Remarkably, the end result to own provide-providing was negative: the more importance put on present-providing, the newest smaller intimate the relationship was
Suggest (±95% CI) unweighted summed feedback toward (a) Outbound grounds (Letter = 5 traits), (b) Societal Experiences grounds (N = 3 characteristics), (c) Financial basis (Letter = 3 characteristics) and (d) Creativity grounds (N = 2 traits) to own Vigil’s Fellow Interactions measure to own personal lovers instead of best friends. Occupied signs: people participants; unfilled symbols: men respondents. The fresh new qualities are those recognized by the primary section analyses during the Dining table https://datingranking.net/cs/paltalk-recenze/ dos
Homophily therefore the Intimacy out-of Relationships
To consider the partnership anywhere between similarity inside the traits (homophily) plus the top-notch matchmaking (indexed by the rated intimacy), i went independent in reverse stepwise numerous regressions which have relationship intimacy while the the fresh new depending adjustable and you can resemblance with the parameters towards the Vigil Peer Connections questionnaire and you can our own matchmaking repairs survey. Into the each case, most of the variables throughout the questionnaire was indeed included since the independent details.
For women, intimacy with their romantic partner was best predicted (R 2 = 0.295) by similarity in financial potential (t115 = 2.297, p = 0.022), outgoingness (t115 = 2.255, p = 0.026), dependability (t115 = 2.905, p = 0.004) and kindness (t115 = 3.208, p = 0.002). Maintenance of romantic relationships was best predicted (R 2 = 0.143) by respondent’s age (t114 = ?2.352, p = 0.020), the duration of the relationship (t114 = 2.040, p = 0.044) and the degree to which gifts (t114 = ?1.984, p = 0.050) and mutual support (t114 = 3.173, p = 0.002) were considered important. This might reflect the fact that well established relationships do not require monetary reinforcement, even though this is important for weak or unstable relationships. Conversely, the more emphasis placed on mutual support as a means of maintaining the relationship, the more intimate that relationship was. Notice also that intimacy declined with respondent’s age (but not as a function of the duration of the relationship).
For men, the best-fit model for the intimacy of romantic relationships included only similarity in cooperativeness, although this effect was not statistically significant (t31 = 1.726, p = 0.095, R 2 = 0.09). Intimacy in romantic partnerships was best predicted (R 2 = 0.458) by the degree to which in-person (or face-to-face) contact was seen as important for relationship maintenance (t31 = 4.361, p < 0.0001). The degree of importance placed on engaging in shared history was also included in the best-fit model, but did not show a significant partial relationship with intimacy scores (p = 0.085).
For women, intimacy in best friendships was best predicted (R 2 = 0.242) by the degree of similarity in education (t148 = 1.974, p = 0.050), sense of humour (t148 = 2.052, p = 0.042), dependability (t148 = 3.501, p = 0.001) and happiness (t148 = 1.996, p = 0.048). Although similarity in social connections was also included in the best-fit model, the significance of the partial relationship with intimacy was marginal (p = 0.068). The intimacy of women’s best friendships was also best predicted (R 2 = 0.242) by shared history (t150 = ?2.446, p = 0.016) and mutual support (t150 = 4.037, p < 0.0001). This remained true even when same-sex friendships were examined on their own. These results imply that the less important shared history was considered as a means of maintaining a friendship, and the more important mutual support was considered, the more intimate that friendship was. Although the best-fit model included additional variables, the partial relationships with intimacy were at best only marginally significant (shared goals: p = 0.06; affection: p = 0.086), irrespective of whether the friendship was cross- or same-sex (p = 0.052).