|
![](../images/BG_Main_04-02.gif)
![](../images/BG_Main_04.gif) |
![](../images/BG_MainPage_08.gif) |
The
Pattern of International Relationship in
University Students in Persian Culture
|
![](../images/underline.gif) |
|
Asghar Dadkhah,
Ph.D.
University of welfare and rehabilitation,
Iran
Susumu Harizuka, Ph.D.
Kyushu University, Japan
|
ABSTRACT
Little
research has investigated the interpersonal
relationship characteristics in Persian
culture. A 24-item Interpersonal
Relationship Inventory yielded
a factorial structure based on the
4 domains of interpersonal relationship:
family, friend, extended (non-familiar),
and personal. For the study totally
246 subjects (pilot-study=102, main-study=144)
were considered. They were university
students in Iran. It has been found
that the domain family relationship
of interpersonal relationship was
the most dominant factor followed
by the friend relationship. Therefore
interpersonal relationship was found
to be more influenced by the family
and friend relationship elements of
the ingroup structure (such as family,
parents, and friends). The results
indicated that the relationship of
family factors to the intimate relationship
of young adult university students
has greater adaptability in the family
system during adolescence.
Keywords:
Interpersonal relationship, Persian
culture, university students
|
Individuals typically
focus on the development of intimate relationships
during late adolescence and early adulthood
(Aylmer, 1989; Erikson, 1963, 1968). Successful
resolution of the issue of intimacy enables
the young adult to maintain committed, enduring
intimate relationships (Orlofsky, 1993).
The transition to college is the first time
away from home for many adolescents (Balk,
1995). With this major life change, adolescents
face the challenges of establishing a sense
of identity and renegotiating relationships
with caregivers (Erikson, 1968). More recently,
however, attention has been given to the
role of attachment relationship with family
as adaptive in adolescence (Gilligan, 1982;
Grotevant and Cooper, 1985; Josselson, 1988)
and influential in identity development.
Most research in the area of adolescent
attachment relationship has examined the
influence of secure parent-adolescent attachment
on developmental outcomes in adolescents
(Armsden and Greenberg, 1987). The parent-adolescent
relationship has been found to be an influential
factor in adolescents' support-seeking and
active problem-solving coping styles (Greenberger
and McLaughlin, 1998) in addition to early
adolescents' self-esteem (Harvey and Byrd,
1998). Academic and emotional adjustment
in college is also associated with secure
parent-adolescent attachment relationship
(Lapsley et al., 1990; Rice et al., 1995).
The investigation of the structure and meaning
of interpersonal behavior in different cultures
has been an important component of cross-cultural
research in psychology for many years. The
reason for the centrality of this topic
is fairly obvious: interpersonal behavior
forms the core of human daily activity,
and, thus, it seems inevitable that culture
will influence it greatly. In fact, we can
safely assume that culture and interpersonal
behaviur constitute each other in that it
is hard to think of one without referring
to the other (Adamopoulos, 2002). Over the
past thirty years, Triandis and his colleagues
have investigated, among other aspects of
subjective culture, the manner in which
people perceive and ascribe meaning to interpersonal
behavior (Triandis, 1972, 1994).
The themes of dominance and intimacy are
probably the most central in defining the
nature of an interpersonal relationship.
For this reason, we need to consider the
other concomitant relational interpretations
beyond dominance ones. In the structure
of people's interpersonal relations, one
would presumably find a very coherent pattern.
Heider (1958) argued that people tend to
achieve patterns of interpersonal relations
that can be described as balanced triads.
The difference in social interaction may
be attributed to differences between the
societies in belief systems, shared values,
social cognitive processes, and affective
meaning (Leung et al., 1997).
Despite such awareness
that the issue of social interactional pattern
may not be studied without realizing the
cultural context for an individual, relatively
lesser studies were conducted in the societies
which are collective in nature. Dadkhah,
Harizuka, and Mandal (1999) presented 3
factorial inventory with a data-base for
cultures of societies which were little
explored in terms of the understanding of
social interactional patterns.
The aims of the present
study were (a) to find out the pattern of
intimate relationships during late adolescence
(college and university period), attachment
relationship with family, and dominance
and intimacy relationship in Persian culture
society, an interpersonal relationship inventory
was developed and standardized culture and
(b) to examine the dominant domains of interpersonal
relationship in this society with reference
to the embedded factor structure of such
an inventory.
The development of an interpersonal relationship
inventory would help us to understand the
manner in which people perceive and ascribe
meaning to interpersonal behavior in order
to form a data base in this kind of society.
|
|
Subjects
- For the study totally 246 subjects (pilot-study=102,
main-study=144) were considered. They were
university students and had no history of
other neurological disorders. Subjects were
also matched closely to socio-economic status.
This sample was stratified on the basis
of subject characteristics.
Procedure - In
the beginning, a 47 item inventory with
a 5-point Likert type rating scale, ranged
from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic) to 5
(extremely characteristic), was developed
on the different domains of social behavior.
These items included both approach and avoidance
behaviors in different situations for social
cognitive and affective events.
After pilot work, it was administrated to
102 subjects (Mean age 29 yr). They answered
on a range from 1 to 5. The resulting correlation
matrix was evaluated against the three criteria
of suitability for factor analysis. These
three factors, selected with a criterion
of an eigenvalue of 2.00, accounted for
39.8% of the variance.
For examining the suitability
for inclusion, the items were submitted
to the three subject experts who were made
aware of the purpose, goal, and concept
behind the inventory. The commonly selected
items, 34 altogether, were thus retained.
These items were then given to language
experts for making editorial corrections.
Certain items were retranslated in the process
to retain the psycho-linguistic properties.
The format of the inventory changed according
to the response format, lie scores were
chosen and the relevant questions were repeated,
and finally the reverse scores were determined.
This version of the inventory was then administered
to a relatively heterogeneous sample of
144 (Mean age 24.6 yr., SD 6.67 yr.) university
students.
Subjects' responses,
taken on a 5-point rating scale, were then
scored (higher the score, greater was the
interpersonal relationship) and tabulated
to create a 34 x 34 inter-correlation matrix
which was then treated with principal component
factor analysis and rotated with Varimax
method. The minimum loading of .52 was accepted
for the items to be retained in the factorial
structure. The analysis yielded four factors
in terms of social interactional domains.
Altogether 24 items were retained and 10
items were found to be redundant. Loadings
of items on the four factors were shown
in Table 1.
Factor I (eigenvalue
5.8, % variance 12.4) constituted of those
items (I like talking with my family members,
I want to spend my time with my family members,
I like to discuss many things with my family
members, I am happy to enjoy or work with
my family members, I usually talk with my
family members, I talk with my parents)
refer to family interaction and thus labeled
'family relationship'.
Factor II (eigenvalue 5.13, % variance 10.9)
was labeled as 'friend relationship'
as these items (I like talking with my friends,
I talk with my friends, I like to share
my thinking with my friends, I am happy
to enjoy or work with my friends, I remember
the things happened to my friends, I like
to spend my time with my friends). The cluster
of items (I talk and remember my earlier
experience with others, I like to think
about many things with others, I want to
talk with unfamiliar people, I would like
to ask others to do my affairs, I like to
enjoy or work even with others, I would
like to spend my time with unfamiliar people)
that constituted
Factor III (eigenvalue 5.06, % variance
10.7) reflected interaction with those persons
who are not known to the respondent (outgroup).
This factor was thus labeled as 'extended
relationship'.
And factor IV (eigenvalue 4.38, % variance
9.3) constituted of those items refer to
personal interaction and labeled 'personal'.
The test - retest reliability of the 28-item
interpersonal relationship Inventory (SII)
was evaluated on a sample of 35 subjects
with a retesting interval of 3 weeks (Pearson's
r = .79).
It has been found that
the domain family of interpersonal relationship
was the most dominant factor followed by
the friend relationship. Therefore interpersonal
relationship was found to be more influenced
by the family and friend relationship elements
of the ingroup structure. In light of the
saliency of relationship and identity development
in adolescence, these findings have various
implications for college counselors and
student services aimed at facilitating college
adjustment and identity development. The
findings add to the growing belief that
continued parental involvement can be healthy
for an adolescent and may serve as the "secure
base" as Bowlby (1982) and Ainsworth
(1982) suggested.
In summary, as the major purpose of this
study was to create a data-base in terms
of dominant domains in the interpersonal
relationship pattern in the country which
heritages Persian culture, the present study
offered a data-base for cultures of society
which were little explored in terms of the
understanding of interpersonal relationship
patterns. These findings should underscore
the need for further exploration of the
intimate relationships of young adults in
different cultures.
|
Table
1. Factor
loadings of Interpersonal Relationship Inventory
(N=144)
Items |
Factor
loading |
Factor
I: Family relationship
I like talking with my family members.
I like to discuss many things with my
family members.
I am happy to enjoy or work with my
family members.
I want to spend my time with my family
members.
I usually talk with my family members.
I talk with my parents.*
|
.800
.791
.791
.775
.753
.680
|
Factor
II: Friend relationship
I like to spend my time with my friends.*
I talk with my friends.
I like to share my thinking with my
friends.
I am happy to enjoy or work with my
friends.
I remember the things happened to my
friends.
I like talking with my friends.
|
.734
.691
.684
.661
.599
.586 |
Factor
III: Extended relationship
I would like to spend my time with unfamiliar
people.
I like to enjoy or work even with others.
I talk and remember my earlier experience
with others.
I like to think about many things with
others.
I want to talk with unfamiliar people.
I would like to ask others to do my
affairs.
|
.756
.745
.717
.706
.678
.581 |
Factor
IV: Personal
I like to spend my time on my own.*
I care about my body build/posture when
I am with others.
I want to be alone.*
I care about my body build/posture when
I am with my friends.
I feel comfortable when I am alone.*
I like to learn or enjoy on my own.*
|
.715
.670
.669
.632
.625
.559 |
* Reverse score
<
back to text
|
|
|
1. |
Adamopoulos,
J. (2002). The perception of interpersonal
behaviors across cultures. In W. J.
Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, &
D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture (Unit 15,
Chapter 2), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture),
Center for Cross-Cultural Research,
Western Washington University, Bellingham,
Washington USA. |
2. |
Ainsworth,
M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect
and prospect. In Parkes, C. M., and
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (eds.), The Place
of Attachment in Human Behavior. Basic
Books, New York, pp. 3-30. |
3. |
Armsden, G.
C., Greenberger, M. T. (1987). The inventory
of parent and peer attachment: Individual
differences and their relationship to
psychological well-being in adolescence.
J. Youth Adolesc. 16: 427-452. |
4. |
Aylmer, R.
C. (1989). The changing family life
cycle: A framework for family therapy
(2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
and Bacon. |
5. |
Balk,
D. E. (1995). Adolescent Development:
Early Through Late Adolescence. Brooks-Cole,
New York. |
6. |
Dadkhah,
A., Harizuka, S., Mandal, M.K. (1999).
Pattern of social interaction in societies
of Asia-Pacific region. The Journal
of social psychology. 139-6: 730-736. |
7. |
Erikson,
E. H. (1963). Childhood and society
(2nd ed.). New York: Norton. |
8. |
Erikson,
E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis.
W. W. Norton, New York. |
9. |
Gilligan,
C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA. |
|
|
10. |
Greenberger,
E., and McLaughlin, C. S. (1998). Attachment,
coping and explanatory style in late
adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 27:121-139. |
11. |
Grotevant,
H., and Cooper, C. (1985). Patterns
of interaction in family relationship
and the development of identity and
role-taking skill in adolescence. Child
Dev. 56:415-428. |
12. |
Harvey, M.,
and Byrd, M. (1998). The relationship
between perceptions of self-esteem,
patterns of familial attachment, and
family environment during early and
late phases of adolescence. Int. J.
Youth Adolesc. 7:93-111. |
13. |
Heider, F.
(1958). The psychology of interpersonal
relations, Wiley, New York. |
14. |
Josselson,
R. (1988). The embedded self: I and
thou revisited. In Lapsley, D., and
Power, F. (eds.), Self, Ego, and Identity:
Integrative Approaches. Springer-Verlag,
New York, pp. 91-106. |
15. |
Lapsley,
D. K., Rice, K. G., and Fitzgerald,
D. P. (1990). Adolescent attachment,
identity and adjustment to college:
Implications for the continuity of adaptation
hypothesis. J. Counsel. Dev. 68: 561-565.
|
16. |
Leung, K.,
Kim, U., Yamaguchi, S., & Kashima,
Y. (1997). Progress in Asian social
psychology. Singapore: Wiley. |
17. |
Orlofsky,
J. L. (1993). Intimacy status: Theory
and research. In J. E. Marcia, A. S.
Waterman, D. R. Mateson, S. L. Archer,
& J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity:
A handbook for psychosocial research
(pp. 111-133). New York: Springer-Verlag. |
18.
|
Rice,
K. G., Fitzgerald, D. P., Whaley, T.
J., and Gibbs, C. L. (1995). Cross-sectional
and longitudinal examination of attachment,
separation-individuation, and college
student adjustment. J. Counsel. Dev.
73: 463-474. |
|
|
|
|
|
|