Emotional Reliance and Social Intimacy in College Students ??? ? ???

1. Emotional Reliance and Social Intimacy in College Students ??? ? ??? University of Nebraska-Lincoln Introduction Emotional reliance and social intimacy are common aspects found in relationships with friends, family, and romantic partners. There are many components that shape one’s relationship with others in terms of reliance and intimacy. This study explores the relationship of emotional reliance on others and social intimacy to eight predictors: gender (gender), total score of the Trust Scale (trust), number of close friends (cfnds), seriousness of current last or relationship (relser), liking people scale (lps), interpersonal trust scale (its), lack of self-confidence subscale of the Interpersonal dependency inventory (lacksc), assertiveness subscale of the Bakker assertiveness-aggressiveness inventory (assrt). Emotional reliance has been an important element in previous research. In one such study, Turner and Turner (1999) found that females are more emotionally reliant on others than are males and that marriage increases emotional reliance in general while it is reduced with occupational and educational prestige. Emotional reliance also tends to be more directed at the self in insecure adolescents and higher towards parents in secure adolescents (Freeman, 1997). Social intimacy has also been an important element in previous research. Hook, Gerstein, and Detterich (2003) suggests that trust is one of the major components of intimacy. Females also report higher levels of intimacy with friends than do males (Krahn, 1996). Lastly, married couples report higher levels of intimacy than unmarried people (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982). Considering this previous research on emotional reliance and social intimacy, the purpose of this study was to examine their relationship to the eight predictors listed above. It was expected that females, higher trust, higher number of close friends, higher relationship seriousness, high liking people scores, higher interpersonal trust scores, high self-confidence, and low assertiveness (higher scores) were expected to produce higher emotional reliance and social intimacy scores. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of emotional reliance on others and social intimacy to gender, trust, cfnds, relser, lps, its, lacksc, and assrt. Previous research suggests that the components for high emotional reliance and high social intimacy are often similar meaning that the predictors should influence each of the criterion variables similarly, however closer examination on college students may show otherwise. Gender was expected to be positively correlated with emotional reliance and social intimacy, meaning that females would tend to have higher scores. As hypothesized, females did tend to report higher emotional reliance and social intimacy than males and gender was the biggest significant predictor in the multiple model. Contrary to the hypothesis, gender did not significantly contribute to the multiple model for emotional reliance. College students with higher trust scores were expected to show more emotional reliance and social intimacy. As hypothesized those participants with higher trust scores also had higher social intimacy and were significant contributors to the multiple model for social intimacy. Contrary to the hypothesis, trust was not found to be correlated with emotional reliance and in the multiple model those with lower trust scores tended to be more emotional reliant on others. Participants with a lower cfrnds were expected to have higher emotional reliance on others and high social intimacy. Contrary to the hypotheses, cfrnds was not found to be correlated with either predictor nor contributing to the multiple model. Participants with higher relser scores were expected to have higher emotional reliance and social intimacy. Relser, contrary to the hypothesis, was not correlated with emotional reliance. As hypothesized, relser was correlated to social intimacy and was found to be contributing to the full model for both criterion variables. College students who had high lps scores were expected to have high emotional reliance and social intimacy. As hypothesized, those with high lps also had high emotional reliance and social intimacy and also had significant contributions to emotional reliance but contrary to the hypothesis, not to social intimacy. Participants were expected to have higher emotional reliance and social intimacy scores with higher its scores. As hypothesized, its was correlated with both criterion variables and is a significant contributor in the social intimacy full model. Contrary to the hypothesis, its was not a significant contributor in the emotional reliance full model. High lacksc was expected to have a positive correlation with emotional reliance and social intimacy. As hypothesized, participants with high lacksc scores were more likely to have high emotional reliance on others and lacksc was the biggest contributor to the emotional reliance full model. Contrary to the hypothesis, those with low lacksc had higher social intimacy, but contrary to the hypothesis, this predictor does not contribute to the social intimacy full model. Those participants with high assrt scores were expected to have higher emotional reliance and social intimacy. As hypothesized, those with high assrt also had high emotional reliance on others. Contrary to the hypothesis, assrt was not correlated with social intimacy and does not contribute to either full model for either predictor. There are several confounds from this study including the nature of the self-report questionnaire. Many students may have quickly filled out the answers and not fully participated in filling them out. Also, because the questionnaires were filled out in a non-laboratory setting any arbitrary questions from the survey were more than likely filled in, however, if the questionnaires would have been filled out in a lab setting the participants could have asked questions toward the meaning. Also, participants could have been more likely to fill out the survey accompanying the presence of others and therefore would not have always answered truthfully. Lastly, a listless amount of confounds could have occurred, such as filling out the questionnaire while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, due to the nature of the natural setting. There are similarities and differences when comparing the predictors influences on the full models for each criterion. One commonality was that cfrnds and assrt did not have an impact on either criterion’s full model. Also, relser did have significant contributions to both full models and contributed about the same. All of the other predictors had differing influences on the full models. These results bring up a question as to why emotional reliance and social intimacy did not appear more similarly in relationship to the predictors. Future research should use these results to investigate any differences between these behaviors that contradict previous research. It would also be helpful to examine other characteristics such as familial background, ethnicity, and introvert/extrovert personality. You and Malley-Morrison (2000) suggest that there are differences in intimacy and relationship expectations across different ethnicities. It would be interesting to explore the relationship of family socialization and background, emotional reliance, social intimacy, ethnicity, and other specific personality factors. Methods Participants: Participants consisted of 498 undergraduate students aged 17 to 39 with a mean age of 20.65 (Table 1; Std=2.10). One-hundred and eighty-seven (37.9%) of the participants were males. Fifty-three (10.7%) of the participants were ethnic minorities, 441 (89.3%) were White Americans. The selected sample of participants included friends and associates of students enrolled in an introductory statistics course at a large Midwestern university. Each of the students completed one questionnaire and had five other surveys completed by five different participants. The surveys were completed in class, dorms, Greek houses, and apartments-wherever the participants were at during the time they volunteered to complete the survey. Measures: Each of the participants completed a self-report questionnaire. Demographic information from the questionnaire that was specifically used in this study includes gender, number of close friends, and seriousness of current or last relationship. There were several scales from the questionnaire used in this study. Two of the variables used in this study are subscales from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory that measures thoughts, behaviors, feelings, and beliefs revolving around needs to associate closely with other people who are valued. The first subscale was emotional reliance on others, which is a 47-item Likert scale. The other subscale used was lack of self-confidence which is a 46-item scale (Hirschfeld, et al., 1977). The second criterion variable used was the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS) which is a 17-item scale that measures the maximum level of intimacy the individual is experiencing (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982). Another scale used was the assertiveness subscale from the Bakker Assertiveness-Aggressiveness Inventory (AS-AGI) which is an 18-item survey measuring behaviors that protect individuals’ territory, privileges, and status where scores measured lower for higher levels of assertiveness (Bakker & Nbakker-Rabdau, 1978). The Liking People Scale (LPS) is a 15-item Likert scale the measures interpersonal orientation (Filsinger, 1981). The Interpersonal Trust Scale (its) is a Likert-like scale measuring what individuals expect in terms of reliability from verbal statements of other people (Rotter, 1967). The Trust Scale is a 40-item measure of trust of others in general and of romantic partners (Couch, Adams, & Jones, 1996). For all of these scales, except assertiveness, it is important to note that higher scale scores mean higher levels of what that scale is measuring. Procedures: Each of the students from the introductory statistics course completed one survey for themselves. Then they each sought out five other undergraduate students to complete one survey each. Each investigator collected a total of six questionnaires, and scored and collated the results. The results were entered into a larger database consisting of data from multiple class sections. Results Univariate statistics for variables collected in the survey are shown in Table 1. Separate regression analyses were run using gender, trust, cfnds, relser, lps, its, lacksc, assrt to predict the two criterion variables of emotional reliance and social intimacy. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between emotional reliance and various other potential predictors. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics and analysis results. Scores on the gender, lps, its, lacksc, and assrt were all found to be positively and significantly correlated with emotional reliance. Trust, cfrnds, and relser were not significantly correlated with emotional reliance on others. The multiple regression model containing all eight predictors produced F(8, 358) = 12.007, p = <.001. As can be seen in Table 2, relser, lps, and lacksc had significant positive regression weights. Trust had significant negative regression weights. Gender, cfnds, its, and assrt did not contribute to the multiple regression model. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were also conducted to examine the relationship between social intimacy and various other potential predictors. Table 3 summarizes the descriptive statistics and analysis results. Scores on the gender, trust, relser, lps, and its scale were all found to be positively and significantly correlated with social intimacy. Lacksc was found to have a significant negative correlation with social intimacy. Cfrnds, and assrt were not significantly correlated with social intimacy. The multiple regression model containing all eight predictors produced R2 = .364, F(8, 357) = 25.534, p = <.001. As can be seen in Table 3, gender, trust, relser, and its had significant positive regression weights. Cfrnds, lps, lacksc, and assrt did not contribute to the multiple regression model. A comparison of the structure of the models for the two criterion variables was also conducted by applying the model derived from the emotional reliance criterion to social intimacy criterion and comparing the resulting “crossed” R2 with the “direct” R2 originally obtained for this criterion. The direct R2 = .212 and crossed R2 = .000196 were significantly different, Z = 6.454, p = <.01, which indicates that the emotional reliance model works significantly better than the social intimacy model.