Dimensions of relationship quality

Transcription

1 Personal Relationships, 9 (2002), Printed in the United States of America. Copyright # 2002 ISSPR /02 Dimensions of relationship quality MANFRED HASSEBRAUCK a AND BEVERLEY FEHR b a Bergische Universität Wuppertal; and b University of Winnipeg Abstract Four studies examined the dimensions of relationship quality. In Study 1, based on a principal components analysis, four dimensions underlying the prototype of relationship quality were identified: intimacy, agreement, independence, and sexuality. The four-factorial structure was replicated both with a German sample (Study 2) and a Canadian sample (Study 3). Study 4 tested the validity of scales based on the four-factorial structure of relationship quality with German and Canadian samples. Relationship satisfaction was predicted well by the four scales, with intimacy contributing most, and sexuality least, to overall relationship satisfaction. The four scales correlated as predicted with other constructs relevant to close relationships, such as commitment, trust, love, and the like. Consequences for the measurement of relationship quality are discussed. Following Hamilton s (1929) and Terman s (1938) early works, countless researchers have attempted to measure relationship quality, 1 its determinants, and its consequences. This is an important undertaking given that the quality of a marriage or other intimate relationship has manifold consequences for the physical and mental well-being of an individual (see Glenn, 1990, and Myers & Diener, 1995, for reviews). Russell and Wells (1994), for example, established that the quality of a marriage is by far the best predictor of happiness. Indeed, about 50% of reported happiness is explained by marital quality. And yet there is little consensus on how the construct of relationship quality or marital quality should be defined and measured. According to Spanier and Lewis (1980), marital quality is defined...as the subjective evaluation of a married couple s relationship on a number of dimensions and evaluations (p. 826). This and other, similar, definitions allow for so many interpretations when operationalizing that it is not surprising to find more than 50 scales under the heading Correspondence should be addressed to Prof. Dr. Manfred Hassebrauck, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Fachbereich 3 Psychologie, Wuppertal, Germany; hassebrauck@uni-wuppertal.de. marital quality (e.g., Schumm, 1990). Given differing theoretical orientations, it is unlikely that researchers will arrive at a uniform definition or operationalization of the concept relationship quality. Rather than add yet another definition, a more fruitful approach might be to assess the lay conception of this construct. Such an undertaking would seem especially useful given the evidence that when individuals evaluate their relationships they compare their actual relationship with their stored knowledge of a good relationship; the more their relationship approximates this prototype, the greater their satisfaction (Hassebrauck & Aron, 2001). The subjective features of the prototype of relationship quality are thus the most important characteristics of relationship quality. In line with this reasoning, Hassebrauck (1997) analyzed laypersons conceptions of relationship quality from a prototype perspective. According to this approach (Rosch, 1975), many natural language categories 1. The term relationship quality refers to a good quality marriage or other comparable intimate relationship. We use this instead of marital quality because many people live in marriage-like relationships without actually being married. 253

2 254 cannot be defined in terms of singly necessary and jointly sufficient features. Instead, such concepts share fuzzy boundaries with neighboring categories. Inside a category, the prototype represents a cognitive reference point and the objects or features are categorized according to their similarity to this prototype. An animal will most likely be categorized as a bird, for example, if it is similar to a prototypical bird such as a robin, rather than a nonprototypical bird such as a penguin. Hassebrauck (1997) was able to ascertain that relationship quality is indeed a concept with a prototype structure. In a first study, he identified a set of 64 features of relationship quality which were rated for centrality in a second study. In accordance with prototype theory, participants were able to reliably distinguish central features (e.g., trust, mutual respect) from peripheral features (e.g., only a few quarrels, mutual friends) of relationship quality. Further studies showed that central features were more salient in cognitive representation than peripheral ones, leading to intrusion errors on memory tasks and shorter response latencies on a reaction time task. Thus, there is evidence that relationship quality is a concept with a prototype structure, as are other relationship-relevant concepts such as love and commitment (Fehr, 1988), anger (Russell & Fehr, 1994), and jealousy (Sharpsteen, 1991). As Aron and Westbay (1996) pointed out, once central and peripheral features of a concept have been identified, the next step is to explore whether there is a meaningful structure underlying these features. Such an analysis allows for a summary description of the content of the prototype of a given concept. More important, the identification of a reliable, small set of latent dimensions enables researchers to explore individual differences in prototypes or, more specifically, individual differences in relative emphasis within that structure. Such an analysis also enables investigations into the dynamics of a relationship that would not be possible based on analyses of central and peripheral features alone. For example, as we discuss in greater detail later, it is possible that as a relationship develops, ratings of the global prototype of M. Hassebrauck and B. Fehr relationship quality could remain stable, thereby masking changes in the underlying dimensions. Similarly, relationship partners could provide the same global evaluation of relationship quality, even though each partner experiences the relationship quite differently, as evidenced by differing evaluations of the underlying dimensions. Such information could serve as a diagnostic tool when determining where to target interventions aimed at improving quality for each partner. At a conceptual level, identification of the dimensions underlying a concept facilitates comparisons with the content of other related prototypes as well as with experts theories or taxonomies of relationship quality (see Aron & Westbay, 1996, for further discussion of this point). Finally, at a methodological level, dimensions of relationship quality can be used to construct scales that are largely independent of one another and to help explore systematic changes in the structure of the concept relationship quality. Accordingly, the goal of the present research was to examine whether a meaningful set of dimensions underlies the prototype of relationship quality as identified by Hassebrauck (1997), and, if so, to place them in a nomological net of relationshiprelevant variables. Overview. In this article, we report four studies designed to establish the dimensional structure of the prototype of relationship quality. Comparable to Aron and Westbay s (1996) work, Study 1 was an exploratory principal components analysis that resulted in a four-factor structure of the prototype of relationship quality. Study 2 was a crossvalidation with a new sample. In Study 3 we extended these findings and tested the generalizability of the dimensional structure with a Canadian sample. In Study 4, we further established the validity of scales by correlating relevant relationship constructs with the identified dimensions of relationship quality using German and Canadian samples. Study 1 Study 1 was an exploratory principal components analysis aimed at establishing the

3 Dimensions of relationship quality 255 dimensions of the prototype of relationship quality. In order to test the validity of the dimensions, participants attachment style and gender also were assessed. Method Participants were 371 German adults (all but one of the 179 men and 191 women indicated their sex) who were recruited via notices posted at the university, in-class announcements, or direct contact by the experimenters. Participation was voluntary. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 61 years (M = years, SD = 10.10), and all were involved in a close romantic relationship; 22.6% (84) were married, and 41.8% (155) were cohabiting. Corresponding to the large range in age, the length of the relationships varied from 1 month to years (M = 16.41, SD = 26.98). Participants completed a questionnaire in small groups in a lab or at their homes. They were asked to rate the 64 features of the prototype of relationship quality reported in Hassebrauck (1997) in terms of centrality. Specifically, they were told that: On the following pages you will find a list of various aspects which are all more or less typical for a good romantic relationship. Your task is to rate each of the given features as to whether it is not a good or a good indicator of the quality of a relationship. In rating the items, please use a scale of 1 to 7. 2 Attachment style was assessed using the Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) scale, rated on a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Study 1 Results and Discussion Dimensions of relationship quality The data were well suited for a factor analysis. Kaiser s measure of sampling adequacy was.90, and values above.60 are 2. These instructions were given in German. The wording is the same as that used by Hassebrauck (1997) with the exception that the direction of the scale was changed so that higher values now correspond to higher centrality. considered to be appropriate for factor analyses (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989). A principal components analysis of the 64 features of relationship quality followed by a Varimax-rotation resulted in 15 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Based on a scree-test, we decided on a four-factorial solution, which explained 41.2% of the total variance. The first 10 eigenvalues of the unrotated solution were 15.0, 5.6, 3.0, 2.7, 2.0, 1.7, 1.5, 1.4, 1.3, 1.3. Of the 64 features, 42 showed loadings greater than.50, an indicator that the four factors describe relationship quality well (see Table 1). No feature showing above.50 on one factor also had a factor loading of above.50 on another factor. The structure fits nicely with Thurstone s (1947) description of a simple structure. Twenty variables had loadings higher than.50 on the first factor. They were features such as taking time for each other, listening to each other, openness, honesty, trust, and so on. This factor was labeled intimacy. It corresponds to the intimacy dimension in Sternberg s (1986) Triangular Theory of Love and to the intimacy factor in Aron and Westbay s (1996) factor analysis of love (consisting of items such as openness, feeling free to talk about anything, supportiveness, honesty, and trust). This points to the partial overlapping of the concepts love and relationship quality. In fact, Hassebrauck (1997) found that they share a common core of about one third of their features. Features such as similarities, mutual goals, only a few quarrels, common activities, harmony, and security had high loadings on the second factor. We labeled this factor agreement. This factor is similar to the Dyadic Consensus subscale from Spanier s (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale, but is somewhat broader due to features such as harmony, few quarrels, and security. The third factor, with variables such as autonomy, maintaining individuality, and having and allowing for freedom, refers to independence. This dimension, which is also part of the relationship beliefs identified by Fletcher and Kininmonth (1992), is not included in the concept love, nor in any other scale for measuring relationship quality. One might think that independence would be an important dimension of relationship quality

4 Table 1. Factor matrix (principal components analysis with Varimax-rotation) for centrality ratings of relationships quality Feature Study 1 Study 2 Centrality Intimacy Agreement Independence Sexuality Intimacy Agreement Independence Sexuality Taking time for each other Talking with each other Empathy Listening to each other Taking interest in partner Consideration Openness Affection Paying attention to partner Understanding Safety Honesty Being there for each other Mutual respect Trust Discussing everything Love Displaying emotions Tenderness Accepting partner Fidelity Looking forward to seeing each other Longing for each other Dependability Forgiveness (continued on next page) 256 M. Hassebrauck and B. Fehr

5 Table 1. (continued) Feature Study 1 Study 2 Centrality Intimacy Agreement Independence Sexuality Intimacy Agreement Independence Sexuality Support Knowing partner Friendship Running the household together Similarities Mutual goals Similar interests Only a few quarrels Mutual friends Common activities Harmony Security Similar beliefs Deferring to partner s wishes Helping one another Spending as much time together as possible Solving problems together Willingness to compromise Autonomy Maintaining individuality Independence Having and allowing for freedom (continued on next page) Dimensions of relationship quality 257

6 258 Table 1. (continued) Feature Study 1 Study 2 Centrality Intimacy Agreement Independence Sexuality Intimacy Agreement Independence Sexuality Own friends Willingness to discuss things Willingness to argue when necessary Tolerance Equality Flexibility Different interests Humor No dominance Arguments Responsibility Not taking each other for granted Sexuality Sexual harmony Sexual satisfaction Physical contact Having fun Note: Centrality ratings were ratings from Hassebrauck (1997, Study 2), based on a scale ranging from 1 = very good indicator of the quality of a relationship to 7=not a good indicator of the quality of a relationship. Mean centrality = 2.79, SD =.82. M. Hassebrauck and B. Fehr

7 Dimensions of relationship quality 259 only for young, educated people. However, the large range in age and education level of the participants in this study provide evidence against this assumption. Finally, the fourth factor with the features sexuality, sexual harmony, sexual satisfaction, and physical contact represented a clear sexuality factor. Scales based on the factorial structure Following Aron and Westbay s (1996) procedure, the features with loadings greater than.50 (boldfaced in Table 1) were combined into scales. The four resulting scales were reliable, and although the factors are orthogonal the four scales were correlated (see Table 2). The means of the scales (see Table 2) were significantly different, repeated measures F(3, 1104) = , p <.001. According to a Scheffé-test, all four means differed from one another significantly ( p <.01). The higher mean for the intimacy scale corresponds with Hassebrauck s (1997) findings that the features comprising this scale are most central to the concept relationship quality. On the other hand, features belonging to the agreement scale, were rated as most peripheral. Sexuality and independence features were judged as intermediate in terms of prototypicality. Dimensions of relationship quality and attachment styles To get an indication of the validity of the constructed scales, their relation to the attachment dimensions was analyzed. The four attachment styles suggested by Bartholomew (1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) represent two underlying dimensions: the model of self and the model of other. A positive model of other is associated with comfort with intimacy and closeness (e.g., Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Thus, we expected that scores on the intimacy factor would be positively correlated with the model of other score. In contrast, people with a negative model of other, especially if their model of self is positive, are expected to stress more impor- Table 2. Intercorrelations of relationship quality dimensions, scale means, and alphas Relationship dimensions Transformed means Agreement Independence Sexuality Alpha M Men Women Study 1 (German Sample) Intimacy.51***.31***.30*** Agreement.05.13* Independence.24*** Sexuality Study 2 (German Sample) Intimacy.48***.55***.35*** a Agreement.36***.22*** Independence.25*** Sexuality Study 3 (Canadian Sample) Intimacy.54***.61***.35*** Agreement.39***.35*** Independence.34*** Sexuality * p <.05. *** p <.001, for correlations. + p < p <.001, for gender differences. a Because the scale was reversed in this study, the reported means were recoded in order to facilitate the comparison with those from Study 1.

8 260 tance on independence, and we expected that the independence factor would be negatively correlated with model of other and positively correlated with model of self. We expected a positive correlation between the agreement factor and the model of other score. Agreement per se has not been investigated in the attachment literature, but there is evidence that people with a secure style (their model of other is positive) tend to adopt a compromising/integrating approach to conflict, whereas those with an avoidant style (their model of other is negative) experience conflict but avoid dealing with it (Levy & Davis, 1988; Pistole, 1989). Although sexuality has not received much attention in the attachment literature, various passion scales have been correlated with measures of attachment. Levy and Davis (1988) obtained positive correlations between secure attachment and two passion scales, whereas Fletcher and Kininmonth (1992) reported a weak, negative relation between secure attachment and the belief that passion should be part of a relationship. Avoidant attachment has consistently shown a negative relation with passion (Fletcher & Kininmonth, 1992; Levy & Davis, 1988). Against this background, we expected a positive correlation between sexuality and model of other. Following Whitaker, Beach, Etherton, Wakefield, and Anderson (1999), a model of self score was computed by subtracting the ratings of the preoccupied and fearful styles from the sum of the secure and dismissing styles. The higher this value, the more positive is the view of the self. A model of other score was computed by subtracting the ratings of the dismissing and fearful styles from the sum of the secure and preoccupied styles. The higher this value, the more positive is the view of other. We correlated these scores with the four scales of relationship quality. In accordance with attachment theory, intimacy and agreement were positively related to a positive model of other, r(364) =.18, p <.001, and r(364) =.19, p <.001, respectively. Independence was positively related to a positive model of self, r(365) =.30, p <.001, and negatively related to model of other, M. Hassebrauck and B. Fehr r(364) =.10, p <.05. The more positive are individuals self concepts, and the more negative their view of other, the more they consider independence as an important aspect of a good relationship. Finally, sexuality was both positively related to model of self, r(354) =.48, p <.001, and model of other, r(364) =.10, p <.05. Taken together, the correlations between the four dimensions of relationship quality and the attachment dimensions underlying the four attachment styles support the validity of the scales. The pattern of correlations is consistent with attachment theory predictions (cf. Bartholomew, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Gender differences We expected that women would score higher than men on the intimacy factor, based on evidence from a variety of domains. For example, women tend to engage in intimate self-disclosure to a greater extent than do men and enact more intimacy behaviors such as the provision of emotional support (see, e.g., Perlman & Fehr, 1987, and Reis & Patrick, 1996 for reviews). Note, however, that Fletcher and Kininmonth (1992) did not find a gender difference in the importance placed on intimacy as a relationship belief. Predictions for the agreement factor were less clear. Hassebrauck (1997) found that men judged harmony-seeking features as more central to relationship quality than did women and seemed to be more conflict-avoidant. The latter finding has been reported by other researchers as well (e.g., Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Gottman & Levenson, 1988), although this gender difference was not found in a recent study of anger interactions (Fehr, Baldwin, Collins, Patterson, & Benditt, 1999). It must also be kept in mind that our agreement factor is not simply a measure of conflict avoidance, but rather refers to similarities, mutual goals, and common activities, in addition to only a few quarrels. Gender differences in these kinds of features have received little attention in the relationships literature. Thus, we were unable to make firm predictions regarding gender differences in ratings of this factor.

9 Dimensions of relationship quality 261 We expected a gender difference on the independence factor, but were uncertain about the direction. It has been well-established that men are more agentic and dominant, whereas women are more nurturant and communal (e.g., Wiggins, 1993). Consequently, men might place greater importance on independence in a relationship. However, in research on relationship beliefs (Fletcher & Kininmonth, 1992) and the prototype of relationship quality (Hassebrauck, 1997), women rate individuality and independence higher than do men. Thus, it was unclear whether women or men would score higher on this factor. Finally, we expected that men would rate sexuality higher than would women. There is considerable evidence that men view sexuality as more central to love and relationships than do women (e.g., Fehr & Broughton, 2001; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1995; Rusbult, Onizuka, & Lipkus, 1993; Sprecher & Metts, 1989). In order to prevent the analyses from having a gender bias (women scored higher on three of the four scales than did men), which would have made interpretation of gender differences problematic, we transformed the data following a procedure suggested by Singelis, Choo, and Hatfield (1995). Each participant s mean score of the total set of the 64 items was subtracted from her or his respective score on each of the 64 centrality ratings, and scales were constructed with the transformed items. This transformation neutralized gender differences in scale use. A MANOVA resulted in a significant gender effect, Wilks s lambda (4, 363) =.90, p <.001. Univariate analyses indicated that women placed more importance on intimacy than did men (see Table 2). Also consistent with predictions, men rated sexuality higher than did women. There were no significant gender differences with respect to independence and agreement. In conclusion, the factor analysis of relationship quality features resulted in reliable and valid scales, as evidenced by meaningful relations with attachment dimensions. Moreover, the gender differences that were obtained were consistent with other findings in the literature. Study 2 Although the sample size in Study 1 met the prerequisite for a principal components analysis and produced interpretable results, it nevertheless is useful to perform a cross validation. Replication is especially important when the factor analysis is exploratory and when no theoretically based expectations about the factor structure exist. Moreover, replication of the four-factorial structure in a more diverse sample would provide strong evidence of the robustness of the structure of relationship quality. We therefore selected participants with a broader range of age and demographics than in Study 1. We also sought to replicate the sex differences that were found in Study 1. Method Participants were 325 German adults (177 women; 148 men) selected according to a snowball method, starting with the experimenters acquaintances outward. As intended, they represented a large range in age (18 to 78 years; M = 37.12, SD = 17.49). Participants rated the 64 features of relationship quality in terms of centrality, although in this study we reversed the scale such that 7 now indicated low centrality. Study 2 Results and Discussion Confirmatory factor analysis As in Study 1, Kaiser s measure of sampling adequacy (.896) showed that the data were well-suited for a factor analysis. A scree test based on the eigenvalues of the unrotated principal components analysis again indicated a four-factorial structure, explaining 40% of the total variance. The first 10 eigenvalues were: 15.3, 4.1, 3.2, 3.0, 2.1, 1.7, 1.6, 1.5, 1.4, 1.3. (The item loadings on each of the four factors of the Varimax-rotated solution are shown in the right half of Table 1.) A comparison with the loading structure in Study 1 shows remarkable similarities between the two solutions. Of the 20 features that loaded higher than.50 on the intimacy

10 262 factor in Study 1, 13 loaded equally high on the first factor in this study. All features loading over.50 on the second factor in Study 1 loaded correspondingly well on the second factor in Study 2, 6 of 10 features loaded on the third factor, and all four features of the fourth factor also followed this pattern. Moreover, the order of the factors correspond to one another in both studies. We calculated the cophenetic correlation to quantify the amount of agreement between both factor structures (cf. Hubert, 1987; Sokal & Rohlf, 1962). This correlation allows for a comparison of the entire structure of the corresponding loadings. 3 Using a procedure from the UCINET program package (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 1992), the loading matrix from Study 1 was correlated with the loading matrix from the present study, and the resulting cophenetic correlation was compared with the random correlation from the same data (cf. Hubert, 1987). 4 The cophenetic correlation was high and significant, r cs =.84, p <.05, which indicates that the factor structure observed in Study 1 corresponds very well with that of Study 2, despite the much older age group in this study and the reversed centrality scale. Cross-validation of the scales The scales constructed on the basis of the factor analysis done in Study 1 proved to be reliable in this study as well. Intercorrelations, alphas, and means were all highly similar to Study 1 (see Table 2). Gender differences A MANOVA (again based on transformed scores; cf. Study 1) resulted in a significant 3. An advantage of calculating the amount of agreement of both factor structures with the cophenetic correlation instead of with pattern coefficients (cf. Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989) or with Cattell & Baggaley s (1960) Salient Similarity Index is that not only the similarity between each of two factors but rather the similarity between the entire structures is quantified and can be tested for significance. 4. The loadings were z-transformed prior to this procedure. gender effect, Wilks s lambda (4, 320) =.91, p <.001. As in Study 1, univariate analyses indicated that intimacy was more important to women than to men (see Table 2), whereas sexuality was more important to men than to women. In this sample, women s rating of independence also was significantly higher than men s. In conclusion, the results of the crossvalidation demonstrate that the dimensions of relationship quality found in Study 1 are reliable, and that they are also applicable to a sample approximately 10 years older. Moreover, scales based on these factors were found to be reliable in this sample as well and produced a similar pattern of gender differences. Study 3 M. Hassebrauck and B. Fehr The results of our first two studies suggest that intimacy, agreement, independence, and sexuality appear to be important dimensions of relationship quality at least in our German samples. The purpose of the present study was to extend the generalizability of our results with a Canadian sample. We did not consider this a cross-cultural replication because there is no a priori reason to expect that Canadians should differ in their relationship concepts from Germans. Nevertheless, a replication with a sample in a different country, speaking a different language, would be a strong test of the stability of the fourfactorial structure. Method Introductory Psychology students from a Canadian university (N = 208; 114 women and 63 men indicated their sex) participated in small groups to satisfy a research requirement. They ranged in age from 17 to 50 (M = years; SD = 10.10). More than half (56.2%) reported that they were involved in a close romantic relationship. Mean relationship duration was 20.7 months (SD = 22.79). Participants were told that We are interested in the extent to which you feel each of these features is important in a good relationship. The 64 features of

11 Dimensions of relationship quality 263 relationship quality, translated by a native English speaker into English and translated back into German by another person to check the adequacy of the translation, were rated on a scale where 1 = not at all important and 7 = extremely important. Study 3 Results and Discussion Reliability of centrality ratings Because this study was the first in which the 64 features of the prototype of relationship quality were rated by a non-german sample, we first tested whether the centrality ratings obtained in Germany corresponded to those from our Canadian sample. To do this we correlated the mean importance ratings for all 64 features with the corresponding means from Study 1. The correlation, r(63) =.81, p <.001, indicates a high agreement between both samples. Despite differences in language (and perhaps in culture), the features regarded as typical for a good relationship in Germany also were seen as important by our Canadian participants. Confirmatory factor analysis In a second step we compared the factorial structures. As in Studies 1 and 2, Kaiser s measure of sampling adequacy (.875) indicated that the Canadian data were wellsuited for a factor analysis. A principal components analysis resulted in 17 factors with eigenvalues larger than 1.0, which is comparable to the number of factors we found in our German data. Eigenvalues of the first 10 features were 17.9, 3.9, 3.4, 2.3, 2.2, 1.8, 1.6, 1.6, 1.4, and 1.3. Because the primary goal of this study was to test the generalizability of the four-factor structure, we extracted four factors that explained 42.9% of the total variance. Again, this value is very similar to values we found in Study 1 (41.2%) and Study 2 (40%). Next, following the procedure from Study 2, we calculated the cophenetic correlation to quantify the amount of agreement between the factor structure of the Canadian sample and the two German samples. The factor structure of the Canadian data corresponded both to the structure from Study 1, r cs =.66, p <.05, and Study 2, r cs =.64, p <.05. Despite possible differences in the meaning of some of the items as a result of the translation, possible differences in culture and actual differences in ages (the Canadian participants were considerably younger than the German participants), the four-factorial structure of relationship quality was replicated. Differences between the Canadian and German samples Although the factor structures match well, participants from the two countries could attach differential importance to these dimensions. To examine this possibility, we constructed four scales based on the factorial structure of Study 1. The resulting scales again were reliable, the intercorrelations between the four scales were slightly higher than those in Studies 1 and 2 (see Table 2). With respect to the importance of intimacy, agreement, and independence, the Canadian sample means corresponded closely to those of the German samples, with one exception: German participants in Study 1 attached more importance to sexuality as an aspect of relationship quality than did the Canadian participants (M = 5.90 vs. 5.38), F(1, 574) = 37.38, p <.001. This difference could be due to age, given that the German participants were older, and therefore presumably more sexually experienced, than the Canadian participants. Differences in relationship involvement might also account for this finding. In Study 1, every participant was in a close romantic relationship and, hence, probably sexually active, whereas only half of the Canadian sample was romantically involved. To explore these possibilities, we conducted an analysis in which we included only those participants (from both countries) who were 25 years of age or less; in another analysis we included only the Canadian participants who were in a relationship. In both cases, the differences with respect to sexuality remained significant. Further

12 264 research is required to explore this difference more thoroughly. 5 In conclusion, the dimensional structure of the prototype of relationship quality proved to be replicable, even when the scales were rated in a different language by participants from another country. The factor structure corresponded closely to that obtained in the previous studies. Moreover, scales constructed on the basis of these factors demonstrated comparable high levels of internal consistency. In addition, respondents from both countries assigned nearly identical mean ratings to the four factors. Study 4 The concept relationship quality proves to have a clear internal structure. The features of the prototype can be reliably distinguished according to their centrality (Hassebrauck, 1997) and described by the four factors identified here. We assumed that when people are equipped with a prototype of relationship quality, they use this knowledge as a central reference point when judging their own relationships. For example, if a relationship is highly intimate and if the partners share mutual goals and interests (i.e., are high in agreement), allow one another independence, and enjoy a satisfying sex life, we would be inclined to pronounce the relationship as good because the relationship approximates the prototype of relationship quality. One purpose of this study was to empirically 5. We also tested for gender differences (first transforming the data according to the procedure suggested by Singelis, Choo, and Hatfield, 1995) in the Canadian sample. A MANOVA resulted in a significant gender effect, Wilks s l (4, 171) =.93, p <.05. Univariate analyses indicated that the gender differences only partially corresponded to those we observed in Studies 1 and 2. Comparable to Study 2, independence was more important to men than to women (see Table 2), whereas agreement was somewhat more important to men than to women. Although a gender difference was not found on agreement in our German samples, this finding is consistent with literature (cited earlier) showing that men are more harmony-seeking and conflict-avoidant than are women. We were not able to replicate the gender effects for either intimacy or sexuality. M. Hassebrauck and B. Fehr test our assumption that people draw on their knowledge of the prototype of relationship quality when asked to evaluate a current romantic relationship. A second purpose was to further establish the validity of the relationship quality scales by demonstrating that a meaningful pattern of relations exists between people s assessments of their own relationships in terms of the four dimensions of relationship quality and relevant relationship constructs. Specifically, we predicted that the more a relationship resembles the prototype of relationship quality, the greater the relationship satisfaction, frequency of joint activities, perceived importance of the relationship, strength of attachment to partner, and the lower the perceived attractiveness of alternatives. From our prototype perspective, however, we did not expect the correlations with satisfaction to be equal for all four dimensions because the features constituting the scales differ in centrality (see Table 2). Specifically, we expected that the intimacy factor, which received the highest rating in each study, would show the strongest correlations with relationship satisfaction. Method Married Canadian adults (N = 195; 91 women, 80 men, 24 who did not indicate their sex) between the ages of 18 and 68 (M = years; SD = 11.75) and 86 German students (65 women, 21 men) between the ages of 19 and 58 (M = years; SD = 7.50) participated in this study. 6,7 Participants rated the 64 features of relationship quality with 6. In order to save space we combined data from a German and a Canadian sample. A comparison of the factorial structures of the German and Canadian sample indicates high correspondences, even when people are rating their own relationship. The cophenetic correlation, comparing both factorial structures was r cs =.45, p < Most of the German participants were involved in a close heterosexual relationship at that time. Following the approach used in most research on close relationships (cf. Aron, Aron, & Allen, 1998) we combined data from participants who were currently involved in a close relationship (N = 68) and those who were not (N = 18). The latter were asked to complete the questionnaire with respect to their past relationship.

13 Dimensions of relationship quality 265 respect to the extent to which each feature characterized their relationship, using a scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely characteristic of my marriage. Relationship satisfaction was assessed with the 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988), also rated on 7-point scales. 8 Additional single-item questions on the attractiveness of alternatives to the relationship, on the importance of the relationship, the frequency of joint activities, and the strength of attachment to the partner were also included in the German questionnaire to gain further information on the validity of the four relationship quality subscales (all using 7-point scales). Included in the Canadian questionnaires was Rusbult s (1980) commitment scale, Rubin s (1973) loving-liking scale, and Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna s (1985) interpersonal trust scale. Study 4 Results and Discussion The internal consistency of the scales was satisfactorily high. Alpha coefficients were.89 for relationship satisfaction,.86 for commitment,.94 for liking-loving, and.86 for trust. When participants completed the relationship quality scale with regard to their own relationships, alpha coefficients were as high, if not higher, than those obtained in the previous studies in which participants provided ratings of typicality (.95 for intimacy,.84 for agreement,.79 for independence, and.89 for sexuality). Validity analyses As expected, the more strongly the four relationship quality dimensions were present in a relationship, the greater the satisfaction. This relation was most pronounced for intimacy (r =.78, p <.001), followed by agreement 8. An item by item comparison reveals nearly no overlap between the 64 features of relationship quality and the seven RAS items. Only one item (the rating of love) is represented in the 64 relationship quality features. This conceptual independence makes the RAS an appropriate measure for validating the four factors of relationship quality. (r =.75,p <.001), sexuality (r =.57, p <.001), and independence (r =.46, p <.001). When other researchers (e.g., Acker & Davis, 1992; Aron & Westbay, 1996) have correlated measures of intimacy and passion (similar to our sexuality factor) with satisfaction, they too have found that intimacy is more highly correlated with satisfaction than is passion. Our results suggest a reason for this pattern, namely that laypeople regard intimacy as more indicative of relationship quality than passion. Finally, a multiple regression analysis showed that the four scales together account for 70.9% of the variability of relationship satisfaction judgments. The validity of the scales was further demonstrated by the finding that the more intimacy (r =.62, p <.001), agreement (r =.41, p <.001), and sexuality (r =.30, p <.01) were present in their current relationship, the less attractive were alternative relationships. Ratings of importance of the relationship also were positively and significantly correlated with intimacy, agreement, and sexuality (rs =.53,.36,.21, respectively). Similarly, the greater the frequency of mutual activities and the greater the strength of the attachment, the stronger the relation with these three dimensions (mutual activities: rs =.27,.52,.25; strength of attachment: rs =.52,.33,.23, in the order of intimacy, agreement, and sexuality). The absence of significant correlations between independence and these variables is quite conspicuous and can perhaps be attributed to the fact that those in an unsatisfying relationship have already to some extent freed themselves from their partner and therefore also report a large amount of independence. Substantial correlations also were found between the four dimensions and scales measuring related relationship constructs in our Canadian data. The more that intimacy, agreement, independence, and sexuality were present in a relationship (rs =.58,.54,.41,.40, respectively), the more committed participants were to the relationship. They reported more love (rs =.79,.72,.52,.55) and more trust in their partner (rs =.57,.53,.54,.49) the more the four dimensions were characteristic of their relationship. Overall, the data support

14 266 the validity of the four relationship quality scales. Gender differences In our first two studies, we found that women regarded intimacy as more central to a good relationship than did men, whereas men regarded sexuality as more central than did women. We therefore expected, and found, that intimacy and satisfaction were more strongly linked for women than for men (r =.80 vs..76), and that sexuality and satisfaction were more highly correlated for men than for women (r =.58 vs..55). Finally, various authors (e.g., Acitelli, 1992; Kurdek, 1993) have noted that women appear to be better barometers of a relationship than are men, possibly due to their more realistic relationship beliefs (Frazier & Esterly, 1990; Sprecher & Metts, 1989). Consistent with the idea that women are better predictors of relationship outcomes, multiple regression analyses showed that women s ratings of intimacy, agreement, independence, and sexuality accounted for 74.9% of their relationship satisfaction, whereas men s ratings on the four scales accounted only for 63.9% of their relationship satisfaction. Note that this finding is not attributable to differences in mean relationship quality (Mult. F(4, 252) = 2.31, p >.05) or variances. Changes in the dimensions of relationship quality A dimensional analysis of relationship quality can provide insight into the dynamics of relationship development. For example, global evaluations of relationship satisfaction could remain unchanged as a relationship develops, despite changes in the relative contribution of the four underlying factors. To explore this line of reasoning, we divided our married participants into two subgroups and distinguished relatively new relationships (married up to two years) from more established ones. The two groups did not, in fact, differ in terms of relationship satisfaction (t(179) =.33, p >.35), but they did differ significantly in terms of intimacy (t(180) = 2.69, p <.008) and sexuality (t(180) = 2.55, p <.012), M. Hassebrauck and B. Fehr with newlyweds scoring higher on these dimensions. 9 In conclusion, the results from this study indicate that people can reliably rate their own relationships in terms of the four dimensions found to underlie the lay conception of relationship quality. Internal consistencies of scales were comparable to those obtained in our previous studies. The present findings also provide important new validity information. The greater the resemblance between one s own relationship and the prototype of relationship quality, the more positive the evaluation of the relationship in terms of satisfaction, importance, strength of attachment to the partner, and the like (cf. Hassebrauck & Aron, 2001, for a discussion of prototype matching in close relationships). General Discussion The central goal of these studies was to identify dimensions that underlie the prototype of relationship quality, confirm their structure, and test the validity of the scales constructed on the basis of these dimensions. In Study 1, a four-factorial structure with the factors intimacy, agreement, independence, and sexuality was found. This structure was confirmed in Study 2 with an older, more diverse, community sample, and in Study 3 with a university student sample from another country. The dimensional structure of relationship quality proved to be remarkably robust, given the age and relationship status differences in the samples, possible ambiguities due to translation of the items into another language, and so on. Of course, one might object that all of our confirmatory analyses are based on the same set of 64 items, and thus these analyses reveal more about those items than about the underlying structure of relationship quality. However, as already mentioned, one of the confirmatory analyses was based on a trans- 9. We are aware that relationship duration and age of participants are confounded in this analysis. Longitudinal research is required to further explore the effect of relationship duration on relationship quality dimensions.

15 Dimensions of relationship quality 267 lated version of the original items, and despite possible differences in meaning, the same factorial structure was found. Moreover, a recent study using different items and children and adolescents as participants produced the same four-factor structure (Fleer, Klein- Heßling, & Hassebrauck, 2002). Thus, we are convinced that intimacy, agreement, independence, and sexuality represent the core of relationship quality. This conviction is bolstered by the fact that the dimensions of relationship quality found here correspond in content with those that other researchers have identified as important for love and romantic relationships. The intimacy dimension is prominent in the triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986) and is an element of the prototype of love (Aron & Westbay, 1996; Fehr, 1988). The agreement dimension is represented in the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) and other relationship quality scales (e.g., Rofe, 1988; Snyder, 1979). Sexuality is similar to Sternberg s passion component and also is an element of the prototype of love (Fehr, 1988). On the other hand, independence seems to be a dimension whose meaning has only become clear through the analysis of laypersons concepts of relationship quality performed in these studies. 10 Relative importance of the four dimensions of relationship quality Importantly, our results suggest that some dimensions are more central to relationship quality than others. In each study, intimacy consistently received the highest ratings. Further, intimacy showed the highest correlations with relationship satisfaction. These findings held across countries and across sex (although women rated the intimacy factor higher than did men, both sexes assigned the highest rating to this factor). Why might intimacy play such a central role in people s conception of relationship quality and in their 10. All of the results are based on samples from Western, individualistic cultures, and it is possible that people from collectivistic cultures would place less importance on the independence dimension. We are currently investigating a Turkish sample to explore this issue. evaluations of whether they are in a good relationship? According to Reis and Patrick (1996), intimacy is the process by which people come to feel understood, validated, and cared for in a relationship (p. 536). These are fundamental human needs that are likely to be fulfilled by the kinds of behaviors and interactions depicted in our intimacy factor. For example, the features that received the highest loadings in our factor analyses were: taking time for each other, talking with each other, empathy, listening to each other, taking interest in the partner, consideration, and so forth. To the extent that a relationship is characterized by these kinds of interactions, the relationship is likely to be construed as exemplifying the prototype of relationship quality and to be judged as highly satisfying. This is not to say that the other factors do not contribute to relationship quality. However, our results indicate they are not as central to relationship quality as is intimacy. Interestingly, people place the least importance on harmony-seeking, similarity in goals, and few conflicts, even though agreement was more highly correlated with satisfaction in our studies than were sexuality and independence. It is well-established that similarity is an important predictor of both initial attraction and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Byrne, 1971; Levinger & Breedlove, 1966; Neimeyer & Mitchell, 1988; Newcomb, 1961). The fact that laypeople assign the lowest ranking to this dimension suggests that they may not be aware just how important a role similarity plays in their own relationships. 11 Finally, as already mentioned, correlations with satisfaction (and other relationship variables) were lowest for the sexuality and independence factors. It would appear that neither of these, on its own, is likely to 11. Folk expressions such as opposites attract may obscure the contribution similarity makes to relationship satisfaction. Research also shows that agreement or similarity allows for smooth, enjoyable interactions (e.g., Burleson, 1994). The fact that interactions are pleasurable and that the partners share similar goals and dreams might well contribute to relationship satisfaction without the partners conscious awareness that similarity is producing these positive effects.