This study develops an empirically based taxonomy of
closeness in personal relationships that is applicable
for both genders across the life course for English- and
Xhosa-speaking inhabitants of Grahamstown, South Africa.
The intent was to confront certain problems of
theoretical incoherence and hence of fragmentation in
empirical research have beset the still relatively new
area of interpersonal closeness, or intimacy, in academic
psychology. To this end the author has sought to develop
an analytical delineation of the parameters of intimacy
in general through a comprehensive and unbiased research
strategy.
A rigorously random sample of 200 inhabitants of
Grahamstown was divided egually by gender, ethnicity, and
five age groupings. The subjects replied to an openended
questionnaire of 56 items, many which required
them to name an individual (or i n d i v i d u als) w h o m they
would choose in a series of closeness contexts. Life
histories were also gathered. All answers were coded,
with relationship responses divided into the three age-,
ethnic- and gender-neutral categories of "family,"
"friends" and "other."
The null hypotnesis that intimacy is a single factor was
disproved by a count procedure to measure homogeneity/
heterogeneity of response. Although no one mentioned the
same person in response to all the guestions, neither
were the responses widely dispersed. Thus one might
conclude that the phenomenon of closeness is multidimensional,
rather than either completely homogeneous or
totally heterogeneous.
On the basis of the ratio between family, friend, and
other responses, a nonparametric "goodnecs-of-fit" test
(confirmed by Cramer's V) compared the pattern of
responses on each guestion to that of every other. The
method then clustered together response ratios that
fitted closely with at least two others in the group.
This procedure identified eleven dimensions of closeness,
nine of which form a Closeness Continuum ranging from
those with a high ratio of family responses (Ascribed
category) to those in which the family-friend ratio is
more nearly equal (voluntary category). This division
enables a researcher to distinguish between "familiar"
and '‘friend-like" close relationships without making a
formal kin/nonkin dichotomization. The two dimensions
which fall outside the Closeness Continuum deal with the
practical areas of finances and personal services,
respectively.
The balance of the study looks at the three independent
variables — age, ethnicity, and gender — as regards
both their homogeneity/heterogeneity of responses and
their correlations with the dimensions of closeness.
Most interesting with regard to age is the finding that
children and middle-aged adults scored proportionally
higher on ascribed closeness while young adults were
highest on the voluntary dimensions. Young adulthood,
and to a lesser extent adolescence and senior adulthood,
are each in their own right periods of transition in
close relationships. Quantitative results agreed with a
careful hermeneutic analysis of the qualitative life
history material. The findings raise serious questions
about studies of closeness based upon samples of college
students. Xhosa and English-speaking networks of closeness were
totally segregated from each other (an artefact of
institutionalized racism). Although black South Africans
listed more close others at the outset of the interview,
their range of mentions on the questionnaire was no
greater than that of the white English-speakers. On the
closeness dimensions, blacks mentioned somewhat more
family than did the whites, especially on the ascribed
end of the continuum, but the differences were not so
great as might have been expected, given studies on
working class personal relationships. Striking
differences were noted, however, with regard to
discursive idiom about relationships.
With regard to gender, male and female family/friend
mentions on the Closeness Continuum did not differ
significantly. In terms of whether respondents mentioned
males or females, however, significant differences
emerged. In the Ascribed dimensions, females mentioned
males and females about egually, thus nnt rejecting the
null hypothesis, whereas males mentioned femaAes two to
three times as often, an asymmetry matched by an
imbalance of division of labour in the Practical
category. In the Voluntary dimensions, same-gender
mentions predominated. Further, where males mentioned
females or females mentioned males, the mentions were
almost exclusively family members (except for the young
adult group). The implications of these findings for
contemporary feminist psychological theory are discussed
at length in the text.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:wits/oai:wiredspace.wits.ac.za:10539/15255 |
| Date | 26 August 2014 |
| Creators | Aldrich, Meredith J |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | application/pdf, application/pdf, application/pdf, application/pdf, application/pdf, application/pdf, application/pdf, application/pdf |
Page generated in 0.0084 seconds