THE RELATIONSHIP CLOSENESS INVENTORY - ASSESSING THE CLOSENESS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
THE RELATIONSHIP CLOSENESS INVENTORY - ASSESSING THE CLOSENESS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792
复制
发表时间：
1989-11-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
OMOTO, AM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BERSCHEID, E;SNYDER, M;OMOTO, AM
本文介绍了关系亲密度量表（RCI）的发展，它借鉴了凯利等人提出的两个人的活动之间的高度相互依赖的亲密度的概念。（1983年）。从大学生人群中提取的当前“最亲密”的个人关系（N= 241）作为RCI发展的基础，发现最亲密的关系包括几种关系类型，包括浪漫，朋友和家庭关系。三个RCI分量表（频率，多样性，强度），他们的评分，以及他们的组合，以形成一个整体指数的亲密度的发展和心理测量学特性进行了描述。报告了RCI的重测信度，并讨论了RCI得分与关系寿命之间的关系。个人最亲密关系的RCI分数与不亲密关系的RCI分数、主观亲密指数和几种关系影响的测量方法进行对比，包括鲁宾（1973）的喜欢和爱量表。最后，RCI预测关系破裂的能力进行对比的主观亲密度指数，关系的情绪基调的指数，并关系寿命。结论是RCI具有可接受的内部和重测信度，令人满意的判别效度和结构效度，并鼓励预测效度，从而表明它构成了一个可行的手段，评估关系亲密。
This article describes the development of the Relationship Closeness Inventory (RCI), which draws on the conceptualization of closeness as high interdependence between two people's activities proposed by Kelley et al.(1983). The current “closest” relationship of individuals (N= 241) drawn from the college student population served as the basis for RCI development, with the closest relationship found to encompass several relationship types, including romantic, friend, and family relationships. The development and psychometric properties of the three RCI subscales (Frequency, Diversity, Strength), their scoring, and their combination to form an overall index of closeness are described. The RCI's test–retest reliability is reported and the association between RCI score and the longevity of the relationship is discussed. RCI scores for individuals' closest relationships are contrasted to those of not-close relationships, to a subjective closeness index, and to several measures of relationship affect, including Rubin's (1973) Liking and Loving scales. Finally, the ability of the RCI to predict relationship break up is contrasted to that of the Subjective Closeness Index, an index of the emotional tone of the relationship, and to relationship longevity. It is concluded that the RCI possesses acceptable internal and test–retest reliability, satisfactory discriminant and construct validity, and encouraging predictive validity, thus suggesting that it constitutes a viable means of assessing relationship closeness.