Interestingly, the end result to have current-offering is actually negative: the greater number of advantages put-on provide-offering, brand new shorter intimate the connection is actually
Suggest (±95% CI) unweighted summed studies for the (a) Outbound grounds (N = 5 traits), (b) Social Event basis (N = 3 characteristics), (c) Financial factor (Letter = step 3 faculties) and you can (d) Advancement factor (N = 2 qualities) getting Vigil’s Peer Relationships scale having romantic people rather than best friends. Filled symbols: girls participants; unfilled signs: male respondents. The qualities are those recognized by the principal parts analyses from inside the Dining table 2
Homophily in addition to Closeness out of Matchmaking
In order to see the relationship anywhere between similarity into the traits (homophily) and also the quality of relationship (indexed by its ranked intimacy), we ran independent in reverse stepwise several regressions with matchmaking closeness since the the brand new depending adjustable and resemblance into the parameters towards the Vigil Peer Connections questionnaire and our personal matchmaking fix questionnaire. When you look at the for each circumstances, most of the parameters about survey was indeed integrated because the separate variables.
For women, intimacy with their romantic partner was best predicted (R 2 = 0.295) by similarity in financial potential (t115 = 2.307, p = 0.022), outgoingness (t115 = 2.255, p = 0.026), dependability (t115 = 2.905, p = 0.004) and kindness (t115 = 3.208, p = 0.002). Maintenance of romantic relationships was best predicted (R 2 = 0.143) by respondent’s age (t114 = ?2.352, p = 0.020), the duration of the seniorpeoplemeet relationship (t114 = 2.040, p = 0.044) and the degree to which gifts (t114 = ?1.984, p = 0.050) and mutual support (t114 = 3.173, p = 0.002) were considered important. This might reflect the fact that well established relationships do not require monetary reinforcement, even though this is important for weak or unstable relationships. Conversely, the more emphasis placed on mutual support as a means of maintaining the relationship, the more intimate that relationship was. Notice also that intimacy declined with respondent’s age (but not as a function of the duration of the relationship).
For men, the best-fit model for the intimacy of romantic relationships included only similarity in cooperativeness, although this effect was not statistically significant (t31 = 1.726, p = 0.095, R 2 = 0.09). Intimacy in romantic partnerships was best predicted (R 2 = 0.458) by the degree to which in-person (or face-to-face) contact was seen as important for relationship maintenance (t31 = 4.361, p < 0.0001). The degree of importance placed on engaging in shared history was also included in the best-fit model, but did not show a significant partial relationship with intimacy scores (p = 0.085).
For women, intimacy in best friendships was best predicted (R 2 = 0.242) by the degree of similarity in education (t148 = 1.974, p = 0.050), sense of humour (t148 = 2.052, p = 0.042), dependability (t148 = 3.501, p = 0.001) and happiness (t148 = 1.996, p = 0.048). Although similarity in social connections was also included in the best-fit model, the significance of the partial relationship with intimacy was marginal (p = 0.068). The intimacy of women’s best friendships was also best predicted (R 2 = 0.242) by shared history (t150 = ?2.446, p = 0.016) and mutual support (t150 = 4.037, p < 0.0001). This remained true even when same-sex friendships were examined on their own. These results imply that the less important shared history was considered as a means of maintaining a friendship, and the more important mutual support was considered, the more intimate that friendship was. Although the best-fit model included additional variables, the partial relationships with intimacy were at best only marginally significant (shared goals: p = 0.06; affection: p = 0.086), irrespective of whether the friendship was cross- or same-sex (p = 0.052).