Differences in Mean IOS Scores - Research Paper Example

Introduction It is that unforgettable, indescribable, universal feeling that has been the root of almost all of man’s glory and angst: love. Love isan emotion central to the human condition; from Shakespeare to the Beatles, love has not just been a dominant theme, but the predominate theme in almost any form of human expression, yet in spite of its centauries of description, love often defies definition. Herein lays the challenge for researchers: how do you provide a constitutional definition of a term that almost every human being comprehends, yet has been described and expressed ad infinitum. Love is such a subjective, relative emotion and term that a unique definition could be provided by every different member of a sample group. After all, the question of “What is love?” has stirred millennia of debate, how can researchers and scientists, or even philosophers, be expected to define such a vague and fleeting term? It was that question, as well as so many others, that Martin Buber sought to answer when he began work on his masterwork “I and Thou” (Buber, 1923). In this work, Buber defines man’s view of his own existence in terms of his reference to himself through the pronoun “I”. Buber argues that this pronoun can be divided into two categorical uses: I-It and I-Thou. People use the I-It (in place of the pronoun “I”) when referencing relationships which they feel are separate from themselves. For example, one might have an I-Thou relationship with a cashier in a grocery store. The cashier’s existence is of no significant importance to the customer, and the customer will probably forget the cashier by the time he or she gets to the car. Contrary to this relationship, Buber explains that the I-Thou relationship is not as easily forgotten. The I-Thou relationship is when both parties view each other as subjects, and not objects, and essentially appreciate the existence of the other. Buber argues that the essential, defining feature of this relationship is closeness, that each person loses their individual self to the communal identity. It is with this insight that Buber begins to find the solution to his original question. Love is the I-Thou relation, it is losing your sense of self and individuality to an identity based on a relationship with another. It is this definition of love as an intimate closeness that would influence Berscheid over fifty years later in his creation of the Relationship Closeness Inventory (RCI). The RCI is a self-reported questionnaire created by Berscheid and colleagues that attempts to measure the closeness of a relationship based on three factors: the amount of time the members of the relationship spend together, the variety of activities they engage in together, and the influence the members have on each other (Aron, 1992). While this measure proved valid and reliable (as well as accurate with an r=0.35), the measure did have its limitations. In his 1992 article “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness”, Arthur Aron and colleagues describe the limitations of the RCI as being generally designed for and aimed at North American college students. Furthermore, Aron describes the RCI as taking 10-15 minutes to complete (Aron, 1992). Clearly, a more generalizable and shorter scale to measure the closeness that is so integral to love and strong interpersonal relationships is needed to further researchers’ understanding of this concept. It is this challenge that Aron and colleagues confront and overcome with their “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale” (1992). The scale relies on its simplicity to overcome the challenges presented by the ROS, and uses increasingly overlapping venn diagrams labeled “self” and “other” to describe levels of closeness. Furthermore, Aron and colleagues (1992) showed the scale to be reliable and valid, as well as able to significantly predict whether a couple would still be together after three months. Recently, increasing closeness as demonstrated in the IOS scale has even been shown to correlate to fMRI scans demonstrating empathy in patients’ brains; showing that the scale can accurately act as a proxy for describing the effect of closeness on humans (Cheng, Chen, Lin, Chou, & Decety, 2010). It is for these reasons that the IOS was chosen for the present study. The purpose of this study is to analyze differences in mean IOS scores for graduate students grouped by gender and present relationship status . This study aims to build on past research by incorporating the IOS scale to determine if there are significant differences in individuals’ perceptions of closeness based on their gender and relationship status, or possibly the synergistic effect of these two combined effects. Methods Participants The participants for this study were a convenience sample of graduate students from this institution who were recruited to fill out surveys. The subjects ranged in age from (***I DO NOT HAVE THIS DATA YOU NEED TO FILL IT IN***). In terms of gender, demographics favored females with 42 females responding and only 19 males responding. Furthermore, participants were slightly biased towards being in a relationship, as 39 respondents were presently in a relationship, and 22 were not. Instrument The Inclusion of Other in the Self scale used in this study was a three item, self-reported survey administered to graduate students to determine their perceived level of closeness with their significant other. The first item was developed by Aron and colleagues (1992) and uses increasingly overlapping venn diagrams to represent perceived closeness. The following two items, gender and relationship status, were used to define data for the independent variables. Aron showed that the IOS is a reliable instrument through use of a Chronbach’s alpha (alpha=0.93) and test-retest check (r=0.83). Aron also showed the instrument to be valid by conducting three month follow-ups with his sample to see if couples were still together. Aron demonstrated that the IOS could significantly predict the couple’s relationship status at three months (r=0.46, p=0.001), and proved the validity of the instrument. Procedures Procedures for the administration of this survey were simple. Graduate students were asked if they would be interested in participating in a brief, three item survey to help out their fellow student. Students that agreed were asked to sign a letter of consent, and were then given the survey and a pen to respond. Data was collected anonymously and was held confidentially to protect the anonymity of participants. Collected data was then entered into (***YOU NEED TO PUT WHAT STAT SOFTWARE YOU USED TO ANALYZE YOUR DATA HERE. SPSS, SAS, EXCEL, JOURNAL/NOTEBOOK IF BY HAND***) for analysis through ANOVA. This technique was chosen because there are two categorical independent variables (gender and relationship status) and one continuous dependent variable (IOS score). Results Overall, n=61 responses were collected. For the gender independent variable, n=19 males responded with a mean IOS score of 3.5789 and a standard deviation of 1.77375. N=42 females responded with a mean IOS score of 3.7619 and a standard deviation of 1.635. This difference was not significant (F(***PUT YOUR DEGREES OF FREEDOM IN PARENTHESES NEXT TO THE F STATISTIC LIKE THIS: F(3,32)=3.168. PUT THE DEGREES OF FREEDOM FOR THAT VARIABLE FIRST AND THE TOTAL DEGREES OF FREEDOM AFTER THE COMMA***)=0.155 p=0.695), indicating that for this sample, IOS scores were not significantly different between genders. For the relationship status independent variable, n=39 respondents said they were in a committed relationship, with a mean IOS score of 4.0256 and a standard deviation of 1.5128. N=22 respondents said they were not in a committed relationship, with a mean of 3.1364 and a standard deviation of 1.80727. This difference was significant (F(df1, df2)=4.219, p=0.44), with respondents answering yes having a 95% CI of 3.505-4.54 and no having 2.44-3.82. This shows that individuals in a committed relationship expect to feel closer to the other member of these types of relationships than those responding they were not in this type of relationship. Discussion The present study has made significant findings concerning individuals’ perceptions of closeness in relationships. This study shows that individuals currently in a committed relationship tend to expect to feel closer to the other member of these types of relationships than those that are not in these types of relationships. This study also found that the level of expected closeness from these types of relationships did not vary significantly based on gender of the respondent, but only on relationship status. These findings appear to validate much of the work that has been done in defining important traits of interpersonal relationships. In terms of Buber’s (1932) “I and Thou” work, this study appears to validate the concept of love as a type of closeness. Even the venn diagrams of the IOS appear to mimic Buber’s idea of the loss of self. As the circles get closer, less and less of the self circle is visible and more and more of the other is visible. This metaphor is validated through this study, as it appears that closeness plays an important role in a committed relationship. Limitations of this study include a biased sample, a convenience sample, and a small sample. First, the sample demographics were skewed in favor of people in a relationship and in favor of women. Overall, 42 women compared with 19 men responded to the survey, and 39 respondents as opposed to 22, said they were in a committed relationship. Future researchers should attempt to get an equal sample of men and women, as well as an equal sample of people in and not in a committed relationship to avoid bias. Furthermore, this sample was a convenience sample and was small. 61 respondents answered the survey overall, and these respondents were graduate students at this institution. Future researchers aiming to increase generalizability, power, and effect size of similar studies should focus efforts on sampling a larger and broader population. Overall, this paper modestly adds to the growing body of scientific literature aiming to answer the question of “What is love?”. While it certainly does not add any definitive conclusions, this study shows that closeness is an integral part of the love two people share in a committed relationship. While science may never be able to fully describe the mystic feeling love stirs in all of us, future researchers can benefit from this study’s description of closeness, and of love in general. References 1. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 63 (4), 596-612. 2. Buber, M. (1923). I and Thou. Berlin: Shocken Verlag. 3. Cheng, Y., Chen, C., Lin, C.-P., Chou, K.-H., & Decety, J. (2010). Love hurts: An fMRI study. NeuroImage , 51 (2), 923-929. Read More