The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of Dating Sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship

The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of Dating Sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship

P.E. Booij

M.D. van Someren

Utrecht University

Utrecht University

Under supervision of: L. Verspui Utrecht University

May 2009

Preface The work reported in this thesis was carried out at the department of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, during 2008-2009. First and foremost, we wish to thank our supervisor, drs. Lisalotte Verspui, for her unwavering patience, invariably valuable advice, and for being such a nice person. Without her useful suggestions and continued interest in our well-being, this Master’s thesis would never had become a reality, and would never have been half as good as it is now.

Several other people contributed to this thesis in various ways. First of all, of course, we thank our participants, for without them there would be no study to write a thesis about. Second we would like to thank our parents and the rest of our family, who spammed all their colleagues and friends with our investigation and the whole neighbourhood who offered to participate. Many thanks go out to Serge Gulikers, who asked his whole fan club to participate, and Annelies Vredeveldt for the great advice for writing this thesis. Last but not least, we would like to thank Carel Peeters for his help in the statistical analyses of this thesis.

Writing this thesis has been hard, but in the process of writing we feel we have learned a lot and our initial conceptions of dating sites have certainly changed! Without the continuous help and encouragement of these people, this Master’s thesis could not have been written. Thank you all so much for your support.

Paul Booij Michelle van Someren, may 2009

Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

2

Table of content

Preface

…2

Table of content

…3

Abstract

…5

Samenvatting (Dutch abstract)

…6

1. Introduction

…7

1.1 Introduction

…7

1.2 Theoretical framework

…8

The Investment Model: Factors contributing to a romantic relationship Media influence and romantic relationships Dating sites and quantity of alternatives 1.3 Conclusions and Hypotheses 2. Methods

…13 …16

2.1 Participants

…16

2.2 Materials

…17

2.3 Procedure

…21

2.4 Design

…22

2.5 Statistical analyses

…22

3. Results

…24

3.1 Descriptive Statistics

…24

3.2 Associations between all Investment Model constructs

…26

3.3 The addition of “quantity of alternatives” to the Investment Model

…27

3.4 Effect from exposure to dating site stories on quantity and quality of another partner and of alternatives, relationship satisfaction, and commitment to a romantic relationship

…29

Exposure to dating site stories on quantity and quality of another partner and of alternatives. Effects from exposure to dating site stories on relationship satisfaction and commitment to a romantic relationship. 3.5 Effects from relationship satisfaction on media influence

…31


3

4. Conclusion and Discussion

…33

4.1 General outcomes

…33

4.2 Outcomes besides the results of the state hypotheses

…34

4.3 Methodological issues

…37

4.4 Future research

…40

References

…42

Appendices

…50

A. Effects of a romantic relationship on health issues B. Qualitative preliminary survey by P.E. Booij and M.D. van Someren C. Story conditions D. The split-up of the construct quality of alternatives of the Investment model into quality of alternatives, quality of another partner, quantity of alternatives, and quantity of another partner. E. Original and revised items MMIS per subscale F. Data analysis


4

Abstract

The total number of divorces and separations of non-married couples living together in the Netherlands is more than 100,000 per year. Although, people still commence a romantic relationship, this seems to end earlier than before and a high level of commitment seems harder to achieve. Therefore it seems important to investigate the different factors contributing to commitment (IMS), the possible expansion of this model by “quantity of alternatives”, and the possibility to influence commitment by means of dating sites advertisements. At last is investigated whether people with a high relationship satisfaction report a smaller influence-rate of media than people with an unhappy relationship. In the present study 537 participants (65.5% women, 34.5% men) took part, who were involved in a romantic relationship at the moment of examination. Three different conditions were created in the study, in which participants were exposed to a positive, negative or no dating site advertisement. The dependent variables concerned commitment, relationship satisfaction, quality of alternatives (IMS) and quantity of alternatives. This research shows there are different constructs in the original construct “quality of alternatives” by which the Investment Model could be possibly expanded. Furthermore people exposed to a negative dating site story report a lower score of quality of alternatives, compared to people exposed to a positive condition, but dating site advertisements have no influence on quantity of alternatives, commitment and relationship satisfaction. At the same time results show that people with an unhappy relationship show more fluctuation in relationship satisfaction level before and after a stimulus condition, than people with a happy relationship, and people show a higher amount of media (and dating sites advertisement) influence when this is indirectly measured. At last further research needs to be done, paying keen attention to indirect measurement of media influence and paying attention by which means quantity and quality of alternatives is best influenced, so the Investment Model could be expanded be these.


5

Dutch abstract Het aantal relatiebreuken van samenwonenden en getrouwde mensen bedraagt meer dan 100.000 per jaar. Ondanks het feit dat mensen tegenwoordig nog steeds een romantische relatie aangaan, blijkt dat deze vaak eerder eindigt en lijkt een hoge verbondenheid in deze relatie moeilijker te bereiken. Hierdoor is het belangrijk te onderzoeken

welke

factoren

bijdragen

aan

deze

verbondenheid

(IMS/investeringsmodel), de mogelijke uitbreiding van dit model met de factor “kwantiteit van alternatieven” en de mogelijkheid om deze verbondenheid te beïnvloeden met behulp van datingsitereclames. Als laatste is nog onderzocht of mensen met een hoge relatiesatisfactie een lagere beïnvloedbaarheid voor media rapporteren, vergeleken met mensen in een ongelukkige relatie. Aan dit onderzoek namen 537 participanten deel (65,5% vrouw, 34,5% man), die tijdens deelname een romantische relatie hadden. In totaal werden deze participanten blootgesteld aan drie verschillende condities, namelijk een positieve-, negatieve-, of geen datingsite-advertentie. De afhankelijke variabelen waren verbondenheid, relatiesatisfactie, kwaliteit van alternatieven (IMS) en kwantiteit van alternatieven. Dit onderzoek wijst uit dat het originele construct “kwaliteit van alternatieven” van de IMS uit verschillende constructen bestaat en hiermee het model mogelijk kan worden uitgebreid. Verder rapporteren mensen in de negatieve datingsite conditie een lagere kwaliteit van alternatieven, vergeleken met mensen in de positieve conditie. De datingsite advertenties hebben geen invloed op kwantiteit van alternatieven, verbondenheid en relatiesatisfactie. Mensen met een ongelukkige relatie zijn qua relatiesatisfactie meer beïnvloedbaar door de verschillende condities dan mensen met een gelukkige relatie. Participanten rapporteren tevens een hogere beïnvloedbaarheid door de media wanneer dit indirect gemeten wordt. Verder onderzoek is nodig, waarbij aandacht besteed dient te worden aan een indirecte meting van mediabeïnvloedbaarheid en de manier waarop kwaliteit en kwantiteit van alternatieven het best kunnen worden beïnvloed, zodat het InvesteringsModel hiermee kan worden uitgebreid.


6

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction For a variety of reasons, married people tend to have fewer psychological problems, are healthier, and are more satisfied with life than the non-married (Coombs, 1991; Waite & Gallagher, 2000; Wilson & Oswald, 2005; Zimmermann & Easterlin, 2006; Kim & McKenry, 2002, Goldman, 1993; Goldman, Korenman & Weinstein, 1995; Brockman & Klein, 2004; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; See also appendix A). Moreover, being single has a number of adverse health effects. These include, for example, unhealthy eating and living habits, which result in lower life expectancy (Sikking, 2003). These negative consequences need special attention, since the number of divorces in the Netherlands in 2007 was no less than 31,983, and when the non-married relationship breakups are added to this number, this brings the total number of broken relationships to 100,000 per year (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2008; Latten, 2004). In addition to social factors this large number of broken relationships may be partly explained by a lower degree of commitment to a relationship. People still commence a romantic relationship, but appear to end intimate relationships earlier than before and a high level of commitment seems harder to achieve. Therefore it seems important to investigate the different factors contributing to commitment. Commitment of a relationship is, according to the Investment Model of Rusbult (1983), determined by three factors, namely relationship satisfaction, investment size and quality of alternatives. The interaction between these three factors influences the decision whether or not to maintain a relationship (Agnew, Martz & Rusbult, 1998). A recent unpublished study (Conlan, 2007) shows that a fourth factor seems of importance, namely the number of alternatives (quantity). This suggests that if people do not only expect a high quality, but also a high quantity of alternatives to be available in their surroundings, they will be more inclined to break up a romantic relationship. This notion is of great interest since a qualitative preliminary survey, done by the authors, shows that 83.3% of the Dutch respondents expect that a quarter or more of the total Dutch adults is single (see Appendix B). According to inquiries, those expectations were mainly based on the large number of dating advertisements on television and the Internet. It is apparent from the number of advertisements that Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

7

dating sites have grown considerably in number and attention in recent years. From late 2003 to March 2004, online dating sites are remarkably more frequently visited by surfers. In addition the largest Dutch dating site, with almost 600,000 active members, attracts about 1 million visitors per month (Multiscope, 2004).

Since the preliminary survey shows that many people have the impression that there are a few million singles in the Netherlands, who are also easy to meet through the growing number of dating sites, it is suggested that this may contribute to a declining commitment of the relationship. Analogous to the relation between quality of alternatives and commitment, a relation between quantity of alternatives and commitment to a relationship may be expected, due to the larger quantity of alternatives. Therefore the first aim of this study is to further investigate to what extent quantity of alternatives is an expansion of the Investment Model. Second aim of the study is to investigate whether the presentation of dating site advertisements has an influence on the quantity of alternatives, quality of alternatives, relationship satisfaction and commitment to a romantic relationship. At last is investigated whether people with a high relationship satisfaction report a smaller influence-rate of media than people with an unhappy relationship.

1.2 Theoretical framework

The Investment Model: Factors contributing to a romantic relationship An important focus of research over the past decades has involved ‘remaining in a close relationship’ and ‘the factors that influence relationship continuation or dissolution’ (Rusbult, Martz & Agnew, 1998). The likelihood that a relationship will persist has often been defined as ‘commitment’ (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001). According to the Investment Model, commitment can be seen as the degree to which attracting powers overwhelm the repelling factors in a romantic relationship and therefore the tendency to remain in a relationship. A romantic relationship persists when the outcomes of that relationship are beneficial and satisfying to the individuals involved. Mutual dependence develops when individuals start to influence their partners’ outcome of the relationship. Reliance on a partner for need fulfillment is dependence; the descriptive, structural state of the relationship (Le & Agnew, 2001). Commitment in the Investment Model differs from dependence in that commitment is the subjective Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

8

experience of that dependence (Rusbult et al., 1998); identified as the psychological experience of the relationship. Commitment in a relationship is greater to the extent that relationship satisfaction is higher and to the extent that alternatives are poor, so an individual has no other choice than to persist with the recent partner, the so-called quality of alternatives (Rusbult et al., 1998). The Investment Model also suggests that that investments further fuel commitment. In summary, the Investment Model is a theory that explains four constructs, including: commitment level, and three bases of dependence: satisfaction level, investment size, and quality of alternatives. Each of these bases of commitment is in more detail reviewed below (Rusbult et al., 1998). Satisfaction level refers to the positive versus negative affect experienced in a relationship. Satisfaction is influenced by the extent to which a partner fulfills the individual’s most important needs, for instance, sexual needs and intimacy. Investment size refers to the size of those concrete or indescribable resources attached to the relationship that would be lost or seriously diminished upon relationship dissolution (Becker, 1960; Rubin & Brockner, 1975; Staw, 1981; Tropper, 1972). Investments include intrinsic resources that are put into the partnership, such as time and effort, experienced emotions, disclosure of personal information, and the importance the relationship holds for one’s identity. Additionally, extrinsic resources such as mutual social networks, the social status that the relationship brings, or material possessions, also serve as investments that contribute to commitment (Rusbult et al., 1998). Invested resources presumably enhance commitment because the act of investment increases the costs of ending a relationship, serving as a powerful psychological inducement to persist. Quality of alternatives refers to the perceived desirability of the best available alternative to a relationship. Perceiving that an attractive alternative will provide superior outcomes to the current relationship can lead an individual toward that alternative and away from the current relationship. In the absence of other factors, individuals choose partners providing superior outcomes. However, if alternatives are not present, an individual may persist within a partnership for lack of better options. Furthermore, attractive alternatives are not necessarily other people or other relationships. Quality of alternatives is based on the extent to which the individual’s most important needs could effectively be fulfilled “outside” of the current relationship – in a specific alternative involvement, by friends and family members, or Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

9

on one’s own (e.g., sports activities or hobbies). It is possible that having no relationship is seen as preferable to any given available relationship. Quantity of alternatives: The increasing number of singles and the increasing availability of these singles through commercials and the Internet is our suggested extension of this specific model. In a recent study by Conlan (2007), 109 undergraduates were asked to rate the likelihood of ending a long-term romantic relationship associated to the increase of the availability of short-term mates. According to this study, the amount of short-term mates was a big reason to end a relationship. Thus, it is suggested that commitment is not only determined by investment size, quality of alternatives and satisfaction level, but also by quantity of alternatives. If people do not only expect that there is a high quality, but also a high quantity of alternatives available in their surroundings, they may be more inclined to break up a romantic relationship. Therefore we expect that the construct “quantity of alternatives” is an expansion of the Investment Model.

Media influence and romantic relationships The second aim of the study is to investigate whether the presentation of dating site advertisements has an influence on the quantity of alternatives, quality of alternatives, relationship satisfaction, and commitment to a romantic relationship. Messages from the media bombard teenagers - and adults in a similar way - with lessons, especially lessons about romantic relationships. One message that appears to be reoccurring frequently is a representation of completion, or needing another to be complete (McNallie, 2007). Between the ages of 8 and 18, adolescents devote approximately 8 hours each day to the media, and 3-4 hours to television alone (Roberts, Foehr & Rideout, 2005). Media characters play a prominent role as ‘idols’ for many adolescents, who imitate their looks, actions (e.g., dance moves), and attitudes in several domains (Karniol, 2001). Television provides a medium for others to find models of social identity, which creates the perfect opportunity for Galician’s (2004) mass media myth to take root. This illustrates the way people’s perceptions about romantic relationships are affected by the media. Galician denominates the belief that the right mate ‘completes you’. So without a mate people might possibly think they would be categorized as deviant. Such misconceptions about romantic relationships represented in the media could be harmful to the development of healthy romantic relationships and self-concepts. People can believe they are not complete Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

10

unless they have mates. These media messages are persuasive in general when they are repeated to the point that they become reality and convince people to follow what is being shown as socially acceptable and desirable (Groppe, 1984). Particularly adolescents are susceptible to the unrealistic portrayals of romantic relationships. As a result, adolescents could develop a social identity dictating that identity is primarily found through taking part in romantic relationships. In addition, McNallie (2007) found that relational messages appear four times more frequently in adolescent dramas than in adult dramas. This supports Groppe’s (1984) idea that repetition would appear more frequently for those, such as adolescents, who need the reinforcement to stabilize their world views. Although most research into this subject was done among an adolescent population, there is reason to expect that also adults are under the influence of persuasive media messages and commercials: as television viewing (the operationalization of advertising exposure) increased, the number of product requests as seen in commercials by adults also increased (Yoon, 1995). Furthermore a qualitative preliminary survey shows that the high amount of singles predicted by the Dutch population was chiefly based on the media (37 %; See Appendix B). In conclusion, television has been shown to influence the perceived realities about a lot of things, and messages from the media bombard teenagers - and adults alike - with lessons about romantic relationships. The repetition of these messages makes them more convincing and these have an influence on people’s perceptions of romantic relationships. As a result they may accept those messages as reality and they come to believe that there are numerous attractive singles available that will make their life more complete.

Dating sites and quantity of alternatives The growing number of advertisements in the media suggests that dating sites have gained considerably in interest in recent years. Online dating sites are much more frequently visited by surfers and the largest Dutch dating site, Relatieplanet.nl, attracts about 1 million visitors per month (Multiscope, 2004). The first online dating services started around 1996 (Brym, 2003) and people now use these services wherever the Internet is available. The Internet has become the fourth most popular strategy in finding a date or a romantic partner (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Next to “work and school” (38 %), “family and friends” (34 %), and “nightclubs, bars, cafés, Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

11

and other social gatherings” (13%), 3% of couples met via the Internet. In 2000, the seven largest dating sites on the Internet encompassed over 12 million members and many more “guests” or “visitors”. People are meeting others online and building and sustaining interpersonal romantic relationships (Parks & Floyd, 1996; Whitty, 2008). Many of these relationships progress to real-life relationships where they continue to develop and function similar to other romantic relationships in which the partners met in “traditional” face-to-face situations (Anderson, 2005). Four main social forces appear to be driving the rapid augmentation of online dating (Brym, 2003), namely a growing proportion of the population is composed of singles, career and time pressures are increasing, single people are more mobile, and workplace romance is on the decline. Online dating brings about some advantages, for instance, it creates the opportunity to meet people one would otherwise never meet, it offers privacy and confidentiality, it is more convenient than other ways of trying to meet people (irrelevance of spatial proximity, higher accessibility, and facilitation of self-disclosure; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Despite these apparent advantages, it also seems to have a dark side, including unreliable profiles and the chance that someone is hiding important information. Previous studies have demonstrated that individuals can be quite strategic in their presentations of self in cyberspace (Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001; Noonan, 1998). For example misrepresentation, specifically of age and physical attributes, tended to be high in cyberspace. According to Walther et al., this was not because of malicious motives, but rather as a manner to attract others. Mostly they saw their misrepresentations as exaggerations rather than lies. They confessed being insincere about their looks, weight, age, their current relationships, socio-economic status, and interests (Whitty, 2008). As a consequence in some situations users idealize their virtual partners (Noonan, 1998). In this way the rapid increase in scale of Internet dating and dating sites does not only expand the quantity of alternatives but also the quality of alternatives. The quality is expanded by the users of dating sites who seem much more attractive than available alternative partners in real life. The quantity of alternatives is expanded by the adroit enlargement of dating sites and users, and the growing number of commercials about (the millions of singles who are enrolled in) dating sites. One of the established effects of advertising is that it increases peoples' desires for a change in their daily life. Some researchers, for example Galbraith (1967), even see advertising as "relentless propaganda on behalf of goods in general." Advertising, Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

12

it is argued, stirs, or creates, desires and needs in people for more goods to improve their current situation (Galbraith, 1958). Thus, as Crisp (1987) argues, advertising overrides a consumer's autonomy of decision making in the creation of these desires, by offering an unshakable link between products and the fulfilment of desires for them. When people are already satisfied with their current situation, the desire to get a better situation is much weaker. As Miller (1997) argues: ‘even is the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, happy gardeners will be less likely to notice.’ Indeed, Kant and Verbruggen (2007) concluded that people with a high relationship satisfaction report a smaller influence-rate of media than people with an unhappy relationship. This means that although media has a big influence on people’s perceptions about romantic relationships (Galician, 2004), people who are already satisfied with their current situation are less easy to influence. Therefore it is suggested that people who are already satisfied with their current situation, will have less desire to get a better relationship with some one else, compared to people with an unsatisfied relationship. Therefore the third aim of the study addresses this issue.

1.3 Conclusions and Hypotheses The first aim of this study is to further investigate to what extent quantity of alternatives is an expansion of the Investment Model. The Investment Model describes three determinants of commitment in a romantic relationship. In this study the third construct, ‘quality of alternatives,’ will be further explored by suggesting that this construct also implies ‘quantity of alternatives’. Aim is to separate these two different constructs and expand the Investment Model by the construct ‘quantity of alternatives’ (See figure 1; b). Therefore hypothesis 1 is: The Investment Model can be expanded by the construct “quantity of alternatives.” Second aim of the study is to investigate whether the presentation of dating site advertisements has an influence of the quantity of alternatives, quality of alternatives, relationship satisfaction and commitment to a romantic relationship (See figure 1; a). The quantity of alternatives may be influenced by the direct surroundings but also by the media, such as television, radio and Internet. Dating sites are more frequently visited and the number of dating sites and propaganda has grown considerably in the recent years (Multiscope, 2004). These dating sites have a positive influence on the quantity of alternatives, as well as on the quality of alternatives, since people are strategic in their self presentations on the web. Therefore, negative and Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

13

positive dating site advertisements are used in this research to influence the quantity and quality of alternatives.

Figure 1. Structural model assessing factors influencing commitment in a romantic relationship.

The main hypothesis is: (1) The group exposed to a positive dating site story is expected to report higher levels of quantity and quality of alternatives than the group exposed to the control condition, which will in turn report a higher level of quantity and quality of alternatives than the group exposed to a negative dating site story. Secondary hypotheses are: With an increase in the perceived quantity of alternatives, the commitment level and relationship satisfaction will decline. Exposure to dating sites will affect relationship satisfaction, quality of alternatives and quantity of alternatives. Subsequently these hypotheses will be further clarified below. -

(2). People exposed to the positive story will perceive lower relationship satisfaction than those exposed to the negative story and control condition.

-

(3). People exposed to the positive story will perceive a higher score at quality of alternatives than those exposed to the negative story and control condition.

-

(4). People exposed to the positive story will perceive a higher score at quantity of alternatives than those exposed to the negative story and control condition.

-

(5). People exposed to the positive story will perceive an identical investment size than those exposed to the negative story and control condition.


14

The third aim of the study is to investigate whether there is a connection between relationship satisfaction and exposure to dating site advertisements. People with a high relationship satisfaction report a smaller influence-rate of media than people with an unhappy relationship. Therefore the sixth hypothesis will be: (6). People experiencing an unhappy romantic relationship are more influenced by the stories than people experiencing a happy romantic relationship.


15

2. Methods

2.1 Participants A total of 537 participants (65.5% women, 34.5% men) took part in the research, aged 14 – 72 (M = 30.5 years, SD = 13). Participation was limited to individuals who were involved in a romantic relationship at the moment of examination. Of the total number of participants (N = 834), only 571 fully completed the questionnaire, and 34 of them were excluded from the sample because they were not involved in a romantic relationship. Another 2 participants were omitted from the study because they answered a question wrongly. For example, they gave multiple answers were only one answer was permitted. The median length of the relationship was “1 – 5 years” (36.1%). The sample consisted of individuals in serious dating relationships, with most participants exclusively dating, and others living together or married (see table 1). Only 11 participants had not had a romantic relationship before. More than three fourth of the sample had had 1 – 3 previous relationships (see table 1). 9 participants were in homosexual relationships, 18 participants were bisexual, 3 participants were not sure about their sexuality, and the remaining participants were in heterosexual relationships.

Table 1. Percentage participants per stage and amount of previous relationships

Stage of the relationship during investigation Exclusively dating

47.5%

Living together

24.4%

Married

28.1%

Amount of previous relationships 0 relationships

2.1%

1-3 relationships

78.6%

4-6 relationships

15.8%

7-9 relationships

2.6%

Over 10 relationships

0.9%


16

2.2 Materials

Stimulus Stories The purpose of the experimental component of the study was to compare the commitment of relationships of participants exposed to negative versus positive advertisements of dating sites. In order to test this, stimulus stories were needed depicting two stereotypes, as well as a control condition depicting no stereotype. Individual stories were made up with the help of positive and negative propaganda on the Internet (including dating sites). After the stimulus stories were devised, they were distributed to eight fellow students for comments. The students were asked to indicate which part of the story weakened their attention and what they thought were quite attention-grabbing sentences. They were also asked to indicate what the purpose of each story was. With those comments in mind, the stories were improved and finalized, and a picture related to the content of the stories was added (See appendix C).

Questionnaires The Investment Model Scale (IMS: Rusbult, et al, 1998) was administered to measure relationship satisfaction, commitment, investment size, and quality of alternatives. Rusbult used a 9-point Likert scale in all her constructs, but a pilot study found that people considered nine answer possibilities too many. In order to diminish this problem a 5-point Likert scale was used in all questionnaires. Studies show that people are not able to place their point of view on a scale greater than seven and it is recommended to use seven or less. Scales of five to seven are more accurate than smaller or larger scales (Weisberg & Krosnick, 1996). Little difference in reliability between 5 or 7 point scales was found (Alwin & Krosnick, 1991; Dawes, 2008). Typically the used number is five (Uebersax, 2006). That’s why the used scale in this research is also set to five. Labels were used (instead of numbers), because these result in more accurate responses than scales marked ‘1 to 5’ (numbered scales; Weisberg & Krosnick, 1996). The different constructs of the Investment Model Scale will be discussed below. Relationship satisfaction was measured by five items. Sample items for the construct relationship satisfaction read as follows: ‘My relationship is close to ideal’ Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

17

and ‘I feel satisfied with our relationship’. Cronbach’s alpha for relationship satisfaction was originally .92. Alpha in this research (N of items 5) was .88. The subscale commitment consists eight items, and sample items read as follows: ‘It is likely that I will date someone other than my partner within the next year’, and ’I feel very attached to our relationship – very strongly linked to my partner’. The internal consistency for commitment was originally .91 and in this research (N of items 8) alpha was .79. Sample items of the construct investment size were: ‘I have put a great deal into our relationship that I would lose if the relationship were to end,’ and ‘Many aspects of my life have become linked to my partner (recreational activities, etc.), and ‘I would lose all of this if we were to break-up’. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the investment size was originally .82. In this study, reliability for investment size (N of items 6) was moderate, with α = .66.

The primary goal of this research was to study the quality and quantity of alternatives. In the original version of the IMS, only the subscale ‘quality of alternatives’ was mentioned. In order to measure both quality and quantity of alternatives, original items of quality of alternatives of Rusbult (1983) were used. After methodically examining this construct, it became clear that the items actually measure four different constructs, namely: 1) quality of alternatives in general, 2) quality of another partner, 3) quantity of alternatives in general, and 4) quantity of another partner. Therefore this construct was intensified in order to discriminate more: “Alternatives” were defined as: family and friends, other activities, and no partner at all. “Another partner” indicated a romantic relationship with another person. The discrimination between quantity and quality was made by means of the response possibilities: items should be rated as ‘very attractive/ nice’ (quality), etc., and quantity items with words such as ‘many’ – ‘very few’(see also Appendix D). Sample items read as follows: ‘How was it to have no relationship, before you started your current relationship?’ (quality of alternatives), and ‘How attractive is it to have a relationship with someone else in general?’ (quality of another partner). The aspiration was to have the same number of questions in each category, because in that case the constructs would be equally distributed in quantity. So questions measuring alternatives in general were translated into questions aimed at alternatives and another partner and vice versa (see Appendix D). In the end four questions were formed Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

18

regarding quality of alternatives, four questions regarding quality of another partner, and three questions regarding quantity of alternatives.

In addition, three questions were used from Kant & Verbruggen (2007) to measure quantity of another partner. Sample items are: ‘Are there many people in your surroundings (other than your partner) who you could date?’, and ‘Are there many people in your surroundings (other than your partner) who you would want to date?’. One additional question was devised by us; ‘The Netherlands contains 12.4 million adults. How many singles who you could date are residing in the Netherlands (More less your age)?’ The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the quality of alternatives is originally .82. In current research α = .65 (quality of alternatives, N of items 4), and α = .71 (quality of another partner, N of items 4). Alpha for quantity of alternatives (N of items 4) is .71 and for quantity of another partner (N of items is 3) alpha is .60.

Since the second purpose of the research was to divide the population into two groups, namely having a satisfying or unsatisfying relationship, a second questionnaire for relationship satisfaction was used to measure the relationship satisfaction more accurately. Individuals completed a modified 18-item version of Spanier’s (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (α = .91). Only the questions concerning dyadic satisfaction were used and translated into Dutch. Items were for example: ‘How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation or terminating your relationship?’ and ‘How often do you and your partner quarrel?’ Items were rated on the original 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from All the time to Never. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the satisfaction level was originally .76. Cronbach’s alpha for the DAS (N of items 9) in current research was also .76. In order to investigate whether relationship satisfaction fluctuates after reading a stimulus story, a line of satisfaction was administered (0 – 100) before and after the story. By means of this line people could indicate how satisfied they were with their romantic relationship.

To measure the exposure to dating sites in daily life, six items were constructed by the investigators and submitted with the goal to investigate how often Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

19

people visit a dating site, and to see whether this has a co influence on the dependent variables. One example item was: ‘How many advertisements do you see for dating sites?’ Cronbach’s alpha for the exposure to dating sites (N of items 7) in current research is .70.

A widely used instrument to measure media influence is the Multidimensional Media Influence Scale (MMIS) from Cusumano & Thompson (2000). The original MMIS was constructed to measure multiple components of a media-based influence on body image. The current questionnaire used all of the original factors of the MMIS, namely awareness, internalization and media pressure. The items had to be revised in order to measure the intended construct (overall media influence and media influence specifically for dating as opposed to body image). In order to measure influence of the media, concerning the constructs ‘dating sites’ and ‘romantic relationships’, six items from the original 12-item MMIS were revised to fit these new constructs (see appendix E). Only those six items were used, because those were uncomplicated to revise. In contrast, the other six items focused too specifically on body image and therefore could not be revised. In addition, a seventh question was added, in order to measure media influence more directly, namely ‘I’m influenced by TV-commercials’. This was intended to measure whether people are explicitly aware of being influenced by media. Our construct ‘dating sites’ was intended to measure participants’ susceptibility to (information about) dating sites, and the construct ‘romantic relationships’ was intended to measure the participants’ susceptibility to propaganda about romantic relationships. An example of a revised question is as follows: the original question: ‘I compare my body to movie stars’, was revised to: ‘I compare myself to famous people from the television’ (see appendix E for the original items and the matching revised items). Responses on this media influence questionnaire are rated along a 5-point Likert scale with 1 representing Totally disagree, 2 representing Disagree, 3 representing Not sure, 4 representing Agree, and 5 representing Totally agree. Internal consistencies of the (original) MMIS were acceptable (α = .70). The current research found a Cronbach’s alpha of .61.


20

To determine to which condition participants were assigned and to test whether participants read the different stories, three additional questions were submitted, namely: “How much do you think you remember of this story in %?,” “Do you think this story is… positive/negative/no opinion,” and “What image was displayed next to the story?”

2.3 Procedure Research shows that computer surveys elicit higher rates of honest responses to sensitive questions than traditional measures (Hallfors, Khatapoush, Kadushin, Watson & Saxe, 2000). Computer surveys also significantly improve the speed of data processing and decrease the incidence of missing data (Hallfors et al., 2000). Therefore participants were recruited through the Internet (via ‘Hyves’, forums, email and flyers distributed in health centres) and were asked to fill out the anonymous questionnaire at NetQuestionnaires. All participants were first introduced to the study by a standard protocol. They were informed that the purpose of the study was to investigate romantic relationships and that they could only be involved in the study if they were currently in a romantic partnership. Participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential; no one but the principal investigators would view their data, and their partners would never be informed of their responses. After giving their informed consent, participants completed the study questionnaire. All participated by themselves in a private setting, at their own chosen time and place, and were assigned to one of the experimental conditions or the control condition. Items related to demographic variables, investment size and relationship satisfaction were administered first, because one goal of the research was to compare relationship satisfaction before and after the condition story. Investment size is suggested not to be influenced by the experimental conditions, so this was also administered beforehand. Each experimental group was shown a story (positively or negatively slanted; or no story at all). After they read the story (for the control group no story), items related to commitment, quality of alternatives and of another partner, quantity of alternatives and of another partner, exposure to dating sites, and media influence were administered, as well as a line (from 0-100) to indicate relationship satisfaction again. At the end of each research the participants were debriefed, thanked for their participation, and offered the opportunity to win a coupon worth 20 euros. Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

21

2.4 Design The research employed a multivariate between-subjects design. All measures were completed by the participants at one time. Dependent variables were commitment, quality of alternatives, quantity of alternatives and relationship satisfaction (DAS, IMS, and line of satisfaction). The independent variables were relationship satisfaction, investment size, exposure to media (dating sites), and condition, with three levels: negative, positive, and control. First demographic variables, relationship satisfaction (IMS, DAS, and line of satisfaction) and investment size were measured, whereafter participants were randomly assigned to the conditions. In the negative condition participants read a negative story about dating sites with a picture of an arguing couple; in the positive condition they were shown a positive story about dating sites with a picture of a couple in love, and in the control condition participants only saw a neutral image (aquarium) with no story. Lastly commitment, quality of alternatives & another partner, quantity of alternatives & another partner, media influence, exposure to dating sites and relationship satisfaction (second line of satisfaction) were measured (See figure 2).

Figure 2. Design of this thesis.

2.5 Statistical analyses The data were automatically gathered and statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 16.0). To determine the reliability of the translated questionnaires, a reliability analysis was used to obtain Cronbach’s alpha. A factor analysis was conducted to test whether the items of quality of alternatives, quality of another partner, quantity of alternatives, and quantity of another partner measured different constructs. Initially a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

22

was executed to test the normality of the distribution of the dependent variables. To test the homogeneity of variance, a MANOVA was executed. It turned out that the two assumptions for a parametric test were desecrated (no normal distribution and no homogeneity of variance). Therefore it can be concluded that the data could be considered as non parametric, and accordingly non-parametric tests had to be implemented. Resulting, to test the influence of the stimulus stories on satisfaction, investment

size,

quality

of

alternatives/another

partner,

quantity

of

alternatives/another partner, and commitment, a Kruskal-Wallis Test was executed. To control for age, sex, relationship status (e.g., dating, cohabiting, or married), questions about previous relationships, length of current relationship, sexual orientation, and level of education a multivariate test was conducted. When the results showed a significant relation, a post hoc test was performed to take a look at the direction of the effect. Associations between all Investment Model constructs were determined by applying correlations.


23

3. Results

3.1 Descriptive analyses Descriptive statistics for the independent variables (condition: positive story, negative story, no story, exposure to dating sites, relationship satisfaction (IMS and DAS) and dependent variables (IMS (except relationship satisfaction), media influence, and relationship satisfaction) are shown in table 2. Several prominent outcomes will be mentioned and discussed.

Table 2 Mean scores for relationship satisfaction, investment size, commitment, quality of alternatives, quality of another partner, quantity of alternatives, quantity of another partner, dyadic satisfaction, relationship satisfaction line, exposure to dating sites and media influence for the group with the positive, negative story and no story at all. Positive story Gender Age group 1926364656- 66+ ♂ ♀ <18ys 25ys 35ys 45ys 55ys 65ys ys IMS Relationship Satisfaction 20.2 19.8 20.4 20 20.8 19.3 19 20 22 Investment size 16.7 17.1 17.8 17 16.7 16.2 17 16 17 Commitment 34 34.1 32.9 33 35.1 34.1 34 35 39.5 Quality of alternatives 8.3 9.3 9 9.7 8.6 8.4 8.7 8.2 4.5 Quality of another partner 7.6 7.2 8.9 7.5 6.6 7.7 7.2 6.3 3 Quantity of alternatives 7.8 9.2 8 7.1 8.1 6.9 4 8.6 7.6 Quantity of another partner 6.4 6.6 7.6 6.8 6.6 5.8 6.4 5.1 4.2 DAS Dyadic Satisfaction 42.7 42.1 43.7 42 43.3 40.7 42 42 45.5 86.5 85.2 80.8 84.1 89.5 84.3 85.1 87.4 98.5 Relation satisfaction line 9.7 9.1 Exposure to dating sites 8.1 9.3 9.3 9.7 10 9.1 6 12.1 12.2 13.3 12 12.7 11.1 12 12 8.5 Media Influence Negative story IMS Relationship Satisfaction Investment size Commitment Quality of alternatives Quality of another partner Quantity of alternatives Quantity of another partner DAS Dyadic Satisfaction Relation satisfaction line Exposure to dating sites Media Influence

20.2 17.3 34.6 8.5 7.5 8.3 6.4

20.3 18.1 34.7 8.4 6.6 7.9 6.1

20.5 18 33.9 7.5 6.9 7.3 6.8

21 18 35 8.4 6.6 8.5 6.5

20.1 17.7 34.9 9.1 6.6 8.7 5.7

20.6 17.7 34.8 8.8 6.4 7.7 5.4

18 18 34 9.2 8.4 8.5 6.2

20 18 35 6.7 7.4 6 5.7

18.7 18 37 8.7 7.3 9.7 5

43.3 86.3 8.7 10.7

43.3 86.3 8.3 11.4

45 89.9 8.2 13.4

44 88.3 8.4 11

42.8 87.2 9.1 9.8

43.6 86.9 9.1 10.9

41 76.8 7.7 11

42 86.1 9.3 9.1

41 73.0 7.3 12.3


24

No story Gender

IMS Relationship Satisfaction Investment size Commitment Quality of alternatives Quality of another partner Quantity of alternatives Quantity of another partner DAS Dyadic Satisfaction Relation satisfaction line Exposure to dating sites Media Influence

Age group 26364635ys 45ys 55ys

<18ys

1925ys

20.2 17.6 34.8 8.5 6.9 8 6.3

21.1 17.2 33.7 8.7 8.1 8.3 7.5

20 17 34 8.8 7.6 8.7 6.6

20.3 17.3 35.8 8.8 6.2 8.6 5.8

19.3 18.9 34.7 8.7 7.2 7.6 6

42.8 85.6 8.8 10.7

45.4 88.8 8.3 12.2

43 83.5 8.6 11

43.7 87.0 9 10.8

40.9 85.0 9.6 9.8

♂

♀

19.7 17.2 34.3 8.8 7.7 8.4 6.3 42.8 83.9 8.7 11.1

5665ys

66+ ys

20 18 36 7.9 6.5 7 5

21 18 37 6.7 5 7 5

42 85.0 9 11

45 87.3 8.7 10

-

Examined was whether demographic variables (age, sex, and sexual orientation) had a significant co influence on the variables in table 1. For most variables no significant effect (p < .05) of age, sex, and sexual orientation were found. Results show that sex only has a significant effect on the perceived quantity of another partner. Males score significant higher on quantity of alternatives (M = 6.36) than females (M = 6.30). Woman at the same time score significant higher on investment size in all conditions. In addition, age and investment size correlate significantly. People around 40 report the lowest investment sizes. Age and exposure also have a significant correlation; especially people around the age of 40 report more exposure to dating sites. The nonlinear age effects on online dating indicate that people around 40 years of age are the most active online daters. People aged 66 and older, score lowest on exposure to dating sites. No significant effect for sexual orientation was found. So especially age en sex have a co influence on the results. Additionally the interpretations of the different conditions and dating sites were studied. In the negative condition the mean percentage of story information participants indicated to remember was 63%, and in the positive condition the participants said this mean percentage of information remembered of the story was 54%. The question about the picture displayed next to the story was answered 1,8% wrong in the positive condition, and 25% wrong in the negative condition. Therefore it can be concluded that particularly the negative story was less thoroughly read by participants. The positive condition was indicated as “positive” by only 62% of the Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

25

participants. When asked whether dating sites seem an attractive manner to find a romantic relationship, mean score was 2.2 (1 = no way, 4 = definitely true). When is asked whether participants would ever try to find a romantic partner by means of a dating site, mean score was 1.9 (1 = no way, 4 = definitely true). The presence of other people in their surrounding while fulfilling the questionnaire was very low; 91% reported the completed the questionnaire isolated from their environment and partner. Last of all a Paired Samples T-test was conducted to investigate whether the unhappy and happy groups were randomly assigned to the three different conditions. No significant effect was found, so all conditions contained an even amount of (un)happy people.

3.2 Associations between all Investment Model constructs To test if the four different constructs relationship satisfaction, quality, quantity (of alternatives and another partner) and investment size all contributed to commitment in the Investment Model, correlations were conducted (See table 3).

Table 3 Correlations constructs Investment Model

Quality of another partner

Quantity of another partner

Satisfaction IMS

Commitment IMS

,58(*)

1


-,53(*)

-,65(*)

1

Quantity of another partner

-,16(*)

-,40(*)

,39(*)

1

Quantity of alternatives

-,23(*)

-,36(*)

,29(*)

,29(*)

1

Quality of alternatives

-,43(*)

-,59(*)

,53(*)

,35(*)

,54(*)

1

,16(*)

,29(*)

-,15(*)

-,15(*)

-,17(*)

-,17(*)

Commitment IMS

Investment size IMS

Quantity of altern

Quality of altern

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


26

All constructs correlate significant and contribute to commitment in a romantic relationship. Commitment is higher when satisfaction is higher (r = ,58), quantity and quality of alternatives (r = -,36 and r = -,59) and of another partner (r = -,40 and r = ,65) are lower, and investment size is higher (r = ,29). Therefore the Investment Model can be assumed to be truthful. Looking further; relationship satisfaction is also higher when commitment is higher (r = ,58), and quantity and quality of alternatives (r = ,23 and r = -,42) and of another partner are lower (r = -,16 and r = -,53). Quantity and quality of alternatives are positively correlated with quantity and quality of another partner. Thus all constructs significantly contribute to the Investment Model.

3.3 The addition of “quantity of alternatives” to the Investment Model The first aim of this study is to further investigate to what extent quantity of alternatives is an expansion of the Investment Model. In order to test the assumption that the originally construct “quality of alternatives” in fact could be divided in four different constructs (quality of alternatives, quality of another partner, quantity of alternatives, and quantity of another partner), a factor analysis was performed (table 4). The factor analysis showed that quantity and quality of alternatives coincide, that will say these two cannot be measured distinctly. Between ‘alternatives’ no difference is found. The analysis can be concluded as follows: Three different factors were found, namely: Quality of another partner, quality & quantity of alternatives, and quantity of another partner.


27

Table 4 Factor analysis for the split-up construct quality of alternatives.

1

Factor 2

3

Quality of another partner A possible alternative partner will be more conform my ideals of a good relationship? How attractive is it to have a relationship with someone else, compared to your current relationship? To what extent would your desires for intimacy and friendship be substituted by another partner? How attractive is it to have a relationship with someone else in general?

,667 ,808 ,617 ,550

Quality of alternatives To what extent could your desires for intimacy and friendship be substituted by friends? How was it to have no relationship, before you started your current relationship? How attractive is it to have no relationship at all? How attractive is it to have no relationship, compared to the relationship you have now?

,399

,388 ,475 ,676

,547

,398

Quantity of alternatives Imagine you do not have a relationship; how difficult would it be to get the same amount of satisfaction out of other activities (sports, friends, etc.)?

,530

How many alternatives (friends, sports, etc.) do you have, that could replace your romantic relationship? A partner is not necessary for me, because I have enough other activities.

,601 ,600

Quantity of another partner Are there many people in your surroundings (other than your partner) who you could date? Are there many people in your surroundings (other than your partner) who you would want to date? Are there many people in your surroundings who are open for a relationship with you?

,578 ,482

,409 ,575

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 5 iterations.


28

3.4 Effect from exposure to dating site stories on quantity & quality of another partner & alternatives, relationship satisfaction, and commitment to a romantic relationship.

Exposure to dating site stories on quantity and quality of another partner and of alternatives. To expand the Investment Model by the constructs quality and quantity of alternatives and of another partner, dating site advertisements were used. First it was tested if dating sites have an influence on these four constructs. The first hypothesis is that the group exposed to the positive dating site story is expected to report higher levels of quantity and quality of alternatives and of another partner than the group exposed to the control condition, which again has a higher level of quantity and quality of alternatives and of another partner than the group exposed to the negative dating site story. Sum-scores were used to test the differences between the conditions. For the quality of alternatives there was a significant effect between the positive and negative condition; χ2 (1, N = 351) = 3.882, p = .049. This means that the positive and negative conditions have different effects on the outcomes of quality of alternatives; people exposed to the positive condition score higher on “quality of alternatives”, compared to people exposed to the negative condition. Controlling for variables, education level had a co-influence on the quality of alternatives. No significant effect of condition was found for the quality of alternatives, the quality of another partner, the quantity of alternatives, and the quantity of another partner (see table 5). From this it can be concluded that the three groups don’t report differences in available quality and quantity of alternatives and of another partner. Table 5 Test results of effect of condition (positive, negative, no story) on the dependent variables quality of another partner, quality of alternatives, quantity of another partner, and quantity of alternatives.

Quality of another partner Chi-Square .609 Df 2 Asymp. Sig. .737 Grouping Variable: Condition

Quality of alternatives 4.116 2 .128

Quantity of another partner 1.529 2 .466

Quantity of alternatives .028 2 .986


29

This means that overall there is no main effect from exposure to dating site stories on quantity and quality of another partner and of alternatives. Only people exposed to the negative condition report a lower score of quality of alternatives, compared to people exposed to the positive condition. This means that the first hypothesis cannot be accepted. When controlled for sex, age, education level relationship status (e.g., dating, cohabiting, or married), questions about previous relationships, sexual preference, and length of current relationship, the following variables had a co-influence on the dependent variables. On quantity of another partner was a co-influence of sex, education level, and previous relationships found. Besides males scoring higher on quantity of another partner, this quantity of another partner is also higher by people with a higher education, and people with more previous relationships. On quality and quantity of alternatives was a co-influence found of education level; the higher the education, the more quality and quantity of alternatives were expected. After controlling for these covariates, still no significant effects were found.

Effects from exposure to dating site stories on relationship satisfaction and commitment to a romantic relationship. Second was tested if dating site advertisements had a significant influence at relationship satisfaction and commitment. When compared to the control condition, the group exposed to the positive story is expected to report lower levels of relationship satisfaction and lower levels of commitment. When compared to the control condition, the group exposed to the negative story is expected to report higher levels of relationship satisfaction and higher levels of commitment. Consequently, these effects are expected to be higher between the positive and negative story. For relationship satisfaction there was no significant effect of condition: χ2 (2, N = 535) = 2.56, p = .277. Also with respect to commitment there was no significant effect of condition χ2 (2, N = 535) = .789, p = .674. Thus the group exposed to the positive story doesn’t report lower levels of relationship satisfaction after exposure compared to the negative and control group, and the group exposed to the negative story doesn’t report higher levels of relationship satisfaction compared to the control condition. So, all conditions score the same on relationship satisfaction. The positive group also doesn’t report lower levels of commitment and the negative group doesn’t report significant higher levels Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

30

of commitment after the exposure. Therefore the results do not support the hypothesis that dating site advertisements have an effect on commitment and satisfaction. With respect to commitment a co-influence of relationship status was found; the more stable the relationship, the more committed to the relationship. Also the amount of previous relationships had an influence on commitment; the more previous relationships, the less committed to the relationship. After controlling for these influences, still no significant effects were found. No co influences were found on relationship satisfaction. Thus the suggested model of dating site advertisements influencing the constructs of the Investment Model cannot be accepted.

3.5 Effects from relationship satisfaction on media influence At last it was expected that people who are in unhappy relationships are more influenced by the stories than people experiencing a happy romantic relationship. To test this hypothesis, a Kruskal-Wallis Test was executed. For “fluctuations in relationship satisfaction” there was a significant difference between an unhappy and happy relationship (χ2 (1, N = 535) = 9.12, p <.05). People exposed to the (positive or negative) story reported higher differences in relationship satisfaction after exposure, than the non-condition group (see table 6). This is consistent with the expectations. The group exposed to the positive story was also less satisfied with their relationship after exposure compared to the group exposed to the negative condition. This could mean that the stories did have an effect on relationship satisfaction. No significant effects were found for the different conditions. Table 6 Fluctuations in relationship satisfaction per condition (negative = score after exposure is lower).

Condition

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

Control

-.0326

5.27174

184

Positive

.6084

6.48614

166

Negative

.1027

5.70042

185

Total

.2131

5.81321

535

This means that the amount of happiness fluctuations and pre-exposure relationship satisfaction are related. Compared to the people with a happy relationship, the Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

31

unhappy people report a much lower relationship satisfaction after exposure to the dating site story, measured up to the satisfaction reported beforehand. Therefore media (in this case the stimulus stories) are supposed to have an influence on relationship satisfaction, especially on people low in relationship satisfaction. However, when this was directly tested, people report no influence of media. No significant differences were found for the adapted MMIS and exposure to dating sites between the happy and unhappy group (p < .05). This means that people show a higher amount of media influence when this is indirectly measured. Directly measured people report no differences in amount of influence, so this influence is unconscious. When controlling for co variables, the following results were found: On exposure to dating sites was a co-influence of relationship status (the more stable the relationship, the more exposure to dating sites), education level (the higher the education, the more exposure), and previous relationships (the more previous relationships, the more exposure); On satisfaction and media influence were no coinfluences. Further, measuring satisfaction before the stimulus stories, previous relationships had a co-influence on satisfaction. After controlling for co variables, no more significant effects were found.


32

4 Conclusion and Discussion

4.1 General outcomes This research shows that the Investment Model was correct; commitment is significantly higher when satisfaction is higher, quantity and quality of alternatives and another partner are lower, and investment size is higher. In this study it can be concluded that the original construct “quality of alternatives” of the Investment Model should be divided into three different constructs namely “quality and quantity of alternatives”, “quality of another partner”, and “quantity of another partner.” Therefore the first aim of this study must be further investigated, because the factoranalysis (but not the experimental conditions) shows that there are different constructs in the original construct “quality of alternatives”. To investigate whether the presentation of dating sites had an influence on the quantity of alternatives, quality of alternatives, relationship satisfaction, and commitment to a romantic relationship, people were exposed to dating site advertisements. No significant relations between the different dating site conditions and relationship satisfaction, levels of commitment and quality and quantity of alternatives and of another partner were found in this study. This suggests that dating site advertisements have no influence on quality and quantity of alternatives and of another partner, commitment and relationship satisfaction. Only one significant result was found; quality of alternatives differed significantly between the positive and negative condition. It happened that people exposed to the negative condition reported a lower score of quality of alternatives, compared to people exposed to the positive condition. Thus, it can be assumed that there is an association between these two different conditions and quality of alternatives. Further results show that people with an unhappy relationship show more fluctuation in relationship satisfaction level before and after a stimulus condition, than people with a happy relationship. This means that the amount of happiness fluctuations and pre-exposure relationship satisfaction are related. Compared to the people with a happy relationship, the unhappy people report a much lower relationship satisfaction after exposure to the dating site story, measured up to the satisfaction reported beforehand. Therefore media (in this case the stimulus stories) is supposed to have an influence on relationship satisfaction. But when people were asked in what way they felt influenced by the media, they reported not to be Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

33

influenced. This might mean that influence of the media happens on an unaware level en therefore may best be measured indirectly.

4.2 Outcomes besides the results of the state hypotheses Multiple significant relations are found between the controlling variables and constructs of the Investment Model. These are all discussed briefly below. First, sex has a significant effect on the perceived quantity of another partner. In this study males score significant higher on quantity of alternatives than females. Research shows that males reported visiting online dating sites more often than females. It is possible that males therefore are more open for dating site advertisements and already explored the many profiles existing on the Internet (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Woman at the same time invest more in a relationship and are in need of stableness (van der Dennen, 2005). Briefly, an evolutionary view of sexual motives is based on the model of differential parental investment, which argues that because females in the human species must invest far greater resources to produce offspring than do men, they tend to be correspondingly more selective in their choice of romantic partners (Buss 1998; Dahl, Sengupta & Vohs, 2009) This female higher selectiveness may account for a lower reported quantity of alternatives for a romantic relationship, compared to males. Second, level of education had a significant effect on quantity of another partner, quantity and quality of alternatives, and exposure to dating sites. Higher educated people are more active at the Internet relative to the broader population (Brym & Lenton, 2001; Hardey, 2002; Barraket & Henry-Waring, 2008). In so doing, a higher exposure to dating sites for higher educated people could be explained. Furthermore a study of 23,000 Internet daters in the US found online daters were more highly educated and earned higher incomes than the general population. Students in specific Internet date more often (8%) compared to people with lower educations (3%). Because people usually marry people equal in education level, it is credible that this is the main reason why higher educated people after exposure to a dating site advertisement belief there are more matches available than lower educated people (quantity of another partner). Besides the fact that the dating site population is higher educated, the amount of higher educated people rises and students also stay longer single. The past ten years the amount of higher educated people raised from 22% in 2006 to 29% in 2006 (CBS, 2008). This rise was perceptible in all age groups Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

34

(Janssen, 2008) (quantity of another partner). These recent developments also explain the positive relationship between education level and quantity of another partner. In addition, education level is an important determinant for spending leisure time as well. Higher educated people have a higher participation in recreational activities and join in more different recreational activities compared to lower educated people (Dierckx, 2001). By this the positive relationship between quantity of alternatives and education could be explained. Higher educated people also participate in alternatives of higher quality. A positive correlation was found between leisure activities as culture and sports and education, and a negative correlation was found between education and watching television as leisure activity (Dierckx, 2001). Therefore it is reasonable that people who are higher educated also report a higher quality of alternatives. Third, for stage of the relationship (dating, married, etc.) significant effects were found for commitment and exposure to dating sites. First a positive relationship was found between stage and commitment; the more stable the relationship, the more committed to the relationship. This is reasonable while cohabiting and marrying literally raise the commitment to a romantic relationship (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007). Second was found that the people with a more stable relationship, were more exposed to dating sites. First of all married people tend to watch more television and are therefore more exposed to dating sites (Robinson, 1981). Furtermore, in the research of Whitty (2008) 26.7% of the total Internet dating population did not admit on dating sites they were already married. ItClicks (2005) also concluded that 1 out of 14 Internet daters were already involved in a romantic relationship. A possible explanation is that many people employ dating sites since these feature an indirect effect on their self confidence. Positive feedback on Internet profiles enhances social self-esteem and well-being (Valkenburg, Peter & Schouten, 2006). Particularly people engaged in a more stable relationship are in need of positive feedback, endeavoring to tease out whether they are still attractive to the opposite sex. Furthermore, more than 7% of the Internet dating population is really looking for a substitute for their current relationship. Sites as secondlove.nl even play with slogans as “life is short, have a second love.” Also sexual gratification is an import motive for Internet dating. Almost one third of the people who are looking at dating sites for “physical contacts” report being involved in a romantic relationship. In particular shortcomings in sexuality Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

35

seem to be compensated by searching another partner on the Internet (itClicks, 2005). Due to this, people with a more stable relationship are more likely to explore dating sites. Therefore exposure to dating sites is possibly higher in this population. Fourth, a negative relationship was found between the amount of previous relationships and commitment and relationship satisfaction. The more previous relationships participants had, the lesser committed and satisfied they were with their partner. Feeney and Noller (1992) note that the dissolution of a romantic relationship can be one of the most painful and stressful experiences people endure in their personal lives, leaving lasting impressions (Simpson, 1987). Similarly, Duck and Sants (1983) argued that individuals’ relationships should be viewed in accordance with their relational history, and Thibaut and Kelley (1959) concluded that individuals developed expectations about relationships based on their comparisons with their own relationships and other people’s relations. Because past relationships that were characterized by high levels of closeness and involvement are the most painful following their termination, and because past relationships tend to have an impact on future relationships (Frazier & Cook, 1993; Ickes, 1983), it is possible that individuals leaving close relationships would find it difficult to regain that level of closeness with their next partner, and are therefore less satisfied and committed to their next partner (Merolla, Weber, Meyers & Booth Butterfield, 2004). In addition a positive relationship was found between the amount of previous relationships and exposure to dating sites and quantity of another partner. While singles represent most of the Internet dating population, it is logical to assume that more previous relationships mean more time spending single between breakup en commencing a new relationship. In the time between relationships people with more previous relationships (and breakups) are more likely to explore dating sites, compared to people who stay involved. Therefore it is plausible that people with more previous relationship, are more exposed to dating sites. When already explored many other partners, it is also plausible to assume there are a lot of alternative partners available. Therefore the more previous relationships people were involved in, the more quantity of another partner was expected. Fifth, age and exposure to dating sites have a significant correlation as well. Especially people around the age of 40 report more exposure to dating sites. The Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

36

nonlinear age effects on online dating also indicated that people around 40 years of age are the most active online daters. A plausible explanation for this nonlinear age effect is that it is relatively difficult for people of this age group to find another romantic partner via more traditional strategies. Singles in this age group are relatively often divorced and often have to combine children with a busy career (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). The correlation between age and investment size can be explained by this as well, because people around 40 report the lowest investment sizes. This does not correspond with the scientific literature, while people normally have a longer relationship at that age, so they would have invested more. This could be explained by the trend of higher rates of divorces (CBS, 2008).

4.3 Methodological issues The research’s strength is the large population involved in this research. Still the results of the present study must be tempered by several limitations related primarily to measurement. An important factor that can be responsible for the lack of evidence is the age of the sample. Media, like dating site advertisements, has a bigger influence on adolescents and quadragenarians, because adolescents are particularly susceptible to unrealistic portrayels of romantic relationships (Krosnick & Alwin, 1989; Sears, 1981) and people around 40 years of age are the most active online daters. Hence a sample that more controlled more for age would possibly have allowed more significant results, so conclusions could have been more specific and meaningful about the relationship between dating site advertisements (quantity of alternatives) and commitment to a romantic relationship. Secondly, mean length of the relationship in the current sample was “1-5 years”. This has an influence on the results, because commitment in a short relationship will be less high than commitment in a longer romantic relationship. Lastly social desirability could influence the responds, while many people stay reserved about their participation and exposure to dating sites (E-matching, 2009). When people read information, some biases also may play a role. One of them is a tendency for “congruent” evaluations in the cognitive systems of people (Peters, 1998). Put simply: people want to hold the same opinions as those they like and they want to contradict the opinions of those they dislike. If they see that people they dislike have an attitude similar to their own, they may begin to like these people or to Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

37

change their attitude. From person perception research it is known that negative information about a person is perceived particularly attentively and influences the assessment more strongly than positive information. Related to the current research, it would have been more wise to ask the respondents if the stories matched their opinions or contradicted them, in order to gain more sound results. It could be argued that the stories that did not match the participant’s opinions influenced the other questionnaires.

Also the mode of displaying the positive, negative and no story conditions could have an effect at the participants. First of all the used stories to advertise dating sites are probably not the best text to offer participants. It is unsure whether de content of the text influences quantity and quality of alternatives and if the presentation had an optimal length. Many participants responded they did not read the stories optimally. Indeed, in the negative condition the mean percentage of information they thought they would remember of the story was 63%, and in the positive condition the participants said this mean percentage was 54%. The question about the picture displayed next to the story was answered 1,8% wrong in the positive condition, and 25% wrong in the negative condition. Although most participants who answered this question wrong, responded they did read the story, it is possible that particularly the negative story was less read by participants. Also miscomprehension of print communications is very high (Jacoby & Hoyer, 1987). Most people trust television more than any other medium (Zannes, Kelsey & Goss, 1993). Therefore broadcast advertisements would be more persuasive than a single text (Krugman, 1965). Nonetheless, Internet advertisements may put another complexion on what is available in print and broadcast. Probably the most prevalent characteristic of Internet advertising concerns ‘interactivity.’ Interactivity has been considered an essential factor discerning Internet from every other medium (Roehm & Haugtvedt, 1999), and the presence of interactivity as a structural feature within websites has been shown to boost Internet traffic (Ghose & Dou, 1998). Steuer's (1992) defines interactivity as "the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real time." Thus, this particular feature of the Internet is unique in the way it allows the user to participate in the persuasion process by changing the structural elements themselves. Never before have consumers had this ability when confronted with advertisements from either the broadcast or print genres. Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

38

Online, a consumer can choose to click on a banner or not. He can search out advertising websites and when he is at a website, he can select pages to look at; some he will spend little or no time with (Rodgers & Thorson, 2000). According to Roehm and Haugtvedt (1999), the consumer benefits more from an interactive (versus noninteractive) environment, because it allows them to be actively involved in the persuasion process. For one, an interactive environment allows consumers to select advertisements that directly benefit and are relevant to them by providing consumers with the ability to customize advertisements to their own liking. Maybe an interactive advertisement in which people can click to see examples of different dating sites and try to use the databases at these sites to scroll through profiles, will influence peoples perceptions about dating sites more. When people also are not informed about the persuasive component of the interactive environment, they are also less likely to be associated with cues identifying a commercial message as an attempt to persuade that would eventually lead to commercial message rejection or resistance to persuasion (Bernard, 2001; Constantin & Grigorovici, 2004; Rittenburg & Laczniak, 1992). Secondly, these interactive environment probably overcomes the problem of “zapping" by clicking further without reading the message (Shrum, 2004).

The questionnaires were all commonly used to measure the constructs of the Investment Model, media influence and exposure to dating sites. The original questionnaires appeared to be reliable in measuring all the constructs. Reliability analysis in current research showed that not all alpha’s in current research were as high as originally proposed. Secondly, further research needs to be done to investigate the first aim of the study; whether quantity of alternatives could be used as a different construct, dividing the original construct “quality of alternatives” in four different constructs, namely: quality of alternatives, quality of another partner, quantity of alternatives, and quantity of another partner. Factor analysis showed that quantity and quality of alternatives measured the same construct, but further research needs to be done to expand the three constructs quality & quantity of alternatives, quality of another partner, and quantity of another partner. The questionnaire was provided by means of ‘hyves’, e-mail, etc. Therefore a self-selection bias of participation must be mentioned. Because the pretext already mentioned participation was limited to people who were involved in ‘a romantic Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

39

relationship,’ many people with an unhappy relationship responded they could not participate because their relationship was not that romantic anymore. A different pretext and designation would be better. Also the questionnaire could be fulfilled in any given setting. This could have a consequence on the given answers. The presence of other people in their surrounding while fulfilling the questionnaire was very low; 91% reported the completed the questionnaire isolated from their environment and partner. A technical shortcoming of the questionnaire was the availability to answer all questions. The slider in NetQuestionnaires to measure relationship satisfaction (pre and postexposure of the conditions), did not work properly with all webbrowsers. Exclusively people using Internet Explorer did not report any deficits in the fulfilment of the Internet questionnaire. Therefore many dropouts were reported. Moreover, response is higher with money than with a lottery (Göritz, 2004). Perhaps offering money to participate would result in less drop outs, compared to an opportunity to win a coupon. 4.4 Future research To provide stronger evidence to extend the Investment Model more research needs to be done. First of all not everyone is similarly susceptible by dating sites advertisements, and there may be an influence of age, sex, level of education, status, and the amount of previous relationships. So in future research this needs to be controlled for. In addition, it is important to pay keen attention to an equal variance of the sample. As noted before a sample around age 40 will be more susceptible to the different conditions. Furthermore, the construct “quantity of alternatives and of another partner” is probably difficult to influence by means of dating site stories. Research shows that behaviour is influenced by implicit cognitions (Yamaguchi, Greenwald, Banaji, Murakami, Chen, Shiomura, Kobayashi, Cai & Krendl, 2007). They found that explicit cognitions are less influential than implicit cognitions. So there is a possibility that implicit thought about dating sites had effected the outcomes of the present study. Explicitly cognitions about dating sites are not very positive. When asked whether dating sites seem an attractive manner to find a romantic relationship, and whether participants would ever try to find a romantic partner by means of a dating site, mean scores are very low. Therefore participants are probably less influenced by advertisements of dating sites because they have a negative Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

40

cognition about these. A story, or interactive advertisement as discussed before, about quantity and quality of alternatives and of another partner in an other way than by means of dating sites, are recommended. Secondly there seems to be an influence of relationship satisfaction on the degree of media impact. An adjustment of the research should focus on the amount of media influence. No significant effects were found for the adapted MMIS and ‘exposure to dating sites’ between the happy and unhappy group, but participants did report higher scores on the MMIS (media influence) than on the direct measures of “exposure to dating sites”. This means that people show a higher amount of media influence when this is indirectly measured. These findings suggest that the differences of direct and indirect measures should be important to investigate. Further researchers could use an implicit associations test.


41

References Agnew, C.R., Martz, J.M., & Rusbult, C.E. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Journal of Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391. Alwin, D., & Krosnick, J. (1991). The reliability of survey attitude measurement: The influence of questions and respondent attributes. Sociological Methods and Research, 20, 139-181. Anderson, S.P. (2005). Regulation of television advertising. Virginia Economics Online Papers, 363, 1-30. Arriaga, X.B., & Agnew, C.R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190-1203. Barraket, J., & Henry-Waring, M.S. (2008). Getting it on(line); Sociological perspectives on e-dating. Journal of Sociology, 44, 149-165. Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. The American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40. Bernard, M. (2001). Developing schemas for the location of common web objects. Usability News 3.1. Retrieved 4 February, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/31/web_object.asp. Brockman, H., & Klein, T. (2004). Love and death in Germany: The marital biography and its effect on mortality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 567-581. Brym, R. (2003). The decline of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28, 411–416. Brym, R.J. & Lenton, R.L. (2001). Love online: A report on digital dating in Canada. CSN.CA: Toronto. Retrieved 10 April, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nelson.com/nelson/harcourt/sociology/newsociety3e/loveonline.pd f. Buss, D.M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31.


42

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2008). Huwelijksontbindingen; door echtscheiding en door overlijden. Retrieved 21 January, 2009, from the World Wide Web: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=37425NED&D1= 3-9&D2=46-57&VW=T. Conlan, S.K. (2007). Romantic relationship termination. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Arlington. Constantin, C., & Grigorovici, D. (2004). Novelty, habituation or structural features? A test of competing explanations for the cognitive and attitudinal effects of animated 3D advertising on the web. Pullman, WA: American Academy of Advertising. Coombs, R.H. (1991). Marital status and personal well-being: A literature review. Family Relations, 40, 97–102. Crisp, R. (1987). Persuasive advertising, autonomy, and the creation of desire. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 413–418. Cusumano, D.L., & Thompson, J.K. (2000). Media influence and body image in 8-11year-old boys and girls: A preliminary report on the Multidimensional Media Influence Scale. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 37-44. Dahl, D.W, Sengupta, J., & Vohs, K.D. (2009). Sex in advertising: gender differences and the role of relationship commitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 0. Retrieved 17 April, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu.proxy.library.uu.nl/doi/pdf/10.1086/597158 ?cookieSet=1. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 61–77. Dierckx, D. (2001). Cultuurparticipatie en vrijetijdsbesteding; armoedebestrijding in Vlaanderen. Retrieved 20 April, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://boudewijnstichting.net/uploadedFiles/KBSFRB/Files/NL/PUB_1195_Recente_evolutie_inzake_cultuurparticipatie_en_vr ijetijdsbesteding.pdf. Duck, S.W., & Sants, H.K.A. (1983). On the origin of the specious: Are personal relationships really interpersonal states. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 27-41. Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

43

E-matching (2009). Online dating. Retrieved 20 April, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.e-matching.nl/. Feeney, J.A., & Noller, P. (1992). Attachment style and romantic love: relationship dissolution, Australian Journal of Psychology, 44, 69-74. Frazier, P.A., & Cook, S.W. (1993). Correlates of distress following heterosexual relationship dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 55–67. Galbraith, J.K. (1958). The affluent society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Galbraith, J.K. (1967). The new industrial state. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Galician, M.L. (2004). Sex, love, and romance in the mass media: Analysis and criticism of unrealistic portrayals and their influence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum. Ghose, S., & Dou, W. (1998). Interactive functions and their impacts on the appeal of Internet presence sites. Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 29-43. Goldman, N. (1993). Marriage selection and mortality patterns: Inferences and fallacies. Demography, 30, 189-208. Goldman, N., Korenman, S., & Weinstein, R. (1995). Marital status and health among the elderly. Social Sciences & Medicine 40, 1717-1730. Göritz, A.S. (2004). The impact of material incentives on response quantity, response quality, sample composition, survey outcome, and cost in online access panels. International Journal of Market Research, 46, 327-345. Groppe, J.D. (1984). Reality as enchantment—a theory of repetition. Rhetoric Review, 2, 165-174. Hallfors, D., Khatapoush, S., Kadushin C., Watson, K., & Saxe, L. (2000). A comparison of paper vs. computer-assisted self interview for school alcohol, tobacco, and other drug surveys. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 149155. Hardey, M. (2002). Life beyond the screen: embodiment and identity through the Internet. The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review, 50, 570-585. Ickes, W. (1983). A basic paradigm for the study of unstructured dyadic interaction. In H. Reis (Ed.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science (pp. 5-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


44

Itclicks (2005). Tenminste 1 op 14 internetdaters heeft al een relatie. Retrieved 22 April, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nieuwsbank.nl/zoek?index=\index/pb/pb&trefwoord=itclicks%20o ntkracht%20mythe%20mannen%20willen%20helemaal%20geen%20slanke% 20vrouw. Jacoby J. and Hoyer, W.D., (1987) The comprehension and miscomprehension of Print communications: An investigation of mass media magazines. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, New Jersey. Janssen, B. (2008). Bijna evenveel hoogopgeleide als laagopgeleide Nederlanders. Voorburg: CBS. Kant, M., & Verbruggen, D. (2007). Het effect van datingsitereclames op commitment aan een intieme relatie; Een experimenteel onderzoek naar het verband tussen het aanbieden van datingsitereclames op commitment, respectievelijk de relatietevredenheid, kwaliteit en kwantiteit van alternatieven en investeringsgrootte. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht. Karniol, R. (2001). Adolescent females’ idolization of male media stars as a transition into sexuality. Sex Roles, 44, 61–77. Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., & Newton, T.L. (2001). Marriage and health: his and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472-503. Kim, H.K., & McKenry, P.C. (2002). The relationship between marriage and psychological well-being: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 885-911. Krugman, H.E., (1965) The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 29, 349 – 356. Latten, J. (2004). Trends in samenwonen en trouwen: de schone schijn van burgerlijke staat. CBS Bevolkingstrends, 4, 46-60. Le, B., & Agnew, C.R. (2001). Need fulfillment and emotional experience in interdependent romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 423-440. McNallie, J. (2007). Scripting relationships through adolescent and adult television dramas: Perceptions of completion in romantic relationships. Communication & Theater Association of Minnesota Journal, 34, 47-61. Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

45

Merolla, A.J., Webber, K.D., Myers, S.A., Booth-Butterfield, M. (2004). The impact of past dating relationship solidarity on commitment, satisfaction, and investment in current relationships. Communication Quarterly, 52, 251-264. Miller, R.S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758-766. Multiscope (2004). Online dating in opkomst. Retrieved 22 October, 2008, from Multiscope Specialist in Online Marktonderzoek Website: http://www.multiscope.nl/organisatie/nieuws/berichten/online-dating-inopkomst.html Noonan, R. J. (1998). The psychology of sex: a mirror from the Internet. In: Cornwell, B. & Lundgren, D. C. (2001). Love on the Internet: involvement and misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace. Computer in Human Behavior, 17, 197–221. Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46, 80–97. Peters, H.P. (1998). Is the negative more relevant than the positive—cognitive responses to TV programs and newspaper articles on genetic engineering. Retrieved 29 April, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fuberlin.de/pcst98/Paper_pdf/peters_1.pdf. Rittenburg, T.L., & Laczniak, R.N. (1992), Cognitive scripts for commercial breaks: Some preliminary results. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia. Roberts, D., Foehr, U., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8– 18 year olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Robinson, J.P. (1981). Television and leisure time: A new scenario. The Journal of Communication, 31, 120-130. Rodgers, S., & Thorson, E. (2000). Fixing stereotypes in news photos: A synergistic approach with the Los Angeles Times. Visual Communication Quarterly, 55, 8-11. Roehm, H.A., & Haugtvedt, C.P. (1999). Understanding interactivity of cyberspace advertising. In D. W. Schumann & E. Thorson (Eds.), Advertising and the World Wide Web. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


46

Rubin, J.Z., & Brockner, J. (1975). Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1054-1063. Rusbult, C.E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 101-117. Rusbult, C.E., & Buunk, B.P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204. Rusbult, C.E., Martz, J.M., & Agnew, C.A. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391. Shrum, L.J., ed. (2004). Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sikking, I. (2003). Met relatie gelukkiger en gezonder: Alleen leven is een riskante sport. Retrieved 21 January, 2009, from AD.nl gezondheid Website: http://www.zicnet.nl/singles/single-gevaarlijkesport.html. Simpson, J.A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 683-692. Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-38. Staw, B.M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. The Academy of Management Review, 6, 577-587. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93. Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). The paradox of declining female happiness. The Berkeley Electronic Press. Retrieved 21 April, 2009, from The World Wide Web: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2444&context=alea. Sundar, S.S. (1998). Effect of source attribution on perception of online news stories. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 55–68. Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

47

Tropper, R. (1972). The consequences of investment in the process of conflict. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16, 97-98. Uebersax, J.S. (2006). The tetrachoric and polychoric correlation coefficients. Statistical Methods for Rater Agreement Web Site. Retrieved 13 December, 2009

from

the

World

Wide

Web:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/tetra.htm. Valkenburg, P.M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43, 267-277. Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A.P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescent’s well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 584-590. Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (2005). De evolutionaire redenen van de strijd der geslachten: Deel 2. Geslachtverschillen en vrouwelijke reproductieve strategieën. Retrieved 21 April, 2009 from the World Wide Web: rechten.eldoc.ub.rug.nl. Walther, J.B., Slovacek, C., & Tidwell, L. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 28, 105–134. Waite, L.J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Doubleday. Weisberg, H.F., Krosnick, J.A., Bowen, B.D. (1996). An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis. California: Sage, Thousand Oaks. Whitty, M. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site, Computer in human behavior, 24, 1707-1723. Wilson, C.M., & Oswald, A.J. (2005). How does marriage affect physical and psychological health? A survey of the longitudinal evidence (Discussion Paper No. 1619). Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor. Yamaguchi, S., Greenwald, A.G., Banaji, M.R., Murakami, F., Chen, D., Shiomura, K., Kobayashi, C., Cai, H., & Krendl, A. (2007). Apparent universality of positive implicit self-esteem. Psychological Science, 18, 498-500.


48

Yoon, K. (1995). A comparison of beliefs about advertising, Attitude toward advertising, and materialism held by African-Americans and Caucasians. Psychological Reports, 77, 455-466. Zannes, E., Kelsey, C., & Goss, B. (1993). Effect of video presentations on knowledge and public attitudes toward radioactive waste storage. Security Technology, 13, 120-126. Zimmermann, A.C., & Easterlin, R.A. (2006). Happily ever after? Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and happiness in Germany. Population and Development Review, 32, 511–528.


49

Appendices

A. Effects of a romantic relationship on health issues

B. Qualitative preliminary survey by P.E. Booij and M.D. van Someren C. Story conditions

D. The split-up of the construct quality of alternatives of the Investment model into quality of alternatives, quality of another partner, quantity of alternatives, and quantity of another partner.

E. Original and revised items MMIS per subscale

F. Data analysis


50

Appendix A. Effects of a romantic relationship on health issues An important reason to perform the current research is that romantic relationships have a great impact on health and health behavior. Various studies have shown that those who find a marriage partner are healthier than those who remain unmarried (Goldman, 1993; Goldman, Korenman & Weinstein, 1995). This could be due to the protective mechanism of marriage: being married provides emotional support, constrains risk-taking behavior, stimulates a healthy lifestyle, provides additional resources, buffers critical experiences, and partly replaces professional health care (Brockman & Klein, 2004). In addition, married individuals behave differently than single people (Wilson & Oswald, 2005). They tend to engage less in risky activities and more in healthy ones - perhaps for the sake of their partner. For example, married people smoke and drink less. Data from well-controlled epidemiological studies suggest that social isolation constitutes a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality, with statistical effect sizes comparable to those of such well-established health risk factors as smoking, blood pressure, blood lipids, obesity, and physical activity (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). Brockman and Klein (2004) have shown that the mortality risk for men and women who have been married declines significantly by 1% each year. Staying married would expand one’s life expectancy and both men and women benefit from a marriage. The transition from married to divorced/separated (noncohabiting), staying divorced/separated (noncohabiting), and staying never married (noncohabiting) were related to higher reported levels of depressive symptoms five years later in comparison to the staying married (Kim & McKenry, 2002). On the other hand, the transition from never married (noncohabiting) to married was inversely related to depressive symptoms five years later. Not only are the married healthier on average, they also tend to have a higher life satisfaction. Zimmerman and Easterlin (2006) found that the formation of unions has a significant positive effect on life satisfaction, while the dissolution of unions through separation or divorce has a significant negative effect. In the first two years of marriage, a significant boost in life satisfaction occurs for cohabitors and noncohabitors alike. Thereafter, life satisfaction drops, but is still significantly above the baseline. This “marriage adaptation” value is not notably different from the value for cohabitation. Thus, a “honeymoon period” effect on life satisfaction is found, followed by a decline, presumably attributable to habituation. They also found that the Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

51

formation of successful unions, whether cohabiting or marital, has a positive impact on well-being, but that there is no significant difference in the life satisfaction effect of the two types of unions. The implication appears to be that the crucial element of life satisfaction is finding a compatible partner, whereas the formalization of a union via marriage adds nothing to life satisfaction in terms of long-term well-being. In sum, having a romantic relationship has a positive influence on health and health behavior. People who are married or cohabiting are more satisfied with their lives, have lower mortality rates and tend to engage less in risky activities and more in healthy ones.


52

Appendix B. Qualitative preliminary survey by P.E. Booij and M.D. van Someren

Naam: Sekse: Leeftijd: Hoogst genoten opleiding:

1: Hoeveel procent van alle relaties in Nederland worden er per jaar verbroken? 2: Nederland telt 12.425.000 volwassenen. Hoeveel daarvan denk je dat single is? 3: Waarop baseer je die keuze?

Nr. Sekse

Leeftij

Eduactie

d 1.

V

21

Vraag

Vraag 2

Vraag 3

1,5 mil

Media, omgeving, reclame

1 WO

1 mil

datingbureaus. 2.

M

22

HBO

30 %

2,5 mil

Intuitie.

3.

M

22

WO

73 %

5,9 mil

In media al eens iets gehoord.

4.

M

23

HBO

27 %

4 mil

Gok.

5.

M

51

LTS

60 %

4,5 mil

Gok.

6.

V

48

MEAO

55 %

4 mil

Omgeving veel singles.

7.

V

19

MBO

60 %

4 mil

Gok.

8.

V

21

WO

33 %

3 mil

Dacht ergens gelezen.

9.

V

23

WO

35 %

4 mil

Dacht ergens gelezen.

10.

V

21

WO

30 %

3 mil

Gok.

11.

V

21

WO

30 %

6 mil

Media, kennissen.

12.

V

21

WO

20 %

2 mil

Media: veel scheidingen: 1 op de 3. Maar dit zie ik niet terug in de


53

realiteit. 13.

M

22

VWO

30 %

4 mil

Intuitie, en in kranten en op tv steeds meer advertenties voor datingbureaus en ook kranten en tv e.d waarin staat dat scheidingen meer toenemen.

14.

V

24

WO

50 %

2,2 mil

Media, eigen omgeving, mijn idee.

15.

V

21

WO

35 %

8 mil

Krant, van horen zeggen, kinderen die geen relatie hebben.

16.

M

35

MBO

33 %

3 mil

Gok.

17.

M

21

WO

40 %

4 mil

Schatten.

18.

M

56

MBO

70 %

5 mil

Veel mensen omgeving.

19.

V

55

Basissch

65 %

7 mil

Sneller scheiden.

20.

M

54

MBO

35 %

7 mil

Weinig bruiloften, gelezen.

21.

V

36

MBO

60 %

5 mil

Veel scheidingen in omgeving.

22.

M

37

MTS

33 %

5,5 mil

Gokje.

23.

V

21

WO

75 %

4,5 mil

Gok.

24.

V

25

WO

50 %

6,1 mil

Dacht gelezen.

25.

V

22

HBO

33 %

9000

Media.

26.

M

21

HBO

20- 25

5 mil

Je hoort veel in de media qua

%

cijfers over scheidingen, op de klippen gelopen huwelijken e.d.

27.

M

29

WO

60 %

4 mil

Internet en 'een gok'.

28.

M

17

HBO

18 %

4 mil

Gok.


54

29.

M

23

WO

40 %

6 mil

Omgeving.

30.

V

22

WO

40 %

6 mil

Media en eigen omgeving.

31.

V

21

WO

10 %

2 mil

Ingeving.

32.

M

20

WO

40 %

7 mil

Ingeving.

33.

M

21

WO

33 %

5 mil Krantenberichten, tv etc: steeds meer hoogopgeleiden single; relaties sneller verbroken, flitsscheiding.

34.

M

18

MBO

60 %

3 mil

Schatting.

35.

V

20

WO

55 %

4 mil

Hoeveelheid scheidingen en media.

36.

V

21

WO

40 %

4 mil

Gevoel.

37.

M

21

WO

30 %

2,5 mil

Logisch redeneren.

38.

V

21

WO

40 %

2,5 mil

Omgeving.

39.

M

22

HEAO

15 %

2,5 mil

Gok.

40.

M

21

HBO

30 %

3 mil

Media en datingspam.

41.

M

21

WO

33 %

4 mil

Omgeving.

42.

M

21

HBO

50 %

4 mil

Omgeving.

43.

V

21

HBO

40 %

6 mil

Omgeving.

44.

V

28

MBO

22 %

5 mil

Gok.

45.

V

17

Gym

20 %

3 mil

Ik denk dat een heel groot deel t/m 30 single is, en daarboven zijn er ook wel veel (veel scheidingen).


55

46.

M

21

MBO

65 %

8045000

Media.

47.

M

22

WO

71 %

6542468

Eerste ingeving.

48.

V

21

WO

60 %

4 mil

Krantenberichten.

49.

M

21

WO

40 %

5 mil

Schatten.

50.

V

22

WO

30 %

4 mil

Schatting.

51.

M

24

HBO

80 %

6 mil

Pure schatting, maar vooral aan de hand van vraag 1, en er dan van uitgaande dat er naderhand zich nog wat mensen bedenken en weer terug bij elkaar komen om de een of andere reden.

52.

M

38

WO

30 %

6,2 mil

Gelezen.

53.

M

21

MBO

40 %

6,5 mil

Gokje.

54.

M

22

MBO

60 %

4038125

Ik schat dat ongeveer 30 à 35% van de volwassenen single is. Pak daar het gemiddelde van (32,5) en reken uit. (12425000 . 0.325).

55.

M

22

WO

35 %

6 mil

Groot aantal alleenstaanden.

56.

M

23

WO

20 %

2 mil

Single-reclames, krant.

57.

V

14

Gym

33 %

8 mil

Dingen die ik soms eens in een tijdschrift heb gelezen en die er wat mee te maken hadden.

58.

M

21

HBO

25 %

6 mil

Eigen ervaringen en singles in vriendenkring.

59.

M

21

WO

45 %

3,5 mil

Cijfers uit scheiding (1 op 3 ongeveer) en dan groep jongeren (18 - 25) zonder vaste relatie.


56

60.

V

22

WO

35 %

5,5 mil

Common sense, veel bewust vrijgezel & weduwen.

61.

V

21

WO

40 %

500000

De 40 % is gebaseerd op de mensen in mijn directe omgeving, de 500.000 is puur een gok...

62.

M

22

WO

11 %

3 mil

Ik gebruik mijn omgeving als benchmark en kijk hoe dit uit zou werken naar zo'n/12 miljoen volwassenen.

63.

M

26

MBO

40 %

5 mil

Uuh eerste ingeving?? Omgeving.. I guess…

64.

V

22

WO

45 %

3899231

Het ligt een beetje aan de definitie van 'relatie', ik baseer het onbewust misschien op media (i.v.m. datingsites enzo), maar ik denk dat de meeste mensen een relatie hebben. O.a. omdat het soort van 'hoort' in onze cultuur bij het perfecte huisje/boompje/beestje.

65.

M

27

HBO

75 %

5 mil

Intuïtie.

66.

M

23

MBO

12 %

5454222

Gokken.

67.

M

20

HBO

30 %

3 mil

Datingsites.

68.

M

22

WO

40 %

3 mil

Gokje.

69.

M

24

WO

35 %

5 mil

Bijvoorbeeld door factoren als emancipatie en individualisering van de maatschappij zijn mensen minder van elkaar afhankelijk en zullen er meer singles zijn dan vroeger.


57

70.

M

22

WO

13 %

4201732

Ingeving.

71.

V

30

WO

60 %

6 mil

Op info die ik lees in tijdschriften en op internet.

72.

V

24

WO

45 %

4 mil

Ervaring in de omgeving. Het grootste deel van de volwassenen heeft een partner en die partner is dan ook geen vrijgezel. Daarbij is het percentage vrijgezellen onder de jongvolwassenen een stuk groter, maar onder volwassenen vanaf 40 jaar een stuk kleiner, omdat zij vaak getrouwd zijn en hoe ouder de generatie hoe kleiner de kans dat zij nog uit elkaar zullen gaan.

73.

V

48

MBO

5 %

4,5 mil

Gevoelsmatig.

74.

M

47

HBO

30 %

3,5 mil

Gevoel.

75.

M

21

WO

40 %

3,5 mil

Ik bedacht me te herinneren dat ongeveer 1/3e van de Nederlandse bevolking single is, dit heb ik ooit ergens in een artikel gelezen in. Verder worden er steeds meer relaties verbroken op het moment, en scheiden is in.

76.

V

22

WO

65 %

3,5 mil Relaties/singles om mij heen (verhalen via via), tv.

77.

M

22

WO

15 %

2 mil

Krantenartikelen.

78.

V

21

WO

70 %

6 mil

Media, omgeving, gevoel.

79.

M

23

HBO

50 %

5 mil

Mensen die ik zelf ken in mijn


58

omgeving. Ken meer mensen met relatie, dan singles. 80.

V

17

VWO

50 %

8 mil

Indruk door omgeving.

81.

V

23

WO

26 %

4721500

Omgeving/milieu.

82.

V

21

WO

30 %

5,5 mil

Schatting aan de hand van logisch redeneren en afwegen van feiten als aantal relaties weergegeven in de media.

83.

M

21

HBO

25 %

2 mil

Gok.

84.

M

23

WO

33 %

5,6 mil

Wat ik in het leven om mij heen zie en hoor (media, etc).

85.

M

21

Vapro

40 %

3 mil

Eigen ingeving.

86.

M

34

HBO

33 %

4 mil

Uitkomsten onderzoeken gemeld in de media, voor zover ik die onthouden heb, dus er zit ook een factor gokken in.

87.

M

22

HBO

50 %

4 mil

Bladen, nieuws en Internet.

88.

M

22

HBO

5 %

7 mil

Gokje, meer dan de helft is single denk ik.

89.

M

21

MBO

34 %

2,4 mil

Media en krant.

90.

M

22

HBO

70 %

4,5 mil

Gevoel.

91.

M

27

WO

40 %

3 mil

Pure speculatie.

92.

V

21

MBO

40 %

5375000

Omgeving, veel relaties verbroken in een jaar tijd. Veel mensen vrijgezel.

93.

M

22

MBO

70 %

5 mil

Eigen ingeving.


59

94.

M

24

WO

55 %

2 mil

Hoog % echtscheidingen.

95.

M

22

WO

40 %

4 mil

Wat je ziet op straat, en de media.

96.

M

23

MBO

10 &

3 mil

Omgeving.

97.

M

21

WO

40 %

7 mil

Omgeving.

98.

M

27

MBO

35 %

5 mil

Media, eigen ervaringen.

99.

M

21

WO

20 %

5 mil

Verhoudingen.

100. V

22

WO

40 %

3 mil

Omgeving, media.

101. M

21

HBO

45 %

4350000

Tijdschrift.

102. V

50

MBO

60 %

6 mil

Media.

103. M

67

WO

70 %

1 mil

Omgeving, media.

104. M

22

HBO

30 %

3 mil

Omgeving singles.

105. M

21

HBO

25 %

6 mil

Media, algemene kennis.

106. M

22

WO

20 %

6 mil

Algemene ontwikkeling, Internet.

107. M

21

WO

40 %

3 mil

Gok.

108. V

21

HBO

35 %

3 mil

1 op de 10 kinderen woont in een gezin van gescheiden ouders. Als ik kijk in mijn omgeving zijn er veel gescheiden stellen en zijn er veel mensen dien alleen zijn!

109. V

21

WO

65 %

3 mil

Combinatie van media en ervaringen.

110. M

26

HBO

35 %

4 mil

Wilde gok.


60

111. M

21

WO

60 %

8 mil

Nieuws en omgeving.

112. M

23

HBO

60 %

5 mil

Ervaring.

113. M

21

MBO

65 %

6 mil

Gok.

114. V

22

MBO

20 %

7310000

Goeie gok.

115. V

21

WO

50 %

3,1 mil

Nieuws.

116. V

20

HBO

35 %

3 mil

Veel volwassenen hebben een relatie, maar er zijn ook veel singles in Nederland. De vraag is alleen voor hoe lang ze single zijn of blijven.

117. M

22

WO

15 %

3 mil

Aantal getrouwden, media.

118. V

21

WO

30 %

3,5 mil

Vooral media.

119. V

32

HBO

40 %

3 mil

Gok..

120. M

21

WO

50 %

4,9 mil

Ingeving.

121. M

22

HBO

66 %

3 mil

Relaties in mijn omgeving.

122. M

24

WO

30 %

2,5 mil

Media, gok.

123. V

20

WO

40 %

4 mil

Gok.

124. V

20

VWO

30 %

2,5 mil

Vandaag in metro gelezen.

125. V

22

WO

40 %

7500

Inzichten en artikelen.

126. M

22

MAVO

40 %

9000

Media, gesprekken, krantenberichten.

127. V

20

HBO

30 %

6 mil

Advertenties op Internet.

128. V

20

WO

35 %

5 mil

Gokken.


61

129. M

21

HBO

35 %

3,1 mil

Omgeving.

130. V

21

WO

30 %

2 mil

Media, radio.

131. V

22

WO

30 %

3 mil

Als ik kijk naar mijn omgeving zijn er veel leeftijdsgenoten single of hebben nog geen vaste relatie. Ik denk hoe ouder de mensen des te groter de kans dat ze in een relatie zitten. Ik heb ook een keer in de krant gelezen dat steeds meer mensen single blijven. Bovendien heb ik gelezen dat bijna de helft van getrouwde mensen uiteindelijk scheiden dus dat verhoogt het aantal singles in Nederland.

132. V

27

MBO

40 %

4141667

Gegokt.

133. M

29

WO

72 %

5 mil

Media (met name landelijke dagbladen) en sociale kringen zoals werk, vrienden, etc..

134. M

21

WO

33 %

800000

Omgeving.

135. M

23

MBO

80 %

5 mil

Gok.

136. V

21

WO

25 %

4,4 mil

Onderzoek gelezen.

137. M

27

WO

20 %

4 mil

Media en gok.

138. M

24

HBO

60 %

8,5 mil

Op goed geluk.

139. V

21

WO

70 %

4 mil

Schatten.

140. M

21

WO

50 %

750000

Schatten.


62

141. V

20

HBO

50 %

4, 5 mil

Omgeving.

142. V

23

HBO

45 %

4 mil

Media en omgeving.

143. V

19

VWO

48 %

7,6 mil

Gok.

144. M

29

MBO

40 %

5 mil

Gevoel.

145. M

20

VWO

68 %

8,7 mil

Omgeving.

146. M

22

HBO

50 %

6,2 mil

Omgeving.

147. M

20

VWO

60 %

5 mil

Gok.

148. M

23

VWO

20 %

3,7 mil

Mijn omgeving.

149. V

22

HBO

75 %

7 mil

Media en omgeving.

150. V

20

MBO

68 %

7 mil

Krant.

151. M

17

MBO

34 %

5,5 mil

Datingcolumns.

152. M

28

WO

30 %

3,5 mil

Algemeen.

153. V

21

MBO

33 %

3,2 mil

Media.

154. M

23

WO

72 %

8 mil

Gok.

155. V

18

HBO

9,8 %

4228

Gokje.

156. V

22

WO

50 %

6 mil

Media.

157. V

26

WO

60 %

7,5 mil

Omgeving.

158. V

21

WO

33 %

4 mil

Puur op gevoel.

159. V

18

MBO

40 %

6 mil

Gok.

160. M

18

MBO

50 %

3,1 mil

Gok.


63

161. M

21

HAVO

50 %

8 mil

Tv.

162. V

24

WO

65 %

4 mil

Gevoel.

163. V

21

WO

25 %

7 mil

Omgeving, tv, tijdschriften.

164. V

18

VWO

40 %

4 mil

Intuïtie.

165. M

19

HBO

42 %

6390000

Gok.

166. M

20

VWO

40 %

8 mil

Omgeving.

167. V

23

WO

5 %

3,8 mil

Media, reclames.

168. M

21

HBO

90 %

7 MIL

Omgeving.

169. V

21

HBO

75 %

9 mil

De privé (tijdschrift).

170. V

16

MBO

62 %

8 mil

Roddelbladen.

171. V

21

MBO

80 %

6225000

Media.

172. M

22

HBO

35 %

6000001

Media, statistieken.

173. M

20

WO

40 %

6 mil

Gok.

174. M

21

HBO

60 %

6 mil

Gevoel.

175. M

20

WO

20 %

7,5 mil

Gok.

176. M

22

WO

40 %

2425000

1/5 omgeving.

177. M

23

MBO

65 %

7 mil

Geschat.

178. V

25

WO

36 %

4,5 mil

Ongeveer percentage single in eigen omgeving, vaag herinnerde media-berichten.

179. V

21

HBO

80 %

4 mil

Omgeving.


64

180. V

46

MAVO

27 %

4,5 mil

Schatting.

181. V

22

MBO

33 %

6 mil

Via de tijdschriften.

182. M

23

HBO

45 %

6,5 mil

Omgeving.

183.

M

53

MBO

35 %

4970000

Gok.

184. M

50

HBO

45 %

5,5 mil

Niet gehuwden, bejaarden, mensen sneller uit elkaar

185. M

46

HEAO

35 %

5 mil

1/3 kapotte relaties plus weduwen.

186. M

54

MTS

20 %

5 mil

Gok.

187. M

62

HLO

40 %

2,5 mil

Parate kennis.

188. M

44

HAVO

50 %

2 mil

Schatting.

189. M

50

MBO

30 %

5 mil

Gok.

190. M

56

MBO

33 %

485000

Ik denk 20 %.

191. M

41

HBO

8 %

99400

Omgeving.

192. M

55

MBO

30 %

4111111

Gok.

193. M

52

MBO

20 %

3 mil

Gok.

194. V

22

BA

30 %

2,5 mil

Media.

195. M

23

BsC

30 %

3 mil

Nadenken, beetje gokken.

196. M

53

MAVO

20 %

1,2 mil

Gok.

197. M

52

MAVO

30 %

4 mil

Gevoel.

198. V

21

WO

30 %

2,5 mil

Inschatting.

199. M

53

MAVO

20 %

1,2 mil

Gok.


65

200. M

52

MAVO

30 %

4 mil

Gevoel.

201. V

24

WO

40 %

5 mil

Gok.

202. M

20

WO

5 %

2 mil

Intuïtie en reclame voor datingsites.

203. V

25

WO

25 %

3 mil

Eigen ingeving.


66

Appendix C. Story Conditions

Positive story

Lees deze tekst goed, je krijgt er straks vragen over! Wist je dat Nederland op dit moment 2,2 miljoen singles telt, waarvan bijna de helft actief op zoek is naar een partner? NAAR JOU DUS!!! Er bestaan bijna 200 datingsites met ontelbaar veel leden en deze sites worden ontzettend vaak bezocht. Relatieplanet heeft een gemiddeld aantal bezoekers van 880.000 per maand gevolgd door Lexa met 750.000 per maand. Deze datingsites bieden veel meer voordelen vergeleken met het vinden van een partner in het ‘echte leven’. Je kunt in korte tijd, zonder veel geld, energie, of aandacht aan je kapsel, veel verschillende potentiële partners ontmoeten. Sterker nog je kunt effectief en snel met een verwilderd ochtendhoofd in je badjas vanuit je luie stoel contact maken!! Wie wil dat nou niet? Gemak dient de mens toch??! Daarnaast hoef je er niet omheen te draaien. Je weet waarom de ander op een datingsite staat en hoeft niet voorzichtig iemand te peilen. De meeste datingsites bevatten profielen van een grote verscheidenheid aan mensen en veel sites zijn gericht op een specifieke doelgroep. Er is voor ieder wat wils. Voorbeelden van algemene grote datingsites zijn: Parship.nl, relatieplanet.nl en lexa.nl. Speciale datingsites zijn bijvoorbeeld dark−romantica.com voor gothics, andermaatje.nl voor dikkere, heel lange en heel kleine mensen en farmdate.nl voor ‘agrarische’ dates. En zo zijn er nog vele andere sites online, sites waarvan je niet eens had durven denken dat ze bestaan. Voor eenieder is er de perfecte match te vinden!! En denk je niet de juiste partner te vinden op deze manier? Dan heb je het mis: De meeste datingsites geven namelijk een garantie op het vinden van de juiste partner of je krijgt gewoon je geld terug! Gewoon doen dus, vandaag nog!! Succesverhalen zijn er in overvloed. Eéntje daarvan gaat als volgt: Vrouw, 26 jaar: "Ook ik heb een partner gevonden via jullie site (www.match4me.nl). Dank! Internetdaten is niet eng... Beetje reageren, beetje mailen & chatten... en dan een keertje afspreken voor een drankje. En toen was het raak... En nu zijn we al vier maanden samen. Ik hoop dat dit geluk voor vele anderen ook is weggelegd! Ik kan het alleen maar aanbevelen". En zo zijn er nog legio andere verhalen bekend over kortdurende relaties, maar zeker ook over langdurige serieuze relaties die via internet tot stand zijn gekomen. Naar schatting hebben 10% van de mensen die trouwen elkaar ontmoet via internet! Kortom: Ben je op zoek naar een (nieuwe) partner, dan is internetdating voor jou weggelegd!!! Wanneer je klaar bent met lezen, druk op verder. Conditiespecifieke vraag 1 Vond je het een positief verhaaltje over datingsites? • Nee • Weet niet • Ja Conditiespecifieke vraag 2 Hoeveel % van de inhoud van het vorige verhaal denk je onthouden te hebben? Schuif met de balk naar je antwoord.


67

Negative Story Lees deze tekst goed, je krijgt er straks vragen over!

Voor sommige mensen lijkt internetdaten een ideale uitkomst maar vaak leidt het tot een enorme teleurstelling. Tegenwoordig hoor je steeds meer negatieve verhalen over internetdating. Ongeveer 50% vindt online dating tegenvallen. MVlife.nl noemde oorzaken: singles kiezen de verkeerde datingsites, gedragen zich er niet netjes of hebben verkeerde verwachtingen. Een datingsite op internet is in veel gevallen niet meer dan een grote kaartenbak met profielen: mensen waarvan je DENKT dat ze allemaal op zoek zijn naar een vriend(in) / relatie. Maar op een datingsite op internet kom je ook steeds meer gewone mensen tegen, die voor de lol even een profiel aanmaken en er niets mee doen. Het lijkt er in eerste instantie dus op dat er heel veel mensen op zoek zijn naar een partner, maar dit blijkt voor 80 % niet het geval. Je hebt dus 80 % kans op pech. En dan rest de vraag of bij die resterende 20 % wel een perfecte match zit. Zit je dan op nog meer ellende in de liefde te wachten?? Als je echt naar een top kwaliteit man of vrouw op zoek bent zou je toch het echte leven in moeten. Deze vind je online gewoonweg NIET!!! Een ander nadeel is dat mannen en vrouwen relatief anoniem zijn op internet en veel zaken kunnen verbloemen. Het gebeurt zelfs dat een getrouwde man of vrouw online op een internetdate gaat. Je weet daarom nooit wie er aan de andere kant van de lijn zit. Hier springen de gevaren in het oog. Je hebt geen idee met wie je een afspraak maakt!! Om nog maar niet over het feit te spreken dat er heel veel valse profielen in de omloop zijn. Er is zelfs een verhaal bekend over de datingsite Lexa, die mogelijk een privacylek bevat. Als je als lid een e−mail van Lexa doorstuurde dan werden hierdoor al je gegevens zichtbaar voor de ontvanger. Klanten die een uitnodigingsmail voor een feest doorstuurden aan vrienden, stelden daarmee zonder het te weten al hun gegevens open. Kortom: bedenk goed dat datingsites erg risicovol zijn en erg weinig top kwaliteitmensen te vinden zijn. Conditiespecifieke vraag 3 Hoeveel % van de inhoud van het vorige verhaal denk je onthouden te hebben? Schuif met de balk naar je antwoord


68

Control Condition

Druk op onderstaande knop om verder te gaan...


69

Appendix D. The split-up of the construct quality of alternatives of the Investment model into quality of alternatives, quality of another partner, quantity of alternatives, and quantity of another partner. Quality of alternatives Quality of another partner Hoe aantrekkelijk is het om helemaal

Hoe aantrekkelijk is het om een relatie

geen relatie te hebben vergeleken met de

met iemand anders te hebben vergeleken

relatie die je nu hebt?

met de relatie die je nu hebt?

Zeer onaantrekkelijk – Zeer aantrekkelijk


Hoe was het om geen relatie te hebben,

Een mogelijke andere partner voldoet

voordat je deze relatie kreeg?

meer aan mijn idealen voor een goede relatie.

Vreselijk – Redelijk- Fantastisch

Helemaal oneens – Helemaal eens

Hoe aantrekkelijk is het voor je om

Hoe aantrekkelijk is het voor je om een

helemaal geen relatie te hebben?

relatie te hebben met een ander.




Quantity of another partner1

Hoeveel alternatieven (bezigheden, sport,

In hoeverre zijn er andere mensen (dan je

vrienden, e.d.) heb je die je relatie zouden partner) met wie je eventueel een relatie kunnen vervangen?

zou willen beginnen?

Weinig – Veel

Zeer weinig – Weinig noch veel – Zeer veel

Als je geen relatie zou hebben, in welke

Zijn er veel leuke mensen in je nabije

mate zou het makkelijk zijn om een

omgeving die geen relatie hebben en

gelijke voldoening te halen uit andere

misschien wel open staan voor een relatie

activiteiten (bezigheden, sport, vrienden,

met jou?

e.d.)? Zeer grote mate – Zeer kleine mate


Een partner is niet noodzakelijk voor mij

In hoeverre zijn er andere mensen (dan je

want ik heb genoeg andere bezigheden

partner) met wie je eventueel een relatie zou kunnen beginnen?

1

Kant & Verbruggen (2007)


70

Helemaal eens- Helemaal oneens


Extra: In hoeverre zouden je behoeften aan

In hoeverre zouden je behoeften aan

intimiteit en kameraadschap kunnen

intimiteit en kameraadschap kunnen

worden vervangen door vrienden?

worden vervangen door een andere partner?

Moeilijk – Zou mogelijk zijn - Makkelijk

Moeilijk – Zou mogelijk zijn - Makkelijk

Rusbult (1998) Rusbult and Buunk (1993); Dutch translation of Rusbult (1998) Our own constructed items


71

Appendix E. Original and revised items MMIS per subscale Subscales: Original Item

Revised Item

Internalization Awareness Media pressure

I would like my

I would like my

body to look like

relationship to be as

people on TV.

happy as the

X

relationships on TV.

I compare my

I compare myself to

body to movie

famous people from TV.

X

stars. I try to look like

I try to look like people

the models in

on TV.

X

magazines. Watching TV or

I doubt my relationship

reading

by seeing dating

magazines makes

commercials.

X

me want to diet or lose weight.

Watching TV or

Watching dating

reading

commercials on TV

magazines makes

makes me want to find

me want to diet or

someone to date (by

lose weight.

means of a dating site.)

People who are in

People who are in a

good shape are

relationship look happier

better looking

than people who are not.

X

X

than people who are not in good shape. Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

72

Appendix F. Data analyseplan Data analyseplan

Paul Booij & Michelle van Someren Masterthesis data analyse Onder begeleiding van Lisalotte Verspui Universiteit Utrecht Mei 2009 Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

73

Inhoud 1

Datareductie en aanmaak variabelen 1.1 Items, constructen en hercodering 1.1.1 Investment Model Scale 1.1.2 Dyadic Adjusment Scale 1.1.3 Exposure datingsites 1.1.4 Multidimensional Media Influence Scale 1.1.5 Overige items 1.2 Niet relevante vragenlijsten verwijderen uit databestand 1.3 Missing values verwijderen uit databestand 1.5 Factoranalyses en betrouwbaarheidsanalyses 1.5.1 Investment Model Scale 1.5.1.1 Relationship Satisfaction 1.5.1.2 Investment Size 1.5.1.3 Commitment 1.5.1.4 Quality of alternatives 1.5.1.5 Quality of another partner 1.5.1.6 Quantity of alternatives 1.5.1.7 Quantitity of another partner 1.5.2 Dyadic Adjustment Scale 1.5.2.1 Dyadic Satisfaction 1.5.3 Exposure datingsites 1.5.3.1 Exposure 1.5.4 Multidimensional Media Influence Scale 1.5.4.1 Internalization & Awareness & Media pressure 1.5.4.2 MMIS & Overig item Media Influence 1.6 Dummy variabelen aanmaken 1.7 Aanmaken somvariabelen per subschaal

2

Descriptieve analyses 2.1 Sekse 2.2 Leeftijd 2.3 Opleiding 2.4 Seksuele voorkeur 2.5 Status 2.6 Gemiddelde scores per conditie

3

Predictieve analyses 3.1 Correlaties constructen Investment Model 3.2 Uitbreiden Investment Model 3.3 Effect from exposure to dating site stories on quantity & quality of another partner & alternatives 3.4 Effect from story condition on commitment and relationship satisfaction 3.5 Effects from relationship satisfaction on media influence

4

Aanvullende analyses discussie 4.1 Beoordeling positieve conditie 4.2 Correct antwoord afbeelding 4.2.1 Positieve conditie 4.2.2 Controle conditie 4.2.3 Negatieve conditie 4.3 Percentage onthouden verhaaltjes 4.3.1 Negatieve verhaal 4.3.2 Positieve verhaal


74

1

Datareductie en aanmaak variabelen

1.1 Items, constructen en hercodering

1.1.1 Investment Model Scale (# = Original Rusbult, (#) = Dutch version) 33 items Gebruikte constructen: Relationship Satisfaction, Investment Size, Commitment, Quality of alternatives, Quality of another partner, Quantity of alternatives, and Quantity of another partner. Items per construct Relationship Satisfaction 5-point Likert Scale (2) Hoeveel geluk en voldoening krijg je uit je relatie? (sat2A) (3) Hoe is uw relatie vergeleken met de relaties van anderen? (sat3A) (4) Hoe negatief of positief sta je, over het geheel genomen, tegenover je relatie? (sat4A) (5) Hoe verhoudt je relatie zich tot een ideale relatie? (sat5A) (1) Hoe tevreden ben je, over het geheel genomen, met je relatie? (sat6A) No recode Investment Size 5-point Likert Scale (2) (3) (4) (6) (5) (1)

Hoeveel van jezelf heb je in de relatie gestopt (geheimen die je elkaar verteld hebt, gezamenlijke herinneringen, persoonlijke dingen)? (inv1A) Hoeveel heb je in de relatie geïnvesteerd (tijd, geld, energie)? (inv1B) Hoeveel activiteiten zou je min of meer moeten opgeven (of helemaal opnieuw moeten beginnen) als de relatie verbroken wordt (b.v. gezamenlijke vrienden, gezamenlijke sport−activieiten, etc.)? (inv1C) Hoeveel heb je emotioneel in jullie relatie geïnvesteerd? (inv1D) Hoeveel heb je opgeofferd voor deze relatie (b.v. minder tijd besteden aan goede vrienden, hobbies, sport, studie of werk)? (inv2A) Hoeveel bezittingen (b.v. meubels, muziekapparatuur, of −benodigheden, keukenspullen, etc.) zijn van van jullie beiden? (inv2B)

No recode Commitment 5-point Likert Scale (4) (1) (8) (2) (5)

(O) Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je relatie eindigt in de nabije toekomst? (com4AO) Hoe lang hoop je dat deze relatie (vanaf nu) zal duren? (com1A) In hoeverre voel je je emotioneel gehecht aan je partner? (com8A) In hoeverre zou je ook door willen gaan met je huidige relatie wanneer de relatie er slecht voor staat? (com2A) In welke mate voel je je 'verbonden' aan je relatie, ook als je eens wat minder tevreden bent met je partner? (com5A)


75

(6) (7) (3)

(O) Hoe vaak fantaseer je over hoe het zou zijn zonder je relatie met je partner? (b.v., hoe vaak denk je 'ik wou dat ik geen relatie zou hebben')? (com6AO) (O) Is het mogelijk dat je verliefd wordt op een andere persoon (dan je partner) in het komende jaar? (com7AO) (O) Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je met iemand anders (dan je huidige partner) een kortstondige relatie zult hebben in het komende jaar? (com3AO)

Recode (4), (6), (7) and (3). RECODE com4A (1=5) (2=4) (3=3) (4=2) (5=1) INTO com4AO. VARIABLE LABELS com4AO 'com4AO omgecodeerd'. EXECUTE. RECODE com6A (1=5) (2=4) (3=3) (4=2) (5=1) INTO com6AO. VARIABLE LABELS com6AO 'com6AO omgecodeerd'. EXECUTE. RECODE com7A (1=5) (2=4) (3=3) (4=2) (5=1) INTO com7AO. VARIABLE LABELS com7AO 'com7AO omgecodeerd'. EXECUTE. RECODE com3A (1=5) (2=4) (3=3) (4=2) (5=1) INTO com3AO. VARIABLE LABELS com3AO 'com3AO omgecodeerd'. EXECUTE. Quality of alternatives 5-point Likert Scale 5 (3) (4) 6

Hoe aantrekkelijk is het voor je om helemaal geen relatie te hebben? (klalt3A) Hoe was het om geen relatie te hebben, voordat je deze relatie kreeg? (klalt2A) Hoe aantrekkelijk is het om helemaal geen relatie te hebben vergeleken met de relatie die je nu hebt? (klalt1A) In hoeverre zouden je behoeften aan intimiteit en kameraadschap kunnen worden vervangen door vrienden? (losklaltA)

No recode Quality of another partner 5-point Likert Scale 5 3 (4) 6

Hoe aantrekkelijk is het voor je om een relatie te hebben met een ander? (klapa3A) Een mogelijke andere partner voldoet meer aan mijn idealen voor een goede relatie. (klapa2A) Hoe aantrekkelijk is het om een relatie met iemand anders te hebben vergeleken met de relatie die je nu hebt? (klapa1A) In hoeverre zouden je behoeften aan intimiteit en kameraadschap kunnen worden vervangen door een andere partner? (losklapaA)

No recode Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

76

Quantity of alternatives 5-point Likert Scale 6 (5) 4

Als je geen relatie zou hebben, in welke mate zou het makkelijk zijn om een gelijke voldoening te halen uit andere activiteiten (bezigheden, sport, vrienden, e.d.)? (knalt2A) Hoeveel alternatieven (bezigheden, sport, vrienden, e.d.) heb je die je relatie zouden kunnen vervangen? (knalt1A) Een partner is niet noodzakelijk voor mij want ik heb genoeg andere bezigheden (knalt 3A)

No recode Quantitity of another partner 5-point Likert Scale (5) (5) (6)

In hoeverre zijn er andere mensen (dan je partner) met wie je eventueel een relatie zou kunnen beginnen? (knapa134A) In hoeverre zijn er andere mensen (dan je partner) met wie je eventueel een relatie zou willen beginnen? (knapa134B) Zijn er veel mensen in je nabije omgeving die misschien wel open staan voor een relatie met jou? (knapa134C)

No recode 1.1.2 Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) 10 items Gebruikte constructen: Dyadic Satisfaction Items per construct Dyadic Satisfaction Nominal scale (31) Hoe tevreden ben je over je relatie? (schuif het pijltje naar jouw antwoord) (sat1). 0= totaal niet - 100 = tevredener kan niet 5-point Likert Scale (23) Hoe vaak kus je je partner? (sat8) 6-point Likert Scale (16) (O) Hoe vaak heb je gediscussieerd of gedacht aan het (tijdelijk) verbreken van je relatie? (sat7AO) (17) (O) Hoe vaak verlaat 1 van de 2 de ruimte na een ruzie? (bij niet van toepassing, klik dan Zelden EN Nooit aan) (sat7BO) (18) Hoe vaak denk je over het algemeen dat het goed gaat tussen jou en je partner? (sat7C) (19) Vertel je alles aan je partner? (sat7D) (20) (O) Heb je wel eens spijt (gehad) van je huwelijk/samenwonen/relatie? (sat7EO) (21) (O) Hoe vaak ruziën jij en je partner? (sat7FO) (22) (O) Hoe vaak irriteren jullie elkaar? (sat7GO) Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

77

(32)

Welke van de volgende beweringen beschrijft het beste jouw gedachten over je relatie? (sat 9)

Recode (16), (17), (20), (21) and (22) RECODE sat7A (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO sat7AO. VARIABLE LABELS sat7AO 'sat7AO omgecodeerd'. EXECUTE.

Optellen, “n.v.t. groep” wordt 0 (sat7B5 + sat7B6 = 3 = nvt omscoren naar 0) en alles optellen. Omscoren. COMPUTE Somsat7B56=sat7B5 + sat7B6. EXECUTE.

RECODE Somsat7B56 (3=0) (1=1) (2=2) (0=0) INTO somsat7B56O. VARIABLE LABELS somsat7B56O 'somsat7B56O'. EXECUTE. COMPUTE Somsat7B=somsat7B56O + sat7B1 + sat7B2 + sat7B3 + sat7B4. EXECUTE. RECODE Somsat7B (0=6) (1=5) (2=4) (3=3) (4=2) (5=1) (6=0) INTO somsat7BO. VARIABLE LABELS somsat7BO 'somsat7BO'. EXECUTE.

RECODE sat7E (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO sat7EO. VARIABLE LABELS sat7EO 'sat7EO omgecodeerd'. EXECUTE.

RECODE sat7F (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO sat7FO. VARIABLE LABELS sat7FO 'sat7FO omgecodeerd'. EXECUTE.

RECODE sat7G (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO sat7GO. VARIABLE LABELS sat7GO 'sat7GO omgecodeerd'. EXECUTE.

1.1.3 Exposure datingsites 7 items Gebruikte constructen: Exposure; Zelf gemaakte vragen. 3 point Likert Scale (O) Heb je ooit een datingsite bezocht? (blo3) (O) Ben je momenteel lid van een datingsite? (blo4) Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

78

4 point Likert Scale Hoe vaak heb je tijdens je huidige relatie gereageerd op een datingreclame (via bellen, smsen, e-mail of chat?) (blo2) Hoe vaak heb je in je hele leven gereageerd op een datingreclame (via bellen, smsen, e-mail of chat?) (blo7) Denk je dat een datingsite een goede manier is om een partner te vinden? (blo5) Zou je proberen via datingsites een partner te vinden? (blo6) 6 point Likert scale Hoe vaak zie je een reclame voor een datingsite? (blo1) Recode (blo3), and (blo4). RECODE blo3 (1=3) (2=2) (3=1) INTO blo3O. VARIABLE LABELS blo3O 'blo3O'. EXECUTE. RECODE blo4 (1=3) (2=2) (3=1) INTO blo4O. VARIABLE LABELS blo4O 'blo4O'. EXECUTE.

1.1.4 MMIS 6 items Gebruikte constructen: Internalization, Awareness, and Media Pressure. 5-point Likert Scale Items per construct Internalization (28) Ik wil net zo’n gelukkige relatie als de mensen in TV−reclames hebben. (med1B) (24) Ik vergelijk mezelf met televisiebekendheden. (med1C) (19) Ik wil lijken op mensen van de TV. (med1D) Awareness (1) Mensen die een relatie hebben zien er gelukkiger uit dan mensen zonder een relatie. (med1F) Media pressure (3) Door het zien van datingreclames op TV zou ik een partner willen gaan zoeken (via zo’n datingsite). (med1A) (3) Het zien van datingsitereclames doet mij twijfelen aan mijn relatie. (med1E) No recode 1.1.5 Overige items Quantity of alternatives Open vraag Hoeveel vrijgezellen zijn er volgens jou in Nederland aanwezig die in jouw categorie vallen? Er zijn 12,4 miljoen volwassenen in Nederland. Het gaat hier om degenen


79

waar je een relatie mee zou kunnen hebben, dus als je een 20−jarige man bent tellen de hoogbejaarde weduwvrouwen niet mee.. (vb antwoord: 12.300.000). (knapaextra). Media Influence 5-point Likert Scale TV−reclames beïnvloeden mij. (med1G). Condition Vond je het een positief verhaaltje over datingsites? – Ja / Nee / Weet niet Welke plaatje zag je net? – Aquarium / twee zittende mensen met ruzie / twee verliefde mensen staand Nominal scale Hoeveel % van de inhoud van het vorige verhaal denk je onthouden te hebben? Schuif met de balk naar je antwoord.

1.2 Niet relevante vragen(lijsten) verwijderen De volgende vragenlijsten, constructen en items zijn uit het databestand van 2009 verwijderd: Knapaextra

Hoeveel vrijgezellen zijn er volgens jou in Nederland aanwezig die in jouw categorie vallen? Er zijn 12,4 miljoen volwassenen in Nederland. Het gaat hier om degenen waar je een relatie mee zou kunnen hebben, dus als je een 20−jarige man bent tellen de hoogbejaarde weduwvrouwen niet mee.. (vb antwoord: 12.300.000). Veel inconsistente antwoorden (van “1” tot meer dan aantal vrijgezellen aanwezig.)

Inv2b

Hoeveel bezittingen (b.v. meubels, muziekapparatuur, of benodigheden, keukenspullen, etc.) zijn van jullie beiden (Chronbach’s alpha gaat van .560 naar .660.)

Blo1

Hoe vaak zie je een reclame voor een datingsite? (Chronbach’s alpha gaat van .586 naar .701)

1.3 Missing values verwijderen Echte missing values zijn er niet, aangezien alle vragen in NetQ verplicht beantwoord moesten worden. De enige mensen die verwijderd moesten worden, zijn de mensen zonder romantische relatie. Databestand sorteren op relatiestatus voor het verwijderen van de mensen zonder relatie. Missing values verwijderen (nieuwe data zonder missings gekopieerd naar nieuwe dataset ‘DataSet2’):


80

DATASET COPY DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet2. SORT CASES BY meedoenjanee. SPLIT FILE LAYERED BY meedoenjanee. FILTER OFF. USE ALL. SELECT IF (meedoenjanee = 1). EXECUTE.

Bij de vraag “Hoe vaak verlaat 1 van de 2 de ruimte na een ruzie? (bij niet van toepassing, klik dan Zelden EN Nooit aan) (sat7BO)” hebben 2 mensen meerdere antwoorden ingevuld, hoewel ze niet in de “n.v.t. groep” vallen. Deze 2 zijn ook uit de steekproef verwijderd. 1.4 Homogeniteitscheck NPAR TESTS /K-S(NORMAL)=somMMIS somBlo somklaltIMS somknaltIMS somknapaIMS somklapaIMS sominvIMS somcomIMS somsatDAS somsatIMS somsatalles /MISSING ANALYSIS.

GLM somknapaIMS somklapaIMS somknaltIMS somklaltIMS BY Conditiegroep /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /EMMEANS=TABLES(Conditiegroep) COMPARE ADJ(LSD) /PRINT=ETASQ HOMOGENEITY /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN= Conditiegroep. a

Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices Box's M

31.916

F

1.579

df1

20

df2

995856.200

Sig.

.048

Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + Conditiegroep


81

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances F

df1

df2

a

Sig.

somknapaIMS

.607

2

532

.545

somklapaIMS

2.084

2

532

.125

somknaltIMS

1.715

2

532

.181

somklaltIMS

.831

2

532

.436

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + Conditiegroep

Conclusie: Geen homogene groep 1.5 Betrouwbaarheidsanalyses 1.5.1 IMS Van de IMS wordt een betrouwbaarheidsanalyse voor alle subschalen uitgevoerd: Relationship Satisfaction Investment Size Commitment Quality of alternatives Quality of another partner Quantity of alternatives Quantitity of another partner 1.5.2 DAS Dyadic Satisfaction 1.5.3 Exposure datingsites Exposure 1.5.4 MMIS Internalization Awareness Media pressure


82

1.5.1.1

Relationship Satisfaction

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=sat2A sat3A sat4A sat5A sat6A /SCALE('satIMS') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL.

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's

Standardized

Alpha

Items .879

N of Items .885

5

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Item Deleted Hoeveel geluk en voldoening krijg je uit je relatie? Hoe is uw relatie vergeleken met de relaties van anderen?

Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Item Deleted

Total Correlation

Correlation

Alpha if Item Deleted

15.78

5.811

.755

.601

.842

15.97

5.721

.622

.392

.883

15.69

5.858

.768

.617

.840

17.06

6.717

.657

.449

.868

15.76

5.797

.802

.674

.832

Hoe negatief of positief sta je, over het geheel genomen, tegenover je relatie? Hoe verhoudt je relatie zich tot een ideale relatie? Hoe tevreden ben je, over het geheel genomen, met je relatie?


83

1.5.1.2

Investment Size

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=inv1A inv1B inv1C inv1D inv2A inv2B /SCALE('invIMS') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL.


Standardized

Alpha

Items .560

N of Items .645

6

Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted - Hoeveel van jezelf heb je in de relatie gestopt? - Hoeveel heb je in de relatie geïnvesteerd (tijd, geld, energie)?

Cronbach's Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Item Deleted

Total Correlation

Correlation


16.28

10.461

.409

.370

.483

16.35

10.177

.499

.428

.455

18.20

9.934

.309

.119

.511

16.29

9.919

.476

.394

.453

17.82

10.544

.244

.142

.539

17.43

9.264

.131

.042

.660

- Hoeveel activiteiten zou je min of meer moeten opgeven (of helemaal opnieuw moeten beginnen) als de relatie verbroken wordt (b.v. gez - Hoeveel heb je emotioneel in jullie relatie geïnvesteerd? - Hoeveel heb je opgeofferd voor deze relatie (b.v. minder tijd besteden aan goede vrienden, hobbies, sport, studie of werk)? - Hoeveel bezittingen (b.v. meubels, muziekapparatuur, of benodigheden, keukenspullen, etc.) zijn van van jullie beiden?

laatste vraag eruit Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

84

BIJ VERWIJDEREN LAATSTE VRAAG (inv2b): RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=inv1A inv1B inv1C inv1D inv2A /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL.

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items .660

5

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Item Deleted

Total Correlation


- Hoeveel van jezelf heb je in de relatie gestopt (geheimen die je elkaar verteld hebt, gezamenlijke

13.23

6.631

.465

.590

13.31

6.377

.571

.549

15.15

6.459

.283

.683

13.24

6.255

.514

.565

14.78

6.439

.325

.656

herinneringen, persoonlijke dingen - Hoeveel heb je in de relatie geïnvesteerd (tijd, geld, energie)? - Hoeveel activiteiten zou je min of meer moeten opgeven (of helemaal opnieuw moeten beginnen) als de relatie verbroken wordt . - Hoeveel heb je emotioneel in jullie relatie geïnvesteerd? - Hoeveel heb je opgeofferd voor deze relatie (b.v. minder tijd besteden aan goede vrienden, hobbies, sport, studie of werk)?

Chronbach’s alpha is nu .660 en wordt slechts .023 hoger als er nog een vraag wordt verwijderd. Dit is een te lage verhoging, dus alleen het verwijderen van deze vraag volstaat. De Chronbach’s alpha gaat nu met .1 omhoog.


85

1.5.1.3

Commitment

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=com1A com8A com2A com5A com3AO com7AO com6AO com4AO /SCALE('comIMS') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's

Standardized

Alpha

Items .785

N of Items .805

8

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Item Deleted Hoe lang hoop je dat deze


Total Correlation

Correlation


29.6778

16.502

.514

.350

.764

29.8473

16.104

.538

.354

.759

30.6015

15.020

.345

.190

.796

30.1210

15.517

.553

.362

.754

com3AO

29.8510

14.896

.605

.438

.744

com7AO

30.6834

13.747

.572

.406

.747

com6AO

30.4302

15.115

.419

.226

.775

com4AO

29.9944

14.994

.543

.388

.753

relatie (vanaf nu) zal duren? In hoeverre voel je je emotioneel gehecht aan je partner? In hoeverre zou je ook door willen gaan met je huidige relatie wanneer de relatie er slecht voor staat? In welke mate voel je je 'verbonden' aan je relatie, ook als je eens wat minder tevreden bent met je partner?


86

1.5.1.4

Quality of alternatives

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=klalt2A losklaltA klalt3A klalt1A /SCALE('klaltIMS') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL.


Standardized

Alpha

Items .649

N of Items .653

4

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Item Deleted


Total Correlation

Correlation


Hoe was het om geen relatie te hebben, voordat je deze

5.51

4.631

.289

.156

.678

6.62

4.185

.402

.192

.602

6.71

3.685

.597

.379

.455

7.18

4.444

.457

.301

.567

relatie kreeg? In hoeverre zouden je behoeften aan intimiteit en kameraadschap kunnen worden vervangen door een andere partner? Hoe aantrekkelijk is het voor je om helemaal geen relatie te hebben? Hoe aantrekkelijk is het om helemaal geen relatie te hebben vergeleken met de relatie die je nu hebt?


87

1.5.1.5


RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=klapa2A klapa1A klapa3A losklapaA /SCALE('klapaIMS') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's

Standardized

Alpha

Items .711

N of Items .721

4



Total Correlation

Correlation


Een mogelijke andere partner voldoet meer aan mijn idealen voor een goede

5.35

4.847

.535

.351

.626

5.56

5.139

.633

.425

.581

5.30

4.605

.474

.248

.676

5.24

5.864

.392

.155

.707

relatie. Hoe aantrekkelijk is het om een relatie met iemand anders te hebben vergeleken met de relatie die je nu hebt? Hoe aantrekkelijk is het voor je om een relatie te hebben met een ander? In hoeverre zouden je behoeften aan intimiteit en kameraadschap kunnen worden vervangen door vrienden?


88

1.5.1.6


RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=knalt2A knalt1A knalt3A /SCALE('knaltIMS') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL.


Standardized

Alpha

Items .661

N of Items .660

3



Total Correlation

Correlation


Als je geen relatie zou hebben, in welke mate zou het makkelijk zijn om een gelijke voldoening te halen uit

5.31

3.823

.465

.245

.573

5.27

3.365

.550

.307

.453

5.88

3.981

.405

.175

.651

andere activiteiten (bezigheden, sport, vr Hoeveel alternatieven (bezigheden, sport, vrienden, e.d.) heb je die je relatie zouden kunnen vervangen? Een partner is niet noodzakelijk voor mij want ik heb genoeg andere bezigheden.


89

1.5.1.7

Quantitity of another partner

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=knapa134A knapa134B knapa134C /SCALE('knapaIMS') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL.


Standardized

Alpha

Items .595

N of Items .602

3



Total Correlation

Correlation


In hoeverre zijn er andere mensen (dan je partner) met wie je eventueel een relatie

4.01

2.388

.460

.212

.412

4.80

3.746

.377

.145

.551

3.82

2.854

.407

.167

.491

zou kunnen beginnen? In hoeverre zijn er andere mensen (dan je partner) met wie je eventueel een relatie zou willen beginnen? Zijn er veel mensen in je nabije omgeving die misschien wel open staan voor een relatie met jou?


90

1.5.2

DAS

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=sat7C sat7D sat8 sat9 somsat7BO sat7AO sat7EO sat7FO sat7GO /SCALE('satDAS') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's

Standardized

Alpha

Items .758

N of Items .760

9



Total Correlation

Correlation


Hoe vaak denk je over het algemeen dat het goed gaat

37.8467

16.190

.487

.252

.727

Vertel je alles aan je partner?

37.6953

16.864

.419

.259

.738

Hoe vaak kus je je partner?

38.1234

19.299

.148

.092

.769

38.4841

18.460

.223

.077

.764

somsat7BO

38.5981

14.181

.452

.347

.746

sat7AO

37.8019

15.710

.592

.387

.710

sat7EO

37.3888

15.864

.593

.402

.711

sat7FO

38.0710

16.594

.538

.456

.722

sat7GO

38.3458

16.684

.545

.380

.721

tussen jou en je partner?

Welke van de volgende beweringen beschrijft het beste jouw gedachten over je relatie


91

1.5.3

Exposure datingsites

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=blo1 blo2 blo7 blo5 blo6 blo3O blo4O /SCALE('datingEXPOSURE') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's

Standardized

Alpha

Items .586

N of Items .699

7

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Item Deleted Hoe vaak zie je een reclame


Total Correlation

Correlation


8.8231

5.586

.142

.041

.701

10.4711

7.910

.189

.166

.586

10.3426

6.685

.486

.491

.509

9.2998

6.274

.323

.440

.541

9.5847

5.702

.439

.483

.492

blo3O

10.1899

6.412

.507

.576

.494

blo4O

10.3613

7.015

.515

.509

.522

voor een datingsite? Hoe vaak heb je tijdens je huidige relatie gereageerd op een datingreclame (via bellen, smsen, e-mail of chat?) Hoe vaak heb je in je hele leven gereageerd op een datingreclame (via bellen, smsen, e-mail of chat?) Denk je dat een datingsite een goede manier is om een partner te vinden? Zou je proberen via datingsites een partner te vinden?


92

BIJ VERWIJDEREN 1E VRAAG: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items .701

6


Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation


Hoe vaak heb je tijdens je huidige relatie gereageerd op een datingreclame (via

7.7821

5.294

.162

.721

7.6536

4.223

.499

.645

6.6108

3.585

.421

.678

6.8957

3.112

.556

.623

blo3O

7.5009

3.974

.531

.631

blo4O

7.6723

4.478

.547

.648

bellen, smsen, e-mail of chat?) Hoe vaak heb je in je hele leven gereageerd op een datingreclame (via bellen, smsen, e-mail of chat?) Denk je dat een datingsite een goede manier is om een partner te vinden? Zou je proberen via datingsites een partner te vinden?

De Chronbach’s alpha gaat met .115 omhoog naar .701. Bij het verwijderen van nog een vraag wordt het .721. Dit is te gering.


93

5.1.4 MMIS (alle constructen) RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=med1A med1B med1C med1D med1E med1F /SCALE('mediaEXPOSURE') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's

Standardized

Alpha

Items .591

N of Items .625

6



Total Correlation

Correlation


Door het zien van datingreclames op TV zou ik een partner willen gaan

8.07

8.452

.308

.139

.554

7.74

6.594

.425

.203

.500

8.29

8.306

.448

.555

.509

8.18

7.827

.442

.566

.500

8.50

9.922

.271

.076

.580

7.25

7.840

.206

.061

.623

zoeken (via zo’n datingsite). Ik wil net zo’n gelukkige relatie als de mensen in TVreclames hebben. Ik vergelijk mezelf met televisiebekendheden Ik wil lijken op mensen van de TV. Het zien van datingsitereclames doet mij twijfelen aan mijn relatie. Mensen die een relatie hebben zien er gelukkiger uit dan mensen zonder een relatie.


94

Alle factoren MMIS & extra item RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=med1A med1B med1C med1D med1E med1F med1G /SCALE('mediaEXPOSURE') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's

Standardized

Alpha

Items .614

N of Items .644

7



Total Correlation

Correlation


Door het zien van datingreclames op TV zou ik een partner willen gaan

9.84

11.025

.325

.154

.578

9.50

9.314

.381

.208

.560

10.05

10.740

.487

.574

.537

9.94

10.325

.455

.566

.537

10.26

12.721

.272

.077

.603

9.01

10.328

.230

.078

.626

9.61

10.859

.286

.134

.591

zoeken (via zo’n datingsite). Ik wil net zo’n gelukkige relatie als de mensen in TVreclames hebben. Ik vergelijk mezelf met televisiebekendheden Ik wil lijken op mensen van de TV. Het zien van datingsitereclames doet mij twijfelen aan mijn relatie. Mensen die een relatie hebben zien er gelukkiger uit dan mensen zonder een relatie. TV-reclames beïnvloeden mij.


95

1.6 Aanmaken somscores per subschaal 1.6.1 Satisfaction (DAS en subschaal IMS) COMPUTE somsatalles=sat2A + sat3A + sat4A + sat5A + sat6A + sat7C + sat7D + sat8 + sat9 + sat7AO + sat7EO + sat7FO + sat7GO + somsat 7BO. EXECUTE. 1.6.2 Satisfaction (IMS) COMPUTE somsatIMS=sat2A + sat3A + sat4A + sat5A + sat6A . EXECUTE. 1.6.3 Satisfaction (DAS) COMPUTE somsatDAS=somsat7BO + sat7GO + sat7FO + sat7EO + sat7C + sat7D + sat7AO + sat8 + sat9. EXECUTE. 1.6.4 Investment size (IMS) COMPUTE sominvIMS=inv1A + inv1B + inv1C + inv1D + inv2A . EXECUTE. 1.6.5 Commitment (IMS) COMPUTE somcomIMS= com1A + com8A + com2A + com5A + com4AO + com6AO + com7AO + com3AO. EXECUTE. 1.6.6 Quality of another partner (IMS) COMPUTE somklapaIMS= klapa3A + losklapaA + klapa1A + klapa2A. EXECUTE. 1.6.7 Quantity of another partner (IMS) COMPUTE somknapaIMS=knapa134C + knapa134B + knapa134A. EXECUTE. 1.6.8 Quantity of alternatives (IMS) COMPUTE somknaltIMS=knalt3A + knalt1A + knalt2A. EXECUTE. 1.6.9 Quality of alternatives (IMS) COMPUTE somklaltIMS=klalt2A + klalt3A + klalt1A + losklaltA. EXECUTE. 1.6.10 Exposure Datingsites COMPUTE somBlo=blo4O + blo3O + blo6 + blo5 + blo7 + blo2. EXECUTE. 1.6.11 MMIS COMPUTE somMMIS=med1G + med1F + med1E + med1D + med1C + med1B + med1A. EXECUTE.


96

1.7 Aanmaken nieuwe variabelen 1.7.1 Aanmaken leeftijdsgroepen RECODE dem4 (11 thru 18=1) (19 thru 25=2) (26 thru 35=3) (36 thru 45=4) (46 thru 55=5) (56 thru 65=6) (66 thru 100=7) INTO dem4groep VARIABLE LABELS dem4groep 'dem4groep'. EXECUTE. 1.7.2 Aanmaken conditie RECODE condneg (0 thru 100=2) (101 thru Highest=0) INTO Conditie. VARIABLE LABELS Conditie 'Conditie'. EXECUTE. RECODE posconextravr (1 thru 3=1) (4 thru Highest=0) INTO Conditie2. VARIABLE LABELS Conditie2 'Conditie2'. EXECUTE. COMPUTE Conditiegroep=Conditie2 + Conditie. EXECUTE. Uiteindelijke nummers: Positieve conditie = 1 Negatieve conditie = 2 Geen conditie = 0 1.7.3 Aanmaken gelukkig/ongelukkige groep 77 punten maximaal bij somscore gehele sat 77./14 = 5,5 Minimale score = 1 Midden = 1 - 5,5 = 3,25 = cut offpoint RECODE meansatalles (Lowest thru 3.25=0) (3.26 thru Highest=1) INTO gelukongel. VARIABLE LABELS gelukongel 'gelukongel'. EXECUTE. 1.7.4 Aanmaken verschilscores COMPUTE verschilscoreSAT=sat1 - satc. EXECUTE.


97

2. Descriptieve analyses 2.1 Sekse FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=dem3 /STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN /ORDER=ANALYSIS. 2.2 Leeftijd DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=dem4 /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX. 2.3 Opleiding FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=dem5 /STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN /ORDER=ANALYSIS. 2.4 Seksuele voorkeur FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=dem7 /STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN /ORDER=ANALYSIS. 2.5 Status FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=dem6 /STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN /ORDER=ANALYSIS. 2.6 Gemiddelde scores 2.6.1 Gemiddelde voor sekse van investeringsgrootte, kwaliteit van alternatieven, commitment, quantity of alternatives, exposure to datingsites en media-invloed voor de groep met het positieve verhaal COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 1). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 1 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. EXAMINE VARIABLES=somsatIMS sominvIMS somcomIMS somklaltIMS somklapaIMS somknaltIMS somknapaIMS somsatDAS somBlo somMMIS BY dem3 /PLOT NONE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL.


98

2.6.2 Gemiddelde voor leeftijdsgroep van investeringsgrootte, kwaliteit van alternatieven, commitment, quantity of alternatives, exposure to datingsites en media-invloed voor de groep met het positieve verhaal COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 1). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 1 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. EXAMINE VARIABLES=somsatIMS sominvIMS somcomIMS somklaltIMS somklapaIMS somknaltIMS somknapaIMS somsatDAS somBlo somMMIS BY dem4groe p /PLOT NONE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. 2.6.3 Gemiddelde voor sekse van investeringsgrootte, kwaliteit van alternatieven, commitment, quantity of alternatives, exposure to datingsites en media-invloed voor de groep met het negatieve verhaal COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 2). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 2 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. EXAMINE VARIABLES=somsatIMS sominvIMS somcomIMS somklaltIMS somklapaIMS somknaltIMS somknapaIMS somsatDAS somBlo somMMIS BY dem3 /PLOT NONE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. 2.6.4 Gemiddelde voor leeftijdsgroep van investeringsgrootte, kwaliteit van alternatieven, commitment, quantity of alternatives, exposure to datingsites en media-invloed voor de groep met het negatieve verhaal COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 2). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 2 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. EXAMINE VARIABLES=somsatIMS sominvIMS somcomIMS somklaltIMS somklapaIMS somknaltIMS somknapaIMS somsatDAS somBlo somMMIS BY dem4groe p /PLOT NONE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. Master thesis: The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of dating sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship – P.E. Booij & M.D. van Someren

99

2.6.5 Gemiddelde voor sekse van investeringsgrootte, kwaliteit van alternatieven, commitment, quantity of alternatives, exposure to datingsites en media-invloed voor de groep met geen verhaal USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 0). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 0 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. EXAMINE VARIABLES=somsatIMS sominvIMS somcomIMS somklaltIMS somklapaIMS somknaltIMS somknapaIMS somsatDAS somBlo somMMIS BY dem3 /PLOT NONE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. 2.6.6 Gemiddelde voor leeftijdsgroep van investeringsgrootte, kwaliteit van alternatieven, commitment, quantity of alternatives, exposure to datingsites en media-invloed voor de groep met geen verhaal USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 0). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 0 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. EXAMINE VARIABLES=somsatIMS sominvIMS somcomIMS somklaltIMS somklapaIMS somknaltIMS somknapaIMS somsatDAS somBlo somMMIS BY dem4groe p /PLOT NONE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. 2.6.7 Covariaten GLM somsatalles somsatIMS somsatDAS sominvIMS somcomIMS somklapaIMS somknapaIMS somknaltIMS somklaltIMS somBlo somMMIS BY Conditiegr oep WITH dem3 dem4 dem5 dem6 dem7 dem8 dem9 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN=dem3 dem4 dem5 dem6 dem7 dem8 dem9 Conditiegroep.


100

3. Predictieve analyses 3.1 Correlaties constructen Investment Model

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=meanblo meansatIIMS meansatDAS meancomIMS meanklapaIMS meanknapaIMS meanMMIS meansatalles meaninvIMS /PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE . 3.2 Uitbreiden Investment Model

FACTOR /VARIABLES klapa2A klapa1A klapa3A losklapaA klalt2A klalt3A klalt1A losklaltA knapa134A knapa134B knapa134C knalt2A knalt1A knalt3A /MISSING LISTWISE /ANALYSIS klapa2A klapa1A klapa3A losklapaA klalt2A klalt3A klalt1A losklaltA knapa134A knapa134B knapa134C knalt2A knalt1A knalt3A /PRINT INITIAL SIG ROTATION /FORMAT BLANK(.30) /PLOT EIGEN /CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25) /EXTRACTION PAF /CRITERIA ITERATE(25) /ROTATION VARIMAX /METHOD=CORRELATION . Factor Transformation Matrix Factor 1

1

2

3

,737

,584

,340

2

-,615

,788

-,021

3

-,280

-,193

,940

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.


101

Rotated Factor Matrix(a) Factor 1 Een mogelijke andere partner voldoet meer aan mijn idealen voor een goede relatie. - klapa Hoe aantrekkelijk is het om een relatie met iemand anders te hebben vergeleken met de relatie die je nu hebt? - klapa Hoe aantrekkelijk is het voor je om een relatie te hebben met een ander? - klapa In hoeverre zouden je behoeften aan intimiteit en kameraadschap kunnen worden vervangen door vrienden? – klalt

2

3

,667

,808

,550

,399

,388

Hoe was het om geen relatie te hebben, voordat je deze relatie kreeg? - klalt

,475

Hoe aantrekkelijk is het voor je om helemaal geen relatie te hebben? - klalt

,676

Hoe aantrekkelijk is het om helemaal geen relatie te hebben vergeleken met de relatie die je nu hebt? - klalt In hoeverre zouden je behoeften aan intimiteit en kameraadschap kunnen worden vervangen door een andere partner? - klapa

,547

,398

,617

In hoeverre zijn er andere mensen (dan je partner) met wie je eventueel een relatie zou kunnen beginnen? – knapa In hoeverre zijn er andere mensen (dan je partner) met wie je eventueel een relatie zou willen beginnen? knapa

,578

,482

,409

Zijn er veel mensen in je nabije omgeving die misschien wel open staan voor een relatie met jou? – knapa Als je geen relatie zou hebben, in welke mate zou het makkelijk zijn om een gelijke voldoening te halen uit andere activiteiten (bezigheden, sport, vr -knalt Hoeveel alternatieven (bezigheden, sport, vrienden, e.d.) heb je die je relatie zouden kunnen vervangen? knalt Een partner is niet noodzakelijk voor mij want ik heb genoeg andere bezigheden. - knalt

,575

,530

,601

,600

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 5 iterations.


102

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total 4,412

% of Variance 31,516

Cumulative % 31,516

Total 2,635

% of Variance 18,819

Cumulative % 18,819

2

1,861

13,293

44,809

2,140

15,284

34,103

3

1,255

8,967

53,776

1,021

7,295

41,398

4

,931

6,647

60,424

5

,750

5,359

65,783

6

,696

4,969

70,751

7

,672

4,797

75,548

8

,651

4,653

80,202

9

,587

4,193

84,395

10

,568

4,055

88,449

11

,482

3,444

91,893

12

,426

3,043

94,936

13

,382

2,725

97,661

14

,327 2,339 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

100,000

Scree Plot

5

Eigenvalue

4

3

2

1

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Factor Number


103

3.3 Effect from exposure to dating site stories on quantity & quality of another partner & alternatives

NPAR TESTS /K-W=somklapaIMS somklaltIMS somknapaIMS somknaltIMS BY Conditiegroep(0 2) /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.

Descriptive Statistics N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

somklapaIMS

535

7.1364

2.85644

4.00

18.00

somklaltIMS

535

8.6710

2.58999

4.00

18.00

somknapaIMS

535

6.3234

2.36748

3.00

15.00

somknaltIMS

535

8.2262

2.67798

3.00

15.00

Conditiegroep

535

1.0019

.83127

.00

2.00

Kruskal-Wallis Test Ranks Conditiegroep somklapaIMS

somklaltIMS

somknapaIMS

somknaltIMS

N

Mean Rank

0

184

271.07

1

166

272.47

2

185

260.94

Total

535

0

184

267.04

1

166

286.02

2

185

252.79

Total

535

0

184

266.86

1

166

279.22

2

185

259.06

Total

535

0

184

268.76

1

166

268.87

2

185

266.46

Total

535


104

a,b

Test Statistics somklapaIMS Chi-Square

somknapaIMS

somknaltIMS

.609

4.116

1.529

.028

2

2

2

2

.737

.128

.466

.986

df Asymp. Sig.

somklaltIMS

a. Kruskal Wallis Test, b. Grouping Variable: Conditiegroep

Vergelijk positieve en negatieve groep NPAR TESTS /K-W=somklapaIMS somklaltIMS somknapaIMS somknaltIMS BY Conditiegroep(0 2) /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS. Descriptive Statistics N

Mean

Std. Dev.

Minimum

Maximum

somklapaIMS

351

7.1054

2.85312

4.00

18.00

somklaltIMS

351

8.7009

2.71798

4.00

18.00

somknapaIMS

351

6.3447

2.39242

3.00

14.00

somknaltIMS

351

8.2165

2.74931

3.00

15.00

Conditiegroep

351

1.5271

.49998

1.00

2.00

Kruskal-Wallis Test - Ranks Conditiegroep somklapaIMS

somklaltIMS

somknapaIMS

somknaltIMS

N

Mean Rank

1

166

180.05

2

185

172.36

Total

351

1

166

187.18

2

185

165.96

Total

351

1

166

182.78

2

185

169.92

Total

351

1

166

176.76

2

185

175.32

Total

351


105

Test Statistics somklapaIMS Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.

3.4

somklaltIMS

somknapaIMS

somknaltIMS

.513

3.882

1.428

.018

1

1

1

1

.474

.049

.232

.893

Effect from story condition on commitment and relationship satisfaction

NPAR TESTS /K-W=somsatDAS sominvIMS somsatIMS somsatalles somcomIMS BY Conditiegroep(0 2) /MISSING ANALYSIS. Kruskal-Wallis Test – Ranks Conditiegroep somsatDAS

sominvIMS

somsatIMS

somsatalles

somcomIMS

N

Mean Rank

0

184

262.50

1

166

255.10

2

185

285.04

Total

535

0

184

268.70

1

166

245.87

2

185

287.16

Total

535

0

184

263.67

1

166

257.73

2

185

281.53

Total

535

0

184

260.85

1

166

256.51

2

185

285.42

Total

535

0

184

270.35

1

166

259.39

2

185

273.39

Total

535


106

Test Statistics somsatDAS Chi-Square

somsatIMS

somsatalles

somcomIMS

3.657

6.316

2.327

3.671

.789

2

2

2

2

2

.161

.043

.312

.160

.674

Df Asymp. Sig.

sominvIMS

Alleen positieve en negatieve groep vergeleken NPAR TESTS /K-W=somsatDAS sominvIMS somsatIMS somsatalles somcomIMS BY Conditiegroep(1 2) /MISSING ANALYSIS. Ranks Conditiegroep somsatDAS

sominvIMS

somsatIMS

somsatalles

somcomIMS

N

Mean Rank

1

166

165.86

2

185

185.09

Total

351

1

166

161.61

2

185

188.92

Total

351

1

166

167.73

2

185

183.42

Total

351

1

166

166.05

2

185

184.93

Total

351

1

166

171.13

2

185

180.37

Total

351


107

Test Statistics somsatDAS Chi-Square

somsatIMS

somsatalles

somcomIMS

3.161

6.412

2.121

3.039

.733

1

1

1

1

1

.075

.051

.145

.081

.392

Df Asymp. Sig.

sominvIMS

Alleen positieve en controle groep vergeleken NPAR TESTS /K-W=somsatDAS sominvIMS somsatIMS somsatalles somcomIMS BY Conditiegroep(0 1) /MISSING ANALYSIS.

Ranks Conditiegroep somsatDAS

sominvIMS

somsatIMS

somsatalles

somcomIMS

N

Mean Rank

0

184

177.99

1

166

172.74

Total

350

0

184

182.48

1

166

167.77

Total

350

0

184

177.31

1

166

173.49

Total

350

0

184

176.89

1

166

173.96

Total

350

0

184

178.87

1

166

171.77

Total

350 Test Statistics

somsatDAS Chi-Square Df Asymp. Sig.

sominvIMS

somsatIMS

somsatalles

somcomIMS

.237

1.867

.126

.074

.434

1

1

1

1

1

.627

.172

.723

.786

.510


108

Alleen controle en negatieve groep vergeleken NPAR TESTS /K-W=somsatalles somcomIMS BY Conditiegroep(0 2) /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS. Ranks Conditiegroep somsatDAS

sominvIMS

somsatIMS

somsatalles

somcomIMS

N

Mean Rank

0

184

177.01

2

185

192.95

Total

369

0

184

178.73

2

185

191.24

Total

369

0

184

178.85

2

185

191.11

Total

369

0

184

176.46

2

185

193.49

Total

369

0

184

183.98

2

185

186.02

Total

369

Test Statistics somsatDAS Chi-Square Df Asymp. Sig.

sominvIMS

somsatIMS

somsatalles

somcomIMS

2.072

1.283

1.236

2.358

.034

1

1

1

1

1

.150

.257

.266

.125

.853


109

3.5

Effects from relationship satisfaction on media influence

UNIANOVA verschilscoreSAT BY gelukongel /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(0.05) /DESIGN=gelukongel.

Univariate Analysis of Variance Between-Subjects Factors N gelukongel

0

11

1

524

0 = ongelukkig relatie 1 = gelukkige relatie Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:verschilscoreSAT gelukongel

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

0

11.7273

17.33834

11

1

-.0286

5.09012

524

.2131

5.81321

535

Total

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:verschilscoreSAT Type III Sum of Source

Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

a

1

1488.956

47.933

.000

Intercept

1474.489

1

1474.489

47.467

.000

gelukongel

1488.956

1

1488.956

47.933

.000

Error

16556.752

533

31.063

Total

18070.000

535

Corrected Total

18045.708

534

Corrected Model

1488.956

a. R Squared = .083 (Adjusted R Squared = .081)


110

UNIANOVA verschilscoreSAT BY Conditiegroep /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /PRINT=ETASQ DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN=Conditiegroep. Between-Subjects Factors N Conditiegroep

0

184

1

166

2

185

Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:verschilscoreSAT Conditiegroep

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

0

-.0326

5.27174

184

1

.6084

6.48614

166

2

.1027

5.70042

185

Total

.2131

5.81321

535

T-TEST PAIRS=verschilscoreSAT Conditiegroep Conditiegroep WITH gelukongel gelukongel verschilscoreSAT (PAIRED) /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) /MISSING=ANALYSIS.

T-Test - Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1

Pair 2

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

verschilscoreSAT

.2131

535

5.81321

.25133

Gelukongel

.9794

535

.14204

.00614

1.0019

535

.83127

.03594

.9794

535

.14204

.00614

1.0019

535

.83127

.03594

.2131

535

5.81321

.25133

Conditiegroep Gelukongel

Pair 3

N

Conditiegroep verschilscoreSAT


111

Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1

verschilscoreSAT & gelukongel

Pair 2

Conditiegroep & gelukongel

Pair 3

Conditiegroep & verschilscoreSAT

Correlation

Sig.

535

-.287

.000

535

-.047

.275

535

.010

.825

NPAR TESTS /K-W=verschilscoreSAT Conditiegroep somMMIS somBlo BY gelukongel(0 2) /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS. Descriptive Statistics N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

verschilscoreSAT

535

.2131

5.81321

-22.00

45.00

Conditiegroep

535

1.0019

.83127

.00

2.00

somMMIS

535

11.3720

3.71579

7.00

28.00

somBlo

535

8.8243

2.36765

6.00

20.00

gelukongel

535

.9794

.14204

.00

1.00

Kruskal-Wallis Test - Ranks gelukongel verschilscoreSAT

Conditiegroep

somMMIS

somBlo

N

Mean Rank

0

11

398.27

1

524

265.27

Total

535

0

11

315.41

1

524

267.00

Total

535

0

11

353.50

1

524

266.21

Total

535

0

11

315.41

1

524

267.00

Total

535


112

NPar Tests a,b

Test Statistics verschilscoreSA T Chi-Square Df Asymp. Sig.

Conditiegroep

somMMIS

somBlo

9.117

1.189

3.479

1.084

1

1

1

1

.003

.275

.062

.298

a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: gelukongel

GRAPH /LINE(SIMPLE)=PCT BY verschilscoreSAT /PANEL ROWVAR=gelukongel ROWOP=CROSS.


113

GRAPH /LINE(SIMPLE)=CUPCT BY verschilscoreSAT /PANEL ROWVAR=gelukongel ROWOP=CROSS.


114

4.

Aanvullende analyses discussie

4.1

Beoordeling positieve conditie

Positief verhaaltje ook positief beoordeeld? USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 1). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 1 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=posconextravr /ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Statistics

Vond je het een positief verhaaltje over datingsites? N

Valid

166

Missing

0

Vond je het een positief verhaaltje over datingsites? Cumulative Frequency Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Nee

22

13.3

13.3

13.3

Weet niet

41

24.7

24.7

38.0

Ja

103

62.0

62.0

100.0

Total

166

100.0

100.0

Bij de negatieve conditie werd de vraag niet gesteld. Antwoord moet dus “ja” zijn. 62 % vond het positief verhaal dus ook maar werkelijk positief. 4.2 Correct antwoord afbeelding Plaatje goed geraden dat bij de condities stond?

De betreffende vraag: Welk plaatje zag je net? • Twee ruziemakende mensen, zittend • Verliefd stel, staand • Een aquarium


115

4.2.1 Positieve conditie (goede antwoord = Verliefd stel, staand): COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 1). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 1 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=conditievr /ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Statistics Welk plaatje zag je net? N

Valid

166

Missing

0

Welk plaatje zag je net? Cumulative Frequency Valid

Twee ruziemakende mensen, zittend Verliefd stel, staand Een aquarium Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

1

.6

.6

.6

163

98.2

98.2

98.8

2

1.2

1.2

100.0

166

100.0

100.0

163 participanten goed geantwoord bij positieve conditie. 1,8 % fout geantwoord 4.2.2 Controle conditie (goede antwoord = Een aquarium): USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 0). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 0 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=conditievr /ORDER=ANALYSIS.


116


Valid

184

Missing

0


Verliefd stel, staand

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

3

1.6

1.6

1.6

Een aquarium

181

98.4

98.4

100.0

Total

184

100.0

100.0

3 mensen maar een fout antwoord 4.2.3 Negatieve conditie (goede antwoord = Twee ruziemakende mensen, zittend) USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(Conditiegroep = 2). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'Conditiegroep = 2 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=conditievr /ORDER=ANALYSIS.


Valid Missing

185 0


117


Twee ruziemakende mensen, zittend

Valid Percent

Percent

138

74.6

74.6

74.6

39

21.1

21.1

95.7

8

4.3

4.3

100.0

185

100.0

100.0

Verliefd stel, staand Een aquarium Total

Percent

25 % een fout antwoord! Bij de negatieve conditie verhaal veel minder gelezen? 4.3 Percentage onthouden verhaaltjes 4.3.1 Negatieve verhaal

COMPUTE filter_$=(condneg < 101). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'condneg < 101 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE . FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=condneg /STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN /ORDER= ANALYSIS . Statistics Hoeveel % van de inhoud van het vorige verhaal denk je onthouden te hebben? Schuif met de balk naar je antwoord. N Valid 185 Missing 0 Mean Median Std. Deviation Variance

63,16 66,00 19,629 385,300

Minimum

2

Maximum

100


118

4.3.2 Positieve verhaal

COMPUTE filter_$=(posconextr2 < 101). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'posconextr2 < 101 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE . Statistics Hoeveel % van de inhoud van het vorige verhaal denk je onthouden te hebben? Schuif met de balk naar je antwoord. N Valid 166 Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation Variance

0 53,90 51,00 20,282 411,360

Minimum

3

Maximum

90

Positieve verhaal wordt minder onthouden.


119

The Expansion of the Investment Model: An Experiment to test the Influence of Dating Sites on Commitment in a Romantic Relationship

Recommend Documents