Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2004). Measuring closeness: The relationship closeness inventory (RCI) revisited. In D. J. Mashek and P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 81-101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Hypercompetitiveness and Relationships: Further Implications for Romantic, Family, and Peer Relationships

  AUTHORS: Bill Thornton, Richard M. Ryckman, Joel A. Gold

  KEYWORDS: Competitiveness, Hypercompetitiveness, Relationships

  JOURNAL NAME: Psychology, Vol.2 No.4, July 25, 2011

  ABSTRACT: Romantic relationships of hypercompetitive individuals are much more problematic with greater conflict compared to those not so hypercompetitive; however, relationship satisfaction and commitment do not covary with hypercompetitiveness (Ryckman et al., 2002). Study 1 considered whether the type of commitment matters in a romantic relationship. Indeed, hypercompetitiveness was associated positively with constraint commitment (i.e., maintaining a relationship out of concern for one’s investment and other social-psychological costs associated with leaving), and was associated negatively with personal dedication commitment (i.e., interest in the relationship based on concerns for mutual benefit). Not only may the romantic relationships of hypercompetitive individuals be more problematic, other interpersonal relationships may be negatively impacted as well. Study 2 noted that hypercompetitiveness was associated positively with relationship problems involving both family members and peers; however, relationship closeness with family and friends did not vary with hypercompetitiveness. Implications of findings in both studies are considered.