The mean and standard deviation for the outcome variable fear of intimacy was obtained (M = 80.14, SD = 18.56). This was slightly higher than college psychology students in Descutner & Thelen’s (1991) study (mean age 19.21 years,
the three predictor variables, perceived maternal care, perceived maternal overprotection and separation-individuation.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Predictor Variables in the Model
Variable M SD Range
Perceived Maternal Care 28.20 7.04 3-36 Perceived Maternal Overprotection 13.20 7.23 2-36 Separation-Individuation 139.69 42.34 56-280 Note: N = 134 for all the above variables.
The above means obtained with the current sample of participants were examined for consistency with means reported from previous studies. An Australian normative study (Parker et al., 1979) reported mean scores of 26.8 for the perceived maternal care scale and 14.7 for the perceived maternal overprotection scale for their sample which included medical students, psychiatric nurses, college students and parents of children at the local school. An additional study conducted by the same authors used a sample of patients who attended general practitioners and found a mean score of 26.9 for perceived maternal care and 13.3 for perceived maternal overprotection. The means in the current study were lower (perceived maternal
overprotection M = 13.20) or slightly higher (perceived maternal care M = 28.20) than those obtained in these two previous studies. In a recent unpublished study
(Andreassen, 2009) conducted in Melbourne with N = 106 young women aged 18-25 years (M = 21.24 years) the means and standard deviations for perceived maternal care and perceived maternal overprotection in the total sample were 28.25 (7.27) and 13.6 (8.65). However the mean perceived maternal overprotection score for a sub- sample of young women with a diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes (n = 42) was 15.17
(9.19) in contrast to the mean score of 11.84 (8.09) for the young women without this diagnosis (n = 64) (Andreassen, 2009).
The mean for separation-individuation, 139.69, obtained in the current study was higher than the mean score of 120.6 reported by Christenson and Wilson (1987) for their sample of university employees and the mean score of 127.59 (49.87) reported by Andreassen (2009) in the study of young women cited above.
Analyses were conducted to identify demographic factors that may be related to the outcome variable, fear of intimacy, and therefore would need to be included in the analyses for the model. Table 4 shows the mean for the outcome variable fear of intimacy for the various educational levels achieved by participants.
Table 4
Fear of Intimacy according to Educational Level(N = 134)
Educational Level M SD n Range
Secondary 81.82 18.33 28 54-123
TAFE 78.90 19.26 40 44-123
University 82.23 18.01 60 52-114
Other 65.17 15.84 6 38-84
A one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to establish if there were any significant differences in the outcome variable of fear of intimacy between the different categories of highest educational level achieved. There was no significant difference in mean FIS scores across educational levels, F(3,130) = 1.83, p >.05.
The various employment statuses of participants were also examined to see if it was necessary to control for this variable in testing the proposed model. Table 5 shows the means for the outcome variable for each of the employment categories.
Table 5
Fear of Intimacy according to Employment Status (N = 134)
Employment Status M SD n Range
Unemployed 89.60 21.43 5 60-113
Part-time Employment 88.17 19.67 29 61-123 Full-time Employment 77.29 17.98 70 38-113
Current Student 78.68 15.58 19 52-111
Student Working Full Time 54.00 2.83 2 52-56 Student Working Part-Time 80.11 16.44 9 57-109
A one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to establish if there were any significant differences between the different categories of employment status on the outcome variable fear of intimacy. While there was a significant difference in the mean scores on the FIS across the employment status categories, F(5,128) = 2.65, p <.05 the actual difference between the means was quite small (effect size = 0.09). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test did not identify any significant differences between the groups. Given this, and the small n for some of the categories employment status was not included as a variable in the final model.
The outcome variable was also examined for potential gender differences that may need to be accounted for in the final model. An independent sample t-test indicated that in the current sample the mean score on the FIS for males (M = 87.05, SD = 19.71) was significantly different from the mean score for females, (M = 76.88, SD = 17.15; t(132) = -3.05, p <.05 (two tailed) indicating higher fear of intimacy in males. Gender was therefore included as a covariate in the analysis to test the model. Due to this difference, the independent variables were investigated for any gender
differences but no other differences were found. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics for the three predictor variables.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for Predictor Variables according to Gender
Males (n = 43) Females (n = 91)
Variable Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Perceived Maternal Care1 28.02 6.11 13-36 28.29 7.47 3-36 Perceived Maternal Overprotection2 12.90 7.94 2-32 13.34 6.91 2-36 Separation- Individuation3 149.12 49.24 68-280 135.23 38.14 56-246 1t(132) = 0.20, p >.05 (two tailed) 2t(132) = 0.32, p >.05 (two tailed) 3t(132) = -1.79, p >.05 (two tailed)
A Pearson Bivariate Correlation analysis was conducted with the continuous variables perceived maternal care, perceived maternal overprotection, separation- individuation and fear of intimacy. Gender was also included due to the decision to add it to the final model. The scatterplots obtained demonstrated linear relationships between the variables, with the strength of these variables demonstrated by the two tailed correlations reported in Table 7. Multicollinearity (demonstrated by a
correlation of above .9 (Pallant, 2007) between the variables was not evident. Guidelines suggested by J.W Cohen (1988) have been used to interpret the size of correlation coefficients in the significant relationships between variables. J.W Cohen (1988) considered that a small size correlation was less than .30, a medium size correlation was between .30 and .50, and a large size correlation was .50 or above.
Table 7
Intercorrelations between Variables entered into the Model
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1. Gender - 2.Perceived Maternal Care -.02 - 3. Perceived Maternal Overprotection -.03 -.45** - 4. Separation- Individuation .15 -.25** .23** - 5. Fear of Intimacy .26** -.18* -.01 .54** - * p <.05, two tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed
As can be seen in Table 7, fear of intimacy had a large positive association with separation-individuation and a small negative association with perceived maternal care. There was a medium size negative association between perceived maternal care and perceived maternal overprotection and a small, negative association between perceived maternal care and separation-individuation. Perceived maternal overprotection showed a small positive correlation with separation-individuation. All the aforementioned significant associations were in the direction predicted by the hypotheses. Gender was significantly correlated with fear of intimacy. The correlation between perceived maternal overprotection and fear of intimacy was non-significant.