Summarize this article using this very straight forward example:

EXAMPLE:

Krcmar, M. & Lachlan, K. (2009). Aggressive Outcomes and Videogame Play: The Role of Length of Play and the Mechanisms at Work. Media Psychology, 7, 39-51.

Introduction

The authors stated that in general, research shows that violent video game play increases aggression in players. However, not all studies have found this. Surveys usually find that people who play violent games are more aggressive after years of play, than people who don't. In addition, experiments where players played for a very long time showed no increases in aggression but experiments that had players play for a shorter amount of time DID find increases in aggression. They wanted to know if the amount of time players spent playing the game in one sitting made a difference in how aggressive they were afterwards and they wanted to know if aggression goes down after longer play, how can people who play more often and day after day, be more aggressive?

Method

Participants played Max Payne for 0 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes or 30 minutes. Then they filled out questionnaires that measured arousal and aggression.

Results

Overall, there was no increase in aggression for ALL players. Instead, for people who played 0 or 5 minutes, both arousal and aggression was low. For people who played a little longer, 10 minutes, they were more aroused and more aggressive. For people who played 30 minutes, arousal was again low and so was aggression.

Discussion

The authors say that in the short term (just playing once) players get aroused and this arousal increases aggression. But as they play longer and get more relaxed, they are less aggressive. BUT, if they play a lot over time (i.e. daily or weekly), they develop schemas and mental scripts for aggression from playing violent games. Thus, they are more aggressive overall as compared to people who do not play violent video games regularly.

Article to be summarized:

Establishing Good Relationships: Responsiveness, Relationship Quality, and Interpersonal Goals Amy Canevello and Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Jennifer Crocker Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, and Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.

Abstract

Perceived partner responsiveness is a core feature of close, satisfying relationships. But how does responsiveness originate? Can people have relationships characterized by high responsiveness, and consequently, higher quality relationships? We suggest that goals contribute to cycles of responsiveness between people, improving both people's relationship quality. The present studies examine 1) how interpersonal goals initiate responsiveness processes in close relationships, 2) the self-perpetuating nature of these processes, and 3) how responsiveness evolves dynamically over time through both intrapersonal projection and reciprocal interpersonal relationship processes. In a semester-long study of 115 roommate dyads, actors' compassionate and self-image goals predicted a cycle of responsiveness between roommates, occurring within weeks and across the semester.In a 3-week study of 65 roommate dyads, actors' goals again predicted cycles of responsiveness between roommates, which then contributed to both actors' and partners' relationship quality. Results suggest that both projection and reciprocation of responsiveness associated with compassionate goals create upward spirals of responsiveness that ultimately enhance relationship quality for both people.

Establishing Good Relationships: Responsiveness, Relationship Quality, and Interpersonal Goals

High quality close relationships contribute to mental and physical well-being; poor quality close relationships create stress and undermine health and well-being (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996). Relationship quality depends on beliefs about a relationship partner's responsiveness--that is, on the perception that a partner understands, values, and supports important aspects of the self. People who perceive their relationship partners as responsive feel close, satisfied, and committed to those relationships (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). The present studies focus on the dynamic of responsiveness in dyadic relationships -- relationship processes that promote or undermine reciprocation of responsiveness between relationship partners, affecting both partners' relationship quality over time.

It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at www.apa.org/journals/psp NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. Published in final edited form as: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 July ; 99(1): 78-106. doi:10.1037/a0018186. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript people's interpersonal goals for their relationships, that is their compassionate goals to support others and their self-image goals to create and maintain desired self-images (Crocker & Canevello, 2008), predict positive and negative responsiveness dynamics respectively, changing both people's relationship quality. In this way, people can establish responsive, highquality relationships for themselves and others.

Responsiveness in Relationships

Responsive relationship partners convey understanding, validation, and caring (Gable & Reis, 2006). They are warm, sensitive to their partners' feelings, and want to make their partners feel comfortable, valued, listened to, and understood. Existing theory and research on responsiveness suggests that people's responsiveness to partners contributes to both their own and partners' perceptions of responsiveness in the relationship. Lemay and colleagues (Lemay & Clark, 2008; Lemay, Clark, & Feeney, 2007) found that people contribute to their own experiences of responsiveness in close relationships; when people report being responsive to relationship partners, they project their responsiveness onto partners and perceive partners as more responsive. Other researchers characterize responsiveness as a transactional process between relationship partners. Reis and Shaver (1988) hypothesize that close relationships develop through an interpersonal process in which actors' reactions to partners influence partners' perceptions of actors' responsiveness. Importantly, Reis and Shaver speculate that goals, motives, needs, and fears of both relationship partners contribute to and result from responsiveness in the relationship. That is, goals and motives predict people's relationship behaviors and how they interpret partners' behaviors, which in turn, feed back to predict goals and motives. The present studies examine both intrapersonal and interpersonal processes of responsiveness and contribute to the responsiveness literature in three important ways. First, as suggested by Reis and Shaver (1988), interpersonal goals should predict responsiveness processes in close relationships. However, no research that we know of explicitly examines the motivational underpinnings of responsiveness, whether based on projection or reciprocation. We propose that actors' compassionate goals to support others and self-image goals to construct and maintain desired self-images shape their responsiveness to relationship partners. Through projection, actors' responsiveness affects their perceptions of their partners' responsiveness, and hence their own relationship experiences. Through partners' perceptions and reciprocation of actors' responsiveness, actors' responsiveness affects both actors' and partners' relationship experiences. We suggest that because projection is an intrapersonal processes and the exchange of responsiveness between relationship partners is an interpersonal process, both can occur simultaneously. That is, people can project their responsiveness onto others, affecting their own relationship experiences, and at the same time, convey responsiveness to relationship partners, affecting partners' relationship experiences. Second, projected and reciprocated responsiveness can become self-perpetuating: relationship goals promote or undermine projection and reciprocation of responsiveness, which reinforce both people's subsequent relationship goals. Thus, through their interpersonal goals, people can create responsive, high-quality relationships for themselves and others and contribute to both people's goals for the relationship. Third, to our knowledge, the present studies are the first to examine both immediate and longterm intra- and interpersonal responsiveness dynamics and resulting relationship outcomes as they evolve over time. Previous research suggests that these processes should occur quickly within relationships, guiding people's relationship experiences and goals in the moment (e.g., Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998; Lemay et al., 2007). We hypothesize that the effects of compassionate and self-image goals and responsiveness extend over time, predicting Canevello and Crocker Page 2 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript change in people's relationship experiences and goals from day to day and week to week, and that chronic interpersonal goals predict long-term changes in relationship experiences and interpersonal goals over weeks and months. Thus, we propose that projection of responsiveness and reciprocation of responsiveness dynamically affect short-term fluctuations and long-term changes in relationship outcomes. Figure 1 illustrates our general model in a relationship between an actor (A) and a relationship partner (P). We highlight intra- and interpersonal aspects of the model and detail them below.

Intrapersonal Process: A's Compassionate and Self-Image Goals and Responsiveness Predict A's Relationship Experience.

We hypothesize an intrapersonal model examining how people's goals contribute to their own experiences of responsiveness and resulting relationship goals and quality. Our model extends the intrapersonal projection of responsiveness described by Lemay and colleagues (Lemay & Clark, 2008; Lemay et al., 2007), by showing how actors' goals can be the starting point for change in their responsiveness to partners, which is projected onto partners and leads to change in actors' goals and relationship outcomes. Paths A-E in Figure 1 show our hypothesized intrapersonal model of goals and responsiveness: A's interpersonal goals predict change in A's responsiveness (Path A), which predicts change in A's perceptions of P's responsiveness (Path B), with consequences for change in A's subsequent responsiveness (Path C), goals (Path D), and relationship quality (Path E). Paths G-K of Figure 1 are a mirror image of the intrapersonal processes in paths A-E, but for partners rather than actors: P's compassionate goals predict P's increased and self-image goals predict P's decreased responsiveness to A (Path G). P's responsiveness to A predicts P's increased perceptions of A's responsiveness (Path H), which then leads to P's increased responsiveness (Path I), increased compassionate and decreased self-image goals (Path J), and increased relationship quality (Path K). Below, we present the rationale for each path in the intrapersonal model. Path A: A's compassionate and self-image goals predict change in A's responsivenessWe propose that two types of relationship goals shape responsiveness to relationship partners. Self-image goals focus on constructing, maintaining, and defending desired public and private images of the self (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). When people have self-image goals, they care about what others think of them, but not what others need; consequently they should be less responsive. Compassionate goals focus on supporting others, not to obtain something for the self, but out of concern for others' well-being (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). When people have compassionate goals, they want to be a constructive force in their interactions with others, and avoid harming them. We suggest that when people have compassionate goals they are more responsive, because they care about others' well-being.1 People with chronically high compassionate goals report greater private self-consciousness, lower psychological entitlement, believe that it is possible for both people in a relationship to have their needs met, and believe that it is important that people look out for one another; they trust in and feel closer to others and report both giving and receiving more social support (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). These findings suggest that when people have compassionate goals they understand and trust that when they are responsive to others, they create an environment in which others will respond to them. In contrast, people with chronically high self-image goals report higher psychological entitlement, believe that good outcomes for one person come at the expense of others, and feel that it is important to look out for themselves, even at the expense of others; they report higher loneliness, more conflict with others, and lower interpersonal trust (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). These findings suggest that when Canevello and Crocker Page 3 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript people have self-image goals they feel a sense of scarcity and fear that their needs will not be met in collaboration with others. Based on these findings, we propose Path A: When A has the goal to care for and support P, A will become more responsive to P, whereas when A has the goal to create and maintain desired self-images, A will become less responsive to P. Path B: A's responsiveness to P predicts A's increased perceptions of P's responsivenessWhen actors believe they are responsive to partners, they project their own responsiveness onto partners and perceive partners as more responsive (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Lemay & Clark, 2008; Lemay et al., 2007). Several factors might moderate this association. For example, actors who have low self-esteem might feel their partners do not value them and perceive their partners as unresponsive (Murray, Griffin, Rose, & Bellavia, 2003). Also, because of their over-involvement with others and self-neglect, actors high in unmitigated communion might want to see themselves as self-sacrificing and see their partners as unresponsive (Helgeson & Fritz, 1998). However, despite these specific circumstances, in general we expect a strong association between responsiveness and perceptions of partners' responsiveness. These considerations lead us to propose Path B: A's responsiveness to P predicts A's increased perceptions of P's responsiveness. Path C: A's perception of P's responsiveness predicts A's increased responsiveness to PWhen actors perceive their partners as responsive, they are more responsive in return; when they perceive their partners as unresponsive, actors are less responsive in return (Fruzzetti, Jacobson, & Blechman, 1990; Gable & Reis, 2006; Patterson, 1976; Plickert, Ct, & Wellman, 2007). This may happen for several reasons. People may reciprocate responsiveness out of caring. Actors' responsiveness strengthens partners' social bonds to actors, including feelings of caring, connection, and trust, leading partners to want to be responsive to actors (e.g., Brown & Brown, 2006; Clark, Fitness, & Brissette, 2004). In established communal relationships, partners experience more positive mood and less negative mood when they reciprocate support to actors, compared to when they do not (Gleason, Iida, Bolger, & Shrout, 2003). Even in new relationships, reciprocity of responsiveness may be the result of social exchange norms in which both partners focus on an equal exchange of responsiveness (Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1982). Given this evidence, we propose Path C: A's perception of P's responsiveness predicts A's increased responsiveness to P. Path D: A's perception of P's responsiveness predicts change in A's compassionate and self-image goalsActors' perceptions of partners' responsiveness should shape actors' compassionate and self-image goals toward the partner. Actors who perceive partners as responsive feel validated, understood, and cared for (Reis et al., 2004), 1Although they are related, compassionate goals and responsiveness to others are theoretically distinct. Compassionate goals are selfguides; they serve as a compass pointing the self in the direction of being constructive and caring toward others. When people have compassionate goals, they ask themselves, "how can I be constructive?" Responsiveness, in contrast, involves tuning into and acting in response to others' states (i.e., their feelings, desires, and needs). That is, when people are responsive, they direct their attention toward others' needs at that moment. Typically, compassionate goals and responsiveness work together; having compassionate goals leads people to be responsive, as we hypothesize in Path A. However, compassionate goals and responsiveness are not identical; compassionate goals do not lead to responsiveness in all circumstances. For example, consider the hypothetical situation of Betty, who is an alcoholic. Ann, her sister, participates in an intervention with Betty. Ann may have compassionate goals for Betty during the intervention - she may want to be supportive of Betty, have compassion for Betty's mistakes and weaknesses, and make a positive difference in Betty's life. Ann's compassionate goals may lead her not to be responsive to Betty (i.e., make her feel comfortable about herself and her feelings), but instead to have a painful conversation with her, including telling Betty how much she has hurt her friends and family. Although this will likely benefit Betty in the long run, in the moment Ann may be unresponsive to Betty's feelings, and Betty might perceive Ann as unresponsive. Similarly, being responsive does not necessitate having compassionate goals. People may be responsive to others without intending to be caring or compassionate. For example, Cathy may be responsive to Dan, not because she has compassionate goals, but because she wants Dan to like her. She may make Dan feel comfortable about himself and valued as a person, be sensitive to his feelings, and understand his concerns, but Cathy may not have compassionate goals to make a positive difference in Dan's life or avoid being selfish or self-centered. Although compassionate goals are distinguishable from responsiveness, we hypothesize that when people have compassionate goals, they typically are responsive. Canevello and Crocker Page 4 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript which fosters a sense of security and permits a shift in focus from protecting the self to supporting others (Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). In other words, actors' feelings that partners are responsive to them should foster compassionate goals for partners. Unresponsiveness, on the other hand, conveys a partners' lack of interest in or concern for actors. Perceptions of partners' unresponsiveness may signal to actors that they should protect themselves from uncaring partners (Clark & Monin, 2006; Murray et al., 2003; Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, & Kusche, 2002) and, as a result, actors should increase in self-image goals. These considerations lead us to propose Path D: A's perception of P's responsiveness predicts A's increased compassionate and decreased selfimage goals. Path E: A's perception of P's responsiveness predicts A's increased relationship qualityPerceived partner responsiveness is crucial to relationship quality (Clark & Mills, 1993; Laurenceau et al., 2004; see Reis et al., 2004 for a review). Actors who believe that partners are responsive feel closer, more intimate, and more satisfied with their relationships (Berg & Archer, 1982; Collins & Feeney, 2000; Cutrona, Shaffer, Wesner, & Gardner, 2007; Davis, 1982; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Lemay et al., 2007). When actors perceive partners as unresponsive, they experience decreased satisfaction, commitment, and closeness in those relationships (Fincham & Beach, 1999; Gottman & Levenson, 1992). Consequently, we predict Path E: A's perception of P's responsiveness predicts A's increased relationship quality. Interpersonal Process: A's compassionate and self-image goals and responsiveness lead to P's relationship experience and goals In addition to this purely intrapersonal process, we hypothesize an interpersonal model in which people's goals and responsiveness contribute to relationship partners' experience of actors' responsiveness, leading to reciprocation of responsiveness and resulting relationship goals and quality. We draw from previous theory and research suggesting that responsiveness is a dyadic process whereby partners perceive actors' responsiveness and respond in turn (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Reis & Shaver, 1988). We hypothesize that actors' goals can also be the starting point for creating responsiveness dynamics between relationship partners, with consequences for partners' responsiveness to actors, goals, and relationship quality. Paths A, F, I, J, and K in Figure 1 depict our interpersonal model, in which A's goals predict change in A's responsiveness to partners (Path A), which predicts change in P's perceptions of A's responsiveness (Path F), with consequences for change in P's subsequent responsiveness (Path I), goals (Path J), and relationship quality (Path K). Paths G, L, C, D, and E of Figure 1 are a mirror image of the interpersonal processes in Paths A, F, I, J, and K, but show effects of partners' goals and responsiveness on change in actors' relationship experiences: P's compassionate and self-image goals predict change in P's responsiveness to A (Path G). P's responsiveness to A predicts A's increased perceptions of P's responsiveness (Path L), which then leads to A's increased responsiveness, increased compassionate and decreased self-image goals, and increased relationship quality (Paths C, D, and E). Path A: A's compassionate and self-image goals predict change in A's responsivenessAs described previously in our rationale for the intrapersonal model, we propose Path A: that A's interpersonal goals predict change in A's responsiveness to P. Path F: A's responsiveness predicts P's increased perceptions of A's responsivenessRelationship researchers assume that partners' perceptions of actors have some basis in actors' behaviors (Kelley et al., 1983). Most theories of interpersonal Canevello and Crocker Page 5 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript relationships assume that actors' responsiveness to partners predicts partners' perceptions of actors' responsiveness (e.g. Bowlby, 1969; Gable & Reis, 2006; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; I. G. Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1990); empirical research supports this prediction (Abbey, Andrews, & Halman, 1995; Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000; Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2003; Lemay & Clark, 2008; Vinokur, Schul, & Caplan, 1987). For example, in romantic couples when actors disclosed a stressful problem to partners, partners' reports of their own responsiveness (i.e., responsiveness, listening, understanding, not criticizing, giving support, and expressing concern) positively predicted actors' perceptions of partners' responsiveness (Collins & Feeney, 2000). Consequently, we propose Path F: A's responsiveness to P predicts P's increased perceptions of A's responsiveness. Paths I, J, and K: P's perceptions of A's responsiveness and change in P's relationship experienceUsing the same rationale to describe Paths C, D, and E previously, we propose Paths I, J, and K, respectively: P's perceptions of A's responsiveness has consequences for P's increased responsiveness (Path I), increased compassionate and decreased self-image goals (Path J) and increased relationship quality (Path K). Overview of Present Studies In two studies of first-semester college freshman roommates, we tested 1) how interpersonal goals initiate projection and reciprocal responsiveness in close relationships, 2) the selfperpetuating nature of these processes, and 3) how responsiveness evolves dynamically over time through both intrapersonal projection and reciprocal interpersonal relationship processes. First semester college students provide an interesting population for examining these processes. Roommates in these samples did not know each other before living together, so their relationships are relatively unbiased by relationship history and past interactions. Unlike most close relationships, previously unacquainted roommates do not self-select into the relationship. At the same time, many first-year students experience significant disruption of their social lives. When they move away from home to attend college, they must build a social network. Their roommates are often the first people they meet and with whom they spend significant time. Study 1 tested whether students' compassionate and self-image goals predict a cycle of projected and reciprocal responsiveness between roommates with implications for both people's relationship goals. Study 2 reports previously unpublished data from the Roommate Goals Study (Crocker & Canevello, 2008, Study 2), examining the implications of these processes for both roommates' relationship quality. STUDY 1 College roommates completed pretest, posttest, and 10 weekly questionnaires, each including measures of compassionate and self-image goals, responsiveness to roommates, and perceived roommates' responsiveness. We tested associations between students' goals and 1) the intrapersonal process predicting their own experiences of responsiveness, and 2) the interpersonal process predicting their roommates' experiences of responsiveness. We tested a number of alternative explanations and moderators of these processes in Study 1. First, self-disclosure elicits responsiveness from others (e.g., Greene, Derlega, Mathews, Vangelisti, & Perlman, 2006; Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Associations between goals and responsiveness to roommates could be due to perceptions of roommates' disclosure, and associations between responsiveness to roommates and perceptions of roommates' responsiveness could be due to disclosure to roommates. Canevello and Crocker Page 6 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript Second, we sought to distinguish responsiveness from social support. Previous research shows that compassionate and self-image goals predict change in perceived available support and supportive behaviors (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). The present studies focus on responsiveness, which we hypothesize is a specific type of support. Support is often broadly defined, including perceptions of support availability and frequency of supportive behaviors (B. R. Sarason, Shearin, Pierce, & Sarason, 1987) and includes structural (e.g., group membership or family relationships) and functional components (e.g., providing tangible or emotional support) (Uchino, 2004). Responsiveness refers to people's sensitivity to partners and desires that partners feel valued, listened to, and understood. Researchers differ in how they view the relation between responsiveness and support; some argue that support is a component of responsiveness (e.g., Reis et al., 2004); others conceptualize responsiveness as a subset of social support, distinguishing between responsive and unresponsive support (e.g., Collins & Feeney, in press). Regardless, researchers agree that responsiveness and support are distinct but related constructs; support providers may not be perceived as responsive. We tested whether support made available to roommates and perceived available social support from roommates explained the effects of responsiveness to roommates and perceptions of roommates' responsiveness, respectively. Third, we examined whether negative mood accounts for or moderates the hypothesized associations. For example, the association between interpersonal goals and responsiveness to others might be spurious, if both are associated with anxious or depressed feelings. Feeling anxious or depressed might also moderate these associations. For example, the relation between responsiveness to roommates and perceptions of roommates' responsiveness may be particularly strong when people do not feel anxious or depressed. We controlled for students' self-disclosure to their roommates and their perceptions of their roommates' disclosure, social support made available to and perceived available support from roommates, and anxiety and depression to rule them out as alternative explanations. Method ParticipantsOne hundred fifteen first-semester same-sex freshmen roommate dyads at a large Midwestern university who did not know each other prior to college volunteered for a study of goals and roommate relationships during the fall semester. Via advertisements in the campus newspaper and flyers, we offered each roommate $60 for completing 12 surveys over 10 weeks ($10 for each the pretest and posttest and $4 for each weekly survey) plus a $40 bonus for completing all 12 surveys. One hundred nine pairs (95%) completed the pretest, posttest, and at least 8 weekly surveys. Although 6 pairs completed fewer parts of the study, we retained all data for analyses where possible.2 Eighty-six pairs (75%) were female. Seventyfive percent of participants reported their race as White or European-American, 2% as Black or African-American, 15% as Asian or Asian-American, and 8% selected other. The racial composition of the sample closely approximated the racial composition of the incoming freshman class. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 21 years (M = 18.1 years, SD = .36). ProcedureIn groups of 1 to 8, roommate pairs attended a 1.5 hour session to learn about the study, give their consent, complete the pretest survey, and receive instructions for completing the remaining 11 surveys. All surveys were administered using UM Lessons software. After completing the pretest survey, participants were instructed to complete the 10 weekly online surveys in privacy and not to discuss their responses with each other. The weekly surveys took about 30 minutes to complete and roommates were required to complete weekly 2Of the remaining five percent of respondents, one pair completed the pretest and 9 weekly surveys; two pairs completed the pretest, posttest, and 5 weekly surveys; and three pairs completed the pretest and less than 6 weekly surveys. Canevello and Crocker Page 7 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript surveys within no less than 48 hours of each other. To retain as many participants as possible in the study, participants were given up to 11 weeks to complete the 10 weekly surveys.3 Once roommates had completed 10 weekly surveys, they completed the posttest survey and were paid for their participation. MeasuresParticipants completed measures of compassionate and self-image goals, responsiveness to roommates, perceptions of roommates' responsiveness, disclosure to and from roommates, support made available to roommates, available support from roommates, anxiety, and depression at pretest, posttest, and weekly. At pretest, participants completed questions about demographics (gender, race/ethnicity, age, parental income). Additional measures not germane to the goals of the present investigation were also included. Self-image and compassionate goals for participants' relationships with their roommates were measured using a modified measure from Crocker & Canevello (2008). Pretest and posttest items began with the phrase, "In my relationship with my roommate, I want/try to." Weekly items began with "This week, in my relationship with my roommate, I wanted/tried to." All items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Eight items assessed compassionate goals: "be supportive of my roommate;" "have compassion for my roommate's mistakes and weaknesses;" "be aware of the impact my behavior might have on my roommate's feelings;" "make a positive difference in my roommate's life;" "avoid neglecting my relationship with my roommate;" "avoid being selfish or self-centered;" "be constructive in my comments to my roommate;" and "avoid doing things that aren't helpful to me or my roommate." Six items reflected self-image goals, including "avoid showing my weaknesses;" "avoid revealing my shortcomings or vulnerabilities;" "avoid the possibility of being wrong;" "convince my roommate that I am right;" "get my roommate to do things my way;" and "avoid being blamed or criticized." Both scales had high internal consistency at pretest (self-image = .79; compassionate = .75), posttest (self-image = .87; compassionate = .94), and across participants and weeks (self-image goals: .83 < < .91, M = .88; compassionate goals: . 85 < < .94, M = .91). Responsiveness to roommates and perceptions of roommates' responsiveness were measured with a 6-item modified version of a responsiveness measure used in previous research (Cutrona, Hessling, & Suhr, 1997; Gore, Cross, & Morris, 2006). Participants indicated how they acted toward their roommate in general at pretest and posttest. All items were rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Items included "I try to make my roommate feel comfortable about him/herself and how he/she feels;" "I try to make my roommate feel valued as a person;" "I try to be sensitive to my roommate's feelings;" "I really try to understand my roommate's concerns;" "I really listen to my roommate when he/she talks;" and "I behave warmly toward my roommate." We measured weekly responsiveness using the same items, asking how participants acted toward their roommate that week. Responsiveness was reliable at pretest ( =.93), posttest ( = .97) and in each weekly survey (.94 < < .98, M = .97). A parallel set of items assessed the extent to which participants believed their roommates responded to them. Pretest and posttest items asked about roommates' general responsiveness. Sample items included "my roommate tries to make me feel comfortable about myself and how I feel;" and "my roommate tries to make me feel valued as a person." We measured weekly 3Participants reported that completing the weekly surveys did not strongly affect their reports or their roommate relationships during Study 1. In the posttest measure, students rated the influence of the weekly records on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Although we do not have a control group for comparison, participants did not report that it was particularly difficult to complete the weekly surveys (M = 3.58) and felt that their weekly surveys were accurate (M = 5.33). Completing the records did increase how much they thought about their roommates and relationships (M = 4.34) and positive thoughts about the relationships (M = 3.35). However, they did not report that completing the surveys affected their behavior (M = 2.61) or the occurrence of negative (M = 1.94) or positive (M = 2.67) events between roommates. Canevello and Crocker Page 8 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript roommate responsiveness with the same items, referring to how roommates acted toward participants that week. Perceptions of roommates' responsiveness was reliable at pretest ( = . 95), posttest ( =.98), and in the weekly surveys (.94 < < .98, M = .97). Disclosure to the roommate and perceptions of roommates' disclosure were measured with a 5-item modified version of a disclosure measure used by Gore and colleagues (Gore et al., 2006a; Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983). Participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which they discussed each topic with their roommates; pretest and posttest items began with the phrase, "In general, I discuss:." All items were rated on a scale from 1 (discussed not at all) to 5 (discussed fully and completely) and included "my deepest feelings;" "my worst fears;" "what I like and dislike about myself;" "my close relationships with other people;" and "things I have done which I am proud of." We measured weekly disclosure using the same instructions and items, beginning with the phrase "This week, I discussed:." Disclosure to roommates was reliable at pretest ( =.85), posttest ( = .94) and from week to week (.85 < < .95, M = .92). A parallel set of items assessed the extent to which participants believed their roommates selfdisclosed. Pretest and posttest items began with the phrase, "In general, my roommate discusses:." Sample items included "his/her deepest feelings;" "his/her worst fears;" and "what he/she likes and dislikes about him/herself." We measured weekly roommate disclosure with the same items, referring to the extent to which roommates self-disclosed that week. Roommate disclosure was reliable at pretest ( = .89), posttest ( =.94), and in weekly surveys (.89 < < .95, M = .93). Perceived social support availability from roommates and support made available to roommates were measured with the Multidimensional Survey of Perceived Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988). Perceived availability pretest and posttest items were preceded with the stem "In general, I feel that." Weekly items were preceded with the stem "This past week, I felt that." Sample items included "My roommate really tried to help me" and "I could count on my roommate if things went wrong." Perceived social support availability was reliable at pretest ( =.93), posttest ( = .96) and from week to week (.93 < < .97, M = .96). Social support made available to roommates was also measured at pretest, posttest and weekly using a parallel set of items. Sample items included "I really tried to help my roommate" and "my roommate can count on me when things go wrong." Social support made available to roommates was reliable at pretest ( = .92), posttest ( =.95), and in weekly surveys (.86 < < .96, M = .94). Anxiety was assessed with the Speilberger State Anxiety Scale (Spielberger, Vagg, Barker, Donham, & Westberry, 1980). At pretest and posttest, participants rated their anxiety in general on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always); in the weekly surveys, they rated their anxiety over the past week on the same scale. Anxiety had high internal consistency at pretest ( =. 91), posttest ( =.94), and in each of the weekly surveys (.94 < < .95, M = .94). Depression was assessed at pretest, posttest, and weekly using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Inventory (CES-D; Radloff, 1997). The CES-D was developed to measure depressive symptoms in community samples and consists of 20 depression-related symptom items rated on a 4 point scale (0-3) based on the amount of time during the past week the respondent has experienced each symptom. Scores can range from 0 to 60. The CES-D had high internal consistency at pretest ( =.86), posttest ( =.89) and each of the weekly surveys (.90 < < .92, M = .91). Canevello and Crocker Page 9 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript Results Factor AnalysesTable 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and intrapersonal (i.e., within-person) intraclass correlations, which adjust for the degree of nonindependence between dyad members (Griffin & Gonzalez, 1995) for all primary variables in Study 1. Because correlations between compassionate goals and responsiveness to roommates and perceptions of roommates' responsiveness were high, we conducted exploratory factor analyses (EFA) on these items at pretest and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on items at posttest and each week, comparing the fit of a model specifying 2 factors with a model specifying 1 factor. Compassionate goals and responsiveness to roommates: Compassionate goals and responsiveness to roommates, though correlated, are empirically distinct. EFAs on the pretest items suggested that 2 factors accounted for 48% of the variance: all responsiveness items loaded on the first factor, with loadings ranging between .64 and .99; all compassionate goal items loaded on the second factor, with loadings ranging between .38 and .66. Importantly, no secondary loading exceeded |.28|. We conducted CFAs on items at posttest and each of the 10 weeks (yielding 11 separate sets of CFAs), testing two-factor, 136.84 < 2 (76, 218 < N < 230) < 232.48, M 2 (76, 218 < N < 230) = 183.77, and single-factor solutions, 336.77 < 2 (77, 218 .67), and we had the same predictions for these indicators of relationship quality, we standardized and averaged these scales to create pretest, posttest, and daily composite relationship quality scores. In the pretest and posttest, we measured relationship satisfaction with 6 questions: "In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship with your roommate?" "How well does your roommate meet your needs?" "How good is your relationship with your roommate compared to most?" "How many problems are there in your relationship with your roommate?" (reverse scored) "How often do you wish you hadn't moved in with your roommate?" (reverse scored) and "To what extent has your relationship with your roommate met your original expectations?" Students responded on a scale from 1 (poorly/not at all/never) to 5 (extremely well/completely/often). We measured commitment using an abbreviated version of the measure developed by Rusbult and colleagues (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991): "To what extent are you committed to your relationship with your roommate?" "For what length of time would you like your relationship with your roommate to last?" "To what extent are you attached to your roommate?" and "How likely is it that you will end your relationship with your roommate in the near future?" (reverse scored). Students rated items on a 9-point scale (0 = Not at all/< 1 month, 8 = Extremely/ 5+ years). Two items assessed closeness (e.g., Gore et al, 2006): "Relative to all other relationships, how would you characterize your relationship with your roommate?" and "Relative to what you know about other people's roommate relationships, how would you characterize your relationship with your roommate?" and were rated on a 1 (not as close as others) to 5 (much closer than others) scale. The relationship quality composite measures had high internal consistency at pretest ( =.90) and posttest ( =.92) We measured daily relationship satisfaction with 3 questions from the pretest/posttest measure: "How well does your roommate meet your needs today?" "How good is your relationship with your roommate today, compared to most?" and "Today, to what extent do you wish you hadn't moved in with your roommate?" (reversed). Students responded on a scale from 1 (poorly/not at all/never) to 5 (extremely well/completely/often). We measured commitment using the four commitment items from the pretest measure, with each item referring to how they felt that day. A single item assessed closeness: "How close do you feel to your roommate today?" and was Canevello and Crocker Page 22 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript rated on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) scale. The daily relationship quality composite measure had high internal consistency each day of the study (.82 < < .88, M = .86). Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to assess global self-esteem. In the pretest and posttest surveys, self-esteem was measured using the original 10-item measure. We used an abbreviated version of this measure in the daily surveys, with the stem "Today, to what extent did you feel:" followed by 4 questions: "that you are a person of worth," "that you are a failure," (reverse scored) "satisfied with yourself," and "that you are no good at all," (reverse scored). Self-esteem had adequate internal consistency at pretest ( = .89), posttest ( = .90), and each day of the study (.83 < < .93, M = .90). Esteem for roommates was measured at pretest, posttest, and in each of the daily surveys. In the pretest and posttest, esteem for roommates was measured with 10 questions, adapted from the Rosenberg self-esteem measure (Rosenberg, 1965), with items assessing evaluation of roommates (not perceptions of roommates' self-esteem). Sample items included: "I certainly feel my roommate is useless at times," (reverse scored) "I feel that my roommate has a number of good qualities," and "I feel that my roommate is a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others." Students responded on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the daily surveys, we measured esteem for roommates with the stem "Right now, to what extent do you feel that:" followed by 4 questions: "your roommate is a person of worth," "your roommate is a failure," (reverse scored) "you are satisfied with your roommate," and "your roommate is no good at all," (reverse scored). Esteem for roommates had adequate internal consistency at pretest ( =.88), posttest ( =.89), and across days (.78 < < .91, M = .86). Results Factor Analyses: Table 3 shows the intrapersonal (i.e., within-person) intraclass correlations, which adjust for the degree of nonindependence between dyad members (Griffin & Gonzalez, 1995), means, and standard deviations for all of the main variables in Study 2. As in Study 1, compassionate goals correlated strongly with responsiveness to roommates and perceptions of roommates' responsiveness. Also, perceptions of roommates' responsiveness correlated strongly with relationship quality. Following Study 1, we conducted a series of factor analyses to determine whether these measures were empirically distinct. Perceptions of roommates' responsiveness and relationship quality: Perceptions of roommates' responsiveness and relationship quality are empirically distinct. We conducted EFAs on pretest relationship quality and perceptions of roommates' responsiveness items. In an initial EFA on pretest items, all but two perceptions of roommates' responsiveness items ("my roommate makes me feel comfortable about myself and my feelings" and "my roommate seems uncaring") loaded on the two factors as predicted. After removing those items, a 2-factor solution accounted for 57% of the variance: all perceptions of roommate's responsiveness items loaded on the first factor, with loadings ranging between |.49| and |.87|; all relationship quality items loaded on the second factor, with loadings ranging between |.49| and |.86|. Importantly, the highest loading on a secondary factor was |.22|. We conducted CFAs on items for each day of the study and at posttest, excluding the two items removed from the EFA above (for a total of 22 separate sets of analyses), testing 2-factor, 120.46 < 2 (df = 89 and 208, 124 < N < 130) < 553.274, M 2 (df = 89 and 208, 124 < N < 130) = 232.09, and single-factor solutions, 188.97 < 2 (df = 90 and 209, 124 < N < 130) < 860.03, M 2 (df = 90 and 209, 124 < N < 130) =371.45. For all sets of analyses, 2-factor solutions fit significantly better, 63.54 < 2 (1, 124 < N < 130) < 306.752, M2 (1, 124 < N < 130) = 139.36. Because of their overlap with relationship quality, we did not include the two cross-loading items in our final scoring of perceptions of roommates' responsiveness, nor did we include them in future factor analyses of perceptions of roommates' responsiveness items. Canevello and Crocker Page 23 J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript Compassionate goals and responsiveness to roommates: As in Study 1, the items used to assess compassionate goals and responsiveness to roommates were empirically distinct. We conducted EFAs on pretest compassionate goals and responsiveness to roommate items and CFAs on these items at posttest and each day, comparing the fit of a 2-factor model with that of a single-factor model. In an initial EFA on pretest items, a 2-factor solution accounted for 50% of the variance: all responsiveness items loaded on the first factor, with loadings ranging between |.41| and |.88|; all compassionate goal items loaded on the second factor, with loadings ranging between .50 and .74. No secondary loading exceeded |.17|. We conducted CFAs on items at posttest and across the 21 days, testing 2-factor, 133.52 < 2 (df = 89 and 151, 124 < N < 130) < 350.19, M 2(df = 89 and 151, 124 < N < 130) = 198.89, and single-factor solutions, 252.81 < 2 (df = 90 and 152, 124 < N < 130) < 500.52, M2(df = 90 and 152, 124 < N < 130) = 394.18. For all sets of analyses, the 2-factor solution fit significantly better, 104.41 < 2 (1, 124.

Reference resource itself

NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. Published in final edited form as: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 July ; 99(1): 78-106. doi:10.1037/a0018186.

Creating Good Relationships: Responsiveness, Relationship Quality, and Interpersonal Goals Amy Canevello and Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Jennifer Crocker Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, and Department of Psychology, University of Michigan

Once properly done, i will give a high rating as usual. Thank you.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Here is a summary of the article The article examines how peoples interpersonal goals specifically c... View the full answer