The Experiences of Boys and Girls in the Context of a Romantic Relationship - Case Study Example

Relationships and Connections of Variables in the Research Study The literature offers a myriad of information yielded by various researches on humanrelationships. Concepts on a wide spectrum from physiological responses to romantic relationships, emotions that are manifested during romances, social implications or consequences of engaging in romantic relationships, and perceptions and viewpoints that are attempted to explain some phenomena related to romance. Studies on romance include the studies of social scientists who unearthed evidence of physiological responses manifested by heightened hormones in new romances (ex. the researches of Dr. Donatella Marazitti (Kahn, 2004) and Helen Fisher (Fisher, 2004). Adolescents, who usually experience the stirrings of first romances have become popular subjects/ participants in some researches on conceptualizations/ expectations in romantic relationships. Feiring (1996) conducted interviews with adolescents and surfaced responses that indicated that romantic partner selection in late adolescence and early adulthood commences on the basis of stimulus characteristics such as desirable personality and physical attractiveness. In the adolescents’ reports, physical attraction to a prospective romantic partner is expressed as finding the person cute, pretty or handsome, rather than in terms of sexuality (e.g. a good kisser).As the relationship progresses, common interests and values and then interpersonal compatibility becomes essential. Conger, Cui, Bryant & Elder (2000) conducted a longitudinal study following the developmental growth of a number of adolescents to study the effects of family influences on their prospective romantic behavior in their early adult life. The authors hypothesized that adolescents who grew up with nurturant-involved parenting grew up to be romantic partners who were warm, supportive and low in hostility. Some studies providing evidence for the link between specific skills in intimate communication (e.g. problem solving, affect regulation, conflict management, etc.) relating to the success or failure in romantic relationships suggest that these skills are influenced by the family of origin. Another hypothesis is that children emulate the interactional behaviors of their parents and exhibit the same with their romantic partners when they grow up. The methodology of the longitudinal study was videotaping adolescents when they were 12 year olds interacting with their families and friends. Some 7 years later, these subjects were again studied with regards to their ongoing romantic relationships to validate their previous hypotheses. These young adults were likewise observed with their romantic partners and their behaviors were studied. Findings in the study were consistent with the interpersonal competence hypothesis posted at the beginning of the study that interpersonal behaviors that were high in warmth and low in hostility and linked to experiences in the family origin are positively associated with the quality of romantic relationships. Giordano, Longmore, & Manning (2006) carried out another study using a symbolic interactionist perspective to examine the experiences of boys and girls in the context of a romantic relationship. The study focuses on the nature of communication, emotion and influence within that relationship. Although it thoroughly discusses findings of other studies on adolescent romantic relationships, it focuses on boys’ romantic perspectives. Interviews with adolescent boys involved in romantic relationships were done in private, and it was found that an examination of reports of feelings of love across the total sample does not reveal a significant gender difference in these feelings of heightened emotionality related to the romantic relationship. In the private interviews, boys believed in the uniqueness of their feelings and emotional reactions. Results suggest a portrait of adolescent boys as relatively less confident and yet more emotionally engaged in romantic relationships than previous characterizations would lead us to expect. As boys make the transition from peers to romance, they lack experience with intimate ways of relating even as they are beginning to develop a high interest and at times strong emotional attachment to certain romantic partners. Thorough investigations on the factors affecting mature adult romantic relationships have been conducted. Levine, Aune, & Park (2006) expounded on the love styles identified by Lee (1977) to understand romantic relationships. It suggested that the love style an individual is prone to in the early stages of a romance dictates his or her preferences for certain characteristics in a romantic partner. These preferences are likely to guide the individual towards initiation and intensification of the relationship. This theory was tested on three exploratory studies. Data gathered from the studies contribute to the growing body of literature that suggests that love styles are associated with individual differences and needs in communication and relationships when it comes to romance. Green, Campbell, Davis (2007) discussed the effects of a romantic relationship on one’s self-discrepancy which is the difference between the actual self (the current self-representation of the individual) and the ideal self (the representation of an individual’s hopes and aspirations). The authors present a schema-based model of romantic involvement and self-discrepancy to help explain this association, focusing on the impact of terminated relationships—“ghosts from the past.” Research has found out that romantic involvement is associated with a smaller discrepancy between the actual self and romantically involved individuals reported smaller self-discrepancies than did noninvolved individuals. The study implies that a person in love has increased self-esteem as a result of his satisfaction in the relationship. This satisfaction may also be due to the individual’s idealization of the romantic partner. Cramer & Donachie (1999) determined if closer relationships resulted in better psychological health and if decreased closeness resulted in worse psychological health. Another aim of the research was to examine the relationship between psychological health and the perspective of the instigator of change in the closeness of the relationship. Findings revealed that there was a tendency for decreased closeness but not for increased closeness to be significantly associated with psychological health. This was because decreased closeness was significantly correlated with lower self esteem and poorer mental health in the romantic relationships of the female participants and with poorer mental health in the platonic relationships of the male participants. Tolhuizen (1989) saw that courtship patterns of dating couples as described to come in three stages if the couple intends to deepen their relationship. The first stage is casual dating which is characterized by initial, tentative and largely superficial interactions. Next stage is serious dating, which is characterized by an increased seriousness or depth of feelings. Usually, the couple has agreed to be committed to each other exclusively. The third stage is engagement, which is characterized by a definite decision for a joint future and the pursuit of marriage. This research had three assumptions: One is that much of intensification behavior is purposeful. Intensification is characterized as having a powerful affective component and a substantial perceived risk to self. Thus, romantic partners should be more mindful of the intensification strategies they shall employ. Another assumptions is that communication is key. Communication includes both verbal messages and non-verbal actions as well as alterations in one’s self-presentation. A final assumption is that there exists a variety of behavioral options in intensifying relationships. Moss, & Schwebel (2001) launched an exploration of published definitions of the construct and came up with a multidimensional definition of the term. Definitions came in different varieties. There are some very general definitions that are descriptive of some relationships but have some gaps that may be open to different interpretations. As a working definition, the authors have come up with this: “Intimacy in enduring romantic relationships is determined by the level of commitment and positive affective, cognitive, and physical closeness one experiences with a partner in a reciprocal (although not necessarily symmetrical) relationship.” (p.33). The authors have agreed that such a definition specifies five components namely commitment, affective intimacy, cognitive intimacy, physical intimacy and mutuality. Sakalli-Ugurlu (2003) explored how university students currently involved in heterosexual dating relationships perceive how romantic relationship satisfaction attitudes toward gender stereotypes about romantic relationships and gender relate to future time orientation in romantic relationships (FTORR). It defined important constructs such as satisfaction, gender stereotypes and future orientation. It also discussed some gender differences in terms of expectations in romantic relationships. Results from the questionnaires filled up by the subjects revealed that women are more affected by gender stereotypes when they are involved in romantic relationships. They are more concerned about the future of their relationships and their future families than men are. Also, those who are satisfied with their relationships tend to be more future-oriented. Assad, Donnellan, & Conger (2007) studied the link between optimism and satisfaction in romantic relationships. It was hypothesized that dispositional optimism serves as an enduring resource for romantic relationships and that it was positively associated with relationship satisfaction. Research shows that optimism is linked with the successful pursuit of goals, and one such goal shared by a majority of people is to attain happy romantic unions. Cooperative problem-solving between couples encouraged by optimism is an enduring dynamic that makes the relationship of the couple stronger. Although much information has already been derived from research, there is still an inexhaustible interest in learning more about human romantic relationships. From the concepts gleaned from existing literature, I shall be limiting the variables to be investigated to preferences for a romantic partner, effect of romance on one’s self-esteem and how couples deepen and sustain their romantic relationship. The contribution that this current research hopes to provide is the culling of information from case studies of couples who have successfully sustained the romance in their relationships. This will be done through intensive interviews and questionnaires and will be compared to the findings of past researches. It takes on a more scholastic and professional take on the romance literature compared to the pop literature readily available in magazines and other sources of information regarding human relationships. Its value will benefit people who are currently involved in romantic relationships and gain insights from this academic research to help make their relationships as successful as those of the interviewees in the study. Regarding variables, Heiman’s (2002) definition of a variable initially posted a concern for me. He claimed that a variable should be a measurable aspect of a behavior that may change, and it is this that produces the scores and data of a study. However, it was qualified that he referred to experimental studies that manipulated the variables. My research is not an experimental one. It is an exploratory and descriptive research involving experiences shared by my prospective respondents. Although my variables are not quantifiably measurable, it does not make it less of a credible research paper. However, I would have to guard against subjectivity and keep an objective perspective all the time to maintain my integrity as a researcher. A probable problem in making causal statements in nonexperimental methods is the difficulty in determining actual factors that cause the final results of the study. My many research questions attempt to associate several factors to determine the success of a romantic relationship. This may lead to another problem which is extraneous variables. Cozby (2007) agrees the likely possibility that it is the extraneous variables that may be causing an observed relationship. This is called he confounding variable. An example is a longitudinal study using observation methods done in the study of Conger et al (2000). Participants were observed with their families when they were children, and some seven years later were observed with their romantic partners to see if there is a relationship between the participants’ family dynamics with how they relate to their romantic partners as young adults. The study claimed credibility of findings because it was prospective and longitudinal, it was based on observed interactional processes instead of perceived behaviors; it included evaluations of a number of different family variables allowing the simultaneous testing of the multiple hypotheses related to family influences and that it included a direct measure of interpersonal competence in romantic relationships as a possible way of transmitting family influences. A lot may have had affected the participants’ romantic behaviors over the seven years or so that transpired and may be difficult to directly link it to the family dynamics he or she grew up with. Seven years is a long time to accommodate changes in one’s lifestyle and culture. Media is one confounding variable that may effect great influence on how a person may relate with others, especially in the area of romantic relationships, as movies, and television shows may highlight strong qualities that the youth may emulate in their relationships. Another confounding variable may be the changing values of the times. Where one was exposed to a nurturant relationship between his or her parents, such value of nurturance may be further emphasized as a value over time, so modeling it from parents’ example may not directly be the cause of an individual’s nurturant interaction with a romantic partner. My chosen variables of preferences for a romantic partner, effect of romance on one’s self-esteem and how couples deepen and sustain their romantic relationship may likewise yield probable confounding variables. Since interviews will be conducted with couples regarding their romantic history, errors in memory are likely to be committed. Also, in the interest of projecting a positive image, interviewers may likely twist some information to their favor, compromising the integrity of the data gathered. According to Heiman (2002), descriptive designs are used to demonstrate a relationship, predict behaviors and describe a behavior or participant. That is exactly what my study aims to do. Cone (1998) advises researchers to make clear whether their design is within- or between-subjects variety. If the variation needed for studying the relationships involved in the study is obtained from changes in the same subjects over time or across situations, it follows a within-subjects approach. If the variation comes from differences between subjects at a single point in time, then the study is using a between- subjects approach (Cone, 1998). Since my study will be dealing with case studies of respondents of in-depth interviews, and they will be sharing various personal narratives and perspectives, then my study adheres to a within-subjects design. I am looking into the chronological perspective of how romance develops and this begins with the self – how an individual sees himself; self-esteem issues; what are his preferences and ideals in a romantic relationship and based on his personality, what kind of love style he is predisposed to use in his relationship. In some of the studies, participants’ self-reports provided definitions or descriptions of some constructs. The work of Watkins (1978) studied the development and evaluation of self-esteem measuring instruments and adopted Coopersmith’s (1967) definition of self esteem as : “The evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval and indicates the extent to which the individual believes himself to be capable, significant, successful and worthy. In short, self-esteem is a personal judgment of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes the individual holds towards himself. It is a subjective experience which the individual conveys to others by verbal reports and other overt expressive behavior” (pp. 4-5). This indicates that in coming up with items that comprise a measure of self esteem, the importance, meaningfulness or salience of the items to the respondents should be considered to develop a true indication of a respondent’s self-esteem. Information on a person’s value system and his personal evaluation of successes and failures in certain areas of his life reveals much about his self-esteem. In being involved in a romantic relationship, his self-esteem is greatly affected, as shown by the studies of Mathes, Adams & Davies (1985); Green, Campbell & Davis (2007); Leone and Hawkins (n.d.); Cramer & Donachie (1999). The variables of jealousy (Mathes, Adams & Davies, 1985), self-discrepancy (Green, Campbell & Davis, 2007), self-monitoring (Leone & Hawkins, n.d.) and psychological health and change in closeness in relationships (Cramer & Donachie, 1999) all contribute to the effect of romantic events on a person’s self-esteem. From focusing on one’s self, as reflected by his self-esteem, one can now determine his preferences for a prospective romantic mate. This is thoroughly discussed in the study of Feiring (1996), Conger, Cui, Bryant & Elder, Jr., (2000) and Levine, Aune & Park (2006). These studies point to factors that influence an individual’s ideal profile of a romantic partner. They also predict which kind of relationship pattern (love style) the individual will be likely to adopt when he becomes involved in a romantic relationship. Understanding the individual’s self-concept and preferences in romantic partners, this research follows him up on how he initiates romance in a relationship and this may intensify into a deeper commitment. The variables that go with this process are gender stereotypes associated with romance, (Sakalli-Ugurlu, 2003; Giordano, Longmore & Manning, 2006), intimacy (Moss, & Schwebel, 2001) and communication strategies used by both romantic partners (Tolhuizen, 1989). These variables may spell the success of a romantic relationship, leading to its endurance. This is the final phase to be explored by this paper. It is interested in the secret ingredients successful couples share in sustaining the romance in their long term relationships. The variables of relationship satisfaction (Sakalli-Ugurlu, 2003), optimism (Assad, Donnellan, & Conger, 2007) were found to be some foundations of a strong romantic relationship, as I have gathered from the research literature. I am sure this study will unveil more. The variables mentioned above will definitely intersect one way or another, as these are all inter- related. The main variable of interest to this paper is romance – how it comes about, what is its effect on the people involved in it and how it lasts. A multitude of factors influencing romance is presented in relevant ways. Romance is the moderating variable, however, measuring it is challenging, if not nearly impossible. The variables that are related to romance, and which were discussed above were attempted to be measured using questionnaires and analyzed with various statistical methods. Demographic variables such as age and gender were usually incorporated in the studies to determine sex and age differences. These variables, most commonly independent variables, add depth to the results of the studies. Most of the variables included in the study were studied in relation to other variables. For instance, Levine, Aune & Park (2006) studied the variables of love styles, communication, partner preferences, initiation and intensification of relationships in three related studies. Mostly, respondents were asked to rate one variable against another. Study 1 having subjects rate and rank 14 characteristics of prospective romantic partners, Study 2 having subjects rate initiation and intensification strategies and Study 3 investigating the association between love styles and ratings of secret tests among individuals currently involved in a romantic relationship. Sakalli-Ugurlu (2003) used questionnaires in studying the relationships of the variables of relationship satisfaction, gender stereotypes and gender in planning the future of the romantic partners. Some studies limited their variables to two such as Assad, Donnellan & Conger (2007) who found a relationship between the variables of optimism and relationship satisfaction In analyzing the literature research, my current study will tackle variables one at a time, in the interviews I am planning to conduct. My research questions are as follows: 1. What are the physical/ physiological effects of being in love? 2. What factors affect an individual’s preference or choice for a romantic partner? 3. What are the psycho-emotional symptoms manifested at the onset of a romance? 4. How do people in romantic relationships see themselves/ their object of romantic feelings? 5. How do romantic relationships begin and develop? 6. What changes occur as the romance progresses into a deeper commitment? 7. How do couples sustain the romance in their relationship? For question #1, I shall explore the construct of physiological/physical symptoms felt by an individual when he falls in love. I will not have the resources of Dr. Marazziti or Helen Fisher who used sophisticated methodology and equipment. I will only gather personal experiences of my respondents such as what physical responses they experienced at the onset of the romance (ex. Heart beating fast; sweating profusely when the romantic prospect is near, etc.) For question #2, the variable of partner preferences will be explored in the interview questions (ex. Physical attributes, personality characteristics, etc.), and the answers of romantic partners shall be compared to check if they match. Question #3 examines the emotional manifestations of falling in love which usually appear at the beginning of a romance (ex. Extreme happiness; anticipation, depression when the romantic prospect is not seen, etc.). This (as well as in #1) might be difficult to surface especially if the respondents have been in a romantic relationship for a very long time already and memory might not serve them right. The fourth question deals with the variable of self-esteem both for the individual, and in relation to his romantic partner (ex. Insecurities; confidence levels, etc). It also explores how he sees his romantic partner, and what he thinks of her in the context of the romantic relationship (ex. Sees the partner as a future spouse due to ideal characteristics possessed). Question #5 traces back how the romance began and developed into what it currently is (ex. How they met, and how they maintained contact). In relation to that, Question # 6 will be more specific in probing the changes that occurred in the process of intensifying the romance into a deeper commitment (ex. Exclusivity in dating; promises of fidelity, etc). Lastly, Question # 7 will solicit advise from the respondents as to how to keep romance alive in relationships. Their wisdom and first hand knowledge will be valuable in providing information for this research. I find comfort in the fact that the methodology I shall be using in this qualitative research parallels that of Bowen’s (2005), who did in-depth investigation in a small number of communities. Like in my study, he used purposive sampling in the selection of his participants instead of random sampling used in most experimental studies. His selected participants underwent in-depth, open ended interviews. Padgett (1998) advocates that since the emphasis in qualitative studies are on quality rather than quantity, the objective of sampling was not to maximize numbers but to become “saturated” with information on the topic. The same issues surround case studies. Critics argue that with the nature of case studies, the small numbers are unable to establish reliability and generalizability of findings. This is compromised by the researcher’s intense exposure to the cases at hand (LIS 39 ID.1, 1997). Being aware of this possibility, I need to manage an objective and professional demeanor. If possible, I would train interviewers to do the interviews for me. Judges may also be trained to determine themes in the interview answers, so these themes may be compared and analyzed objectively. This will add to the reliability and validity of the research as well as maintain objectivity. In defending case studies, researchers continue to use it with success in carefully planned and designed studies of real-life situations, issues and problems (LIS 39 ID.1, 1997). Those that use multiple cases, like I intend to do, each case should be treated as a single case. Each case’s findings and conclusions will then be used to contribute to the whole study, while retaining its individuality. Strict adherence to the criteria of selection helps build the parameters around each case. The case studies I intend to do will be on couples who are successful in their romantic relationships, as proven by the length, and depth of their relationship that may have landed in marriage or a long-term committed partnership. I intend to begin searching for my participants in church communities, which are likely places where romantic couples have stayed strong in their commitment to each other, following the advocacies of their church. The validity of the data I shall be gathering would come from the integrity of the participants’ responses and its close parallelism to the research literature. Ensuring qualitative validity is quite different from quantitative studies. Wainer and Braun (1988) explain that in quantitative research, construct validity begins with an initial concept, notion, question or hypothesis which determines which data is to be sought and the methodology that must be used to gather it. Such construct is made to interplay with the data in order to ‘validate’ the investigation, usually by the application of a test or some other process that manipulates variables. Cronbach and Meehl (1995) clarifies that the data yielded can either support or reject the construct which can now be elevated as a theory or a further hypothesis. Winter (2000) argues that with qualitative research, there may be no hypothesis or standardized or accepted tests involved. The ‘validity’ resides with the representation of the participants in the study, the purposes of the research and the appropriateness of the processes involved. Butt (1992) defines qualitative validity simply as the congruence of our research claims to reality. “In the case of the human sciences it is the congruence of our text of understanding with the lived reality of persons (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990 pp. 97-98). This means that validity would depend on how well we represent the perceptions, feelings, thinking, experience of persons, the breadth, depth and interrelations of issues, concerns and themes (Butt, 1992). This particular research will adhere to Heron’s (1988) more formal view of validity in human research which is the coherence of knowledge derived from research to the experiential knowledge of the participants and its coherence to the practical knowledge of how one acts in specific situations and contexts. I believe that my qualitative methodology will work effectively, as some of the studies in the literature review have likewise made use of interviews and reported the answers of the respondents, claiming that these may not necessarily be representative of the population’s sentiments (Feiring, 1996; Giordano et al, 2006; Green et al, 2007; Assad, 2007). My variables should be clearly defined based on the literature and validated by the respondents. In case there will be conflicts, then, these shall be analyzed accordingly as part of the findings. Bowen’s (2005) analysis of interview transcripts identified patterns in the data by means of thematic codes. Patton (1980) explains “Inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis” (p. 306). Bowen’s analysis of data entailed studying the patterns that emerge, making logical associations with the interview questions and reference to the review of literature. He details the process of deriving his research findings as thus: “At successive stages, themes moved from a low level of abstraction to become major, overarching themes rooted in the concrete evidence provided by the data. These emerging themes together with a substantive-formal theory of “development-focused collaboration” became the major findings of my study.” My research will adopt the same analysis. In holding up my study against those which were highlighted in the review of literature, I am now more confident in embarking on this new adventure of qualitative research. References Assad, K. K., Donnellan, M.B. & Conger, R.D., (2007) “Optimism: An Enduring Resource for Romantic Relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93, No. 2, 285–297 Bowen, G.A. (2005) “Preparing a Qualitative Research-Based Dissertation: Lessons Learned”, The Qualitative Report Volume 10 Number 2 June 2005 208-222 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-2/bowen.pdf Butt, R. (1992) On Being Personal About the Collective. A paper presented at A.E.R.A., San Francisco, April 20-24, 1992. Chrzanowski, G.(1981), “The Genesis and Nature of Self-Esteem”, American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol 35, No. 1 Cone, J.D. (1998) Dissertations and Theses from Start to Finish: Psychology and Related Fields, American Psychological Association Conger, R.D., Cui, M., Bryant, C.M. & Elder, Jr., G.H. (2000) “Competence in Early Adult Romantic Relationships: A Developmental Perspective on Family Influences”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000, Vol. 79, No. 2, 224-237 Coopersmith, S. (1967) The Antecedents of Self-Esteem, San Francisco: Freeman Cozby, P.C. (2007) Methods in Behavioral Research, 9th edition, McGraw Hill Cramer, D. & Donachie, M., (1999) “Psychological Health and Change in Closeness in Platonic & Romantic Relationships”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 139, No. 6, pp. 762-767 Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. Eisner, E.W. & Peshkin (Eds.) (1990) Qualitative Inquiry in Educaation. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press. Feiring, C. (1996) “Concepts of Romance in 15-Year-Old Adolescents”, Journal Of Research On Adolescence, 6(2), 181-200 Fisher, H. (2004) Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New Giordano, P. C. , Longmore, M.A. & Manning, W.D. (2006) “Gender and the Meanings of Adolescent Romantic Relationships: A Focus on Boys”, American Sociological Review, 2006, VOL. 71 Green, J.D., Campbell, W.K., Davis, J.L. (2007) “Ghosts From the Past: An Examination of Romantic Relationships and Self-Discrepancy”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 2007, 147(3), 243–264 Heiman, G.W. (2002), Research Methods in Psychology, Third edition, Houghton Mifflin Co. Heron, J (1988) Validity in Cooperative Inquiry. In P. Reason (Ed). Human Inquiry in Action. (pp. 40-59) Leone, C. and Hawkins, L.B.,(2006) “Self-Monitoring and Close Relationships”, Journal of Personality 74:3 Levine, T.R., Aune, K. S. & Park, H.S., (2006) “Love Styles and Communication In Relationships: Partner Preferences, Initiation, and Intensification”, Communication Quarterly Vol. 54, No. 4, November 2006, pp. 465–486 Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. LIS 391D.1 (1997) The Case Study as a Research Method Uses and Users of Information Mathes, E.W., Adams, H.E. & Davies, R.M. (1985) “Jealousy: Loss of Relationship Rewards, Loss of Self-Esteem, Depression, Anxiety and Anger”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 6 Moss, B.F., & Schwebel, A.I., (2001) “Defining Intimacy in Romantic Relationships”, Family Relations, 1993, 42, 31-37. Padgett, D. K. (Ed.). (2004). The qualitative research experience. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Qualitative Validity (n.d.) Retrieved on August 30, 2008 from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., (2003) “How Do Romantic Relationship Satisfaction, Gender Stereotypes and Gender Relate to Future Time Orientation in Romantic Relationships?”, The Journal of Psychology, 137(3), 294- 303 Tolhuizen, J. H. (1989). Communication strategies for intensifying dating relationships: Identification, use and structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 413–434. Wainer, H., & Braun, H. I. (1988). Test validity. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Watkins, D. (1978) “The Development and Evaluation of Self-Esteem Measuring Instruments, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 42, No. 2 Winter, G. (2000) “A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of Validity in Qualitative and Quantitative Research”, The Qualitative Report, Volume 4, Numbers 3 & 4, March, 2000 (http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4- 3/winter.html) Read More