|
Article Excerpt
The study examined the component structure of the Relational Health Indices (B. Liang et al., 2002) with a mixed-sex sample of students seeking services at a university counseling center. In contrast to previous findings, results suggested a unidimensional structure for the peer and mentor composites and a 2-component structure for the community composite.
**********
A large body of research exists (e.g., Cramer, 1999; Hagerty, Williams, Coyne, & Early, 1996; Phinney & Haas, 2003; Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, Baker, & A1-Timimi, 2004; Urani, Miller, Johnson, & Petzel, 2003) that points out the relationship between social support and adjustment. This research initially focused on the structure and quantity of social support as key factors in preventing or ameliorating distress. More recently, however, there has been a shift toward investigating the contribution of relational quality. For example, studies have explored the relationships of social connectedness and a sense of belonging to psychological distress, perceived stress, and depression (e.g., Brugha, Bebbington, Stretch, MacCarthy, & Wykes, 1997; Hagerty et al., 1996; Lee, Keough, & Sexton, 2002; Lee & Robbins, 2000; Sherbourne, Hays, & Wells, 1995; Swift, 2000). A sense of belonging has also been shown to be related to positive social and psychological functioning in college students, particularly in women (Hagerty et al., 1996). Lee and Robbins (1998) reported a relationship between a feeling of connection and chronic loneliness, social mistrust, and higher trait anxiety. Finally, studies have found negative correlations between mutuality scores and depression (Genero, Miller, Surrey, & Baldwin, 1992; Powell, Denton, & Mattsson, 1995).
The Relational-Cultural Model (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991; Miller & Stiver, 1997) has been proposed as a new and relevant framework conceptualizing the role of relational quality in psychological development and adjustment. This model suggests that self-identity evolves in and through meaningful, growth-enhancing connections with others rather than as a result of the separation-individuation process, as proposed by traditional models (Miller & Stiver, 1997). Thus, the quality of one's relationships is viewed as central to healthy development and adjustment. The model delineates four core aspects of growth-enhancing relationships: (a) mutual engagement, defined as mutual involvement, commitment, and sensitivity to the relationship; (b) authenticity, defined as acquiring knowledge about the self and others and the freedom to be genuine in the relationship; (c) empowerment or zest, defined as the capacity for action and the sense of personal strength that emerge from the relationship; and (d) the ability to deal with conflict, defined as the ability to express, accept, and process diversity in the relationship (Liang et al., 2002). Theoretically, an absence of these qualities in relationships results in a lack of interpersonal connection and a sense of isolation (Jordan & Dooley, 2001).
The initial focus of the Relational-Cultural Model was on women's psychological development. However, the model has been increasingly understood as applicable to men's relational patterns (Bergman, 1991; Bergman & Surrey, 1994; Dooley & Fedele, 2004; Jordan, 2002; Mirkin & Geib, 1995) because it suggests specific gender-related differences in psychological development. An important aspect of the theory is the assumption that Western sociocultural influences affect the unfolding of the developmental process for both women and men (Bergman, 1991; Dooley & Fedele, 2004; Miller, 1991). For example, it is proposed that sociocultural influences reinforce women's relational skill development and sense of responsibility for relationships (Miller, 1991; Walker, 2004). Simultaneously, hierarchical sociocultural norms and traditional developmental models emphasizing separation and individuation reinforce devaluation of these relational qualities (Miller, 1991; Walker, 2004), sometimes interpreting them in women as evidence of pathology. In contrast, it is theorized that sociocultural influences shape men to develop their identity and self-esteem through competition or comparison with others at the expense of relational development (Bergman, 1991). The end result of these shaping processes is that men learn to sacrifice relational skill development in order to feel special and unique (Bergman, 1991), while women learn to sacrifice authenticity in order to maintain relationships (Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Miller, 1991).
The Relational-Cultural Model proposes a significant paradigm shift. Thus, empirical investigation of its core constructs is imperative. In response to the need for instruments to measure these underlying constructs, Liang et al. (2002) developed the Relational Health Indices (RHI). The RHI was designed to measure three of the four underlying relational dimensions that are theoretically linked to growth-enhancing relationships. Specifically, the RHI was intended to measure the relational qualities of engagement, authenticity, and empowerment/zest as they occur in peer, mentor, and community relationship domains.
In an initial survey with a sample of 450 1st-year and senior female students at a women's liberal arts college, Liang et al. (2002) reported internal consistencies (Cronbach's alphas) for the RHI subscale and composite indices ranging from .69 to .90. Convergent and concurrent validity were established through correlations in the predicted directions between the composite index and subscale scores of the RHI and several scales measuring (a) aspects of relationships and social support (e.g., Quality of Relationships Questionnaire; Pierce, Sarason, Sarason, Solky-Butzel, & Nagle, 1997) and (b) psychological outcome (e.g., Perceived Stress Scale; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983).
Liang et al. (2002) reported a confirmatory factor analysis supporting the distinctiveness of the three dimensions of relationship quality (i.e., engagement, authenticity, empowerment). The results of the analyses raise some important questions about the multidimensionality of the instrument, however. For example, Liang et al. noted the high correlation between the Engagement and the Empowerment subscale scores, suggesting that these constructs may not be separate factors. Nevertheless, they argued for retaining the constructs as two separate factors and used the "factor...
|
