All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Chilling Effects and Binge Drinking in Romantic and Platonic Relationships
Unformatted Document Text:  Chilling Effects 12 sixty-eight participants reported on a romantic partner, and 149 participants reported on a platonic friendship. Measures The relational alternatives (dependence power) were assessed using four items from Solomon and Samp (1998). These items are based on a 5-point Likert scale, which ranges from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Sample items include: “My partner’s alternatives to our relationship are quite appealing,” and “If our relationship was to end today, it would be very easy for my partner to find a new relationship just as good or better.” Because romantic relationships tend to be sequential, only those in romantic relationships were provided with this scale. Previous reliabilities obtained for this scale were = .76 (Solomon & Samp, 1998) and = .70 (Samp & Solomon, 2001). Scale reliability obtained for the current study was .62 (M = 8.76, SD = 3.02). The commitment level of the relationship was assessed using four modified items taken from Rusbult, Zembrodt, and Gunn (1982). Modifications were consistent with previous research (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). The first question asks how long the relational partner would like the relationship to last, with responses on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from (1) a week or so to (6) a lifetime. The second question refers to the extent the relational partner is attached, which ranges from (1) not at all to (6) extremely attached. The third question asks how committed the partner is, with a range of (1) not at all to (6) extremely committed. The final question asks how likely the relational partner will end the relationship, with responses that range from (1) not likely at all to (6) extremely likely. Criterion related validity of this measure was established by Roloff and Cloven (1990), and the reported reliability in that study was .84. In the present study, the reliability was .72 (M = 18.89, SD =3.76).

Authors: Dunleavy, Katie. and Booth-Butterfield, Melanie.
first   previous   Page 12 of 26   next   last



background image
Chilling Effects 12
sixty-eight participants reported on a romantic partner, and 149 participants reported on a
platonic friendship.
Measures
The relational alternatives (dependence power) were assessed using four items from
Solomon and Samp (1998). These items are based on a 5-point Likert scale, which ranges from
(1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Sample items include: “My partner’s alternatives to
our relationship are quite appealing,” and “If our relationship was to end today, it would be very
easy for my partner to find a new relationship just as good or better.” Because romantic
relationships tend to be sequential, only those in romantic relationships were provided with this
scale. Previous reliabilities obtained for this scale were
= .76 (Solomon & Samp, 1998) and
=
.70 (Samp & Solomon, 2001). Scale reliability obtained for the current study was .62 (M = 8.76,
SD = 3.02).
The commitment level of the relationship was assessed using four modified items taken
from Rusbult, Zembrodt, and Gunn (1982). Modifications were consistent with previous research
(Roloff & Cloven, 1990). The first question asks how long the relational partner would like the
relationship to last, with responses on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from (1) a week or so to (6)
a lifetime. The second question refers to the extent the relational partner is attached, which
ranges from (1) not at all to (6) extremely attached. The third question asks how committed the
partner is, with a range of (1) not at all to (6) extremely committed. The final question asks how
likely the relational partner will end the relationship, with responses that range from (1) not likely
at all to (6) extremely likely. Criterion related validity of this measure was established by Roloff
and Cloven (1990), and the reported reliability in that study was .84. In the present study, the
reliability was .72 (M = 18.89, SD =3.76).


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 12 of 26   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.