INTRODUCTION On a daily basis, college students are faced with a conflict of interest: to study or not to study. Often times these decisions are affected by outside factors that are beyond the control of the student (i.e. work, athletics, involvement in organizations). One other factor that is believed to be a major influence is the existence of a significant other. While involved in a relationship during college, one might be forced to choose either studying for school or spending time with the significant other, leaving the student with increased amounts of stress. Level of commitment to the relationship must also be taken into consideration. A student who is involved in an exclusive relationship differs from the student involved in a casual dating relationship. Many factors contribute to a students struggling grades; the aim of this research was to isolate the effects of dating on a students academic performance. Dating frequency and level of commitment are two of the underlying factors that define a relationship; marriage being the highest level of commitment and frequent dating of more than one person being towards the bottom of the scale. Research conducted by Chilman and Meyer (1963) in the early sixties surveyed academic performance of undergraduate married students as compared to the single undergraduates. There are lots of different types of relationships but romantic ones have a special quality to them that sets them apart. Unlike other forms, they are created through a desire to be with an opposing sexual energy, a different flavour. Not necessarily different gender. They also have a much stronger hormonal load than other forms of relationship. They are usually a dramatic roller coaster ride that doesn`t appear to be designed to "work" in the way our mind expects. Being conscious in it allows for something different to happen. We have been sold a romantic fantasy that we keep buying into. We go into the most important decision in our lives with no information, skills or purpose. We simply follow our instincts.Romantic love is a pattern of exclusivity between the couple; time spent together as a couple after work hours; physical touching that implies a romantic intention or desire; the sharing of personal information appropriate for a romantic relationship but beyond the boundaries of a professional workplace relationship; actual physical intimacy; written communications or other actions that imply or directly indicate romantic interest. Romance is a general term that refers to a celebration of life often through art, music and the attempt to express love with words or deeds. It also refers to a feeling of excitement associated with love. Historically, the term "romance" did not necessarily imply love relationships, but rather was seen as an artistic expression of one`s innermost desires; sometimes including love, sometimes not. Romance is still sometimes viewed as an expressionistic, or artful form, but within the context of "romantic love" relationships it usually implies an expression of one`s love, or one`s deep emotional desires to connect with another person. "Romance" in this sense can therefore be defined as attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something or someone, in literature similar exaggerated narration is called romance.Romantic love is then a relative term within any sexual relationship, but not relative when considered in contrast with custom. Within an existing relationship romantic love can be defined as a temporary freeing or optimizing of intimacy, either in a particularly luxurious manner (or the opposite as in the "natural"), or perhaps in greater spirituality, irony, or peril to the relationship. It may seem like a contradiction that romance is opposed to spirituality and yet would be strengthened by it, but the fleeting quality of romance might stand out in greater clarity as a couple explore a higher meaningLevels of Love Most of us have experienced love blindness. We either think we love someone or do not realize until it is too late that we actually did love someone. You do not have to be blinded by love. You have the power to recognize it, but you must use smart decision-making skills to avoid making fatal relationship mistakes. In this section, work on waking up your awareness so that you will act in knowing. The first step is to become familiar with the stages of relationships and the corresponding levels of love that you or your partner will most likely experience. Relationship Avoidance Stage I do not desire love Goal: to prepare yourself for love Characterized by non-interest Meeting Stage I am open to finding love Goal: to prospect for the possibility of love in others Characterized by anticipation Dating Stage I hope to find love Goal: to pre-qualify for a potential partner Characterized by uncertainty (These three stages represent being single and the importance of using the Screen-out process.) Breaking up Stage I no longer have love with this person Goal: to let go of the person/love Characterized by disappointment/relief (Breaking up is a transitional stage.) Exclusivity Stage I think this is love Goal: to further qualify the person to see if she/he might be a good match Characterized by excitement Commitment Stage I know this is love Goal: to close the deal Characterized by confidence Keeping the Love You Find Stage I want to keep this love Goal: to preserve the love you have found Characterized by continuous commitment Talking about, and being in romantic relationships (Furman,2002), yet adults typically dismiss adolescent dating relationships as superficial. Young people do not agree: half of all teens report having been in a dating relationship and nearly one-third of all teens said they have been in a serious relationship (Teenage Research Unlimited, 2006).Although most adolescent relationships last for only a few weeks or months, these early relationships play a pivotal role in the lives of adolescents and are important to developing the capacity for long-term, committed relationships in adulthood.The quality of adolescent romantic relationships can have long lasting effects on self-esteem and shape personal values regarding romance, intimate relationships, and sexuality (Barber & Eccles, 2003). This article discusses the importance of romantic relationships to youth and youth development, including the benefits of healthy relationships, the risks romantic relationships may pose to adolescents, and the need for adults to support young people in developing healthy relationshipsIncreasing SignificanceRomantic relationships become increasingly significant in the lives of young people as they move from early to late adolescence. Although dating has not yet begun, in early adolescence (ages 10-14) most youth are very preoccupied with romantic issues. Youth at this age spend significant amounts of time in mixed-gender groups that intensify their romantic interest and may eventually lead to romantic relationships (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 2004). Romantic relationships are central to social life during middle to late adolescence (ages 15-19). Three-fourths of teens age 16-18 report having had a relationship, dated, or hooked up with someone and half of these youth have had a serious boyfriend or girlfriend (Teenage Research Unlimited, 2006). Many youth in middle to late adolescence report spending more time with their romantic partner than with friends and family (Furman & Schaffer, 2003).
METHOD PARTICIPANTS
Middle adolescent participants in this study were high school students recruited from Educator high School (n=100; mean age 15.7 years) and late adolescent participants were college undergraduate students recruited from undergraduate classes at B.Z university(n=100; mean age 21.7 years). The total sample was comprised of 98 women and 101 men (one individual failed to report their gender). All subjects were treated according to the Ethical Principals of the American Psychological Association MATERIALS
Academic performance is measure by just asking a question what was your CGPA in last exam. Intensity of the relationships was assessed via the "The Relationship Involvement Scale" [c] 2004 by Mark Whatley, Ph.D.Department of Psychology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgia31698(Appendix A) Level of self esteem was assessed via Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) which is fix in Appendix B. Attachment styles were assessed via the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998). The ECR (Appendix C)is a 36-item self-report measure of attachment that uses a 7-point Likert scale ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. The items were derived from a factor analysis of several existing self-report measures of adult attachment. The ECR has two 18 question subscales labelled Model of Self and Model of Others also called Relationship Anxiety and Relationship Avoidance, respectively. For the Model of Self higher scores indicate more anxiety about rejection by others and feelings of personal unworthiness regarding interpersonal relationships. For the Model of Others higher scores indicate more interpersonal distrust and avoidance of closeness with others. The Relationship Anxiety subscale contains items such as the following: I worry about being abandoned. The Relationship Avoidance subscale contains such items as I try to avoid getting too close to my partner. Individuals are assigned to one of the attachment categories based on their scores from the two subscales. Put simply, individuals with high scores on both the anxiety and avoidance subscales are classified as fearful, individuals with low scores on the anxiety subscale and high scores on the avoidance subscale are classified as dismissive, individuals with high scores on the anxiety subscale and low scores on the avoidance subscale are classified as preoccupied, and individuals with low scores on both subscales are classified as secure.The ECR has good reliability and validity estimates. For example, internal consistency and testretest reliability for its two subscales have been reported at .94 and .90 for avoidance and .91 and .91 for anxiety, respectively (Brennan et al., 1998; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). In addition, Brennan et al. assigned individuals to the attachment style categories and found that they predicted test variables better than previous measures of attachment. The typology equates well to Ainsworth`s theory for infants/young children (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and has excellent correspondence to Bartholomew`s adult classification scheme (see Brennan et al.). The ECR was used to group participants into the four adult attachment styles and the two subscales were also used as continuous variables for Pearson correlation analyses.The Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (EIPQ; Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger, 1995) was used to identify participants identity status. The EIPQ(Appendix D) has two subscales, identity exploration and identity commitment. Cronbach`s alpha for the exploration subscale has been reported to be .86 with testretest reliability of .76. Cronbach`s alpha for the commitment subscale has been reported to be .80 with testretest reliability of .90 (Balistreri et al., 1995). Balistreri et al. (1995) used median splits on the two subscales to assign participants into one of four identity statuses as defined by Marcia (1966). For this study, new median splits were calculated based on the current sample, and the same median scores were used with both the high school and college samples. Participants with low scores on exploration and commitment are classified as diffused, low in exploration but high in commitment is classified as foreclosed, high in exploration but low in commitment classified as moratorium, and high in both exploration and commitment is classified as achieved. EIPQ contains 20 positively worded and 12 negatively worded items. Respondents indicate their degree of agreement to each statement on 6 point Likert type scale. Scale in scoring positively items strongly agree receive 6 pints agree receive 5 points, slightly agree receive 4 and so on. Scoring is reversed in negatively worded .items scored are summed to obtain total score for exploration and commitment separately. Each of which range from 16 to 96. we then calculate median of both subscales exploration and commitment.Respondent above median on both dimension were classified as Identity Achieved. Where those below the median were classified as diffuse .Respondent above median on Exploration but below median on commitment were classified as moratorium and those with reverse patter classified as foreclosed PROCEDURE
College students and high school students were recruited via convince sampling method. Participants were given instructions on how to complete the measures. Participants were told the nature of the study was to survey beliefs and feelings associated with interpersonal relationships. Participants were given instructions on how to complete the measures. I have given time to complete the measures. Some students Completes the measure at home and some at class. I have given First relationship involvement scale to all students belonging to university or school. On the base of this scale I categories participant in two categories. 1- Single( those who not involved in romantic relationship)2- Committed (Currently involved in romantic relationship) Score on Relationship scale vary from 10 to 70Lower Involvement Persons having score 25 or below at relationship scale were taken in this category Middle level involvementPersons having score ranging from 25 to 50 at relationship scale were taken in this category High level involvementPersons having score Above 50 at relationship scale were taken in this category The independent variable was the intensity of the relationship itself, which is hypothesized to affect the dependent variables. It was measured through a Likert scale rating of 1-5, with 1 being strong and 5 being not strong. The dependent variables were the general happiness of the person in school , approximate academic achievement according to their GPA, self esteem and identity statusThen self esteem scale (Rosenberg,196) was given to all participants, those successfully returned Relationship involvement questionnaire Self esteem score vary from 0 to 30. Students complete this measure at university or school.10 minute were given to all students to complete this measure. Then ECR scale and EIPQ scale were given to all at the same time. 30 minutes were given to complete ECR scale 25 minute were given to complete EIPQ survey.
RESULTS The study consisted of 101 males and 98 females, aged 16-23, with a mean age of 20.78 (SD= 1.67) for 200 participants. The minimum was16 and the maximum as 23. Of the 200 participants, 97 reported to be in a current relationship, and 103 reported to be single. We had almost an equal amount of participants who are dating to those who are single. It was hypothesized that students who are more involved in a romantic relationship, measured through their answers, and would have a lower grade point average. An independent samples t-test and correlations were used to examine whether a relationship existed between dating status and school performance.Our information revealed that the 103 single students had an average GPA of 3.19 (SD=.570), which was different from dating students, who also had an average GPA of 2.78 (SD=.0480). This revealed that there are significant differences between dating status and academic performance.A Likert scale was used to measure the intimacy of a relationship and analysis were conducted to see if there were any correlation with grade point average or school performanceTable 1Mean, Standard Deviation and t-values of single and committed on relationship scale (N200)Group M SD N df t pSingle 3.29 0.570 103 98 2.078* 0.02Committed 2.78 0.480 97 *P <0.05Above table shows that there is a significant difference between the mean grade point of single students and committed students. So we can say our hypothesis is true and we can say persons having romantic relationship could not perform academically in undergraduate and school course work While compiling result I found that level of involvement in romantic relationship also does matter. As degree of relationship increase, mean grade point decrease. To view this effect then I categorize romantic relationship in three levels according to their score at relationship scale. Score at romantic relationship scale vary from 10 to 30Identity status distribution by age group and gender can be seen in Table 4. A Ō2 analysis revealed some differences in status distribution between high school and university students (Ō2(3)=15.99, p=.001). High school students had higher rates of diffusion, while university students had higher rates of moratorium and achievement. Rates of foreclosure were almost equal. There were also some differences in distribution by gender (Ō2(3)=10.6, p=.014), with males having higher rates of foreclosure and diffusion, while females had higher rates of moratorium and achievement. Ethnic distribution revealed no statistically significant differences in identity status distribution. Attachment style distribution by age group and gender can be seen in Table 5. A Ō2 analysis revealed some differences in attachment style distribution between high school and university students (Ō2(3)=58.7, p<.001). High school students had higher rates of fearful and dismissive styles, while university students had higher rates of secure and preoccupied styles. There were no statistically significant differences in attachment style distribution by gender, (Ō2(12)=33.4, p<.001). Analyses were done to examine if identity status was related to relationship anxiety and relationship avoidance, the two underlying dimensions of attachment style. Two 2~2~4 (age group~sex~identity status) ANOVAs were conducted; one with relationship avoidance as the dependant measure, and the other with relationship anxiety as the dependant measure. The ANOVA for relationship avoidance revealed significant main effects for age group (college vs. high school; F(1,480)=14.77, p<.001) and identity status (F(3,480)=2.67, p=.047), but not for sex. There was, however, a significant interaction between sex and age group (F(1,480)=7.92, p=.015). high school females had more relationship avoidance than high school males, and both males and females in high school had a lower mean score than males and females in college, but in the college sample, the females had a lower mean avoidance score than the males. One analyses on identity status revealed that the foreclosed group had a significantly lower mean score on relationship avoidance than the diffused group (p=.046). The ANOVA for relationship anxiety yielded a significant main effect only for identity status (F(3,480)=6.09, p<.001) and no significant interactions. Scheffe post hoc analyses revealed that the foreclosed group scored significantly lower in anxiety than the achieved (p=.005) and moratorium (p=.002) groups Identity status by attachment style distributions were also examined using multinomial logistic regression. Identity status, sex, and age group was used as independent variables with attachment style as the dependant variable, yielding a statistically significant model (Ō2(15)=82.89, p<.001). Age group (Ō2(3)=49.97, p<.001) and identity status (Ō2(9)=22.52, p=.007) were significant factors, but sex was not significant. Results by age group and sex revealed a statistically significant relationship between identity status and attachment style for both males (Ō2(9)=20.78, p=.014) and females (Ō2(9)=18.51, p=.030), as well as for college students (Ō2(9)=20.04, p=.018), but they were not significantly related for high school students.Some interesting observations also emerged from these analyses. The identity status by attachment style distribution can be seen in Table 7. The distribution is presented separately for the college and high school sample because age grouping was a significant factor in the regression analysis. Many of our predictions in regard to the distribution between identity and attachment were confirmed within the college sample where the Ō2 analysis was significant, but not within the high school sample where the Ō2 analysis revealed no significant difference, and thus, for the following section, we will consider only the college sample. Specifically, we predicted that identity achieved individuals would be over-represented in the secure and preoccupied attachment styles and under-represented in the other two styles. As compared to expectations calculated by Ō2 analysis, our predictions were true for all but the secure group, who were below expectation (20 vs. 25.4). For those in moratorium, we predicted that they would be over-represented in the preoccupied and fearful styles, and under-represented in the secure and dismissive styles. Results were consistent with these predictions. We predicted that the diffused would be over-represented in the fearful and dismissive styles and under-represented in the secure and preoccupied styles. This was true for all but the secure group who were at expectation (14 vs. 13.9). Our prediction in regard to foreclosure that it would be over-represented in the secure style and under-represented in the other three styles, held for all but the dismissive group, who were at expectation (9 vs. 8.9).
DISCUSSION 1. Main hypothesis of the study was that students involved in romantic relationships would not perform academically as well as their counterparts who do not date in college.2. 2nd hypothesis was that people committed (involved in romantic relationship) students having high self esteem as compared to singe or non committed student3. There is strong relation between identity status and romantic attachment style in middle and late adolescenceSignificant relationships were found between the two variables of grade point average and involvement in a romantic relationship. As Prisbell (1986) noted, concerns about dating are prevalent and often related to serious problems among college students. Our findings are consistent with his research. Averaging over all mean score of the students alike were found to receive significantly higher grades when compared to those who reported as committed with their romantic partner. This revealed that there are significant differences between dating status and academic performance Results from the current study provide further evidence that there is an association. between romantic relationships and academic performance. Individuals involved in relationships are forced to manage their time and experience more stressors because of the relationship. Time management was believed to be a deciding factor in an individuals performance in school, therefore participants were asked to provide an approximation of time spent during the week. Time was broken down into three activities: studying, working, and time spent with the significant other. Amount of time studying on an average week was analyzed with a mean score of 14.8 (SD = 9.9). Approximately 63% of the students surveyed worked either part time or full time occupying a mean of 11.22(SD = 9.96) hours per week. An individuals significant other occupied approximately a mean of 13.16(SD = 19.83) hours per week.We further found that the basic characteristic of the individuals who are most successful at love is high self-esteem. It has been determined that those high in self-esteem experience romantic love more often than those with low self-esteem, and ultimately have better romantic relationships. This could be partly due to the fact that they are less emotionally dependent on partners and view love as a fulfilling personal experience rather than an intense interdependence..our information reveled Our information revealed that the 103 single students at high school had an average score at of 11.28 (SD=.0.982) on Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale, which was different from dating students at same school , who also had an average score of 20.78 (SD=.1.764).there is significant difference. Moreover average score of university single students 14.67 and (SD=0.678) and average score of committed student on same institution was 27.33 and (SD=1.749)Simon Rice is the author of some interesting research into the happiness of men in relationships. A preliminary study of 300 Australians aged 18 to 25 has found men who are in romantic relationship have higher levels of self-esteem than those without a partner. Study author, Simon Rice, said romantic relationship has a positive impact on men`s feelings of self-worth. Our findings also induce his statement.This study also adds to the small handful of studies that have attempted to investigate the relationship between identity status and romantic attachment. It is the first study to look specifically at relationship avoidance and relationship anxiety in Pakistan and also the first to include a high school sample. By comparing the high school and college sample, we found some expected developmental differences, consistent with previous literature, such as a greater percentage of moratorium and achievement in the older group, as well as a greater percentage of secure attachment style among the college students. In terms of attachment, we observed an expected decrease in relationship avoidance from high school to college, but relationship anxiety was not significantly different between the two groups. An interaction was also found between age and sex in that high school females were highest in avoidance while college females were lowest. Although avoidance was lower in college for both males and females, there was a much larger drop in relationship avoidance for females than there was for males between high school and college groups. However, it is important to remember that the age groups were drawn from different populations and therefore, these samples may differ on other variables besides age, so any interpretation about age differences should be tentative.Our ANOVAs partially confirmed our hypotheses. We predicted that the achieved and foreclosed would score significantly lower in avoidance than the diffused and moratorium, but the only difference that was significant was between the foreclosed and diffused respondents. In terms of relationship anxiety, we predicted that the foreclosed and diffused would score significantly lower than those in moratorium and achieved. Again we were half right. The foreclosed scored significantly lower than both the achieved and those in moratorium, but the diffused did not score significantly different from the other identity statuses.When examining the relation between identity status and attachment style, we predicted that they would be more closely related in our college sample where developmentally, we theorized that these individuals would be more likely to be grappling with intimacy and identity issues, as oppose to our high school sample, where we theorized that they would be more concerned with identity issues and much less so with intimacy issues. This did seem to be the case in that the attachment by identity distribution was significant for the college sample, but not for the high school sample. Not only were attachment style and identity status significantly related within the college sample, but much (although not all) of the specific relationships were similar to what we had predicted. The strongest findings in the college sample that were consistent with our predictions was that those in the identity achieved group would be over-represented in the preoccupied attachment style (34 observed vs. 24.5 expected) and those in the foreclosed identity status group would be over-represented in the secure style (41 vs. 30.4). Although scant, previous literature has suggested a link between achieved identity and secure attachment, and between diffused identity and fearful attachment. Contrary to those findings, in our college sample, the achieved group were under-represented in the secure style (20 vs. 25.4), and although the diffused group were over-represented in the fearful style, it was not much different than expectation (12 vs. 10.7). Although we predicted that those in the achieved status were more likely to be secure or preoccupied, it did come as somewhat of a surprise that they were considerably more likely to be preoccupied than secure. One possible reason for the discrepancy may have to do with ethnicity. Our sample was much more diverse than previous studies. We also found a significantly lower rate of secure attachment style among our ethnic minority members than among our white participants. Future studies might want to take a closer look at ethnic differences and take them into consideration in their theorizing on the relationship between identity status and attachment style.ConclusionThe findings described above contribute to the developing literature on adolescent romantic relationships by demonstrating concordance in students grades and that of their current romantic partners. Findings describe significant effect of romantic relationship on academic performance. However intensity and level of involvement also does matter. We found that a person a person who is involved in romantic relationship for more that 2 years have little better score as those who involved for just 4 to 6 months. Because in early exploration of romantic relationships todays adolescents often fine comfort in numbers and begin hanging out together .A special concern in early dating and going with. The study of romantic relationships poses special challenges for researchers, because these relationships vary greatly in length during the adolescent period. Thus, in order to examine associations of interest from a longitudinal standpoint, it would be necessary to restrict samples to the smaller subset of youths who stayed with a particular partner over a relatively long period of time; the resulting analysis would not, however, provide an accurate portrait of the full range of more typical dynamics within adolescent romantic relationships. Variations in the quality of relationships formed may also contribute to an understanding of these influence processes. focal romantic partner. This underscores that over the long haul, family members, who are less replaceable. We further found that the basic characteristic of the individuals who are most successful at love is high self-esteem. It has been determined that those high in self-esteem experience romantic love more often than those with low self-esteem, and ultimately have better romantic relationships. This could be partly due to the fact that they are less emotionally dependent on partners and view love as a fulfilling personal experience rather than an intense interdependence..our information reveled. We observed an expected decrease in relationship avoidance from high school to college, but relationship anxiety was not significantly different between the two groups. An interaction was also found between age and sex in that high school females were highest in avoidance while college females were lowest. Although avoidance was lower in college for both males and females, there was a much larger drop in relationship avoidance for females than there was for males between high school and college groups. However, it is important to remember that the age groups were drawn from different populations and therefore, these samples may differ on other variables besides age, so any interpretation about age differences should be tentative.In summary, it would appear that the relationship between identity status and romantic attachment style is a complex one. From Table 6 it became clear that status does not dictate stylea person in any identity status can have any of the attachment styles. Yet the distribution was non-random and some trends did emerge. The relationship between identity and attachment does seem to warrant further study. Looking for mediators and moderators of the relationship might further help to clarify the trends and lead to deeper understanding of their significance. Some limitations of the current study should also be noted. The sample is cross-sectional so causal inferences as to whether identity influences attachment or vice versa cannot be made. Although the ethnically diverse sample has brought to light some interesting findings, these need to be replicated and studied further in a more balanced sample. Finally one must keep in mind that the measures used in this study are self-report and the accuracy of individual reporters cannot be assured. However, this study does contribute to what will hopefully be a growing literature on identity and attachment, and future studies could certainly address these limitations.Implication for PracticeThe study provide information that may useful for school teacher, Principle school and education policy makers. As study found that romantic relationship has a impact on students academic performance. Moreover adolescence is an important part of life span development and adolescent develop their identity in this period. So teacher can provide proper attention and guideline and counseling to such students. As study revealed that romantic relationship can impact on students self esteem also. So this result may also be useful for developmental scientists. Study also found an impact of romantic relationship may also contribute to attachment style. It may be helpful and useful for councilors, educational psychologist and social psychologist. For example Teacher can rearrange students when assigning them different projects. This may be done to reduce conduct issues (such as disruptive behaviors) displayed by some students. Moreover teacher can periodically check performance of such students.LimitationThe strength of study includes relatively large sample and comprehensive romantic relationship assessment. However study also has some limitations because this study was conducted only in two cities. Therefore results may not be applicable to other geographical location of country. Second limitations are measurement was only taken once a year. Measures should take once in beginning of year again in middle and finally at the end may provide more information regarding changes in self esteem stat and change in CGPA. Moreover as in Pakistani culture dating pattern is different from other western culture. In Pakistan more than 90 % adolescent are engaged in sneak dating without parents knowledge. So they want their relationship hide from others. So it may be possible to get wrong answers when we asked whether they are single or committed.Suggestions There are a few suggestions for future studies on dating and academic performance: 1. Finding participants who are willing to participate on a volunteer basis because they might better find interest or impartiality in the study2. Create a more valid and reliable survey to answer questions that were addressed in this study.3. Recruit more participants for this study in order to verify this study, or pick a limited amount of students and follow their progress while in a relationship and see if there is a declination while in school. In future there may be a research to measure intensity and maturity of romantic relationship at more comprehensive level. However, future research should examine in more detail how youths characterized by different initial levels of academic achievement are influenced by partners who represent similar or distinct academic orientations.Efforts to integrate the field with related ones are needed. Just as research on sexual behavior could profit from examining the nature of the relationships between sexual partners, investigators studying romantic relationships need to examine the role of sexual behavior in romantic relationships. Ironically, few investigators have done so, and instead these relationships have been treated as if they were platonic. Similarly, research on adolescent relationships could benefit from the insights of the work on adult romantic relationships, which has a rich empirical and theoretical history.
REFERENCES Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall (1978) M.S. Ainsworth, M.C. Blehar, E. Waters and S. Wall, Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation, Lawrence Erlbaum, Oxford, UK (1978).Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger (1995) E. Balistreri, N.A. Busch-Rossnagel and K.F. Geisinger, Development and validation of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire, Journal of Adolescence 18 (1995), pp. 79192.Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991) K. Bartholomew and L.M. Horowitz, Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61Bartholomew (1990) K. Bartholomew, Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 7 (1990), pp. 147178Bjerklie, D. (2003). Sex on campus. Time, 162(7), 66. Bogart, L.M., Cecil, H., Wagstaff, D.A., Pinkerton, S.D., & Abramson, P.R. (2000). Is it sex? Bowlby (1982) J. Bowlby, Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 52 (1982), pp. 664678. View Record in Scopus : Cited By in Scopus (107)Bowlby (1988) J. Bowlby, A secure base: Parentchild attachment and healthy human development, Basic Books, New York (1988).Bowlby (1988) J. Bowlby, A secure base: Parentchild attachment and healthy human development, Basic Books, New York (1988).Brennan, Clark, & Shaver (1998) K.A. Brennan, C.L. Clark and P.R. Shaver, Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In: J.A. Simpson and W.S. Rholes, Editors, Attachment theory and close relationships, Guilford Press, New York, NY (1998), pp. 4676.Brennan, Clark, & Shaver (1998) K.A. Brennan, C.L. Clark and P.R. Shaver, Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In: J.A. Simpson and W.S. Rholes, Editors, Attachment theory and close relationships, Guilford Press, New York, NY (1998), pp. 4676.Erikson (1963) E.H. Erikson, Childhood and society (2nd ed.), Norton, New York (1963).Erikson (1963) E.H. Erikson, Childhood and society (2nd ed.), Norton, New York (1963).Erikson (1968) E.H. Erikson, Identity: Youth and crisis, Norton & Co, New York (1968).Erikson (1968) E.H. Erikson, Identity: Youth and crisis, Norton & Co, New York (1968). Harris, & Rogers (1992) M.J. Benson, P.B. Harris and C.S. Rogers, Identity consequences of attachment to mothers and fathers among late adolescents, Journal of Research on Adolescents 2 (1992), pp. 187204 (1991), pp. 226244Kennedy (1999) J.H. Kennedy, Romantic attachment and ego identity, attributional style, and family of origin in first-year college students, College Student Journal 33 (1999), pp. 171180.Khoury, K. (1998). Clearing the air about sex on campus. Christian Science Monitor, 9(91), B6. Kroger (1985) J. Kroger, Separation-individuation Lapsley, Rice, & Fitzgerald (1990) D.K. Lapsley, K.G. Rice and D.P. Fitzgerald, Adolescent attachment, identity, and adjustment to college: Implications for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis, Journal of Counseling and Development 68 (1990), pp. 561565.Zimmermann & Becker-Stoll (2002) P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll, Stability of attachment representations during adolescence: The influence of ego-identity status, Journal of Adolescence 25 (2002), pp. 107124
APPENDIX A The Relationship Involvement ScaleThis scale is designed to assess the level of your involvement in a current relationship. Please read each statement carefully, and write the number next to the statement that reflects your level of disagreement to agreement, using the following scale. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree1. I have told my friends I love my partner:2. My partner and I have discussed our future together:3. I have told my partner that I want to marry him/her:4. I feel happier when I am with my partner:5. Being together is very important to me.6. I cannot imagine a future with anyone other than my partner:7. I feel that no one else can meet my needs as well as my partner:8. When, talking about my partner and me, I tend to use the words" "us," "we" and "our."9. I depend on my partner to help me with many things in life.10. I want to stay in this relationship no matter how hard times become in the future.ScoringAsk the numbers you assigned to each item. A 1 reflects the least Involvement and a 7 reflect the most involvement. The lower your total score (10 is the lowest possible score), the lower your level of involvement; the higher your total score (70), the greater your level of involvement. A score of 40 places you at the midpoint between a very uninvolved and very involved relationship.
APPENDIX B Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) The scale is a ten item Likert scale with items answered on a four point scale - from strongly agrees to strongly disagree. The original sample for which the scale was developed consisted of 5,024 High School Juniors and seniors from 10 randomly selected schools in New York State. Instructions: Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. If you strongly agree, circle SA. If you agree with the statement, circle A. If you disagree, circle D. If you strongly disagree, circle SD. 1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. SA A D SD 2.* At times, I think I am no good at all. SA A D SD 3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. SA A D SD 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. SA A D SD 5.* I feel I do not have much to be proud of. SA A D SD 6.* I certainly feel useless at times. SA A D SD 7. I feel that Im a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. SA A D SD 8.* I wish I could have more respect for myself. SA A D SD 9.* All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. SA A D SD 10. I take a positive attitude toward myself. SA A D SD Scoring: SA=3, A=2, D=1, SD=0. Items with an asterisk are reverse scored, that is, SA=0, A=1, D=2, SD=3. Sum the scores for the 10 items. The higher the score, the higher the self esteem.
APPENDIX C ECR-R Questionnaire The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) Questionnaire Fraley, Waller, and Brennan (2000)Generic Instructions: The statements below concern how you feel in emotionally intimate relationships. We are interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by to indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statementSpecial notes: You may wish to randomize the order of the items when presenting them to research participants. The ordering below is simply a convenient one for illustrating which items belong to which scale. Also, some people have modified the items to refer to others rather than romantic partners. This seems sensible to us, and in our own research we commonly alter the wording to refer to different individuals. For example, sometimes we reword the items to refer to others or this person and alter the instructions to say something like The statements below concern how you generally feel in your relationship with your mother or The statements below concern how you generally feel in your relationship with your romantic partner (i.e., a girlfriend, boyfriend,).1. I`m afraid that I will lose my partner`s love.2. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me.3. I often worry that my partner doesn`t really love me.4. I worry that romantic partners wont care about me as much as I care about them. 5. I often wish that my partner`s feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him or her.6. I worry a lot about my relationships.7. When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested in someone else.8. When I show my feelings for romantic partners, I`m afraid they will not feel the same about me.9. I rarely worry about my partner leaving me.10. My romantic partner makes me doubt myself.11. I do not often worry about being abandoned.12. I find that my partner(s) don`t want to get as close as I would like.13. Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason.14. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.15. I`m afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know me, he or she won`t like who I really am.16. It makes me mad that I don`t get the affection and support I need from my partner. 17. I worry that I won`t measure up to other people.18. My partner only seems to notice me when Im angry.19. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.20. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.21. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners. 22. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.23. I don`t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.24. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.25. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close.26. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner. 27. It`s not difficult for me to get close to my partner.28. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.29. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.30. I tell my partner just about everything.31. I talk things over with my partner.32. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.33. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.34. I find it easy to depend on romantic partners.35. It`s easy for me to be affectionate with my partner.36. My partner really understands me and my needs.Scoring Information: The first 18 items listed below comprise the attachment-related anxiety scale. Items 19 36 comprise the attachment-related avoidance scale. In real research, the order in which these items are presented should be randomized. Each item is rated on a 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. To obtain a score for attachment-related anxiety, please average a persons responses to items 1 18. However, because items 9 and 11 are reverse keyed (i.e., high numbers represent low anxiety rather than high anxiety), youll need to reverse the answers to those questions before averaging the responses. (If someone answers with a 6 to item 9, youll need to re-key it as a 2 before averaging.) To obtain a score for attachment-related avoidance, please average a persons responses to items 19 36. Items 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 36 will need to be reverse keyed before you compute this average |
