Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing © 2015 Indian Association of Health,

2015, 6(3), 291-297 Research and Welfare

http://www.iahrw.com/index.php/home/journal_detail/19#list ISSN-p-2229-5356,e-2321-3698

A study on the construction of a scale for assessing

the quality of friendship
Prerona Ghosh, Deepshikha Ray and Sudeshna Das
Department of Psychology, University of Calcutta, Kolkata

The development of successful friendship is one of the important developmental milestones and is crucial for
healthy adaptation. In the context of increasing social alienation in today's globalized world there is an emergent
need to construct a reliable tool for assessing Quality of Friendship. Same-sex friendship is highly prevalent in the
Indian society and is a significant contributor to an enhanced quality of life. Since, there is a dearth of a reliable tool
for exploring friendship, the present study purported to construct a scale for assessing the Quality of Friendship. 370
healthy adult participants, of either sex, aged between 18-25 years were included in the study. The total sample was
split into 3 sections - sample A (N = 100), on which the Quality of Friendship Questionnaire (QFQ) was constructed;
sample B (N = 200), the data of which was utilized for reliability assessment and factor analysis; sample C (N = 70)
on which The Relationship Profile Test (Bornstein and Languirand, 2001) and The UCLA Loneliness Scale
(Russell, 1996) was administered for the computation of convergent validity. Preliminary norms were developed
based on the scores of Sample B and Sample C. Five factors emerged from Factor Analysis, namely - 'Intimacy',
'Distress reaction', 'Negative behavior', 'Doubt' and 'Telling a lie' and the final scale comprised of 87 items with a
high reliability (Cronbach α =0.96). Further, a significant negative correlation between 'Quality of Friendship' and
loneliness was obtained, along with a significant positive correlation between 'Quality of Friendship' and healthy
dependence. Continued evaluation is needed to assess the utility of the QFQ for exploring 'Friendship' in the
paradigm of positive psychology.

Keywords: quality of friendship, relationship profile, same-sex friendship, loneliness

Argyle and Henderson described (1985) a personal relationship as a veness, and similarity, education, attitudes, values, hobbies, social
'regular social encounter over a period of time'. A personal status), situational factors (availability, family, other commitments),
relationship is usually seen as one of considerable duration (Kelley et and dyadic factors (nature of the interaction, reciprocity of liking,
al., 1983), involving a great degree of interdependence of emotions self-disclosure). Friendship is frequently defined in terms of its
and thoughts (Berscheid, 1994; Kelley et al., 1983) and evolving relational qualities or attributes. Features such as trust, intimacy,
through a negotiated set of disclosures (Altman & Taylor, 1973). loyalty, affection and support are central to many social scientists'
Relationships, and especially friendships, play an integral role in our conceptions of friendship (Hays, 1988; La Gaipa, 1977).
day to day life. Friendship is a qualitative relationship between two Friendship is usually defined in terms of a positive quality that
individuals (Hinde, 1997). Hays (1988) defines friendship as a does not mean it is free from tensions. Some degree of conflict is
"voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is virtually inevitably in every relationship. Intimacy is sometimes
intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and considered similar to satisfaction but distressed relationships can be
may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, intimate and intimate relationships unsatisfactory. Jealousy is a part
affection and mutual assistance". of friendship, especially in same-sex friendships. Jealousy refers to
Individuals are likely to have several friends but people make clear the thoughts, feelings and behaviours that occur when a person
distinctions between best, close and casual friendships (Fehr, 1996; believes a valued relationship is threatened by a rival.
Hays, 1988). Indeed, there is empirical evidence showing that A considerable literature attests to the statistical significance of
individuals have higher quality relationships with their best friends differences in the nature of friendship between men and women. For
as compared to less close friends (Davis & Todd, 1985; Wright, instance women tend to be more emotionally expressive (Williams,
1985). In other words, the more intimate the friendship the more 1985), intimate (in the sense of self-disclosure) (Reis & Solomon,
clearly it manifests the various attributes of friendship (Fehr, 1996). 1985; Sherrod, 1989) and to have friendships that are emotionally
Since the empirical literature shows that the quality of best richer (Booth, 1972).
friendships is different from other friendships, the present study New research is beginning to suggest that the dynamics of cross
focused exclusively on best friendship. sex friendship differ from those of same sex friendship. The
The process by which people develop friendships has received boundary between friends and lovers will always be difficult to
considerable research attention. Research suggests that in order for a define. Physical intimacy may be present in many degrees, and the
friendship to develop, four sets of factors must converge: desire for physical intimacy may colour a relationship when it is not
environmental factors (geographical proximity, e-social networks), overtly present. In any case most lovers are also friends (Hendrick &
individual factors (Physical attractiveness, social skills, responsi- Hendrick, 1993). However, cross sex friendships (without physical
intimacy) are not as common as same sex friendships, without
Correspondence should be sent to Deepshikha Ray sexual connotation.
Department of Psychology, University of Calcutta The present study purports to explore “same-sex” friendship
E-mail: deepshikharay@gmail.com (without obvious sexual intimacy) as such kind of relationships are
292 GHOSH ET AL./ A STUDY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCALE

particularly prevalent in the Indian subculture and serves as one of female, with a mean age of ….... years. The sample was divided into
key factors in promoting psycho-social wellbeing. For the present 3 parts for the purpose of carrying out the steps of constructing a
study three chief domains were selected for assessing the construct scale; the first part (Sample A) constituted 50 males and 50 females
'quality of friendship', namely 'Trust', 'Intimacy' and 'Emotional and the scores obtained by these participants were used to compute
Fulfillment'. the item total correlation; the second part (Sample B) comprised of
Trust promotes self-disclosure, permits open communication and 100 male and 100 female participants and their obtained scores were
the voicing of needs and facilitates effective problem solving used for the purpose of assessing reliability of the scale and
(Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Mutual secrets and computing factor analysis; the applicability of the scale was
trust are important in structuring relationships and setting them apart assessed by administering it on the third part (Sample C) with a size
from the rest of society (Simmel, 1950). The concept of "Intimacy" is of 35 males and 35 females
often equated with closeness; which implies interdependence Instrument
between the participants. The growth of closeness in a relationship
implies self-revelation. Emotional satisfaction / fulfillment in a A data sheet for collecting the socio-demographic variables of the
relationship is perhaps, the most difficult to construe. The participants was developed and administered on all the 375
complexity of the concept of 'satisfaction' or 'fulfillment' is indicated participants. The Relationship Profile Test (Bornstein &
by the number of semi-alternative terms - relationship "quality", Languirand, 2001) and the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale
"adjustment", "stability", etc. which are used to explain this attribute. (Russell, 1996) were administered on Sample C.
Emotional fulfillment or satisfaction has many determinants, Operational definition of key constructs
including individual characteristics of the participants, the nature of
the relationship, contextual factors and the relations between all of For the purpose of the study, 'Friendship' has been operationally
defined as a close interpersonal relationship between two
these. It feeds back into intimacy, love, investment, commitment,
individuals of the same age group & same sex, without any sexual
and other variables that promote it. There is no denying the fact that
intimacy. 'Trust' has been defined as mutual dependence, assistance,
the quality of the communication in a relationship is closely related
reliance on the integrity, strength and ability, confidence and
to its overall quality.
faithfulness in the manifestation of the relationship, along with
Campbell (1960) pointed out that, in order to demonstrate
expectations. The definition of 'Intimacy' being a close, familiar and
construct validity, it must be shown that a test correlates highly with
usually affectionate association with voluntary spending of time,
other variables to which it should theoretically correlate. Campbell
companionship plus the quality of being comfortable, and
and Fiske (1959) described this process as convergent validation.
communication process which includes emotional expressiveness.
The construct 'quality of friendship' thus needed to be validated in
Finally, 'Emotional Fulfillment' has been conceptualized as the
terms of its association with associated psychological constructs
experience or realization of positive emotions, viz. happiness,
such as 'loneliness' and 'attachment relations''.
warmth, comfort (emotional) and interpersonal satisfaction, mutual
Loneliness can be seen as both a subjective feeling and a state of attraction without explicit sexuality.
social isolation. When our basic needs for love, affection and
belongingness are not met (Maslow, 1970), we feel lonely and Procedure
worthless. This pain has long term effects because growth is slowed At the onset, based on detailed survey of literature, 3 domains of
down when we feel detached and unloved. Common knowledge is friendship viz. 'Trust', 'Intimacy' and 'Emotional Fulfillment' were
that really original scientific and artistic work is generated largely in decided upon and subsequently items pertaining to each domain
solitude. Lack of social skills and lack of friends may mutually were constructed. Initially a total of 119 items / statements were
reinforce each other, leading to the phenomenon of loneliness. prepared based on inputs from experts and students of the subject of
However, having friends may not be enough. On the other hand, the Psychology. These statements were edited following the criteria put
mutual influence that parents and children exert on each other goes forward by Thurstone & Chave (1929), Likert (1932), Bird (1940)
beyond specific interactions: it extends to the whole process of and Edwards and Kilpatrick (1948) and 6 items were rejected.
socialization. Attachment theory recognizes that an individual may Subsequently, the relevance of the items to the construct under
become attached to a number of individuals (mother, father, grand consideration were judged by 10 experts or judges (Faculty,
parent, sibling etc.) but it is assumed that attachment to the principal Department of Psychology, Calcutta University) on a five point
caregiver has an overriding influence on personality development scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree (where,
and on subsequent relationships. 1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Uncertain, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly
Young adulthood (20's, 30's) typically is a time of dramatic change Disagree). In the process, 20 statements were ruled out as 'not
in personal relationships as people establish, renegotiate or cement relevant'. Among the remaining 93 items, 80 items were judged as
bonds based on friendship, love and sexuality. Some friendships are both relevant to the construct and to the domain in which each have
life-long; others are fleeting (Hartup and Stevens, 1999). Some "best been included. The other 14 items were judged as 'relevant to the
friendships" are more stable than ties to a lover or spouse. Hence, the construct' but they were evaluated as not fitting into their respective
study group was chosen to be young adults. domains. These 14 items were given to 10 judges for the second
time. The same judges were provided with a questionnaire of only
Method the 14 items, which had to be fitted into the domains relevantly. The
operational definition of the domains (trust, intimacy, emotional
Participants fulfillment) was mentioned. The judges were instructed to judge in
The sample for the present study consisted of 370 unmarried, which appropriate domain a particular item should be included and
graduate college going students, 135 being male and 135 being also rate the domain specific relevance of each of the 14 items on a 5-
 Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing 2015, 6(3), 291-297 293

point scale (from 1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Uncertain, 4= Table 3: Weighted scores for the three domains, as judged & rated by
Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree). There was an option of 'none' which 10 experts
indicated a score of zero and that the item was not relevant to any of
Item Domain Accepted Rejected
the domains. For the categorization of these 14 items in a domain, a No. (A) (R)
modal approach was taken. The individual item was put into that Trust Intimacy Emotional
domain which received the maximum weighted frequency for that Fulfillment
particular item. One item was rejected as the weighted modal value 1. 42 √ 4 - A
was equally distributed in the 3 domains. The remaining 13 items 2. 8 4 27 √ A
were distributed into the 3 domains as follows: -- Intimacy 3 items; 3. 10 - 33 √ A
Trust 3 items; Emotional Fulfillment 7 items. 4. 50 √ - - A
The 93 items in the questionnaire were arranged in a random order 5. 13 5 26 √ A
before administration to Sample A. For the collection for data, the 6. - 28 √ 18 A
method of summated ratings was followed. Subsequently, the 87 7. - 33 √ 14 A
items which had a significant item total correlation (p< 0.05) were 8. 7 17 19 √ A
retained to be included in the final version of the scale. While 9. - 19 25 √ A
calculating the total scores on the Quality of Friendship Scale, 9 10. 8 25 √ 14 A
items were considered as reverse-keyed items and they were scored 11. 14 15 15 R
12. 9 10 28 √ A
accordingly (i.e. a score of 5 meant 1, 4=2, 2=4, 1=5).
13. 14 8 17 √ A
This scale consisting of 87 items was administered to Sample B,
14. 19 √ 7 14 A
following which Cronbach alpha and Spearman Brown coefficient
was computed. Subsequently, factor analysis technique (Principal Table 4: Summary of the item analysis phase
Component Analysis) was applied in order to discern the basic Items Accepted Items rejected
structure of the underlying domains of friendship and whether they
meet with the theoretical expectations. Only those factors with an No. of Items 0.01 level 0.05 level 6
Eigen value of more than 1.00 were further subjected to Normal 83 4
Varimax Rotation. The dimensions that emerged were interpreted Total 87
qualitatively. Table 5: Item total correlation values for the full scale of 93 items (N=100)
This newly constructed scale was re-administered to sample C
Item Item-Total Significant at 0.01 level Rejected (not significant
along with the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, Version 3 (Russell, No. correlation (**) or 0.05 level (*) at any of the 2 levels)
1996) and the Relationship Profile Test (Bornstein and Languirand,
2001) and Pearson Product Moment Correlation was computed for 1. .501 **
2. .401 **
the scores obtained on all the three scales as a means of finding out
3. .474 **
the convergent validity of the construct.
4. .380 **
Standardization of the scale and establishment of norm 5. .620 **
6. .482 **
Norms may be defined as the average performance on a particular 7. .495 **
test made by a standardization sample (Standardization sample is a 8. .506 **
sample which is the true representative of the population). 9. .298 **
10. .280 **
Table 1: Showing the meaning of scores 11. .537 **
Range of scores Meaning of scores/ category 12. .487 **
13. .636 **
1. -3 standard deviation(SD) to 2 SD Very low 14. .513 **
2. -2 SD to -1 SD Below average 15. .633 **
3. -1 SD to +1 SD Average 16. .493 **
4. +1 SD to +2 SD Above average 17. .456 **
18. .403 **
5. +2 SD to +3 SD Very high
19. .567 **
20. .655 **
Results 21. .579 **
The work was done in three major phases and the results of the 22. .480 **
different stages are provided. 23. .572 **
24. -.160 √
Table 2: Results of Relevance Judgment 25. .305 **
Phase Items Accepted Items Rejected 26. .308 **
27. .573 **
Phase A (where the criteria of 80 19
28. .516 **
selection was based on Mean and SD) 29. .540 **
Phase B (where the criteria of selection 13 1 30. .568 **
was based on the Mode value) 31. .374 **
Total 93 20 32. .468 **
294 GHOSH ET AL./ A STUDY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCALE

33. .550 ** 2 3.726 4.283 33.103

34. .459 ** 3 2.555 2.936 36.040
35. .553 ** 4 2.178 2.504 38.543
36. .382 ** 5 1.894 2.177 40.720
37. .278 **
6 1.674 1.924 42.644
38. .516 **
39. .545 ** 7 1.662 1.911 44.554
40. .456 ** 8 1.600 1.839 46.394
41. .555 ** 9 1.549 1.781 48.175
42. .494 ** 10 1.449 1.665 49.840
43. .428 ** 11 1.400 1.610 51.449
44. .478 ** 12 1.382 1.588 53.038
45. .487 ** 13 1.301 1.495 54.533
46. .615 **
14 1.249 1.435 55.968
47. .413 **
48. .614 ** 15 1.209 1.390 57.358
49. .606 ** 16 1.167 1.341 58.699
50. .559 ** 17 1.134 1.304 60.00
51. .610 ** 18 1.102 1.266 61.269
52. .561 ** 19 1.072 1.232 62.501
53. .515 ** 20 1.059 1.217 63.718
54. .422 ** 21 1.046 1.202 64.920
55. -.032 √
22 .993 1.141 66.062
56. .142 √
23 .964 1.108 67.169
57. .565 **
58. .420 ** 24 .946 1.087 68.257
59. .632 ** 25 .937 1.078 69.334
60. .528 ** 26 .890 1.023 70.357
61. .514 ** 27 .873 1.004 71.361
62. .465 ** 28 .842 .968 72.329
63. .406 ** 29 .814 .935 73.264
64. .516 **
30 .790 .908 74.173
65. .323 **
66. .603 ** 31 .771 .886 75.059
67. .427 ** 32 .764 .878 75.937
68. .347 ** 33 .751 .864 76.801
69. .257 ** 34 .744 .856 77.657
70. .639 ** 35 .697 .802 78.458
71. .528 ** 36 .672 .772 79.231
72. -.258 ** 37 .666 .765 79.996
73. .556 **
38 .643 .739 80.734
74. .595 **
75. .579 ** 39 .630 .724 81.459
76. .138 √ 40 .621 .714 82.172
77. .380 ** 41 .601 .691 82.863
78. .583 ** 42 .576 .661 83.525
79. .576 ** 43 .558 .642 84.166
80. .526 ** 44 .543 .625 84.791
81. -.106 √ 45 .530 .609 85.400
82. .450 **
46 .517 .594 85.995
83. .623 **
84. .334 ** 47 .513 .590 86.585
85. .446 ** 48 .489 .562 87.147
86. .580 ** 49 .487 .560 87.706
87. .562 ** 50 .479 .551 88.257
88. -.213 * 51 .466 .536 88.793
89. -.230 * 52 .453 .520 89.313
90. -.139 √ 53 .439 .505 89.818
91. .381 ** 54 .419 .481 90.299
92. -.245 *
55 .405 .466 90.765
93. .252 *
56 .401 .461 91.226
Table 6: The eigen values & percentage of variance of the factors 57 .384 .442 91.668
derived from Principal component analysis (N=200) 58 .376 .433 92.101
Factor Eigen value variance % of variance Cumulative % 59 .365 .420 92.520
1 25.074 28.820 28.820 60 .354 .407 92.927
 Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing 2015, 6(3), 291-297 295

61 .352 .404 93.331 33 .628

62 .336 .386 93.718 34 .497
63 .335 .385 94.102 35 .486
64 .317 .364 94.467 36.505
37.514
65 .314 .361 94.828
38.560
66 .298 .343 95.171 39.581
67 .287 .330 95.501 40.580
68 .284 .326 95.827 41.488
69 .272 .313 96.140 42.586
70 .267 .307 96.447 43.458
71 .252 .289 96.736 44 .571
45 .584
72 .240 .276 97.012
46 .671
73 .229 .263 97.275
47 .422
74 .218 .251 97.526 48 .658
75 .207 .238 97.764 49 .638
76 .204 .235 97.999 50 .638
77 .194 .223 98.222 51 .672
78 .189 .217 98.439 52 .569
79 .188 .216 98.655 53 .526
54 .640
80 .180 .207 98.862
55 .321
81 .170 .196 99.057 56 .368
82 .164 .189 99.246 57 .628
83 .155 .178 99.424 58 .564
84 .145 .167 99.591 59 .649
85 .132 .151 99.742 60 .614
86 .116 .133 99.875 61 .655
87 .108 .125 100.000 62 .432
63 .525
Table 7: Results of Varimax Rotation 64 .484
65 .480
Item No. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
66 .587
1 .531 67 .383
2 .373 68 .482
3 .516 69 .515
4 .389 70 .449
5 .647 71 .617
6 .530 72 .429
7 .510 73 .533
8 .552 74 .620
9 .544 75 .707
10 .359 76 .399
11 .517 77 .498
12 .541 78 .522
13 .632 79 .590
14 .452 80 .573
15 .697 81 .433
16 .558 82 .412
17 .553 83 .629
18 .505 84 .499
19 .620 85 .516
20 .621 86 .675
21 .651 87 .644
22 .446 ● A minimum coefficient value of 0.3 were required for an item to
23 .483
be considered (Spector, 1992).
24 .352
● The internal consistency reliability was obtained by the
25 .416
26 .407 computation of Cronbach's Alpha coefficient = 0.9605
27 .706 ● The Split-half reliability was obtained by the computation of
28 .520 Equal length Spearman Brown coefficient = 0.9391
29 .591 ● Analysis presents the eigen values of each factor from the
30 .580 Principal Component Analysis. It is found that the first 21 factors
31 .501 had eigen values of more than 1. Computation further reveals that
32 .651
these 21 factors explain 64.92% of the total variance.
296 GHOSH ET AL./ A STUDY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCALE

Table 8: Results of Application of the scale; summary of Correlation values (N=70)

Quality of Destructive Over- Dysfunctional Healthy depe- Loneliness
Friendship dependence (DO) detachment (DD) ndence (HD)
Quality of Friendship 1.000* -.020* 0.154 .304** -0.245**
Destructive Overdependence (DO) -.020* 1.000* 0.218 .147** 0.246**
Dysfunctional detachment (DD) .154* .218* 1.000 .032** 0.131**
Healthy dependence (HD) .304* .147* 0.032 1.000** -0.331**
Loneliness -.245* .246* 0.131 - .331** 1.000**

Table 9: Standardization of the scale; Norms for Quality of negative behavior, doubt, & telling a lie), it can be said that the
Friendship scores of the total sample (N=270) statements belonging to these factors strongly represent distinct
aspects of friendship quality.
Range of scores Degree of Quality of Friendship
The newly constructed scale was used on Sample C (N = 70)
1. 227-256 Poor along with The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996) and
2. 257-293 Low The Relationship Profile Test (Bornstein and Languirand, 2001).
3. 294-367 Moderate The results revealed that there is significant negative correlation
4. 368-404 Good
between “Quality of Friendship” and “Loneliness” and a significant
5. 405-417 Excellent
positive correlation between 'Quality of Friendship” and “Healthy
Table 10: Norms for Quality of Friendship scores for Females (N=135) Dependence”.
Range of scores Degree of Quality of Friendship
Thus, the “Construct Validity” of the newly constructed scale is
well established. Friendship relationships are a means for the
1. 223-262 Poor fulfillment of the social needs of an individual throughout his or her
2. 263-301 Low life. Hence it is obvious that a reasonably good quality of friendship
3. 302-379 Moderate will be associated with the ability to blend intimacy and autonomy,
4. 380-418 Good lean on others while maintaining a strong sense of self, and feel good
5. 419-457 Excellent (not guilty) about asking for help when you need it (i.e. healthy
Table 11: Norms for Quality of Friendship scores for Males (N= 135) dependence). Also, deterioration in friendship quality should be an
understandable indicator of loneliness viz. the feeling a person has
Range of scores Degree of Quality of Friendship
whenever the quantity & quality of desired relationships is higher
1. 223 256 Poor than the quality & quality of actual relationships (Archibald, et.al.,
2. 257 289 Low 1995; Peplau & Perlman, 1982).
3. 290 355 Moderate
4. 356 388 Good Conclusion
5. 389 421 Excellent Solano (1986) suggested that friendship in general serves three
valuable functions. First, it meets our material needs by giving us
Discussion help and support. Second, friends meet our cognitive needs by
Friendship quality is a multidimensional construct. In the present supplying stimulation by way of shared experiences, activities,
study, the quality of friendship of individuals has been examined exchange of ideas, views, and gossip. Third, friends meet
with respect to three domains trust, intimacy & emotional socialemotional needs by providing love and esteem. From the
fulfillment. overall findings of the present study, it is apparent that the construct
Factor Analysis revealed that the domains that had been construed “Quality of Friendship” is incorporates within itself social and
at the beginning of the study (viz. trust, intimacy and emotional emotional support, intellectual stimulation and an adaptive way of
fulfillment) have got fused together in one domain (termed as carrying out mutually dependable interpersonal interactions.
'intimacy' after factor analysis). This implies that the items
distributed across the three initially conceptualized domains actually
References
represent one core factor of 'friendship quality'. Altman, I. and Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York : Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
It may be noted that Factor 1 had maximum loading (with 74 Archibald, Fraser, Kim Bartholomew, and Ronald Marx. "Loneliness in early
items), Factor 2 had less loading (with 10 items), whereas Factor 3, 4 adolescence: A test of the cognitive discrepancy model of loneliness." (1995).
and 5 had only 1 item loading each. Factor 1 has been termed as Berscheid, E. (1994) : 'Interpersonal relationships' Annual Review of Psychology, 45 :
'Intimacy', Factor 2 as 'Distress reaction', Factor 3 was termed 79 129.
Bird, C. Social psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1940.
'Negative behavior', Factor 4 as 'Doubt' and Factor 5 as 'Telling a lie'.
Booth, A. (1972). Sex and social participation. American Sociological Review, 37, 183 192.
Any intimate relationship not only has a component of positive Bornstein, R.F & Languirand, M.A. (2001). Healthy Dependency: Leaning on Others
interpersonal interactions, but also a component of distress Without Losing Yourself. Newmarket Press.
associated with anticipated interpersonal distance, rejection or Campbell, D.T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct,
conflict. The items contained in Factor B seemed to reflect this. trait, and discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 81-105.
Davis, K. E. & Todd, M. J. (1985) Assessing friendship prototypes, paradigm cases and
Since single items have emerged as separate factors (namely relationship description. In Duck & Perlman (1985a), pp. 17-38.
 Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing 2015, 6(3), 291-297 297

Duck, Steve, et al. "Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy
all communications are not created equal." Human communication research 18.2 (pp. 1-18). Wiley New York.
(1991): 228-267. Reis, H. T. & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as interpersonal process. In Duck (1988) pp.
Edwards, Allen L., and Franklin P. Kilpatrick. "Scale analysis and the measurement of 367-389.
social attitudes." Psychometrika 13.2 (1948): 99-114. Reis, H. T., Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in the intimacy of
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. social interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. Journal of
Hartup, W.W., & Stevens, N. (1999). Friendships and adaptations across the life span. Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1204-1217.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 76-79. Russell, D.W., 1996. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor
Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal structure. Journal of Personality Assessment 66, pp. 2040. Full Text via CrossRef |
relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 391-408). New York: Wiley. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (263)
Henderson, Monika, and Michael Argyle. "Social support by four categories of work Sherrod, D. (1989). The influence of gender on same sex friendships. In C. Hendrick
colleagues: Relationships between activities, stress and satisfaction." Journal of (Ed.), Close relationships, pp. 164 186, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Organizational Behavior 6.3 (1985): 229-239. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL : Free Press.
Hendrick, S. S. & Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as friends, JSPR, 10, 459-469. Solano, C. H. (1986). People without friends: Loneliness and its alternatives. In V. J.
Hinde, Robert A. Relationships: A dialectical perspective. Psychology Press, 1997. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 227246).
Holmes, J. G. & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In Hendrick (1989), Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.
pp. 187-220. Spector, Horacio. Autonomy and rights: the moral foundations of liberalism. Clarendon
Kelley, H. H.; Berscheid, E.; Christensen, A. et al (1983). Close Relationships. New York Press, 1992.
: Freeman. Thurstone, L.L. and Chave, E.J. The measurement of attitude. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
La Gaipa, J. J. (1977). Testing a multidimensional approach to friendship. In S. Duck Press, 1929.
(Ed.), Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction (pp. 249-270). London: Williams, D. G. (1985). Gender, masculinity femininity and emotional intimacy in
Academic Press. same sex friendship. Sex Roles, 12, 587 600.
Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol., 1932, No.140. Wright, P. H. (1985). The acquaintance description form. In S. Duck & D. Perlman
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivatinand Personality. New York : Harper & Row. (Eds.). Understanding personal relationships: An Interdisciplinary approach (pp.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In L. A. Peplau, & D. 39-62). London: Sage.