Exploring the Predictive and Theoretical Validity of the Network Interdependence Measure

References

• Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. L., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for trees: Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042–1057. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, … D. R. Peterson Eds., Close relationships (pp. 110–168). New York, NY: Freeman. ISBN: 978-0971242784.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005
   Google Scholar
• Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C. M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 330. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, J. A., & Johnson, A. M. (1996). Adolescents’ romantic relationships and the structure and quality of their close interpersonal ties. Personal Relationships, 3(2), 185–195. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00111.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coromina, L., Guia, J., Coenders, G., & Ferligoj, A. (2008). Duocentered networks. Social Networks, 30, 49–59. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., Kinney, T. A., & Cruz, M. G. (1996). Influence, appraisals, and emotions in close relationships. Communications Monographs, 63(2), 105–130. doi:10.1080/03637759609376382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79(4), 1259–1287. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiori, K. L., Rauer, A. J., Birditt, K. S., Brown, E., Jager, J., & Orbuch, T. L. (2017). Social network typologies of Black and White married couples in midlife. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(2), 571–589. doi:10.1111/jomf.12330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floyd, K. (2002). Human affection exchange: V. Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 135–152. doi:10.1080/01463370209385653
   Google Scholar
• Gallois, C., & Giles, H. (2015). Communication accommodation theory. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 1–18. doi:10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi066
   Google Scholar
• Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14, 53–72. doi:10.1007/s12110-003-1016-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle Ed., Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN: 0-8039-5317-8.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 205–223. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
   Google Scholar
• Keneski, E., Neff, L. A., & Loving, T. J. (2018). The importance of a few good friends: Perceived network support moderates the association between daily marital conflict and diurnal cortisol. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 962–971. doi:10.1177/1948550617731499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, L. K. (2007). Perceptions of turmoil within courtship: Associations with intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships,24(3),363–384. doi:10.1177/0265407507077227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, L. K., & Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network members in courtships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Personal Relationships, 13, 281–302. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00118.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, L. K., Miller, L. E., & Carpenter, K. E. (2007). Using the relational turbulence model to understand negative emotion within courtship. Personal Relationships, 14, 91–112. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00143.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2004). Interference and facilitation from partners in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 115–130. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00074.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2010). An actor—partner interdependence model of relational turbulence: Cognitions and emotions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 595–619. doi: 10.1177/0265407510368967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Depressive symptoms and mechanisms of relational turbulence as predictors of relationship satisfaction among returning service members. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 470–478. doi:10.1037/a0024063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leenders, R. T. A. (2013). Longitudinal behavior of network structure and actor attributes: Modeling interdependence of contagion and selection. In P. Doreian & F. Stokman (Eds.), Evolution of social networks (pp. 173–192). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203059500
   Google Scholar
• McLaren, R. M. (2008). Integrating the relational turbulence model and relational communication to explain reactions to hurtful messages in personal relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
   Google Scholar
• Nagy, M. E., & Theiss, J. A. (2013). Applying the relational turbulence model to the empty-nest transition: Sources of relationship change, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners. Journal of Family Communication, 13(4), 280–300. doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.823430
   Google Scholar
• Neyer, F. J., & Voigt, D. (2004). Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. European Journal of Personality, 18(4), 279–299. doi:10.1002/per.519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk: Understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. doi:10.1177/0963721414531598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 10, 55–79. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00004.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parks, M. R., Stan, C. M., & Eggert, L. L. (1983). Romanic involvement and social network involvement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 116–131. doi:10.2307/3033848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on amazon mechanical turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(3), 175–196. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x
   Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Assessing mediation in communication research. In S. Hayes & Snyder’s (Eds.), The sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452272054
   Google Scholar
• Rusbult, C., Arriaga, X., & Agnew, C. (2003). Interdependence in close relationships. In G. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clarke’s (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 359–387). London,UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470998557
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9780203851319
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., Theiss, J. A., & McLaren, R. M. (2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 469–503. doi:10.1111/hcre.12091
   Google Scholar
• Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: Through the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630–644. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01330.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888–900. doi:10.2307/353170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships, 7, 325–340. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00020.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, J. B. (2018). “The company you keep”: Developing a measurement model of network and partner interdependence. Journal of Communication Methods and Measurements, 1–7. doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1487546
   Google Scholar
• Surra, C. A. (1988). The influence of the interactive network on developing relationships. In R. M. Milardo’s Ed., New perspectives on family: Families and social networks (pp. 48–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN: 978-0803926448.
   Google Scholar
• Surra, C. A. (1990). Research and theory on mate selection and premarital relationships in the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 844–865. doi:10.2307/353306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. doi:10.1177/0011000006288127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., & Burleson, B. (2004). The association of experienced spousal support with marital satisfaction: Evaluating the moderating effects of sex, ethnic culture, and type of support. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 123–145. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0402_3
   Google Scholar