Discussion week 2
Paris04
TheRelationshipBetweenIdentityAndIntimacyAsModeratedPR1.pdf
University of Central Florida University of Central Florida
STARS STARS
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2012
The Relationship Between Identity And Intimacy As Moderated By The Relationship Between Identity And Intimacy As Moderated By
Culture Culture
Garima Jhingon University of Central Florida
Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons
Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd
University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu
This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
STARS Citation STARS Citation Jhingon, Garima, "The Relationship Between Identity And Intimacy As Moderated By Culture" (2012). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2208. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/2208
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDENTITY AND INTIMACY AS MODERATED BY
CULTURE
by
GARIMA JHINGON
M.A. Amity University, 2009
B.A. University of Delhi, 2007
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts
in the Department of Psychology
in the College of Sciences
at the University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida
Summer Term
2012
ii
© 2012 Garima Jhingon
iii
ABSTRACT
Several important developmental processes occur in the young adulthood period. Young
adults form their identities, determine trajectories regarding careers, and typically they form
intimate relationships. Erikson (1963) stated that healthy identity development during
adolescence is a necessary precursor to intimacy in romantic relationships during emerging
adulthood. Although findings from cross-sectional and short-term longitudinal studies somewhat
confirm the proposed link between identity and intimacy development, none of them addresses
the role of culture in moderating Erikson‘s tenets of developmental ordering. The primary goal
of the present investigation was to determine the role of cultural orientation in identity and
intimacy development among emerging adults today.
Participants included 422 university students (mean age = 20.80, sd = 3.63) were
recruited from one urban university in Delhi, India (n = 96), two urban universities in Beijing,
China (n = 180), and one urban university in Orlando, USA (n = 146). Among this sample,
36.7% were males, and 63.3% were females. All participants completed a battery of measures,
including a Demographic Questionnaire, the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire, the Experiences
in Close Relationships Scale, and the Cultural Orientation Scale.
Our first hypothesis that identity would predict intimacy in relationships was confirmed.
Our second hypothesis that identity development will be a negative predictor for both
relationship anxiety and relationship avoidance in romantic relationships was also confirmed.
The third hypothesis that females would endorse more collectivistic cultural values
compared with males, who will endorse more individualistic cultural values was also confirmed.
Finally, our fourth hypothesis that the relationship between identity and intimacy would be
moderated by cultural orientation, such that it will be stronger among those that endorse more
iv
individualistic cultural values compared to those who endorse more collectivistic cultural values
was not supported. Results from the multiple regression analysis indicated that although identity
and cultural orientation considered alone were significant predictors of intimacy in relationships,
the relationship between identity and intimacy were moderated by cultural orientation only for
relationship anxiety, such that a strong sense of identity along with a collectivistic cultural
orientation predicted less relationship anxiety. Further analyses and implications for professional
practice are discussed.
v
To my dearest parents and loving family for always believing in me, encouraging and inspiring
me to reach for the stars, and providing me with
unconditional love and support
To my trustworthy and loving friends, who believed in me and have been a constant source of
support and encouragement throughout my graduate program
To all the students who willingly participated in this study
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank first and foremost my advisor, Dr. Steven L. Berman, for his
guidance, expertise, enthusiasm for mentoring, and especially for his unwavering patience
throughout this process. Without his vision and support, this thesis would not have been possible.
I would also like to extend a sincere thank you to my committee members, Dr. Stacey T. Dunn
and Dr. Rosaria C. Upchurch and for their time and valuable suggestions.
I am indebted to all friends and family who provided support and encouragement along
this journey. Specifically, I would like to acknowledge Neha Berlia and Shengnan Li for their
generous help with data collection from India and China; Ovidiu Lupas for his encouragement
during the low points and reminders to celebrate the high points; Sonia Jain for her emotional
support; and all my peers, who enriched this experience with their constant solidarity and humor.
Finally, I humbly thank all my professors for imparting invaluable therapeutic skills and
essential life lessons, and the office staff at the Clinical Psychology Department (Daytona Beach
Campus) for their instrumental assistance and support throughout the program.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
Identity Formation ...................................................................................................................... 2
Intimacy ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Relationship between Identity and Intimacy ............................................................................... 8
Gender Differences in Identity and Intimacy Formation .......................................................... 12
Cultural Orientation .................................................................................................................. 15
Rationale and Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER TWO: METHODS ..................................................................................................... 21
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 21
Measures ................................................................................................................................... 21
Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 21
Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (EPSI) ...................................................................... 21
Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR)........................................................................... 22
Cultural Orientation Scale (COS) ......................................................................................... 23
Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 23
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 25
Preliminary and descriptive Analyses ....................................................................................... 25
Main analyses............................................................................................................................ 31
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 35
APPENDIX A: APPROVAL OF EXEMPT HUMAN RESEARCH .......................................... 41
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT (ENGLISH VERSION).............................................. 43
APPENDIX C: SURVEY (ENGLISH VERSION) ...................................................................... 45
APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT (CHINESE VERSION).............................................. 53
APPENDIX E: SURVEY (CHINESE VERSION) ...................................................................... 55
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 64
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Means for Identity by Country for Males and Females................................................. 28
Figure 2: Means for Intimacy by country for Males and Female ................................................. 28
Figure 3: Means for Relationship Avoidance by Country for Males and Females ...................... 29
Figure 4: Means for Relationship Anxiety by Country for Males and Females ........................... 29
Figure 5: Means for Individualistic Orientation by Country for Males and Females ................... 30
Figure 6: Means for Collectivistic Orientation by Country for Males and Females .................... 30
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Gender x Country
Effects ........................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 2 Descriptive Analysis ....................................................................................................... 27
Table 3 Correlations ..................................................................................................................... 31
Table 4 Regression Analysis Summary for Variables predicting Intimacy ................................. 32
Table 5 Regression Analysis Summary for Variables predicting Relationship Anxiety .............. 33
Table 6 Regression Analysis Summary for Variables predicting Relationship Avoidance ........ 34
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Erikson (1963) stated that healthy identity development during adolescence is a necessary
precursor to intimacy in romantic relationships during emerging adulthood. However, our
knowledge is still limited as to how people from different cultural orientations differ in their
identity development process, and how the cultural emphasis on freedom and independence
versus harmony and interdependence impacts the establishment and maintenance of identity.
According to Bedford & Hwang (2003), an individualistic theory of human nature
suggests that a person should have maximum freedom and be in charge of choosing goals and the
means for obtaining them. Based on this notion, the boundaries of the individual self can be rigid
and need to be protected. In contrast, Confucian cultures define identity in terms of the system of
relationships in which a person is involved. The boundaries of the self are more permeable and
may include family members and others with whom the individual shares a close relationship.
Therefore, the self may comprise of other personal relations, and a sense of self is defined
through interpersonal relationships (Hamaguchi, 1982). This basic difference in the
conceptualization of identity raises questions about the relationship between identity and
intimacy in different cultural contexts. Therefore, based on the theoretical proposition that
emerging adults are likely to experience intimacy only after establishing a strong sense of
personal identity, this study aims to assess the role of cultural orientation in identity and intimacy
development among emerging adults today.
2
Identity Formation
As individuals make the transition from childhood to adulthood, questions about identity
become salient. The young person may ponder over questions such as: Who am I? What are my
values and aspirations? What makes me unique? Do I really continue being the same person
from one year, or decade, to the next? These questions can play a prominent role in identity
formation during adolescence as well as through adulthood (e.g., Erikson, 1980; Stephen, Fraser,
& Marcia, 1992).
Erik Erikson was one of the first classic theorists to establish a tradition of identity
theory. He was careful to distinguish identity from self, which is loosely defined as ―that part of
the person that knows and experiences reality‖ (Harter, 1988), and self-concept, which can be
characterized as one‘s awareness of ―the internal organization of external roles of conduct‖
(Hormuth, 1990, p. 2). His theory integrated the intrapsychic focus adopted by psychology and
the environmental focus adopted by sociology (Côté & Levine, 1987).
Erikson‘s (1968) theory of life-span development suggested that developmental
progression involves the subsequent mastery of eight stages. Each stage is characterized by a
distinct psychosocial crisis that becomes dominant on the basis of changes in biological,
psychological, and social processes. Although Erikson suggested these crises occur at particular
points along the developmental progression, he also left room for individual differences in the
timing of these issues. Thus, each stage in Erikson‘s theory has an overall trajectory describing
the average person‘s progression through the stages.
In Stage 5, Erikson talked about the crisis of Identity versus Role Confusion. In this
phase, adolescents engage in an exploration of possibilities and start developing their own
identity based upon the outcomes of these explorations. A successful resolution of this stage
3
results in an awareness of one‘s uniqueness, understanding and integration of societal roles,
feelings of continuity of the self over time, and fidelity. An unsuccessful resolution, on the other
hand, may result in an inability to identify with appropriate roles in life. He noted that making
commitments was a salient aspect of optimal identity development, and that an identity crisis or
exploration phase was an important component in the process of taking up identity commitments.
These exploration and commitment dimensions of identity are fundamental to Marcia‘s model of
identity development.
Marcia (1966) has expanded on the identity formation process theorized by Erikson as
involving two basic dimensions, exploration and commitment. Exploration is a developmental
process that encompasses the individuals‘ active search for information and examination of
choices related to identity (Schwartz, 2001). There are seemingly an infinite number of
possibilities facing the young adult regarding issues such as sexuality, politics, religion,
education, career, peers, romantic partners, interests and hobbies, finances, and so on. Thus, the
best identity outcomes are believed to be the result of an exploratory period in which young
adults become equipped with knowledge of the various alternatives available to them before
making commitments (Berman, Schwartz, Kurtines, & Berman, 2001). Commitment refers to
individuals‟ decisions regarding these alternatives and possibilities, and determines their
trajectories towards future goals. Initial commitment decisions often are tentative and then
become more firm, or are sometimes abandoned after more in-depth exploration and life
experience have occurred (Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, Beyers, & Vansteenkiste, 2005).
Identity status can be conceptualized as steps in a process, with the different statuses
indicating an individual‘s location in the process. The four primary statuses are diffused
(characterized by a lack of both exploration and commitment), achieved (both exploration and
4
commitment have occurred), foreclosed (commitment without exploration) and moratorium
(exploration without commitment).
The diffusion status (low in exploration and commitment) is characterized by individuals
who are not committed to any particular goals, roles, or beliefs about the world and are not
actively searching for ones either. The foreclosure status (low in exploration, but high in
commitment) is descriptive of individuals who lack a period of exploration of alternatives but are
nevertheless committed. Generally, these commitments represent those goals, roles, and beliefs
about the world suggested by others, often parental figures, and are assumed without being
questioned or examined, and therefore are attained more from a process of modeling rather than
through self reflection. The moratorium status (high in exploration, low in commitment)
precedes identity achievement. The individuals in this status experience a ‗‗crisis‘‘ due to their
active exploration of different options but have not yet chosen from the alternatives. Finally,
those individuals who are able to move beyond the moratorium status and choose their goals,
roles, and beliefs about the world are said to be in the achievement status (high in exploration
and commitment).
It is clear that identity formation is a complex process that affects the individual in a
variety of domains. Some researchers have suggested that the domain of interpersonal
relationships is of special importance in terms of identity exploration (Berman, Weems,
Rodriguez, & Zamora, 2006; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985; Montgomery, 2005). This domain is
explored primarily through family, peer, and romantic partner interactions (Thorbecke &
Grotevant, 1982). For the purpose of the current study, romantic relationships in particular are
salient, and the link between the identity formation process and intimacy in romantic
relationships is examined in depth.
5
Intimacy
The sixth psychosocial task according to Erikson‘s (1963) theory, the conflict of
―intimacy versus isolation,‖ is met during early adulthood. It is during this stage that people
begin to feel both an internal need and external pressures to amalgamate their identities with the
identities of others. Relationships involving intimacy – friendships as well as loving, sexual
relationships are sought with increasing vigor.
Genuine intimacy means having ―the capacity to commit to concrete affiliations and
partnerships and to develop the ethical strength to abide by such commitments even though they
may call for significant sacrifices and compromises‖ (Erikson, 1968, p. 263). Young people learn
to be less focused on themselves, more open to experiencing closeness with significant others,
and become more amenable to surrendering some autonomy in favor of experiencing harmony
and coalition, without fear of losing parts of their own identity. During this phase, emerging
adults are focused on developing close, intimate relationships with others. A successful
resolution of this stage results in the development of close friendships and loving, sexual
relationships. A failure to successfully resolve this stage may result in loneliness, isolation, and
fear of relationships.
Orlofsky, Marcia, and Lesser (1973) elaborated on Erikson‘s (1963) original ideas
regarding intimacy and took it a step further by suggesting that intimacy may best be understood
by analyzing qualitatively different styles of close personal relationships rather than by
conceptualizing intimacy as a construct that can be assessed on a high to low scale. Orlofsky et
al. (1973) proposed five different intimacy statuses, or styles of dealing with intimacy issues.
According to this model, ―Intimate individuals have close friendships in which personal matters
are shared and discussed with openness and depth, and they are also committed to an exclusive
6
partner. Preintimate individuals also enjoy close, mutual relationships, but are not involved in an
exclusive relationship with another person. Individuals with stereotyped relationships generally
have several friends, but these relationships lack depth and commitment and personal matters are
rarely discussed. Communication here is based on more superficial issues. Pseudointimates have
friendships, as well as a more or less committed relationship, that share the same characteristics
as stereotyped relationships. Isolates do not have enduring personal relationships, and rarely
initiate social contacts.‖
Some researchers have looked at intimacy in romantic relationships from an attachment
perspective and proposed various attachment styles indicating how a person relates to a partner.
Two dimensions of attachment style that have been examined in the adult attachment literature
include anxiety (defined as being overly concerned about receiving love and care from a partner)
and avoidance (defined as being wary and dismissing of closeness in a relationship)
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007; Hazan & Shaver,
1987). Individuals with a high amount of anxiety within the attachment context are believed to
experience anxiety as a result of fear of rejection or abandonment, while high avoidance results
from the individual‘s fear of his or her own incompetence within a relational context.
Bartholomew & Shaver (1998) proposed that adult attachment styles could be depicted
through an individual‘s view of self and others in attachment relationships. Individuals can have
a positive and/or negative model of themselves and others, thereby affecting the way they relate
with others in a relationship. Combining these underlying dimensions resulted in the formation
of four distinct attachment styles: Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, and Dismissing. According to
this model, secure individuals, characterized by both a positive view of themselves and others,
are expected to be comfortable and trusting in intimate relationships. Preoccupied individuals,
7
characterized as having a negative view of themselves but a positive view of others, typically
need approval and seek an almost unhealthy degree of closeness and intimacy with their
attachment partners, and are often described as ―needy‖ or ―clingy.‖ Dismissing individuals, seen
as having a positive view of themselves and a negative view of others, are characterized by a
general discomfort with closeness and unwillingness to trust others. Fearful individuals, defined
by a negative view of themselves as well as others, are characterized by high levels of insecurity
in relationships. Attachment styles, initially formed in the infant-caregiver relationship (Bowlby,
1988), carried forward and developed in romantic relationships can shape future relationship
choices and heavily influence life decisions for young adults (Pittman, Pittman, Keiley,
Kerpelman, & Vaughn, 2011).
Based on existing literature of adult romantic attachment, the majority of people (55%-
65%) are believed to be securely attached, as evidenced by low levels of avoidance and anxiety
(Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991, Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997).
Research indicates that a secure attachment in adulthood appears to be associated with the most
positive outcomes (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Holland & Roisman, 2010; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003).
For example, individuals who are classified as securely attached report the greatest
satisfaction with their romantic relationships and tend to experience high self-esteem
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Holland & Roisman, 2010; Meyers & Landsberger, 2002). In
the realm of insecure attachment, those who are classified as anxious-ambivalently attached
report greater feelings of loneliness and lower self-esteem, whereas those who have an avoidant
attachment report knowingly distancing themselves from others emotionally and avoid
expressing vulnerable feelings (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
8
According to the epigenetic principle of Erikson‘s (1963) theory, issues of identity need
to be addressed and fairly well resolved before genuine intimacy in relationships is possible. He
emphasized the importance of possessing a strong sense of identity prior to entering intimate
relationships, strongly implying that adolescents who fail to sufficiently resolve issues of identity
may have difficulty forming and maintaining long-term close, and meaningful relationships with
romantic partners since ―Intimacy is the ability to fuse your identity with somebody else‘s
without fear that you‘re going to lose something yourself‖ (Erikson, 1968, p. 135).
On the other hand, some have suggested (e.g., Brown, 1999) that in modern society,
intimacy in close relationships already develops during adolescence and precedes identity
development.
Relationship between Identity and Intimacy
The findings from numerous research studies examining the relationship between identity
and intimacy status have been conflicting and inconclusive (Marcia, Waterman, Matteson,
Archer, & Orlofsky, 1993). Some researchers have found that identity and intimacy statuses are
positively correlated, such that high status in one area is associated with high status in the other
(Kacerguis & Adams, 1980; Orlofsky, Marcia, & Lesser, 1973; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985; Tesch
& Whitbourne, 1982).
Orlofsky et al. (1973) examined the relationship between identity and status, and obtained
findings consistent with Erikson's theoretical proposition. Men in the identity achievement and
moratorium identity statuses (so called high-identity statuses) were more frequently in the high-
intimacy statuses (intimate and preintimate) compared to those in the foreclosure, or diffusion
status.
9
Berman, Weems, Rodriguez, and Zamora (2006) examined the link between identity
status and romantic attachment style among an ethnically diverse sample of college (n = 324)
and high school students (n = 189). The results of the study indicated that identity status and
romantic attachment style were significantly related for males and females in the college sample,
but were not significantly related in the high school sample. It was also found that a person in
any identity status could have any of the attachment styles. However, foreclosed individuals
were significantly lower in avoidance than diffused individuals were. Foreclosed individuals also
scored lower on relationship anxiety than those who were achieved or in moratorium. Finally,
identity achieved individuals appeared to be more likely to have preoccupied attachment
(although it was expected that they would be secure), and foreclosed were more likely to be
secure.
Additionally, Arseth, Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia (2009) conducted a meta-analysis
of studies examining the link between Marcia‘s identity statuses and romantic relationship
attachment. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a moderate association between attachment
style and identity status. Achievement and moratorium status were both found to be positively
correlated with secure attachment and high intimacy, whereas diffusion and foreclosure statuses
appeared to be linked with insecure attachment and low intimacy.
However, others have suggested (e.g., Van Hoof, 1999) that above all there is substantial
inter-individual variability in the timing of identity and intimacy issues, leading to an overall
unlinking of these two developmental tasks.
The identity-intimacy relationship has been chiefly studied in two ways (Adams &
Archer, 1994). The first approach involves an investigation of the correlations between these two
stages of development. The second approach consists of short-term longitudinal designs to assess
10
the temporal association between the stages of identity and intimacy. Some research studies have
compared measures of identity to indirect evaluations of intimacy, such as measures of social
relationships. In reviewing several studies of this nature, Adams and Archer observed that active
forms of identity (namely, moratorium and achievement) were associated with more successful
social relationships. For example, Mallory (1989) found active identity development to be
associated with warm and close relationships. On the other hand, Markstrom, Sabino, Turner,
and Berman (1997) found the moratorium status was negatively correlated with the ego strengths
of fidelity and love.
In a relatively recent cross-sectional study examining variables associated with marital
success among 40 stably married couples and 38 unstably married couples (aged 22–59.7 yrs),
Rotenberg, Schaut, and O‘Connor (1993) showed that marital success and satisfaction in adult
couples - both revealing high intimacy, were associated with greater identity achievement in
individuals.
Montgomery (2005), in a study examining age and gender differences in patterns of
behavior and experience, cognitive beliefs, affective involvement, and psychosocial functioning
in romantic relationships in 473 adolescents and emerging adults (ages 12-24) using the Erikson
Psychosocial Index (Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1981), added that strong identity development
is an independent predictor of psychosocial intimacy, after controlling for a series of background
variables.
Two short-term (1-year interval) longitudinal studies also confirmed Erikson‘s basic
premise. Fitch and Adams (1983) showed that in college-aged males and females, identity
formation as assessed with Marcia‘s semistructured interview contributed to advanced intimacy
status (Orlofsky et al., 1973) a year later. Marsh, Allen, Ho, Porter, and McFarland (2006)
11
demonstrated that strong ego development at age 13 not only explained concurrent levels of
intimate behavior with friends and felt security in friendships but also predicted increases over
time in these variables.
Hoegh and Bourgeois (2002) conducted a study on 79 undergraduates and found that
individuals in the identity achieved status showed higher levels of secure attachment while their
diffused counterparts showed higher levels of fearful attachment in relationships. Individuals in
moratorium also scored high in secure attachment. Individuals in the foreclosed status tended to
score higher on either secure or dismissive attachment styles.
Beyers, & Seiffge-Krenke (2010) utilized interview and questionnaire data from a
longitudinal study conducted with 93 adolescents, to investigate whether ego development in
middle adolescence predicts intimacy in emerging adulthood. Secondly, they examined whether
this link is mediated by identity achievement at the transition to adulthood. Results indicated that
there is a direct link between early ego development (age 15) and intimacy in romantic
relationships (age 25). There were no gender differences found, and no paths were found from
earlier intimacy to later ego development. An integrative identity construct, labeled relational
identity achievement, measured at age 24, fully mediated the link between earlier ego
development and later intimacy.
Studies assessing direct measures of both identity and intimacy consistently found that
more advanced, active identity development was associated with higher levels of intimacy (e.g.,
Craig-Bray, Adams, & Dobson, 1988; Fitch & Adams, 1983; Hodgson & Fischer, 1979;
Kacerguis & Adams, 1980; Orlofsky et al., 1973). Also, occupational identity was related to
intimacy in relationships, for both genders (Fitch & Adams, 1983; Kacerguis & Adams, 1980).
12
Finally, Kennedy (1999) surveyed 225 college freshmen and found that individuals with
a preoccupied attachment style had higher identity diffusion and moratorium scores than did
those with a secure attachment style. Fearful individuals also scored higher on diffusion
compared to secure individuals, and secure individuals in turn, scored higher on identity
achievement than the fearful individuals.
Taken together, these findings from cross-sectional and short-term longitudinal studies
somewhat confirm the proposed link between identity and intimacy development, but none of
them provides an ideal test for Erikson‘s tenets of developmental ordering and conditionality.
Also, many critics have asserted that Erikson‘s theory does not capture the experience of women
accurately. There is agreement among many researchers in the field that the identity and
intimacy tasks, as theorized by Erikson, may be applicable to men, but are probably reversed or
fused in women.
Gender Differences in Identity and Intimacy Formation
In Erikson's view, a well-developed sense of identity is crucial for attaining intimacy, for
a man who has been unable to find a suitable identity must maintain interpersonal distance as a
means of self-definition. In his writings on feminine development, however, Erikson (1968,
1975) proposed that a woman's identity formation remains incomplete until she establishes an
intimate partnership. This proposition implies that for women, it is essential to attain intimacy in
order to develop a strong identity — a reversal of the sequence characterizing masculine
development.
Erikson‘s theory has been criticized for being centered on men‘s psychosocial
development, while failing to sufficiently address women‘s development. For instance,
Patterson, Sochting, and Marcia (1992) stated that Erikson‘s conceptions on women‘s identity
13
implied that interpersonal issues are at the core of identity development for women; a woman‘s
identity issues are only temporarily resolved at adolescence, while they are truly resolved only
with marriage and reproduction; and that the sequencing of identity formation is less linear and
stage-specific for women as the resolutions of identity, intimacy, and generativity tasks can
overlap.
It has been suggested that there is a difference in the pathways followed by men and
women follow towards identity development, and that Erikson‘s descriptions of identity and
intimacy development might be normative for men, but not for women (e.g., Franz & White,
1985; Gilligan, 1982; Hodgson & Fischer, 1979).
Variations of these views are present in an assertion that identity formation is an
important task for women, but it is best understood in the context of connection and relatedness
to others (e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Josselson, 1988). Dyk and Adams (1990) addressed this
contention by conducting a short-term longitudinal study exploring the identity-intimacy link,
and found that identity did precede intimacy. However, when gender and sex roles were
considered, the predicted identity-intimacy connection held for all men, regardless of sex-role
orientation, and for masculine-oriented but not feminine-oriented women, thereby lending
support to the proposed gender differences in the identity-intimacy formation process.
Hodgson and Fischer (1979) examined the relationship between intimacy and identity
status in male and female college students. Their findings suggested that for males, the
experience of crisis, followed by commitment in at least one of the spheres of identity was
essential but not sufficient for establishing close relationships with peers. In contrast, for
females, the establishment of close interpersonal relationships appeared to be essential but not
sufficient for positive resolution of identity crisis.
14
Montgomery (2005) investigated the links between psychosocial identity and relationship
intimacy using a sample of 473 adolescents and emerging adults ranging from age 12 to 24.
Gender and age differences were also examined. Findings revealed gender differences for both
identity and intimacy. Females reported being in love fewer times and were less likely to believe
in love at first sight than males were, but reported experiencing greater intimacy in their
relationships than males did. Females also scored higher than males regarding their capacity for
mutual relational intimacy. Finally, older females showed higher scores than younger females in
intimacy and identity, whereas males did not show significant differences across age groups.
Finally, identity processes were highly significant predictors of psychosocial intimacy, with at
least one measure from each of the psychosocial developmental domains yielding a significant
correlation with intimacy outcomes.
Another study was done by Kahn, Zimmerman, Csikszentmihalyi, & Getzels (1985), with
166 college students, to investigate the relationship between gender, identity, and intimacy. They
also found that the relationship between identity and intimacy is different for males and females.
They used an indirect measure, which was the participants‘ likelihood of being married, and
conceptualized it as being reflective of intimacy. Specifically, they discovered that regardless of
where women were in the identity formation process, they were just as likely to be married than
not. However, when they examined the male sample, they found that identity was a significant
factor in establishing intimacy through marriage. As per the findings of this study, identity
appeared to be a prominent factor in the attainment of intimacy for males, while this relationship
did not appear to hold true for females.
Intimacy achievement is said to merge with, or even precede, identity achievement
among women (Orlofsky, 1978). Some studies confirmed that intimacy and identity are largely
15
overlapping or that intimacy indeed might spur identity development in women (e.g., Lacombe
& Gay, 1998; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985). However, other studies found no gender differences in
the identity-intimacy link (e.g., Montgomery, 2005). For the purpose of this study, gender will be
explored through the cultural lens.
Cultural Orientation
According to a recent definition of culture put forth by Fiske (2002, p. 85): ―A culture is
a socially transmitted or socially constructed constellation consisting of such things as practices,
competencies, ideas, schemas, symbols, values, norms, institutions, goals, constitutive rules,
artifacts, and modifications of the physical environment.‖
Pedersen (2000) described that ―culture encompasses demographic variables, social,
economic and educational background; other formal and informal affiliations and ethnographic
variables such as nationality, ethnicity, language and religion.‖
In the last few decades, the concept of individualism/collectivism has become extremely
popular for the cultural contrasting of the West with the East around the world (e.g., Geertz,
1974/1984; Miller, 1988; Schweder & Bourne, 1984; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, &
Luca, 1988). According to the individualism/collectivism concept, the various cultures of the
world can be conceptualized as falling on a single continuum, with the two extremes of
individualism and collectivism, lying at either end of this continuum. It has been suggested that
on this bipolar dimension, most Western cultures fall relatively close to the individualistic end,
and Eastern cultures toward the collectivistic end (Kagitcibasi, 1997).
However, studies that have examined such variables as attachment, close relationships,
love, and social networks with different cultural groups have found commonalities across
16
cultures, suggesting that humans in every culture at every stage of life need others (e.g., Bowlby,
1988; M. Lewis, 1982; Takahashi, 1990).
Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, and Morelli (2000) questioned the applicability of
attachment theory in the Japanese culture. They asserted that attachment theory concepts are not
as culturally universal as proponents have claimed, as the basic assumptions, ideas, and
philosophies underlying most attachment constructs are deeply rooted in Western thought, and
the majority of empirical studies lending support to the attachment theory have been conducted
in the United States and Europe with White middle-class subjects, bringing the external validity
or generalizability of the findings from these studies into question.
Ditommaso, Brannen, & Burgess (2005) conducted a comparative study to investigate the
universality of loneliness and attachment in family, romantic and social relationships. They
compared Canadian home students with Chinese visiting students for the purpose of this study. A
total of 223 students completed measures assessing peer, parent, and romantic attachment; and
emotional, and social loneliness. Significant main effects of culture and gender for both
attachment and loneliness were found and the results indicated that Chinese students scored
significantly lower in attachment security toward romantic partners than their Canadian
counterparts.
A study conducted by You and Malley-Morrison (2000) examined the contribution of
attachment styles to social intimacy and expectations of friends in 62 Caucasian American and
105 Korean college students. The study found that Koreans scored higher on preoccupied
attachment, lower on intimacy, and lower on friendship expectations. Upon conducting
regression analyses it was found that secure attachment style was a positive predictor, and
dismissive attachment style was a negative predictor of intimacy and positive expectations;
17
culture was a significant contributor to these equations, with Korean students reporting less
intimate relationships with friends and more negative expectations than Caucasian Americans.
Many researchers have suggested that identity in the Chinese culture, is defined in terms
of the system of relationships in which a person is involved (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai,
& Lucca, 1988; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Therefore, close interpersonal relationships may be
treated as part of the self, and a sense of self is established and maintained only through
interpersonal relationships (Hamaguchi, 1982).
The current literature proposes ―people construe the self in two divergent ways. One type
of construal is described by such concepts as individualist, independent, autonomous, agentic,
and separate, and the other by their antonyms such as collectivist, interdependent, ensembled,
communal, and relational‖ (Bakan, 1966; Gilligan, 1982; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Sampson,
1989; Triandis, 1989).‖ The first type of construal is often attributed to men and people in the
Western individualist cultures, while the second set to women and people in the Eastern
collectivist cultures (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1994).
According to Bedford and Hwang (2003), an individualistic theory of human nature
supposes that it is in a person‘s best interest to have maximum freedom and responsibility for
choosing goals and the means for attaining them. The underlying assumption is that the act of
making choices contributes to individual development as well as to the welfare of the society. In
contrast, most Confucian cultures emphasize that one‘s life is an inheritance from one‘s
ancestors, just as one‘s children‘s lives flow from one‘s own. Family is treated as part of the
―great self,‖ and the boundaries of the self are more permeable and may include family members
and others with whom the individual shares a close relationship. It is this ―great self‖ that an
individual is required to protect against any outside threats, contrary to the ―individual self‖ of
18
the Western cultures. Behavior that promotes group cohesion, such as congenial interaction
among group members, is treasured instead of individual goals or personal freedom as in
Western cultures, and no individual ever has a reasonable cause for disrupting group harmony, as
disruption affects everyone‘s identity.
Western individualism places a greater emphasis on personal rights, rather than personal
duties or social goals. In contrast, Confucian ethics are guided by concepts of personal duties and
social goals rather than personal rights (Bedford & Hwang, 2003). As stated by Triandis (1989,
p. 509), individualists "give priority to personal goals over the goals of collectives; collectivists
either make no distinctions between personal and collective goals, or if they do make such
distinctions, they subordinate their personal goals to the collective goals". A similar view has
been expressed by other theorists as well (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Shweder & Bourne, 1982;
Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988).
Based on the above, there is reason to believe there are differences in the identity
formation process, with gender and cultural orientation playing a role in the developmental
pathways followed by individuals across different cultures and genders. In cultures that are more
collectivistic and de-emphasize personal identity, identity formation may not play as strong a
role as a necessary precursor to intimacy.
Rationale and Hypotheses
Erikson suggested that healthy identity development during adolescence essentially
precedes the attainment of intimacy in romantic relationships during emerging adulthood.
However, there is reason to question this stringent developmental ordering from a developmental
contextual perspective, especially in collectivistic cultures that conceptualize identity in terms of
the system of relationships in which a person is involved. Although some researchers have
19
looked at how gender role orientation moderates the identity–intimacy association (e.g., Cruise
and Marcia, 1993; Dyk and Adams, 1990; Bartle-Harting and Strimple 1996), there have been no
studies that look at the role of cultural orientation in moderating this relationship. This research
will address a significant gap in our current understanding about the role of gender and cultural
orientation in the identity formation process, and how they moderate the relationship between
identity and intimacy in individuals across cultures.
Following the findings of Craig-Bray, Adams, & Dobson, 1988; Fitch & Adams, 1983;
Hodgson & Fischer, 1979; Kacerguis & Adams, 1980; and Orlofsky et al., 1973, our first
hypothesis is that identity development will predict intimacy in relationships.
Our second hypothesis specifically looked at two dimensions of intimacy in romantic
relationships: relationship anxiety and relationship avoidance. It is hypothesized that identity
development will be a negative predictor for both relationship anxiety and relationship
avoidance.
Based on the writings of Hofstede, 1980; and Triandis, 1994 that describe females as
being more interdependent and relational, and males as being more independent and
autonomous, our third hypothesis is that there will be gender differences in cultural orientation,
such that females will endorse more collectivistic cultural values compared with males, who will
endorse more individualistic cultural values.
In our fourth and final hypothesis, we attempted to understand the role of cultural
orientation in moderating the relationship between identity and intimacy. Based on the findings
of Gilligan, 1982; Josselson, 1988; Dyk and Adams, 1990; Lacombe & Gay, 1998; Schiedel &
Marcia, 1985; and Hodgson & Fischer, 1979, that indicated gender does play an important role in
moderating the relationship between identity and intimacy, and the findings of Hofstede, 1980;
20
and Triandis, 1994, that indicated females are more collectivistic compared to males, it is
hypothesized that the relationship between identity and intimacy will be moderated by cultural
orientation, such that it will be stronger among those that endorse more individualistic cultural
values compared to those who endorse more collectivistic cultural values.
21
CHAPTER TWO: METHODS
Participants
A total of 422 college students (mean age = 20.80, sd = 3.63) were recruited from one
urban university in Delhi, India (n = 96), two urban universities in Beijing, China (n = 180), and
one urban university in Orlando, United States (n = 146). Among this sample, 36.7% were
males, and 63.3% were females. The USA sample was 66.4% White/Caucasian, 15.8% Hispanic,
7.5% Black, 4.1% Asian, 5.5% Mixed, and 0.7% Other.
Measures
Demographic Questionnaire
A demographic questionnaire was used to inquire about age, gender, grade, ethnicity etc.
Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (EPSI)
Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1981) is an
assessment of Erikson‘s first six psychosocial stages (trust to intimacy). This study targeted
identity and intimacy subscales for examination. Each subscale reflects a successful and
unsuccessful resolution of the psychosocial crises corresponding to each stage. The instrument
consists of 12 items per subscale, and respondents answer each item according to a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (Never true) to 5 (Always true). A continuous score reflects the degree to which a
psychosocial stage resolution occurred, with higher scores representing more positive outcomes.
Rosenthal et al. (1981) reported Cronbach‘s alpha to be .71 for identity and .63 for intimacy. The
coefficient alpha reliabilities for the subscales in this study were .79 for individualism and .80 for
22
collectivism. For the current study, the coefficient alpha reliabilities for the subscales were .72
for both the identity and intimacy subscales.
Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR)
Experiences in Close Relationships (Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998) is a 36-item
self-report measure of attachment that uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from disagree strongly
to agree strongly. The ECR has two sub-scales labeled ―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 sub-scale contains items such as the following: “I worry about being abandoned”. The
Relationship Avoidance sub-scale contains such items as “I try to avoid getting too close to my
partner”. 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. Internal consistency and test re-test 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). The coefficient alpha
reliabilities for the subscales in this study were .86 for the relationship avoidance subscale, and
.79 for the relationship anxiety subscale.
23
Cultural Orientation Scale (COS)
Cultural Orientation Scale (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998) intends to measure various
beliefs and attitudes that express individualistic and collectivistic tendencies. The combination of
individualism and collectivism creates two dimensions upon which cultures vary. The original
scale by Singelis et.al (1995) is made up of 32 items. For the shortened version of the scale
developed by Triandis and Gelfand (1998), the same dimensions are identified, with a total of 27
items. The items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly
agree), and include items such as ―Being a unique individual is important to me,‖ “Winning is
everything,” “It is important to me to maintain harmony in my group,” and “My happiness
depends very much on the happiness of those around me.‖ A high score on any of the subscales
indicates a high degree of that characteristic that is being measured (e.g. a high score on
collectivism indicates a high degree of collectivism). The coefficient alpha reliabilities for the
subscales in this study were .79 for individualism and .80 for collectivism.
Procedure
Participants were provided with an IRB approved informed consent form before
completing the survey battery. The participants from USA who agreed to take part in the study
completed an anonymous online survey that included an explanation of the research, an informed
consent, a demographics questionnaire, and the measures. The participants recruited from the
Indian and Chinese Universities completed the paper-and-pencil version of the measures in a
group classroom setting and were assisted as necessary by the authors or trained research
assistants. Participants were informed that this study surveyed their beliefs, values, goals, and
feelings associated with interpersonal relationships.
24
Following the guidelines proposed by Guillemin, Bombardies, and Beaton (1993), the
measures were translated from English into Chinese, and then translated back into English by
someone who had not seen the original English measure, for the Chinese participants. The two
English copies were then reviewed to discuss and ameliorate the discrepancies. Since students in
the Indian sample use English as their instructional language, the English version was provided
for them based on consultation with the local study coordinator.
25
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
Preliminary and descriptive Analyses
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that the three samples significantly
differed in age F(2, 412) = 6.81, p = .001). A least squares difference (LSD) post hoc analysis
indicated that the Indian sample ( = 22.04, S = 1.71) was significantly (p = .001) older than the
Chinese ( = 20.42, S =1.65) and the American ( = 20.51, S = 5.61) samples (p = .002). The
Chinese and American samples were not significantly different in age distribution. The three
samples were also significantly different in gender distribution (χ 2 (2) = 45.87, p < .001) with
84.9% females in the USA sample compared to 53.6% females in China sample and 47.7%
females in the India sample.
A 2 by 3 (gender by country) Multivariate Analyses Of Variance (MANOVA) was
conducted to compare the three samples on all measures (See Table 1). There was a significant
main effect for gender (Wilks‘ Λ = .88, F(6, 397) = 8.90, p < .001) with males scoring higher on
individualistic orientation (F(1, 402) = 18.51, p < .001), and females scoring higher on
collectivistic orientation (F(1, 402) = 9.88, p < .01), identity (F(1, 402) = 7.39, p <.01), and
intimacy (F(1, 402) = 19.87, p <.001). This confirmed our third hypothesis that stated that there
would be gender differences in cultural orientation, such that females would endorse more
collectivistic cultural values compared with males, who would endorse more individualistic
cultural values.
There was also a significant main effect for country (Wilks‘ Λ = .61, F(12, 794) = 18.52,
p < .001) in regard to collectivistic orientation (F(2, 402) = 18.88, p < .001), identity
development (F(2, 402) = 15.15, p < .001), intimacy (F(2, 402) = 4.00, p < .05), relationship
avoidance (F(2, 402) = 59.06, p < .001), and relationship anxiety (F(2, 402) = 12.39, p < .001). A
26
Least Squares Difference (LSD) post hoc analysis revealed that in regard to collectivistic
orientation, the Chinese sample scored significantly lower than the American and Indian samples
(p < .001), which were not significantly different from each other (p = .06). In regard to identity
development, the American sample scored significantly higher than the Chinese sample (p <
.001), which scored significantly higher than the Indian sample (p = .003). In regard to intimacy,
the American sample scored significantly higher than the Indian and Chinese samples (p < .001),
which were not significantly different from each other. In regard to relationship avoidance, the
American sample scored significantly lower than the Indian and Chinese samples (p < .001),
which were not significantly different from each other. In regard to relationship anxiety, the
Chinese sample scored significantly lower than the Indian and American samples (p < .001),
which were not significantly different from each other. There was also a significant interaction
effect for gender by country (Wilks‘ Λ = .91, F(12, 794) = 3.22, p < .001) on individualistic
orientation (F(2, 402) = 9.09, p < .001) and relationship avoidance (F(2, 402) = 3.88, p < .05). As
can be seen in figure 5, males scored much higher in individualistic orientation in both the Indian
and the American sample, but there does not seem to be a large difference by gender in the
Chinese sample. In regard to relationship avoidance, in figure 3, it appears that females scored
higher than males in India and China, but there does not seem to be a very large gender
difference in the Chinese and American samples. The other analyses can be seen in figure 1, 2, 4,
and 6.
27
Table 1
Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Gender x Country Effects
ANOVA
Intimacy Identity Individualism Collectivism Relationship
Anxiety
Relationship
Avoidance
MANOVA
Variable F(12, 794) F(1, 402) F(1, 402) F(1, 402) F(1, 402) F(1, 402) F(1, 402)
Gender 8.90*** 19.87*** 7.39** 18.51*** 9.88** 2.21 .96
Country 18.52*** 4.00* 15.15*** 1.23 18.88*** 12.39*** 59.06***
Gender x
Country
3.22*** 2.96 2.47 9.09*** .10 .33 3.88*
Note. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.
Table 2
Descriptive Analysis
Possible
Range Actual Range
USA
Mean (sd)
India
Mean (sd)
China
Mean (sd)
Total Sample
Mean (sd)
Identity 12-60 23-59 43.96 (7.74) 36.97 (4.01) 39.44 (5.53) 40.45 (6.70)
Intimacy 12-60 20-60 44.46 (7.42) 39.75 (7.18) 40.15 (5.93) 41.56 (7.08)
Relationship
Avoidance 1-5 1-4.72 2.31 (.87) 3.12 (.36) 3.21 (.26) 2.88 (.70)
Relationship
Anxiety 1-5 1.11-4.61 2.91 (.77) 2.95 (.49) 2.60 (.42) 2.79 (.60)
Individualistic
Orientation 1-5 1.31-4.77 3.29 (.50) 3.40 (.72) 3.29 (.57) 3.31 (.58)
Collectivistic
Orientation 1-5 2.21-5 3.70 (.44) 3.84 (.49) 3.44 (.56) 3.62 (.53)
28
Figure 1: Means for Identity by Country for Males and Females
Figure 2: Means for Intimacy by country for Males and Female
36
38
40
42
44
46
USA India China
M ea
n s
Group
male
female
36
38
40
42
44
46
USA India China
M ea
n s
Group
male
female
29
Figure 3: Means for Relationship Avoidance by Country for Males and Females
Figure 4: Means for Relationship Anxiety by Country for Males and Females
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
USA India China
M ea
n s
Group
male
female
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
USA India China
M ea
n s
Group
male
female
30
Figure 5: Means for Individualistic Orientation by Country for Males and Females
Figure 6: Means for Collectivistic Orientation by Country for Males and Females
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
USA India China
M ea
n s
Group
male
female
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
USA India China
M ea
n s
Group
male
female
31
A correlational coefficient matrix was constructed (see Table 3). As can be seen on this
table, identity was significantly correlated with collectivism (r = .26, p < .001), and negatively
correlated with relationship avoidance (r = - .32, p < .001), as well as relationship anxiety (r = -
.28, p < .001). Intimacy was also significantly correlated with collectivism (r = .41, p < .001), but
it was negatively correlated with individualism (r = - .16, p = .001), relationship avoidance (r = -
.41, p < .001), and relationship anxiety (r = - .10, p < .05). Identity and intimacy were also
correlated with each other (r = .52, p < .001). Collectivism was negatively correlated with
relationship avoidance (r = - .11, p < .05). Additionally, individualism and collectivism were
positively correlated with each other (r = .30, p < .001).
Table 3
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6
Age --
Individualistic
Orientation
.015
Collectivistic
Orientation
-.013 .295**
Identity .028 .048 .260**
Intimacy -.045 -.158** .407** .518**
Relationship
Avoidance
.020 .056 -.109* -.323** -.406**
Relationship
Anxiety
-.035 .050 .017 -.276** -.103* -.086
Note. * = p < .05, ** = p < .001
Main analyses
Three multiple regression analyses were conducted since this study explored intimacy in
3 ways: an Eriksonian measure (EPSI) which captures intimacy from Erikson‘s theoretical
perspective; and another measure (ECR), which captures intimacy from an attachment
32
perspective, specifically looking at relationship anxiety and relationship avoidance as the two
basic dimensions of intimacy in romantic relationships. To test the first hypothesis which stated
that identity development will predict intimacy in relationships, a multiple regression analysis
was conducted with age and gender entered on step one, identity score from the EPSI entered on
step 2, individualistic and collectivistic scores from the COS entered on step 3, and interaction
terms entered on step 4, with intimacy score from the EPSI as the dependent variable (see Table
4). In accordance with the procedure for testing moderator effects as proposed by Holmbeck
(1997), interaction terms are created by centering the prediction variable (i.e. subtracting each
score from the mean) and then multiplying the two predictor scores together. Thus we created
two interaction terms, Identity/Individualism and Identity/Collectivism. The overall model was
significant (R 2
= 0.44, Adjusted R 2
= .43, F (7, 400) = 45.36, p < .001). At step 3, the change in
R 2 was significant (change in F(2, 402) = 51.09, p < .001; change in R
2 = .14) with standardized
beta coefficients reaching significance for identity (β = .42, t = 10.61, p < .001), individualism (β
= -.28, t = -7.04, p < .001), and collectivism (β = .37, t = 9.07, p < .001). This confirmed our
hypothesis that identity development would predict intimacy in relationships. At step 4, the
change in R 2 was not significant, indicating that there was no interaction, thus disconfirming our
fourth hypothesis.
Table 4
Regression Analysis Summary for Variables predicting Intimacy
Variable β t p
Gender .07 1.73 .085
Age -.04 -1.05 .294
Identity .41 10.05 .000**
Individualistic Orientation -.27 -6.78 .000**
Collectivistic Orientation .38 9.04 .000**
Identity-Individualism Interaction .02 .40 .691
Identity-Collectivism Interaction .05 1.10 .272
Note. * = p < .01, ** = p < .001
33
A second multiple regression analysis was conducted with age and gender entered on step
one, identity score from the EPSI entered on step 2, individualistic and collectivistic scores from
the COS entered on step 3, and interaction terms entered on step 4, with relationship anxiety
score from the ECR as the dependent variable (see Table 5). The overall model was significant
(R 2
= 0.11, Adjusted R 2
= .09, F (7, 397) = 6.92, p < .001). At step 4, the change in R 2
was
significant (change in F(2, 397) = 6.17, p < .01; change in R 2
= .03) with standardized beta
coefficients reaching significance for identity (β = - .25, t = - 4.90, p < .001), and the interaction
term for identity with collectivism (β = - .16, t = - 3.01, p < .01).
Table 5
Regression Analysis Summary for Variables predicting Relationship Anxiety
Variable β t p
Gender .01 .10 .923
Age -.03 -.70 .487
Identity -.25 -4.90 .000**
Individualistic Orientation .02 .35 .728
Collectivistic Orientation .06 1.14 .254
Identity-Individualism Interaction -.03 -.50 .618
Identity-Collectivism Interaction -.16 -3.01 .003*
Note. * = p < .01, ** = p < .001
A third multiple regression analysis was conducted with age and gender entered on step
one, identity score from the EPSI entered on step 2, individualistic and collectivistic scores from
the COS entered on step 3, and interaction terms entered on step 4, with relationship avoidance
score from the ECR as the dependent variable (see Table 6). The overall model was significant
R 2
= 0.13, Adjusted R 2
= .11, F (7, 397) = 8.40, p < .001). At step 2, the change in R 2 was
significant (change in F (1, 401) = 42.04, p < .001; change in R 2
= .09) with standardized beta
coefficients reaching significance for identity (β = -.31, t = -6.48, p < .001). At step 4, the change
in R 2 was not significant. This confirmed our second hypothesis that identity development would
34
be a negative predictor for relationship anxiety and relationship avoidance. Our final hypothesis
that the relationship between identity and intimacy would be moderated by cultural orientation,
such that it would be stronger among those that endorse more individualistic cultural values than
those who endorse more collectivistic cultural values was not supported. Our findings from the
multiple regression analysis indicated that although identity and cultural orientation considered
alone were significant predictors of intimacy in relationships, the relationship between identity
and intimacy were moderated by cultural orientation only for relationship anxiety, such that a
strong sense of identity along with a collectivistic cultural orientation predicted less relationship
anxiety.
Table 6
Regression Analysis Summary for Variables predicting Relationship Avoidance
Variable β t p
Gender -.06 -1.19 .235
Age .02 .38 .704
Identity -.30 -5.88 .000**
Individualistic Orientation .06 1.20 .230
Collectivistic Orientation .06 1.14 .254
Identity-Individualism Interaction -.03 -.49 .625
Identity-Collectivism Interaction -.09 -1.74 .083
Note. * = p < .01, ** = p < .001
35
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION
As hypothesized, identity was found to be a strong predictor for intimacy in romantic
relationships. This also provides support for the proposed link between identity development and
intimacy formation put forth by Erik Erikson in his theory of psychosocial development. He
highlighted the importance of having a strong sense of identity prior to intimate relationships,
strongly arguing that adolescents who fail to find a suitable identity may have difficulty forming
and maintaining long-lasting close relationships with romantic partners since ―intimacy is the
ability to fuse your identity with somebody else‘s without fear that you‘re going to lose
something yourself‖ (Erikson, 1968). It was also found that an individualistic cultural orientation
was a negative predictor of intimacy in relationships. This implies that people having a
predominantly individualistic orientation are less likely to experience a deep level of intimacy in
romantic relationships. A potential explanation of this finding can be the individual‘s focus on
individual independence, development, and interests as getting in the way of establishing true
intimacy in a romantic relationship. Since an intimate romantic relationship demands a certain
level of interdependence and collaboration, individuals with an individualistic orientation could
have difficulty maintaining such relationships. On the other hand, a collectivistic orientation was
found to be a positive predictor of intimacy in relationships. This implies that people having a
more collectivistic orientation are more likely to experience intimacy in romantic relationships.
A possible explanation for this finding can be the individual‘s values of interdependence,
companionship, and harmony as fostering deeper intimacy in relationships.
Our second hypothesis that identity will negatively predict relationship anxiety and
relationship avoidance in romantic relationships was also supported. As can be seen from the
regression analysis, identity came out to be the strongest predictor for relationship avoidance and
36
relationship anxiety, implying that the stronger the sense of identity, the less likely it is that the
individual will display avoidance and experience anxiety in romantic relationships. Once again,
this supports Erikson‘s (1969/1980) view that some degree of identity resolution is necessary for
intimacy within a romantic relationship context.
As hypothesized, females were found to endorse more collectivistic cultural values
compared with males, who endorsed more individualistic cultural values. Erikson also claimed
there were important gender differences between men and women in the identity development
process wherein men focus more on developing their identity in the intrapersonal domains (such
as occupation and ideological beliefs), whereas women focus more on the interpersonal domain.
Considering that a number of previous researches focusing on the cultural contrasting of
the Western and Eastern cultures have found that Eastern cultures are more collectivistic,
whereas Western cultures are more individualistic, one very surprising finding of this study was
the Chinese sample scored significantly lower than both India and the United States on
collectivism. This finding might be explained by the intensification of globalization, due to
which, people around the world are increasingly exposed to and involved in the global culture
(especially Western and American culture). Wang (2006) proposes that college-educated youths
in China are undergoing major value changes, such as ―individualism, materialism, and moral
crisis,‖ as the larger society transitions under the context of ever intensifying globalization. Since
the participants of the study were college students from two urban universities in China, the
lower scores on collectivism make sense in light of this proposition. Another possible reason for
this finding could be the use of translated measures for the Chinese sample, which may not have
accurately captured the essence of some questions in the measures, thereby distorting the
questions and skewing the results.
37
Another interesting finding of the study was that the US sample did not score
significantly different from the Indian sample on collectivism. The author proposes that this
finding is the result of a much larger percentage of females in the US sample (84.9%), compared
with the Indian sample (47.7%). Since the results indicate that overall, females scored
significantly higher than males on the collectivistic dimension, the unequal gender distribution
might be skewing the true picture by making the US sample appear more collectivistic.
In summary, the results indicate that identity development is a very strong predictor for
intimacy, such that a strong sense of identity positively predicts intimacy, and negatively predicts
relationship anxiety and relationship avoidance. Also, cultural orientation considered alone is a
significant predictor of intimacy in relationships, such that a collectivistic cultural orientation
positively predicts intimacy and negatively predicts relationship anxiety and relationship anxiety.
However, the relationship between identity and intimacy is moderated by cultural orientation
only for relationship anxiety, such that a strong sense of identity along with a collectivistic
cultural orientation predicts less relationship anxiety. We were therefore, unable to support our
hypothesis that the relationship between identity and intimacy would be stronger for individuals
endorsing more individualistic values compared to those endorsing more collectivistic values.
This study makes important contributions to the existing literature by bringing forth some
salient points for consideration. Firstly, the findings from the study suggest that the traditional
conceptualization of individualism and collectivism as constructs on the opposite ends of a
dichotomous continuum may be limited, implying that individualism is not necessarily the
opposite of collectivism. Triandis (1995) has suggested that people choose and adopt their
personal characteristics, styles of communication, and inclinations, from both individualistic and
collectivistic cognitive structures under different circumstances. Also, increasing globalization
38
has led to a fusion of cultures from all over the world, necessitating a reconsideration of the
traditional conceptualization of individualism/collectivism as a simple dichotomy. Therefore, it
is possible for individuals to be both individualistic and collectivistic in different aspects of their
lives.
Hofstede (1983) classified over 50 countries in three regions of the world based on
individualism and collectivism. His classification was conceptualized on the basis of a one-
dimensional view of human values, with individualism and collectivism lying at the opposite
poles on a continuum. Nations and cultures were defined as located at one or the other of those
bipolar dimensions, or somewhere in between. However, the findings from the study suggest that
it is fallacious to make assumptions about an individual‘s cultural orientation based on the
country he/she belongs to. Therefore, one must not assume that everyone from traditionally
individualistic cultures is an individualist, whereas everyone from traditionally collectivistic
cultures is a collectivist. Dutta-Bergman and Wells (2002) also recently provided ample evidence
on within-culture variations in terms of individualism and collectivism and the consequent
differences reflected in behavioral indicators.
Finally, it should be noted that having a collectivistic cultural orientation is not
antithetical to identity development. Some existing literature has suggested that collectivists de-
emphasize personal identity, implying that they may have a weaker sense of identity as
compared to individualists. However, our results indicate this is not true, and while identity may
be constructed in different ways across cultures, people endorsing collectivistic cultural values
do have a strong sense of identity, and it plays an important role in their relationships.
The findings from this study have important practical implications for therapy with
individuals from different cultures. Therapists are urged to recognize their biases and
39
stereotypical beliefs about individuals from different cultures, and to recognize that there is great
inter-individual variability in beliefs, values, and behaviors across cultures. Therapists are
encouraged to be more open-minded and not adhere to the traditional dichotomous view of
cultural orientations while working with clients in a multicultural context.
These findings also have important implications for therapy with couples, wherein
therapists would benefit from addressing identity issues with both partners. They could
encourage both partners to define themselves inside and outside of the relationship, and
individual identity building could be a first step in improving relationship quality and fostering a
deeper sense of intimacy for the couple. It should be noted that personal identity development
does not imply that individuals are to focus on their own interests, goals, and choices while
sacrificing relationship goals and disregarding the needs of their partner. The results from this
study clearly indicate that having values like harmony and interdependence, which are often
associated with collectivistic cultures, are strong predictors for intimacy in relationships.
Therefore, an emphasis on personal identity development can go hand in hand with more
collectivistic cultural values and serve to enhance relationship quality.
When considering the findings of this study, there are certain limitations that should also
be noted. First and foremost, participants in the Indian, Chinese, as well as the US sample were
college students from urban cities. Also, a majority of the participants in the sample were
females (63.3%). A more balanced sample involving both genders and participants from the
larger community might yield more generalizable findings. Further, it would be interesting to
collect data from people belonging to diverse socio-economic statuses (SES) and within both
rural and urban settings in India, China, and the USA. Additionally, there has been some debate
in the field with regards to the equivalence of computerized, and paper-and-pencil administration
40
of measures. Since for the purpose of this study, the USA sample completed the computerized
version of the measures, while the Indian and Chinese samples completed the paper-and-pencil
version, this raises another limitation of the study that needs to be considered. Furthermore, the
usage of self report measures in this study might have impacted the participants‘ responses by
leading them to either respond in socially desirable ways or to defensively approach certain
questions.
41
APPENDIX A: APPROVAL OF EXEMPT HUMAN RESEARCH
42
43
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT (ENGLISH VERSION)
44
EXPLANATION OF RESEARCH
Title of Project: Identity and Close Personal Relationships as Moderated by Culture.
Principal Investigators: Garima Jhingon and Shengnan Li
Faculty Supervisor: Dr. Steven L. Berman
You are being invited to take part in a research study. Whether you take part is up to you.
The purpose of this research is to study possible cultural differences in the effects of
close personal relationships on identity. It will explore gender and culture by looking at
close personal relationships, including friendships and romantic relationships, as they
related to conceptions of identity, in three cultural contexts: USA, India, and China.
You will be asked to complete a survey which includes demographics as well as a few
short questionnaires relating to your relationships, beliefs, values etc. The survey is
anonymous; you will not be asked to write your name on the questionnaires. Results will
only be reported in the form of group data.
The survey contains 220 questions in addition to the demographics, requiring not more
than 1 hour for completion.
You must be 18 years of age or older to take part in this research study.
Study contact for questions about the study or to report a problem: If you have questions,
concerns, or complaints contact Garima Jhingon, Graduate Student, Clinical Psychology
Program, at [email protected]; Shengnan Li, Graduate Student, Clinical
Psychology Program, at [email protected]; or Dr. Berman, Faculty Supervisor,
Psychology Department, at (386) 506-4049 or [email protected].
IRB contact about your rights in the study or to report a complaint: Research at the
University of Central Florida involving human participants is carried out under the oversight of
the Institutional Review Board (UCF IRB). This research has been reviewed and approved by the
IRB. For information about the rights of people who take part in research, please contact:
Institutional Review Board, University of Central Florida, Office of Research &
Commercialization, 12201 Research Parkway, Suite 501, Orlando, FL 32826-3246 or by
telephone at (407) 823-2901.
45
APPENDIX C: SURVEY (ENGLISH VERSION)
46
BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE
Please use the Bubble Sheet provided to fill in your background information as follows:
NAME: Leave Blank
SEX: mark MALE or FEMALE
GRADE: bubble in your year in college
BIRTH DATE: Mark ―Month,‖ ―Day,‖ and ―Year‖
Now please turn over both the bubble sheet and this page, and complete the survey. Thank you.
47
EPSI
The following statements describe things you may either agree with or disagree with. In the
bubble sheet provided, please mark the letter that shows how much you agree or disagree that a
statement is true of you or not true of you.
A
Never
True
B
Rarely
True
C
Sometimes
True
D
Often
True
E
Always
True
1. I change my opinion of myself a lot.
2. I've got a clear idea of what I want to be.
3. I feel mixed up.
4. The important things in life are clear to me.
5. I've got it together.
6. I know what kind of person I am.
7. I can't decide what I want to do with my life.
8. I have a strong sense of what it means to be male/female.
9. I like myself and am proud of what I stand for.
10. I don't really know who I am.
11. I work keep up a certain image when I'm with people.
12. I don't really feel involved.
13. I get embarrassed when someone begins to tell me personal things.
14. I'm ready to get involved with a special person.
48
15. I'm warm and friendly.
16. It is important to be completely open with my friends.
17. I keep what I really think and feel to myself.
18. I think it's crazy to get too involved with people.
19. I care deeply for others.
20. I'm basically a loner.
21. I have a boyfriend/girlfriend who is a close friend of mine as well as a close romantic
partner.
22. I prefer not to show too much of myself to others.
23. Being alone with other people makes me feel uncomfortable.
24. I find it easy to make close friends.
ECR
The following statements concern how you feel in romantic 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 indicating how much you agree or disagree with it.
Please fill in your rating on the Bubble Sheet, using the following rating scale:
A B C D E
Strongly
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral Slightly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
25. I prefer not to show how I feel deep down.
26. I worry about being abandoned.
49
27. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.
28. I worry a lot about my relationships.
29. Just when my partner starts to get close to me I find myself pulling away.
30. I worry that romantic partners won‘t care about me as much as I care about them.
31. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close.
32. I worry a fair amount about losing my partner.
33. I don‘t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.
34. I often wish that my partner‘s feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him/her.
35. I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back.
36. I often want to merge completely with romantic partners, and this sometimes scares them
away.
37. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.
38. I worry about being alone.
39. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.
40. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.
41. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.
42. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner.
43. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner.
44. Sometimes I feel that I force my partners to show more feeling, more commitment.
45. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.
46. I do not often worry about being abandoned.
47. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.
48. If I can‘t get my partner to show interest in me, I get upset or angry.
50
49. I tell my partner just about everything.
50. I find that my partner(s) don‘t want to get as close as I would like.
51. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.
52. When I‘m not involved in a relationship, I feel somewhat anxious and insecure.
53. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.
54. I get frustrated when my partner is not around as much as I would like.
55. I don‘t mind asking romantic partners for comfort, advice, or help.
56. I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I need them.
57. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.
58. When romantic partners disapprove of me, I feel really bad about myself.
59. I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance.
60. I resent it when my partner spends time away from me.
COS
The following statements describe things you may either agree with or disagree with. In the
bubble sheet provided, please mark the letter that shows how much you agree or disagree that a
statement is true of you or not true of you.
A
Never
True
B
Rarely
True
C
Sometimes
True
D
Often
True
E
Always
True
61. I‘d rather depend on myself than others.
51
62. I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.
63. I often do my own thing.
64. My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me.
65. Being a unique individual is important to me.
66. It is important that I do my job better than others.
67. Winning is everything.
68. Competition is the law of nature.
69. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused.
70. I enjoy working in situations involving competition.
71. Some people emphasize winning; I am not one of them.
72. Without competition, it is not possible to have a good society.
73. It annoys me when other people perform better than I do.
74. If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel proud.
75. The well-being of my coworkers is important to me.
76. To me, pleasure is spending time with others.
77. I feel good when I cooperate with others.
78. If a relative were in financial difficulty, I would help within my means.
79. It is important to me to maintain harmony in my group.
80. I like sharing little things with my neighbors.
81. My happiness depends very much on the happiness of those around me.
82. Parents and children must stay together as much as possible.
83. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want.
84. Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required.
52
85. It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups.
86. Children should be taught to place duty before pleasure.
87. I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.
53
APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT (CHINESE VERSION)
54
55
APPENDIX E: SURVEY (CHINESE VERSION)
56
基本資料問卷
請使用所发給的答题卡填写下面基本資料.
姓名: 請留空白
性別: 請填 男 或 女
年級: 請选择你的年级
生日: 請留空白
识别码：
A: 在A栏中选择你的婚姻狀態.
(0)單身
(1)已婚
(2)離婚
(3)喪偶(寡婦或鰥夫)
(4)分居
BC: 在BC栏中选择你的年龄.
現在請你(使用答案紙和背面問卷)開始填寫. 謝謝你.
57
ECR
說明:下面的句子是有關你在愛情關係裡如何感覺.我們有興趣於你如何經驗你的男女愛情
關係,而不只是在目前的關係裡發生了什麼.請根據下面句子的描述指出你同意或不同意的
程度.請在答案卡上選出一個適當的代號.
A
从不是这样
B
很少是这样
C
有时是这样
D
经常是这样
E
总是这样
1. 我比較不喜歡在男/女朋友面前表現我內心的情緒（憂傷）.
2. 我擔心會(分手)或被拋棄.
3. 當我跟男/女朋友親密地在一起時,我能感到非常舒服.
4. 我會很擔心我的愛情關係.
5. 只要當我的男/女朋友開始親近我時, 我發現我會想避開.
6. 我會擔憂我的男/女朋友不会在意我如我那麼在意他們一樣.
7. 當男/女朋友想要非常親近我時,我會感到不舒服.
8. 我會很擔心失去我的男/女朋友.
58
9. 當我跟男/女朋友分享一些私密的情感時,我會感到不舒服.
10. 我總是希望我的男/女朋友對我付出的感情能有如同我對他/她付出的一樣的相同程
度.
11. 我想要親近我的男/女朋友,但常又退縮.
12. 我常想與男/女朋友完全融入,不過有時會使他/她們嚇跑.
13. 當男/女朋友太親近我時我會感到緊張.
14. 我會擔憂獨自一個人（孤單）.
15. 我能舒服地和我的男/女朋友分享我的私密想法與情感.
16. 我想要非常親密的慾望有時候會嚇走別人.
17. 我試著去避免太親近我的男/女朋友.
18. 我需要一再地被保證我是被我男/女朋友所愛的.
19. 我覺得與我的男/女朋友親近是相當容易的.
20. 我覺得有時候我會迫使我的男/女朋友對我表現較多的情感和承諾.
21. 我覺得讓我自己依賴男/女朋友是困難的.
22. 我不常擔憂分手或被拋棄.
59
23. 我比較不喜歡與我的男/女朋友太親密.
24. 如果我不能吸引我的男/女朋友,我會感到不開心或生氣.
25. 我幾乎每件事都告訴我的男/女朋友.
26. 我發覺我的男/女朋友不想如我所想要的如此親密.
27. 我經常跟我的男/女朋友討論我的問題跟我所關心的事.
28. 當我沒有認真投入（男女）關係時,我感到有些焦慮和不安全.
29. 我能舒服的去依賴我的男/女朋友.
30. 當我的男/女朋友沒有如我所想的那麼常在我身邊時,我會感到受挫.
31. 我不介意要求我的男/女朋友給我安慰,意見或幫忙.
32. 當我的男/女朋友沒有空滿足我的需求時,我會感到受挫.
33. 當我有需要時求助於男/女朋友是能獲得及時幫助的.
34. 當男/女朋友反對我的意見時,我對我自己感到很差勁.
35. 我求助於我的男/女朋友很多事,包括尋求安慰和再保證.
36. 我會怨恨我的男/女朋友沒有花時間陪伴我.
60
EPSI
下面的陈述描述了一些你可能同意或不同意的东西。选择一个数字来表达多大程度上你同
意或不同意那个陈述说的是你的真实情况或不是你的真实情况。
A
从不是这样
B
很少是这样
C
有时是这样
D
经常是这样
E
总是这样
37. 我改变了很多关于自己的看法。
38. 我对于自己想成为什么有一个清晰的概念。
39. 我感到很迷惑不解。
40. 生活中重要的的事情对于我来说很清楚。
41. 我把自己的生活安排得很好。
42. 我知道我是什么样的人。
43. 我不能决定我想用我的生命来干什么。
44. 我有对于男性/女性意味着什么强烈的意识。
45. 我喜欢自己并且我对于自己的主张很自豪。
46. 我并不真的知道我是谁。
47. 我尽力在我和别的人在一起时保持一定的形象。
48. 我并不真的感觉到自己融入其中。
49. 当有人开始告诉我个人的事情时我会变得尴尬。
61
50. 我准备好和一个特别的人开始恋爱。
51. 我很温暖并且友好。
52. 完全对我的朋友开放很重要。
53. 我对我自己真正的想法和感觉缄口不言。
54. 我认为和人们太融入是很疯狂的。
55. 我深深的关心其他人。
56. 我基本上来说是个孤独的人。
57. 我有一个男/女朋友，他/她既是一个亲密的朋友又是一个恋人。
58. 我倾向于 不对其他人展示太多我自己。
59. 和别的人们单独待在一起会让我感到很不舒服。
60. 我感到和较亲密的朋友在一起很容易。
COS
對於以下的描述,請決定你同意或不同意的程度.利用下述的等級,請在答案卡上填選(塗黑)
一個最適當的代號.
A
从不是这样
B
很少是这样
C
有时是这样
D
经常是这样
E
总是这样
62
61. 我宁愿依靠自己而不是别人。
62. 大多数时候我依靠自己；我很少依靠别人。
63. 我经常做自己的事情。
64. 我个人的自我认同，对于别人的独立，对于我来说很重要。
65. 做一个独特的个体对我很重要。
66. 我做自己的工作比别人好很重要。
67. 胜利是一切。
68. 竞争是自然的律法。
69. 当另一个人做的比我好时，我会感到神经紧张和警醒。
70. 我享受在融入竞争的情况中工作。
71. 有些人重视胜利；我不是他们中的一员（相反的）。
72. 没有竞争是不可能有一个好的社会的。
73. 当别人比我表现好时会令我很烦扰。
74. 如果我的同事得到嘉奖，我会感到骄傲。
75. 我同事的康乐对于我很重要。
76. 对我来说，花时间和别人相处是个乐趣。
77. 当我和别人合作时我感觉很好。
78. 如果一个亲戚有经济上的困难，我会用我有限的方法给予帮助。
79. 对我来说保持在群体中的和谐很重要。
63
80. 我喜欢和我的邻居分享些小东西。
81. 我的幸福很大程度上取决与我周围人的幸福。
82. 家长和孩子必须尽可能的待在一起。
83. 照顾我的家庭是我的职责，即使需要我牺牲我想要的。
84. 家庭成员应该坚持一直在一起，不管需要牺牲多少。
85. 对我来说尊重我的群体的决定很重要。
86. 孩子应该学习把职责放在享乐前面。
87. 我经常为了我群体的利益牺牲我的个人兴趣。
64
REFERENCES
Adams, G. R., & Archer, S. L. (1994). Identity: A precursor to intimacy. In S. L. Archer (Ed.),
Interventions for adolescent identity development (pp. 193–213). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the
twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arseth, A. K., Kroger, J., Martinussen, M, & Marcia, J. E. (2009). Meta-analytic studies of
identity status and the relational issues of attachment and intimacy. Identity, 9, 1-32.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Bedford, O., & Hwang, K. (2003). Guilt and Shame in Chinese Culture: A Cross-cultural
Framework from the Perspective of Morality and Identity. Journal For The Theory Of
Social Behaviour, 33(2), 127-144.
Berman, S. L., Weems, C. F., Rodriguez, E. T., & Zamora, I. J. (2006).The relation between
identity status and romantic attachment style in middle and late adolescence. Journal of
Adolescence, 29, 737-748.
Berman, A., Schwartz, S., Kurtines, W., & Berman, S. (2001). The process of exploration in
identity formation: The role of style and competence. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 513-
528.
65
Beyers, W., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2010). Does identity precede intimacy? Testing Erikson‘s
theory on romantic development in emerging adults of the 21st century. Journal Of
Adolescent Research, 25(3), 387-415.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routlege.
Brown, B. B. (1999). ―You‘re going out with who?‖: Peer group influences on adolescent
romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The
development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 291-329). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University.
Buchmann, M. (1989). The script of life in modern society: Entry into adulthood in a changing
world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Côté, J. E. (2000). Arrested adulthood: The changing nature of maturity and identity. New York:
New York University Press.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (1987). A formulation of Erikson‘s theory of ego identity formation.
Developmental Review, 7, 273 – 325.
Craig-Bray, L., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1988). Identity formation and social relations
during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 173–187.
Ditommaso, E., Brannen, C., & Burgess, M. (2005). The universality of relationship
characteristics: A cross-cultural comparison of different types of attachment and
loneliness in Canadian and visiting Chinese students. Social Behavior & Personality, 33,
57–68.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J., & Wells, W. D. (2002). The values and lifestyles of idiocentrics and
allocentrics in an individualist culture: A descriptive approach. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 12 (3), 231-242.
66
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures—A critique of the
validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78–88.
Fitch, S. A., & Adams, G. R. (1983). Ego identity and intimacy status: Replication and
extension. Developmental Psychology, 19, 839–845.
Geertz, C. (1974/1984). ‗‗From the native‘s point of view‘‘: On the nature of anthropological
understanding. In R.A. Schweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind,
self, and emotion (pp. 123–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harter, S. (1988). The construction and conservation of the self: James and Cooley revisited. In
D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity (pp. 43–70). New York:
Springer- Verlag.
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Heyduk, C. R. (1982). The relationship of identity status and intimacy status: An overlapping
stage resolution perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43 (09), 2922A. (UMI
No. 8302184).
Hodgson, J. W., & Fischer, J. L. (1979). Sex differences in identity and intimacy development in
college youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 37–50.
Hoegh, D. G., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2002). Prelude and postlude to the self: Correlations of
achieved identity. Youth & Society, 33, 573–594.
67
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Holland, A., & Roisman, G. (2010). Adult attachment security and young adults‟ dating
relationships over time: Self-reported, observational, and physiological evidence.
Developmental Psychology, 46(2), 552-557
Hormuth, S. E. (1990). The ecology of the self: Relocation and self-concept change. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Kacerguis, M. A., & Adams, G. M. (1980). Erikson stage resolution: The relationship between
identity and intimacy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 117–126.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J.W. Berry, M.H. Segall, & C.
Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 3 Social behaviour and
applications (2nd ed., pp. 1–49). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kahn, S., Zimmerman, G., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. (1985). Relations between
identity in young adulthood and intimacy at midlife. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(5), 1316-1322.
Kennedy, J. H. (1999). Romantic attachment and ego identity, attributional style, and family of
origin in first-year college students. College Student Journal, 33, 171–180.
Kroger, J. (1997). Gender and identity: The intersection of structure, content, and context. Sex
Roles, 36, 747-770.
Lacombe, A. C., & Gay, J. (1998). The role of gender in adolescent identity and inti- macy
decisions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 795-802.
Lee, W., & Choi, S. (2005). The Role of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism
in Online Consumers' Responses Toward Persuasive Communication on the Web.
Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 317-336.
68
Lewis, M. (1982). The social network systems model: Toward a theory of social development. In
T.M. Field, A. Huston, H.C. Quary, L. Troll, &G.E. Finley (Eds.), Review of human
development (pp. 180–214). New York: John Wiley.
Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Identity
statuses based upon four rather than two identity dimensions: Extending and refining
Marcia‟s paradigm. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 605–618.
Mallory, M. E. (1989). Q-sort definition of ego identity status. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 18, 399–412.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Marcia, J. E.,Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1993). Ego
identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Markstrom, C., Sabino, V., Turner, B., & Berman, R. (1997). The Psychosocial Inventory of Ego
Strengths: Development and validation of a new Eriksonian measure. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 26, 705–732.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Marsh, P., Allen, J. P., Ho, M., Porter, M., & McFarland, F. C. (2006). The changing nature of
adolescent friendships: Longitudinal links with early adolescent ego development.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 26, 414-431.
Meyers, S. A., & Landsberger, S. A. (2002). Direct and indirect pathways between adult
attachment style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9, 159–172.
69
Mickelson, K.D., Kessler, R.C., & Shaver, P.R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally
representative sample. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 73, 1092–1106.
Miller, J.G. (1988). Bridging the construct-structure dichotomy: Culture and the self. In M.H.
Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 266–281). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Montgomery, M. J. (2005). Psychosocial intimacy and identity: From early adolescence to
emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 346-374.
Orlofsky, J. L., Marcia, J. E., & Lesser, I.M. (1973). Ego identity status and the intimacy versus
isolation crisis of young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27,
211–219.
Orlofsky, J.L. (1978). Identity formation, achievement, and fear of success in college men and
women. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7(1), 49-62.
Pedersen, D. M., Williams, R. N., Kristensen, K. B. (2000). The relation of spiritual self-identity
to religious orientation and attitudes. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 28,138-148.
Pittman, J. F., Keiley, M. K., Kerpelman, J. L., & Vaughn, B. E. (2011). Attachment, identity
and intimacy: Parallels between Bowlby's and Erikson's paradigms. Journal of Family
Theory and Research, 3, 32-46.
Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust to intimacy: A new
inventory for examining Erikson‘s stages of psychosocial development. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 10, 525-537.
Rotenberg, K. J., Schaut, G. B., & O‘Connor, B. P. (1993). The roles of identity development
and psychosocial intimacy in marital success. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
12, 198-217.
70
Schiedel, D. G., & Marcia, J. E. (1985). Ego identity, intimacy, sex role orientation, and gender.
Developmental Psychology, 21, 149–160.
Schwartz, S. J., (2001). The Evolution of Eriksonian and Neo-Eriksonian Identity Theory and
Research: A Review and Integration. Identity, 1, 7-59.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young
adulthood: Evidence of developmental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 27, 519-531.
Shweder, R.A., & Bourne, E.J. (1984). Does concept of the person vary crossculturally? In R.A.
Shweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp.
1–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratorium-achievement (Mama) cycles in
lifespan identity development: Value orientations and reasoning system correlates.
Journal of Adolescence ,15, 283 - 300 .
Takahashi, K. (1990). Affective relationships and their lifelong development. In P.B. Baltes,
D.L. Featherman, & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and behaviour, Vol. 10
(pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tesch, S. A., & Whitbourne, S. K. (1982). Intimacy and identity status in young adults. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1041–1051.
Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and
collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self - ingroup relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological
Review, 96, 506-5.
71
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Van Hoof, A. (1999). The identity status field re-reviewed: An update of unresolved and
neglected issues with a view on some alternative approaches. Developmental Review, 19,
497-556.
Vogensen, A. C. (2003). Finding themselves: Identity formation and romantic attachment styles
in late adolescence. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences &
Engineering, 64(3-B), 1529.
Wang, Y. (2006). Value changes in an era of social transformations: college-educated Chinese
youth. Educational Studies, 32 (2), 233-240.
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in close
relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 88, 187-204.
You, H., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2000). Young adult attachment styles and intimate
relationships with close friends: A cross-cultural study of Koreans and Caucasian
Americans. Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 528-534.
- The Relationship Between Identity And Intimacy As Moderated By Culture
- STARS Citation
- ABSTRACT
- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- LIST OF FIGURES
- LIST OF TABLES
- CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
- Identity Formation
- Intimacy
- Relationship between Identity and Intimacy
- Gender Differences in Identity and Intimacy Formation
- Cultural Orientation
- Rationale and Hypotheses
- CHAPTER TWO: METHODS
- Participants
- Measures
- Demographic Questionnaire
- Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (EPSI)
- Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR)
- Cultural Orientation Scale (COS)
- Procedure
- CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
- Preliminary and descriptive Analyses
- Main analyses
- CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION
- APPENDIX A: APPROVAL OF EXEMPT HUMAN RESEARCH
- APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT (ENGLISH VERSION)
- APPENDIX C: SURVEY (ENGLISH VERSION)
- APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT (CHINESE VERSION)
- APPENDIX E: SURVEY (CHINESE VERSION)
- REFERENCES
