionate Communication ……………………………….……….…… 30
iii Romantic Gestures ……………………………….………….…. 31 Sexual Touch ………………………………………….….…… 33 Equity Theory……………………………………………………………………36 Equity Theory Propositions………………………………………….…..38 Criticisms against applying Equity Theory to intimate relationships…....41 Support for applying Equity Theory to intimate relationships…………..43 Application of Equity Theory to relationship maintenance………….…..48 Satisfaction……………………………………………………………………….52 Intimacy and Passion……………………………………………….…...53 Romantic Love Communication Behaviors…….....…....…….…….…..55 Intimacy……………………….…………………………….…...55 Verbal Communication and Satisfaction…………...…...55 Time Together and Satisfaction……………...…………..58 Emotional Support and Satisfaction…………..…………59 Affectionate Touch and Satisfaction………..…………...59 Passion…….……………………………………………….……60 Romantic Gestures and Satisfaction………..…………....60 Sexual Touch and Satisfaction……………..……………61 Equity and Satisfaction…………………….…………………………….66 III. Research Design and Methodology…..…………………...…………………………72 Pilot Study…………………………………………………………………..…...73 Sample and population……..…………………………..……………..….73 Data collection procedures………………………………………….……75 Instrument………………………………………………………………..76 Romantic love communication………………..…………………76 Results……………………………………………………………………76 Data analysis…………………………………………….……….76 Study 1…………………..……………………………………………….………79 Sample and population…………………………………………………….79
iv Data collection procedures……….…...... ……………………….………82 Instruments…..…………………………………………………….………83 Romantic love communication…………………………………..83 Equity…...……………………………………………………….84 Relational equity…………………………………………84 Romantic love communication behavior equity…………85 Relational satisfaction….....….....……………………………….86 Sexual satisfaction………………………………………….……87 Communication satisfaction………………………….…………..87 Data analysis…….…………………………………………….………….88 IV. Results……………………………………………………………………………….99 Relational Equity as predictor of Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use.....…………………………………………………………………..…….102 Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use as predictor of Satisfaction….105 Relational Satisfaction………………………………………………..109 Sexual Satisfaction……...... …………………………………………109 Communication Satisfaction………………………………………….110 Romantic Love Communication Behavior Equity as predictor of Satisfaction...... 111 Relational Satisfaction………………………………………………..113 Sexual Satisfaction……………..…………………………………….113 Communication Satisfaction…………………………………………114 V. Discussion...... 115 Pilot Study………………………………………………………………………115 Study 1……………………………………………………………………….....115 Relational Equity and Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use..116 Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use and Satisfaction...... 120 Romantic Love Communication Behavior Equity and Satisfaction...... 124 Limitations………………………………………………………………...……130
v Future Directions……………………………………………………………….133
APPENDICES Appendix A: Romantic Love Communication Scale...... 138 Appendix B: Hatfield Global Measure of Equity Sprecher Global Measure of Equity………….…………..142 Appendix C: Modified Hatfield Global Measure of Equity Modified Sprecher Global Measure of Equity…….……..143 Appendix D: Quality Marital Scale…………………………………….144 Appendix E: Scale of Sexual Satisfaction……………………………...145 Appendix F: Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory……146 Appendix G: Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Spouse’s Use...... 147 Appendix H: Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Individual’s Use...... 161 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………175
vi TABLES
Table
1 Question #1: Categories Derived from Open Coding………...... …….……...... 78
2 Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables……………...... ……...…… ...... 81
3 Final Factor Loadings for Retained Romantic Love Communication Behaviors (RLCB): Partner’s Use……………………….…...... …...... 91
4 Final Factor Loadings for Retained Romantic Love Communication Behaviors (RLCB): Individual’s Use……………………....…...... ………...... … ...... 94
5 Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables…………….…...... …….……...... 100
6 Correlations between all Predictor and Criterion Variables…...... …..………...... 101
7 Predictors of Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use…...... …....…...... 103
8 Predictors of Relational Satisfaction...... 106
9 Predictors of Sexual Satisfaction...... 107
10 Predictors of Communication Satisfaction...... 108
11 Significant Predictors of Satisfaction...... 112
vii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my husband who has provided support, encouragement, and patience as I pursued my doctorate degree. I would also like to thank my parents who instilled in me the importance of education. Finally, I would like to thank my advisors and committee members for providing direction for this study.
viii
1
Chapter I
Introduction to the Study
Statement of Problem
Strong communication skills are central to sustaining satisfying romantic relationships. Many couples are not satisfied, and, therefore, are always searching for ways to communicate better as evidenced by the number of magazine articles, books, and marriage seminars devoted to the topic, as well as the hundreds of thousands of couples who seek marriage counseling every year (Gilbert, 2005). According to Parrott and
Parrott (2004), psychologist and marriage and family therapist respectively, the most common problem couples experience is a breakdown in communication. When communication is not effective, satisfaction declines. “Communication, more than any other aspect of your relationship, can either buoy relational intimacy or be the deadweight of its demise” (p. 30). Several scholars have provided support for the idea that poor communication skills precede dissatisfaction (Markman, 1981; Markman, Duncan,
Storaasli, & Howes, 1987).
Because dissatisfying relationships are distressing, many individuals seek dissolution to the relationship. Although divorce rates have steadily declined since the
1980’s when they peaked at 53%, divorce still remains a significant problem today.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Vital Statistics
Report (2007), the provisional estimate of divorces for the year 2007 from the National
Center for Health Statistics was projected to be 36%. According to the Americans for 2
Divorce Reform website (2005, para. 4), one of the most common reasons for divorce is poor communication, once again underscoring the importance of strong communication skills.
Researchers have sought to make sense out of the reasons relationships fail and offer insights to relationship problems (e.g. Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Patterson & O’Hair,
1992). Given the devastating direct and social effects of divorce, it is important to understand the contributing factors of divorce in an effort to prevent it, as well as define the elements that contribute to a lifetime of marital happiness. As poor communication is listed as one of the top reasons for divorce, it is vital to learn how to communicate better with one’s mate.
Many scholars believe that learning how to communicate well is the key to having satisfying relationships (e.g. Burleson & Denton, 1997; Fowers, 1993). However, perhaps the key to satisfying relationships goes beyond just the strength of one’s communication skills. Research has also pointed to the idea that an equitable balance of what each partner is putting into the relationship (costs) as well as getting out of it
(rewards) is a key to having satisfying relationships as well (e.g. Walster, Walster, &
Berscheid, 1978, Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990). If the relationship is out of balance, in other words, one partner is giving or receiving more than the other, the ratios are not in balance and the partners will feel either overbenefited or underbenefited in the relationship (e.g. Utne, Hatfield, Traupmann, & Greenberger, 1984; Walster et al., 1978).
According to Sprecher (1986), people in inequitable relationships experience a great amount of distress, which can negatively impact the relationship. 3
The importance of an equitable balance in relationships is not something new.
Marriage therapists have been some of the strongest proponents of the equity perspective.
For example, Sager (1976) values using marriage contracts when working with couples; the idea of individual marriage contracts has been extremely useful. The individual marriage contracts refer to one’s obligations within the marriage and the benefits one expects to receive. The most important aspect of these contracts is their reciprocal nature.
What each partner expects to give and what each expects to receive from his/her spouse in exchange is crucial. Although individuals on some level are probably aware of the expectations they hold within a marital relationship, they may not realize that their attempts to fulfill their partner’s needs are based on the covert assumption that their needs will be fulfilled in return. If one’s significant needs are not fulfilled, the relationship has lost its equitable balance and the hurt partner will be dissatisfied with the relationship and may react with rage, injury, depression, or withdrawal, thus, promoting marital discord.
If, on the other hand, one’s needs are fulfilled, and the relationship is equitable, his/her partner should be satisfied with the relationship.
Much has been discussed in regard to satisfying relationships; however, satisfaction can be viewed from many different perspectives. For example, in romantic relationships, satisfaction can be viewed in terms of Relational Satisfaction, Sexual
Satisfaction, and Communication Satisfaction. According to Vangelisti (2002), Relational
Satisfaction has been the predominant outcome variable for many interpersonal communication researchers studying romantic relationships, as both researchers and the general public want to know what makes a happy marriage. Previous research has provided ample support for the notion that an equitable relationship is clearly associated 4 with relational and marital satisfaction; the more equitable a relationship is perceived to be, the more satisfied one is with the relationship (e.g. Utne et al., 1984; Walster et al.,
1978). Van Yperen and Buunk determined that the correlation was one of cause and effect; equity was the cause and satisfaction was the result rather than vice versa.
In addition to Relational Satisfaction, another aspect of satisfaction in romantic relationships is Sexual Satisfaction. According to Sprecher and Cate (2004), Sexual
Satisfaction “is generally defined as the degree to which an individual is satisfied or happy with the sexual aspect of his or her relationship” (p. 236). Research in this area has provided insights as to the specific aspects of sex that lead to Sexual Satisfaction. For example, according to Sprecher and Cate, frequency of sexual behavior, variety in sexual behavior, orgasmic frequency and consistency, and effective communication about sexual issues (e.g. sexual initiations and responses to initiations) all contribute to Sexual
Satisfaction. Equitable considerations are also relative to Sexual Satisfaction because the behaviors listed above can be considered rewards and costs within the equity framework.
When partners perceive an inequity in the frequency or quality of sexual initiations and/or positive responses to the initiations, for example, it may lead to lower Sexual
Satisfaction (Hatfield, Utne, & Traupmann, 1979). Equitable considerations in other areas of the relationship also have an effect on sexual behavior. For example, studies have shown that the frequency of sexual activity is higher when partners perceive an equitable exchange of communication, emotional investment, material investment, sexual and emotional fidelity, and degree of arousal during sexual activity (Lawrance & Byers,
1995; Peplau, Z. Rubin, & Hill, 1977; Regan & Sprecher, 1995; Walster, Walster, &
Traupmann, 1978). 5
Third, satisfaction can be viewed in romantic relationships from a
Communication Satisfaction perspective. Key components to Communication
Satisfaction include the perception that one is understood by his/her partner and the perception that the communication interaction is successful (Anderson & Emmers-
Sommer, 2006; Cahn, 1983). In addition, Communication Satisfaction has been shown to contribute to relationship development (Hecht, 1978), relational closeness, and Relational
Satisfaction (Emmers-Sommer, 2004). Equitability also plays a role in Communication
Satisfaction. Although not studied from a romantic relationship perspective, research in father-daughter relationships showed a significantly higher level of Communication
Satisfaction in equitable father-daughter relationships than inequitable relationships
(Punyanunt-Carter, 2008). Equitability in the use of relational maintenance behaviors has also been positively correlated to Communication Satisfaction in “friends with benefits” relationships (Goodboy & Myers, 2008).
One way for couples to improve their relational, sexual, and communication satisfaction is to learn how to communicate their love for one another effectively and equitably. Research has identified several behaviors that communicate romantic love and linked them to these types of satisfaction. For example, research has shown that verbal communication (e.g. Bruess & Pearson, 1993; Hendrick, 1981; Tucker & Aron, 1993), time together (e.g. Duck & Pittman, 1994; Reissman, Aron, & Bergen, 1993), emotional support (Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994; Xu & Burleson, 2004), affectionate touch
(Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003), romantic gestures (e.g. Beatty, Kahle, &
Homer, 1991; Sherry, 1983), and sex (e.g. Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Cupach &
Comstock, 1990; Sprecher & Cate, 2004) all lead to various aspects of satisfaction. 6
Despite the importance of communicating one’s love to one’s mate, limited research has been conducted on the topic. Researchers have provided various typologies of love (Lee, 1988; Marston, Hecht, & Robers, 1987), identified the elements of love
(Beach & Tesser, 1988; Z. Rubin 1970, 1973; Sternberg, 1986) and offered practical means by which to maintain relationships (Canary & Stafford 2001; Stafford & Canary,
1991; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000). Although the study of relationship maintenance behaviors has been the predominant area of study in regard to how couples communicate love and has provided useful insights as to how couples maintain their relationship, more research is needed for a variety of reasons.
First, a substantial amount of research (e.g. Beatty et al., 1991; Blumstein &
Schwartz, 1983; Bruess & Pearson, 1993; Cupach & Comstock, 1990; Duck & Pittman,
1994; Gulledge et al., 2003; Marston, Hechtt, Manke, McDaniel, & Reeder, 1998;
Prentice, Briggs, & Bradley, 1983; Sherry, 1983; Sprecher & Cate, 2004) has shown that couples utilize many other behaviors to communicate their love that are not reflected in the relational maintenance typology, thus, providing support for the notion that relational maintenance behaviors are not exhaustive. Because these behaviors (i.e. verbal communication, time together, emotional support, affectionate touch, romantic gestures, and sex) are used in part to communicate romantic love to one’s partner, for the purposes of this study, these behaviors will be referred to as romantic love communication behaviors (i.e., RLCB). Second, the very definition of maintenance implies to keep something in a certain state. Marriages, however, are not static; they experience numerous changes throughout the couple’s life together. Therefore, behaviors that function more than just to “maintain” a relationship need to be analyzed to reflect the 7 ever-changing nature of relationships. Romantic love communication behaviors have the capacity to go beyond just maintaining the status quo by tapping into the heartfelt love for another that propels the relationship to another level. Third, the focus of relational maintenance behaviors seems somewhat void of passionate love (Lee, 1988; Z. Rubin,
1970; Sternberg, 1986). Passion, as Hendrick and Hendrick (1992) noted, is the psychological and physical arousal aspect of eros love, which represents the cognitive and physiological aspects of love respectively. In this study, romantic love communication behaviors attempt to capture this aspect of love.
Several researchers have noted the importance of studying the passionate (Eros) dimension of love. For example, Traupmann and Hatfield (1981) found that there was a high level of passionate love, even among people who had been married for twenty years or more. In addition, passion has emerged in several lines of research such as St.
Augustine and St. Thomas’s Caritas Synthesis (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992), Singer’s
(1987) courtly love, Lee’s (1988) Eros style of loving, and Sternberg’s (1986) Triangular
Theory of Love. Lastly, although relational maintenance behaviors have been analyzed from an equity perspective (e.g. Canary & Stafford, 1992, 1993, 2001; Dainton, 2003), no one has ever used equity to analyze the behaviors couples utilize to communicate romantic love to one another. Equitable considerations of romantic love communication behavior usage could be valuable in explaining and predicting relational, sexual, and communication satisfaction in marital relationships.
Perhaps one of the problems with conducting research on romantic love is the difficulty in understanding and conceptualizing what exactly romantic love is. The existing research on love has not used a consistent definition for romantic love, nor have 8 the key constructs found in romantic love been identified. Many scholars have argued that love is such an elusive entity that providing a definition capturing all of its multi- faceted dimensions has been nearly impossible. For example, Beach and Tesser (1988) concluded that “Love is a construct with meanings that vary with the individual, and it seems unlikely that any model will adequately capture the full range of popular usage”
(p. 351). Marston et al. (1987) contended, “The transcendent and subjective nature of romantic love seems to defy verbal expression, let alone rational explanation” (p. 388) and that “there is no single manner of conceptualizing love” (p. 404). However, if research in this area is to be conducted, romantic love must be conceptualized so that specific behaviors that relate to the key constructs in the definition can be identified as the means by which romantic love is communicated.
Another problem in the research of romantic love is that the early published work is largely atheoretical (e.g., Bell, Daly, & Gonzalez, 1987; Dainton & Stafford, 1993;
Dindia, 1994). In the past two decades, theoretical development has increased, particularly in the area of relational maintenance behaviors (Canary & Stafford, 1992,
1993, 2001; Dainton, 2000; Ragsdale, 1996). As mentioned previously, although these behaviors are not solely devoted to the type of behaviors that communicate romantic love, they provide the closest basis of comparison. Of the theories tested to explain relational maintenance behavior usage, Equity theory provided one of the most useful explanations and predictions of relational maintenance behavior use (Canary & Stafford,
1992, 1993, 2001). As Canary and Stafford (2007) contend, the reason is quite simple; most people want to be treated fairly and treat others in a similar manner.
9
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to address the conceptualization and measurement problems outlined above. First, an integrative review of the conceptualizations of romantic love that have emerged throughout history will be performed. The definitions, theories, constructs, models, and common linkages will be identified that will provide a useful conceptualization of romantic love for this study.
Second, romantic love taxonomy will be developed that identifies the specific behaviors that couples enact to communicate their romantic love to their mate. Studies have independently identified specific behaviors that couples utilize to communicate romantic love such as verbal communication (e.g. Bruess & Pearson, 1993; Hendrick,
1981; Tucker & Aron, 1993), time together (e.g. Duck & Pittman, 1994; Reissman, Aron,
& Bergen, 1993), emotional support (Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994; Xu & Burleson, 2004), affectionate touch (Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003), romantic gestures (e.g.
Beatty, Kahle, & Homer, 1991; Sherry, 1983), and sex (e.g. Blumstein & Schwartz,
1983; Cupach & Comstock, 1990; Sprecher & Cate, 2004). Relational scholars, however, have not provided a comprehensive taxonomy of these behaviors. A preliminary analysis of a scale based on the taxonomy will measure the self-reported and partner’s perception of romantic communication behavior usage, allowing the advancement of theoretical research in the area of romantic love.
Finally, the third purpose of this study is to explore romantic love communication behaviors and their effect on satisfaction using the Equity theory as the framework.
Responses to inequity, being overbenefited or underbenefited, and their effect on 10 satisfaction will also be examined. Three specific aspects of satisfaction will be focused upon: Relational Satisfaction, Sexual Satisfaction, and Communication Satisfaction.
Significance of Study
This study is significant for a number of reasons. First, it will provide a valuable contribution to the literature on romantic love. As mentioned previously, much of the research to date has focused on the various typologies of love, the elements of love, and the means by which to maintain relationships. However, literature pertaining to the actual communication of romantic love is scant. Not only will this study provide a comprehensive typology of romantic love communication behaviors, but it will also provide research on romantic love that is rooted in theory. The study will provide a clearer understanding of the relationships between romantic love communication behaviors, Equity theory, and relational outcomes (Relational Satisfaction, Sexual
Satisfaction, and Communication Satisfaction).
Second, the study is significant because it contributes practical and applicable information that marriage counselors can use to help clients improve marital communication. The romantic love communication behaviors will be valuable for therapists because oftentimes one or both individuals in the marriage have difficulty expressing and communicating love to one another. Therapists will be able to provide clients with a concrete list of behaviors that may help to achieve that goal.
If results from the study support the idea that romantic love communication behaviors have the potential to increase Relational Satisfaction, Sexual Satisfaction, and
Communication Satisfaction, the findings have potential to improve the quality of marriages. Through counseling, therapists will be able to identify which romantic love 11 communication behaviors specifically contribute to an individual’s feelings of satisfaction and counsel couples to focus on those specific behaviors to express love to their mate and thereby improve the relationship. If couples have consciously or unconsciously withdrawn the communication of romantic love from their spouse, the therapist can advise them to utilize the romantic love communication behaviors without regard to the equitability of their relationship. If the results are as expected, Relational
Satisfaction, Sexual Satisfaction, and Communication Satisfaction levels for the couple will increase. Ultimately, this study will provide useful knowledge about the communication of romantic love that will lead to more satisfying relationships, and, thereby, reduce the risks of marital dissatisfaction and possibly the subsequent divorce.
Chapter II
Literature Review
Conceptualization of Romantic Love
To understand how romantic love is communicated, a clear conceptualization must first be provided. Many scholars, however, have found that love is such an elusive entity that providing a definition that captures all of its multi-faceted dimensions has been nearly impossible. For example, Beach and Tesser (1988) concluded that “Love is a construct with meanings that vary with the individual, and it seems unlikely that any model will adequately capture the full range of popular usage” (p. 351). Marston et al.
(1987) contend, “The transcendent and subjective nature of romantic love seems to defy verbal expression, let alone rational explanation” (p. 388) and that “there is no single 12 manner of conceptualizing love” (p. 404). In order to conceptualize romantic love for this study, key historical influences (theories, models, and constructs) that contribute to our modern conceptualization of romantic love will be discussed.
Historical foundation.
Caritas Synthesis. The historical foundation for the conceptualization of romantic love can be traced back to two theologians, St. Augustine and St. Thomas. St. Augustine and St. Thomas worked to develop what they viewed as the ideal form of love between humans and God. This ideal love was called Caritas Synthesis and reflected the synthesis between Eros (romantic and passionate) and agape (selfless) love. The Caritas Synthesis was later applied to human love and called courtly love. According to Singer (1984), courtly love has five elements. First, love is an ideal worth striving toward. Second, love is ennobling for both men and women. Third, love has rules that include ethical and aesthetic dimensions. Fourth, love is intertwined with courtesy and courtship rituals, but not necessarily marriage. And fifth, love is an intense, passionate relationship that establishes a unity between a man and woman (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992).
Courtly love led to the Romanticism movement in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Romanticism focused on the equality of the sexes, similarities and complementarities between partners, and sexual love as an ideal to strive for fulfillment.
These movements intertwine with what we know today as romantic love. At its idealized best, romantic love is described by Singer (1987) as:
“…oneness with an alter ego, one’s other self, a man or woman who would
make up one’s deficiencies, respond to one’s deepest inclinations, and serve as
possibly the only person with whom one could communicate fully. If the world 13
were properly attuned to the value of love, this would be the person one
married, establishing a bond that was permanent as well as ecstatically
consummatory. The sexual bond would participate in a social order constructed
out of loving relationships that united all people to one another and mankind to
nature as a whole. Since love was God, romantic lovers would be carrying out
the dictates of divinity throughout their mutual intimacy- in their sexual as well
as nonsexual oneness” (p. 4).
The application of the Caritas Synthesis to human love provided a starting point for conceptualizing romantic love. Since then, there have been primarily two main camps from which scholars base their conceptualization of romantic love: the biological approach and the sociological approach.
Biological approach. The biological approach looks at love from an evolutionary perspective in terms of how love developed and how it serves to perpetuate a species.
Central to the conceptualization of romantic love using the biological approach is the notion of relationships. Romantic love is rooted in human relationships as opposed to love for values, ideals, or animals (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992). And, as love has emerged from evolutionary roots, Buss (1988) argues there must be behaviors or acts that manifest love, i.e. sexual reproduction. And, finally, emotion is also fundamental to the concept of love. According to Hendrick and Hendrick (1992, p. 13-14), “…the process of relationship attachment and maintenance is instigated, guided, and controlled by a complex array of inner feelings that we call emotions.” Furthermore, “…communication, emotion, and relationships form an intricately interconnected web of behavioral systems. 14
Acts of communication convey emotion, which provides behavioral cues and the basis for ‘love acts’ between males and females…”
Sociological approach. The sociological approach to conceptualizing love views love as a culturally learned phenomenon passed through generations via examples, stories, imitation, and direct instruction. From the sociological approach, romantic love can be defined as a “specialized form of relating with definite rules and rituals within a given society during a given era” (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992, p. 14-15). Central to the conceptualization of romantic love using the sociological approach is the concept of self.
As a sense of self emerges, an awareness develops that one can choose a mate with whom to fall in love. As two selves begin to self-disclose to one another and focus attention on each other, they merge to form one entity called “we.” As Brown (1987) noted, we cannot love what we do not have an interest in. Therefore, a feature of romantic love is an intensely focused attention on the other person. Finally, because one’s sexual identity is related to one’s overall sense of self-identity, sexual expression is a key factor of romantic love.
Many scholars dating back to Freud (1963) support the idea that sexual desire is intrinsic to the conceptualization of romantic love. They are so closely intertwined that they cannot be separated (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2002). According to Berscheid (1988, p. 373) love is “about 90% sexual desire as yet not stated.” Regan, Kocan, and Whitlock
(1998) conducted a prototype analysis of the concept of romantic love and found that sexual desire is one of the central features of the concept for young adults.
15
Modern conceptualizations of love.
Lee’s love styles. It wasn’t until the 1970’s, however, when scholars began to study love scientifically that the modern day definition of love began to unfold.
Psychologists and sociologists pioneered much of the scholarly inquiry on love; however, a few scholars studied romantic love as distinct from love in general. Therefore, during this time period, scholars developed various taxonomies proposing specific types of love.
The most well known taxonomy was provided by Lee (1988), whose taxonomy parallels the different types of love identified in the Bible. Lee captured the different types of love by identifying six different love styles based on behavior: eros is described as romantic, passionate love; ludus as playful love; storge as friendship love; pragma as practical love; mania as manic love; and agape as a selfless, giving love.
Z. Rubin’s love vs. liking. Most scholars agree that romantic love is different from other types of love and that it has its own unique characteristics; however, there is significant disagreement over the exact nature of these characteristics (Berscheid, 1988).
Therefore, scholars (Beach & Tesser, 1988; Marston et al., 1987; Z. Rubin, 1970, 1973;
Sternberg, 1986) worked to identify with empirical precision the constructs that comprise romantic love. Z. Rubin’s (1970, 1973) research, which is credited for beginning the scientific study of love, differentiated between love and liking and contended that love in the general sense is comprised of three relational elements: attachment, caring, and intimacy. Beach and Tesser (1988) studied married couples and concluded that married love is comprised of four components which represent an interaction of cognitions, 16 affects, and behaviors: commitment, intimacy, cohesion (sharing, closeness), and sexual interaction.
Sternberg’s triangular theory of love. Z. Rubin’s theme of intimacy carried over into Sternberg’s (1986) research as well. Sternberg developed a conceptualization of romantic love called the triangular theory of love. The triangular theory of love is based on the idea that love is comprised of three different elements: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy is a dyadically-oriented construct that represents the connectedness and closeness between two individuals, and can best be thought of as an emotional investment component. Passion is the psychological and physical arousal aspect of Eros love and is the motivational component. Commitment represents the decision to be together and is the cognitive component (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992).
Depending on the type of love present in a relationship, various proportions of these three components will be present. Following is a list of the different types of love that
Sternberg (1986) identified and the components of love that are present in each:
1. Nonlove- Absence of all three components
2. Liking- Intimacy without passion or commitment
3. Infatuated love- Passion without intimacy or commitment
4. Empty love- Commitment without intimacy or passion
5. Romantic love- Intimacy and passion
6. Companionate love- Intimacy and commitment without passion
7. Fatuous love- Passion and commitment without intimacy
8. Consummate love- Presence of all three components 17
Based on Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love, romantic love is defined as love characterized by intimacy and passion, but not necessarily commitment.
Marston’s ways of loving. Up until the 1980’s love had predominantly been studied as an emotional experience involving cognitive (attitudes, beliefs), behavioral
(action- i.e., sex), and/or physiological (feelings) responses. Communication scholars,
(Marston et al., 1987), however, contend that these researchers had largely ignored the holistic and subjective experience of love. Therefore, their study integrated the cognitive, behavioral, and physiological aspects of love and identified six “ways” in which love can be experienced:
1. Collaborative Love- increased energy; intensified emotional response.
2. Active Love- feelings of strength
3. Intuitive Love- experienced (warmth, nervousness, loss of appetite)
4. Committed Love- being together and talking about future commitment
5. Traditional Romantic Love- feeling beautiful, confident, healthy; togetherness
6. Expressive Love- communicating (sending and receiving) love by doing things
or telling the other
Based on these categories, Marston et al. (1987) concluded that love could be conceptualized as a way of thinking, behaving, or feeling or a combination of all three.
Key constructs of romantic love. The research on romantic love has provided many definitions and identified numerous constructs. To provide a useful definition of romantic love for this study, common linkages between the theories, constructs, and 18 models must be identified. Based on the existing research on love, two primary commonalities have emerged that are both independent yet intrinsically integrated.
Intimacy. The first construct that has emerged from research is the construct of intimacy which can be found in Singer’s (1987) definition of romantic love, Z. Rubin’s
(1970, 1973) research on love, Beach and Tesser (1988) married love, and Sternberg’s
(1986) triangular theory of love. According to Hendrick and Hendrick (1992), intimacy is a dyadically-oriented construct, that captures the human relationship aspect of the biological approach and the “we” component of the sociological approach. It represents the connectedness and closeness between two individuals and can best be thought of as an emotional investment component. According to Sternberg (1986), it includes:
“…(a) desire to promote the welfare of the loved one, (b) experienced happiness
with the loved one, (c) high regard for the loved one, (d) being able to count on
the loved one in times of need, (e) mutual understanding with the loved one, (f)
sharing of one’s self and one’s possessions with the loved one, (g) receipt of
emotional support from the loved one, (h) giving of emotional support to the
loved one, (i) intimate communication with the loved one, and (j) valuing the
loved one in one’s life” (p. 121).
Passion. Second, the construct of passion has emerged in several lines of research such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas’s Caritas Synthesis (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992),
Singer’s (1987) courtly love, Lee’s (1988) Eros style of loving, and Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love. Hatfield (1988) defined passionate love as “a state of intense longing for union with another” (p. 193). Passion, as Hendrick and Hendrick (1992) noted, is the psychological and physical arousal aspect of Eros love, which represents the 19 cognitive and physiological aspects of love respectively. As a relationship progresses, couples’ desire for union with another is acted upon through a sexual union of their bodies. This aspect of romantic love is evidenced in the Biological Approach (Buss,
1988), Sociological Approach (Berscheid, 1988; Brown, 1987; Freud, 1963; Hendrick &
Hendrick, 2002; Regan, Kocan, & Whitlock, 1988), Romanticism, Singer’s (1987) courtly love, and Beach and Tesser’s (1988) married love. Sex represents the behavioral component of romantic love. It is important to note that sex does not have to be present for romantic love to exist. The passionate, sexual desire for another, whether acted upon or not, is, however, an integral component of romantic love.
By integrating the conceptualizations of romantic love that have emerged throughout history in the form of definitions, theories, constructs, and models, commonalities have been identified that will provide a useful definition of romantic love for this study. For the purposes of this study, romantic love is defined as a passionate affection for another based on sexual attraction that can be intimately and subjectively experienced between a man and a woman through cognitive appraisals, emotional feelings, physiological processes, and instrumental behaviors. The instrumental behaviors are communicated intimately or passionately reflecting the two key constructs of romantic love. Intimate behaviors are those that communicate an emotional connectedness and closeness. Passionate behaviors are those that communicate a physical desire for union with another.
Romantic love is a powerful component in relationships and prior research has provided valuable insights to understanding its multi-faceted dimensions. Researchers have provided various typologies of love (Lee, 1988; Marston et al., 1987) and identified 20 the elements of love (Beach & Tesser, 1988; Z. Rubin 1970, 1973; Sternberg, 1986); however, as noted previously, research on the communication of romantic love is scant.
Also problematic is that research is fragmented not only between the psychology and communication disciplines, but also within each discipline. To date, nowhere within either discipline can a comprehensive review of the communication of romantic love be found. Therefore, the following review of literature will bridge the gap between the disciplines and provide a comprehensive review of the communication of romantic love.
The focus will be the primary constructs of romantic love, intimacy and passion, as identified in the conceptualization of romantic love.
Communication of Romantic Love
Intimacy. As discussed earlier, intimacy represents the connectedness and closeness between two individuals and can best be thought of as an emotional investment component. According to Sternberg (1986), intimacy can be communicated by: communicating inner feelings; promoting the other’s well-being; sharing one’s possessions, time, and self; expressing empathy for the other; and offering emotional and material support. For the purposes of this study, the conceptualization of intimacy is modeled after that of Baumeister and Bratslavsky’s (1999) study because it integrates the existing concepts of intimacy in research. First, “intimacy involves the mutual disclosure of personal information resulting in an empathic, sympathetic mutual understanding that enables each person to feel that the other understand him or her….Second, it includes having a strong favorable attitude toward the other, which is manifested in positive, warm feelings as well as in a motivation to benefit the other. Third, intimacy involves the communication of love (whether verbally, through acts that express concern, through 21 touching and attention)” (p. 51). The following review of intimacy related literature is categorized according to shared components of Sternberg and other researcher’s findings.
Verbal Communication. One means by which intimacy is experienced between two people is through verbal communication with one another. Verbal communication is linked to intimacy because it reflects all three of the criteria discussed above in the conceptualization of intimacy. Verbal communication represents the means by which? the connectedness and closeness are created? between partners because it involves the mutual disclosure of information that promotes understanding, includes a strong favorable attitude toward one’s partner, and involves the communication of love through a verbal means. In Sternberg’s (1986) Triangular Theory of Love, he proposed that intimacy could be fostered in a relationship by communicating inner feelings with one another and by expressing empathy for the other. This kind of openness is achieved through self-disclosure which is often equated to intimacy (e.g. Acitelli & Duck, 1987;
Reis & Shaver, 1988). For example, Reis and Shaver noted that intimacy begins with the self-disclosure of personal feelings and information. However, merely self-disclosing feelings and information to another does not necessarily promote intimacy. Not only must the disclosure generate a positive feeling on the part of the discloser, but the disclosure must also generate a warm favorable response by the recipient for intimacy to develop
(Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988).
The themes of openness and self-disclosure emerged in Marston et al.’s (1998) study as well. To assess the subjective experience of intimacy, passion, and commitment in heterosexual relationships, Marston et al. investigated the constructs of Sternberg’s 22
(1986) Triangular Theory of Love. Their study revealed that intimacy is communicated in six ways, one of which relates to intimate communication which they categorized as
“openness.” Participants were asked how they communicate intimacy to their mate and responded with comments such as: being open with him/her by discussing innermost feelings and thoughts as well as verbally expressing love and concern for the other.
Although Chapman’s (1992) research focused on love in general as opposed to the specific construct of intimacy, he also noted that love can be communicated to one’s mate through verbal affirmation in the form of: verbal compliments, words of appreciation, encouraging words, kind words, and humble/non-demanding words.
Phrases such as “I love you” or “I’m proud of you” are among the most popular
(Chapman, 1992; Floyd & Morman, 1998; Prentice et al., 1983). Kline, Horton, and
Zhang (2008) also found that expressions of love (e.g., “I love you?”) are one of the most popular ways that both American and East Asian university students express love to their spouse, more so than merely being open with one another. Interestingly, Notarius and
Johnson (1982) reported that men are most often the first person in the dyad to make the declaration, “I love you.” This finding was the result of investigating husbands’ and wives’ emotional behavior while discussing a salient interpersonal issue. Six married couples were videotaped and behaviors were coded using the Couples Interaction Scoring
System (Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977; Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman,
1981).
In addition to expressions of love, another form of intimate communication used in romantic relationships is the use of idiosyncratic language- a personalized and unique language system whose meaning is understood only by the participants. Many scholars 23 have noted the component of intimacy inherent in idiosyncratic communication (Bell,
Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Gore, 1987; Betcher, 1987; Hopper, Knapp, & Scott, 1981). Hopper et al. (1981) analyzed idiosyncratic communication among married and cohabitating couples and identified eight categories of idiom use: partner nicknames, expressions of affection, labels for others outside the relationship, confrontations, requests and routines, sexual references and euphemisms, sexual invitations, and teasing insults. Kline et al.
(2008) found these types of symbolic bonds to be present in their cross-cultural study as well.
Kinesics. Not all idioms are expressed verbally, however. Hopper et al. (1981) found that 28% of the idioms used involve nonverbal behaviors categorized as kinesics.
Kinesics includes messages sent by one’s body (gestures, posture, body movement), one’s face (facial expressions) and ones eyes (eye contact, eye movement). Kinesics are linked to intimacy because they reflect two of the three criteria discussed in the conceptualization of intimacy. Kinesics represent the connectedness and closeness of partners because they reflect a strong favorable attitude toward the other and communicate love nonverbally. Many kinesic behaviors are used by themselves or in combination to communicate romantic love. The idiosyncratic behaviors that Hopper et al. provided were: twitching the nose might mean “You’re special,” or pulling on the right earlobe might mean, “I love you.” The number one reason why partners devise these secretive modes of expression are because they allow couples to express affection for one another (Bell et al., 1987; Hopper et al., 1981), particularly in public situations that might frown upon overt displays of public affection. Secretive or not, the use of idioms has a 24 positive effect on relationships (Bruess & Pearson, 1993) and is linearly related to levels of love, closeness, and commitment in the relationship (Hopper et al., 1981).
Numerous studies have also shown that kinesic behaviors such as smiling, eye contact, head nods, and winking convey messages of affection, liking, and intimacy (e.g.
Burgoon, Coker, & Coker, 1986; Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989). Nonverbal communication involving eye behavior (oculesics), in particular, plays an important role in communicating interest in or love for another. For example, a demure glance downwards is representative of flirtatious behavior (Burgoon et al., 1989). A sideways glance at another may also indicate interest in the other, but a mutual glance between two people signifies the beginning of a relationship and has been coined as shared interocular intimacy (Grumet, 1983). Kellerman, Lewis, and Laird (1989) found support for the connection between eye contact and intimacy when they had heterosexual strangers gaze into one another’s eyes for two minutes. Afterwards, participants reported feeling more romantic love, attraction, interest, and warmth for the other. Once individuals fall in love with each other, much can be observed from their eye behavior as well. For example, couples who are in love spend more time gazing into each other’s eyes (Z. Rubin, 1970).
And, according to Weiss (2004), eye contact is also a crucial element during sexual intercourse because it makes the experience more intimate and relational, which in turn makes it more fulfilling for both partners.
Time together. Sternberg (1986) also proposed that intimacy can be manifested through quality time together. Chapman (1992) defines quality time as spending time together, giving undivided attention, having quality conversation, and doing activities together. Time together reflects two of the three criteria in the conceptualization of 25 romantic love. It fosters the closeness and connectedness of partners by demonstrating a strong favorable attitude towards one another and communicates love by giving one another attention. Marston et al.’s (1998) research found support for Sternberg’s (1986) proposition that intimacy is communicated through time together. When asked how they communicate intimacy to their mate, Marston et al.’s research participants indicated one way to do so is through togetherness and quiet company. Marston et al. differentiate the two in that quiet company refers to spending time together while not talking.
Other researchers have also found that time together is important. Prentice et al.
(1983) surveyed college students to identify ways in which romantic love is communicated and the element of quality time surfaced in this study as well. The most popular shared activities were: cuddling, lying in front of the fireplace, walking in the moonlight, jogging together, and/or watching television together. Tucker, Marvin, and
Varian (1991) conducted a similar study in which they asked university students to identify what constitutes a romantic act. Taking walks ranked number one and, in a follow-up study, having dinner together ranked three (Tucker, Vivian, & Marvin, 1992).
Neto’s (1997) survey of Portugese female university students also showed that sharing time together was important. Sharing outdoor leisure activities and walking ranked second and third. Additionally, common experiences that emerged from the Kline et al.
(2008) study included: having dinner together, sports, entertainment, and shopping.
Consistently finding time to be together is an important element to romantic relationships. Bruess and Pearson (1997, 2002) identified seven types of rituals in which married couples engage and couple-time rituals were at the forefront. Using the rituals identified in Bruess and Pearson’s research, Pearson, Child, and Carmon (2011) 26 developed an instrument, Rituals in Committed Romantic Relationship (RCRR), to measure couple ritual use and analyzed the relationship of ritual use to relational intimacy and relational quality. Findings suggest that couple-time rituals (as well as idiosyncratic rituals and daily routines/tasks) promote deeper levels of intimacy.
Numerous researchers have concluded that spending time together is vital to romantic relationships. It is the most important indicator of liking and intimacy (Marston
& Hecht, 1999), it communicates love to one’s partner (Chapman, 1992), and it is crucial to enhancing and maintaining romantic relationships (e.g. Acitelli, 2001; Dainton &
Stafford, 1993). According to Aron, Norman, and Aron (2001), however, the shared activities must be self-expanding activities (meaning they are novel and arousing, which in turn keeps the relationship from getting boring).
Emotional support. According to Sternberg (1986), emotional support is another means by which intimacy is communicated. Emotional support can be defined as the expression of concern, compassion, sympathy, and esteem for another (Cohen & Wills,
1985; Jung, 1987) and is communicated by being there for one another and helping each other grow (Marston et al., 1998). Emotional support is reflected in the conceptualization of intimacy in two ways. First, it reflects an empathic, sympathetic mutual understanding for another and it communicates love through acts that express concern, thereby fostering the closeness and connectedness of partners. Although there are many different types of support, according to Cutrona (1996), emotional support is the most directly related type of support that brings about relationship satisfaction because it increases the emotional intimacy of the relationship. 27
Kline et al.’s (2008) cross-cultural comparisons of expressions of love revealed that emotional support can be communicated through actions such as serving one another, caring, and listening. These “actions” were found to be an instrumental means by which to communicate affection in Floyd and Morman’s (1998) study as well. In this study,
Floyd and Morman developed a self-report measure of affectionate behaviors called the affectionate communication index (ACI). The results of this survey contributed to their development of a tripartite model of affectionate communication behaviors that included traditional verbal affection (i.e., saying I love you) and direct nonverbal affectionate behaviors (i.e., hugging and kissing), but also what they termed as indirect nonverbal affectionate behaviors, which included such things as doing favors for one’s partner or helping one’s partner in some way. Research participants in this study indicated that they expressed their affection to their mate through these types of supportive behaviors more so than through traditional verbal and/or direct nonverbal means. In terms of listening,
Dainton and Stafford (1993) also found that just being there to listen to one’s mate communicates love.
Affectionate touch. The final means in which intimacy is communicated is through the use of affectionate touch. Affectionate touch includes: holding hands, hugging, cuddling, caressing, backrubs/massages, and kissing. Affectionate touch is linked to the conceptualization of intimacy because it promotes the closeness and connectedness of partners by communicating love through touching. As a relationship progresses, touch is one of the most often cited forms of nonverbal behavior used to communicate intimacy (Marston & Hecht, 1999; Prentice et al., 1983) and affection
(Floyd & Morman, 1998). In fact, Heslin and Alper (1983) concluded that the intimacy of 28 a relationship and the intimacy of the touch used are positively correlated. By asking college students to record various aspects of touch events over a three day period, Jones and Yarbrough (1985) were able to identify three different types of touch that are used to foster intimacy. “Inclusion touches” are sustained touches that involve lower body parts such as the legs, knees, hips, and side-by-side hugs and are used to convey togetherness.
“Affection touches” are signified by a hand on the shoulder, squeezing an arm, etc. and are used to communicate affection and nothing more. The third type of touch is the
“sexual touch,” which is a prolonged touch that involves multiple parts of the body, and moves from one part of the body to another in order to show sexual intent. (Sexual touch will be discussed in detail under passionate communication).
Guerrero and Floyd (2006) point out that there are varying intensities of touch depending on the stage of the relationship. For instance, partners in newer relationships will engage in short, upper-body contact hugs, whereas partners in more established relationships will engage in longer, full-body-contact hugs. Floyd (1999) differentiates three types of hug. In the criss-cross hug, each person has one arm above and one arm below the other’s. In the neck-waist hug, one person has his/her arms wrapped around the other’s neck, while the other partner has his/her arms wrapped around his/her partner’s waist. The last type of hug is the engulfing hug (also called the bear hug) where one partner has his/her arms pulled into his/her chest and the other’s arms are wrapped completely around this person. In addition to the hug, the kiss may differ in intensity as well. Early stages of a romantic relationship may be connoted by a peck on the cheek. As the relationship progresses, however, the kiss becomes more intimate in that it is mouth- 29 to-mouth, prolonged, and often times involves the tongue which is referred to as a “wet kiss” (Guerrero & Floyd, 2006).
It is important to note, although intimacy and passion are separate constructs of romantic love, they are related in that rising levels of intimacy lead to passion
(Baumeister & Bratslavsky, 1999). This is evident in kissing. Kissing is a mutual expression of affection for one another which fosters intimacy. In fact, kissing is so intimate, that many prostitutes refrain from kissing their clients because it fosters an intimacy they do not want to share with them (Freund, Leonard, & Lee, 1989). Those in a romantic relationship, however, enjoy the intimacy that is created through kissing.
Kissing, in fact was ranked as the most popular romantic act in Tucker et al.’s (1992) study.
To summarize, research has shown that the intimacy component of romantic love is communicated in a variety of ways. First, many individuals use verbal communication to foster an intimacy between them through the use of self-disclosure (e.g. Acitelli &
Duck, 1987; Reis & Shaver, 1988), openness (Marston et al., 1998), verbal affirmation
(e.g. Chapman, 1992; Floyd & Morman, 1998), and idiosyncratic language (e.g. Bell et al., 1987; Hopper et al., 1981). Second, intimacy is communicated through kinesics including the use of nonverbal idioms (Bell et al., 1987; Bruess & Pearson, 1993; Hopper et al., 1981), smiling, head nods, winking (e.g. Burgoon et al., 1986; Burgoon et al.,
1989), and oculesics (e.g. Burgoon et al., 1989; Weiss, 2004). Third, time together fosters intimacy between individuals (e.g. Prentice et al., 1983; Tucker et al., 1991). Fourth, the intimacy component is nurtured through emotional support (Cutrona, 1996; Sternberg,
1986) and can be communicated to one another by being there for one’s partner (Marston 30 et al., 1998), serving one another (Chapman, 1992; Floyd & Morman, 1998; Kline et al.,
2008), caring (Kline et al., 2008), and listening (Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Kline et al.,
2008). And, lastly, intimacy is communicated through affectionate touch such as holding hands, hugging, cuddling, caressing, backrubs/massages, and kissing (e.g. Guerrero &
Floyd, 2006; Jones & Yarbrough, 1985).
Passionate communication. A second means by which romantic love is communicated is through passion. As discussed previously, passion is the “intense longing for union with another” (Hatfield, 1988, p. 193) and represents the psychological and physical arousal aspect of love (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992). According to Sternberg
(1986), passion is communicated through: gazing, hugging, touching, kissing, and making love. The following review of literature will focus on what researchers have found to be the primary means by which passion is communicated. However, in order to determine what literature is relevant, passion must first be conceptualized. Again, the conceptualization of passion will be modeled after that of Baumeister and Bratslavsky’s
(1999) study because it integrates the existing concepts of passion in research.
First, “the subjective feeling state is crucial, and evidence of strong arousal in
connection with positive feelings toward someone would be a good indication of
passionate love… [It may also] be fair to take the intensity of the feeling (or the
degree of arousal) as a measure of the amount of passion. Longing to be with the
other person, degree of happiness felt in response to the other’s positive
responses, and degree of despair over rejection by the other may be taken as
indicators of passion.” Passion also includes “sexual desire and even sexual
behavior….when the data pertain to ongoing romantic relationships” (p. 52). 31
The following literature review on passion is categorized according to shared components of Sternberg and other researcher’s findings.
Romantic gestures. Romantic gestures involve the use of environmental cues and romantic gifts. Romantic gestures are linked to passion because they “set the mood” for passion. They are linked to the conceptualization of passion in that they promote positive feelings towards one another and those positive feelings are connected to a strong arousal and desire to be with one another. Environmental cues create an ambiance for romantic, passionate love and include such things as candles, sunset, moonlight, fire, etc. Romantic gifts include items such as jewelry, candy, flowers, cards, etc. Several studies revealed these passionate components of romantic love when exploring the concept of romance.
For example, Prentice et al. (1983) tapped the passionate component of romantic love when they surveyed college students to determine how romantic love is communicated.
Prentice et al.’s research resulted in the identification of three major dimensions of romantic love: traditional romance (which is the focus here), sexual behavior, and shared activities. Traditional romance, as defined in this study, included gestures that were purely romantic: sending love notes, having dinner by candlelight, watching a sunset together, walking in the moonlight, receiving a special card, and lying in front of a fire.
Of the three, traditional romance and sexual behavior were more prominent means by which these students communicated romantic love. The most popular traditional ways in which romantic love was communicated included: saying “I love you,” lying in front of a fire, cuddling, and walking in the moonlight.
Interestingly, these same themes of romance and sexual behavior emerged in
Marston et al.’s (1998) study as well. Marston et al.’s (1998) study, which assessed the 32 subjective experience of the constructs of Sternberg’s (1986) Triangular Theory of Love, revealed that passion is experienced in two ways: romance and sexual intimacy. In terms of romance, Marston et al. found that passion is often times communicated through affection, verbal and nonverbal expressions of feeling, and romantic gestures such as the giving of romantic gifts (i.e. sending roses), having a candlelight dinner, putting rose petals on the bed, and ultimately the giving of an engagement and/or wedding ring
(Marston & Hecht, 1999).
The giving and receiving of gifts as a communication of romantic love has appeared in other research as well. For example, Huang and Yu (2000) identified three different types and purposes of gifts: self enhancement gifts to impress others (e.g., perfume, cosmetics), interpersonal gifts to express love (e.g., flowers), and joint gifts to announce the relationship (e.g., matching clothes). Several researchers have found support for the fact that giving gifts such as jewelry, candy, flowers, etc. communicates love to one’s mate (e.g. Chapman, 1992; Olsen, 2003). The giving and receiving of flowers, in particular, has been a popular means by which to communicate passionate, romantic love. For example, Tucker et al. (1991) surveyed university students asking them to identify what constitutes a romantic act. Of the 10 items mentioned most frequently, 7 were common to both sexes, although the relative ranking differed. The most popular romantic acts include: taking walks, followed by sending and receiving flowers, and kissing for women, and kissing and candlelit dinners for men. A follow-up study (Tucker et al., 1992) resulted in similar findings. The three most popular romantic acts mentioned included: kissing, sending or receiving flowers, and dinner in a variety of settings. 33
Gift giving is universal as well. For example, through Chapman’s (1992) anthropologic study of various cultures ranging from the Mayans to the Eskimos, he found that in every culture gift giving was a part of the love-marriage process. Neto’s
(1997) research surveying university women in Portugal showed similar findings to that of Tucker et al. (1991, 1992). The Portugese women ranked the top three romantic acts as: sending or receiving of flowers, sharing outdoor leisure activities, and walking.
Huang and Yu (year), however, explored the double-edged effect of gift giving among a sample of college students who were currently or previously involved in a romantic relationship. Through self-reported perceptions of gift giving frequency, results indicated that when given too frequently or infrequently, gifts can have a negative effect on romantic relationships.
Sexual touch. According to Sternberg (1986), passion can also be experienced through kissing, hugging, touching, and making love. Touching, holding one another, and having sex are all related to passion, a component of Eros love (Marston et al., 1998).
Sexual touch is linked to the conceptualization of passion provided in this study as well because it reflects intense sexual desire and sexual behavior. As relationships become more intimate, partners communicate their love through sexual expression. Many scholars have confirmed that sexual expression is an important element in understanding how people communicate romantic love (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2002; Prentice et al.,
1983). Hendrick and Hendrick noted that romantic love and sexual expression are not two separate domains of scholarly inquiry, but rather linked constructs that must be studied together in order to understand romantic love. In fact, several studies have shown 34 that Sexual Satisfaction is positively associated to the relational construct of love (e.g.
Aron & Henkemeyer, 1995; Sprecher & Regan, 1998).
The theme of sexual expression was found to be true in Prentice et al.’s (1983) study as well. As mentioned previously, Prentice et al. surveyed college students and identified three means in which to communicate romantic love: traditional means (e.g., notes, candy, flowers), sexual expression, and shared activities. Of the three major dimensions of romantic love identified in the study, traditional romance and sexual behavior were more prominent means by which students communicated romantic love.
The most popular sexual means of expressing romantic love included: taking a shower together, undressing each other, engaging in foreplay, and having sexual intercourse.
Interestingly, making love was noted as an act of romance in Tucker et al.’s (1991) study by men, but not for women. This finding underscores the importance of understanding how romantic love is communicated by both men and women, as it may differ among genders.
To summarize, research has shown that passion, a component of romantic love, is communicated in various ways. Passion is communicated through romantic gestures such as environmental cues that set the mood for passion (e.g. Marston & Hecht, 1999;
Prentice et al., 1983), romantic gifts (e.g. Chapman, 1992; Huang & Yu, 2000) and sexual touch (e.g. Hendrick & Hendrick, 2002; Prentice et al., 1983).
The review of literature has provided evidence that romantic love is communicated through two key constructs as identified in the conceptualization of romantic love: intimacy and passion. Romantic love communication behaviors indicative of intimacy include: verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, 35 and affectionate touch. Romantic love communication behaviors indicative of passion include: romantic gestures, and sexual touch. One of the purposes of this study is to develop a holistic typology representing the various means by which romantic love is communicated. It is not known whether these romantic love communication behaviors are exhaustive or if there are any other behaviors that can be included. Therefore, the following research question is posed:
RQ1: What communication behaviors are used to express romantic love?
Romantic love communication behaviors bond couples together. In the beginning stages of relationship development, these elements are communicated in a seemingly effortless fashion. As time progresses and “life gets in the way,” couples realize that sustaining the communication of romantic love for the duration of one’s marriage requires hard work. Research (Huston, Robins, Atkinson, & McHale, 1987; MacDermid,
Huston, & McHale, 1990) has shown that couple’s affectionate communication (e.g., saying something nice rather than criticizing or complaining) decreases significantly shortly after marriage which may explain why there is the greatest decrease in marital satisfaction during the first year of marriage (Glenn, 1998). If affectionate communication declines after a couple is married, romantic love communication behaviors most likely decline as well. The decline in romantic love communication behaviors after marriage more than likely does not decrease at an equal rate for both partners. Therefore, one partner will feel as though he/she is putting more or less into the relationship than his/her partner. Per the tenets of the Equity theory (cite), this inequity will cause distress to the couple. The underbenefited partner may feel angry he/she is putting more into the relationship than his/her partner and the overbenefited partner may 36 feel guilty he/she is putting less into the relationship than his/her partner. The distress caused by the inequity will in turn promote dissatisfaction with the relationship, which leads to the third component to this study- satisfaction. Satisfaction will be analyzed in an effort to understand how these three variables function together.
Equity theory
The theoretical framework for this study is equity theory. The idea of equity first originated in social exchange theory, which seeks to explain why human beings behave in certain ways in partnerships and groups. Social exchange theory can be traced back to the
1920’s (e.g., Malinowski, 1922; Mauss, 1925) and has bridged many disciplines such as anthropology (e.g., Firth, 1967; Sahlins, 1972), social psychology (e.g. Homans, 1958;
Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and sociology (e.g., Blau, 1964). Although there are many different views of social exchange, the basic premise is based on the idea of economic behavior where the outcome of an interaction is the ratio of costs to rewards. The interactions are interdependent and contingent upon the actions of another person (Blau,
1964). According to Emerson (1976), social exchange theory has evolved throughout the years due to the work of four figures: George Homans, John Thibaut, Harold Kelley, and
Peter Blau. Each took a unique approach to the theory. For example, Blau (1964) focused more on technical economic analysis whereas Homans (1958), Thibaut, and Kelley
(1959) focused more on the psychology of instrumental behavior. Homans, Thibaut, and
Kelley differed in their strategies of theory construction. For example, Thibaut and
Kelley started with psychological principles, applied them to the dyad, and moved upward to small groups. Homans, did just the opposite, taking a reductionist approach. 37
Despite the different approaches to social exchange theory, there are five key assumptions in which each perspective is based. They are as follows:
1. People seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs.
2. We can accurately gauge the payoffs of a variety of interactions.
3. We have the good sense to choose the action that will provide the best results.
4. If the costs outweigh the rewards, we will discontinue the relationship.
5. If the rewards outweigh the costs, we will continue the relationship
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
The key constructs in the theory are rewards and costs, comparison level, and level of alternatives. In terms of rewards and costs, the idea is that people will generally avoid costly behavior and seek rewards that will maximize their profits. Foa and Foa’s
(1974, 1980) resource theory identifies six types of resources exchanged: love, status, information, money, goods, and services. These resources are typically divided into economic and socioemotional outcomes. The economic outcomes address financial needs and are tangible, whereas the socioemotional outcomes address one’s social and esteem needs. Other scholars (Nye, 1979) have identified rewards as status, relationships, interactions, emotional states, and experiences that gratify people. Costs would include any of these same types of things that an individual dislikes. Individuals will strive to achieve the best ratio of rewards to costs by maximizing profits and minimizing losses
(Miller & Bermudez, 2004). According to Gottman (1994), stable marriages maintain a five to one positive to negative ratio.
The second key construct is comparison level. In dyadic relationships, individuals expect certain things. These expectations are standards by which an individual evaluates 38 the rewards and costs of the relationship compared to what that individual thinks he or she deserves. The expectations are influenced by the outcomes and profits others similar in age, life stage, and experience are receiving, thus creating a comparison level (Miller
& Bermudez, 2004; Nye, 1979). Interdependence theory (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993;
Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), a sibling theory to Equity theory, grew out of this idea of weighing inputs and outcomes by comparing them to one’s expectations.
The third key construct is comparison level of alternatives. According to Thibaut and Kelley (1959, p. 21), this is “the lowest level of outcomes a member will accept in the light of alternative opportunities.” In other words, individuals compare the outcomes of their current relationship, position, or experience to those they would expect to receive in alternative relationships, positions, or experiences (Miller & Bermudez, 2004; Nye,
1979). In marital relationships, if the rewards in the marriage do not exceed the rewards expected in an alternative relationship, one or both people might leave (Donovan &
Jackson, 1990).
As research progressed in this area, many scholars became interested in the equitability of the costs and rewards, hence the development of equity theory. The following literature review will cover the basic propositions of equity theory, criticisms against and support for applying equity theory to intimate relationships, and applications of equity theory to other areas of research.
Equity theory propositions. When one speaks of “equity,” one thinks of fairness, justice, or impartiality. Or, one might think in terms of the equation, net worth= assets minus liabilities. The concept of “equity” has a long-standing history of being studied by philosophers, political scientists, politicians, jurists, and economists. The 39 earliest studies of equity resulted in what is now known as equity theory, which is a general theory of social behavior developed originally as a model of distributive justice
(A’s rewards-costs/ investments= B’s rewards-costs/ investments) to be applied to social groups and business contexts (Adams, 1965). The difference between equity theory and social exchange theory is that with equity theory, individuals not only compute their ratio of inputs to outcomes but they also compute their partner’s ratio as well.
With a few exceptions, it was not until the 1970’s that sociologists and psychologists really began to take an interest in the human behavior side of equity and scholars began testing the propositions of equity theory in interpersonal relationships.
This was an important shift because the process involved with equity theory, according to
Adams (1965), has characteristics that generate affect, motivation, and behavior that one cannot understand or predict unless the process of equity is understood. A second shift in research was then made from applying equity theory to not only casual relationships, but intimate relationships as well. According to Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, and
Hay (1985), it would have been a grave error not to include intimate relationships in the study of equity theory, given their importance to one’s life.
Equity theory, as it relates to interpersonal relationships, is a theory that measures the satisfaction of a couple’s relationship based on the ratio between partners’ input
(costs) and output values (rewards). If the ratios are equal, in other words, the partners feel they are putting into the relationship as much as they are getting out of it, then the relationship is said to be equitable (Adams, 1965; Walster, 1975). If, on the other hand, partners feel they put more into the relationship than they are getting out of it (they are underbenefited), or they are getting more out of it than they are putting into it (they are 40 overbenefited), then the ratios are not in balance and the relationship is said to be inequitable. According to Sprecher (1986), people in inequitable relationships who are underbenefited experience the greatest amount of distress (which can negatively impact the relationship). It is important to note that whether a relationship or a specific aspect of the relationship (e.g., romantic love communication behaviors) is equitable or inequitable to an individual depends on that individual’s perceptions (rather than the objective, actual ratios), and those perceptions are influenced by the value one places on various inputs and outputs (Byers & Wang, 2004).
Following are the four primary propositions of equity theory:
Proposition I : Individuals will try to maximize their outcomes (where outcomes
equal rewards minus punishments).
Proposition IIA: Groups (or rather, the individuals comprising these groups) can
maximize collective rewards by evolving accepted systems for equity, and will
attempt to induce members to accept and adhere to these systems.
Proposition IIB : Groups will generally reward members who treat others
equitably, and generally punish members who treat others inequitably.
Proposition III : When individuals find themselves participating in inequitable
relationships, they will become distressed. The more inequitable the relationship,
the more distress they will feel.
Proposition IV : Individuals who discover that they are in inequitable relationships
will attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring equity. The greater the
inequity that exists, the more distress they will feel, and the harder they will try to
restore equity (Hatfield et al., 1985, p. 91-92). 41
According to Adams (1965), restoration of equity can be accomplished in the following ways: changing what one puts into the relationship, changing one’s own outcomes, altering one’s perceptions of the inputs and outputs, leaving the field, insisting one’s partner adjust his/her inputs or outputs, using different bases for comparison, and negatively reacting to one’s partner.
Criticisms against applying equity theory to intimate relationships. According to Hatfield et al. (1985), early studies applied equity theory to casual relationships and it was well received. It was not until equity theory was applied to intimate relationships that controversy began. The most prominent criticism of applying equity theory to intimate relationships is that “intimate relations are special relations- untainted by crass considerations of social exchange” (Hatfield et al., 1985, p. 93). Theorists who hold this belief include Chadwick-Jones (1976) and Brunner (1945) (Hatfield et al., 1985, p. 93).
More recent critics of equity theory include Mills and Clark (1982), who also argued that equity theory could not be applied to intimate relationships. They claimed these types of relationships are more complex in nature, therefore, trying to make a precise assessment of the contributions to and benefits from the relationship would be extremely difficult. For example, Mills and Clark differentiated between the desire to provide one’s partner with a reward based on one’s need (communal relationship) versus providing one’s partner with a reward in order to get something in return (exchange relationship). Their view argues an altruistic approach to relationships- an unselfish concern for the welfare of their partner. In other words, individuals provide rewards for their partner in order to fulfill their partner’s needs rather than to selfishly get something 42 out of it. Further, Mills and Clark supported Chadwick-Jones (1976) and Brunner’s
(1945) claim that applying a fairness principle to loving relationships is inappropriate because much of the input is emotional, and thus essentially unquantifiable.
As time progressed, many researchers began collecting data to address this controversy. For example, Lujanksy and Mikula (1983) conducted a study to support that
Equity theory could not be used to explain the quality and stability of romantic relationships; their study provided support for their hypothesis. The primary criticism of
Lujansky and Mikula when applying equity theory to intimate relationships was that equitability is difficult to measure. The equity ratio was typically determined by using either the Walster (1977) Global Measure or the Traupmann-Utne-Walster (1977) scale.
The Walster (1977) Global Measure asked participants to assess their own contributions, own outcomes, partner’s contributions, and partner’s outcomes. The results of which were then placed into an equity formula to determine whether the relationship is equitable, underbenefiting, or overbenefiting. Later versions of this scale, called the
Hatfield Global Measure (Hatfield et al., 1979) (Note: Hatfield was formerly Walster), allowed participants to decide for themselves if they are underbenefited, overbenefited, or treated equitably. The Traupmann-Utne-Walster (1977) scale measured the level of equity that intimate couples perceived in their relationship by assessing four attributes of one’s relationship: personal concerns, emotional concerns, day-to-day concerns, and opportunities gained or lost.
Martin (1985) was another researcher whose study found little support for equity theory. His study found that married couples reported a greater satisfaction with their relationship when rewards were high; their satisfaction did not come from having an 43 equitable relationship. In fact, the couples reported that they did not feel a need to keep record of exchanges. Martin proposed that equity could be applied to casual interaction but too much emphasis on bookkeeping can be detrimental to intimate exchanges. Martin supported Schwartz’ (1967) finding that keeping track of exchanges in an intimate relationship transforms it into an economic transaction. Cate, Lloyd, and Henton’s
(1985) study had similar findings as that of Martin (1985). Cate et al. (1985) surveyed dating couples rather than married couples, but like Martin (1985), found that reward level rather than equity was a significant factor leading to relationship satisfaction in intimate relationships.
Support for applying equity theory to intimate relationships. On the other side of the controversy are theorists who claim that whether or not a relationship is casual or intimate, people are still concerned with the concept of fairness. Many theorists such as
Hatfield, Utne, and Traupmann (1979) argue that equity theory and the concept of fairness can be applied to all relationships whether they are casual or intimate. Although there may be unique characteristics of intimate relationships that may affect the timing and reaction to perceived inequity, the concept of fairness is still important and applicable. To prove their point, Hatfield et al. cited various marital therapists (Lederer &
Jackson, 1968; Patterson & Reed, 1970) who based their marital counseling on a fair- exchange model of intimate relationships.
In order to provide support for equity theory being applied to intimate relationships, researchers conducted studies that tested the five hypothesis Hatfield et al.
(1979) developed. These hypotheses were derived from equity theory and applied to intimate relationships. Following are the hypotheses with their corresponding support: 44
Hypothesis 1 : In the casual and steady dating period, couples who feel that their
relationships are equitable will be more likely than couples in inequitable
relationships to move on to more intimate relationships. (For example, equitable
couples will be especially likely to become sexually involved-and to continue to
date, live together, or marry) (Hatfield et al., 1985, pp. 94-95).
Numerous studies provided support for Hypothesis 1. For example, Hatfield et al.
(1978) found that equitable relationships were more likely to move toward a more intimate relationship, and were more sexually active. And other studies have shown that the frequency of that sexual activity is higher when partners perceive an equitable exchange of communication, emotional investment, material investment, sexual and emotional fidelity, and degree of arousal during sexual activity (Lawrance & Byers,
1995; Peplau et al., 1977; Regan & Sprecher, 1995; Walster et al., 1978). Additionally,
Traupmann et al. (1983) found that men and women in equitable relationships felt more loving, close, and more physically satisfied after sex with their partner than men and women in inequitable relationships.
Hypothesis 2 : Equitable relationships will be compatible relationships. Men and
women in equitable relationships should be more content than men and women
who are receiving either far more or far less than they feel they deserve. The more
inequitable their relationships, the more distress they should feel (Hatfield et al.,
1985, pp. 94-95).
A considerable number of studies provide support for Hypothesis 2. There is evidence that inequity is distressing for all stages of relationships, from dating couples
(Hatfield et al., 1978; Schafer & Keith, 1981; Traupmann & Hatfield, 1981; Traupmann 45 et al., 1983) to newlyweds (Traupmann & Hatfield, 1981; Utne et al., 1984). Utne et al.’s
(1984) study found that men and women in equitable relationships were more content and satisfied with their relationship and felt their relationship was more stable than those couples who felt they were in an inequitable relationship. Snell and Belk (1985) also tested equity in dating couples. Their study confirmed that women who were in equitable relationships had a higher degree of liking for their partner than those women who were in inequitable relationships.
As mentioned previously, several studies (e.g. Utne et al., 1984; Walster et al.,
1978) found the more equitable a relationship is perceived to be, the more satisfied one is with the relationship. A particular area of study that has also provided support for
Hypothesis 2 is the romantic communication behavior related to passion- sex. Sexual frequency, sexual initiations, and responses to sexual initiations are all aspects of sexual touch that can lead to sexual and Relational Satisfaction. These behaviors within the equity framework can also be considered rewards and costs. When partners perceive an inequity in the frequency or quality of initiations and/or positive responses to the initiations, it may lead to lower Sexual Satisfaction (Hatfield et al., 1979). Low sexual and Relational Satisfaction are associated with lower frequency of sexual activity
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Byers & Heinlein, 1989; Call, Sprecher, & Schwartz,
1995; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994), which could be a source of distress for couples.
Hypothesis 3 : Since inequities are disturbing, couples should continue to try to
resolve them over the course of their relationships. Men and women who feel
underbenefited should be motivated to demand more from their partners. Men and 46
women who feel overbenefited should find ways to meet the demands of their
partners. Thus, all things being equal, relationships should become more and more
equitable over time (Hatfield et al., 1985, pp. 94-95).
Schafer and Keith’s (1981) study provided support for Hypotheses 3. They found the greatest increases in perceived equity occurred when the couple was middle-aged and their children had left home.
Hypothesis 4 : In all relationships, there are certain crisis periods (e.g., when a
dating couple marries, when the first child arrives, when the children leave home,
when someone loses his or her job or retires). At such times of precipitous
change, relationships become unbalanced. If couples are contacted before, during
and after such crises, it is likely that couples will find the crisis period very
unsettling, and will work to reestablish equity…or move in the direction of
dissolution of the relationships (Hatfield et al., 1985, pp. 94-95).
Ueleke, Miller, Giesen, and Miles’ (1983) study strongly supported Proposition
IV in that partners in an intimate relationship, especially the women, sought to restore equity when they perceived their current relationship was inequitable. As discussed previously, Adams (1965) identified several means by which equity can be restored: changing what one puts into the relationship, changing one’s own outcomes, altering one’s perceptions of the inputs and outputs, leaving the field, insisting one’s partner adjust his/her inputs or outputs, using different bases for comparison, and negatively reacting to one’s partner.
Several studies (e.g. Canary & Stafford, 1992; Walster et al., 1975;) have shown that most individuals restore equity by changing what they put into the relationship. For 47 example, studies relating to relational maintenance behaviors have shown that individuals in romantic relationships (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Dainton, 2003) and opposite-sex platonic friendships (Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000) will reduce inputs. Donaghue and Fallon (2003), however, found that romantic partners would enact different approaches to restoring equity depending upon whether the inequity was a result of being overbenefited or underbenefited. They found that when men and women perceived their relationship to be overbenefited (they were receiving more than they were putting into the relationship), they would restore equity by increasing their own contributions to the relationship rather than ask their partner to decrease theirs. When men and women perceived their relationship to be underbenefited (they were receiving less than they were putting into the relationship), they would restore equity by asking their partner to increase their contributions rather than decreasing their own. However, it should be noted that
Donaghue and Fallon’s (2003) study assessed predictions of participant’s reactions based on hypothetical scenarios that may not be reflective of what one would actually do in real life if faced with an inequitable relationship.
Hypothesis 5 : Among the committed relationships, equitable relations will be
especially stable. Individuals in equitable relations will be more likely to perceive
their relationships as long-term and will be more likely to have relationships intact
months and years later (Hatfield et al., 1985, pp. 94-95).
In terms of stability, several studies concluded the highest degree of contentment and stability were found in equitable marriages as opposed to inequitable marriages
(Hatfield et al., 1978; Peterson, 1981; Utne et al., 1984). 48
Application of equity theory to relationship maintenance. Early research primarily tested the validity of equity theory as applied to intimate relationships as discussed above. However, over time the focus shifted to testing the application of equity theory to other areas of research. For example, several studies have applied equity theory to the process of relational maintenance (Canary & Stafford, 1992, 1993, 2001; Dainton,
2003). Stafford et al. (2000) defined maintenance behaviors as efforts to achieve relational maintenance.
Through the work of Canary and Stafford (1992), five major relational maintenance strategies emerged that serve to maintain relationships: positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, and sharing tasks. Positivity refers to interacting with one’s partner in a way that is affirming, cheerful, optimistic, and uncritical. Openness refers to talking with one’s partner about the state of the relationship. Assurances refer to messages that indicate one’s loyalty and commitment to one’s partner and to the relationship. Social networks refer to interacting with and relying on the support and love of a group of common friends and family. Sharing tasks refers to doing one’s share around the house and fulfilling one’s responsibilities. Subsequent research by Stafford et al. (2000) resulted in two additional relational maintenance strategies being added to the original five: advice and conflict management.
Canary and Stafford (1992) predicted that couples in equitable relationships would be the most likely to use relationship maintenance behaviors and those in inequitable relationships would be the least likely. Using self-report measures, equity was found to be a leading factor in the use of relational maintenance strategies, especially when the wife reported an equitable marriage. In regard to perceptions of partner use of 49 maintenance strategies, the findings were similar. Again, when the wife reported an equitable marriage, both husbands and wives perceived their partners using more maintenance behaviors. These findings support Canary and Stafford’s hypothesis that underbenefited spouses use and perceive fewer maintenance strategies than those couples who are in equitable marriages. This finding is in line with Adams (1965) and Walster,
Berscheid, and Walster’s (1973) study. That is, people in inequitable marriages attempt to restore equity by reacting negatively or punishing one’s partner- in this case, reducing maintenance behaviors (withdrawing reward). The findings are also in line with the foundational principles of Equity theory, in that maintenance behaviors require an input/cost from one partner as well as a rewarding outcome for one’s spouse (Adams,
1965).
Dainton’s (2003) study also supports the finding that couples in inequitable relationships enact fewer maintenance behaviors. For example, through survey data,
Dainton found that the relational maintenance behaviors of conflict management and positivity were used the least in inequitable relationships. This makes sense given the fact persons in inequitable relationships experience feelings of anger, guilt, and frustration
(Sprecher, 1986) that would make it difficult to apologize and/or be cheerful.
To summarize, this literature review has focused on the application of equity theory to intimate interpersonal relationships by first providing an overview of the basic propositions of equity theory. Second, the criticisms against equity theory as applied to intimate relationships were discussed. Many theorists claimed that equity theory could not be applied to intimate relationships because intimate relationships are special relationships and it would be inappropriate to apply a tit-for-tat exchange to them 50
(Brunner, 1945; Chadwick-Jones, 1976; Mills & Clark, 1982). Consequently, several researchers conducted studies to show how equity theory could not be applied to intimate relationships (Cate et al., 1985; Martin, 1985; Lujansky & Mikula, 1983). However, numerous other theorists claimed that all relationships, whether casual or intimate, are concerned with the concept of fairness (Hatfield et al., 1979). Researchers on this side of the debate conducted studies to support how equity theory could be applied to intimate relationships and did so by finding support for Hatfield et al.’s (1979) hypotheses.
Hatfield et al. (1978) and Traupmann et al. (1983) found evidence that equitable relationships move on to more intimate relationships. Hatfield et al. (1978), Snell and
Belk (1985), Traupmann et al., (1981, 1983), Utne et al. (1984), and Van Yperen and
Buunk (1990) confirmed that people in equitable relationships are the most satisfied.
Schafer and Keith (1981) found support that relationships become more equitable over time. Uelek et al. (1983) found support that couples will seek restoration of equity if they are in an inequitable relationship. And, Davidson (1984), Hatfield et al. (1978) and
Peterson (1981) provided support that equitable relationships are more stable than inequitable relationships.
Third, the literature review has shown how equity theory has been applied to relational maintenance. Canary & Stafford (1992, 1993, 2001) found that equity is a leading factor in the use of relational maintenance strategies and Dainton (2003) found that couples in inequitable relationships enact fewer maintenance behaviors.
Overall, equity theory has provided many valuable insights into intimate relationships. The relationship between relational maintenance behaviors and equity theory has clearly been established through research as discussed. However, no studies 51 have made the connection between romantic love communication behaviors and equity theory. Because the purpose of relational maintenance and romantic love communication behaviors is to promote the well-being of a relationship, it is hypothesized that romantic behaviors will function similar to the way that relational maintenance behaviors do.
Research has shown that partners view equitable treatment as more emotionally rewarding than being overbenefited or underbenefited (Sprecher, 1986). Canary and
Stafford (1992) proposed that equitability, then, could be considered an influential force in the implementation of maintenance behaviors because partners should be more motivated to maintain relationships they perceive as equitable.
Several studies have shown that relational maintenance behaviors are linked to equitability in relationships (Canary & Stafford, 1992, 1993, 2001; Dainton, 2003). In the same line of thought, it seems probable that equity could also be an influential force in the implementation of romantic love communication behaviors. In other words, individuals in equitable relationships will be more likely to implement romantic love communication behaviors.
Previous research related to inequitable relationships has provided support for the idea that individuals will reduce inputs if a relationship is perceived as inequitable
(Adams, 1965; Walster et al., 1975) in order to restore equity. Not only was support found for this hypothesis in the theoretical studies, but also in studies relating to relational maintenance behaviors in romantic relationships (Canary & Stafford, 1992;
Dainton, 2003) and opposite-sex platonic friendships (Messman, Canary, & Hause,
2000). It seems probable that romantic love communication behavior usage will be low for inequitable relationships as well. Although the propositions of equity theory primarily 52 focus on two types of equity, equitable relationships and inequitable relationships, this study will also analyze the two types of inequitable relationships, overbenefited and underbenefited. Overnefited relationships are those in which one spouse perceives he/she is receiving more than he/she is putting in. Underbenefited relationships are those in which one spouse perceives he/she is putting more into the relationship than receiving.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are posed:
H1a: Individuals in an equitable relationship will report using Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors (RLCB) significantly more often than individuals
in an inequitable relationship (overbenefited and underbenefited).
H1b: Individuals in an equitable relationship will report their partner uses
Romantic Love Communication Behaviors (RLCB) significantly more often
than individuals in an inequitable relationship (overbenefited and
underbenefited).
Satisfaction
According to Vangelisti (2002), satisfaction has been the outcome variable of choice for many researchers studying interpersonal communication in romantic relationships because both researchers and the public want to know what makes for a happy relationship. Satisfaction is typically operationalized as “partners’ feelings about their relationship at a given point in time” (p. 668). The following review of literature will first summarize the relationship between satisfaction and the two key constructs of romantic love- intimacy and passion. Second, a summary of the literature linking satisfaction to romantic love communication behaviors will be provided. Third, a review of the literature linking satisfaction to the theoretical framework for this study, Equity 53 theory, will be discussed. The three types of satisfaction (relational, sexual, and communication) as outlined for this study will be the focus.
Intimacy and passion. S everal studies have shown the importance of looking at the key constructs of romantic love (intimacy and passion) and their relationship to satisfaction. For example, Aron and Henkemeyer (1995) asserted that intimacy and passion are important correlates to studying the concept of love and claim that the distinction between love in general and passionate love overlap when looking at relationship satisfaction. They found that marital satisfaction was moderately correlated to passionate love for women; however, there was no significant correlation for men.
This was a surprising find given that Hendrick, Hendrick, Foote, and Slapion-Foote
(1984) found that men tend to be more erotic in their love attitudes than women.
Hendrick et al.’s (1984) study focused on measuring the love and sex attitudes of students using a scale reflective of Lee’s (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992) love styles. The difference in findings may be attributed to the fact that students, who may or may not have ever been in love, were used in Hendrick et al.’s (1984) study and married individuals were used in Aron and Henkemeyer’s study.
Intimacy and passion are also two of the three elements found in the Triangular
Theory of Love (Sternberg, 1986) that has been studied in connection with satisfaction.
The Triangular Theory of Love states that love consists of intimacy, passion, and commitment, and is most durable when these three elements are at peak levels and equal for both partners. Lemieux and Hale (1999, 2000, 2002) conducted numerous studies to analyze the relationships between the three components of the Triangular Theory of Love and satisfaction. Using Hendrick’s (1988) Relationship Assessment Scale, Lemieux and 54
Hale (1999) sought to discover which of the components of the Triangular Theory of
Love would predict Relational Satisfaction for unmarried men and women. Results indicated that all three of the components were significantly correlated to Relational
Satisfaction and predicted Relational Satisfaction for both genders. For men, the strongest predictor was intimacy, followed by passion, and then commitment. For women, the order was slightly different. For women, the strongest predictor was intimacy as well, but was then followed by commitment, and then passion.
Lemieux and Hale’s (2000) subsequent study found that the correlations of the three components to Relational Satisfaction for married individuals was significantly higher than the correlations for unmarried individuals. Results also indicated differing contributions of each component. For married men, commitment was the primary predictor of Relational Satisfaction for unmarried men, followed by passion and then intimacy. Ironically, the strongest predictor of Relational Satisfaction for unmarried men, intimacy, was the weakest predictor for married men. The weakest predictor of Relational
Satisfaction for unmarried men, commitment, was the strongest predictor for married men. For married women, intimacy was the primary predictor of Relational Satisfaction followed by passion and then commitment. For both married and unmarried women, intimacy is the primary predictor of Relational Satisfaction; however, the weakest predictor for unmarried women is passion, whereas the weakest predictor for married women is commitment. Noteworthy is the finding that intimacy is the strongest predictor of Relational Satisfaction for unmarried men, unmarried women, and married women but not married men.
55
Romantic love communication behaviors. In addition to research linking the key constructs of intimacy and passion to satisfaction, research has also linked the romantic love communication behaviors associated with each of the constructs to satisfaction. As discussed previously, the romantic love communication behaviors linked to intimacy include: verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, and affectionate touch.
Intimacy.
Verbal communication and satisfaction. In terms of verbal communication, several scholars have found that intimate communication is associated with marital satisfaction (e.g. Bruess & Pearson, 1993; Tucker & Aron, 1993). Langhinrichsen-
Rohling, Schlee, Monson, Ehrensaft, and Heyman (1998) analyzed husbands and wife’s perceptions of positive communication and behaviors in marriage through positive relationship questionnaires. Results indicated that people in happy marriages, as opposed to distressed marriages, use more intimate language with one another which emphasizes the importance of looking at the constructs of intimacy and love together.
As discussed previously, one of the most intimate forms of verbal communication is self-disclosure. Many researchers have found that high levels of self disclosure are characteristic of happily married couples (e.g. Dickson-Markman, 1984; Gilbert, 1976).
Gilbert (1976), however, found a curvilinear relationship between self disclosure and marital satisfaction; the most stable and satisfying marriages were those that had medium levels of self-disclosure as opposed to low or high levels. Rosentfeld and Bowen’s
(1991) research, however, supported yet another hypothesis that self disclosures in marriages reach a threshold effect in that beyond a given point, additional amounts of self 56 disclosure do not increase levels of marital satisfaction. In addition to levels of self- disclosure, researchers have found other facets of self disclosure that are related to marital satisfaction. For example, Dickson-Markman (1984) sought to identify what types of self disclosure (amount, intent, honesty, valence, and depth) are related to marital satisfaction. She found that honesty, intent, and valence were related to marital satisfaction, but amount and depth were not. Dickson-Markman notes the finding is contrary to other researchers who found that as relationships become more intimate, the amount and depth of self-disclosure increases (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). The differences in the studies is the length of relationships. In the Dickson-Markman’s study, participants were in long-term stable relationships averaging 12 years. Whereas in new relationships couples self disclose greater amounts and depth of information as they get to know one another, this type of self disclosure is not as relevant once the relationship is established.
Additionally, Bruess and Pearson (1993) surveyed married couples ranging on the continuum of newly married to empty nesters to assess the relationship between the use of idioms (e.g. nicknames or covert gestures) and marital satisfaction across the life cycle. Respondents were asked to report idiom use via a questionnaire and report levels of marital satisfaction using the satisfaction subscale of Spanier’s (1976) Dyadic
Adjustment Scale. Bruess and Pearson found that marriages that have a higher degree of marital satisfaction report more idiom use; unfortunately, idioms are used more often in early marriage but decline over the span of one’s marriage. Couples who use the most idioms were married less than five years and had no children. This finding is consistent with Tucker and Aron’s (1993) study which sought to measure passionate love and marital satisfaction across three key transitional points in the life cycle: engagement to 57 marriage, childlessness to parenthood, and children living at home to empty nest. Tucker and Aron found that the correlations between marital satisfaction and passionate love decrease across the life cycle particularly after marriage and parenthood.
Research has also pointed to another form of verbal communication between romantic partners that promotes Relational Satisfaction- compliments. Researchers contend that compliments are a form of verbal communication that allows couples to share intimate communication and positive feelings with their partner that contributes to and/or reflects the satisfaction and value of the relationship (Doohan & Manusov, 2004;
Helgeson, Shaver, & Dyer, 1987; Prager, 1995). Using a diary method, Doohan and
Manusov analyzed complimentary behavior between participants involved in a heterosexual romantic relationship. Results indicated that participants’ perceptions of their own and their partner’s compliment behavior was positively related to Relational
Satisfaction. Although both men and women regard compliments as important to their romantic relationship, women tend to be more aware of their presence or absence. In terms of the content of the compliment, appearance was the most often complimented topic and was most often received by women. Men received compliments most often on personality traits, performance, and emotions. When asked what was the best compliment they had ever received from their partner, participants recalled compliments that expressed feelings/emotions about the relationship, the importance of the relationship and the importance of the other person. And, finally, the most common response to a partner’s compliment was a return compliment, which underscores the equitable balance individuals seek to maintain as discussed in Equity theory (Adams, 1965).
58
Time together and satisfaction. The connection between time together and marital satisfaction has also been researched. Studies have shown that time spent together is positively correlated to intimacy and relationship satisfaction (e.g. Duck & Pittman,
1994; Reissman et al., 1993), and that the lack thereof can cause significant marital distress (Russell-Chapin, Chapin, & Sattler, 2001; Smith, Snyder, Trull, & Monsma,
1988). This is not a new finding. As early as 1976 the correlation between shared activities and marital satisfaction was being investigated. For instance, building upon the
Orden and Bradburn (1968) model for marital happiness, Marini (1976) investigated the relationship between three variables: marital satisfaction, marital tensions, and marital companionships. Through this study, Marini concluded that the number of pleasurable activities in which couples engage together is positively linked to their marital satisfaction. This finding was given additional support through research in the 1980’s and
1990’s. Using a diary approach, Kirchler (1989) asked married and cohabitating couples to log the amount of time they spent together at home and during recreation periods. In addition, couples completed questionnaires regarding personality measures and marital satisfaction. Results indicated that the happier couples spent more time together.
Although Reissman et al.’s (1993) study of married couples supports the vital role that sharing activities has on marital satisfaction, they distinguish the difference between what types of activities. According to Reissman et al., there needs to be a degree of excitement in the shared activity in order for it to enhance marital satisfaction. For example, watching television together would not enhance marital satisfaction for the couple to the degree that going on a vacation together would.
59
Emotional Support and satisfaction. Various types of marital support have also been shown to be a vital component to marital satisfaction (Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994;
Xu & Burleson, 2004), and the lack of support has been shown to promote dissatisfaction
(Gagnon, Hersen, Kabacoff, & Van Hasselt, 1999) and even termination of relationships
(Baxter, 1986). Using typologies represented in previous research (Cutrona & Russell,
1990; House, 1981), Xu and Burleson (2004) broke support down into five different types to determine which was the strongest correlate of marital satisfaction. Following are the five types:
Emotional support (i.e., expression of love, empathy, and concern),
Esteem support (i.e., expressions of respect, validation, and confidence)
Network support (i.e., expressions that create a sense of belonging)
Tangible support (i.e., the provision of material assistance such as goods and
services)
Informational support (i.e., expressions that provide facts, advice, and appraisals
regarding situations of concern)” (p. 125)
Emotional support was the most strongly correlated to marital satisfaction regardless of gender or ethnicity.
Affectionate touch and satisfaction . Affectionate touch has also been linked to relationship satisfaction (Gulledge et al., 2003), and the lack of these behaviors is a sign of relationship deterioration (Owen, 1987). For example, Gulledge et al. conducted a study to assess the effect of non-sexual physical affection on relationship satisfaction.
Male and female college students were asked to report their perceptions regarding seven types of physical affection (backrubs/massages, caressing/stroking, cuddling/holding, 60 holding hands, hugging, kissing on the lips, and kissing on the face) and rank them according to dimensions of frequent, intimate, favorite, and expressive of love.
Respondents who were currently in a dating relationship were asked to report the frequency of each type of physical affection per week, as well as levels of Relational
Satisfaction. Through this study, Gulledge et al. found that physical affection was positively correlated with relationship and partner satisfaction; in fact, conflict was resolved easier with increased amounts of cuddling/holding, kissing on the lips, and hugging.
Passion. Not only have some of the romantic love communication behaviors related to intimacy been shown to be related to relational/marital satisfaction, but the romantic love communication behaviors related to passion, romantic gestures and sexual touch, are related to relational/marital satisfaction, as well.
Romantic gestures and satisfaction. In terms of romantic gestures, several studies have noted the romantic element inherent in the giving and receiving of gifts (e.g.
Chapman, 1992; Marston & Hecht, 1999) as discussed previously. Gifts have been shown to have a positive effect on individuals overall. For example, Haviland-Jones, Rosario,
Wilson, and McGuire (2005) looked at the effect of giving flowers, in particular, and found that the gift of flowers for women of all ages, married and single, immediately elicited a smile. In addition, these women when asked about their moods through questionnaires, reported having more positive moods three days later. Other researchers have found support that gifts play a vital role in maintaining and enhancing romantic relationships (e.g. Beatty et al., 1991; Chapman, 1992).
61
Sexual touch and satisfaction. Sexual touch has also been linked to marital satisfaction through studies measuring Sexual Satisfaction. Sexual Satisfaction is defined as the degree in which individuals are satisfied or happy with the sexual aspect of their relationship (Sprecher & Cate, 2004). Several studies have shown that Sexual
Satisfaction is highly associated with the construct of love (e.g. Hendrick & Hendrick
2004; Sprecher & Regan, 1998) and have shown that couples who report being sexually satisfied in their marriage report high levels of overall relational/marital satisfaction (e.g.
Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Sprecher & Cate, 2004). This connection is so strong, in fact, that a change in Sexual Satisfaction is associated with a change in Relational
Satisfaction (Edward & Booth, 1994; Sprecher, 2002). It is important to note, however, that the causal direction for these studies has not been determined. Although Sexual
Satisfaction could lead to Relational Satisfaction, Relational Satisfaction could also lead to Sexual Satisfaction (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Hendersen-King & Veroff, 1994).
The following research will identify the specific aspects of sex that lead to Sexual
Satisfaction and ultimately, Relational Satisfaction. According to Sprecher and Cate
(2004), the specific sexual behaviors and experiences that contribute to Sexual
Satisfaction and Relational Satisfaction (either directly or indirectly) include: frequency of sexual behavior, variety and type of sexual behavior, orgasmic frequency and consistency, sexual communication, and sexual conflict. In terms of frequency of sexual behavior, married couples early in their marriage have sex on average two times per week
(Call et al., 1995; Laumman et al., 1994; Rao & DeMaris, 1995). Studies have shown that frequency of sex and Sexual Satisfaction are positively associated; in other words, couples who have more frequent sex are more sexually satisfied. However, it should be 62 noted that although the frequency of sex declines with age, it does not reflect a decrease in marital satisfaction (Edwards & Booth, 1994; Laumann et al., 1994). Terman et al.’s
(1938) research provides the most plausible explanation; minor discrepancies, as opposed to large discrepancies, between actual sexual frequency and desired sexual frequency are associated with marital satisfaction. Therefore, as long as couples are having sex as frequently as they personally desire, whether it be twice a week or twice a month, they are satisfied.
Variety and type of sexual behavior also contribute to sexual and Relational
Satisfaction. For example, Greeley (1991) found that couples who engage in some experimentation and variety in sex are more sexually satisfied. There has not been a great deal of research, however, investigating what these other varieties and types of sexual behavior are, other than oral sex. According to Blumstein & Schwartz (1983), there is a positive association between frequency of oral sex and Sexual Satisfaction, particularly for men.
Third, orgasmic frequency and consistency contribute to Sexual and Relational
Satisfaction. For example, a positive association has been found between orgasmic frequency and consistency and Sexual Satisfaction (Birnbaum, Glaubman, & Mikulincer,
2001; Hyde, DeLamater, & Durik, 2001; Singh, Meyer, Zambarano, & Hurlbert 1998). It has also been shown that orgasmic frequency and consistency is also associated with greater love for the partner and feelings of being loved in return (Birnbaum et al., 2001), as well as relationship satisfaction (Young, Denny, Young, & Luquis, 2000). Again, it is important to note that research has not been conducted to determine the causal direction between sexual and Relational Satisfaction. 63
Effective communication about sexual issues is also an important element to satisfying relationships. Studies have shown that the more couples talk about sex, the greater their Sexual Satisfaction (Byers & Demmons, 1999; Chesney, Blakeney, Cole, &
Chan, 1981) and Relational Satisfaction (Byers & Demmons, 1999; Yelsma, 1986). In addition to the quantity of conversations about sex, the quality of sexual discussions is also positively associated with sexual and Relational Satisfaction (Banmen & Vogel,
1985; Cupach & Comstock, 1990). Other researchers examined sexual communication in terms of how sexual desire is communicated and received, as well as the disclosure of likes and dislikes. In terms of communicating sexual desire or lack thereof, research has shown that men initiate sex more often than women (Brown & Auerback, 1981; Byers &
Heinlein, 1989), but men and women are equally likely to accept their partner’s initiations (Byers & Heinlein, 1989). From a social exchange perspective, research has shown that sexual and relationship satisfaction is higher when acceptance of initiations
(e.g. reward) is higher than refusal of initiations (e.g. costs) (Byers & Heinlein, 1989).
Disclosing one’s likes and dislikes is also an important aspect of sexual communication in order to have more fulfilling sexual interactions with one’s partner. Research in this area has shown that more extensive disclosure of sexual likes and dislikes in committed heterosexual relationships positively predicts Sexual Satisfaction (Byers & Demmons,
1999; MacNeil & Byers, 1997; Purnine & Carey, 1997), as well as Relational Satisfaction
(Byers & Demmons, 1999).
The disclosure of one’s sexual likes and dislikes can also be viewed from a social exchange perspective. Effective sexual disclosures will more than likely lead to couples engaging in sexual activity that fulfills the likes (e.g. rewards) and avoids the dislikes 64
(e.g. costs) of partners. According to Weiss (2004), it is important for couples to communicate and reach a sexual agreement on a variety of sexual issues. For example, couples should agree on the number of times per week they would like to have sex, places to have sex, and sexual behaviors that are acceptable, as well as alternate initiations to achieve sexual and marital satisfaction.
One particular study in this area that is interesting to note is that of Litzinger and
Gordon (2005). Litzinger and Gordon examined the relationship between communication, Sexual Satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Litzinger and Gordon identified that communication and Sexual Satisfaction have both independently been positively correlated to marital satisfaction; however, the goal of their research was to analyze the effect that communication and Sexual Satisfaction together have on marital satisfaction. Married couples were randomly chosen from a commercial mailing list and invited to participate. Marital satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction were measured using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) and a subscale of the Inventory of Specific
Relationship Standards (Baucom, Epstein, Rankin, & Burnett, 1996) respectively.
Litzinger and Gordon found that communication and Sexual Satisfaction both independently predict marital satisfaction. The role of Sexual Satisfaction is so vital to marital satisfaction, in fact, that Sexual Satisfaction can partially compensate for the negative effects of poor communication on marital satisfaction.
To summarize, research has shown that verbal communication (e.g. Bruess &
Pearson, 1993; Hendrick, 1981), time together (e.g. Duck & Pittman, 1994; Reissman et al., 1993), emotional support (Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994; Xu & Burleson, 2004), affectionate touch (Gulledge et al., 2003), romantic gestures (e.g. Beatty et al., 1991; 65
Chapman, 1992), and sex (e.g. Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Sprecher & Cate, 2004) all lead to marital satisfaction. Although each of the behaviors identified as romantic love communication as outlined in this study have been researched independently and shown to have a positive effect on Relational/marital Satisfaction, the model as presented in this study has not been tested as a whole to determine its overall effect on Relational, Sexual, and Communication Satisfaction. Therefore, the following hypotheses are posed:
H2a: The use of romantic love communication behaviors is positively associated
with Relational Satisfaction.
H2b: The use of romantic love communication behaviors is positively associated
with Sexual Satisfaction.
H2c: The use of romantic love communication behaviors is positively associated
with Communication Satisfaction.
Although some researchers (e.g. Gottman & Levenson, 1986; Huston &
Vangelisti, 1991) argue that negative behaviors are more directly linked to satisfaction than positive behaviors, others (e.g. Jacobson, Waldron, & Moore, 1980) have found that positive behaviors are sometimes more closely associated with positive behaviors than negative behaviors. Perhaps the discrepancy is due to the fact that positive behaviors in romantic relationships have not been researched as much as negative behaviors. Support for this notion is given by Bradbury, Fincham, and Beach (2000) who argue that the role of positive behaviors in romantic relationships has not yet clearly been defined. This study will advance the understanding that positive behaviors such as romantic love communication behaviors have on relationships, particularly satisfaction.
66
Equity and satisfaction. Not only has research shown that intimacy and passion
(e.g. Aron & Henkemeyer, 1995; Hendrick et al., 1984), and romantic love communication behaviors associated with these constructs (e.g. Duck & Pittman, 1994;
Gulledge et al., 2003) lead to satisfaction, but research (e.g. Utne et al., 1984; Walster et al., 1978) also has shown that equitability plays a role in satisfaction as well. As discussed previously, equity theory (Adams, 1965), as applied to personal relationships, is rooted in the idea of an equal balance of rewards (outcome) and costs (inputs).
According to Rusbult & Buunk (1993) “satisfaction will be greatest when one’s input- outcome ratio is equal to that of one’s partner; when these ratios differ, individuals feel distress and dissatisfied” (p. 182). This sentiment is echoed by Donaghue and Fallon
(2003), who argue that there are clearly costs and benefits associated with being in intimate relationships. To argue that the distribution of these costs and benefits are not related to relationship satisfaction is to dismiss a vital element of the dynamics of intimate relationships.
The previous section identified several romantic love communication behaviors that lead to satisfaction. However, according to Gottman and Levenson (1992), it is not just the absolute frequency of positive (or negative) behaviors that most strongly influence couples’ satisfaction, but rather the ratio of positive to negative behaviors
(social exchange theory which is the foundation for equity theory). When the ratio of positive behaviors outweighs negative behaviors, it leads to satisfaction. For example, research has shown that an equitable balance of maintenance behaviors (Oswald, Clark,
& Kelly, 2004; Stafford & Canary, 1991) leads to Relational Satisfaction. When the ratio of negative behaviors outweighs positive behaviors, it decreases satisfaction. For 67 example, in terms of Sexual Satisfaction, when partners perceive an inequity in the frequency or quality of initiations and/or positive responses to the initiations, it may lead to lower Sexual Satisfaction (Hatfield et al., 1979).
Up to this point, satisfaction has been viewed as a relational characteristic or outcome. For example, satisfaction was the outcome of equitable relational maintenance behaviors (Stafford & Canary, 1991). Stafford (2003) contends, however, that satisfaction can be viewed as not only an outcome but also a driving force in relationships; “the most satisfactory relationships are the most equitable ones and individuals adjust their efforts
(in this case maintenance behaviors) in accordance to their perceived equity in the relationship (Adams, 1965; Hatfield et al., 1985; Walster et al., 1973)” (p.69), theoretically coinciding with an equity framework. In other words, if individuals are not satisfied with their relationship, as the hypothesis indicates, they will adjust their efforts
(e.g., relational maintenance behaviors, romantic love communication behaviors) as a means to restore equity.
Several studies (e.g. Utne et al., 1984; Walster et al., 1978) have found the more equitable a relationship is perceived to be, the more satisfied one is with the relationship.
Utne et al.’s (1984) study found that men and women in equitable relationships were more content and satisfied with their relationship and felt their relationship was more stable than those couples who felt they were in an inequitable relationship. In terms of
Sexual Satisfaction, Traupmann et al. (1983) found that men and women in equitable relationships felt more loving and close and more physically satisfied after sex with their partner than men and women in inequitable relationships. 68
Not only has research shown that an equitable relationship leads to satisfaction as outlined above, but Stafford and Canary (2006) also provided support for the notion that equity and satisfaction are predictive of relational maintenance strategies. Over 200 married couples completed measures of equitability, satisfaction, and self-reported maintenance strategy use. Results indicated that satisfaction is lowest for partners who perceive they are underbenefited, highest for partners who perceive their relationship as equitable, and lower for partners who perceive they are overbenefited. Although both forms of inequitable relationships, underbenefited and overbenefited, resulted in low levels of satisfaction, underbenefited partners reported a lower level of satisfaction than overbenefited partners. When the wives perceived the relationship to be equitable, relational maintenance strategies followed the same curvilinear pattern as satisfaction.
The curvilinear relationship found in this study directly supports the curvilinear association predicted by equity theory (Buunk & Mutsaers, 1999; Hatfield et al., 1985).
Additionally, 3 of the 5 maintenance behaviors were used significantly less by underbenefited husbands than overbenefited or equitable husbands. Stafford and Canary noted that the combination of equity and satisfaction was a more powerful predictor of relational maintenance behavior usage than either construct alone (based on women’s reports). This finding underscores the importance of studying these two variables together in this romantic love communication behavior study.
Several studies have provided support for equity in relationships being related to a higher degree of Relational Satisfaction (e.g. Utne et al., 1984; Walster et al., 1978). The studies that most directly coincide with the current study have shown that equity in relational maintenance behaviors (Stafford & Canary, 2006) and sexual behaviors 69
(Lawrance & Byers, 1992; Peplau et al., 1977; Regan & Sprecher, 1995; Walster et al.,
1978) are related to a higher degree of Relational Satisfaction. However, beyond the sexual component, the relationship between equity, romantic communication behaviors, and satisfaction has not been established. Because relational maintenance behaviors (e.g., positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, and sharing tasks) and romantic love communication behaviors (e.g., verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, affectionate touch, romantic gestures, and sexual touch) both promote the well- being of a relationships, it is hypothesized that romantic love behaviors will function in much the same way that relational maintenance behaviors do. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H3a: Spouses who perceive an equitable exchange of romantic love
communication behaviors, relative to those who perceive an inequitable
exchange, will report a higher degree of Relational Satisfaction.
H3b: Spouses who perceive an equitable exchange of romantic love
communication behaviors, relative to those who perceive an inequitable
exchange, will report a higher degree of Sexual Satisfaction.
The relationship between romantic love communication behavior equitability and
Communication Satisfaction will also be tested. However, previous studies have not been able to provide definitive support as to whether equity increases communication satisfaction or not. Therefore, the following research questions will be explored:
RQ2: Will spouses who perceive an equitable exchange of romantic love
communication behaviors, relative to those who perceive an inequitable
exchange, report a higher degree of Communication Satisfaction? 70
In addition to these hypotheses and research questions, several demographic variables such as gender, age, years married, if previously married, and number of children will be analyzed to determine which are significantly related to outcomes of interest. Gender will be analyzed because several researchers have noted gender differences in romantic love communication behaviors. For example, research has shown that women tend to initiate touch after marriage (Willis & Briggs, 1992), but men, however, are the first to say, “I love you” (Notarius & Johnson; 1982), and initiate touch in the early stages of a dating relationship (Willis & Briggs; 1992). Researchers have also noted the gender differences in romantic love with regard to perceptions and attitudes about love (Areni, Kiecker, & Palan, 1998; Klusmann, 2002; T. Nguyen, Heslin, & M.
Nguyen, 1975; M. Nguyen, Heslin, & T. Nguyen, 1976), its effect on marital satisfaction
(Frisco & Williams, 2003; Piña & Bengston, 1993; Ward, 1993), and reasons for utilizing
(Areni et al., 1998; Olsen, 2003; Willis & Briggs, 1992).
Age and years married are relevant because research has shown that although the need, perceptions, and desire for Eros love, passion, and intimacy do not decline throughout one’s life (Butler, Walker, Skowronski, & Shannon, 1995; Fiske & Chiriboga,
1990; Traupmann & Hatfield, 1981; Wang & Nguyen, 1995), Eros love, passion, and intimacy, in fact, do decline (Acker & Davis, 1992; Tucker & Aron, 1993; Reedy, Birren,
& Schaie, 1981). One of the primary reasons, perhaps, is because individuals tend to stop actively communicating their love to their mate as time goes on (Blumstein & Schwartz,
1983; Call, Sprecher, & Schwartz, 1995; Edwards & Booth, 1994; James, 1983). For example, research has shown that idioms (Bruess & Pearson, 1993), physical affection
(Guerrero & Andersen, 1991), and sex (Klusmann, 2002) tend to dissipate throughout the 71 life stages of the relationship. Not only does the frequency of sex decline throughout relationship stages, but the fact that it also declines as one ages is also a consistent finding (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Call et al., 1995; Edwards & Booth, 1994; James,
1983). Call, Sprecher, and Schwartz (1995) attribute the decline to habituation, which is the reduction in novelty because of being with the same partner. Habituation explains the
National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) finding that re marriage was associated with an increase in marital sex, when controlling for age (Call et al., 1995).
For this reason, number of times married was also analyzed.
The number of children a couple has is also relevant because this factor could affect the amount of time and energy one has to invest in the relationship and, subsequently, how satisfied one is with the relationship. Research has found that parenthood does, in fact, have a negative effect on marital satisfaction. For example,
Tucker and Aron’s (1993) study sought to measure passionate love and marital satisfaction across three key transitional points in the life cycle: engagement to marriage, childlessness to parenthood, and children living at home to empty nest. They found that the correlations between marital satisfaction and passionate love decrease across the life cycle particularly after marriage and parenthood.
The relationships between equity theory and satisfaction have been a topic of interest for many researchers for many decades; however, continued research as proposed in this study will broaden researchers’ understanding of theoretical components of relationships. As research continues to grow in this area, this study will assist in understanding the complex nature of romantic love communication behaviors in order to help couples sustain longer and more fulfilling relationships. 72
Chapter III
Research Design and Methodology
There were two parts to this project, a pilot study and Study 1. The pilot study addressed the conceptualization of romantic love communication. In the pilot study, participants were asked the open-ended question, “How do you communicate romantic love to your spouse?” Results of the pilot study helped to validate the way in which the behaviors were framed and indicated what additions, deletions, and/or modifications to the Romantic Love Communication Scale were necessary prior to conducting Study 1.
Study 1 focused on exploring the relationship of romantic love communication to other variables. As in the pilot study, a survey design was used in which participants were asked how often they communicate romantic love to their spouse and how often (in their perception) their spouse communicates romantic love to them using the RLCS. One of the variables under investigation in Study 1 was satisfaction. Results of Study 1 assisted in understanding the effect of romantic love communication on three aspects of satisfaction- Relational Satisfaction, Communication Satisfaction, and Sexual
Satisfaction. The second variable under investigation in Study 2 was equitability. Two aspects of equitability were analyzed. First, the equitability of one’s relationship was analyzed to see what effect it had on the use of romantic love communication behaviors.
Results provide an understanding of the association between the (in)equitability in one’s relationship and how it affects romantic love communication usage. Second, the
(in)equitable use of romantic love communication behaviors was analyzed to determine what effect it had on relational, communication, and Sexual Satisfaction. Results assist in 73 understanding the effect of (in)equitability of romantic love communication usage on these three aspects of satisfaction.
Pilot Study
The following section will address the research design and methodology for the pilot study.
Sample and population. Heterosexual married individuals were the units of analysis. Although heterosexuals (i.e., mixed sex) and homosexuals (i.e., same sex) function in relationships in many similar ways, researchers have also noted some differences. For example, Holmberg and Blair (209) found that although individuals in same sex and mixed sex relationships reported similar sexual repertoires and levels of sexual communication, heterosexual men and same sex couples reported a higher sexual desire than heterosexual women. In addition, heterosexual men were less satisfied than heterosexual woman and lesbian couples with tender, sensual, and/or erotic sexual activities. Because these types of behaviors are a fundamental aspect of this study, homosexuals and heterosexuals could potentially differ in their responses. Kitzinger and
Coyle (1995) caution researchers from adopting the prevailing liberal humanistic perspective that places a heavy emphasis on the similarities between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. This emphasis can lead to researchers inappropriately attempting to force homosexual lifestyles in those supposedly typical of heterosexuals, thus, failing to adequately explore the specificities and social context of these types of relationships. For these reasons, this study will focus on just one group- heterosexuals. 74
Individuals in dating relationships were not used because one of the variables in this study is Sexual Satisfaction. Although some dating couples have premarital sex, not all do. In addition, there was a danger of individuals who were in a sexual, non-married relationship omitting the Sexual Satisfaction questions in an effort to provide a socially desirable response. Non-probability and snowball sampling were used. Participants came from two different categories- Kent State University students and other individuals contacted through snowball sampling. The first category consisted of Kent State
University students who were enrolled in an undergraduate introductory human communication course, married, and at least 18 years of age. Many undergraduate students, however, were not married. Therefore, these unmarried students, as well as the married students, recruited research participants via snowball sampling from their own social network who were married and at least 18 years of age. The individuals obtained through snowball sampling made up the second category of research participants.
Overall, there were one hundred and thirty nine participants for the pilot study
(n= 107 females; 32 male) and 77% were females. The average age of the participants was 44 years old. Caucasian was the dominant ethnicity comprising 89% ( n= 124) of the sample. Most of the participants ( n= 117; 85%) had only been married one time and the average years married was approximately 18 ½ years. Forty percent ( n= 56) of the participants did not have children, 25% ( n= 36) had one child, 24% ( n= 34) had two, and
9% ( n= 13) had three or more. A high school diploma was the highest degree earned for
45% ( n= 62) of the participants. Thirty six percent ( n= 51) held a bachelors degree, 15%
(n= 21) held a masters, and 3% ( n= 4) held a doctorate degree. The combined income for most of the participants was $50,000-$99,000 ( n= 67; 48%). 75
Data collection procedures. Individuals were invited to participate in the study via multiple methods. Kent State University students who were seeking research participation credit for an undergraduate introductory human communication course in which they were enrolled attended a brief training session. The training session explained the scope of the study and how research credit would be awarded. Students who met the survey criteria (e.g. married, at least 18 years of age) were directed to Qualtrics.com to take the online survey within one week of the training session. Additionally, the married students, as well as unmarried students, were both asked to recruit research participants from their own social network (the author was carbon copied on the email for verification purposes). Students were provided with a copy of the invitation to be used in the email and sent the email request to ten married individuals within one week of the training session. To maintain an independent sample, students were directed only to send the email request to either the husband or the wife, but not both. Regardless of whether individuals completed the survey or not, students earned research credit for sending the email to ten married individuals.
The primary method of data collection was online questionnaires. Prior to taking the survey, survey participants read the instructional material, the IRB consent form, and the scope of the study. The directions stated that participation in the study was purely voluntary, that responses were anonymous to protect participants’ privacy, and that they could terminate their participation in the survey at any time without penalty. Directions also explained that only one partner in the marriage could participate in the study. The instructions clearly explained to participants that by clicking on the link, they were 76 providing their consent. Participants were then asked to answer demographic questions and the open-ended question. Participants were asked to complete the survey only once.
Instrument.
Romantic love communication. Participants were asked to provide their own response to the open-ended question, “How do you communicate romantic love to your spouse?”
Results.
Data analysis. The qualitative data from the open-ended questions was analyzed to identify patterns and trends in the responses in order to answer the following research question:
RQ1: What communication behaviors are used to express romantic love?
First, the author read the responses to the open ended question and engaged in open coding (Strauss, 1987) and analysis of 20% ( n= 28) of the data to achieve inter- coder reliability. Through the process of open coding, categories were built, named, and had attributes assigned to them. A codebook (e.g., Weston et al., 2001) was used to list the categories according to the different themes that emerged, the code names of each category, examples of each category, and the number of times each category was referenced in participants’ responses. The themes for each category were established using Owen’s (1984) three criteria: recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness. Although particular categories for the means by which individuals communicate romantic love were indicated in previous literature, open coding was used to identify categories, themes, examples, and/or attributes that had not been identified in existing literature. As 77
Lindlof and Taylor (2005, p. 215) contend, “A priori theory can sensitize one to what could be important, but it should not override or overshadow the meanings that the researcher discovers in the scenes being studied.”
Through the process of open coding seven categories emerged based on recurring themes. The seven categories include: verbal, kinesics, time together, social support, tactile, romance, and sex. The same data were then analyzed by another coder to check for inter-coder reliability. Scott’s (1955) pi was used to determine inter-coder agreement.
The analysis completed by the second coder supported the categories identified by the author with an inter-coder reliability of 89% which is considered very good (Landis &
Koch, 1977). The author then completed the coding of all the data. Table 1 identifies the categories and the number of times the category was cited.
78
Table 1
Question #1: Categories Derived from Open Coding ______
Category Examples # of times Percent cited
______
Verbal Compliments 86 23% Comm. Words of appreciation Encouraging/kind words Saying “I love you” Secretive language
Kinesics Eye contact 29 8% A special look Smiling
Time Together Take trips 20 5% Go places together Spend time together
Social Support Doing things for him/her 43 11% Listening Help with chores Acts of kindness
Tactile Hold hands 145 38% Hugging Backrubs/Massages Kissing Holding/snuggling
Romance Walk on a beach 36 9% Buy flowers Write love letters/notes
Sex Sexual Intercourse 22 6% Lingerie ______
79
The open-ended question regarding ways in which romantic love is communicated supported the a priori categories as identified by the literature: verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, affectionate touch, romantic gestures, and sexual touch. However, it should be noted that results from this open-ended question revealed that emotional support can be achieved through other means of support as well. For example, doing chores and acts of kindness can alleviate a spouse’s stress or bring joy to his/her life, thus ultimately providing emotional support.
Study 1
The following section will address the research design and methodology for Study 1.
Sample and population. Married individuals were the units of analysis for Study
1. Non-probability sampling was used. Participants included individuals from two different categories: participants from the community and paid participants recruited through Qualtrics.com. Participants from the community were sought first, then paid participants were recruited. Because the survey was still open to volunteer participants at the time paid participants responded, the exact number of volunteer versus paid participants is unknown. Participants from both categories were married and at least 18 years of age. Only the husband or the wife participated in the study, but not, both, in order to maintain an independent sample. Based on the demographic makeup of the participants from the community, particular parameters were set for those participants recruited through Qualtrics.com in order to obtain a more representative sample of different ethnicities and age groups. The parameters indicated that at least 50% of the
Qualtics participants needed to represent any ethnicity other than Caucasian, 100 80 participants needed to represent the 18-29 age group, and 60+ participants needed to represent the 60 and older age group.
Overall, five hundred and ninety two participants completed the survey for Study
1 with a fairly equal number of each gender ( n= 281 females; 279 male). The sample represented all age groups relatively equally as well ( n= 114 in the 18-29 age group, n=
88 in the 30-39 age group, n= 111 in the 40-49 age group, n= 99 in the 50-59 age group, and n= 146 in the 60+ age group). Caucasian was the dominant ethnicity comprising 67%
(n= 373) of the sample. Most of the participants ( n= 426; 77%) had only been married one time and the average years married was approximately 18 years. Forty six percent
(n= 2 56) of the participants did not have children, 24% ( n= 133) had one child, 20% ( n=
112) had two, 6% ( n= 36) had three, 2% ( n= 11) had four, 1% ( n= 4) had five, and less than 1% ( n= 2) had 6. A high school diploma was the highest degree earned for 37% ( n=
204) of the participants. Thirty five percent ( n= 197) held a bachelors degree, 19% ( n=
104) held a masters, and 9% ( n= 51) held a doctorate degree. The combined income for most of the participants was $50,000-$99,000 ( n= 266; 48%). Any missing value in a variable was omitted from the analysis for that variable; thus, the sample size varied for different items based on the number of individuals who completed that item. Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for all of the demographic variables used in this study.
81
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for demographic variables______
Variable Frequency Mean Mode SD_ _
Age: 18-29 114 30-39 88 40-49 111 50-59 99 60+ 146
Gender : Male 279 Female 281
Years Married 17.86 2 14.01
Previously married Yes 129 No 426
Children at Home .98 0 1.15
Educational Level High school 204 Bachelors 197 Masters 104 Doctorate 51
Ethnicity African American 70 Asian 45 Caucasian 373 American Indian 14 Pacific Islander 1 Other 52
Household Income $24,000 or less 39 $25,000-$49,000 126 $50,000-$99,000 266 $100,000+ 122 82
Data collection procedures. Individuals were invited to participate in the study via multiple methods. First, a survey invitation was posted in various places within the community using email, facebook.com, twitter.com, LinkedIn.com, and scienceofrelationships.com. The invitation clearly explained the scope of the study, identified who was eligible to participate, and provided a link to the online survey located at Qualtrics.com.
The other category of research participants included paid survey takers through
Qualtrics.com. Using Qualtrics.com recruitment strategies, a panel that met the survey and quota criteria was assembled and survey invitations were sent out. Quatrics monitored the survey daily, checking for quality and sending new invitations as needed.
The data was then screened using a general quality control check that removed any responses that were inattentive (participant randomly selected answers), duplicate, and/or illegitimate. Once the quota was met and all of the necessary data was collected, the survey was closed.
The primary method of data collection was self-report data through online questionnaires. Prior to taking the survey, participants read instructional material, the IRB consent form, and the scope of the study. The directions clearly stated that participation in the study was purely voluntary, that responses were anonymous to protect participants’ privacy, and that they could terminate their participation in the survey at any time without penalty. Directions explained that only one partner in the marriage could participate in the study. The instructions also clearly explained to participants that by clicking on the link, they were providing their consent. Participants were asked to only complete the survey once. Participants answered demographic questions and then completed the 83
Romantic Love Communication Scale, two global measures of relational equity (Hatfield et al., 1979; Sprecher, 1986, 1988), two global measures of romantic love communication behavior equity (Hatfield et al., 1979; Sprecher, 1986, 1988), a measure of marital satisfaction (Norton, 1983), a measure of Sexual Satisfaction (Hudson, 1998; Hudson,
Harrison, & Crosscup, 1981), and a measure of Communication Satisfaction (Hecht,
1978).
Instruments.
Romantic love communication. Participants completed the Romantic Love
Communication Scale (RLCS, see Appendix A). The RLCS is a comprehensive taxonomy of romantic love communication behaviors identified in previous literature and collapsed into categories. The RLCS measures one’s own use, as well as one’s partner’s use, of the seven categories of romantic love communication: those related to intimacy
(verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, affectionate touch), and those related to passion (romantic gestures and sexual behaviors). The scale measures romantic love communication behaviors in total as opposed to dimensions. The scale includes 45 statements where participants rate the degree to which their spouse communicated romantic love to them using a particular behavior. Using the same 45 statements, participants were then asked to rate the degree to which they communicated romantic love to their spouse using a particular behavior. Responses were rated using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The statements tapped both the individual and the spouse’s use of each of the romantic love communication behaviors for several reasons. First, including partner data is important because, according to
Thiabaut and Kelley (1959), it is the partner’s behavior that is rewarding. Additionally, it 84 is the partner’s behavior, rather than one’s own, that is more directly associated with an individual’s perception of the relationship (Canary & Cupach, 1988). By collecting data on both the individual and the partner’s use of romantic love communication behaviors, analyses can be performed in Study 1 on the (in)equitability of romantic love communication behavior use and how that affects satisfaction. Statements on the RLCS include such things as “My spouse hugs me” and “My spouse tells me he/she loves me”
(See Appendix A). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the RLCS in Study 1 were .977 (Partner’s use) and .973 (Individual’s use).
Equity.
Relational equity. Relational equity was measured using the Hatfield Global
Measure of Equity (Hatfield et al., 1979; 7 items) and the Sprecher Global Measure of
Equity (Sprecher, 1986, 1988; 7 items) (see Appendix B). Both measures assess the equity of one’s relationship overall. The Hatfield Global Measure of Equity asks:
“Consider what you put into your relationship, compared to what you get out of it…and what your partner puts in compared to what he or she gets out of it, how does your relationship “stack up”?” Responses range on a 7 point Likert scale from (1) I am getting a much better deal than my partner to (7) My partner is getting a much better deal than I am. The Hatfield Global Measure of Equity has been used in several studies (e.g., Cate et al., 1982; Michaels et al., 1984) and has high face validity and parsimony.
The Sprecher Global Measure of Equity states, “Sometimes things get out of balance in a relationship and one partner contributes more to the relationship than the other. Consider all the times when the exchange in your relationship has become unbalanced and one partner contributed more than the other for a time. When your 85 relationship becomes unbalanced, which is more likely to be the one who contributes more?” Response options range on a 7 point Likert scale from (1) My partner is much more likely to be the one to contribute more to (7) I am much more likely to be the one to contribute more. For both the Hatfield and the Sprecher measures, lower scores indicate being overbenefited, moderate scores indicate being equitably treated, and higher scores indicate being underbenefited. The Sprecher Global Measure of Equity is credited for being “possibly more sensitive to the assessment of mild and occasional forms of inequity” (Sprecher, 2001, p. 479).
Several studies (e.g. Canary & Stafford, 2001; Sprecher, 1986, 1988) have combined the Hatfield and Sprecher Global Measures of Equity to create a two-item equity Scale. According to Sprecher (1986), the Hatfield measure assesses stable resources, whereas the Sprecher measure assesses more dynamic resources. Combining the two provides a more reliable and precise measure of equity than either measure alone.
The two measures, when summed, yield a scale ranging from 2 to 14. Scores between 7-9 represent the midpoint and indicate an equitable relationship. Scores between 2-6 indicate being overbenefited and scores between 10-14 indicate being underbenefited. Examples of both measures are included in Appendix B.
Romantic love communication behavior equity . Romantic love communication behavior equity was measured using modified versions of the Hatfield Global Measure of
Equity (Hatfield et al., 1979; 7 items) and the Sprecher Global Measure of Equity
(Sprecher, 1986, 1988; 7 items) (see Appendix C). The modified Hatfield Global
Measure of Equity asks: “Considering how often you use behaviors that communicate romantic love to your spouse, compared to how often your spouse uses behaviors that 86 communicate romantic love to you, how does the exchange “stack up”?” Responses range on a 7 point Likert scale from (1) I am getting a much better deal than my partner to (7) My partner is getting a much better deal than I am. The unmodified Hatfield Global
Measure of Equity has been used in several studies (e.g., Cate et al., 1982; Michaels et al., 1984) and has high face validity and parsimony.
The modified Sprecher Global Measure of Equity states, “Sometimes things get out of balance in a relationship and one partner contributes more to the relationship than the other. Consider all the times when the exchange of romantic love communication behaviors in your relationship has become unbalanced and one partner contributed more than the other for a time. When your relationship becomes unbalanced, which is more likely to be the one who contributes more?” Response options range on a 7 point Likert scale from (1) My partner is much more likely to be the one to contribute more to (7) I am much more likely to be the one to contribute more. For both the Hatfield and the
Sprecher measures, lower scores indicate being overbenefited, moderate scores indicate being equitably treated, and higher scores indicate being underbenefited.
As in the measure of relational equity, the Hatfield and Sprecher Global Measure of Equity was combined to create a two-item equity scale. The two measures, when summed, yield a Scale ranging from 2 to 14. Scores between 7-9 represent the midpoint and indicate an equitable relationship. Scores between 2-6 indicate being overbenefited and scores between 10-14 indicate being underbenefited. Examples of both modified measures are included in Appendix C.
Relational satisfaction. Relational satisfaction was measured using the Quality
Marriage Scale (QMI) (Norton, 1983). This scale is a six-item, self-report, global 87 measure of marital satisfaction. Participants evaluate their marital quality by responding to five items using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from “very strong disagreement” to
“very strong agreement.” The last question asks respondents to rate their degree of happiness in their marriage on a 10 point scale that ranges from “very unhappy” to
“perfectly happy.” The Cronbach alpha reliability reported from various studies utilizing this scale range from .88-.96. Construct validity of the scale has been established
(Norton, 1983) and evidence of concurrent (Schumm et al., 1986) and criterion-related
(Baxter & Bullis, 1986) validity has been found. According to Rubin, Palmgreen, and
Sypher (2004, p. 302), the QMI appears to be a valid and reliable means of assessing marital satisfaction. The QMI can be found in Appendix D.
Sexual Satisfaction. Sexual Satisfaction was measured using the scale of Sexual
Satisfaction (ISS; Hudson et al., 1981; Hudson, 1998). The ISS is a global measure of
Sexual Satisfaction consisting of 25 items. Participants evaluate their Sexual Satisfaction by responding to items such as “I feel that my sex life is lacking in quality” and “My spouse does not satisfy me sexually.” Responses range on a 7 point Likert scale from 1
(none of the time) to 7 (all of the time). “Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were found to be in excess of .90, and the scale has a discriminant validity coefficient of
.76” (Hudson et al., 1981, p. 157). The ISS can be found in Appendix E.
Communication Satisfaction. Communication Satisfaction was measured using a modified version of the Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory (Hecht,
1978) as other researchers have done as well (e.g., R. B. Rubin, Perse, & Barbato, 1988;
R. B. Rubin & A. M. Rubin, 1989). The modified version will be a global measurement 88 of Communication Satisfaction within the relationship and consists of 19 items.
Participants assessed their own level of satisfaction with conversations they have had with their spouse by indicating the degree to which they agree or disagree with each statement. Examples of items include, “I feel that I can talk about anything with my partner” and “My partner changes the topic when his/her feelings are brought into the conversation.” Responses range on a continuum of 1 (disagree) to 7 (agree). Hecht (1978) reported split-half reliabilities ranging from .90 to .97. Other researchers have reported coefficient alphas ranging from .72 to .93 (e.g. Buerkel-Rothfuss & Bell, 1987; Hecht &
Marston, 1987). Sufficient reliabilities were found even when modified versions were used. High content and convergent validity for the inventory has also been found (Hecht,
1978). The modified Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory can be found in Appendix F.
Data analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to identify a minimum number of traits, or factors, that account for the variance in the scales in Study 1.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to analyze the data for the following reasons.
First, the indicators used in the RLCS fall under specific dimensions of the construct of romantic love based on the literature; however, they had not yet been confirmed. Second, there was not any pre-established theory predicting that an indicator variable would load on a particular factor, as is the case in confirmatory factor analysis. EFA is appropriate when a researcher wants to uncover the underlying factor structure of the variables through factor loadings using the a priori assumption that any indicator may be associated with any factor (Osborne & Costello, 2005). Principle component analysis (PCA), the 89 simplest type of factor analysis, was used to extract the components/factors. The goal of
PCA is to have fewer components than items (Kerlinger, 1986).
Cattell’s (1966) scree test was also used to determine how many factors to retain for rotation. According to Costello and Osborne’s (2005) article discussing best practices for exploratory factor analysis, the scree test is the best choice for researchers to determine how many factors to retain because of its accuracy, ease of use, and availability in statistical software. Per Cattell’s guidelines, the factors above the elbow were retained and those below it were rejected (DeVellis, 1991). A varimax rotation was used to simplify and clarify the data structure and was chosen to keep the factors statistically independent of one another in order to produce orthogonal factors (DeVellis,
1991). Items that showed at least a .60 loading on their primary factor and less than .40 on the secondary factor for both Individual and Partner responses were retained.
Because the Romantic Love Communication Scale (RLCS) was developed by the author, no previous data on reliability was available. As this survey is an attitude measure, the initial test should be, according to Sax (1989; p. 502), an internal consistency measure which seeks to select items that appear to measure each separate area of interest. Two areas of focus are found in the RLCS scale, each having the same question. The first group is the respondant answering about his/her spouse (Partner) and the second is the respondant answering about his/herself (Individual).
The analysis for Partner’s use originally yielded three componenets. The scree test showed three to four components. A forced four factor solution was run; however, using the .60/.40 decision rule, none of the items were valid for a fourth component. Therefore a forced three-factor solution was run. Using the .60/.40 decision rule, 20 items were 90 eliminated. Once these items were eliminated, the factor analysis was rerun with the 25 items that were retained using varimax rotation and a forced, three-factor solution. The three-factor solution accounted for 71% of the variance. The three factors include (1)
Intimacy, (2) Romantic Gestures, and (3) Sexual Behaviors. Table 3 provides a summary of the final factor loadings for retained items.
Factor 1, Intimacy (eigenvalue = 13.12, Cronbach alpha = .97), accounted for
52.47% of the total variance after rotation. The factor included all five dimensions of
Intimacy: verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, and affectionate touch. This 15-item factor reflected the emotional investment component of relationships ( M = 5.07, SD = 20.41).
Factor 2, Romantic Gestures (eigenvalue = 3.19, Cronbach alpha = .89), accounted for 12.77% of the total variance. It consisted of only items found in the
Romantic Gestures dimension of Passion. This 6-item factor reflected behaviors that set the mood for passion ( M = 2.63, SD = 8.08).
Factor 3, Sexual Behaviors (eigenvalue = 1.44, Cronbach alpha = .90), accounted for 5.76% of the total variance. It consisted of only items found in the Sexual Behaviors dimension of Passion. This 4-item factor reflected behaviors that are sexually oriented
(M = 3.49, SD = 6.34).
91
Table 3
Final Factor Loadings for Retained Romantic Love Communication Behaviors (RLCB): Partner’s Use ______Romantic Love Communication Behavior Factors ______
RLCB Intimacy Romantic Sexual M(SD) Gestures Behaviors______Intimacy My spouse cares for me .86 .01 .18 5.85(1.54) My spouse gives me emotional support .86 .19 .12 5.06(1.72) My spouse is there for me when I need him/her .84 .08 .06 5.52(1.59) My spouse listens to me .84 .17 .04 5.21(1.53) My spouse speaks kindly to me .82 .12 .16 5.19(1.55) My spouse looks at me when we are talking .82 .10 .14 5.46(1.49) My spouse takes time to understand my feelings .81 .30 .13 4.76(1.70) My spouse helps me grow as a person .75 .32 .15 4.68(1.79) My spouse hugs me .74 .20 .33 5.02(1.75) My spouse finds time to spend with me .74 .33 .15 4.70(1.65) My spouse shares personal feelings/thoughts w/ me .73 .26 .22 4.77(1.76) My spouse smiles at me .73 .21 .30 4.89(1.54) My spouse invites me to do activities with him/her .72 .30 .21 4.89(1.67) My spouse tells me he/she loves me .72 .04 .36 5.36(1.80) My spouse cuddles with me .67 .34 .35 4.52(1.85)
Romantic Gestures My spouse suggests taking walks in the moonlight .09 .88 .19 2.26(1.55) My spouse surprises me with dinners by candlelight .10 .84 .22 2.09(1.48) My spouse invites me to watch the sunset together .22 .79 .20 2.63(1.72) My spouse invites me to lay in front of the fire .09 .74 .30 2.24(1.71) My spouse buys gifts for no special occasion .34 . 64 .14 3.18(1.70) My spouse invites me for walks .40 .64 .11 3.39(1.85)
Sexual Behaviors My spouse initiates sexual intercourse .19 .19 .86 3.76(1.80) My spouse initiates foreplay .28 .30 .80 3.57(1.77) My spouse suggests experimentation/variety in sex .18 .40 .74 2.98(1.84) My spouse talks with me about sex .40 .35 .67 3.80(1.83) ______Eigenvalue 13.12 3.19 1.44 Variance Explained 52.47 12.77 5.76 Cronbach Alpha .97 .89 .90 M 5.07 2.63 3.49 SD 20.41 8.08 6.34 N 512 519 524 92
The analysis for Individual’s use yielded four factors; however, the scree plot indicated three to four factors. A forced three-factor and a forced four-factor solution were run to determine which accounted for the greatest variance. The forced four- factor solution produced the greater variance and resulted in the following factors: (1) Intimacy
(2) Non-sexual nonverbal behaviors, (3) Sexual Behaviors, and (4) Romantic Gestures.
Using the .60/.40 decision rule, 20 items were eliminated. The forced four-factor solution was rerun with the 25 remaining items. The new factor loadings resulted in two additional items needing to be eliminated. The factor analysis was rerun with the 18 remaining items using varimax rotation and a forced, four-factor solution. The new factor loadings resulted in four additional items needing to be eliminated. These remaining items were the last remaining items for the component “Non-sexual nonverbal behaviors,” therefore, confirming the original three factors (1) Intimacy, (2) Sexual
Behaviors, and (3) Romantic Gestures. The forced three-factor solution accounted for
66.13% of the total variance. Table 4 provides a summary of the final factor loadings for retained items.
Factor 1, Intimacy (eigenvalue = 14.57, Cronbach alpha = .97), accounted for
48.58% of the total variance after rotation. The factor included all five dimensions of
Intimacy: verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, and affectionate touch. This 19-item factor reflected the emotional investment component of relationships ( M = 5.26, SD = 22.08). The factor loadings for Intimacy for Individual use resulted in four additional items being retained. They include: “I tell my spouse I appreciate him/her,” “I compliment my spouse,” “I spend time with my spouse without 93 the need to talk,” and “I eat dinner with my spouse.” All of the other retained items were the same compared to Partner’s use.
Factor 2, Romantic Gestures (eigenvalue = 3.76, Cronbach alpha = .90), accounted for 12.54% of the total variance. It consisted of only items found in the
Romantic Gestures dimension of Passion. This 7-item factor reflected behaviors that set the mood for passion ( M = 3.10, SD = 9.63). All of the retained items were the same compared to Partner’s use with the exception of one additional items, “I give my spouse cards.”
Factor 3, Sexual Behaviors (eigenvalue = 1.51, Cronbach alpha = .89), accounted for 5.02% of the total variance. It consisted of only items found in the Sexual Behaviors dimension of Passion. This 4-item factor reflected behaviors that are sexually oriented
(M = 3.71, SD = 6.31) and were the exact same items retained under Partner’s use.
94
Table 4
Final Factor Loadings for Retained Romantic Love Communication Behaviors (RLCB): Individual’s Use ______
Romantic Love Communication Behavior Factors ______
RLCB Intimacy Romantic Sexual M(SD) Gestures Behaviors ______
Intimacy I give my spouse emotional support. .84 .11 .08 5.47(1.45) I care for my spouse. .81 -.01 .07 6.06(1.32) I am there for my spouse when he/she needs me. .81 .02 - .02 5.77(1.35) I look at my spouse when we are talking .80 .10 .04 5.57(1.32) I take the time to understand my spouse’s feelings. .80 .23 .10 5.27(1.40) I speak kindly to my spouse. .79 .16 .11 5.36(1.34) I listen to my spouse. .79 .17 -.02 5.61(1.24) I smile at my spouse .78 .24 .24 5.11(1.45) I find time to spend with my spouse .78 .26 .15 5.10(1.49) I invite my spouse to do activities with me. .75 .29 .15 5.15(1.49) I tell my spouse I appreciate him/her .74 .31 .23 4.88(1.64) I hug my spouse .74 .19 .32 5.12(1.65) I compliment my spouse .71 .31 .27 4.79(1.52) I tell my spouse I love him/her .70 .07 .30 5.53(1.66) I help my spouse grow as a person. .70 .29 .21 4.97(1.52) I share personal feelings and thoughts w/ my spouse .67 .25 .26 4.93(1.76) I spend time with my spouse without the need to talk .66 .28 .25 4.86(1.54) I suggest spending one on one time together .66 .38 .26 4.68(1.64) I eat dinner with my spouse. .64 .08 .06 5.64(1.50)
Romantic Gestures I suggest taking walks in the moonlight. .05 .84 .25 2.62(1.75) I invite my spouse to watch the sunset together. .15 .83 .17 2.84(1.78) I invite my spouse to lay in front of the fire. .05 .80 .30 2.39(1.77) I surprise my spouse with dinners by candlelight .12 .78 .21 2.53(1.66) I invite my spouse for walks .33 .68 .13 3.66(1.71 I buy my spouse gifts for no special occasion .36 .61 .19 3.71(1.72) I give my spouse cards .34 .61 .02 3.89(1.81)
Sexual Behaviors I initiate foreplay. .21 .26 .85 3.84(1.80) I initiate sexual intercourse. .19 .21 .85 3.93(1.78) I suggest experimentation and variety in sex. .10 .37 .77 3.27(1.90) I talk with my spouse about sex. .39 .40 .62 3.86(1.84) ______
95
Eigenvalue 14.57 3.76 1.51 Variance Explained 48.58 12.54 5.02 Cronbach Alpha .97 .90 .89 M 5.26 3.10 3.71 SD 22.08 9.63 6.31 N 491 501 506
Data was analyzed using multiple linear regression analyses. The first variable under analysis in this study was relational equity, where relational equity was the predictor and romantic love communication behavior use was the criterion variable.
Separate analyses of both the individual’s use and the perception of spouse’s use were conducted.
To assess the relationship between equitable/inequitable relationships and the use of romantic love communication behaviors, the following hypotheses were posed:
H1a: Individuals in an equitable relationship will report using Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors (RLCB) significantly more often than individuals
in an inequitable relationship (overbenefited and underbenefited).
H1b: Individuals in an equitable relationship will report their partner uses
Romantic Love Communication Behaviors (RLCB) significantly more often
than individuals in an inequitable relationship (overbenefited and
underbenefited).
Multiple regression analysis was used to test H1a and H1b based on the scores from the Romantic Love Communication Scale (RLCS) and the Hatfield (Hatfield et al.,
1979) and Sprecher (Sprecher, 1986, 1988) relational equity measures. Participants were categorized as underbenefited (score= 10-14), equitable (score= 7-9), or overbenefited
(score= 2-6). From that, three separate dichotomous/dummy variables were created: 96 underbenefited (0,1), equitable (0,1), and overbenefited (0,1). Equitable participants were left out of the regression analysis as the referent group. Scores between 7-9 represented the midpoint and indicated an equitable relationship.
The second variable under investigation in this study was satisfaction, where romantic love communication behavior use was the predictor variable and satisfaction
(relational, sexual, or communication) was the criterion variable. To analyze the relationship between romantic love communication behavior use and Relational
Satisfaction, the following hypothesis was posed:
H2a: The use of romantic love communication behaviors is positively associated
with Relational Satisfaction.
Multiple regression analysis was used to test H2a based on the scores from the
Romantic Love Communication Scale (RLCS) and Norton’s (1983) Relational
Satisfaction measure. The hypothesis was tested with regard to one’s perception of spouse’s use and one’s own use of romantic love communication behaviors.
To analyze the relationship between romantic love communication behavior use and Sexual Satisfaction, the following hypothesis was posed:
H2b: The use of romantic love communication behaviors is positively associated
with Sexual Satisfaction.
Multiple regression analysis was used to test H2b based on the scores from the
Romantic Love Communication Scale (RLCS) and Hudson, Harrison, & Crosscup’s
(1981) Sexual Satisfaction scale. The hypothesis was tested with regard to one’s perception of spouse’s use and one’s own use of romantic love communication behaviors.
To analyze the relationship between romantic love communication behavior use 97 and Sexual Satisfaction, the following hypothesis was posed:
H2c: The use of romantic love communication behaviors is positively associated
with Communication Satisfaction.
Multiple regression analysis was used to test H2c based on the scores from the
Romantic Love Communication Scale (RLCS) and Hecht’s (1978) Communication
Satisfaction inventory. The hypothesis was tested with regard to one’s perception of spouse’s use and one’s own use of romantic love communication behaviors.
Satisfaction was also analyzed in connection with the (in)equitability of romantic love communication behavior use. Romantic love communication behavior
(in)equitability was the predictor variable and satisfaction (relational, sexual, or communication) was the criterion variable. To analyze the relationship between the
(in)equitability of romantic love communication behavior use and Relational Satisfaction, the following hypothesis was posed:
H3a: Spouses who perceive an equitable exchange of romantic love
communication behaviors, relative to those who perceive an inequitable
exchange (over or underbenefited), will report a higher degree of relational
satisfaction.
Multiple regression analysis was used to test H3a based on the scores from the modified versions of the Hatfield (Hatfield et al., 1979) and Sprecher (Sprecher, 1986,
1988) relational equity measures. Instead of measuring relational equity, the modified versions measured the equitability of romantic love communication behavior use. As in the relational equity measures, participants were categorized as underbenefited (score=
10-14), equitable (score= 7-9), or overbenefited (score= 2-6). From that, three separate 98 dichotomous/dummy variables were created: underbenefited (0,1), equitable (0,1), and overbenefited (0,1). Equitable participants were left out of the regression analysis as the referent group. Scores between 7-9 represented the midpoint and indicated an equitable relationship. Satisfaction was measured using Norton’s (1983) Relational Satisfaction measure.
To analyze the relationship between the (in)equitability of romantic love communication behavior use and Sexual Satisfaction, the following hypothesis was posed:
H3b: Spouses who perceive an equitable exchange of romantic love
communication behaviors, relative to those who perceive an inequitable exchange
(over or underbenefited), will report a higher degree of sexual satisfaction.
Multiple regression analysis was used to test H3b based on the scores from the modified versions of the Hatfield (Hatfield et al., 1979) and Sprecher (Sprecher, 1986,
1988) relational equity measures. Participants were categorized as underbenefited (score=
10-14), equitable (score= 7-9), or overbenefited (score= 2-6). From that, three separate dichotomous/dummy variables were created: underbenefited (0,1), equitable (0,1), and overbenefited (0,1). Equitable participants were left out of the regression analysis as the referent group. Scores between 7-9 represented the midpoint and indicated an equitable relationship. Satisfaction was measured using Hudson, Harrison, & Crosscup’s (1981)
Sexual Satisfaction scale.
To analyze the relationship between the (in)equitability of romantic love communication behavior use and Communication Satisfaction, the following research 99 question was posed:
RQ2: Will spouses who perceive an equitable exchange of romantic love
communication behaviors, relative to those who perceive an inequitable
exchange (over or underbenefited), report a higher degree of communication
satisfaction?
Multiple regression analysis was used to test RQ2 based on the scores from the modified version of the Hatfield (Hatfield et al., 1979) and Sprecher (Sprecher, 1986,
1988) relational equity measure. Participants were categorized as underbenefited (score=
10-14), equitable (score= 7-9), or overbenefited (score= 2-6). From that, three separate dichotomous/dummy variables were created: underbenefited (0,1), equitable (0,1), and overbenefited (0,1). Equitable participants were left out of the regression analysis as the referent group. Scores between 7-9 represented the midpoint and indicated an equitable relationship. Satisfaction was measured using Hecht’s (1978) Communication
Satisfaction inventory.
Chapter IV
Results
Table 5 provides descriptive statistics for all of the continuous variables used in this study.
100
Table 5
Descriptive statistics for continuous variables
______
Variable N M SD
Years Married 553 17.86 14.01
Children at Home 554 .98 1.15
Romantic Love Comm.- Spouse’s Use* 536 4.11 1.23
Romantic Love Comm.- Individual’s Use* 520 4.40 1.13
Relational Satisfaction* 521 5.88 1.48
Sexual Satisfaction* 508 5.11 1.20
Communication Satisfaction* 506 5.27 1.12
______
*Responses based on a 7 point Likert scale
Correlation matrices of all of the predictor and criterion variables in the study were examined to analyze the interrelationships amongst them (see Table 6). There were two large correlations. First, there was a significant positive correlation between the
Romantic Love Communication Scale (RLCS)- spouse’s use and individual’s use
(r = .84, N= 520, p < .005, two tailed). Because these variables were both predictor variables in H2, the high correlation may suggest multicollinearity, making it difficult to draw inferences about the relative contribution of each predictor variable to the success of the model. Second, there was a significant positive correlation between Relational
Satisfaction and Communication Satisfaction ( r = .71, N= 506, p < .005, two tailed), both of which were criterion variables. Medium correlations existed between both RLCS- 101 spouse’s use and individual’s use and the three types of Satisfaction. Low correlations existed between years married and children at home, RLCS- spouse’s use, RLCS- individual’s use, and Sexual Satisfaction. An inter-item correlation of RLCBs can be found in Appendix G for Spouse’s Use and Appendix H for Individual’s Use.
Table 6
Correlations between all predictor and criterion variables
______
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Years Married -- -.18** -.23** -.23** -.02 -.20** -.04
2 Children at Home -- -- -.05 -.03 -.07 .01 .10*
3 RLCS-Spouse ------.84** .65** .58** .64**
4 RLCS- Individual ------.50** .52** .51**
5 Relation Satisf. ------.51** .71**
6 Sexual Satisf. ------.66**
7 Comm. Satisf. ------
______
*p < .05; ** p < .01 Note: RLCS= Romantic Love Communication Scale
To address all of the hypotheses and research question in this study, hierarchical regression analyses were performed. The first step was to control for the following demographic variables by entering them in a block as independent variables: age, gender, years married, previously married, children at home, educational level, ethnicity, and household income. The second step was to enter the main variable (i.e. H1= Relational 102
Equity; H2= Romantic Love Communication Use; H3= Romantic Love Communication
Equity) in a second block as an independent variable. The third step was to enter the dependent variable (i.e. H1= Romantic Love Communication use, H2= Satisfaction, H3=
Satisfaction).
Relational equity as predictor of Romantic Love Communication use
The first hypothesis, H1, examined whether the use of Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors could be accounted for by the demographic and Relational equity predictors. Both the individual’s use of Romantic Love Communication Behaviors and perception of spouse’s use were analyzed (H1a and H1b, respectively). The results of these analyses are described in Table 7 and discussed below.
103
Table 7
Predictors of Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use
(Individual: N= 498; Spouse: N= 514)
______
Criterion variable Predictor variables β p value pr ______Individual’s use of RLCB Age -.16 .08 -.07 Gender .04 .35 .04 Years Married -.15 .09 -.07 Previously Married -.04 .50 -.03 Children at home -.08 .08 -.08 Education level .06 .17 .06 Ethnicity -.05 .29 -.04 Household income -.03 .56 -.02 Relation Overbenefited -.17** .00 -.16 Relation Underbenefited -.27** .00 -.25 Spouse’s use of RLCB Age -.17 .05 -.09 Gender .08 .06 .08 Years Married -.14 .09 -.08 Previously Married -.05 .41 -.04 Children at home -.11* .01 -.11 Education level .07 .12 .07 Ethnicity -.03 .45 -.03 Household income -.02 .70 -.02 Relation Overbenefited -.12* .01 -.12 Relation Underbenefited -.38** .00 -.37 ______
Note: Partial correlation is indicated by pr . * p < .05; ** p < .01 The equitable relationship was the reference group.
104
H1a proposed that individuals in an equitable relationship would report using
Romantic Love Communication Behaviors (RLCB) significantly more often than individuals in an inequitable relationship (overbenefited and underbenefited). To address this hypothesis, a regression model was computed where demographic variables,
Relational overbenefited, and Relational underbenefited were entered as the independent variables (entered sequentially in blocks as described previously) and Romantic Love
Communication- individual use was entered as the dependent variable. Results indicated that an individual’s use of RLCBs is significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .07, F(8, 489) = 4.70, p < .001) and Relational inequity ( R2 = .14, F(10,
487) = 8.00, p < .001; R2change= .07, Fchange (2, 487) = 19.78, p < .001). Individuals who perceive their relationship as either overbenefited or underbenefited use Romantic
Love Communication Behaviors less often than those in equitable relationships
(Overbenefited: β = -.17, pr = -.16, p < .01; Underbenefited: β = -.27, pr = -.25, p < .01), thus supporting H1a.
H1b proposed that individuals in an equitable relationship would report their partner uses Romantic Love Communication Behaviors (RLCB) significantly more often than individuals in an inequitable relationship (overbenefited and underbenefited).
Results indicated that the perception of a spouse’s use of RLCBs is also significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .07, F(8, 505) = 4.98, p < .001) and
Relational inequity ( R2 = .20, F(10, 503) = 12.32, p < .001; R2change= .12, Fchange (2,
503) = 38.70, p < .001). Individuals who perceive their relationship as either overbenefited or underbenefited perceive their spouse to use Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors less often than those in equitable relationships 105
(Overbenefited: β = -.12, pr = -.12, p < .01; Underbenefited: β = -.38, pr = -.37, p < .01), thus supporting H1b.
Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use as predictor of Satisfaction
The second set of hypotheses examined whether Satisfaction (Relational, Sexual, and Communication) could be accounted for by demographic variables and Romantic
Love Communication Behavior use. Both the individual’s use of RLCBs and perception of spouse’s use were analyzed with respect to each type of Satisfaction. The results of these analyses are described in Table 8-10 and discussed below.
106
Table 8
Predictors of Relational Satisfaction
(Relational/Individual N= 497; Relational/Spouse N= 499)
______
Criterion variable Predictor variables β p value pr ______Relational Satisfaction Age .07 .42 .04 Gender -.04 .35 -.04 Years Married .05 .56 .03 Previously Married .07 .18 .06 Children at home -.04 .29 -.05 Education level .09 .05 .09 Ethnicity .02 .69 .02 Household income .06 .19 .06 Individual’s use of RLCB .53** .00 .52 Relational Satisfaction Age .07 .32 .05 Gender -.05 .16 -.06 Years Married .09 .22 .06 Previously Married .06 .17 .06 Children at home -.02 .61 -.02 Education level .07 .07 .08 Ethnicity .01 .77 .01 Household income .03 .40 .04 Spouse’s use of RLCB .67** .00 .65 ______
Note: Partial correlation is indicated by pr . Beta is indicated by β. * p < .05; ** p < .01
107
Table 9
Predictors of Sexual Satisfaction
(Sexual/Individual N= 486; Sexual/Spouse N= 487) ______
Criterion variable Predictor variables β p value pr ______Sexual Satisfaction Age .20* .02 .11 Gender -.07 .06 -.09 Years Married -.24** .00 -.14 Previously Married .05 .37 .04 Children at home .03 .47 .03 Education level -.06 .19 -.06 Ethnicity .04 .36 .04 Household income .05 .28 .05 Individual’s use of RLCB .52** .00 .52
Sexual Satisfaction Age .19* .02 .11 Gender -.08* .04 -.10 Years Married -.21* .01 -.13 Previously Married .04 .50 .03 Children at home .05 .22 .06 Education level -.07 .08 -.08 Ethnicity .03 .50 .03 Household income .02 .63 .02 Spouse’s use of RLCB .57** .00 .57 Note: Partial correlation is indicated by pr . Beta is indicated by β. * p < .05; ** p < .01
108
Table 10
Predictors of Communication Satisfaction
(Communication/Individual N= 484; Communication/Spouse N= 485)
______
Criterion variable Predictor variables β p value pr
Communication Satisfaction Age .19* .03 .10 Gender .02 .71 .02 Years Married -.08 .34 -.04 Previously Married .09 .09 .08 Children at home -.06 .13 -.07 Education level .05 .27 .05 Ethnicity .04 .33 .04 Household income .06 .14 .07 Individual’s use of RLCB .54** .00 .52
Communication Satisfaction Age .18* .02 .11 Gender .01 .89 .01 Years Married -.03 .65 -.02 Previously Married .08 .10 .08 Children at home -.04 .31 -.05 Education level .03 .41 .04 Ethnicity .03 .43 .04 Household income .04 .35 .04 Spouse’s use of RLCB .66** .00 .64
Note: Partial correlation is indicated by pr . Beta is indicated by β. * p < .05; ** p < .01
109
Relational Satisfaction. H2a proposed that the use of Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors is positively associated with Relational Satisfaction. RLCB use was analyzed with respect to both the individual’s use and the perception of spouse’s use. To address this hypothesis, a regression model was computed where demographic variables and RLCB use were entered sequentially in blocks as the independent variables, and Relational Satisfaction was entered as the dependent variable. Results indicated that
Relational Satisfaction was significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 =
.03, F(8, 488) = 2.04, p < .05) and an individual’s use of Romantic Love Communication
Behaviors ( R2 = .29, F(9, 487) = 22.14, p < .001; R2change= .26, Fchange (1, 487) =
177.10, p < .001). Results also indicated that Relational Satisfaction was significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .03, F(8, 490) = 2.10, p < .05) and perception of spouse’s use of Romantic Love Communication Behaviors ( R2 = .44, F(9,
489) = 43.39, p < .001; R2change= .41, Fchange (1, 489) = 361.33, p < .001). An individual’s use of Romantic Love Communication Behaviors ( β = .53, pr = .52, p < .01) and perception of spouse’s use of Romantic Love Communication Behaviors ( β = .67, pr
= .65, p < .01) was positively associated with Relational Satisfaction; therefore, H2a is supported.
Sexual Satisfaction. H2b proposed that the use of Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors is positively associated with Sexual Satisfaction. Again, both the individual’s use of RLCBs as well as the perception of spouse’s use were analyzed. A regression model was used where demographic variables and RLCB use were entered sequentially in blocks as the independent variables and Sexual Satisfaction was entered as the dependent variable. With regard to individual’s use, Sexual Satisfaction was 110 significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .05, F(8, 477) = 3.33, p =
.001) and an individual’s use of RLCBs ( R2 = .31, F(9, 476) = 23.26, p < .001;
R2change= .25, Fchange (1, 476) = 173.09, p < .001). Results also indicated that Sexual
Satisfaction was significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .05, F(8,
478) = 3.26, p = .001) and perception of spouse’s use of RLCBs ( R2 = .36, F(9, 477) =
29.21, p < .001; R2change= .30, Fchange (1, 477) = 224.55, p < .001). An individual’s use of Romantic Love Communication Behaviors ( β = .52, pr = .52, p < .01) and perception of spouse’s use of Romantic Love Communication Behaviors ( β = .57, pr =
.57, p < .01) was positively associated with Sexual Satisfaction; therefore, H2b is supported. Results of a Bonferroni post-hoc one way ANOVA test on age were significant (F(5,500)= 3.34, pg < .05). There was a significant difference between the 18-
29 and 60+ age group (p < .05) and between the 40-49 and 60+ age group (p < .01). The
18-29 age group ( M= 133.13, SD = 28.40) and the 40-49 age group ( M= 131.64, SD =
27.76) reported significantly higher levels of Sexual satisaction than the 60+ group ( M=
120.41, SD = 35.07). The 30-39 and 50-59 age groups did not report a significantly higher or lower level of Sexual Satisfaction than the 18-29, 40-49, or 60+ age groups. Gender was non-significant ( F (1,505)= 1.84, p= ns).
Communication Satisfaction. H2c proposed that the use of Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors is positively associated with Communication Satisfaction.
Both the individual’s and the perception of spouse’s RLCB use were analyzed. To address this hypothesis, a regression model was computed where demographic variables and RLCB use were entered sequentially in blocks as the independent variables and
Communication Satisfaction was entered as the dependent variable. Results indicated that 111
Communication Satisfaction was significantly predicted by both demographic variables
(R2 = .03, F(8, 475) = 1.96, p =.05) and an individual’s use of RLCBs ( R2 = .30, F(9,
474) = 22.30, p < .001; R2change= .27, Fchange (1, 474) = 179.12, p < .001). With regard to the perception of spouse’s use, results also indicated that Communication Satisfaction was significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .03, F(8, 476) = 2.03, p
< .05) and perception of spouse’s use of RLCBs ( R2 = .43, F(9, 475) = 39.29, p < .001;
R2change= .39, Fchange (1, 475) = 326.23, p < .001). An individual’s use of Romantic
Love Communication Behaviors ( β = .54, pr = .52, p < .01) and perception of spouse’s use of Romantic Love Communication Behaviors ( β = .67, pr = .63, p < .01) was positively associated with Communication Satisfaction; therefore, H2a is supported.
Results of a Bonferroni post hoc one way ANOVA on age were non-significant
(F(4,498)= 2.157, p= ns).
Romantic Love Communication Behavior Equity as predictor of Satisfaction
The third set of hypotheses examined whether Satisfaction (Relational, Sexual, and Communication) could be accounted for by demographic variables and an equitable exchange of Romantic Love Communication behavior use. The results of these analyses are described in Table 11 and discussed below.
112
Table 11
Significant predictors of Satisfaction
(Relational N= 499; Sexual N= 487; Communication N= 485)
______Criterion variable Predictor variables β p value pr ______Relational Satisfaction Age -.03 .76 -.02 Gender -.04 .33 -.04 Years Married -.00 .98 .00 Previously Married .05 .40 .04 Children at home -.09* .04 -.09 Education level .12* .01 .11 Ethnicity -.00 .94 -.00 Household income .04 .46 .03 RLC Equity- Over -.04 .34 -.04 RLC Equity- Under -.19** .00 -.18 Sexual Satisfaction Age .12 .23 .06 Gender -.08 .10 -.08 Years Married -.30** .00 -.15 Previously Married .04 .54 .03 Children at home -.01 .80 -.01 Education level -.02 .74 -.02 Ethnicity .02 .62 .02 Household income .03 .60 .02 RLC Equity- Over -.05 .26 -.05 RLC Equity- Under -.14** .00 -.14 Communication Satisfaction Age .10 .31 .05 Gender .01 .91 .01 Years Married -.14 .12 -.07 Previously Married .07 .23 .06 Children at home -.12* .01 -.11 Education level .09 .07 .08 Ethnicity .02 .59 .03 Household income .05 .34 .04 RLC Equity- Over -.10* .03 -.10 RLC Equity- Under -.23** .00 -.23
Note: Partial correlation is indicated by pr . Beta is indicated by β. * p < .05; ** p < .01 The equitable relationship is the reference group.
113
Relational Satisfaction. H3a proposed that spouses who perceive an equitable exchange of Romantic Love Communication Behaviors, relative to those who perceive an inequitable exchange (over or underbenefited), will report a higher degree of Relational
Satisfaction. To address this hypothesis, a regression model was computed where demographic variables and RLCB equity were entered sequentially in blocks as the independent variables and Relational Satisfaction was entered as the dependent variable.
Results indicated that Relational Satisfaction was significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .03, F(8, 490) = 2.10, p < .05) and RLCB equity ( R2 = .07,
F(10, 488) = 3.41, p <.001; R2change= .03, Fchange (2, 488) = 8.38, p < .001).
Individuals who perceived they were overbenefited in their exchange of RLCBs did not report a lower degree of Relational Satisfaction ( β = -.04, pr = -.04, p = ns ). However, individuals who perceived they were underbenefited, did report a lower degree of
Relational Satisfaction ( β = -.19, pr = -.18, p < .01). Therefore, H3a was only supported with respect to underbenefited relationships, not overbenefited. Results of a Bonferroni post-hoc one way ANOVA test on education level were significant ( F(3, 516)= 3.63, p <
.05). There was a significant difference between the high school and doctorate education levels. Individuals with a doctorate degree ( M= 6.32, SD = .80) reported significantly higher levels of Relational Satisfaction than those with only a high school diploma ( M=
5.64, SD = 1.63).
Sexual Satisfaction. H3b proposed that the equitable exchange of Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors would predict a higher degree of Sexual Satisfaction. A regression model was used where demographic variables and Romantic Love
Communication behavior equity were entered sequentially in blocks as the independent 114 variables and Sexual Satisfaction was entered as the dependent variable. Sexual
Satisfaction was significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .05, F(8,
478) = 3.26, p = .001) and RLCB equitability ( R2 = .07, F(10, 476) = 3.62, p < .001;
R2change= .02, Fchange (2, 476) = 4.83, p < .01). Individuals who perceived they were overbenefited in their exchange of RLCBs did not report a significantly lower degree of
Sexual Satisfaction ( β = -.05, pr = -.05, p = ns ). However, individuals who perceived they were underbenefited, did report a lower degree of Relational Satisfaction ( β = -.14, pr = -
.14, p < .01). Therefore, H2a was only supported with respect to underbenefited relationships, not overbenefited.
Communication Satisfaction. RQ2 proposed that the equitable exchange of
Romantic Love Communication Behaviors would predict a higher degree of
Communication Satisfaction. To address this hypothesis, a regression model was computed where demographic variables and RLCB equity were entered sequentially in blocks as the independent variables and Communication Satisfaction was entered as the dependent variable. Results indicated that Communication Satisfaction was significantly predicted by both demographic variables ( R2 = .03, F(8, 476) = 2.03, p <.05) and
Romantic Love Communication behavior equity ( R2 = .08, F(10, 474) = 4.34, p < .001;
R2change= .05, Fchange (2, 474) = 13.17, p < .001). Individuals who perceived an inequitable exchange of RLCBs, both overbenefited and underbenefited, reported a lower degree of Relational Satisfaction (Overbenefited: β = -.10, pr = -.10, p < .05;
Uderbenefited: β = -.23, pr = -.23, p < .01). Therefore, RQ2 was supported.
115
Chapter V
Discussion
Pilot Study
The pilot study addressed the conceptualization of romantic love communication.
RQ1 asked respondents to identify the means by which they communicate romantic love to their spouse. Results from the qualitative data analysis supported a priori categories as identified by the literature: verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, affectionate touch, romantic gestures, and sexual touch. This finding demonstrates that the RLCS is representative of the many means by which romantic love is communicated. Therefore, no modifications were made to the RLCS before proceeding to Study 1.
Study 1
This study explored romantic love communication behaviors and their effect on satisfaction using the Equity theory as the framework. This section addresses the primary findings, limitations of the study, and future research.
An exploratory factor analysis was used to analyze the quantitative data from
Study 1. Results for Partner’s use and Individual’s use showed similar factor loadings, confirming three factors. The three factors include (1) Intimacy, (2) Romantic Gestures, and (3) Sexual Behaviors. The factors that emerged are consistent with the two constructs used in the conceptualization of romantic love: intimacy and passion. Intimacy represents the connectedness and closeness between two individuals and can best be thought of as an emotional investment component. Passion, as Hendrick and Hendrick (1992) noted, is 116 the psychological and physical arousal aspect of Eros love, which represents the cognitive and physiological aspects of love respectively. The intimacy factor collapses all of the categories of romantic love communication behaviors that are reflective of the intimacy component (verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, and affectionate touch) into one factor. The second (i.e. Romantic Gestuers) and third factors (i.e. Sexual Behaviors) are reflective of the passionate forms of romantic love communication. The romantic gestures factor represents the passionate romantic love behaviors that are non-sexual. The sexual behaviors factor represents the behavioral component of passionate romantic love, sex. However, as noted previously, sex does not have to be present for passionate romantic love to exist.
Relational Equity and Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use.
Relational equitability emerged as a significant predictor of Romantic Love
Communication Behavior (RLCB) use. This finding shows that RLCBs function similarly to relational maintenance strategies (Stafford & Canary, 2006) in that an equitable relationship is predictive of their use. In the current study, individuals in inequitable relationships, either overbenefited or underbenefited, reported that not only did they use significantly fewer RLCBs than those in equitable relationships, but they also perceived their partner to use fewer as well. This finding is consistent with
Proposition IV of Equity theory, which states “Individuals who discover that they are in inequitable relationships will attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring equity. The greater the inequity that exists, the more distress they will feel, and the harder they will try to restore equity” (Hatfield et al., 1985, p. 91-92). According to Adams (1965), one of the ways to restore equity is by changing what one puts into the relationships. Equity 117 theory research has provided support for the idea that individuals will reduce inputs if a relationship is perceived as inequitable (Adams, 1965; Canary & Stafford, 1992;
Dainton, 2003; Messman, Canary & Hause, 2000; Walster et al., 1975). This finding held true in the current study as well. Those in inequitable relationships reduced their RLCB inputs. For underbenefited individuals, this explanation makes sense. That is, if one is putting more into the relationship than his/her spouse, one will reduce his/her own inputs in order to restore equity. As their own inputs reward the partner, reducing one’s inputs also serve to “punish” the partner. However, with regard to overbenefited individuals, reducing inputs seems counter-intuitive because the result will be even greater inequity.
Perhaps overbenefited individuals reduce their inputs as a means of “acceptance.” In other words, perhaps they see that despite their best efforts, their inputs will never measure up to their partners. So instead of trying harder, they actually accept this fact and perhaps even rationalize or justify that they make up for it in other areas of their relationship. Further analysis needs to be conducted to understand why overbenefited individuals actually reduce inputs rather than increase them in an effort to restore equity.
Further analysis within inequitable relationships revealed that individuals who are underbenefited use and perceive their spouse to use RLCBs less often than those who are overbenefited. This finding was also consistent with prior research on relational maintenance behaviors (Stafford & Canary, 2006) that found underbenefited individuals use relational maintenance behaviors less often than overbenefited individuals. So, in the long run, the underbenefited individuals will engage in a negative cycle of interaction, which may contribute to emotional distress and relational dissatisfaction. 118
In terms of demographic variables, having children at home emerged as a significant demographic predictor of the perception of spouse’s use of RLCBs.
Individuals perceived that the amount of RLCBs their spouse used decreased with more children at home. Perhaps, the amount of time and energy one has to invest in the relationship may decrease due to the time and energy required for parenthood.
Conversely, as children grow older and “leave the nest,” the amount of time and energy required for parenthood decreases, thus affording the couple more time and energy to focus on and invest in the relationship. Over time, couples may be able to restore the equity that was thrown off balance during the child rearing years. This theory is consistent with previous research and Hatfield’s Hypothesis 3 that states, “…all things being equal, relationships should become more and more equitable over time” (Hatfield et al., 1985, pp. 94-95). Schafer and Keith’s (1981) study provided support for this hypothesis as well. They found the greatest increases in perceived equity occurred when the couple was middle-aged and their children had left home. This will not always be the case, however, as many middle-aged couples are waiting later in life to start their families
(Wilkie, 1981). Regardless of how long one waits to have children, perceived equity will most likely be greater when children have left the home.
The fact that children at home emerged as a significant predictor is also consistent with Hypothesis 4, that states, “In all relationships, there are certain crisis periods (e.g., when a dating couple marries, when the first child arrives, when the children leave home, and when someone loses a job or retires). At such times of precipitous change, relationships become unbalanced. If couples are contacted before, during, and after such crises, it is likely that couples will find the crisis period very unsettling, and will work to 119 reestablish equity…or move in the direction of dissolution of the relationships (Hatfield et al., 1985, pp. 94-95). Tucker and Aron (1993) studied the effect of such crisis periods and found support for the negative impact these crisis periods have on relationships.
Their study sought to measure passionate love and marital satisfaction across three key transitional points in the life cycle: engagement to marriage, childlessness to parenthood, and children living at home to empty nest. They found that the correlations between marital satisfaction and passionate love decrease across the life cycle particularly after marriage and parenthood.
As discussed here, having children at home emerged as a significant demographic predictor of the perception of spouse’s use of RLCBs; however, attention needs to be given to the fact that it did not emerge as a significant demographic predictor for one’s own use of RLCBs. It appears as though individuals feel they are better than their spouse at juggling all of life’s demands, more so than their spouse. Despite the many demands of parenthood, individuals’ use of RLCBs was not significantly affected by more children living at home. However, respondents did perceive that their spouse used significantly fewer RLCBs when children were at home.
Gender did not emerge as a significant predictor of RLCB use, contrary to much research indicating that gender differences do exist. For example, research has shown that women tend to be the primary gift givers (Caplow, 1982; Cheal, 1987; Fischer & Arnold,
1990), do more household? tasks than men (Bird, 1999; Huppe & Cyr, 1997; Ragsdale,
1996; Ward, 1993), and initiate touch after marriage (Willis & Briggs, 1992); but men, however, are the first to say, “I love you” (Notarius & Johnson; 1982) and initiate touch in the early stages of a dating relationship (Willis & Briggs; 1992). It should be noted that 120 in the current study, although gender was not a significant predictor of one’s own use of
RLCBs, it did come very close to being a significant predictor of the perception of spouse’s use of RLCBs. Perhaps the fact that the variables in this study are important and relevant to both men and women make gender a non-significant predictor. Further examination of gender differences with regard to equity restoration is still required.
Age, years married, being previously married, education level, ethnicity, nor household income emerged as significant predictors of RLCB use. Previous research has not indicated that previously married, educational level, ethnicity, or household income should have any significant effect on the use of RLCBs; however, research has shown that age and years married should have an effect due to the concept of time. Researchers have found that individuals tend to stop actively communicating their love to their mate as time goes on (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Call, Sprecher, & Schwartz, 1995;
Edwards & Booth, 1994; James, 1983). For example, research has shown that idioms
(Bruess & Pearson, 1993), physical affection (Guerrero & Andersen, 1991), and sex
(Klusmann, 2002) tend to dissipate throughout the life stages of the relationship.
Although the use of RLCBs was shown in this study to decline with age and years married, the decline was not statistically significant. One possible explanation is that in today’s culture, age is not always reflective of years married as many individuals are getting remarried later in life. Therefore, their use of RLCBs may be more reflective of a newly married individual rather than a 50 year old who has been married for many years.
Romantic Love Communication Behavior Use and Satisfaction. Romantic
Love Communication Behavior use emerged as a significant predictor of Relational,
Sexual, and Communication Satisfaction. The more often RLCBs were used, the more 121 satisfied one was with the relational, sexual, and communication aspects of the relationship. The results are consistent with what previous research has shown when testing individual behaviors separately. Previous research has provided support for many of the behaviors in the Romantic Love Communication Survey leading to higher levels of
Relational and Sexual Satisfaction, such as verbal communication (Bruess & Pearson,
1993; Hendrick, 1981), time together (e.g. Duck & Pittman, 1994; Reissman et al., 1993), emotional support (Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994; Xu & Burleson, 2004), affectionate touch
(Gulledge et al., 2003), romantic gestures (e.g. Beatty et al., 1991; Chapman, 1992), and sex (e.g. Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Sprecher & Cate, 2004). Although each of the behaviors have been researched independently and shown to have a positive effect on
Relational/Marital Satisfaction, this study was the first to test all of the behaviors as a whole model and show their positive effect on Relational, Sexual, and Communication
Satisfaction. In particular, it is important to highlight the positive role RLCBs play in
Communication Satisfaction because Communication Satisfaction was not a variable previously analyzed in relation to these types of behaviors.
Perception of spouse’s use of RLCBs use was shown to be a slightly better predictor of the three types of satisfaction than one’s own use. This finding is consistent with Canary and Cupach’s (1988) research partner’s behavior is more directly associated with an individual’s perception of the relationship . The finding in the RLCB study coincides with Equity theory. According to Hatfield et al.’s (1985) Hypothesis 2, the most compatible relationships will be those that are equitable, and individuals in these types of relationships will be more content than those in inequitable relationships. As individuals, we can invest in our relationship, but unless we perceive our partner is 122 equally investing in the relationship, the compatibility and contentment mentioned in this hypothesis cannot be attained. A partner’s behavior, in this case the use of RLCBs, is crucial to an individual’s perception of the relationship. The perception of spouse’s use of
RLCBs was the strongest predictor of Relational Satisfaction, followed by
Communication and then Sexual Satisfaction. One’s own use of RLCBs most strongly predicted Communication Satisfaction, Relational Satisfaction, and then Sexual
Satisfaction.
None of the demographic variables under investigation proved to be significant with regard to Relational Satisfaction, which was surprising. Previous research has shown that gender has an effect on marital satisfaction (Frisco & Williams, 2003; Piña &
Bengston, 1993; Ward, 1993); however, perhaps the difference lies in the variables being analyzed. In the studies cited, for example, the variables under investigation were household labor, employment, and perceptions of support. These variables, according to the researchers, are issues with which women have traditionally struggled, particularly in terms of equitability, so it stands to reason that gender would emerge as a significant variable. However, this study is tapping issues that are equally important to both men and women. For example, Harley (2001) cites affection and verbal communication as two of the top five greatest needs for women, and sex and time together as two of the top five greatest needs for men. Given that some of the greatest needs for both men and women are represented in the RLCS could explain why gender differences did not emerge as a significant demographic variable.
Previous research has also indicated that having children at home (Tucker &
Aron, 1993) has a negative effect on Relational Satisfaction; however, it did not emerge 123 as a significant demographic variable in this study for either individual’s use or perception of spouse’s use. Perhaps men are taking on greater responsibility for the parenting load, as compared to years past, which has eased the burden of their partner, thereby reducing the negative effect on Relational Satisfaction.
Age, years married, and gender were significant demographic predictors of Sexual
Satisfaction, although it should be noted that gender was only significant with respect to spouse’s use of RLCBs but not individual’s use. Sexual frequency has consistently been found to dissipate throughout the life stages of a relationship, as well as decline as one ages (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Call et al., 1995; Edwards & Booth, 1994; James,
1983), so it stands to reason that age would be a strong predictor of Sexual Satisfaction.
Several of the participants in this study were remarried; however, it did not prove to be a significant demographic predictor, despite the fact that remarriage is associated with an increase in marital sex when controlling for age (Call et al., 1995). One possible explanation is that many of the remarried individuals in this study had been married for a significant number of years and were not recently remarried, thus, possibly falling into the patterns of those who had been married for some time.
Age was the only significant demographic predictor of Communication
Satisfaction. As age increased, Communication Satisfaction increased as well. Perhaps maturity can account for this finding. As one ages, one learns that child-like forms of communication such as swearing, defensiveness, self-centeredness, etc. do not have positive results. Therefore, one modifies and improves his communication skills as one ages to be more diplomatic, understanding, and other-centered. As one practices and sharpens these skills, one soon realizes that this form of communication is more effective 124 which leads to greater Communication Satisfaction. Support for this theory was found in a study conducted by Zietlow and Sillars (1988) regarding life stage differences in communication. They found that retired couples’ conversations regarding marital problems were non-conflictive as opposed to younger couples who had a more intensive and confrontational communication style. Future research will need to explore this idea as well as other contributing factors further to explain why Communication Satisfaction is greater as one ages.
Romantic Love Communication Behavior Equity and Satisfaction. Romantic
Love Communication Behavior Equity emerged as a significant predictor of relational, sexual, and Communication Satisfaction for underbenefited individuals. When respondents perceived they were using RLCBs more often than their spouse, they reported being less satisfied with the relational, sexual, and communication aspects of their relationship. The effect of RLCB inequity for the underbenefited had the greatest negative impact on Communication Satisfaction, followed by Sexual Satisfaction, and then Relational Satisfaction.
RLCB Equity was not, however, a significant predictor for all three levels of satisfaction for overbenefited individuals. A closer analysis of inequitable relationships in the current study revealed that for overbenefited individuals, RLCB Equity was only a significant predictor of Communication Satisfaction. When respondents perceived their spouse was using RLCBs more often than they were, they reported being less satisfied with only the communication aspect of their relationship. Perhaps the reason that overbenefited respondents are only dissatisfied with the communication aspect of their relationship is because they are reaping the benefits of RLCBs that are intimate and 125 sexual by nature; therefore, they are content with the relational and sexual aspects of their relationship. However, although these aspects of their life may be fulfilled, they may experience guilt over the fact they are not returning the favor. They may feel they need to talk about this with their spouse, but have not for whatever reasons, thereby explaining why their Communication Satisfaction may be affected.
The fact that overbenefitedness did not have the same negative affect on all three levels of satisfaction as was the case with underbenefitedness supports proposition III of
Equity theory (Hatfield et al., 1985) and Sprecher’s (1986) claim that people in inequitable relationships who are underbenefited experience the greatest amount of distress. This is because they do not experience the same outcomes that the overbenefited enjoy. As a result, they experience negative emotions such as anger, sadness, and frustration. The findings are also consistent with prior research that found underbenefited partners were less satisfied than overbenefited partners (Stafford & Canary, 2006).
When analyzing the overall effect of RLCB equity on satisfaction and comparing underbenefited to overbenefited individuals, an interesting finding is worth noting. First, as mentioned previously, RLCB inequity for underbenefited individuals had the greatest negative effect on Communication Satisfaction, then Sexual Satisfaction, and then
Relational Satisfaction. The same pattern held true for overbenefited individuals, as well.
RLCB inequity for overbenefited individuals had the greatest negative effect on
Communication Satisfaction, then Sexual Satisfaction, and then Relational Satisfaction, although sexual and Relational Satisfaction levels were not statistically significant.
This is a noteworthy finding as much of equity research focuses on sexual and relational aspects of relationships. Limited research has been conducted on the communication 126 aspects of relationships as it relates to equity. This study shows the vital role that equity plays in Communication Satisfaction and, therefore, warrants increased attention and research.
The results of this study show that equitable relationships are the most satisfying relationships, followed by overbenefited relationships, and then underbenefited relationships. The connection between equitability and satisfaction supports the principles of Equity theory that state equitability plays a role in satisfaction (e.g. Utne et al., 1984;
Walster et al., 1978). Specifically, Hypothesis 2 states that equitable relationships will be compatible relationships and that individuals in such relationships will be more content than those in distressing, inequitable relationships (Hatfield et al., 1985, pp. 94-95).
The results also support prior research that shows equity leads to Relational
Satisfaction (Oswald, Clark, & Kelly, 2004; Stafford & Canary, 1991; Utne et al., 1984) and Sexual Satisfaction (Hatfield et al., 1979; Traupmann et al., 1983). For example,
Utne et al.’s (1984) study found that men and women in equitable relationships were more content and satisfied with their relationship and felt their relationship was more stable than those couples who felt they were in an inequitable relationship. In terms of
Sexual Satisfaction, Traupmann et al. (1983) found that men and women in equitable relationships felt more loving and close and more physically satisfied after sex with their partner than men and women in inequitable relationships. As Gottman and Levenson
(1992) claim, it is not just the absolute frequency of positive (or negative) behaviors that most strongly influence couples’ satisfaction, but rather the ratio of positive to negative behaviors (social exchange theory which is the foundation for Equity theory). When the ratio of positive behaviors outweighs negative behaviors, it leads to satisfaction. The 127 importance of an equitable exchange is also echoed by Rusbult and Buunks (1993) who claim that “satisfaction will be greatest when one’s input-outcome ratio is equal to that of one’s partner; when these ratios differ, individuals feel distress and dissatisfied” (p. 182).
Not only is the use of RLCBs important, but the equitable exchange of RLCBs plays a vital role in satisfaction, as well.
When testing the effect of RLCB Equity on the three levels of satisfaction, a couple demographic variables were statistically significant. Children at home and education level emerged as significant predictors of Relational Satisfaction. Parenthood has previously been shown to have a negative effect on marital satisfaction (Tucker &
Aron, 1993), so this finding was consistent with previous research. Education level, to this author’s knowledge, has not been a consistent predictor of Relational Satisfaction as it was in this study. Further analysis of education level revealed that individuals with a doctorate degree reported a significantly higher level of Relational Satisfaction than those with only a high school diploma. Perhaps, as noted previously, individuals who are more educated have more knowledge concerning what it takes to have a more satisfying relationship. Although previous research has noted gender differences with regard to marital satisfaction (Frisco & Williams, 2003; Piña & Bengston, 1993; Ward, 1993), significant differences between men and women were not found in this study. As mentioned previously, perhaps the reason that gender differences did not emerge as a significant demographic variable in this study was because the RLCS tapped behaviors that are important and relevant to both men and women, thereby reducing the gender bias that may exist in other types of studies (i.e. household chores, employment, emotional support). 128
Years married emerged as a significant predictor of Sexual Satisfaction. As noted previously, sex has been found to decline throughout the life stages of a relationship
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Call et al., 1995; Edwards & Booth, 1994; James, 1983) so it makes sense that this decline would affect one’s Sexual Satisfaction. Finally, having children at home emerged as a significant negative predictor of Communication
Satisfaction. This makes sense given that the amount of time devoted to parenthood may affect the amount of time one has to sit down with his/her mate for quality communication.
In conclusion, this study has provided valuable insights into Romantic Love
Communication Behaviors and their effect on Satisfaction using Equity theory as the framework. Responses to inequity (being overbenefited or underbenefited), and their effect on Relational, Sexual, and Communication Satisfaction were analyzed. The results have provided support that Relational Equitability predicts RLCB use; RLCB use predicts Relational, Sexual, and Communication Satisfaction; and RLCB Equitability predicts Relational, Sexual, and Communication Satisfaction for underbenefited individuals, but only Communication Satisfaction for overbenefited individuals.
The results have provided a valuable contribution to the literature on romantic love. As mentioned previously, much of the research to date has focused on the various typologies of love, the elements of love, and the means by which to maintain relationships. However, literature pertaining to the actual communication of romantic love is scant. Not only did this study provide a more inclusive typology of romantic love communication behaviors, but it also provided research on romantic love that is rooted in theory. The study provided a clearer understanding of the relationships between romantic 129 love communication behaviors, Equity theory, and relational outcomes (Relational
Satisfaction, Sexual Satisfaction, and Communication Satisfaction).
These results have also provided insight into the role of positive behaviors in romantic relationships, something that Bradbury, Fincham, and Beach (2000) argue had not yet clearly been defined. The findings are significant because they contribute practical and applicable information that marriage counselors can use to help clients improve marital communication. The identification of romantic love communication behaviors is valuable for therapists because oftentimes one or both individuals in the marriage have difficulty expressing and communicating love to one another. Therapists can provide clients with a concrete list of RLCBs that may help to achieve that goal.
Because results from the study support the idea that RLCBs have the potential to increase Relational, Sexual, and Communication Satisfaction, the findings have potential to improve the quality of marriages. Through counseling, therapists will be able to identify which RLCBs specifically contribute to an individual’s feelings of satisfaction and counsel couples to focus on those specific behaviors to express love to their mates and thereby improve the relationship. If couples have consciously or unconsciously withdrawn the communication of romantic love from their spouse, the therapist can advise them to utilize the romantic love communication behaviors without regard to the equitability of their relationship, thus increasing the couple’s relational, sexual, and
Communication Satisfaction. Ultimately, the results of this study provide useful knowledge about the communication of romantic love that could lead to more satisfying relationships, and, thereby reduce the risks of marital dissatisfaction and subsequent divorce. 130
Limitations
This study conceptualized love in a way that integrates the key constructs found in various definitions. However, the conceptualization used in this study still has its limitations because as Beach and Tesser (1988) concluded, “Love is a construct with meanings that vary with the individual, and it seems unlikely that any model will adequately capture the full range of popular usage” (p. 351). Although this study has sought to represent the various means by which love is communicated based on the conceptualization and evidenced through prior research, how one communicates love is still subjective and unique to individuals. Therefore, the Romantic Love Communication
Scale may not fully represent all the ways in which individuals conceptualize and communicate romantic love. Additional testing of the survey is needed to be sure that the survey fully represents the vast and unique conceptualizations and communications of romantic love. It is also important to note that not all forms of RLCB are necessarily visible to the spouse. For example, Bolger and Amarel (2007) found support for what they term “invisible support,” which is support provided without the recipient’s knowledge or with sufficient subtlety that the recipient does not interpret it as support.
According to their research, invisible support (practical and emotional) was more effective in reducing partner’s stress than visible support or no support. The RLCS does not take this type of support into account.
A second limitation of this study is that the Romantic Love Communication Scale is aimed at only married North American couples. As a result, the findings may not be applicable to individuals in other relationship stages or couples in other cultures. The 131 scale itself was aimed at the married North American couple and, therefore, may not adequately represent these other populations. For example, couples who are not yet married could take the RLCS; however, because some of the questions on the RLCB focus on sexual behaviors, depending on the relationship stage, they may not yet be engaged in a sexual relationship. Therefore, a part of the survey itself would not be applicable to them.
Although the survey was offered online and individuals in other cultures could potentially take it, it was written in English, thus, excluding anyone who was not fluent in
English. The RLCBs in the survey, which were largely driven by a Western conceptualization of romantic love, may not be applicable to other parts of the world or other North American subcultures. For example, Latin American and Italian cultures are more touch-oriented than the United States, whereas German cultures are less touch- oriented. In Muslim cultures, touch between opposite gendered individuals is generally considered inappropriate in public. Eye contact in the United States is interpreted as being attentive and honest, whereas in other cultures such as Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and Native American cultures, eye contact is considered disrespectful and rude (Ikeda &
Tidwell, 2011). These examples are just a few of the differences that could affect how other cultures view and enact RLCBs.
A third limitation to this study is the use of only equity theory to explain RLCB use and its effect on satisfaction. On the positive side, equity theory provided a clear understanding of the importance of both a husband and a wife making equal contributions to the relationship. Without the equal balance, equity theory showed the negative effect inequity could have on a relationship. One partner is not able to enact RLCBs alone. The 132 results of this study also supported the fact that equity theory and the concept of fairness is applicable to intimate relationships. Equity theory provided a better understanding of the reciprocal nature of positive communication.
However, in terms of limitations, equity theory does not address the ratio of positive to negative behaviors. For example, how do negative behaviors such as verbal/physical abuse, infidelity, lying, etc., fit into the equation? Additionally, equity theory serves as a useful macro-theory in terms of understanding equitable versus inequitable relationships; however, it does not specifically address and/or explain the micro-findings within inequitability, overbenefitedness, and underbenefitedness. How these specific types of inequity affect various outcome variables is not hypothesized within the theory itself. Therefore, findings with regard to overbenefitedness or underbenefitedness can not be said to either support the theoretical propositions or not. A final limitation of equity theory in this study was that it was used to look at only one aspect of equitability at a time--relational equitability or RLCB equitability. Overall equity could perhaps still be achieved in a relationship even though RLCB equitability may be lacking.
Although much support has been provided for Equity theory being applied to intimate relationships, other theoretical considerations such as the triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986) and/or uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975), for example, may also provide useful insights.
A fourth limitation was that some of the respondents were paid and some were not. As mentioned previously, one the author’s own social network was exhausted, paid respondents were recruited through Qualtrics.com. The paid respondent’s answers may 133 differ from the non paid respondents in the fact that the majority of paid respondents may share similar characteristics that were not necessarily targeted (i.e. all work from home, non-professional, similar economic backgrounds, etc.). Another limitation that coincides with this is the length of the survey; paid respondents had an incentive to complete it, whereas volunteers may have gotten tired and exited the survey without completing it in its entirety. A final limitation is that because numerous analyses were conducted, it may increase the potential for Type 1 error, rejecting the null hypotheses when in fact it was true.
Future Directions
The Romantic Love Communication Scale needs to be tested with other populations to determine whether it is applicable to various audiences or applicable to just the heterosexual, married, North American individuals. Dating individuals may differ significantly from married couples in that they are still in the “honeymoon” stage of their relationship and may be utilizing romantic love communication behaviors more often than couples who have been married for an extended period of time. Because they are in the “honeymoon” stage of their relationship, they may also not be as intently focused on the equitable nature of such behaviors or may simply be more forgiving of the fact that an equitable exchange does not exist.
Homosexual couples would also be an audience in which the RLCB should be tested because of the differences noted in prior research. For example, as noted previously, Holmberg and Blair (2009) found that although individuals in same sex and mixed sex relationships reported similar sexual repertoires and levels of sexual communication, heterosexual men and same sex couples reported a higher sexual desire 134 than heterosexual women. In addition, heterosexual men were less satisfied than heterosexual woman and lesbian couples with tender, sensual, and/or erotic sexual activities. Because these types of behaviors were fundamental aspects of this study, homosexuals and heterosexuals could potentially differ in their responses. Although similarities may exist with the target audience used in this study, differences must also be explored.
Cross-cultural populations also need to be surveyed to determine if the findings are onlyapplicable to North Americans, or the conceptualization and communication of romantic love as defined in this study are universal. Although previous research has noted similarities cross-culturally with respect to gift giving (Chapman, 1992; Neto, 1997;
Tucker et al., 1991, 1992), additional research is needed to determine whether other means of communicating romantic love as used in this study (i.e. verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, affectionate touch, and sexual behaviors) are used in other cultures and whether or not they are similarly related to equity and satisfaction.
It would also be interesting to include a demographic variable related to faith to see if Christians, agnostics, atheists, etc. differ in their responses. The foundation of
Christian faith, for example, encourages an altruistic Agape love modeled after Christ’s love. This selfless kind of love would not be focused on a tit for tat exchange of RLCBs as reflected in equity theory.
Romantic Love Communication Behaviors also need to be tested using other theories besides equity theory. For example, Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love might also provide interesting insights to RLCB use. The triangular theory of love adds a 135 third component to the conceptualization of love, which is commitment. The triangular theory of love is based on the idea that love is comprised of three different elements that together form the vertices of a triangle: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy is a dyadically-oriented construct that represents the connectedness and closeness between two individuals and can best be thought of as an emotional investment component.
Passion is the psychological and physical arousal aspect of Eros love and is the motivational component. And, commitment represents the decision to be together and is the cognitive component (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992).
Although the triangular theory of love was not written with equity theory in mind per se, there are some striking similarities when it comes to the discussion of involvements and benefitedness. For example, in equity theory when partners feel they are putting more into the relationship than they are getting out of it, they are considered underbenefited, and when they are getting more out of it than they are putting into it, they are considered overbenefited. Similarly, in the triangular theory of love when the levels of the components are lower than what the individual would like, there is underinvolvement, and when the levels of the components are higher than what the individual would like, there is overinvolvement. Because of the striking similarity between the two concepts of involvement and benefitedness, it seems plausible that involvements (e.g. underinvolvement and overinvolvement) will be associated with equity in the same way that benefitedness (e.g. underbenefited and overbenefited) is.
Another theory that may hold valuable insights into RLCB use is Berger and
Calabrese’s (1975) uncertainty reduction theory (URT). URT explains recurring interaction patterns observed during initial interactions. When strangers meet, their 136 primary concern is one of uncertainty reduction or increasing predictability about the behavior of both themselves and others in the interaction. There is uncertainty about how the other might behave, as well as uncertainty in retroactively explaining the other’s behavior.
Dainton (2003) analyzed both equity and uncertainty with regard to relational maintenance behaviors because of the common denominator of distress. As previously noted, people who are in inequitable relationships and are underbenefited experience a great amount of distress (Sprecher, 1986). Similarly, Berger and Calabrese (1975) concluded that people who are unable to make sense out of their environment
(uncertainty) usually become anxious. Dainton made the comparison that both inequity and uncertainty are negatively correlated with maintenance behaviors (Canary &
Stafford, 1992, 1993, 2001; Dainton & Aylor, 2001). For example, when one is in a relationship that is inequitable, it would likely lead to questions about the definition or future of the relationship. Therefore, Dainton sought to measure how closely related inequity and relationship uncertainty are to one another. Dainton’s findings concluded that inequity and uncertainty are positively related in the case of underbenefittedness, as described in the previous illustration, but did not indicate a positive relationship in the case of overbenefittedness. This finding supports Sprecher’s (1986) study that underbenefittedness and over benefittedness are not equivalent states, although, per
Equity theory, they both represent an inequitable state of a relationship.
Dainton (2003) also sought to discover whether inequity or uncertainty was a stronger predictor of maintenance behavior use. Her results showed that although both contributed to the predicted use of maintenance behaviors, uncertainty was a stronger 137 predictor of maintenance behavior use than was equity. Future research should analyze
RLCB use using all three theories to determine which provides better explanations and/or has better predictive power.
Future research should also test each subscale/dimension of the RLCS as opposed to testing it as a whole to determine if particular dimensions of romantic love (i.e. verbal communication, kinesics, time together, emotional support, affectionate touch, romantic gestures, and sexual behaviors) have greater predictive power than others. For example, it would be interesting to determine if there are particular subscales/dimensions that have a greater effect on satisfaction for specific genders and/or relational stages. For instance, perhaps affectionate touch is more powerful for a woman, whereas, sexual behaviors are more powerful for a man. In terms of relational stages, sexual behaviors may be more powerful for newly married couples, whereas, time together may be more powerful for empty nesters. Additionally, an exploration of demographic interactions with the subscales should also be analyzed.
As research continues to grow in this area, scholars, counselors, and couples alike will have a greater understanding of the complex nature of love and how it is communicated. This study has shown the positive effect that romantic love communication behaviors have on Relational, Sexual, and Communication Satisfaction as well as the importance of an equitable exchange of such behaviors. The application of this knowledge to one’s own relationships can assist in sustaining a longer and more fulfilling relationship.
138
Appendix A
Romantic Love Communication Scale (RLCS)
Part A: Spouse’s Use
Instructions: For each of the behaviors listed below, rate how often your spouse uses that behavior to communicate romantic love to you using the following scale:
1 (never); 2 (rarely); 3 (sometimes); 4 (often); 5 (frequently); 6 (almost always); 7 (always)
Intimacy Verbal communication 1. My spouse compliments me. 2. My spouse tells me he/she loves me. 3. My spouse tells me he/she appreciates me. 4. My spouse shares personal feelings and thoughts with me. 5. My spouse speaks kindly to me. 6. My spouse uses an endearing nickname for me.
Kinesics 1. My spouse smiles at me. 2. My spouse uses secret behaviors to communicate his/her love to me. 3. My spouse winks at me. 4. My spouse uses facial expressions and/or his/her eyes to flirt with me. 5. My spouse looks at me when we are talking.
Time together 1. My spouse suggests spending one-on-one time together. 2. My spouse invites me to go on a walk. 3. My spouse finds time to spend with me. 4. My spouse suggests taking extended trips together. 5. My spouse invites me to do activities with him/her. 6. My spouse spends time with me without the need for talk. 7. My spouse eats dinner with me.
139
Emotional support 1. My spouse is there for me when I need him/her. 2. My spouse helps me grow as a person. 3. My spouse gives me emotional support. 4. My spouse cares for me. 5. My spouse listens to me. 6. My spouse takes time to understand my feelings
Affectionate touch 1. My spouse hugs me. 2. My spouse holds my hand. 3. My spouse cuddles with me. 4. My spouse gives me backrubs. 5. My spouse puts his/her arm around me. 6. My spouse gives me affectionate kisses.
Passion
Romantic gestures 1. My spouse buys me gifts for special days. 2. My spouse buys me gifts for no special occasion. 3. My spouse gives me cards. 4. My spouse surprises me with dinners by candlelight. 5. My spouse invites me to watch the sunset together. 6. My spouse suggests taking walks in the moonlight. 7. My spouse invites me to lay in front of the fire.
Sexual behaviors 1. My spouse invites me to take a shower together. 2. My spouse undresses me. 3. My spouse initiates foreplay. 4. My spouse initiates sexual intercourse. 5. My spouse suggests experimentation and variety in sex. 6. My spouse consistently gives me an orgasm during sex. 7. My spouse talks with me about sex. 8. My spouse kisses me passionately.
140
Part B: Individual’s Use
Instructions: For each of the behaviors listed below, rate how often you use that behavior to communicate romantic love to your spouse using the following scale:
1 (never); 2 (rarely); 3 (sometimes); 4 (often); 5 (frequently); 6 (almost always); 7 (always)
Intimacy
Verbal communication 1. I compliment my spouse. 2. I tell my spouse I love him/her. 3. I tell my spouse I appreciate him/her. 4. I share personal feelings and thoughts with my spouse. 5. I speak kindly to my spouse. 6. I use an endearing nickname for my spouse.
Kinesics 1. I smile at my spouse. 2. I use secret behaviors to communicate my love to my spouse. 3. I wink at my spouse. 4. I use facial expressions and/or my eyes to flirt with my spouse. 5. I look at my spouse when we are talking.
Time together 1. I suggest spending one-on-one time together. 2. I invite my spouse to go on a walk. 3. I find time to spend with my spouse. 4. I suggest taking extended trips together. 5. I invite my spouse to do activities with me. 6. I spend time with my spouse without the need for talk. 7. I eat dinner with my spouse.
Emotional support 1. I am there for my spouse when he/she needs me. 2. I help my spouse grow as a person. 3. I give my spouse emotional support. 4. I care for my spouse. 5. I listen to my spouse. 6. I take time to understand my spouse’s feelings.
141
Affectionate touch 1. I hug my spouse. 2. I hold my spouse’s hand. 3. I cuddle with my spouse. 4. I give my spouse backrubs. 5. I put my arm around my spouse. 6. I give my spouse affectionate kisses.
Passion
Romantic gestures 1. I buy my spouse gifts for special days. 2. I buy my spouse gifts for no special occasion. 3. I give my spouse cards. 4. I surprise my spouse with dinners by candlelight. 5. I invite my spouse to watch the sunset together. 6. I suggest taking walks in the moonlight. 7. I invite my spouse to lay in front of the fire.
Sexual behaviors 1. I invite my spouse to take a shower together. 2. I undress my spouse. 3. I initiate foreplay. 4. I initiate sexual intercourse. 5. I suggest experimentation and variety in sex. 6. I consistently give my spouse an orgasm during sex. 7. I talk with my spouse about sex. 8. I kiss my spouse passionately.
142
Appendix B
The Hatfield Global Measure of Equity (Hatfield et al., 1979)
Asks: “Consider what you put into your relationship, compared to what you get out of it…and what your partner puts in compared to what he or she gets out of it, how does your relationship “stack up”?”
Response options: (1) I am getting a much better deal than my partner (2) I am getting a somewhat better deal than my partner (3) I am getting a slightly better deal than my partner (4) We are both getting an equally good or bad deal (5) My partner is getting a slightly better deal than I am (6) My partner is getting a somewhat better deal than I am (7) My partner is getting a much better deal than I am
The Sprecher Global Measure of Equity (Sprecher, 1986, 1988)
Asks: “Sometimes things get out of balance in a relationship and one partner contributes more to the relationship than the other. Consider all the times when the exchange in your relationship has become unbalanced and one partner contributed more than the other for a time. When your relationship becomes unbalanced, who is more likely to be the one who contributes more?
Response options: (1) My partner is much more likely to be the one to contribute more (2) My partner is somewhat more likely to be the one to contribute more (3) My partner is slightly more likely to be the one to contribute more (4) We are equally likely to be the one to contribute more (5) I am slightly more likely to be the one to contribute more (6) I am somewhat more likely to be the one to contribute more (7) I am much more likely to be the one to contribute more
143
Appendix C
The Hatfield Global Measure of Equity (Hatfield et al., 1979) *Modified to measure romantic love communication behavior equity
Asks: “Considering how often you use behaviors that communicate romantic love to your spouse, compared to how often your spouse uses behaviors that communicate romantic love to you, how does the exchange “stack up”?
Response options: (1) I am getting a much better deal than my partner (2) I am getting a somewhat better deal than my partner (3) I am getting a slightly better deal than my partner (4) We are both getting an equally good or bad deal (5) My partner is getting a slightly better deal than I am (6) My partner is getting a somewhat better deal than I am (7) My partner is getting a much better deal than I am
The Sprecher Global Measure of Equity (Sprecher, 1986, 1988) *Modified to measure romantic love communication behavior equity
Asks: “Sometimes things get out of balance in a relationship and one partner contributes more to the relationship than the other. Consider all the times when the exchange of romantic love communication behaviors in your relationship has become unbalanced and one partner contributed more than the other for a time. When your relationship becomes unbalanced, which is more likely to be the one who contributes more?
Response options: (1) My partner is much more likely to be the one to contribute more (2) My partner is somewhat more likely to be the one to contribute more (3) My partner is slightly more likely to be the one to contribute more (4) We are equally likely to be the one to contribute more (5) I am slightly more likely to be the one to contribute more (6) I am somewhat more likely to be the one to contribute more (7) I am much more likely to be the one to contribute more
144
Appendix D
Quality Marital Scale (Norton, 1983)
Report the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Instructions: For Items 1 through 5, use the following scale:
Very strong disagreement = 1 Moderate disagreement = 2 Slight disagreement = 3 Neutral = 4 Slight agreement = 5 Moderate agreement = 6 Very strong agreement = 7
(1) We have a good relationship (2) My relationship with my partner is very stable (3) Our relationship is strong (4) My relationship with my partner makes me happy (5) I really feel like part of a team with my partner
Instructions: For Item 6, indicate how happy you are by using the following scale:
Very unhappy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Perfectly happy
(6) The degree of happiness, everything considered, in your marriage
145
Appendix E
Scale of Sexual Satisfaction (ISS; Hudson, 1998; Hudson, Harrison, & Crosscup, 1981)
Answer each item as carefully and as accurately as you can by placing a number beside each one as follows:
1 (never); 2 (occasionally); 3 (sometimes); 4 (often); 5 (frequently); 6 (almost always); 7 (always)
____ 1. I feel that my partner enjoys our sex life. ____ 2. Our sex life is very exciting. ____3. Sex is fun for my partner and me. ____4. Sex with my partner has become a chore for me. ____5. I feel that our sex is offensive. ____6. Our sex life is monotonous. ____7. When we have sex it is too rushed and hurriedly completed. ____8. I feel that my sex life is lacking in quality. ____9. My partner is sexually very exciting. ____10. I enjoy the sex that my partner likes or practices. ____11. I feel that my partner wants too much sex from me. ____12. I think that our sex is wonderful. ____13. My partner dwells on sex too much. ____14. I try to avoid sexual contact with my partner. ____15. My partner is too rough when we have sex. ____16. My partner is a wonderful sex mate. ____17. I feel that sex is a normal function of our relationship. ____18. My partner does not want sex when I do. ____19. I feel that our sex life really adds a lot to our relationship. ____20. My partner seems to avoid sexual contact with me. ____21. It is easy for me to get sexually excited by my partner. ____22. I feel that my partner is sexually pleased with me. ____23. My partner is very sensitive to my sexual needs and desires. ____24. My partner does not satisfy me sexually. ____25. I feel that my sex life is boring.
146
Appendix F
Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory (Hecht, 1978)
*Adapted to be a global measurement of Communication Satisfaction within the relationship
Instructions: The purpose of this questionnaire is to investigate your reactions to conversations you have with your partner. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree that each statement describes your conversations. The 4 or middle position on the scale represents “undecided” or “neutral,” then moving out from the center, “slight” agreement or disagreement, then “moderate,” then “strong” agreement or disagreement. For example, if you strongly agree with the following statement you would select 7.
My partner moves around a lot when we are communicating. Disgree: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: Agree
1. My partner lets me know when I am communicating effectively. 2. Nothing is accomplished when we communicate. 3. I like to have conversations with my partner. 4. My partner genuinely wants to know me. 5. I am very dissatisfied with conversations with my partner. 6. I have something else to do when my partner communicates with me. 7. I feel that during conversations, I am able to present myself as I want my partner to view me. 8. My partner shows me that he/she understands what I say. 9. I am very satisfied with conversations with my partner. 10. My partner expresses a lot of interest in what I have to say. 11. I do not enjoy conversations with my partner. 12. My partner does not provide support for what he/she says. 13. I feel that I can talk about anything with my partner. 14. We each get to say what we want. 15. I feel that we can laugh easily together. 16. Our conversations flow smoothly. 17. My partner changes the topic when his/her feelings are brought into the conversation. 18. My partner frequently says things which add little to the conversation. 19. We talk about things I am not interested in.
147
Appendix G
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Spouse’s Use
S tells me S shares S uses S S tells me he/she personal S speaks endearing S uses complime he/she appreciat feelings kindly to nickname S smiles secret nts me loves me es me with me me for me at me behaviors S compliments 1.000 .554 .707 .529 .574 .480 .717 .483 me S tells me he/she .554 1.000 .622 .587 .595 .480 .633 .438 loves me S tells me he/she .707 .622 1.000 .663 .633 .510 .682 .570 appreciates me S shares personal .529 .587 .663 1.000 .618 .450 .617 .493 feelings with me S speaks kindly to .574 .595 .633 .618 1.000 .454 .697 .470 me S uses endearing .480 .480 .510 .450 .454 1.000 .502 .519 nickname for me S smiles at me .717 .633 .682 .617 .697 .502 1.000 .524 S uses secret .483 .438 .570 .493 .470 .519 .524 1.000 behaviors S winks at me .404 .383 .492 .377 .330 .402 .484 .465 S flirts with me .558 .583 .638 .625 .543 .560 .631 .645 S looks at me .525 .614 .596 .651 .756 .443 .649 .429 when we are talking S suggests 1 on 1 .579 .496 .623 .584 .487 .450 .598 .481 time together S invites me for .505 .358 .541 .462 .402 .379 .472 .480 walks S finds time to .537 .556 .609 .627 .627 .440 .611 .503 spend with me S suggests trips .487 .436 .602 .536 .448 .477 .477 .511 together S invites me to do .548 .589 .620 .636 .642 .504 .605 .529 things with 148
him/her S spends time .516 .530 .584 .561 .628 .558 .602 .492 with me without need to talk S eats dinner with .359 .480 .392 .477 .525 .342 .488 .305 me S there when I .481 .582 .557 .597 .693 .354 .614 .393 need him/her S helps me grow .537 .563 .685 .665 .623 .451 .612 .537 as a person S gives me .545 .615 .655 .696 .729 .450 .650 .494 emotional support S cares for me .495 .688 .572 .634 .755 .452 .636 .419 S listens to me .492 .561 .586 .673 .721 .400 .641 .448 S takes time to .553 .580 .679 .725 .713 .478 .650 .515 understand my feelings S hugs me .647 .742 .657 .606 .654 .530 .724 .492 S holds my hand .621 .675 .630 .534 .560 .512 .642 .498 S cuddles with .600 .654 .669 .619 .606 .538 .655 .547 me S gives me back .479 .447 .524 .417 .471 .493 .502 .446 rubs S puts arm .611 .645 .700 .595 .626 .563 .671 .546 around me S gives me .605 .715 .662 .636 .631 .560 .693 .525 affectionate kisses S buys gifts for .456 .416 .424 .398 .446 .367 .449 .383 special days S buys gifts for no .514 .354 .535 .419 .355 .432 .464 .519 special occasion S gives me cards .409 .342 .488 .416 .407 .374 .415 .398 S surprises me .389 .223 .439 .340 .255 .400 .346 .465 with dinners by candlelight S invites me to .426 .302 .498 .383 .315 .418 .378 .457 watch sunset S suggests walks .381 .170 .408 .342 .232 .379 .312 .447 in the moonlight 149
S invites me to .323 .225 .345 .316 .265 .446 .289 .402 lay in front of the fire S invites me for .424 .299 .434 .412 .299 .403 .410 .463 bath/shower S undresses me .411 .396 .470 .443 .319 .451 .473 .453 S initiates .467 .431 .479 .415 .421 .435 .478 .439 foreplay S initiates sexual .388 .415 .361 .329 .331 .410 .410 .389 intercourse S initiates .391 .357 .451 .438 .307 .419 .431 .453 experimentation, variety in sex S gives me .355 .454 .443 .478 .480 .281 .431 .292 orgasm during sex S talks with me .517 .514 .566 .622 .427 .460 .542 .471 about sex S kisses .627 .639 .645 .575 .561 .489 .650 .519 passionately
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
S S invites S looks at suggests S finds S me to do me when 1 on 1 S invites time to suggests things S winks S flirts we are time me for spend trips with at me with me talking together walks with me together him/her S compliments .404 .558 .525 .579 .505 .537 .487 .548 me S tells me he/she .383 .583 .614 .496 .358 .556 .436 .589 loves me S tells me he/she .492 .638 .596 .623 .541 .609 .602 .620 appreciates me S shares personal .377 .625 .651 .584 .462 .627 .536 .636 feelings with me S speaks kindly to .330 .543 .756 .487 .402 .627 .448 .642 me S uses endearing .402 .560 .443 .450 .379 .440 .477 .504 nickname for me S smiles at me .484 .631 .649 .598 .472 .611 .477 .605 150
S uses secret .465 .645 .429 .481 .480 .503 .511 .529 behaviors S winks at me 1.000 .658 .312 .445 .469 .430 .457 .401 S flirts with me .658 1.000 .503 .564 .525 .588 .595 .603 S looks at me .312 .503 1.000 .506 .383 .596 .442 .679 when we are talking S suggests 1 on 1 .445 .564 .506 1.000 .554 .641 .637 .662 time together S invites me for .469 .525 .383 .554 1.000 .538 .558 .541 walks S finds time to .430 .588 .596 .641 .538 1.000 .624 .699 spend with me S suggests trips .457 .595 .442 .637 .558 .624 1.000 .620 together S invites me to do .401 .603 .679 .662 .541 .699 .620 1.000 things with him/her S spends time .396 .586 .593 .569 .414 .646 .580 .610 with me without need to talk S eats dinner with .284 .389 .554 .397 .377 .573 .435 .569 me S there when I .304 .470 .651 .479 .354 .624 .394 .569 need him/her S helps me grow .428 .617 .601 .577 .531 .634 .543 .644 as a person S gives me .409 .593 .667 .545 .445 .728 .483 .644 emotional support S cares for me .282 .522 .715 .472 .329 .625 .425 .636 S listens to me .340 .521 .721 .512 .435 .660 .491 .661 S takes time to .393 .590 .672 .552 .500 .660 .534 .670 understand my feelings S hugs me .444 .653 .619 .577 .481 .624 .483 .610 S holds my hand .494 .643 .543 .575 .549 .602 .545 .618 S cuddles with .507 .706 .581 .635 .518 .682 .612 .666 me S gives me back .532 .597 .387 .511 .493 .469 .525 .497 rubs 151
S puts arm .536 .702 .591 .649 .557 .662 .610 .679 around me S gives me .517 .689 .583 .572 .485 .632 .579 .624 affectionate kisses S buys gifts for .269 .373 .473 .466 .335 .474 .436 .472 special days S buys gifts for no .441 .501 .371 .509 .533 .509 .534 .483 special occasion S gives me cards .353 .409 .382 .458 .398 .470 .455 .412 S surprises me .538 .469 .224 .433 .512 .341 .514 .318 with dinners by candlelight S invites me to .469 .550 .304 .497 .579 .436 .615 .445 watch sunset S suggests walks .496 .463 .207 .449 .573 .374 .498 .359 in the moonlight S invites me to .469 .485 .221 .369 .419 .304 .509 .335 lay in front of the fire S invites me for .520 .537 .268 .407 .457 .373 .449 .369 bath/shower S undresses me .547 .571 .301 .475 .463 .408 .497 .397 S initiates .431 .564 .377 .486 .401 .423 .480 .454 foreplay S initiates sexual .392 .478 .300 .368 .341 .336 .357 .385 intercourse S initiates .467 .543 .283 .438 .382 .378 .464 .427 experimentation, variety in sex S gives me .287 .392 .467 .369 .341 .448 .341 .460 orgasm during sex S talks with me .478 .665 .438 .553 .464 .535 .544 .529 about sex S kisses .541 .667 .530 .579 .517 .608 .536 .529 passionately
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
S spends S eats S there S helps S gives S cares S listens S takes 152
time with dinner when I me grow me for me to me time to me with me need as a emotional understan without him/her person support d my need to feelings talk S compliments .516 .359 .481 .537 .545 .495 .492 .553 me S tells me he/she .530 .480 .582 .563 .615 .688 .561 .580 loves me S tells me he/she .584 .392 .557 .685 .655 .572 .586 .679 appreciates me S shares personal .561 .477 .597 .665 .696 .634 .673 .725 feelings with me S speaks kindly to .628 .525 .693 .623 .729 .755 .721 .713 me S uses endearing .558 .342 .354 .451 .450 .452 .400 .478 nickname for me S smiles at me .602 .488 .614 .612 .650 .636 .641 .650 S uses secret .492 .305 .393 .537 .494 .419 .448 .515 behaviors S winks at me .396 .284 .304 .428 .409 .282 .340 .393 S flirts with me .586 .389 .470 .617 .593 .522 .521 .590 S looks at me .593 .554 .651 .601 .667 .715 .721 .672 when we are talking S suggests 1 on 1 .569 .397 .479 .577 .545 .472 .512 .552 time together S invites me for .414 .377 .354 .531 .445 .329 .435 .500 walks S finds time to .646 .573 .624 .634 .728 .625 .660 .660 spend with me S suggests trips .580 .435 .394 .543 .483 .425 .491 .534 together S invites me to do .610 .569 .569 .644 .644 .636 .661 .670 things with him/her S spends time 1.000 .511 .551 .571 .628 .596 .622 .668 with me without need to talk S eats dinner with .511 1.000 .515 .467 .507 .554 .605 .517 153
me S there when I .551 .515 1.000 .667 .770 .752 .688 .705 need him/her S helps me grow .571 .467 .667 1.000 .765 .658 .652 .738 as a person S gives me .628 .507 .770 .765 1.000 .747 .741 .789 emotional support S cares for me .596 .554 .752 .658 .747 1.000 .685 .695 S listens to me .622 .605 .688 .652 .741 .685 1.000 .795 S takes time to .668 .517 .705 .738 .789 .695 .795 1.000 understand my feelings S hugs me .576 .492 .648 .641 .671 .691 .612 .653 S holds my hand .534 .473 .516 .637 .621 .583 .561 .580 S cuddles with .588 .464 .551 .651 .688 .613 .609 .624 me S gives me back .464 .355 .402 .476 .472 .396 .405 .492 rubs S puts arm .637 .474 .539 .643 .679 .604 .627 .663 around me S gives me .607 .507 .553 .652 .663 .629 .601 .678 affectionate kisses S buys gifts for .412 .335 .441 .418 .425 .422 .453 .479 special days S buys gifts for no .473 .278 .331 .493 .390 .314 .360 .466 special occasion S gives me cards .406 .273 .339 .396 .394 .350 .370 .403 S surprises me .332 .169 .202 .361 .283 .171 .253 .374 with dinners by candlelight S invites me to .401 .289 .278 .437 .371 .271 .335 .420 watch sunset S suggests walks .337 .188 .186 .352 .283 .164 .246 .371 in the moonlight S invites me to .351 .216 .168 .324 .279 .188 .232 .338 lay in front of the fire S invites me for .378 .229 .227 .357 .299 .234 .260 .331 bath/shower 154
S undresses me .397 .261 .298 .415 .374 .306 .291 .391 S initiates .469 .316 .313 .438 .419 .361 .346 .436 foreplay S initiates sexual .364 .244 .230 .328 .315 .317 .239 .334 intercourse S initiates .395 .228 .270 .427 .341 .314 .275 .404 experimentation, variety in sex S gives me .431 .367 .454 .423 .468 .490 .505 .554 orgasm during sex S talks with me .516 .376 .391 .529 .489 .445 .437 .524 about sex S kisses .540 .412 .537 .597 .602 .526 .536 .606 passionately
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
S puts S gives S buys S buys S gives arm me gifts for gifts for S hugs S holds S cuddles me back around affectionat special no special me my hand with me rubs me e kisses days occasion S compliments me .647 .621 .600 .479 .611 .605 .456 .514 S tells me he/she .742 .675 .654 .447 .645 .715 .416 .354 loves me S tells me he/she .657 .630 .669 .524 .700 .662 .424 .535 appreciates me S shares personal .606 .534 .619 .417 .595 .636 .398 .419 feelings with me S speaks kindly to .654 .560 .606 .471 .626 .631 .446 .355 me S uses endearing .530 .512 .538 .493 .563 .560 .367 .432 nickname for me S smiles at me .724 .642 .655 .502 .671 .693 .449 .464 S uses secret .492 .498 .547 .446 .546 .525 .383 .519 behaviors S winks at me .444 .494 .507 .532 .536 .517 .269 .441 S flirts with me .653 .643 .706 .597 .702 .689 .373 .501 S looks at me .619 .543 .581 .387 .591 .583 .473 .371 when we are talking 155
S suggests 1 on 1 .577 .575 .635 .511 .649 .572 .466 .509 time together S invites me for .481 .549 .518 .493 .557 .485 .335 .533 walks S finds time to .624 .602 .682 .469 .662 .632 .474 .509 spend with me S suggests trips .483 .545 .612 .525 .610 .579 .436 .534 together S invites me to do .610 .618 .666 .497 .679 .624 .472 .483 things with him/her S spends time .576 .534 .588 .464 .637 .607 .412 .473 with me without need to talk S eats dinner with .492 .473 .464 .355 .474 .507 .335 .278 me S there when I .648 .516 .551 .402 .539 .553 .441 .331 need him/her S helps me grow .641 .637 .651 .476 .643 .652 .418 .493 as a person S gives me .671 .621 .688 .472 .679 .663 .425 .390 emotional support S cares for me .691 .583 .613 .396 .604 .629 .422 .314 S listens to me .612 .561 .609 .405 .627 .601 .453 .360 S takes time to .653 .580 .624 .492 .663 .678 .479 .466 understand my feelings S hugs me 1.000 .754 .751 .567 .756 .773 .464 .431 S holds my hand .754 1.000 .740 .551 .732 .730 .430 .499 S cuddles with me .751 .740 1.000 .600 .783 .750 .443 .486 S gives me back .567 .551 .600 1.000 .627 .591 .300 .460 rubs S puts arm around .756 .732 .783 .627 1.000 .748 .441 .515 me S gives me .773 .730 .750 .591 .748 1.000 .448 .463 affectionate kisses S buys gifts for .464 .430 .443 .300 .441 .448 1.000 .566 special days S buys gifts for no .431 .499 .486 .460 .515 .463 .566 1.000 special occasion 156
S gives me cards .407 .407 .466 .367 .414 .431 .568 .539 S surprises me .318 .360 .419 .519 .415 .394 .331 .587 with dinners by candlelight S invites me to .431 .486 .494 .514 .530 .480 .262 .486 watch sunset S suggests walks .324 .367 .416 .477 .429 .388 .247 .533 in the moonlight S invites me to lay .324 .386 .409 .500 .425 .389 .241 .437 in front of the fire S invites me for .366 .414 .482 .501 .479 .474 .263 .465 bath/shower S undresses me .437 .471 .506 .575 .528 .533 .270 .439 S initiates foreplay .472 .475 .553 .547 .583 .570 .310 .388 S initiates sexual .438 .384 .441 .440 .487 .528 .246 .326 intercourse S initiates .420 .387 .464 .520 .508 .514 .255 .442 experimentation, variety in sex S gives me .461 .447 .470 .338 .461 .543 .400 .343 orgasm during sex S talks with me .579 .543 .645 .565 .658 .627 .347 .441 about sex S kisses .735 .662 .704 .571 .738 .797 .553 .502 passionately
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
S surprises me with S dinners S invites suggests S invites S invites by me to walks in me to lay me for S S gives candleligh watch the in front of bath/show undresse S initiates me cards t sunset moonlight the fire er s me foreplay S compliments .409 .389 .426 .381 .323 .424 .411 .467 me S tells me he/she .342 .223 .302 .170 .225 .299 .396 .431 loves me S tells me he/she .488 .439 .498 .408 .345 .434 .470 .479 appreciates me 157
S shares personal .416 .340 .383 .342 .316 .412 .443 .415 feelings with me S speaks kindly to .407 .255 .315 .232 .265 .299 .319 .421 me S uses endearing .374 .400 .418 .379 .446 .403 .451 .435 nickname for me S smiles at me .415 .346 .378 .312 .289 .410 .473 .478 S uses secret .398 .465 .457 .447 .402 .463 .453 .439 behaviors S winks at me .353 .538 .469 .496 .469 .520 .547 .431 S flirts with me .409 .469 .550 .463 .485 .537 .571 .564 S looks at me .382 .224 .304 .207 .221 .268 .301 .377 when we are talking S suggests 1 on 1 .458 .433 .497 .449 .369 .407 .475 .486 time together S invites me for .398 .512 .579 .573 .419 .457 .463 .401 walks S finds time to .470 .341 .436 .374 .304 .373 .408 .423 spend with me S suggests trips .455 .514 .615 .498 .509 .449 .497 .480 together S invites me to do .412 .318 .445 .359 .335 .369 .397 .454 things with him/her S spends time .406 .332 .401 .337 .351 .378 .397 .469 with me without need to talk S eats dinner with .273 .169 .289 .188 .216 .229 .261 .316 me S there when I .339 .202 .278 .186 .168 .227 .298 .313 need him/her S helps me grow .396 .361 .437 .352 .324 .357 .415 .438 as a person S gives me .394 .283 .371 .283 .279 .299 .374 .419 emotional support S cares for me .350 .171 .271 .164 .188 .234 .306 .361 S listens to me .370 .253 .335 .246 .232 .260 .291 .346 S takes time to .403 .374 .420 .371 .338 .331 .391 .436 understand my 158
feelings S hugs me .407 .318 .431 .324 .324 .366 .437 .472 S holds my hand .407 .360 .486 .367 .386 .414 .471 .475 S cuddles with .466 .419 .494 .416 .409 .482 .506 .553 me S gives me back .367 .519 .514 .477 .500 .501 .575 .547 rubs S puts arm .414 .415 .530 .429 .425 .479 .528 .583 around me S gives me .431 .394 .480 .388 .389 .474 .533 .570 affectionate kisses S buys gifts for .568 .331 .262 .247 .241 .263 .270 .310 special days S buys gifts for no .539 .587 .486 .533 .437 .465 .439 .388 special occasion S gives me cards 1.000 .477 .418 .409 .361 .349 .329 .315 S surprises me .477 1.000 .654 .771 .662 .551 .601 .445 with dinners by candlelight S invites me to .418 .654 1.000 .743 .651 .488 .540 .494 watch sunset S suggests walks .409 .771 .743 1.000 .677 .555 .580 .450 in the moonlight S invites me to .361 .662 .651 .677 1.000 .544 .525 .464 lay in front of the fire S invites me for .349 .551 .488 .555 .544 1.000 .664 .568 bath/shower S undresses me .329 .601 .540 .580 .525 .664 1.000 .683 S initiates .315 .445 .494 .450 .464 .568 .683 1.000 foreplay S initiates sexual .226 .376 .379 .366 .387 .487 .583 .811 intercourse S initiates .292 .526 .459 .490 .527 .582 .680 .689 experimentation, variety in sex S gives me .279 .238 .275 .234 .208 .292 .337 .359 orgasm during sex 159
S talks with me .393 .452 .478 .465 .455 .593 .649 .691 about sex S kisses .440 .436 .484 .427 .391 .490 .580 .617 passionately
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
S initiates S initiates S gives me sexual experimentatio orgasm during S talks with me S kisses intercourse n, variety in sex sex about sex passionately
S compliments me .388 .391 .355 .517 .627 S tells me he/she loves me .415 .357 .454 .514 .639 S tells me he/she .361 .451 .443 .566 .645 appreciates me S shares personal feelings .329 .438 .478 .622 .575 with me S speaks kindly to me .331 .307 .480 .427 .561 S uses endearing .410 .419 .281 .460 .489 nickname for me S smiles at me .410 .431 .431 .542 .650 S uses secret behaviors .389 .453 .292 .471 .519 S winks at me .392 .467 .287 .478 .541 S flirts with me .478 .543 .392 .665 .667 S looks at me when we are .300 .283 .467 .438 .530 talking S suggests 1 on 1 time .368 .438 .369 .553 .579 together S invites me for walks .341 .382 .341 .464 .517 S finds time to spend with .336 .378 .448 .535 .608 me S suggests trips together .357 .464 .341 .544 .536 S invites me to do things .385 .427 .460 .529 .529 with him/her S spends time with me .364 .395 .431 .516 .540 without need to talk S eats dinner with me .244 .228 .367 .376 .412 S there when I need .230 .270 .454 .391 .537 him/her S helps me grow as a .328 .427 .423 .529 .597 person S gives me emotional .315 .341 .468 .489 .602 160
support S cares for me .317 .314 .490 .445 .526 S listens to me .239 .275 .505 .437 .536 S takes time to understand .334 .404 .554 .524 .606 my feelings S hugs me .438 .420 .461 .579 .735 S holds my hand .384 .387 .447 .543 .662 S cuddles with me .441 .464 .470 .645 .704 S gives me back rubs .440 .520 .338 .565 .571 S puts arm around me .487 .508 .461 .658 .738 S gives me affectionate .528 .514 .543 .627 .797 kisses S buys gifts for special .246 .255 .400 .347 .553 days S buys gifts for no special .326 .442 .343 .441 .502 occasion S gives me cards .226 .292 .279 .393 .440 S surprises me with .376 .526 .238 .452 .436 dinners by candlelight S invites me to watch .379 .459 .275 .478 .484 sunset S suggests walks in the .366 .490 .234 .465 .427 moonlight S invites me to lay in front .387 .527 .208 .455 .391 of the fire S invites me for .487 .582 .292 .593 .490 bath/shower S undresses me .583 .680 .337 .649 .580 S initiates foreplay .811 .689 .359 .691 .617 S initiates sexual 1.000 .675 .320 .612 .523 intercourse S initiates experimentation, .675 1.000 .338 .721 .548 variety in sex S gives me orgasm during .320 .338 1.000 .427 .505 sex S talks with me about sex .612 .721 .427 1.000 .652 S kisses passionately .523 .548 .505 .652 1.000
161
Appendix H
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Individual Use
I share I use I I tell S I I tell S I personal endearing compliment love appreciate feelings I speak nickname I smile at S him/her him/her with S kindly to S for S S I compliment S 1.000 .598 .743 .575 .634 .504 .830 I tell S I love him/her .598 1.000 .681 .537 .574 .442 .658 I tell S I appreciate .743 .681 1.000 .651 .638 .487 .730 him/her I share personal .575 .537 .651 1.000 .480 .408 .609 feelings with S I speak kindly to S .634 .574 .638 .480 1.000 .421 .691 I use endearing .504 .442 .487 .408 .421 1.000 .483 nickname for S I smile at S .830 .658 .730 .609 .691 .483 1.000 I use secret .519 .439 .531 .448 .410 .587 .490 behaviors I wink at S .463 .367 .486 .375 .331 .464 .438 I flirt with S .547 .496 .602 .589 .461 .533 .564 I look at S when we .538 .521 .580 .529 .662 .338 .588 are talking I suggest 1 on 1 time .704 .586 .661 .639 .538 .473 .719 together I invite S for walks .435 .297 .441 .387 .328 .336 .403 I find time to spend .638 .539 .674 .603 .600 .392 .662 with S I suggest trips .486 .349 .529 .557 .418 .424 .446 together I invite S to do things .623 .556 .645 .635 .639 .426 .638 with him/her I spend time with S .604 .542 .618 .543 .550 .508 .620 without need to talk I eat dinner with S .446 .407 .479 .436 .514 .254 .495 I there for S when .541 .463 .525 .467 .609 .302 .593 needed I help S grow as a .617 .490 .655 .614 .545 .428 .587 person 162
I give S emotional .595 .530 .625 .603 .659 .387 .641 support I care for S .543 .588 .578 .509 .681 .350 .602 I listen to S .542 .473 .574 .549 .685 .343 .598 I take time to .594 .555 .660 .625 .697 .413 .665 understand S feelings I hug S .708 .724 .714 .604 .643 .491 .740 I hold S hand .682 .619 .654 .541 .567 .486 .679 I cuddle with S .627 .580 .614 .577 .533 .512 .612 I give S back rubs .417 .426 .486 .374 .394 .382 .384 I put arm around S .692 .633 .693 .554 .610 .533 .672 I give S affectionate .642 .605 .660 .573 .538 .476 .644 kisses I buy gifts for special .489 .449 .454 .375 .500 .354 .512 days I buy gifts for no .513 .325 .481 .422 .370 .393 .470 special occasion I give S cards .387 .280 .420 .309 .419 .360 .375 I surprise S with .352 .223 .379 .307 .273 .367 .322 dinners by candlelight I invite S to watch .388 .212 .409 .330 .287 .379 .337 sunset I suggest walks in .346 .187 .339 .291 .194 .399 .278 the moonlight I invite S to lay in .366 .200 .344 .315 .218 .430 .299 front of the fire I invites S for .386 .310 .388 .382 .243 .396 .359 bath/shower I undress S .376 .337 .370 .386 .272 .392 .356 I initiate foreplay .426 .344 .371 .343 .344 .420 .396 I initiate sexual .384 .348 .379 .336 .288 .380 .354 intercourse I initiate .346 .239 .313 .324 .230 .385 .300 experimentation, variety in sex I give S orgasm .343 .404 .358 .349 .320 .282 .357 during sex I talk with S about .524 .480 .528 .604 .389 .481 .509 163
sex I kiss S passionately .646 .617 .628 .541 .496 .489 .632
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
I look at S I suggest 1 I find time to I use secret I wink at I flirt with when we on 1 time I invite S for spend with behaviors S S are talking together walks S I compliment S .519 .463 .547 .538 .704 .435 .638 I tell S I love him/her .439 .367 .496 .521 .586 .297 .539 I tell S I appreciate .531 .486 .602 .580 .661 .441 .674 him/her I share personal .448 .375 .589 .529 .639 .387 .603 feelings with S I speak kindly to S .410 .331 .461 .662 .538 .328 .600 I use endearing .587 .464 .533 .338 .473 .336 .392 nickname for S I smile at S .490 .438 .564 .588 .719 .403 .662 I use secret 1.000 .571 .680 .347 .521 .442 .444 behaviors I wink at S .571 1.000 .694 .283 .427 .473 .381 I flirt with S .680 .694 1.000 .409 .562 .494 .528 I look at S when we .347 .283 .409 1.000 .518 .297 .613 are talking I suggest 1 on 1 time .521 .427 .562 .518 1.000 .537 .671 together I invite S for walks .442 .473 .494 .297 .537 1.000 .444 I find time to spend .444 .381 .528 .613 .671 .444 1.000 with S I suggest trips .472 .433 .566 .377 .587 .531 .509 together I invite S to do things .444 .371 .520 .668 .687 .499 .690 with him/her I spend time with S .502 .406 .521 .563 .600 .423 .665 without need to talk I eat dinner with S .236 .219 .300 .533 .415 .292 .556 I there for S when .352 .218 .348 .644 .469 .270 .570 needed I help S grow as a .536 .414 .554 .560 .601 .447 .625 person I give S emotional .415 .294 .455 .647 .571 .328 .728 164
support I care for S .387 .206 .379 .606 .474 .259 .608 I listen to S .347 .270 .387 .702 .510 .346 .617 I take time to .444 .355 .482 .695 .592 .380 .653 understand S feelings I hug S .500 .416 .575 .561 .683 .424 .640 I hold S hand .499 .476 .585 .495 .629 .527 .616 I cuddle with S .538 .464 .582 .456 .648 .509 .630 I give S back rubs .450 .416 .423 .296 .422 .436 .392 I put arm around S .534 .521 .603 .508 .656 .491 .601 I give S affectionate .524 .472 .597 .494 .647 .443 .635 kisses I buy gifts for special .324 .281 .340 .486 .454 .281 .469 days I buy gifts for no .497 .502 .529 .367 .494 .492 .459 special occasion I give S cards .371 .426 .409 .318 .370 .408 .387 I surprise S with .478 .552 .458 .187 .416 .514 .303 dinners by candlelight I invite S to watch .468 .544 .474 .209 .437 .580 .324 sunset I suggest walks in the .439 .497 .427 .121 .378 .585 .256 moonlight I invite S to lay in .462 .523 .477 .149 .361 .508 .275 front of the fire I invites S for .483 .547 .523 .206 .437 .470 .334 bath/shower I undress S .463 .519 .498 .177 .407 .416 .275 I initiate foreplay .388 .427 .453 .250 .404 .358 .348 I initiate sexual .378 .434 .415 .211 .362 .325 .335 intercourse I initiate .401 .439 .487 .199 .379 .365 .248 experimentation, variety in sex I give S orgasm .349 .196 .377 .336 .350 .228 .378 during sex I talk with S about .508 .501 .633 .363 .603 .468 .493 sex 165
I kiss S passionately .561 .548 .638 .425 .645 .471 .555
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
I invite S to I spend I suggest do things time with S I there for I help S I give S trips with without I eat dinner S when grow as a emotional together him/her need to talk with S needed person support I compliment S .486 .623 .604 .446 .541 .617 .595 I tell S I love him/her .349 .556 .542 .407 .463 .490 .530 I tell S I appreciate .529 .645 .618 .479 .525 .655 .625 him/her I share personal .557 .635 .543 .436 .467 .614 .603 feelings with S I speak kindly to S .418 .639 .550 .514 .609 .545 .659 I use endearing .424 .426 .508 .254 .302 .428 .387 nickname for S I smile at S .446 .638 .620 .495 .593 .587 .641 I use secret .472 .444 .502 .236 .352 .536 .415 behaviors I wink at S .433 .371 .406 .219 .218 .414 .294 I flirt with S .566 .520 .521 .300 .348 .554 .455 I look at S when we .377 .668 .563 .533 .644 .560 .647 are talking I suggest 1 on 1 .587 .687 .600 .415 .469 .601 .571 time together I invite S for walks .531 .499 .423 .292 .270 .447 .328 I find time to spend .509 .690 .665 .556 .570 .625 .728 with S I suggest trips 1.000 .609 .512 .343 .335 .481 .421 together I invite S to do .609 1.000 .591 .522 .558 .586 .619 things with him/her I spend time with S .512 .591 1.000 .453 .471 .588 .578 without need to talk I eat dinner with S .343 .522 .453 1.000 .516 .390 .445 I there for S when .335 .558 .471 .516 1.000 .599 .739 needed I help S grow as a .481 .586 .588 .390 .599 1.000 .713 person I give S emotional .421 .619 .578 .445 .739 .713 1.000 166
support I care for S .347 .567 .526 .515 .701 .561 .702 I listen to S .447 .654 .531 .552 .634 .542 .690 I take time to .470 .651 .590 .471 .637 .613 .712 understand S feelings I hug S .444 .616 .603 .445 .565 .594 .618 I hold S hand .446 .574 .547 .422 .450 .615 .546 I cuddle with S .489 .575 .615 .405 .421 .608 .597 I give S back rubs .416 .421 .439 .269 .260 .425 .359 I put arm around S .503 .631 .601 .432 .440 .576 .560 I give S affectionate .505 .581 .614 .398 .395 .558 .546 kisses I buy gifts for special .382 .481 .410 .362 .446 .399 .449 days I buy gifts for no .509 .442 .435 .216 .284 .493 .394 special occasion I give S cards .442 .352 .381 .247 .283 .383 .356 I surprise S with .431 .309 .342 .149 .136 .329 .200 dinners by candlelight I invite S to watch .492 .364 .338 .196 .155 .340 .205 sunset I suggest walks in .452 .307 .323 .109 .051 .300 .137 the moonlight I invite S to lay in .443 .276 .319 .133 .075 .313 .170 front of the fire I invites S for .427 .340 .349 .192 .164 .348 .257 bath/shower I undress S .411 .312 .367 .198 .153 .378 .237 I initiate foreplay .364 .337 .389 .241 .181 .351 .275 I initiate sexual .342 .326 .365 .240 .157 .358 .267 intercourse I initiate .341 .308 .328 .134 .146 .355 .215 experimentation, variety in sex I give S orgasm .284 .358 .412 .220 .268 .298 .317 during sex I talk with S about .521 .483 .509 .281 .304 .543 .439 sex 167
I kiss S passionately .492 .522 .520 .356 .391 .538 .499
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
I take time to I care I listen to understand I hold S I cuddle I give S I put arm for S S S feelings I hug S hand with S back rubs around S I compliment S .543 .542 .594 .708 .682 .627 .417 .692 I tell S I love .588 .473 .555 .724 .619 .580 .426 .633 him/her I tell S I appreciate .578 .574 .660 .714 .654 .614 .486 .693 him/her I share personal .509 .549 .625 .604 .541 .577 .374 .554 feelings with S I speak kindly to S .681 .685 .697 .643 .567 .533 .394 .610 I use endearing .350 .343 .413 .491 .486 .512 .382 .533 nickname for S I smile at S .602 .598 .665 .740 .679 .612 .384 .672 I use secret .387 .347 .444 .500 .499 .538 .450 .534 behaviors I wink at S .206 .270 .355 .416 .476 .464 .416 .521 I flirt with S .379 .387 .482 .575 .585 .582 .423 .603 I look at S when we .606 .702 .695 .561 .495 .456 .296 .508 are talking I suggest 1 on 1 .474 .510 .592 .683 .629 .648 .422 .656 time together I invite S for walks .259 .346 .380 .424 .527 .509 .436 .491 I find time to spend .608 .617 .653 .640 .616 .630 .392 .601 with S I suggest trips .347 .447 .470 .444 .446 .489 .416 .503 together I invite S to do .567 .654 .651 .616 .574 .575 .421 .631 things with him/her I spend time with S .526 .531 .590 .603 .547 .615 .439 .601 without need to talk I eat dinner with S .515 .552 .471 .445 .422 .405 .269 .432 I there for S when .701 .634 .637 .565 .450 .421 .260 .440 needed I help S grow as a .561 .542 .613 .594 .615 .608 .425 .576 person 168
I give S emotional .702 .690 .712 .618 .546 .597 .359 .560 support I care for S 1.000 .616 .621 .611 .486 .489 .363 .512 I listen to S .616 1.000 .740 .511 .495 .460 .291 .527 I take time to .621 .740 1.000 .609 .523 .567 .357 .574 understand S feelings I hug S .611 .511 .609 1.000 .705 .717 .455 .746 I hold S hand .486 .495 .523 .705 1.000 .695 .483 .756 I cuddle with S .489 .460 .567 .717 .695 1.000 .509 .720 I give S back rubs .363 .291 .357 .455 .483 .509 1.000 .532 I put arm around S .512 .527 .574 .746 .756 .720 .532 1.000 I give S affectionate .489 .510 .596 .701 .674 .701 .462 .709 kisses I buy gifts for .461 .423 .446 .501 .373 .391 .240 .425 special days I buy gifts for no .313 .345 .428 .470 .502 .483 .415 .525 special occasion I give S cards .300 .333 .376 .346 .334 .390 .304 .409 I surprise S with .147 .201 .285 .324 .372 .418 .499 .390 dinners by candlelight I invite S to watch .142 .275 .326 .320 .410 .422 .439 .454 sunset I suggest walks in .104 .205 .261 .278 .371 .390 .461 .405 the moonlight I invite S to lay in .089 .218 .269 .257 .372 .376 .437 .399 front of the fire I invites S for .183 .216 .302 .346 .430 .450 .478 .462 bath/shower I undress S .198 .223 .295 .372 .419 .465 .537 .460 I initiate foreplay .245 .255 .326 .430 .431 .460 .441 .519 I initiate sexual .223 .230 .318 .403 .414 .417 .421 .491 intercourse I initiate .153 .175 .244 .322 .364 .370 .406 .423 experimentation, variety in sex I give S orgasm .340 .310 .453 .379 .327 .384 .244 .329 during sex I talk with S about .346 .350 .460 .555 .553 .647 .481 .602 169
sex I kiss S .453 .430 .506 .704 .657 .685 .499 .709 passionately
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
I buy gifts I surprise S I suggest I give S I buy gifts for no with I invite S to walks in affectionate for special special I give S dinners by watch the kisses days occasion cards candlelight sunset moonlight
I compliment S .642 .489 .513 .387 .352 .388 .346 I tell S I love him/her .605 .449 .325 .280 .223 .212 .187 I tell S I appreciate .660 .454 .481 .420 .379 .409 .339 him/her I share personal .573 .375 .422 .309 .307 .330 .291 feelings with S I speak kindly to S .538 .500 .370 .419 .273 .287 .194 I use endearing .476 .354 .393 .360 .367 .379 .399 nickname for S I smile at S .644 .512 .470 .375 .322 .337 .278 I use secret .524 .324 .497 .371 .478 .468 .439 behaviors I wink at S .472 .281 .502 .426 .552 .544 .497 I flirt with S .597 .340 .529 .409 .458 .474 .427 I look at S when we .494 .486 .367 .318 .187 .209 .121 are talking I suggest 1 on 1 .647 .454 .494 .370 .416 .437 .378 time together I invite S for walks .443 .281 .492 .408 .514 .580 .585 I find time to spend .635 .469 .459 .387 .303 .324 .256 with S I suggest trips .505 .382 .509 .442 .431 .492 .452 together I invite S to do .581 .481 .442 .352 .309 .364 .307 things with him/her I spend time with S .614 .410 .435 .381 .342 .338 .323 without need to talk I eat dinner with S .398 .362 .216 .247 .149 .196 .109 I there for S when .395 .446 .284 .283 .136 .155 .051 needed I help S grow as a .558 .399 .493 .383 .329 .340 .300 170
person I give S emotional .546 .449 .394 .356 .200 .205 .137 support I care for S .489 .461 .313 .300 .147 .142 .104 I listen to S .510 .423 .345 .333 .201 .275 .205 I take time to .596 .446 .428 .376 .285 .326 .261 understand S feelings I hug S .701 .501 .470 .346 .324 .320 .278 I hold S hand .674 .373 .502 .334 .372 .410 .371 I cuddle with S .701 .391 .483 .390 .418 .422 .390 I give S back rubs .462 .240 .415 .304 .499 .439 .461 I put arm around S .709 .425 .525 .409 .390 .454 .405 I give S affectionate 1.000 .400 .482 .417 .405 .380 .394 kisses I buy gifts for special .400 1.000 .517 .545 .269 .230 .248 days I buy gifts for no .482 .517 1.000 .527 .506 .498 .494 special occasion I give S cards .417 .545 .527 1.000 .460 .461 .457 I surprise S with .405 .269 .506 .460 1.000 .645 .645 dinners by candlelight I invite S to watch .380 .230 .498 .461 .645 1.000 .742 sunset I suggest walks in .394 .248 .494 .457 .645 .742 1.000 the moonlight I invite S to lay in .373 .223 .489 .444 .659 .720 .742 front of the fire I invites S for .473 .192 .433 .328 .529 .491 .488 bath/shower I undress S .474 .218 .427 .314 .617 .478 .530 I initiate foreplay .501 .299 .395 .306 .383 .402 .444 I initiate sexual .442 .266 .349 .275 .349 .357 .407 intercourse I initiate .412 .208 .400 .264 .447 .411 .469 experimentation, variety in sex I give S orgasm .416 .271 .264 .228 .185 .163 .130 during sex 171
I talk with S about .627 .351 .505 .393 .472 .474 .471 sex I kiss S passionately .787 .476 .556 .460 .440 .426 .453
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
I initiate I invites S experiment I invite S to for I initiate ation, I give S lay in front bath/showe I undress I initiate sexual variety in orgasm of the fire r S foreplay intercourse sex during sex I compliment S .366 .386 .376 .426 .384 .346 .343 I tell S I love him/her .200 .310 .337 .344 .348 .239 .404 I tell S I appreciate .344 .388 .370 .371 .379 .313 .358 him/her I share personal .315 .382 .386 .343 .336 .324 .349 feelings with S I speak kindly to S .218 .243 .272 .344 .288 .230 .320 I use endearing .430 .396 .392 .420 .380 .385 .282 nickname for S I smile at S .299 .359 .356 .396 .354 .300 .357 I use secret .462 .483 .463 .388 .378 .401 .349 behaviors I wink at S .523 .547 .519 .427 .434 .439 .196 I flirt with S .477 .523 .498 .453 .415 .487 .377 I look at S when we .149 .206 .177 .250 .211 .199 .336 are talking I suggest 1 on 1 time .361 .437 .407 .404 .362 .379 .350 together I invite S for walks .508 .470 .416 .358 .325 .365 .228 I find time to spend .275 .334 .275 .348 .335 .248 .378 with S I suggest trips .443 .427 .411 .364 .342 .341 .284 together I invite S to do things .276 .340 .312 .337 .326 .308 .358 with him/her I spend time with S .319 .349 .367 .389 .365 .328 .412 without need to talk I eat dinner with S .133 .192 .198 .241 .240 .134 .220 I there for S when .075 .164 .153 .181 .157 .146 .268 needed 172
I help S grow as a .313 .348 .378 .351 .358 .355 .298 person I give S emotional .170 .257 .237 .275 .267 .215 .317 support I care for S .089 .183 .198 .245 .223 .153 .340 I listen to S .218 .216 .223 .255 .230 .175 .310 I take time to .269 .302 .295 .326 .318 .244 .453 understand S feelings I hug S .257 .346 .372 .430 .403 .322 .379 I hold S hand .372 .430 .419 .431 .414 .364 .327 I cuddle with S .376 .450 .465 .460 .417 .370 .384 I give S back rubs .437 .478 .537 .441 .421 .406 .244 I put arm around S .399 .462 .460 .519 .491 .423 .329 I give S affectionate .373 .473 .474 .501 .442 .412 .416 kisses I buy gifts for special .223 .192 .218 .299 .266 .208 .271 days I buy gifts for no .489 .433 .427 .395 .349 .400 .264 special occasion I give S cards .444 .328 .314 .306 .275 .264 .228 I surprise S with .659 .529 .617 .383 .349 .447 .185 dinners by candlelight I invite S to watch .720 .491 .478 .402 .357 .411 .163 sunset I suggest walks in .742 .488 .530 .444 .407 .469 .130 the moonlight I invite S to lay in 1.000 .568 .564 .444 .412 .541 .201 front of the fire I invites S for .568 1.000 .632 .549 .537 .595 .232 bath/shower I undress S .564 .632 1.000 .636 .614 .653 .259 I initiate foreplay .444 .549 .636 1.000 .853 .698 .290 I initiate sexual .412 .537 .614 .853 1.000 .647 .268 intercourse I initiate .541 .595 .653 .698 .647 1.000 .240 experimentation, variety in sex I give S orgasm .201 .232 .259 .290 .268 .240 1.000 173
during sex I talk with S about .527 .631 .658 .618 .564 .666 .383 sex I kiss S passionately .450 .570 .555 .568 .524 .524 .357
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
I talk with S I kiss S about sex passionately I compliment S .524 .646 I tell S I love him/her .480 .617 I tell S I appreciate him/her .528 .628 I share personal feelings .604 .541 with S I speak kindly to S .389 .496 I use endearing nickname .481 .489 for S I smile at S .509 .632 I use secret behaviors .508 .561 I wink at S .501 .548 I flirt with S .633 .638 I look at S when we are .363 .425 talking I suggest 1 on 1 time .603 .645 together I invite S for walks .468 .471 I find time to spend with S .493 .555 I suggest trips together .521 .492 I invite S to do things with .483 .522 him/her I spend time with S without .509 .520 need to talk I eat dinner with S .281 .356 I there for S when needed .304 .391 I help S grow as a person .543 .538 I give S emotional support .439 .499 I care for S .346 .453 I listen to S .350 .430 I take time to understand S .460 .506 feelings I hug S .555 .704 174
I hold S hand .553 .657 I cuddle with S .647 .685 I give S back rubs .481 .499 I put arm around S .602 .709 I give S affectionate kisses .627 .787 I buy gifts for special days .351 .476 I buy gifts for no special .505 .556 occasion I give S cards .393 .460 I surprise S with dinners by .472 .440 candlelight I invite S to watch sunset .474 .426 I suggest walks in the .471 .453 moonlight I invite S to lay in front of the .527 .450 fire I invites S for bath/shower .631 .570 I undress S .658 .555 I initiate foreplay .618 .568 I initiate sexual intercourse .564 .524 I initiate experimentation, .666 .524 variety in sex I give S orgasm during sex .383 .357 I talk with S about sex 1.000 .689 I kiss S passionately .689 1.000
175
References
Acitelli, L. K., (2001). Maintaining and enhancing a relationship by attending to it. In J.
Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and
Enhancement (pp. 153-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Acitelli, L. K., & Antonucci, C. (1994). Gender differences in the link between marital
support and satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 67 , 688-698.
Acitelli, L. K., & Duck, S. (1987). Intimacy as the proverbial elephant. In D. Perlman &
S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration
(pp. 297-308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Acker, M., & Davis, M. H. (1992). Intimacy, passion and commitment in adult romantic
relationships: A test of the triangular theory of love. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 9 , 21-50.
Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic
Press.
Americans for Divorce Reform (2005). Divorce Statistics Collection. Retrieved
January 15, 2008, from http://www.divorcereform.org/stats.html
Anderson, T, & Emmers-Sommer, T. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in
online romantic relationships. Communication Studies , 57 , 153-172.
Areni, C. S., Kiecker, P., & Palan, K. M. (1998). Is it better to give than to receive:
Exploring gender differences in the meaning of memorable gifts. Psychology &
Marketing, 15 , 81-109. 176
Aron, A., & Henkemeyer, L. (1995). Marital satisfaction and passionate love.
Relationships, 12 , 139.
Aron, A., Norman, C., & Aron, E. (2001). Shared self-expanding activities as a means of
maintaining and enhancing close romantic relationships. In J. Harvey & A.
Wenzel (Eds.), Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and Enhancement
(pp. 47-66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Banmen, J., & Vogel, A. (1985). The relationship between marital quality and
interpersonal sexual communication. Family Therapy , 12 , 45-58.
Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Rankin, L. A., & Burnett, C. K. (1996). Assessing
relationship standards: The inventory of specific relationship standards. Journal of
Family Psychology, 10 , 72-88.
Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate
love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology
Review , 3, 49-67.
Baxter, L. A. (1986). Gender differences in the heterosexual relationship rules embedded
in break-up accounts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3 , 289-306.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships.
Human Communication Research, 12 , 469-493.
Beach, S. R. H., & Tesser, A. (1988). The psychology of love . New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, R. (1991). Personal value and gift-giving
behaviors: A study across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 22 , 149-157.
177
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and
beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
Bell, R. A., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., & Gore, K. E. (1987). “Did you bring the yarmulke
or the cabbage patch kid?” The idiomatic communication of young lovers. Human
Communication Research, 14, 47-67.
Bell, R. A., Daly, J. A., & Gonzalez, M. C. (1987). Affinity-maintenance in marriage
and its relationship to women's marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage & the
Family , 49 , 445-454.
Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love’s anatomy: Or whatever happened to old-
fashioned lust? In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love
(pp. 359-374). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Betcher, W. (1987). Intimate Play: Creating Romance in Everyday Life . New York:
Viking.
Bird, C. E. (1999). Gender, household labor, and psychological distress: The impact of
the amount and division of housework. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
40 , 32-45.
Birnbaum, G., Glaubman, H., & Mikulincer, M. (2001). Women’s experience of
heterosexual intercourse- scale construction, factor structure, and relations to
orgasmic disorder. Journal of Sex Research , 38 , 191-204.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American Couples. New York: Morrow.
178
Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to
stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
458-475.
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and
determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 62 , 964-980.
Brown, R. (1987). Analyzing love . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, M., & Auerback, A. (1981). Communication patterns in initiation of marital sex.
Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 15 , 105-117.
Bruess, C., & Pearson, J. (1993). "Sweet pea" and "pussy cat": An examination of
idiom use and marital satisfaction over the life cycle. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10 , 609-615.
Bruess, C., & Pearson, J. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult friendship.
Communication Monographs, 64 , 25-46.
Bruess, C., & Pearson, J. (2002). The function of mundane ritualizing in adult friendship
and marriage. Communication Research Reports, 19 , 314-326.
Brunner, E. (1945). Justice and the social order. London: Luderworth Press.
Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., & Bell, R. A. (1987). Validity of the affinity-seeking
instrument. Communication Research Reports, 4 , 24-30.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1989). Nonverbal communication: The
unspoken dialogue . New York: McGraw-Hill.
179
Burgoon, J. K., Coker, D. A., & Coker, R. A. (1986). Communicative effects of gaze
behavior: A test of two contrasting explanations. Human Communication
Research , 12, 495-524.
Burleson, B. R., & Denton, H. (1997). The relationship between communication skill
and marital satisfaction: Some moderating effects. Journal of Marriage & the
Family , 59 , 884-902.
Buss, D. M. (1988). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M.
L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 100-117). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Buunk, B., & Mutsaers, W. (1999). Equity perceptions and marital satisfaction in former
and current marriage: A study among the remarried. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 16 , 123-132.
Butler, R., Walker, W. R., Skowronski, J. J., & Shannon, L. (1995). Age and responses to
the love attitudes scale: Consistence in structure, differences in scores.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 40 , 281-296.
Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual Satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure
within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36 , 180-189.
Byers, E. S., & Heinlein, L. (1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities
in married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 ,
210- 231.
180
Byers, E. S., & Wang, A. (2004). Understanding sexuality in close relationships from the
social exchange perspective. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The
Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships (pp. 203-204). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cahn, D. D. (1983). Relative importance of perceived understanding in initial interaction
and development of interpersonal relationships. Psychological Reports , 52 ,
923- 929.
Call, V., Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The incidence and frequency of marital sex
in a national sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 , 639-650.
Canary, D. J., & Cupach, R. (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated
with conflict tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 5, 305-325.
Canary, D.J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in
marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1993). Preservation of relational characteristics:
Maintenance strategies, equity, and locus of control. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.),
Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 237-
259). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (2001). Equity in the preservation of personal relationships.
In J. H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance
and enhancement (pp. 133-151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (2007). People want--and maintain--fair marriages: Reply
to Ragsdale and Brandau-Brown. Journal of Family Communication , 7, 61-80.
181
Caplow, T. (1982). Christmas gifts and kin networks. American Sociological Review, 47,
383- 392.
Cate, R. M., Lloyd, S. A., & Henton, J., A. (1985) The effect of equity, equality, and
reward level on the stability of students’ premarital relationships. Journal of
Social Psychology, 125, 715-721.
Cate, R. M., Lloyd, S. A., Henton, J. H., & Larson, J. H. (1982). Fairness and reward
level as predictors of relationship satisfaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45 ,
177-181.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1 , 245-276.
Chadwick-Jones, J. K. (1976). Social exchange theory: Its structure and influence in
social psychology. London: Academic Press.
Chapman, G. (1992). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to
your mate. Chicago, IL: Northfield Publishing.
Cheal, D. (1987). Showing them you love them: Gift giving and the dialectic of intimacy.
Sociological Review, 35 , 151-169.
Chesney, A. P., Blakeney, P. E., Cole, C. M., & Chan, F. A. (1981). A comparison of
couples who have sought sex therapy with couples who have not. Journal of Sex
and Marital Therapy, 7 , 131-140.
Cohen, S., & Wills, A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin , 98 , 310-357.
182
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis:
Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation , 10(7). Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v10&7
Cupach, W. R., & Comstock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in
marriage: Links to Sexual Satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 7, 179-186.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support as a determinant of marital quality: The interplay of
negative and supportive behaviors. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G.
Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 173-194)). New
York: Plenum Press.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Types of social support and specific stress:
Toward a theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R.
Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319-366). New York:
Wiley.
Dainton, M. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and
satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 17 (6), 827-842.
Dainton, M. (2003). Equity and uncertainty in relational maintenance. Western Journal
of Communication , 67 , 164-186.
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. A. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust,
and the maintenance of long-distance versus geographically-close relationships.
Communication Quarterly, 49, 172-188.
183
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of
relationship type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships , 10 , 255-271.
Davidson, B. (1984). A test of Equity theory for marital adjustment. Social Psychology
Quarterly , 47 , 36-42.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications . Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Dickson-Markman, F. (1984). How important is self disclosure in marriage?
Communication Research Reports, 1 , 7-14.
Dindia, K. (1994). A multiphasic view of relationship maintenance strategies . In D. J.
Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 91-
112). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Donaghue, N., & Fallon, J. (2003). Gender-role self-stereotyping and the relationship
between equity and satisfaction in close relationships. Sex Roles , 48 , 217-230.
Donovan, R., & Jackson, B. (1990). Deciding to divorce: A process guided by social
exchange, attachment, and cognitive dissonance theories. Journal of Divorce, 13 ,
23- 25.
Doohan, E., & Manusov, V. (2004). The communication of compliments in romantic
relationships: An investigation of Relational Satisfaction and sex differences and
similarities in compliment behavior. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 170-
194.
184
Duck, S., & Pittman, G. (1994). Social and personal relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G.
R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2 nd ed., pp. 676-
695). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. (1994). Sexuality, marriage, and well-being: The middle
years. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Sexuality across the life course (pp. 233-259).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology , 2, 335-362.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2004). The effect of communication quality and quantity
indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships , 21 , 399-411.
Firth, R. (1967). Themes in economic anthropology . London: Tavistock.
Fischer, E., & Arnold, S. J. (1990). More than a labor of love: Gender roles and
Christmas gift shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 , 333-345.
Fiske, M., & Chiriboga, D. A. (1990). Change and continuity in adult life. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Floyd, K. (1999). All touches are not created equal: Effects of form and duration on
observers’ perceptions of an embrace. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 283-
299.
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (1998). The measurement of affectionate communication.
Communication Quarterly, 46 , 144-162.
Foa, U. G., & Goa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
185
Foa, U. G., & Goa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In
K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances
in theory and research . New York: Plenum.
Fowers, B. J. (1993). Psychology as public philosophy: An illustration of the moral
dimension of psychology with marital research. Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psychology , 13 , 124-136.
Freud, S. (1963). Sexuality and the psychology of love . New York: Collier
Books/Macmillan Publishing.
Freund, M., Leonard, T. L., & Lee, N. (1989). Sexual behavior of resident street
prostitutes with their clients in Camden, New Jersey. Journal of Sex Research , 26 ,
460-478.
Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness,
and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues , 24 , 51-73.
Gagnon, M. D., Hersen, M., Kabacoff, R. I., & Van Hasselt, V. B. (1999). Interpersonal
and psychological correlates of marital dissatisfaction in later life: A review.
Clinical Psychology Review, 19 , 359-378.
Gilbert, S. (1976). Empirical and theoretical extension of self-disclosure. In G. Miller
(Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communications . Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Gilbert, S. (2005, April 19). Married with problems? Therapy may not help. New York
Times. Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com
Glenn, N.D. (1998). The course of marital success and failure in five American 10-year
marriage cohorts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 , 569-576. 186
Goodboy, A., & Myers, S. (2008). Relational maintenance behaviors of friends with
benefits: Investigating equity and relational characteristics. Human
Communication, 11 , 71-85.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What makes marriage work? Psychology Today, 27 , 38-43.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations . New York:
Academic Press.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1986). Assessing the role of emotion in marriage.
Behavioral Assessment, 8 , 31-48.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later
dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63 , 221-233.
Gottman, J. M., Markman, H. J., and Notarius, C. I. (1977). The topography of marital
conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 39 , 461-477.
Greeley, A. M. (1991). Faithful attraction: Discovering intimacy, love, and fidelity in
American marriage . New York: Doherty.
Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1991). The waxing and waning of relational
intimacy: Touch as a function of relational stage, gender, and touch avoidance.
Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 8, 147-165.
Guerrero, L., & Floyd, K. (2006). Nonverbal communication in close relationships .
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
187
Gulledge, A. K., Gulledge, M. H., & Stahmann, R. F. (2003). Romantic physical
affection types and relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family
Therapy, 31 , 233-242.
Grumet, G. W. (1983). Eye contact: The core of interpersonal relatedness. Psychiatry:
Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes , 46 , 172-180.
Harley, W. (2001). His needs, her needs. Ada, MI: Baker.
Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and companionate love. In R. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes
(Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 191-217). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Hatfield, E., Greenberger, D., Traupmann, J., & Lambert, P. (1982). Equity and sexual
satisfaction in recently married couples. Journal of Sex Research, 18 , 18-31.
Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher. S., Utne, M., & Hay, M. (1985). Equity in close
relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp.
91-117). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hatfield, E., Utne, M. K., & Traupmann, J. (1979). Equity theory and intimate
relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in
developing relationships (pp. 99-133). New York: Academic Press.
Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., & Traupmann, J. (1978). Equity and premarital sex. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 82-92.
Haviland-Jones, J., Rosario, H. H., Wilson, P., & McGuire, T. R. (2005). An
Environmental Approach to Positive Emotion: Flowers. Evolutionary Psychology ,
3, 104-132.
188
Hecht, M. L. (1978). Measures of Communication Satisfaction. Human Communication
Research , 4, 350-368.
Hecht, M. L., & Marston, P. J. (1987). Communication Satisfaction and the temporal
development of conversations. Communication Research Reports, 4 , 60-65.
Helgeson, V. S., Shaver, P., & Dyer, M. (1987). Prototypes of intimacy and distance in
same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 4 , 195-233.
Henderson-King, D. H., & Veroff, J. (1994). Sexual Satisfaction and marital well-being
in the first years of marriages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,
509-534.
Hendrick, S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 40 , 1150-1159.
Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). Romantic Love. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hendrick, S. & Hendrick, C. (2002). Linking romantic love with sex: Development of the
perceptions of love and sex scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
19 , 361-378.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Sex and romantic love: Connects and
disconnects. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher, The handbook of
sexuality in close relationships (pp. 159-182). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., Foote, F., & Slapion-Foote, M. (1984). Do men and women
love differently. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 177-195.
Heslin, R. & Alper, T. (1983). Touch: A bonding gesture. In J. M. Wiemann and R. P.
Harrison (Eds.), Nonverbal interaction (pp. 47-75). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 189
Holmberg, D., , & Blair, K. L. (2009). Sexual desire, communication, satisfaction, and
preferences of men and women in same–sex versus mixed–sex relationships.
Journal of Sex Research , 46 , 57-66.
Homans, C. G. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 62 ,
597-606.
Hopper, R., Knapp, M. L., & Scott, L. (1981). Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring
intimate talk. Journal of Communication, 31, 23-33.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Huang, M., & Yu, S. (2000). Duration models to analyze dating relationships: The
controversial role of gift giving. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal ,
28 , 411-427.
Hudson, W. W. (1998). Index of Sexual Satisfaction. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R.
Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related
measures (pp. 512-513). London: Sage.
Hudson, W. W., Harrison, D. F., & Crosscup, P. (1981). A short-form scale to measure
sexual discord in dyadic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 17 , 157-174.
Huppe, M., & Cyr, M. (1997). Division of household labor and marital satisfaction of
dual income couples according to family life cycle. Canadian Journal of
Counseling , 31 , 145-162.
Huston, T. L., Robins, E., Atkinson, J., & McHale, S. M. (1987). Surveying the landscape
of marital behavior: A behavioral self-report approach to studying marriage.
Applied Social Psychology Annual, 7 , 45-72.
190
Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in
marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 721-733.
Hyde, J. S., DeLamater, J. D., & Durik, A. M. (2001). Sexuality and the dual-career
couple, part II: Beyond the baby years. Journal of Sex Research, 38 , 10-23.
Ikeda, J., & Tidwell, C. (2011, December 5). Cultural differences in nonverbal
communication [electronic resource]. Retrieved from
http://erc.msh.org/mainpage.cfm?file=4.6.0.htm&module=provider&language=
English.
Jackson, D. D., & Lederer, W. J. (1968). The Mirages of Marriage. W. W. Norton &
Co.: New York.
Jacobson, N. S., Waldron, H., & Moore, D. (1980). Toward a behavioral profile of
marital distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48 , 696-703.
James, W. H. (1983). Decline in coital rates with spouses’ ages and duration of marriage.
Journal of Biosocial Science, 15 , 83-87.
Jones, S. E., & Yarbrough, A. E. (1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch.
Communication Monographs, 52, 19-56.
Jung, J. (1987). Toward a social psychology of social support. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology , 8, 57-83.
Kellerman, J., Lewis, J., & Laird, J. D. (1989). Looking and loving: The effects of
mutual gaze on feelings of romantic love. Journal of Research in Personality , 23 ,
145-161.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research (3 rd edition). New York:
Harcourt Publishing.
191
Kirchler, E. (1989). Everyday life experiences at home: An interaction diary approach to
assess marital relationships. Journal of Family Psychology , 2, 311-336.
Kitzinger, C., , & Coyle, A. (1995). Lesbian and gay couples: Speaking of difference. The
Psychologist , 8, 64-69.
Kline, S. L., Horton, B., & Zhang, S. (2008). Communicating love: Comparisons
between American and East Asian university students. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations , 32 , 200-214.
Klusmann, D. (2002). Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 31, 275-287.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of
relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50 , 161-278.
Landis J.R., & Koch G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics , 33 , 159-174.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Schlee, K., Monson, C., Ehrensaft, M., & Heyman, R.
(1998). What's love got to do with it? Perceptions of marital positivity in H-to-W
aggressive, distressed, and happy marriages. Journal of Family Violence, 13 , 197-
212.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social
organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1992). Development of the interpersonal exchange model
of Sexual Satisfaction in long-term relationships. The Canadian Journal of
Human Sexuality, 1, 123-128. 192
Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology
of love (pp. 38-67). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lemieux, R., & Hale, L. (1999). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in young romantic
relationships: Successfully measuring the triangular theory of love. Psychological
Reports , 85 , 497-503.
Lemieux, R., & Hale, L. (2000). Intimacy, passion, and commitment among married
individuals: Further testing of the triangular theory of love. Psychological
Reports , 87, 941-948.
Lemieux, R., & Hale, L. (2002). Cross-sectional analysis of intimacy, passion, and
commitment: Testing the assumptions of the triangular theory of love.
Psychological Reports , 90 , 1009-1014.
Lindlof, T. R. (2002). Qualitative analysis and interpretation. In T. R. Lindlof & B. C.
Taylor (Eds.), Qualitative communication research methods (2 nd ed.) (pp. 209-
246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Litzinger, S., & Gordon, C. (2005). Exploring relationships among communication,
sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy ,
31 , 409-424.
Lujansky, H., & Mikula, G. (1983). Can equity theory explain the quality and the
stability of romantic relationships? British Journal of Social Psychology , 22 , 101-
112.
193
MacDermid, S. M., Huston, T. L., & McHale, S. M. (1990). Changes in marriage
associated with the transition to parenthood: Individual differences as a function
of sex-role attitudes and changes in division of labor. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 52 , 475-486.
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (1997). The relationships between sexual problems, sexual
communication and Sexual Satisfaction. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 6, 277-283.
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise
and adventures in the archipelagoes of Melansian New Guinea . London:
Routledge.
Marini, M. M. (1976). Dimensions of marriage happiness: A research note. Journal of
Marriage & the Family , 38 , 443-448.
Markman, H. J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 49 , 760-762.
Markman, H. J., Duncan, W., Storaasli, R. D., & Howes, P. W. (1987). The prediction
and prevention of marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. In K. Hahlweg &
M. J. Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorder: The contribution of
family interaction research (pp. 266-289). New York: Family Process Press.
Marston, P. J., & Hecht, M. L. (1999). The nonverbal communication of romantic love.
In L. Guerrero, J. Devito, & M. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication
reader: Classic and contemporary readings (2 nd ed.) (pp. 284-289). Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press. 194
Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., Manke, M., McDanield, S., & Reeder, H. (1998). The
subjective experience of intimacy, passion, and commitment in heterosexual
loving relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 15-30.
Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., & Robers, T. (1987). 'True love ways': The subjective
experience and communication of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships , 4, 387-407.
Martin, M. W. (1985). Satisfaction with intimate exchange: Gender-role differences and
the impact of equity, equality, and rewards. Sex Roles , 13 , 597-605.
Maus, M. (1925). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies . New
York: Norton.
Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity,
and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 17 , 67-94.
Michaels, J. W., Edwards, J. N., & Acock, A. C. (1984). Satisfaction in intimate
relationships as a function of inequality, inequity, and outcomes. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 47 , 347-367.
Miller, M. M., & Bermudez, M. (2004). Intersecting gender and social exchange
theory in family therapy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy , 16 , 1-24.
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In I. Wheeler
(Ed.). Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 121-144). Beverly Hills:
Sage.
195
Morton, T. L., & Douglas, M. A. (1981). Growth of relationships. In W. Duck and R.
Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships 2: Developing personal relationships (pp.
3-26). London: Academic Press.
Neto, F. (1997). Romantic acts in Portugal. Psychological Reports, 81 , 147-151.
Nguyen, T., Heslin, R., and Nguyen, M. L. (1975). The meanings of touch: Sex
differences. Journal of Communication, 25, 92-103.
Nguyen, M. L., Heslin, R., and Nguyen, T. (1976). The meaning of touch: Sex and
marital status differences. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7,
13-18.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45 , 141-151.
Notarius, C., & Johnson, J. (1982). Emotional expression in husbands and wives.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 483-490 .
Notarius, C. I., & Markman, H. J. (1981). The couples interaction scoring system. In E.
E. Filsinger and R. A. Lewis (Eds.), Observing marriage: New behavioral
approaches . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Nye, F. (1979). Choice, exchange, and the family. In W. Burr, R. Hill, F. Nye & I. Reiss
(Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family, Volume 2 (pp. 1-41). New York:
Free Press.
Olsen, L. (2003). From lace teddies to flannel PJ's: an analysis of male’s experience and
expressions of love. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication , 4, 38-44.
196
Orden, S. R., & Bradburn, M. (1968). Dimensions of marriage happiness. American
Journal of Sociology , 73 , 715-731.
Osborne, J. & Costello, A. B. (2005). Recommendations for getting the most from your
analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation , 10(7), 1-9. Retrieved from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n7
Oswald, D. L., Clark, E. M., & Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship maintenance: An
analysis of individual and dyad behaviors. Journal of Social & Clinical
Psychology, 23 , 413-441.
Owen, W. F. (1987). The verbal expression of love by women and men as a critical
communication event in personal relationships. Women’s Studies in
Communication, 10, 15-24.
Parrott, L. & Parrott, L. (2004). Love talk: Speak each other’s language like you never
have before. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Patterson, B., & O’Hair, D. (1992). Relational reconciliation: Toward a more
comprehensive model of relational development. Communication Research
Reports, 9 , 119-129.
Patterson, G. R. & Reid, J. B. (1970). Reciprocity and coercion: two facets of social
systems. In Neuringer, C. & Michael, J. L. (Eds.). Behavior Modification in
clinical Psychology. Appleton: New York.
Pearson, J. C., Child, J. T., & Carmon, A. F. (2010). Rituals in committed romantic
relationships: The development and validation of a measure. Communication
Studies, 61 , 464-483.
197
Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships.
Journal of Social Issues, 33 , 86-109.
Peterson, C. (1981). Equity, equality, and marriage. Journal of Social Psychology ,
113 , 283-284.
Piña, D., & Bengston, L. (1993). The division of household labor and wives' happiness:
Ideology, employment, and perceptions of support. Journal of Marriage & the
Family , 55 , 901-912.
Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal
relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593-604.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase
uncertainty in personal relationships II: Replication and extension. Human
Communication Research, 14, 516-547.
Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy . New York: Guilford Press.
Prentice, D. S., Briggs, N. E., & Bradley, D. W. (1983). Romantic attitudes of American
university students. Psychological Reports , 53 , 815-822.
Punyanunt-Carter, N. (2008). Using Equity theory to examine relationship maintenance
and satisfaction in father-daughter relationships. Human Communication, 11 ,
161-176.
Purnine, D. M., & Carey, M. P. (1997). Interpersonal communication and sexual
adjustment: The roles of understanding and agreement. Journal of Clinical and
Consulting Psychology, 65 , 1017-1025.
Ragsdale, J. (1996). Gender, satisfaction level, and the use of relational maintenance
strategies in marriage. Communication Monographs, 63 , 354. 198
Rao, K. V., & Demaris, A. (1995). Coital frequency among married and cohabiting
couples in the United States. Journal of Biosocial Science , 27 , 135-150.
Reedy, M., Birren, J., & Schaie, K., (1981). Age and sex differences in satisfying love
relationships across the adult life span. Human Development, 21 , 52-66.
Regan, P. C., Kocan, E. R., & Whitlock, T. (1998). Ain't love grand! A prototype
analysis of the concept of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships , 15 , 411-420.
Regan, P. C., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Gender differences in the value of contributions to
intimate relationships: Egalitarian relationships are not always perceived to be
equitable. Sex Roles, 33 , 221-238.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In
E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (pp. 523-563). New York: Guilford Press.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, D.
Hay, S. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal
relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 367-389). Oxford,
England: John Wiley & Sons.
Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction:
Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships. 10 , 243-254.
Rosentfeld, L., & Bowen, G. (1991). Marital disclosure and marital satisfaction: Direct-
effect versus interaction-effect models. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 55 , 69-84.
199
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 265-273.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology . New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E., (2004). Communication Research
Measures: A sourcebook . New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement
of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14 ,
602- 628.
Rubin, R. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1989). Communication apprehension and satisfaction in
interpersonal relationships. Communication Research Reports, 6 , 13-20.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An
interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10 ,
175- 204.
Russell-Chapin, L. A., Chapin, T. J., & Sattler, L. G. (2001). The relationship of conflict
resolution styles and certain marital satisfaction factors to marital distress. Family
Journal , 9, 259-264.
Sager, C. J. (1976). Marriage contracts and couple therapy: Hidden forces in intimate
relationships. Oxford, England: Brunner Mazel.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics . New York: Aldine.
Sax, G. (1989). Principles of Educational and Psychological Measurement and
Evaluation (3 rd edition) . CA: Wadsworth.
200
Schafer, R. B., & Keith, P. M. (1981). Equity in marital roles across the family life cycle.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 359-367.
Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M.,
Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of
the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48 ,
381-387.
Schwartz, B. (1967). The social psychology of the gift. American Journal of Sociology ,
73 , 1-11.
Seki, K., Matsumoto, D., & Imahori, T. T. (2002). The conceptualization and expression
of intimacy in Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
33, 303–319.
Sherry, J. F., Jr. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10 , 157-168.
Singer, I. (1984). The nature of love: Vol. 2. Courtly and romantic . Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Singer, I. (1987). The nature of love: Vol. 3. The modern world . Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Singh, D., Meyer, W., Zambarano, R., & Hurlbert, D. (1998). Frequency and timing of
coital orgasm in women desirous of becoming pregnant. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 27 , 15-29.
201
Smith, G. T., Snyder, D. K., Trull, T. J., & Monsma, B. R. (1988). Predicting
relationship satisfaction from couples' use of leisure time. American Journal of
Family Therapy , 16 , 3-13.
Snell, W. E., & Belk, S. (1985). On assessing "equity" in intimate relationships.
Representative Research in Social Psychology , 15 , 16-24.
Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38 , 15-26.
Sprecher, S. (1986). The relation between inequity and emotions in close relationships.
Social Psychology Quarterly , 49 , 309-321.
Sprecher, S. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of
relationship commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly , 51 , 318-328.
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual Satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with
satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research , 39 ,
190-196.
Sprecher, S. (2001). A comparison of emotional consequences of and change in equity
over time using global and domain-specific measures of equity. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships , 18 , 477-501.
Sprecher, S., & Cate, R. (2004). Sexual Satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors
of relationship satisfaction and stability. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S.
Sprecher, The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235-256).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
202
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and
young married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68, 163-185.
Stafford, L. (2003). Maintaining romantic relationships: Summary and analysis of one
research program. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining
relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural
variations (pp. 51-77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 217-242.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (2006). Equity and interdependence as predictors of
relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 227-254.
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational
maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of
relational characteristics. Communication Monographs , 67 , 306-323.
Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review 93: 119-35.
Terman, L. M., Buttenweiser, P., Ferguson, L. W., Johnson, W. B., & Wilson, D. P.
(1938). Psychological factors in marital happiness . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups . New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Traupmann, J. & Hatfield, E. (1981). Love and its effect on mental and physical health.
In J. March, S. Kiesler, R. Fogel, E. Hatfield & E. Shana (Eds.), Aging: Stability
and change in the family (pp. 253-274). New York: Academic Press.
203
Traupmann, J., Hatfield, E., & Wexler, P. (1983). Equity and Sexual Satisfaction in
dating couples. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22 , 33-40.
Traupmann, J., Petersen, R., Utne, M., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Measuring equity in
intimate relations. Applied Psychological Measurement , 5(4), 467-480.
Traupmann-Utne-Walster (1977) Scales. Available in E. Hatfield-Walster, G. W.
Walster, & E. Berscheid, Equity : Theory and research (pp. 236-242). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1978.
Tucker, P. & Aron, A. (1993). Passionate love and marital satisfaction at key transition
points in the family life cycle. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12,
135-147.
Tucker, R. K., Marvin, M. G., & Vivian, B. (1991). What constitutes a romantic act? An
empirical study. Psychological Reports, 69 , 651-654.
Tucker, R. K., Vivian, B., Marvin, M. G., (1992). Operationalizing the romance construct
in an adult sample. Psychological Reports, 71 , 115-120.
Ueleke, W., Miller, D., Giesen, M., & Miles, S. (1983). Inequity resolving behavior as a
response to inequity in a hypothetical marital relationship. Psychology: A Journal
of Human Behavior , 20 , 4-8.
Utne, M. K., Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., and Greenberger, D. (1984). Equity, marital
satisfaction and stability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1 , 323-
332.
Vangelisti, A. (2002). Interpersonal processes in romantic relationships. In M. L. Knapp
& J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3 rd ed.) (pp.
643- 679). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 204
Van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, P. (1990). A longitudinal study of equity and satisfaction
in intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology , 20 , 287-309.
Walster, G. W. (1975). The Walster et al. (1973) equity formal: A correction.
Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 65-67.
Walster (1977) Global Measure. Described in E. Hatfield-Walster, G. W. Walster,
& E. Berscheid. Equity: Theory and research (pp. 234-236). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Walster (Hatfield), E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity
research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151-176.
Walster, E., Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research . Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Walster, E., Walster, G., & Traupmann, J. (1978). Equity and premarital sex. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 36 , 82-92.
Wang, A. &., & Nguyen, T. (1995). Passionate love and anxiety: A cross-generational
study. Journal of Social Psychology, 135 , 459-470.
Ward, R. A. (1993). Marital happiness and household equity in later life. Journal of
Marriage & the Family , 55 , 427-438.
Weiss, D. (2004). Intimacy: A 100-day guide to lasting relationships . Lake Mary, FL:
Strang.
Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C.
(2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding
system. Qualitative Sociology, 24, 381-400.
205
Wheeless, L.R. & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self
disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2 , 338-346.
Wilkie, J. (1981). Trend toward delayed parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family,
43 , 583-591.
Wilkins, R., & Gareis, E. (2006). Emotion expression and the locution ‘I love you’: A
cross-cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 51–
75.
Willis, F.N., Jr., & Briggs, L.F.F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public
settings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 55-63 .
Xu, Y., & Burleson, B. (2004). The association of experienced spousal support
with marital satisfaction: Evaluating the moderating effects of sex, ethnic culture,
and type of support. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 123-145.
Yelsma, P. (1986). Marriage vs. cohabitation: Couples' communication practices and
satisfaction. Journal of Communication , 36 , 94-107.
Young, M., Denny, G., Young, T., & Luquis, R. (2000). Sexual Satisfaction among
married women age 50 and older. Psychological Reports , 86 , 1107-1122.
Zietlow, P.H., & Sillars, A.L. (1988). Life stage differences in communication during
marital conflicts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5 , 223-245.