Copyright by DEBRA HEGI 1979

STRENGTHENING THE INTERPERSONAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS

OF SINGLE FEMALES THROUGH RELATIONSHIP

ENHANCEMENT TRAINING

by

DEBRA HEGI, B. S . in H.E., M.S . in H.E.

A DISSERTATION

IN

HOME ECONOMICS

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Par tial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

I /7 •

rt

---:, r7r,...--,------::;~,..-:7r-----

< • - tre:: .... .....

Accepted

Dean of- the G~~~~S~h~~l

August , 1979

ACKNOWLE DGMENT S

I want to express my sincerest appreciation to Dr.

Arthur W. Avery for his continual direction, suggestions,

and encouragement as my dissertation advisor. His insights

and advice have been extremely conducive to my growth as a

professional.

Sincere thanks is also extended to Dr. Nancy Bell,

Dr. Harvey Joanning, Dr. Jeanette Coufal, and Dr. Gerald

Parr for their involvement and interest as dissertation

committee members.

Finally, I am most grateful for the constant encourage­

ment and continual support of my family and friends during

this experience.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT v

LIST OF TABLES vi

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Needs and Concerns of Single Females 5

Interpersonal Support Systems as Coping Mechanisms 9

General Use of Support Systems 9

Women as Support Systems 11

Single Women as Support Systems 13

Difficulties in Maintaining Interpersonal Support Systems 14 Previous Efforts to Facilitate the Development

of Interpersonal Support Systems 18

Hypotheses 22

II. METHODS 23

Subjects 23

Dependent Variables 24

Procedure 25

Pretreatment and Posttreatment Assessment 25

Measurement of Dependent Variables 2 6

Couples Communication Rating Scale 26

Relationship Change Scale 27 Acquaintance Description Form. 28

111

Experimental and Control Group Treatment 2 9

Training Program 30

Session I 30

Session II 31

Session III 31

Session IV 31

III. RESULTS 32

Level of Communication Skills 32

Relationship Change 33

Friendship Strength 33

IV. DISCUSSION 35

Summary of Results 35

Implications 37

Limitations and Suggestions for Future

Research 39

REFERENCE NOTES 4 2

REFERENCES 44

APPENDIX 53

A. PROGRAM PUBLICITY 54

B. DESCRIPTIVE DATA ON SUBJECTS 56

C. COUPLES COMMUNICATION RATING SCALE 58

D. RELATIONSHIP CHANGE SCALE 60

E. ACQUAINTANCE DESCRIPTION FORM 64 F. ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE SUMMARY TABLES 7 2

IV

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present study was to assess the

effects of relationship enhancement training on the level

of communication skills, amount of relationship change,

and friendship strength of single female friendship pairs.

Specifically, it was hypothesized that friendship pairs

receiving relationship enhancement skills training, rela­

tive to the untrained control group, would demonstrate

significant increases in: (a) level of communication

skills, (b) perceived amount of relationship change, and

(c) perceived amount of friendship strength. Pairs of

single female friends who indicated an interest in the

program were randomly assigned to an experimental group

(N = 16) or to a control group (N = 22). The experimental

group participated in a four-week, 12-hour, relationship

enhancement skills training program while the control

group received no training. Results indicated that the

experimental group, relative to the control group, signifi­

cantly increased in level of communication skills and per­

ceived amount of relationship change. No differences were

found between the two groups on perceived amount of friend­

ship strength. Discussion centered on: (a) some probable

factors contributing to the indicated results, (b) limita­

tions and implications of the study, and (c) suggestions

for future research.

V

LIST OF TABLES

1. Means, Adjusted Means, and Standard Deviations for the Couples Communication Rating Scale 32

2. Means, Adjusted Means, and Standard Deviations for the Relationship Change Scale 33

3. Means, Adjusted Means, and Standard Deviations

for the Total Friendship Scale 34

APPENDIX TABLES

4. Descriptive Data on Subjects 57

5. Analysis of Covariance Summary Table on the Couples Communication Rating Scale 73

6. Analysis of Covariance Summary Table on the Relationship Change Scale 73

7. Analysis of Covariance Summary Table on the Total Friendship Scale 7 3

VI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

According to recent reports by the Bureau of the Census

(1977, 1978), 19 million single women (i.e., never-married,

divorced, or widowed) over the age of 2 4 live in the United

States. Approximately 19 million American households are

being maintained by single women. The 7.7 million family

households headed by nonmarried women have increased by

46 percent since 1970. Within these family households, about

10 million children (16 percent of all children) are living

in families with no father present. These figures have been

growing steadily and appear to have increased sharply since

1970 (Bernard, 1975).

This increase in the single female population has been

precipitated by a variety of factors. Changing trends in

population proportions and marriage patterns constitute one

major source of change. Demographic data indicate a rise

in the average age at which women marry, from 20.8 in 1970

to 21.6 in 1977. Higher divorce rates (a 79 percent increase

since 1970) have also resulted in larger percentages of

single women. Women wait longer than men to remarry after

a divorce and more wom.en than men choose never to remarry

(Bureau of the Census, 1977). Singlehood after the death of

a spouse is also experienced more frequently by women than

by men (Libby & Whitehurst, 1977). More women are now

opting to remain single longer or to stay single permanently

(Bernard, 197 5). Other women never marry because of the

disproportionate number of men to women and the unavail­

ability of suitable partners for many women of higher in­

telligence, educational background, and occupational status

(Click, 1975; Spreitzer & Riley, 1974).

Increased alternatives for women have also prompted a

rise in the single female population. Due to the women's

movement and other sociological influences, single women

have more access than ever before to economic, employment,

and educational opportunities. In her discussion of the

single woman in today's society, Adams (1971) concluded

that singleness affords greater freedom to take advantage

of new opportunities for employment, mobility, travel,

recreation, and education. In addition, she proposed that

single women are able to be more involved in relationships

with others and in society at large. She later interviewed

27 single women and reported findings which lend support to

her original propositions (Adams, 1976). These women viewed

themselves as having more time than their married counter­

parts to develop personal goals, skills, and talents. They

also perceived their lifestyles as providing more freedom

to make unilateral decisions, more opportunity to try new

experiences, and more privacy to think and create.

Similar conclusions were reported by Stein (1975) as a

result of his interviews with a singles' sample of 10 men

and 10 women. These subjects had purposely decided not to

marry or remarry because of the benefits of singlehood.

Included in these benefits were greater career opportunities,

exposure to varied experiences, economic independence, sexual

availability, and enjoyment of a wider range of friendships.

Positive changes in social attitudes toward singleness

as a viable lifestyle have also encouraged some women to

stay single rather than to marry (Stein, 1975). This atti-

tudinal shift may be due, in part, to an emerging acceptance

of those who choose any form of alternative lifestyle (Libby

& Whitehurst, 1977). What appears to be growing skepticism

and disillusionment toward marriage has also prompted many

to consider singleness as a life choice. Singles who had

deliberately chosen singlehood over marriage or remarriage

reported doing so partly because of their negative attitudes

toward marriage (Stein, 1975) . Included in these "pushes"

away from marriage toward singlehood were limits to freedom

and growth, isolationism because of relationship exclusive-

ness, and restricted opportunities. Interviews of 27 women

done by Bequaert (1977) revealed that these individuals had

actively chosen to remain single as their preferred alterna­

tive. Such a positive change in attitudes toward the un­

married state is in sharp contrast to an earlier report by

Kuhn (1955) who discussed failure to marry mostly in terms

of individual inadequacy or situational misfortune. As the

rewards of singleness are discovered and realized, however,

this lifestyle may continue to attract others as a popular

and positive alternative.

Regardless of the multiplicity of variables contributing

to the rise in the number of single females, this group con­

stitutes a substantial portion of the present United States

population. Ironically, social scientists have given little

attention to the needs and characteristics of this growing

segment of American society (Adams, 1976; Stein, 1975). In

a recent selective review of literature on singles, Libby

and Whitehurst (1977) found that little work has been under­

taken in the area of singlehood. Duberman (1977) has sug­

gested that social scientists are as culture bound as the

general population and tend to study groups which fall within

cultural norms. Perhaps for this reason serious investiga­

tions on the nature and concerns of the singles' population

have been limited. Hopefully the rising proportion of single

women will attract the attention of researchers and stimu­

late greater involvement in the study of this group. Even

though many of the pulls toward singlehood appear positive,

this group is beset with critical needs and problems about

which little is understood and less has been done (Edwards,

1977).

Needs and Concerns of Single Females

Many of the problems of single women are associated

with social practices and attitudes. In a historical summary

of the status of the unmarried in this country, Schwartz and

Wolf (1976) described the social attitudes and treatment of

single adults. They indicated that singles have tradition­

ally been viewed as: (a) deviant and incomplete, (b) lacking

full adult status and maturity, and (c) a threat to married

partners.

Although the single lifestyle is gaining some acceptance

in contemporary society, singles are still widely stereotyped

and stigmatized. Stein (1976) described two common stereo-

types of singles held by many individuals, including singles

themselves: (a) the "swinging singles," and (b) the "lonely

losers." He commented further that:

Single men and women are either "with it" or "out

of it." While such stereotypes may be useful to

sell products, to show on television commercials,

and as subject matter for novels and movies, they

neither help us to understand the lives of singles,

nor do they help singles themselves to deal real­

istically with their lives, (p. 3)

Edwards (1977) made similar observations:

One of the greatest challenges is trying to remain

single in a pressure-to-pair society that views the

uncoupled as either selfish, irresponsible, impotent,

frigid, hedonistic, immature, or a combination of

these, (p. 542)

Social prejudice against singles is still occasionally

communicated directly through demands for conformity to

social expectation and through economic discrimination (Stein,

1976). More often, however, it is transmitted subtly by a

lack of acceptance and understanding or through pressure to

marry (Edwards, 1977; Frieze, Parsons, Johnson, Ruble, &

Zellman, 1978). Even social and religious institutions which

are supposedly responsive to human concerns have historically

ignored the needs of single individuals and have at times

been antagonistic toward the divorced. Although these in­

stitutions are slowly becoming more aware of and involved

with singles, many of the programs and services which they

offer continue to be couple and family oriented (Edwards,

1977) .

In addition to facing social prejudice because of their

nontraditional lifestyles, single women must also contend

with the pressures associated with the changing roles of

women in general (Frieze et al., 1978). Marecek and Kravetz

(1977) proposed that social, political, and economic condi­

tions resulting from a traditional culture have been psycho­

logically harmful to women in nontraditional roles. These

role conflicts have in fact increased for women in recent

years (Gove & Tudor, 1972).

Indeed, sex-role deviations and conflicts appear to be

particularly stressful to women and such stress is believed

to be partially responsible for an increase in depressive

symptoms and other mental health concerns among this popula­

tion (Guttentag & Salasin, 1977; Hyde & Rosenberg, 1976).

Guttentag and Salasin (1977) predicted that the highest

rates of depression among women are to be found in those

groups facing the greatest number of life stresses and having

the fewest coping resources. Such high stress-low resource

groups include single mothers with low incomes. Never-

married women, on the ohter hand, may be less affected by

such role stress. Baker (1968), for example, found no sig­

nificant differences between the personal and social adjust­

ment of 38 married and 38 never-married women. Spreitzer

and Riley (1974) reported several significant factors which

predispose women to never marry, including: (a) higher

levels of intelligence, (b) higher levels of education, and

(c) a higher occupational status. The severity of the ef­

fects of sex-role deviation and the resulting stress and

depression for single women appear to be largely due to the

extent of stress and the availability of coping resources

and other sources of support.

In addition to depression and stress, single women are

often confronted with other emotional and interpersonal

concerns. As a result of extensive interviews with many

8

singles. Stein (1976) concluded that "the fear of loneliness

is the major problem single people confront" (p. 99). Lack

of social acceptance often generates feelings of inadequacy,

unacceptability, and low self-esteem (Adams, 1971). Singles

sometimes find themselves without a sense of social identity

and with no access to a solid social support group (Edwards,

1977). Women who find themselves single as a result of

divorce or of the death of a spouse are especially vulnerable

and sometimes face almost insurmountable financial, social,

and emotional difficulties (Bequaert, 1976). Additional

stress is created for many women when they suddenly discover

themselves alone in the job of parenting (Edwards, 1977).

Nickols (1979) noted that:

Single-parent households tend to bear more than

the ordinary economic, social, educational, and

psychological burdens. Single parents often ex­

press doubts about their ability to rear their

children adequately, "make ends meet" financially,

fit into the activities of a neighborhood and

community, and establish appropriate family goals.

These problems may be even more burdensome for the

single mother because of the drastic changes in

her lifestyle, (p. 40)

Obviously, single women must contend with a life situation

which is frequently beset with uncertainty and inconsistency

with regard to social, emotional, and sexual need gratifi­

cation.

Slow recognition of these circumstances which confront

contemporary single women has prompted some attempts to

understand and alleviate these concerns and problems. Some

attempts have been made to utilize significant others in the

social environment of the single to provide assistance and

need satisfaction (Stein, 1975). The use of such interper­

sonal support systems as coping mechanisms has gained recent

attention as an effective intervention strategy for many

diverse groups (Caplan, 1974; Gillies, 1976; Jacobs &

Spradlin, 1974; Rueveni, 1979; Tolsdorf, 1976).

Interpersonal Support Systems as Coping Mechanisms

General use of support systems. Functional interper­

sonal support systems appear to have a crucial impact on an

individual's adjustment throughout the life cycle. Psycho­

logical well-being and life satisfaction for persons of all

ages have been associated with the existence of a stable

pool of friends with whom one is involved on a continual

basis (Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976; Fischer, Jackson,

Stueve, Gersen, Jones, & Baldassare, 1977; Guerney, 1977).

Wood (1976) administered questionnaires to 258 males and

females of varying ages to examine dimensions of social

identity. He found that loneliness was inversely related

10

to the number of both intimate and public contacts maintained

by the individual. Caplan (1974) proposed that the capacity

to handle stress depended on the effectiveness of an indi­

vidual's social support structures. Similarly, Rueveni

(197 9) contended that:

Our lives, well-being, and ability to function

on a daily basis depend on the quality and ade­

quacy of our social support systems and on our

ability to mobilize these systems, particularly

during crises, (p. 19)

Other investigators have reported findings which sub­

stantiate the need for functional friendships at specific

life stages. Shulman (1975) used structured interviews to

collect social network data from 347 respondents at various

stages in the life cycle. As a total group, these subjects

indicated that, in descending order, friends (44.9%), kin

(40.8%), and neighbors (14.4%) constituted their social net­

works. Shulman also noted that, although life cycle varia­

tions did exist in the nature of close relationships,

subjects at each life stage utilized their social support

systems to provide for various needs. Among the aged, the

presence of a confidant was determined to be a crucial

factor in easing major life transitions (Lowanthal & Haven,

1968), especially for older women (Powers & Bultena, 1976).

Middle age men and women who were married and/or had families

11

were less likely to have or to use friendship networks out­

side of kin relationships (Booth & Hess, 1974; Edwards,

1977; Shulman, 1975). Single adults appear to make extensive

use of friends for a variety of reasons including support,

companionship, problem-solving, and emotional strength

(Adams, 1976; Armstrong, 1969; Merrill, 1974; Peters &

Kennedy, 1970; Stein, 1976).

Much has been written about the general need for effec­

tive networks of friends. The pervasive impact of friendship

on the total life satisfaction and functioning of an individ­

ual has, in fact, generated substantial interest among the

general public. This interest is being reflected by the

numerous articles appearing in popular magazines written

for the lay person (Brain, 1977; Crawford, 1977; "Friendship:

An Inquiry, " 1979; Lair, 1978) . No doubt such public inter­

est may prompt investigators to continue research efforts in

the area of interpersonal support networks.

Women as support systems. Women appear to be both par­

ticularly dependent upon and involved in supportive networks

of other women. Results from a sample of 337 women indicated

that women who lacked an intimate confidant had more severe

psychological symptoms than those who had an intimate friend

(McC. Miller & Ingham, 1976). Davidson (1978) reported that

women provide significant therapeutic support for one another

12

and make important contributions to each other's personal

growth, interpersonal support, and behavioral change.

Middle-age women indicated a special need for support net­

works to cope with life crises that occur during this time

period (Gibbs, 1977; Robertson, 1978). Candy (Note 1)

administered questionnaires to 337 men and women of varying

ages to examine the functions of friendships. She found

that women viewed friends as providing intimacy and assis­

tance more often than did men. In addition, these women

considered their friends to be sources of influence, infor­

mation, status, and self-esteem.

Research also seems to substantiate the tendency for

women to be more involved than men in providing support for

one another. Weiss and Lowenthal (1975) found that women

had a greater number of friends and that the majority of

their closest friends were of the same sex. Likewise,

Wheeler and Nezlek (1977) found that college females report

more satisfaction with and express more intimacy in their

same-sex interactions than do males. Women who are 70 years

old and older appear to be more likely than men to have an

intimate friend (Powers & Bultena, 1976). Women's friend­

ships on the whole, based on these studies and others, appear

to be qualitatively deeper and closer than those of men

(Booth, 1972; Merrill, 1974; Weiss & Lowentxhal, 1975).

13

Single women as support systems. In regard to inter­

personal support systems, single women seem to be especially

dependent on other unmarried females to exchange support and

to fulfill needs (Bequaert, 1976). The 105 never-married

and divorced women in Stein's (1976) interviewed sample

seemed more likely than the single men to be integrated into

support networks. Spanier and Casto (Note 2) found an inverse

relationship between adjustment problems and amount of social

interaction outside the home. As a result of her interviews

with 27 women in all categories of singlehood, Bequaert

(1976) concluded that single women establish friendships

with other unmarried females in order to exchange support

and other resources. She elaborated:

Now we are seeing more and more single women

joining together, actively forming new kinds

of social supports and networks that are adapted

to their new lifestyles and their own needs.

(p- 85)

The tendency for single females to maintain interpersonal

support systems composed largely of other single women is

also reinforced by the friendship patterns of married indi­

viduals. Married couples are most likely to have primarily

married friends (Albert & Brigante, 1962; Verbrugge, 1977) ,

to have couple friends (Edwards & Booth, 197 3), or to have

few friends outside of the marriage (Shulman, 1975).

14

In summary, it seems that the utilization of interper­

sonal support systems contributes significantly to multiple

need fulfillment for many individuals. The existing research

indicates that women are especially involved in and needful

of effective support systems and that these systems most

often tend to be composed of other women. In reference to

single women, the maintenance of functional support networks

appears to be of critical importance. Although such support

systems can potentially facilitate the adjustment of women

to a single lifestyle, many females apparently have diffi­

culties in forming and maintaining such a system due to a

variety of social and interpersonal factors.

Difficulties in Maintaining Inter­personal Support Systems

The contemporary American social structure continues

to impose subtle values and restraints on who may befriend

whom. Albert and Brigante (1962) noted that the social

structure "has been broadly conceived as the framework which

defines and delineates the range of friendships available

to an individual" (p. 45). Verbrugge (1977) reported that

adult friendships appear to be stratified with respect to

age, sex, and marital status. Single women, then, may be

faced with a reduced pool of potential friends because of

their sex as well as their single status. The results of

interviews with 800 men and women 45 years of age or older

15

indicated that these women perceived themselves as having

fewer opportunities than men and more constraints in forming

cross-sex friendships (Booth & Hess, 1974). In addition,

because of the low status often given to friendship in this

culture (Brain, 1976), even friendships with other single

women may create problems and uncertainty (Brenton, 1974) .

Adams (1971) remarked:

Friendships with other single women may be prob­

lematic if the relationship is being used for com­

panionship and emotional support only as a stopgap

to ward off loneliness and fill the time until a

more rewarding relationsip with a man comes along.

(p. 780)

The single woman's source of potential friends may also

dwindle for other reasons. When friends marry and become

involved with families, they often terminate contact (Adams,

1976). Spanier and Casto (Note 2) reported that from their

sample of 50 divorcees, approximately 47 percent with close

friends during their marriage believed they grew away from

these friends after separation. Older women may lose friends

through death or illness and many older singles do not re­

formulate close friendships (Powers & Bultena, 1976). In

this increasingly mobile society single women frequently

m.ove away from relatives (Edwards, 1977) as well as from

friends (Fischer et al., 1977).

16

Other difficulties in maintaining functional support

systems are related to the single woman's orientation and

level of skills in building meaningful relationships. It

seems that unmarried females must possess an active orienta­

tion toward developing significant relationships (Adams,

1971, 1976). Without the support systems usually created by

marriage, single women often have to exert more time and

energy to form their own group of supportive individuals.

In a national survey on attitudes toward friendship, Phillips

and Metzger (197 6) noted that few individuals possess the

deliberateness necessary to develop friendships to the level

of intimacy necessary for significant need satisfaction.

Certainly few single females appear to be able to exert this

kind of deliberateness and control (Adams, 1976; Stein, 1976).

Furthermore, existing research suggests that many individuals

lack the communication skills needed to enhance existing re­

lationships (Guerney, 1977; Olson, 1976). Although friend­

ship has been theorized to provide therapeutic support,

evidence indicates that many friends lack the ability to

convey empathy or to intervene effectively (Armstrong, 1964;

Reiseman & Yamokski, 1974; Shofield, 1964). In their study

of friendship development Phillips and Metzger (1976)

recommended:

From this point, the next step is to seek methods

and means by which relationships can be improved.

17

By working on goal setting, and training people

to establish concrete and finite goals for their

own behavior, individuals can be helped not only

to make new friends but to do a more satisfactory

job in maintaining the ones they have. (p. 267)

Such training in relationship enhancement skills would seem

necessary and facilitative in helping single women to develop

more functional interpersonal support systems.

In short, the increasing number of single women in this

country have many unique needs due, in part, to their non-

traditional lifestyles. Only recently has society begun to

analyze and respond to the concerns of this group. For many

women, a number of these needs are met by involvement in sup­

portive networks of other women. Although single women seek

such involvement, social barriers, restricted opportunities,

and their own lack of deliberateness and adequate communica­

tion skills disallow maximum utilization of their social

support systems. One productive approach to intervening with

this population would involve helping them to learn skills

and strategies to strengthen their existing interpersonal

support systems. Although some efforts have been made in

this regard, an examination of such previous attempts reveals

several deficiencies in these programs.

18

Previous Efforts to Facilitate the Development of Interpersonal Support Systems

The structure and outcome of a few relationship or per­

sonal adjustment oriented programs designed for women and

for singles have been reported. Most of the existing pro­

grams for women have focused on encouraging self-help, devel­

oping assertiveness skills, or promoting consciousness-

raising (Bequaert, 1976; Glaser, 1976; Hartsook, Olch, &

de V7olf, 1976; Marecek & Kravetz, 1977) . Edwards (1977)

described a 2-day workshop designed to promote positive

adjustment to singlehood. In regard to divorcees, reported

programs include seminars on resource management for single

parents (Nickols, 1977), postdivorce adjustment (Welch &

Branvold, 1977), and preparation for remarriage (Messinger,

1976). Barrett (1978) and Hiltz (1975) have also described

programs which utilize groups of widows to provide support

and to facilitate adjustment for those persons who have lost

a spouse.

Apparently, little has been done in the way of develop­

ing relationship enhancement programs for single women,

especially in contrast to the numerous training programs

available for premarital and marital couples and families

(Gurman & Kniskern, 1977; Olton, 1976; Otto, 1976). Most

reported programs, in fact, have limitations which would

tend to hinder their effectiveness from an interpersonal

19

support systems approach. These limitations included:

(a) groups composed of previously unaffiliated individuals,

(b) an unstructured program format, (c) a remedial focus,

(d) presentation of isolated skills, and (e) little empirical

investigation of training outcome.

It would seem that a more logical and effective inter­

vention procedure would include some significant alterations

in what has previously been done in reported programs for

single females. First, some portion of the participant's

existing social network should be included in the training

program. In discussing strategies for increasing the general­

ization and maintenance of newly learned communication skills,

Coufal, Vogelsong, and Guerney (Note 3) recommended that sig­

nificant others be trained in the same skills. Attneave

(1976) described the process of network intervention and

noted the importance of including individuals in these pro­

grams who have relationships with one another rather than

pooling groups of "intimate strangers." Second, there ap­

pears to be an increased need for greater structure in train­

ing programs for single women. Bequaert (1976) noted:

Many women's groups have been formed along these

lines . . . but some of the groups have found that

the leaderless format and unstructured discussions

have been confusing and unproductive. Differences

in lifestyles, class backgrounds, and levels of

20

ability to verbalize can add to the dissatisfaction;

rapping is not enough, (p. 149)

Third, an educational and preventive approach would seem to

provide a positive framework for the development of programs

for unmarried women. Again, in regard to counseling services

for single women, Bequaert concluded:

The educative role of counseling, both for practi­

tioners and clients, has certainly been neglected

in the mental health movement, as has the building

of support networks where people can identify

sources of help and new skills without the stigma

of being a "mental patient" or a "failure." (p. 141)

A training program for single females designed to

strengthen interpersonal support systems and to incorporate

the above-mentioned recommendations for change has not been

reported. One existing program, however, appears potentially

promising for single female participants.

The Couples Communication program (CC) was developed to

"encourage personal and relationship growth by increasing

competence in interpersonal communication" (Nunnally, Miller,

& Wackman, 1977, p. 1-1). This program uses a structured

educational approach to enhance the relationship between two

individuals committed to ongoing involvement with each other.

The principles underlying the program include:

1. An educational-developmental orientation

21

2. Focus on the dyadic system

3. Skill oriented

4. Presentation of conceptual frameworks

5. Voluntarism and participant choice

6. Group context as learning environment

(Miller, Nunnally, & Wackman, 1976a, pp. 24-29)

Research on the Couples Communication program involving

premarital and marital couples has indicated that CC signifi­

cantly increases: (a) couples' accuracy of recalling an

interaction pattern (Nunnally, 1971), (b) systematic work

patterns (Miller, 1971) , (c) self-reported communication

effectiveness (Campbell, 1974), (d) self-disclosure (Campbell,

1971), (e) self-acceptance (Schwager & Conrad, Note 4), and

(f) acceptance of others (Schwager & Conrad, Note 4). Al­

though the program was originally developed to train any

pairs of individuals involved in a significant relationship,

only research with premarital and marital couples has been

reported.

Involvement of pairs of single female friends in the

Couples Communication program appears to be a logical method

of strengthening their interpersonal support systems. Al­

though pairs of friends only constitute a small portion of

the individual's social network, initial efforts at this

level would certainly seem to constitute a significant be­

ginning in network intervention. Since women tend to

22

interact in dyads as opposed to groups (Candy, Note 1), per­

haps the dyad is the most appropriate social unit with which

to intervene. Female friends involved in this type of inter­

vention program may learn a variety of communication skills

more effectively because of the presence of a significant

other with whom to practice relevant issues. Involvement

in the program together may also increase the likelihood that

the existing relationship would change in positive ways. In

addition, it may help to strengthen the interpersonal support

systems of these women and create the possibility of greater

need satisfaction.

Hypotheses

In an effort to strengthen the interpersonal support

systems of single females, the present study evaluated the

outcome of a relationship enhancement program for single

female friendship pairs. Specifically the following hypoth­

eses were tested.

Single females completing a relationship enhancement

program in friendship pairs, relative to single female

friendship pairs receiving no training, will demonstrate:

(1) a significant increase in communication skills;

(2) a significant increase in the amount of perceived

relationship change; and,

(3) a significant increase in the perceived strength

of the friendship.

CHAPTER II

METHODS

Subjects

Female friendship pairs who desired to increase their

communication skills and enhance their relationship served

as the subjects for this study. The subjects were recruited

from a large southwestern city by way of radio and newspaper

announcements. Additional publicity for the program was

done through the distribution of pamphlets to community and

church organizations which had a significant single female

membership (Appendix A). The first 24 interested friendship

dyads who registered for the program were randomly assigned

to experimental and control groups. Of the original 12

pairs in the experimental group, four pairs did not complete

the training program due to one partner having unresolvable

time conflicts in two cases, one partner leaving town in­

definitely in one case, and one partner getting married in

one case. Consequently, the experimental group consisted of

eight female pairs with a mean age of 31.88 (ranging from 19

to 43). The mean number of children for this group was 1.19,

Five of the individuals had previous training in communica­

tion skills. Of the original 12 pairs in the control group,

one pair was not available for posttesting due to one partne;

leaving town for an extended period of time. The remaining

23

24

control group consisted of 11 female pairs with a mean age

of 32.37 (ranging from 20 to 60). The mean number of chil­

dren for this group was 1.23. Three of the individuals had

previous training in communication skills. Additional de­

scriptive information on all subjects is presented in Table 4,

Appendix B.

T-tests between the experimental and control groups at

pretest were performed on several demographic variables

including: (a) age, (b) level of education, (c) amount of

income, (d) friendship status of partner, and (e) length of

friendship with partner. No significant differences between

the two groups were found on these variables.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables in the present study were:

(a) level of communication skills, (b) amount of relationship

change, and (c) strength of the friendship. Level of com­

munication skill was determined by the extent to which each

dyad member used a congruent and complete communication style.

Amount of relationship change was defined as the degree to

which each individual preceived a change in the relationship

with her partner in the areas of satisfaction, communication,

trust, closeness, sensitivity, openness, and understanding.

Strength of the friendship was determined by the degree to

which the individuals were voluntarily interdependent and

perceived each other as unique and irreplaceable.

25

Procedure

Pretreatment and posttreatment assessment. Two weeks

prior to the program and within two weeks after the end of

the program, subjects in both the experimental and control

groups participated in an audio-taped discussion and also

completed two written questionnaires, the Relationship Change

Scale (Guerney, 1977) and the Acquaintance Description Form

(Wright, 1974; Note 5). The taped discussions were used to

measure the subjects' behavioral level of communication

skills while the written measures were used to assess each

subject's perceived amount of relationship change and her

estimation of the present strength of the existing rela­

tionship.

For taping purposes, each pair of female friends was

asked to discuss a relationship issue for approximately

10 minutes. At pretest, the subjects were given the follow­

ing instructions:

We would like to record a segment of the way in

which you typically communicate with each other.

During the next 10 minutes, please discuss things

that you like about the other or things that each

of you does that pleases the other. Express your­

self as completely and congruently as possible and

also try to understand what your partner is saying.

We will stop you at the end of 10 minutes.

26

At posttest, the subjects were given the following instruc­

tions :

We would like to record a segment of the way in

which you typically communicate with each other.

During the next 10 minutes, please discuss the

positive aspects of your relationship and the

things each of you could do to improve it. Ex­

press yourself as completely and congruently as

possible and also try to understand what your

partner is saying. We will stop you at the end

of 10 minutes.

Measurement of Dependent Variables

Couples Communication Rating Scale (Appendix C). The

Couples Communication Rating Scale (Joanning, Note 6) was

selected to measure the friendship pairs' behavioral inter­

action on the audio tapes. The 5-point scale was designed

to assess each individual's use of a complete and congruent

communication style within a committed relationship. A high

scale score indicated frequent use of complete and congruent

communication with high self-disclosure and positive emo­

tional tone. A low scale score indicated infrequent use

of such communication with low self-disclosure and a nega­

tive emotional tone. Face validity was established by an

examination of the descriptive content of each scale level

by the developer of the Couples Communication program

(Miller, Note 7).

Two female graduate students were employed to rate the

pretest and posttest taped discussions. Both judges had

prior experience as instructors of the Couples Communica­

tion program. Each judge also had previous experience in

rating similar audio-taped interactions and were trained

an additional 4 hours for this study. Interrater reliabil­

ity on 10 of the taped discussions yielded a Pearson Product

Moment Correlation Coefficient of £ = .84. The judges ran­

domly rated all tapes without prior knowledge of any pretest-

posttest or experimental-control group distinctions. The

final scale score for each individual was the average of

both judges' scores.

Relationship Change Scale (Appendix D). The Relation­

ship Change Scale (Guerney, 1977) is a 27-item questionnaire

designed to measure change in the quality of a relationship.

Two items were dropped from the scale because they were not

appropriate for a same-sex population. Each subject was

asked to assess the changes in the relationship with her

partner over the 4-week training period in the areas of

satisfaction, communication, trust, closeness, sensitivity,

openness, and understanding. Each statement has a response

choice which ranges from "much less" to "much greater" or

28

"much less" to "much more." Normative data on the Relation­

ship Change Scale has been reported by Schlein (1971) on

groups of premarital dating couples in a college setting.

Supportive evidence for the scale's reliability and validity

can be found in Guerney (1977).

Acquaintance Description Form (Appendix E). The Ac­

quaintance Description Form is an 80-item measure of

friendship-strength derived from Wright's theory of friend­

ship (Wright, 1974, Note 5). Respondents were asked to

evaluate their relationship with their partner on the basis

of 80 descriptive statements. Each statement has seven

response choices which range from "always" to "never" or

"definitely" to "definitely not." The Total Friendship

scale, a combined score of the voluntary interdependence and

person-qua-person subscales, was used to measure friendship

strength in the present study. Typically a correction factor

is obtained and used to adjust scores for a subject's ten­

dency to say generally favorable things about his/her partner.

However, because the correction factor does not significantly

affect the group means from small samples (Wright, Note 8),

it was not used in the present study.

Total Friendship scores on best friends of female popu­

lations in three college settings have been reported by

Davidson (1978): (a) mean = 54.20 (N = 20, SD = 8.79) for

29

a North Dakota sample, (b) mean = 53.83 (N = 84, SD = 11.30

for a Missouri sample, and (c) mean = 56.69 (N = 42, SD =

7.94) for a more recent Utah sample. Test-retest reli­

ability for the Total Friendship scale on a sample of 111

women over a 2-week period has been reported by Wright (1974)

as £ = .91 for raw scores and £ = .89 for corrected scores.

Additional support for the scale's reliability and validity

can be found in Davidson (1978) and Wright (1974).

Experimental and Control Group Treatment

The experimental pairs were randomly assigned to one of

two training groups, with each group consisting of four

pairs. Four female facilitators who had prior experience

as instructors for the Couples Communication program were

employed in this study. The four facilitators were randomly

divided into two training teams, each composed of two facil­

itators. Each team was then randomly assigned to lead one

of the two training groups. Training was done during one

3-hour session per week for 4 weeks (12 hours total). Dur­

ing each session the subjects received didactic instruction,

observed demonstrations, practiced skills, and received

feedback.

The control group did not meet during the time of ex­

perimental group training and was not contacted between

the pretest and posttest assessment periods. The

30

relationship enhancement course was made availabe to them

following the posttest assessment.

Training Program

The Couples Communication program was utilized as the

training procedure in the present study (Miller, Nunnally, &

Wackman, 1976a). Both behavioral skills and conceptual

frameworks of relationship functioning were presented and

applied. Each session consisted of didactic instruction,

modeling by facilitators, dyad practice, and feedback from

facilitators and group members. In addition, outside read­

ing from the program text (Miller, Nunnally, & Wackman,

1975) was assigned. In an effort to encourage more practice

and to transfer learning outside the group situation, part­

ners were also expected to jointly complete the homework

assignments described im the program workbook (Miller,

Nunnally, Wackman, & Ferris, 1976). The following is a

brief description of each session of the training program.

Session I. During the first session a framework was

presented for conceptualizing complete and congruent self/

other awareness. Sensing, doing, feeling, thinking, and

wanting were discussed and differentiated as components of

personal awareness. Participants were introduced to methods

of increasing self/other awareness as well as to those be­

havioral skills which are designed to communicate complete

awareness.

31

Session II. A significant portion of the second

session was spent learning how to send and receive messages

effectively. Various methods for more accurately exchanging

information were presented. Participants applied these

skills to a relationship issue and tried to become more

effective speakers and listerners.

Session III. Four basic styles of communicating were

described and distinguished. Participants were asked to

identify their personal styles and then to use the informa­

tion presented to increase their alternative ways of communi­

cating. During practice, the participants were instructed

to make special efforts to incorporate the skills involved

in the most complete and congruent communication styles.

Session IV. Typical ways of esteeming self and other

were conceptualized in this session. The impact of relation­

ship behavior on an indivudual's self-esteem was also exam­

ined. All frameworks and skills presented during the train­

ing program were integrated and applied to the total

communication patterns of the participants.

A more detailed description of the Couples Communicaiton

program has been reported elsewhere (Miller et al., 1976a;

1976b). A complete instructor's manual and a training

program for potential group leaders are also readily avail­

able (Nunnally, Miller, & Wackman, 1977).

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Level of Communication Skills

It was hypothesized that the experimental group, rela­

tive to the control group, would demonstrate a significant

increase from pretest to posttest in their level of communi­

cation skills. Table 1 presents the means, adjusted means,

and standard deviations for the two groups on the Couples

Communication Rating Scale. Analysis of covariance, using

the pretest score as the covariate and the posttest score

as the dependent variable, was used to assess the effects of

treatment. The experimental group, relative to the control

group, significantly increased their level of communication

skills, F (1, 35) = 13.08, p<.001 (see Table 5, Appendix F).

Table 1. Means, Adjusted Means, and Standard Deviations (S.D.) for the Couples Communication Rating Scale

Pretest Posttest

Experimental Group (N = 16) Mean (Adjusted Mean) 3.47 4.22 (4.28) S.D. .39 .73

Control Group (N = 22) Mean (Adjusted Mean) 3.80 3.55 (3.50) S.D. .63 .58

32

33

Relationship Change

It was also hypothesized that the experimental group,

relative to the control group, would show a significant

increase following training in their perceived amount of

relationship change. Table 2 presents the means, adjusted

means, and standard deviations for the two groups on the

Relationship Change Scale. Analysis of covariance was

again used to assess the effects of treatment. Results

indicated that the experimental group, relative to the

control group, significantly increased their perceived

amount of relationship change, F (1, 35) = 32.61, £<.001

(see Table 6, Appendix F).

Table 2. Means, Adjusted Means, and Standard Deviations (S.D.) for the Relationship Change Scale

Pretest Posttest

Experimental Group (N = 16) Mean (Adjusted Mean) S.D.

Control Group (N = 22) Mean (Adjusted Mean) S.D.

83.00 9.21

83.91 7.57

95.75 (95.71 8.56

80.28 (80.30) 7.77

Friendship Strength

The third hypothesis stated that the experimental group,

relative to the control group, would report a significant

pretest to posttest increase in their perceived strength of

34

the friendship. Table 3 presents the means, adjusted means,

and standard deviations for the two groups on the Total

Friendship Scale of the Acquaintance Description Form.

Analysis of covariance was used to assess the effects of

treatment. No significant difference was found between the

experimental and control groups in their perception of the

strength of the friendship, F (1, 35) = .42, £ = .52 (see

Table 7, Appendix F).

Table 3. Means, Adjusted Means, and Standard Deviations (S.D.) for the Total Friendship Scale

Pretest Posttest

Experimental Group (N = 16) Mean (Adjusted Mean S.D.

Control Group (N = 22) Mean (Adjusted Mean) S.D-

8 7 . 1 3 1 6 . 8 4

8 5 . 5 0 1 4 . 5 6

8 8 . 8 1 ( 8 8 . 1 8 ) 1 2 . 7 7

8 6 . 0 0 ( 8 6 . 4 6 ) 1 3 . 3 7

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Summary of Results

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the

outcome of a relationship enhancement program for single

female friendship pairs. The hypothesis that the experi­

mental group, relative to the untrained control group, would

demonstrate a significant increase in their level of com­

munication skills was confirmed. It appears that single

females were able to communicate with their friendship

partner about relationship issues more completely and con­

gruently, with a higher leve of self-disclosure, and with

a more positive emotional tone as a result of training.

This outcome provides support for the apparent effectiveness

of the training program in improving participants' behav­

ioral skills.

The second hypothesis that the experimental group,

relative to the control group, would significantly increase

their perceived amount of relationship change from pretest

to posttest was also substantiated. Apparently the enhance­

ment program was more effective in stimulating positive re­

lationship changes than the natural process of spending time

together.

The third hypothesis that the experimental group,

35

36

relative to the control group, would show a significant in­

crease in their perceived amount of friendship strength was

not supported. Several factors may have contributed to this

outcome. First, the training program may not have substan­

tially affected the relationship strength of the participat­

ing friendship pairs. In this study, friendship strength

was determined by the degree to which the subjects were

voluntarily interdependent and perceived each other as

unique and irreplaceable. Such dimensions of friendship

strength appear to take time to form and to change (Altman &

Taylor, 1973). The 4-week training period may have been too

short for any actual change to occur or to be experienced

by the subjects. Second, the possibility exists that friend­

ship strength may have been particularly slow to increase

in relationships between subjects who began the program with

a strong friendship. In regard to this possibility, it was

noted that 7 5 percent of the experimental group and 7 3 per­

cent of the control group reported their partners to be

"good friends" or "best friends" (see Table 4, Appendix B).

Modification in the structure, content, or length of the

Couples Communication program may be needed in order to cre­

ate an educational experience more likely to increase friend­

ship strength. The third factor which could have influenced

the results involves the measure used to assess friendship

strength. Because of the way the items were structured, the

37

Total Friendship scale may not have been sensitive enough to

identify any short-term changes occurring over the treatment

period. Examination of these items reveals that they appear

to question subjects about events and experiences which take

time to occur or to change (e.g., "When I am with my partner,

she seems to relax and be herself and not think about the

kind of impression she is creating" or "I try ot get inter­

ested in activities that my partner enjoys, even if they do

not seem especially appealing to me at first" (see Appendix E).

This measure may in fact be better suited to detect changes

in friendship strength after sufficient time has passed for

the new skills and attitudes to significantly affect the

nature of the relationship.

Implications

The results of this study appear to indicate that pairs

of single female friends can be trained effectively in rela­

tionship enhancement skills and that such training seems to

stimulate significant changes in both attitudes and behav­

ioral skills. Furthermore, the study provides support that

the Couples Communication program can be utilized with female

friendship pairs to promote an increase in communication

skills and to facilitate positive relationship change. It

appears, then, that one method of intervention for single

women designed to strengthen their interpersonal support

systems has been identified as a result of this study.

38

The apparent increase in communication skills and in

positive relationship changes for the trained group have

important implications for the feasibility of strengthening

interpersonal support systems. The benefits of functional

support systems for single women as well as the difficulties

in forming and maintaining these networks have been discussed

e i lier. If, indeed, such support systems can be signifi­

cantly improved as was apparent with friendship pairs in

this study, then the use of this intervention method could

perhaps have an important impact on the need satisfaction,

adjustment, and available coping resources of single females.

Apparently, something about the training experience may have

been conducive to increasing communication skills and rela­

tionship change beyond that which naturally occurs through

the process of spending time together as friends. It would

appear, then, that perhaps some type of deliberate interven­

tion is needed to facilitate significant improvements in

friendships between single women.

Such a need for deliberate intervention has been dis­

cussed earlier (Adams, 1976; Phillips & Metzger, 1976; Stein,

1976). Meaningful relationships do not appear to just "hap­

pen." In order to respond to the needs and concerns of

single females, it appears that intentional efforts should

be made to intervene in ways which facilitate the development

of effective interpersonal skills and strategies. The presen-

study seems to represent an example of one such effort.

39

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Several limitations restrict the usefulness and gen-

eralizability of the present results. The sample included

all categories of single women (i.e., never-married, divorced,

and widowed). It is possible that the outcome of this study

could not be replicated with samples composed of different

proportions of single women (e.g., all never-married or all

divorced). The subjects in both groups appeared to be

generally middle class with regard to income and education

(see Table 4, Appendix B). Consequently, the effects of the

training program may not be generalizable to other classes

of single women.

Within the methodological confines of the present study,

it was impossible to ascertain the possible effects on the

experimental subjects of spending three hours per week to­

gether separate and apart from the training experience. In

order to assess the effects of time together, the present

study would need to be replicated using three groups: (a) a

trained experimental group, (b) a contact control group that

would meet together three hours per week with no training,

and (c) a no contact control group. In addition, although

results indicated significant differences between the groups

following training, the extent to which these positive

changes would be maintained over time was not determined.

40

A long term follow-up study would be necessary to assess the

retention of the relationship changes and learned communica­

tion skills.

Although the impact of training on a single dyadic rela­

tionship within the participant's support system was examined,

information as to the effects of training on the subject's

entire support network was not obtained. Consequently, the

extent to which the subjects generalized their skills to

interactions with other individuals in their social network

is not known.

The present study represented an initial attempt to

assist single females in developing more functional inter­

personal support systems. If the training approach employed

here is to become a mechanism by which the interpersonal

support systems of single women can be strengthened, more

research needs to be done to determine the effects of train­

ing on other individuals within the participant's network.

In addition, it would seem appropriate to explore the possi­

bility of developing relationship enhancement programs which

would include entire social networks in the training process.

This approach could seemingly achieve two goals. First,

mutual involvement of affiliated network members may rein­

force the use of skills in real-life interactions (Coufal

et al.. Note 3). Second, if the majority of the support

system members learned new skills and experienced positive

41

relationship growth, the entire network might be strengthened

and become more functional. Evaluation of such a network

approach will be possible only if empirical measures are

designed and validated which could evaluate the nature and

functioning of social support systems. Additional behavioral

measures that assess the use of communication skills outside

the laboratory setting also need to be constructed.

The training program utilized in the present study

focused on skills and strategies useful in enhancing or

strengthening existing relationships. It is not yet known

whether this approach is more valuable than one which would

attempt to train single women in those skills and strategies

needed to initiate relationships. Additional research is

needed to determine which of these emphases, or a combination

thereof, would be most conducive to strengthening social sup­

port networks. It appears, then, that more empirical inves­

tigation is essential in order to: (a) examine the nature

and functioning of the interpersonal support systems of

single women, and (b) identify the most effective strategies

and methods of intervention to strengthen these support

networks.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Candy, S. G. A comparative analysis of friendship

functions through the adult years. Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Asso­

ciation, Toronto, August, 1978.

2. Spanier, G. B., & Casto, R. F. Adjustment to separation

and divorce; A qualitative analysis. Unpublished manu­

script, Pennsylvania State University, 1978.

3. Coufal, J. D., Vogelsong, E. L., & Guerney, B. G. Pro­

moting generalization and maintenance in therapy,

problem-prevention, and enrichment programs. Unpublished

manuscript, Texas Tech University, 1979.

4. Schwager, H. A., & Conrad, R. W. Impact of croup coun­

seling on self and other acceptance and persistence with

rural disadvantaged student families. Counseling Service

Report No. 15. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of

Education, 1974.

5. Wright, P. H. The delineation and measurement of yet

another friendship variable. Manuscript submitted for

publication, 1978.

6. Joanning, H. H. Development of a scale to rate communi­

cation skills. Unpublished manuscript, Texas Tech

University, 1979.

42

7. Miller, S. L. Personal communication, November, 1978

8. Wright, P. H. Personal communication, June, 1979.

43

REFERENCES

Adams, M. The single woman in today's society: A reap­

praisal. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1971, 4j^, 776-786.

Adams, M. Single blessedness: Observations on the single

status in married society. New York: Basic Books, 1976

Albert, R. S., & Brigante, T. R. The psychology of friend­

ship relations: Social factors. Journal of Social

Psychology, 1962, 56 , 33-47.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. Social penetration: The devel­

opment of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, & Winston, 1973.

Armstrong, J. C. Perceived intimate friendship as a quasi-

therapeutic agent. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

1969, 16, 137-141.

Attneave, C. L. Ya'll come: Social networks as a unit of

intervention. In P. Guerin (Ed.), Family therapy:

Theory and practice. New York: Gardner Press, 1976.

Baker, L. G- The personal and social adjustment of the

never-married woman. Journal of Marriage and the Fam­

ily, 1968, 30 , 473-479.

Barrett, C. J. Effectiveness of widows' groups in facili­

tating change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1978, 4_6, 20-31.

Bequaert, L. Single women alone and together. Boston:

Beacon Press, 1976.

44

45

Bernard, J. Note on changing life styles, 1970-1974.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 32' 582-594.

Booth, A. Sex and social participation. Americal Sociologi­

cal Review, 1972, 21/ 183-192.

Booth, A., & Hess, E. Cross-sex friendship. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 1974, 36./ 38-47.

Brain, R. Friends and lovers. New York: Basic Books, 1976.

Brain, R. Somebody else should be your own best friend.

Psychology Today, October 1977, pp. 83; 84; 120; 123.

Brenton, M. Friendship. New York: Stein & Day, 1974.

Bureau of the Census. Marital status and living arrange­

ments: March 1977. Current Population Reports, 1977

(Series P-20 No. 323).

Bureau of the Census. Households and families by type:

March 1978. Current Population Reports, 1978 (Series

P-20 No. 327).

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. The quality

of American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,

1976.

Campbell, E. E. The effects of couple communication training

on married couples in the child-rearing years: A field

experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona

State University, 1974.

Caplan, G. Support systems and community mental health. New

York: Behavioral Publications, 1974.

46

Crawford, M. What is a friend? New Society, 1977, 2£' ^6-

117.

Davidson, S. L. The therapeutic dimensions of friendship

between women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Uni­

versity of Utah, 1978.

Duberman, L. Marriage and other alternatives. New York:

Praeger, 1977.

Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. Social participation in urban

society. Cambridge, Mass.: General Learning Press,

1973.

Edwards, M. Coupling and recoupling vs the challenge of

being single. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1977,

22, 542-545.

Fischer, C. S., Jackson, R. M., Stueve, C. A., Gerson, K.,

& Baldassare, M. Networks and places: Social rela­

tions in the urban setting. New York: The Free Press,

1977.

Friendship: An inquiry. Psychology Today, March 1979,

pp. 65; 66; 68; 71; 72; 74; 76.

Frieze, I. H. , Parsons, J. E., Johnson, P. B., Ruble, D. N.,

& Zellman, G- L. Women and sex roles: A social psycho­

logical perspective. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.

Gibbs, S. What do women use friends for? In L. I. Troll,

J. Isreal, & K. Isreal (Eds.), Looking ahead: A

47

woman's guide to the problems and joys of growing older.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Gillies, J. Friends: The power and potential of the company

you keep. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc.,

1976.

Glaser, K. Women's self-help groups as an alternative to

therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,

1976, L3, 77-81.

Click, P. A demographer looks at American families. Journal

of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 3_7' 15-26.

Gove, W., & Tudor, J. Adult sex roles and mental illness.

American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 7_§./ 812-835.

Guerney, B. G. Relationship enhancement. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1977.

Gurman, A. S., & Kniskern, D. P. Enriching research on

marital enrichment programs. Journal of Marriage and

Family Counseling, 1977, 3_, 3-11.

Guttentag, M., & Salasin, S. Women, men and mental health.

In L. A. Cater, A. F. Scott, & W. Martyna (Eds.),

Women and men: Changing roles, relationships, and per­

ceptions. New York: Praeger, 1977.

Hartsook, J., Olch, D., & de Wolf, V. Personality character­

istics of women's assertiveness training group partici­

pants. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1976, 23,

322-326.

48

Hiltz, S. R. Helping widows: Group discussions as a

therapeutic technique. Family Coordinator, 197 5, 25,

331-336.

Hyde, J. S., & Rosenberg, B. G- Half the human experience:

The psychology of women. Lexington, Mass.: Heath,

1976.

Jacobs, A., & Spradlin, W. (Eds.). The group as agent of

change. New York: Behavioral Publications, 1974.

Kuhn, M. How mates are sorted. In H. Becker & R. Hill

(Eds.), Family, marriage and parenthood. Boston:

Heath, 1955.

Lair, J. A friendship where you are valued as you are.

New Woman, January-February 1978, 69-74.

Libby, R. W. Creative singlehood as a sexual life style:

Beyond marriage as a rite of passage. In R. W. Libby

& R. N. Whitehurts (Eds.), Marriage and alternatives:

Exploring intimate relationships. Glenview, 111.:

Scott, Foresman, & Co., 1977.

Lowanthal, M. F., & Haven, C. Interaction and adaptation:

Intimacy as a critical variable. American Sociological

Review, 1968, 3^, 20-30.

Marecek, J., & Kravetz, D. Women and mental health: A

review of feminist change efforts. Psychiatry, 1977,

40_, 323-329.

Merrill, S. L. Patterns and function of close friendships

in relation to personal adjustment (Doctoral dissertation.

49

University of Minnesota, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 1974, 22' 6103B. (University Microfilms

No. 75-12, 127)

Messinger, L. Remarriage between divorced people with chil­

dren from previous marriages: A proposal for prepara­

tion for remarriage. Journal of Marriage and Family

Counseling, 1976, 2/ 193-200.

Miller, S. L. The effects of communication training in small

groups upon self-disclosure and openness in engaged

couples: A field experiment. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1971.

Miller, S. L. , Nunnally, E. W., & Wackman, D. B. Alive and

aware. Minneapolis: Interpersonal Communication

Programs, 1975.

Miller, S. L., Nunnally, E. W., & Wackman, D. B. Minnesota

couples communication program: Premarital and marital

groups. In D. H. L. Olson (Ed.), Treating relation­

ships. Lake Mills, Iowa: Graphic, 1976. (a)

Miller, S. L., Nunnally, E. W., & Wackman, D. B. A communi­

cation training program for couples. Social Casework,

1976, 22, 9-18. (b)

Miller, S. L., Nunnally, E. W., Wackman, D. B., & Ferris,

R. H. Student workbook. Minneapolis: Interpersonal

Communication Programs, 1976.

50

Nickols, S. Y. Resource management for single adults.

Journal of Home Economics, 1979, ]_1, 40-41.

Nunnally, E. W. Effects of communication training upon

interaction awareness and empathic accuracy of engaged

couples: A field experiment. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1971.

Nunnally, E. W., Miller, S. L., & Wackman, D. B. Couples

communication instructor manual. Minneapolis: Inter­

personal Communication Programs, 1977.

Olson, D. H. L. Treating relationships. Lake Mills, Iowa:

Graphic, 1976.

Otto, H. A. (Ed.). Marriage and family enrichment: New

perspectives and programs. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976.

Peters, G. R., & Kennedy, C. E. Close friendships in the

college community. Journal of College Student Person­

nel, 1970, 12, 449-456.

Phillips, G. M., & Metzger, N. J. Intimate communication.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1976.

Powers, E. A., & Bultena, G. L. Sex differences in intimate

friendships of old age. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 1976, 2i' 739-747.

Reisman, J. M., & Yamokski, J. Psychotherapy and friendship

An analysis of the communication of friends. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 1974, 2]^, 269-273.

Robertson, J. F. Women in midlife: Crises, reverberations.

51

and support networks. Family Coordinator, 197 8, 27,

375-382.

Rueveni, U. Networking families in crisis: Intervention

strategies with families and social networks. New York:

Human Sciences Press, 1979.

Schlein, S. R. Training dating couples in empathic and open

communication: An experimental evaluation of a poten­

tial mental health program. Unpublished doctoral dis­

sertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1971.

Schofield, W. Psychotherapy: The purchase of friendship.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Schwartz, M. A., & Wolf, P. A. Singlehood and the American

experience: Prospects for a changing status. Humboldt

Journal of Social Relations, 1976, £, 17-24.

Shulman, N. Life-cycle variations in patterns of close

relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975,

27, 813-821.

Spreitzer, E., & Riley, L. E. Factors associated with single­

hood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1974, 36

533-542.

Stein, P. J. Singlehood: An alternative to marriage.

Family Coordinator, 1975, 2A_, 489-503.

Stein, P. J. Single. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-

Hall, 1976.

52

Tolsdorf, C. C. Social networks, support, and coping: An

exploratory study. Family Process, 1976, 12/ 407-417.

Verbrugge, L. M. The structure of adult friendship choices.

Social Forces, 1977, 21/ 576-597.

Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M. F. Life-course perspectives on

friendship. In M. F. Lowenthal, M. Thurnher, & D.

Chiraboga (Eds.), Four stages of life. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1975.

Welch, G. J., & Granvold, D. K. Seminars for separated/

divorced: An educational approach to postdivorce

adjustment. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1977,

2, 31-39.

Wheeler, L., & Nezlek, J. Sex differences in social partici­

pation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

1977, 25/ 742-754.

Wood, L. A. Loneliness and social structure (Doctoral

dissertation, York University, 1976). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 1977, y]_, 6414B.

Wright, P. H. The delineation and measurement of some key

variables in the study of friendship. Representative

Research in Social Psychology, 1974, 2/ 53-96.

APPENDIX

A. Program Publicity

B. Descriptive Data on Subjects

C. Couples Communication Rating Scale

D. Relationship Change Scale

E. Acquaintance Description Form

F. Analysis of Covariance Summary Tables

53

APPENDIX A: PROGRAM PUBLICITY

55

COMMUNICATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR SINGLE WOMEN

Department of Home and Family Life

Texas Tech University

The increasing number of single women m this country are faced with the task of independently developing meaningful relationships. To assist women with this task, a communica­tion skills training program will be offered to women of the Lubbock community who are widowed, divorced, or not yet married.

A critical factor that seems to determine life satisfaction and level of adjustment for single women is the existence of an available and supportive network of both same sex and opposite sex friends. Because widowed, divorced, and other single females do not have the social support systems often created by marriage, they have to become deliberate and skilled at creating meaningful relationships for themselves. The communication skills training program has therefore been developed to assist them in becoming more interpersonally skillful.

The program will be conducted in three-hour sessions one evening a week for four weeks beginning April 9. Partici­pants are asked to register with a single female friend so that an existing relationship can be improved and communica­tion skills can be practiced outside of class.

Specific communication skills designed to help individuals develop more rewarding relationships will be taught during the 12-hour course. Participants will learn skills for building esteem in self and others, developing awareness in relationships, and communicating more effectively. Listening skills and methods of communicating acceptance and under­standing will also be presented. Trained staff members fr, the Texas Tech Counseling Center and Department of Home and Family Life will present new information, demonstrate skills, and give participants feedback as they practice the skills with their partner. Those enrolled will have the opportunity to improve the relationship with their participating friend and will be taught practical ways of applying the skills to other important relationships with children, dating partners, and other friends.

Because enrollment will be limited, all interested women are encouraged to register early by calling Debi Hegi, Program Coordinator, at 792-6948 before the April 2 deadline.

om

APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTIVE DATA ON SUBJECTS

57

Table 4. Frequencies and Percentages on Descriptive Data

Experimental Group Control Group (N = 16) (N = 22)

Frequency % Frequency %

Age 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 over 59

Marital status Never-marrled Divorced Widowed

Level of education Some high school Finished high school Some college Undergraduate degree Graduate degree

Income 0 - 5,999

6,000 - 11,999 12,000 - above

Friendship status of Best friend Good friend Average friend Acquaintance

Length of friendship 1 - 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years 3 - 5 years over 5 years

partner

6 7 -3 0 0

8 8 0

1 6 1 5 3

2 7 7

3 9 2 2

4 2 4 2 4

37.5 43.7 18.8

0 0

50.0 50-0

0

6.2 37.4 6.2

31.2 18.7

12.5 43.7 43.8

18.7 56.2 12.5 12. 5

25.0 12.5 25.0 12.5 25.0

11 7 1 2 1

9 10 3

0 3 10 6 9

3 7

14

3 13 4 2

8 2 2 2 8

50.0 31.8 4.5 9.1 4.5

40.9 45.5 13.6

0 13.6 45.5 27. 3 13. 6

13.6 31.8 54.6

13. 6 59.1 18.2 9.1

36.4 9.1 9.1 9.1 36.4

APPENDIX C: COUPLES COMMUNICATION RATING SCALE

Level

59

50-100% of time at this level; high quality communication; highly constructive

50-100% of time at this level; moderate quality communication; moder­ately constructive over all

50-100% of time at this level; neutral communi­cation; negligably con­structive or destructive

50-100% of time at this level; moderately nega­tive quality communica­tion; moderately destruc­tive over all

Heavy use of Style IV; considerable awareness sharing; I count/I count you self/other esteem set; high disclosure and positive emotional tone

Moderate use of Style III and IV or light Style II; moderate awareness shar­ing, disclosure and emo­tional tone; predominately I count/I count you

Heavy use of Style I or light Style II; negligi­ble awareness sharing; low disclosure and emo­tion; intellectual tone

Moderate use of heavy Style II; limited aware­ness sharing; moderate discounting of partner; moderate negative emotion and limited disclosure

50-100% of time at this level; highly negative quality communication; highly destructive

Heavy use of heavy Style II; awareness sharing limited; many interpreta­tions; heavy discounting of partner; high negative emotion but low disclosure

Tape number

Subject 1 score

Date rated

Subject 2 score

Rater

APPENDIX D: RELATIONSHIP CHANGE SCALE

61

The following questions are designed to determine whether, and in what ways your relationship with your partner has changed in the last four weeks. Please complete each state­ment by circling the number of the phrase that most accu­rately completes each statement. Please give as accurate and honest an account of your own feelings and beliefs as possible.

1. Within the last four weeks, my satisfaction with myself as a person has become: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) greater; (5) much greater.

2. Within the last four weeks, my satisfaction with my friend as a person has become: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) greater; (5) much greater.

3. Within the last four weeks, I feel my friend views me as a satisfactory friend: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) no change; (4) more; (5) much more.

4. Within the last four weeks, my friend views herself with satisfaction as a person: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) no change; (4) more; (5) much more.

5. Within the last four weeks, our relationship with each other has become: (1) much worse; (2) worse; (3) un­changed; (4) better; (5) much better.

6. In comparison with four weeks ago, I am clearly aware of my friend's needs and desires: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) no change; (4) more; (5) much more.

7. In comparison with four weeks ago, I understand my own feelings: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) no differently; (4) more; (5) much more.

8. In comparison with four weeks ago, I understand my friend's feelings: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) no differently; (4) more; (5) much more.

9. In comparison with four weeks ago, our ability to com­municate has become: (1) much worse; (2) worse; (3) un­changed; (4) better; (5) much better.

10. In comparison with four weeks ago, my sensitivity towards my friend as a person is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) more; (5) much more.

62

11. In comparison with four weeks ago, my concern and warmth toward my friend has become: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) more; (5) much more.

12. In comparison with four weeks ago, my self-expression and openness in relation to my friend is: (1) Much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) more; (5) much more.

13. In comparison with four weeks ago, my ability to under­stand my friend's feelings is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) more; (5) much more.

14. In comparison with four weeks ago, my listening abili­ties with my friend are: (1) much worse; (2) worse; (3) unchanged; (4) better; (5) much better.

15. In comparison with four weeks ago, ray trust in my friend is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) more; (5) much more.

16. In comparison with four weeks ago, my feelings of close­ness with my friend are: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) more; (5) much more.

17. In comparison with four weeks ago, my confidence in our relationship is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) no dif­ferent; (4) greater; (5) much greater.

18. In comparison with four weeks ago, our ability to handle disagreements constructively is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) no different; (4) greater; (5) much greater.

19. In comparison with four weeks ago, my difficulty in talking with my friend is: (1) much more; (2) more; (3) unchanged; (4) less; (5) much less.

20. In comparison with four weeks ago, my ability to express positive feelings toward my friend is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) greater; (5) much greater.

21. In comparison with four weeks ago, my willingness to share my personal concerns with my friend is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) greater; (5) much greater.

22. In comparison with four weeks ago, my ability to con­structively express negative feelings toward my friend is: (1) much Isss; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) greater; (5) much greater.

63

23. In comparison with four weeks ago, my capacity to be­lieve and accept positive feelings my friend expresses toward me is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) unchanged; (4) more; (5) much more.

24. In comparison with four weeks ago, my capacity to deal constructively with negative feelings my friend ex­presses toward me is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) un­changed; (4) more; (5) much more.

25. In comparison with four weeks ago, my understanding of the kind of relationship I want to have in the future with my friend is: (1) much less; (2) less; (3) un­changed; (4) more; (5) much more.

APPENDIX E. ACQUAINTANCE DESCRIPTION FORM

65

The following statements concern your reactions to your part­ner. Perhaps some of the situations described have never come up in your relationship. If this happens, try your best to imagine what things would be like if the situation did come up. Please record your honest response to each of the statements about your partner on the answer sheet at the end of this questionnaire. Decide which of the following scale numbers best describes your reaction and record one choice in the blank beside the number of each statement. Please read the codes carefully and use them as guides in selecting your responses.

6 = always or definitely 5 = almost always or extremely likely 4 = usually or probably 3 = about half the time or perhaps 2 = seldom or probably not 1 = almost never or extremely unlikely 0 = never or definitely not

1. My partner can come up with thoughts and ideas that give me new and different things to think about.

2. If I were short of cash and needed money in a hurry, I could count on my partner to be willing to loan it to me.

3. My partner's ways of dealing with people make her rather difficult to get along with.

4. My partner has a lot of respect for my ideas and opinions.

5. My partner is a conscientious person.

6. My partner is the kind of person who makes it easy for me to behave according to my most important beliefs and values.

* 7. If I hadn't heard from my partner for several days without knowing why, I would make it a point to con­tact her just for the sake of keeping in touch.

* 8. My partner keeps me pretty well informed about her true feelings and attitudes about different things that come up.

9. When we get together to work on a task or project, my partner can stimulate me to think of new ways to approach jobs and solve problems.

66

10. If I were looking for a job, I could count on my partner to try her best to help me find one.

11. I can count on my partner's being very easy to get along with, even when we disagree about something.

12. If I have an argument or disagreement with someone, I can count on my partner to stand behind me and give me support when she thinks I am in the right.

13. My partner is fair and open-minded.

14. My partner makes it easy for me to express my most important personal qualities in my everyday life.

* 15. If I had a choice of two good part-time jobs, I would seriously consider taking the somewhat less attractive job if it meant that my partner and I could work at the same place.

* 16. If my partner were to move away or "disappear" for some reason, I would really miss the special kind of companionship she provides.

17. My partner is the kind of conversationalist who can make me clarify and expand my own ideas and beliefs.

18. My partner is willing to use her skills and abilities to help me reach my own personal goals.

19. I can count on having to be extra patient with my partner to keep from giving up on her as a friend.

20. I can converse freely and comfortably with my partner without worrying too much about being teased or criti­cized if I unthinkingly say something pointless, in­appropriate or just plain silly.

21. My partner is emotionally steady and even-tempered.

22. If I am ever confused or doubtful about what I am really like, my partner is the kind of person who can help me get things clear for myself.

* 23. If my partner and I could arrange our class or work schedules so we each had a free day, I would try to arrange my schedule so that I had the same free day as she did.

67

24. My partner thinks and acts in ways that "set her apart" and make her distinct from other people I know.

25. My partner can get me involved in interesting new activities that I probably wouldn't consider if it weren't for her.

26. I can count on my partner to come up with really valuable advice when I need help with practical problems or predicaments.

27. I can count on having to go out of my way to do things that will keep my relationship with my partner from "falling apart."

28. If I accomplish something that makes me look espe­cially competent or skillful, I can count on my partner to notice it and appreciate my ability.

29. My partner is a hard-working person.

30. My partner is the kind of person who makes it easy for me to express my true thoughts and feelings.

31. If I had decided to leave town on a certain day for a leisurely trip or vacation and discovered that my partner was leaving for the same place a day later, I would seriously consider waiting a day in order to travel with her.

32. When I am with my partner I get the impression that she is "playing a role" or trying to create a certain kind of "image."

33. When we discuss beliefs, attitudes and opinions, my partner introduces viewpoints that help me to see things in a new light.

34. I can count on my partner to be a good contact person in helping me to meet worthwhile people and make social connections.

35. I have to be very careful about what I say if I try to talk to my partner about topics she considers controversial or touchy.

36. My partner has confidence in my advice and opinions about practical matters and personal problems.

68

37. My partner is a well-mannered person.

38. I can tell from the way my partner reacts to me that I really am the kind of person I most often think I am.

39. When I plan for leisure time activities, I make it a point to get in touch with my partner to see if we can arrange to do things together.

40. I can count on my partner to do and say the things that express what she truly feels and believes, even if they are not the things she thinks are expected of her.

41. I can count on my partner to be ready with really good suggestions when we are looking for some activity or project to engage in.

42. If I have some more or less serious differences with a friend or acquaintance, my partner is a good person for acting as a go-between in helping me to smooth out the difficulty.

43. I have a hard time really understanding some of my partner's actions and comments.

44. If I am in an embarrassing situation, I can count on my partner to do things that will make me feel as much at ease as possible.

45. My partner is an intellectually well-rounded person.

46. My partner knows the kinds of activities that are most important to me personally and encourages me to get involved in them.

47. If I had no particular plans for a free evening and my partner contacted me suggesting some activity I am not particularly interested in, I would seriously consider doing it with her.

48. Some of the most rewarding ideas, interests and activities I share with my partner are the kinds of things I find it difficult, if not impossible, to share with any of my other acquaintances.

49. My partner has a way of making ideas and topics that I usually consider useless and boring seem worthwhile and interesting.

*

69

50. If I were short of time or faced with an emergency, I could count on my partner to help with errands or chores to make things as convenient for me as possible.

51. I can count on my partner's acting tense or upset with me without my knowing what I've done to bother her.

52. If I have some success or good fortune, I can count on my partner to be happy and congratulatory about it,

53. My partner is a tactful person.

54. My partner does things with me in a way that helps me know and understand myself better.

55. My partner is one of the persons I would go out of my way to help if she were in some sort of difficulty,

* 56. When I am with my partner, she seems to relax and be herself and not think about the kind of impression she is creating.

57. My partner can come up with good, challenging ques­tions and ideas.

58. My partner is willing to spend time and energy to help me succeed at my own personal tasks and projects, even if she is not directly involved.

59. I can count on my partner's being willing to listen to my explanations in a patient and understanding way when I've done something to rub her the wrong way.

60. When we discuss beliefs, attitudes and opinions, my partner listens and reacts as if my thoughts and ideas make a lot of sense.

61. My partner is generous.

62. My partner treats me in ways that encourage me to be my "true self."

* 63. If I had just gotten off work or out of class and had some free time, I would wait around and leave with my partner if she were leaving the same place an hour or so later.

70

* 64. If I were trying to describe my partner to someone who didn't know her, it would be easy to fit her into a general class or type of persons.

65. My partner is the kind of person from whom I can learn a lot just by listening to her talk or watching her work on problems.

66. I can count on my partner to be willing to loan me personal belongings (for example, her books, car, typewriter, tennis racket) if I need them to go somewhere or get something done.

67. I can count on communication with my partner to break down when we try to discuss things that are touchy or controversial.

68. My partner considers me a good person to have around when she needs someone to talk things over with.

69. My partner is a thoughtful person.

70. My partner is the kind of person who makes it easy for me to do the kinds of things I really want to do.

71. I try to get interested in activities that my partner enjoys, even if they do not seem especially appealing to me at first.

* 72. When my partner and I get together, I enjoy a special kind of companionship I don't get from any of my other acquaintances.

73. My partner is the kind of person who is on the lookout for new, interesting and challenging things to do.

74. If I were sick or hurt, I could count on my partner to do things that would make it easier to take.

75. I can count on my partner to misunderstand me and take my actions and comments the wrong way.

76. My partner is a good, sympathetic listener when I have some personal problem I want to talk over with someone.

77. My partner is a helpful, cooperative person.

78. Doing things with my partner seems to bring out my most important personal traits and characteristics.

*

71

79. If my partner and I were planning vacations to the same place and at about the same time and she had to postpone her trip for a month, I would seriously consider postponing my own trip for a month also.

80. My partner is the kind of person I would miss very much if something happened to interfere with our acquaintanceship.

Items included in the Total Friendship Scale.

APPENDIX F: ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE SUMMARY TABLES

73

Table 5. Analysis of Covariance Summary Table on the Couples Communication Rating Scale

Source df MS F

Treatment 1 5.15 13.08*

Error 35 .39

*Significant at p<.001.

Table 6. Analysis of Covariance Summary Table on the Relationship Change Scale

Source df MS F

Treatment 1 2192.46 32.61*

Error 35 67.23

*Signifleant at p<.001

Table 7. Analysis of Covariance Summary Table on the Total Friendship Scale

Source df MS

Treatment 1 27.45 .42

Error 35 65.43