1

Chapter 1
The Problem and Its Background

Introduction
In this age of technology, people, young and old engage in social networking. Among the
teen-agers the most popular sites are Facebook, My Space, Multiply and others. It is part of their
daily routine to check on these sites to update their status, upload pictures, but the main purpose
is to establish friendship. Concept of friendship now is on-line, not the one that starts with Hi and
Hello. After meeting people through these sites, they communicate constantly, catch up on each
other, and send pictures of special moments in their lives in any part of the globe. Teen-agers also
believe that this is the easiest access to friendship. But teen-agers should be careful in using these
sites. There were many cases in the past where friendships established through social networking
resulted to danger and even death. Because of this, it worries parents because they dont have
control as to the extent of friendship their children has established through these sites. Teen-agers
can access any site which is not seen and approved by their parents. Some teen-agers even fail in
class because they devote most of their time in social networking. Computer shops are
everywhere, in malls and even near schools. With this background, the researcher is careful in
using these sites.
Social networking has been the subject of research by investigating on its impact to
establishing friendship. These sites have become popular because through these they can
communicate with friends, relatives, classmates and be friends to people they have not met.
Through social networking, they can check on friends latest whereabouts and share personal
information through blogs. Some studies even suggest that these sites will further promote and
enhance friendship.
The researcher chose this topic to experience the changing concept of friendship which is
entertaining, helpful and an integral part of his daily life. Communication is an integral part of
life. He himself is engaged in social networking which he finds a very efficient way to
communicate. He has met friends through the Facebook who share the same interest as he does.
He believes that establishing friendship through the sites should not get in the way of studies and

2
other more important things, thus he is careful in his use of social networking sites. He is also
interested to find out if he can maintain friendship better by social networking or by engaging in
activities physically with friends.
Theoretical Framework
A new nature of connected friendship is taking on the shape of the Web itself. This
connectedness is characterized by the following: a) openness (much of fraternizing is in public),
b) tolerant of diversity ( disagree publicly with

friends, while

accepting this as part of

friendship, not a blind gang-like sharing of narrow perspectives), c) bottom-up (its not because
we work together or because we are members of some organized group), d) personal (I dont
belong to cliques, but am connected to individuals) and e) flowing (peoples relationships are
constantly changing, and shifting in complexity.

The enhanced connectivity that social

networks afford, breaks down traditional models of friendship that are based on physical
proximity, allowing individuals to connect more so than ever on shared interests, globally.
Other researchers have claimed that the Internet enhanced traditional relationships and
family ties (i.e., Katz &Aspden, 1997; Robinson et al., 2000). Katz and Aspden (1997) found that
when the Internet was placed in the home it did not result in people's "dropping out of real life"
and in fact, it augmented involvement in traditional familial activities. Robinson et al. (2000)
suggested that frequent Internet users might actually have more active social lives than nonusers. In other words, the Internet supplements traditional social behavior, without necessarily
increasing or decreasing it (Wellman et al., 2001).

3
Conceptual Framework
Extent of Social Networking

Size of network

Duration of usage

Level of Intimacy in Friendship

Statement of the Problem

The study aims to find out if there is a significant relationship between social networking
behaviour and degree of intimacy in friendship.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents usage of social networking in terms
of
a. sites they belong to
b. size of their social network
c. time spent in social networking?
2. What level of intimacy do the respondents enjoy with the members of their social
network?
3. Is there a significant relationship between extent of social networking (size of network,
time spent) and level of intimacy in friendship?
Hypothesis
H0: There is no significant relationship between extent of social networking (size and
duration of use) and level of intimacy in friendship.
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions were made:

4
1. The researcher assumes that the respondents answered the questions honestly and to the
best of their ability.
2. The responses of the sample study may change over time.
Scope and Limitations
This study focused on the quality of interaction and indicators of intimacy in friendship
as described by Sharabany and considered only the responses of High School IV students,
regardless of gender. The differences in responses due to age and gender are not part of the study.
Likewise, the study focused only on the usage of one particular social networking site and
considered only the four most popular social network sites to these students. Although Slovins
formula was used to get the appropriate sample size (100), the study only used the responses
from the total number of questionnaires returned (55).
Significance of the Study
Students. This study may give them insights on the impact of social networking on their
daily life particularly on friendship.
Parents. This study may give them a better understanding of the perceptions of the
younger generation about relational intimacy and connectedness.
School. This study may give the school insights on how to maximize social networking
to maintain and improve their connectedness to the students and future clients.

Definition of Terms

5
Friendship. This refers to the state of being connected whether online or offline.
Extent of social networking. This refers to the size of network and amount of time spent
in the social networking site.
Online Friend. This refers to a person one interacts with only through the internet such as
via social network and e-mails
In the- flesh Friend. This refers to a person one interacts with face to face.
Actual Friends. This refers to people one feels close to and has interactions with online
and face to face.
Intimacy. This refers to person to the degree of closeness of a person to another person as
measured by Sharabanys eight (8) indicators namely frankness and spontaneity, sensitivity
and knowing, attachment, exclusiveness, giving and sharing, imposition, common activities, and
trust and loyalty.
Social networking behaviour. This refers to a persons use of social network in terms of
specific site joined and accessed, number of persons connected to online and amount of time
spent online the social network.

Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature

Conceptual Literature

Friendship
Wikipedia defines friendship as a form of interpersonal relationship generally considered
to be closer than association, although there is a range of degrees of intimacy in both friendships
and associations. Friendship and association are often thought of as spanning across the same
continuum. The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology,
anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Various academic theories of friendship have been
proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and
attachment styles.

Levels of Intimacy in Relationships

The level of perceived intimacy is conceptualized in a traditional scale, defined according
to the aspects of closeness in Sharabany's intimacy scale (Sharabany, Gershoni and Hoffman,
1982). The definition of intimacy these authors use is broad, consisting of eight dimensions:
reciprocity; loyalty and trust; openness (honesty and spontaneity); being sensitive towards each
other; a feeling of closeness; exclusivity; offering help and support, in emotional as well as in
practical ways; and doing things together.
However, a new nature of connected friendship is taking on the shape of the Web itself.
This connectedness is characterized by the following: a) openness (much of fraternizing is in
public), b) tolerant of diversity ( disagree publicly with friends, while accepting this as part of
friendship, not a blind gang-like sharing of narrow perspectives), c) bottom-up (its not because

7
we work together or because we are members of some organized group), d) personal (I dont
belong to cliques, but am connected to individuals) and e) flowing (peoples relationships are
constantly changing, and shifting in complexity).
The enhanced connectivity that social networks afford, breaks down traditional models of
friendship that are based on physical proximity, allowing individuals to connect more so than
ever on shared interests, globally. Geographic boundaries to friendship have been completely
broken down.

Social Network Theory

Social network theory views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the
individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can
be many kinds of ties between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social network is a map of all
of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine
the social capital of individual actors. These concepts are often displayed in a social network
diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.
The power of social network theory stems from its difference from traditional
sociological studies, which assume that it is the attributes of individual actors, whether they are
friendly or unfriendly, smart or dumb, or others, that matter. Social network theory produces an
alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and
ties with other actors within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for
explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the ability
for individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the structure of their network.

8
Social networks have also been used to examine how companies interact with each other,
characterizing the many informal connections that link executives together, as well as
associations and connections between individual employees at different companies. These
networks provide ways for companies to gather information, deter competition, and even collude
in setting prices or policies.

Research Literature
Existing research about online social communication remains limited. To date

all

published, empirical studies have correlated individuals' self-reports of their online relationships
and adjustment at a single time point, with the exception of Kraut et al. (1998,2002), who used
objective measures of internet use and self-report measures of adjustment in a 3-year
longitudinal design, and Willoughby (2008), who used self-report measures in a 21- month
design. Whether earlier patterns of peer interactions show continuity with behavior in the online
medium remains largely unknown. Further, observational data about friendship quality online is
completely lacking.
Theoretical reasons have been proposed stating that because nonverbal cues and
personalizing information are limited online, internet-based interactions result in lower quality
relationships than do face-to-face interactions (Keisler, Seigel, & McGuire, 1984). Two studies
that compared participants' self-report of their internet and face-to-face relationships found that
youths rarely become as close to online friends as they do to in-person friends (Mesch & Talmud,
2007; Parks & Roberts, 1998). Further arguments have been proposed that internet use
contributes to poor adjustment because youths' online social interactions do not substitute for (or
potentially take time away from) intimate face-to-face relationships. Some research has found

9
youths' self-report of internet use to be cross-sectionally correlated with self-report of adjustment
problems (Modayil, Thompson, & Varnhagen, 2003)
Other researchers have claimed that the Internet enhanced traditional relationships and
family ties (i.e., Katz &Aspden, 1997; Robinson et al., 2000). Katz and Aspden (1997) found that
when the Internet was placed in the home it did not result in people's "dropping out of real life"
and in fact, it augmented involvement in traditional familial activities. Robinson et al. (2000)
suggested that frequent Internet users might actually have more active social lives than nonusers. In other words, the Internet supplements traditional social behavior, without necessarily
increasing or decreasing it (Wellman et al., 2001).
In support of the alternative viewpoint, some research indicates that the characteristics of
individuals' face-to-face relationships play out again in the online medium. Adolescents who
described themselves as having internalizing symptoms (Gross, Juvonen, & Gable, 2002; Ybarra
et al., 2005) were more likely to communicate over the internet with people they knew less well,
and to talk about superficial topics, than were adolescents without internalizing symptoms. In
retrospective self-report designs, individuals' problematic internet interactions have appeared to
be extensions of difficulties that predated their internet use (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & BeckerBlease, 2007; Modayil et al., 2003). Similarly, youths with strong, positive face-to-face
relationships may be those most frequently using internet social communication as an additional
venue in which to interact. In support of this argument, work has found youths' self-report of
internet use to be cross-sectionally correlated with self-reports of extraversion (Peter,
Valkenburg, & Schouten, 2005), low social anxiety (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007), and sociability
in face-to-face interactions (Birnie & Horvath, 2002). Willoughby (2008) found trends that

10
adolescents' self-reports of better relationships with peers, though not with parents, predicted
increases in internet use over a 21-month period.
Social networking websites, the most popular of which are Facebook and MySpace,
exemplify online social communication. Because of their recency, few studies have specifically
investigated these explicitly socially oriented websites as opposed to the research reviewed
studying other types of internet use. Notably, unlike other forms of internet communication,
these sites encourage nonanonymous interactions and the recognition of connections between
friends. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) found that the amount of time college students
reported using Facebook was positively correlated with their self-reported face-to-face
involvement in the college community; this relationship held after statistical control of total
internet use, suggesting a unique function of Facebook to enhance social communication. In a
study of a Dutch social networking website, Valkenburg, Peter, and Schouten (2006) found that
adolescents who self-reported receiving positive comments from friends posted on their page
also self-reported good adjustment. Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, and Tong (2008)
found that participants judged Facebook page owners on the basis of characteristics of the friends
on the owners' pages, suggesting that youths view Facebook interactions as reflecting the quality
of owners' face-to-face relationships. (Mikami et. al)

Chapter 3

11
Methodology
Research Design
The researcher used a descriptive study to find out the relationship of online social
networking behavior to the degree of intimacy in friendship.

Respondents of the Study

The researcher applied Slovins formula to get the sample size fit for the population of
the HS IV students of SISC. However, out of the 100 questionaires given out, only a total of 55
were returned limiting the number of respondents for the study to this number.
Slovin's formula is used to calculate the sample size (n) given the population size (N)and a
margin of error (e). It is computed as n = N / (1+Ne2). This study used a margin of error of 5 %:
n=
125
____ = 95
1+ (125) (0.05)

Research Instrument
The researcher used a self-designed questionnaire based on the Intimate Friendship Scale
made by Ruth Sharabany (1974). Question 1 gathers data about the social networking sites used
by the respondents while question 2 determines the size of their network. Question 3 determines
the amount of time spent by the respondent doing specific activities on their social network while
question 4 gathers data about the level of intimacy of the respondents based on the
subcomponents in Sharabanys Intimate Friendship Scale.

12
Items 1,4,6, and 9 describe frankness and spontaneity while items 5 and 13 describe
sensitivity and knowing. Descriptors of attachment are in items 2 and 11. Giving and sharing
are described in items 10,14, and 16 while imposition is described in items 15 and 17 . Items 7
and12 describe common activities while items 3 and 8 describe trust and loyalty.
The Intimacy Scale uses a 5-point Likert Scale with the corresponding interpretation for
level of intimacy:
Likert Scale

Interpretation

Index

Level of Intimacy

Strongly Agree

4.51 5.00

Very High

Agree

3.51 4.50

High

Neutral

2.51 3.50

Moderate

Disagree

1.51 2.50

Low

Strongly disagree

0.0 1.50

Very Low

Administration of the Instrument

The questionnaires were personally distributed by the researcher to the respondents in
school. Once the respondents were done answering the questionnaires, they were collected by the
researcher, and the results were tallied, and interpreted. The respondents were chosen by
convenience sampling.

Statistical Treatment of Data

13
The researcher used percentages to compute the distribution of the responses of the
sample population.
To test for the extent of relationship between the extent of social networking (size and
time spent) and level of intimacy, Pearson r Correlation was applied using Microsoft Excel.
The possible answers for r ranges from -1.00 and + 1.00. The results are interpreted as follows:
r value

Interpretation

0.00 to 0.20

Negligible

0.21 to 0.40

low or slight correlation

0.41 to 0.70

moderate relationship

0.71 to 0.90

high relationship

0.91 to 0.99

very high relationship

perfect correlations

A positive result denotes a positive or direct relationship but a negative result denotes an
inverse relationship.
If there is a relationship present, the test for the significance of the value of r
is applied.

If the computed t-value is greater than t critical one-tailed at n-2 df, then the relationship
is significant.
Chapter 4
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

14
Specific Question No.1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents usage of
social networking in terms of
a. sites they belong to
b. size of their social network
c. time spent in social networking?
Table 1 A. Distribution by Social Network

Social Network
site
Facebook
Multiply
Tumblr
Twitter
Total

Number Percentage
53
51%
7
7%
16
16%
27
26%
103
100%

Table 1A shows the distribution of the respondents by the kind of social networking site
they are users of. The table shows that although they use other social network sites, the highest
number of users have Facebook.
This means that majority of the respondents use Facebook.

Table 1B. Distribution by size of Social Network

Size of Network
1 to 200
201 - 500

Number Percentage
15
28%
18
33%

15
500 and more
Total

21
54

39%
100%

Table 1B shows the distribution of the respondents by the size of social networking site
they are users of. The table shows that 28 % have a small network (200 or less people) and
nearly equal percentage of users have more than 200 people in their network.
This means that most of the respondents have more than 500 people in their network.
Table 1C. Distribution by Amount of time in Facebook
Amount of Time
1 hour or less
1 - 5 hours
5- 8 hours
more than 8
hours
Total

Number Percentage
3
6%
21
39%
10
19%
20
54

37%
100%

Table 1C shows the distribution of the respondents by the amount of time spent in their
social networking sites. The table shows that only 6 % spend one hour or less in their sites.
However, 39 % spend 5 hours or less while 37 % spend more than 8 hours online.
This means that most of the respondents spend between 1 to 5 hours weekly on
Facebook.

Specific Question No.2. What level of intimacy do the respondents enjoy with the
members of their social network?
Table 2 Level of Intimacy of the respondents with their network.

16
Average

Level of Intimacy
1. Frankness and Spontaneity
I feel free to chat/post about almost anything.

(Mean)

If they do something I dont like I can always chat/post something about it.
I can tell them (by chat/post) when I have done things that other people do not
approve of.
I chat or post about my hopes and plan for the future.
2. Attachment
(Mean)
I feel close to them.
When they are offline, I keep wondering where they are and what they are
doing.
3. Trust and Loyalty
(Mean)
I tell others nice things about these people.
I speak up to defend them when other people say bad things about them.
4. Sensitivity and Knowing
(Mean)
I can tell when they are worried about something
I know what kinds of books, hobbies and other activities they like.
5. Common Activities
I work with them on some school or work projects.
I work with them on some hobbies.
6. Giving And Sharing

(Mean)

(Mean)

When something nice happens to me, I share the experience with them.
I offer them the use of my things (like clothes, possessions, food, etc)
Whenever they want to tell me about a problem, I stop what I am doing and go
online.
7. Imposition
(Mean)
If I want them to do something for me, all I have to do is ask on or offline.
I can be sure that they will help me whenever I ask for it.
Mean of Means

Interpretation
High

3.51
3.80

High

3.39

Moderate

3.48

Moderate

3.39
3.45
3.57

Moderate
Moderate
High

3.33
3.70
3.72
3.69

Moderate
High
High
High

3.55

High

3.70

High

3.39

Moderate

3.70
3.80
3.61
3.44

High
High
High
Moderate

3.46
3.33

Moderate
Moderate

3.52
3.57

High
High

3.52
3.63

High
High

3.56

High

Table 2 shows the level of Intimacy enjoyed by the respondents with their social
network. The table shows the 7 components of intimacy in friendship.
The respondents enjoy a high level of intimacy for Frankness and Spontaneity (3.51),
Trust and Loyalty (3.70) , Sensitivity and Knowing (3.55), Common Activities (3.70), and
Imposition (3.57). On the other hand, they enjoy a moderate level for attachment (3.45) , and
Giving and Sharing (3.44).
As a whole, the respondents enjoy a high level of intimacy (3.56) with the people they are
connected with in their social network.

17
Specific Question No.3. Is there a significant relationship between extent of social
networking (size of network, time spent) and level of intimacy in friendship ?

Pearson r

t-value

Critical

Interpretation

level
Level of intimacy and size of

0.031704

network.
Level of intimacy and time

Not

0.05

Negligible

0.05

Low correlation, not

applicable
0.22220865

1.6591

spent.

significant
Table 3 Statistical analysis

Table 3 shows the result of statistical analysis using Pearson r correlation. The table shows
that there is a negligible relationship between level of intimacy and size of network and very low
relationship between level of intimacy and time spent on the networking site.
This means that there is no significant relationship between level of intimacy and size of
network and between level of intimacy and amount of time spent.

18

Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary
The study aims to find out if there is a significant relationship between social
networking behaviour and degree of intimacy in friendship. The researcher used a desciptive
study to find out the relationship of online social networking behavior to the degree of intimacy
in friendship. The researcher had a total of 55 respondents for the study, all of them belonging to
HS IV of

of SISC. The researcher used a self-designed questionnaire based on Intimate

Friendship Scale made by Ruth Sharabany (1974).

Major Findings
Based on the data gathered, the following are the major findings :
1. Majority of the respondents use Facebook.
2. Most of the respondents have more than 500 people in their Facebook network.
3. Most of the respondents spend between 1 to 5 hours weekly on Facebook.

19
4. The respondents enjoy a high level of intimacy (3.56) with the people they are connected
with in Facebook.
5. There is no significant relationship between level of intimacy and size of network.
6. There is no significant relationship between level of intimacy and time spent.
Conclusion

Based on the major findings, the following are concluded:

1. The respondents use Facebook, are connected to more than

500 people and spend

between one to five hours weekly on Facebook.

2. The respondents enjoy a high level of intimacy (3.56) with the people they are connected
with in their Facebook.
3. There is no significant relationship between level of intimacy and extent of Facebook
usage.

Recommendations

Based on the results of the study, the following are recommended:

1. A similar study could be done where respondents are selected by pairing.
2. Another type of questionnaire could be used to measure level of intimacy to verify the
results of the study.
3.

A follow up study could be done on identified members of a particular social

network to be able to establish exclusiveness of interaction

20

Bibliography
Bickmore, T. Friendship and Intimacy in the Digital Age. 1998. Retrieved from
http://web.media.mit.edu/~bickmore/Mas714/finalReport.html on Dec. 5, 2011
Baerveldt, C. & Houtzager, B. Just like Normal: A Social Network Study of the relation between
Petty Crime and the Intimacy of Adolescent Friendships. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality. Volume 27, Issue 2. 1999. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/ on Dec. 2,
2011.
Mikami et al. retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855302/pdf/nihms-191679.pdf
on December 3, 2011.
Sharabany, R. Intimate Friendship Scale: Conceptual Underpinnings, psychometric properties
and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 11. 1994.
Social Network Theory. Retrieved from http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/socialnetworktheory.htm
on Oct. 10, 2011.

Unpublished Thesis
Allgood, Sarah. The Intimate Friendship Scale: Factors and Association with Drinking Patterns
Among College Aged Friends. University of North Carolina Wilmington, 2008.

21

Appendix I.
Questionnaire
Dear Respondents,
I am working on a study about the Relationship of Extent of Social Networking and
Quality of Friendship. Please answer the following questionnaire as honestly and accurately as
you can. Your answers will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Thank you very much for
your cooperation.
Yukio Tamura
HS IV- Competence
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Name:________________________________________
1. What social networking sites do you belong to? You may check more than one.
____Facebook
____Tumblr
____Twitter
____Multiply
2. How many people are you connected with in Facebook? ______
3. Indicate the average amount of time(hours, minutes) you spend in the following
activities in Facebook:
Activity
Hours
Reading messages/comments
Posting messages/comments
Chatting
Posting pictures & videos
Viewing pictures & videos
Playing online games
Posting & sharing links
Planning events
Doing academic-related activities

Minutes

22
Joining interest/hobby related groups
4. Please check your degree of agreement on how well each statement
describes your relationship with all your friends in Facebook.
5
Strongly
Agreed
Statements
1. I feel free to chat/post about
almost anything.
2. I feel close to them.
3. I tell others nice things about
these people.
4. If they do something I dont
like I can always chat/post
something about it.
5. I can tell when they are
worried about something
6. I can tell them (by chat/post)
when I have done things that
other people do not approve
of.
7. I work with them on some
school or work projects.
8. I speak up to defend them
when other people say bad
things about them.
9. I chat or post about my hopes
and plan for the future.
10.When something nice
happens to me, I share the
experience with them.
11.When they are offline, I keep
wondering where they are and
what they are doing.
12.I work with them on some
hobbies.
13.I know what kinds of books,
hobbies and other activities
they like.
14.I offer them the use of my
things (like clothes,
possessions, food, etc)
15.If I want them to do something
for me, all I have to do is ask
on or offline.

4
Agree

3
Neutral

2
Disagree

1
Strong
ly
Disagr
ee

23
16.Whenever they want to tell
me about a problem, I stop
what I am doing and go
online.
17.I can be sure that they will
help me whenever I ask for it.

Appendix II

24

25

26
Appendix III
Sample Computations

Appendix IV
Data

Respond
ent
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R18
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
R24

Facebo
ok
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Question 1
Multipl Tumb
y
lr

Question 2
Twitte
r

1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

200
164
185
300
100
48
280
600
500
200
2000
700
450
800
280
800
100
300
1000
2000
300
650
450
300

27
R25
R26
R27
R28
R29
R30
R31
R32
R33
R34
R35
R37
R38
R39
R40
R41
R42
R43
R44
R45
R46
R47
R48
R49
R50
R51
R52
R53
R54
R55

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

R56
%

53
51

1
1

1
1
1

380
100
300
1200
600
200
153
200
2000
360
1000
312
180
400
660
1000
2000
1000
500
501
125
1000
550
200
500
1000
480
500
200
800

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

7
7

16
16

27
26

10
3

28

Question 3
(Minutes)
A
10
30
5
4

B
5
30
10
5

80
30

15
30

30
10

15
10

60
30

C
30
12
0
4
1

30
12
2

E
5
30
13

60
90

60

15
10

60
30

60
60
24
0
10
30
0
60

30

15
10
12
0
30

60

60

60

30

10
10
60

10
10

60
30
10

10
5

30
2
5

20
1
5
30
72
0
10
30
12
0
12
0

60
1
5
30
30
0
10
30

20
1
60
30
12
0
10
30
12
0
12
0

72
0
10
30
12
0
60

60
60

12
0
14

30
15

30
20

30
40

30
60

480
193
12

8.0
3.2
0.2

36
0
90

30
30

30

60
30

60
30

785
420

13.1
7.0

10

30
10

30
10

400
100

6.7
1.7

30

30

60
30

60
30

1020
330

17.0
5.5

60
12
0
60
15

60

590

9.8

60
60

490
240
85

8.2
4.0
1.4

5
2
60
30
18
0
10
30
18
0

1
2
60
30
18
0
10
30
12
0
12
0

296
14
375
270

4.9
0.2
6.3
4.5

2520
100
300

42.0
1.7
5.0

935

15.6

900

15.0

20
10

60

10

10

60
10

90
30

10
15

60
10

15
1
30

15
2
60
30

10
30

60
10
30

10
1
60
30
12
0
10
30

60

30
12
0

5
60

No. of
Hours

G
1

5
10
36
0
30
18
0

12
0
1
60
30
12
0
10
30
18
0

Total
minut
es
54

12
0

60

0.9

29
10

30

60

60

30

10

60
12
0
30
0

5
60

20
30
0

60
36
0

5
36
0

210

3.5

2400

40.0

30

20
36
0
12
0

10

510

8.5

2
30

10
30

30
30

4
30

207
300

3.5
5.0

30
60
10
60

2
60
10
60

5
60
10
60

5
60
10
60

293
600
100
540

4.9
10.0
1.7
9.0

90

30

810

13.5

30
18
0
15
q

30
12
0

720

12.0

685

11.4

185

3.1

1524
301
65
225

25.4
5.0
1.1
3.8

420

7.0

275
173
120
600
320

4.6
2.9
2.0
10.0
5.3

355

5.9

1170
160
320

19.5
2.7
5.3

1200
65

20.0
1.1

485

8.1

595

9.9

36
0

10
12
0
30

36
0

2
30
18
0
60
10
60
18
0
12
0

1
30

5
30

30
30

3
30

5
60
10
60
12
0
12
0

2
60
10
60

2
60
10

60

2
60
10
60
12
0
12
0

60

30

30

15

60

60
60
10
60
18
0
12
0
12
0

30

30

10

60

60

60
24
0
50
10
30

30

30
36
3
60

10
42
3

20
18
3
30
5
5

30

63
10
10
20

62

61
61

1
60

30

30

10

20

60

5
12
0

15
5
30
60
30

15
5
10
60
10

60

60

60
15
30
12
0
5

30
15
30
12
0
5

30

10

30
10
60
20
12
0
27
0
20
30
12
0
5
18
0

90

25

30

5
30
10
30

60
30

60

30
5
30
12
0
60
30
60
5

30

30

15

15
30
12
0
5
12
0
18
0

10
20
60
5

60
15
30
12
0
20
60
12
0

30

12
3

60
60
12
0

5
60

3
5
60
60

5
60
60

60
60

20
36
0
20
30
12
0
5

20

10

10

10
30
12
0
5

30
20
30
12
0
5

60
30
20
12
0
5

60

10

5
60
10

60

90

5
60
60
10
30
0
60
12
0
5
5

30

31
Question 4(Level of Intimacy Scale)

R
1

R
2

R
3

R
4

R
5

R
6

R
7

R
8

R
9

R1
0

R1
1

R1
2

R1
3

R1
4

R1
5

R1
6

R1
7

R1
8

3
3
3

4
4
4

4
4
4

3
3
3

4
4
3

5
4
4

4
3
4

4
3
4

3
3
3

4
4
5

5
5
5

5
5
5

4
3
3

1
1
1

4
3
4

3
3
3

5
3
5

3
3
3

2
3

4
4

4
3

3
3

4
4

3
5

3
3

4
4

3
3

4
3

5
5

5
5

3
3

1
1

5
5

3
3

5
5

3
3

32

R
19

R
20

R
21

R
R
22 23

R
R
24 25

R
R
26 27

R
R
28 29

R
R
30 31

R
R
32 33

R
R
34 35

R
R3
37 8

3
3
3

5
5
5

5
5
5

5
3
3

5
5
5

4
4
4

5
4
5

3
3
3

3
3
4

4
5
4

2
4
4

3
4
2

4
3
2

3
3
3

4
3
3

4
4
5

5
5
3

4
3
4

5
4
3

3
3

5
5

5
5

5
4

5
5

4
4

5
5

3
3

2
3

2
4

3
3

4
3

3
4

3
4

3
4

3
4

3
3

1
2

3
4

33

R3
9

R4
0

R4
1

R4
2

R4
3

R4
4

R4
5

R4
6

R4
7

R4
8

R4
9

R5
0

R5
1

R5
2

R5
3

R5
4

R5
5

34

3
3
3

3
3
3

3
2
5

3
3
3

3
2
2

2
3
4

3
3
3

5
5
5

4
4
4

4
4
5

5
5
5

3
3
3

5
4
4

3
3
3

4
4
4

4
4
4

4
4
5

3
3

1
3

2
2

1
3

1
3

1
1

3
3

5
5

4
4

4
4

3
5

4
4

5
5

3
3

4
3

4
3

3
4

35