Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and skewness coefficients of variables of interest for the whole sample (N = 374), and correlations between these variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Warmth
2. W. Kno	0.90
3. W. Int	0.94	0.77
4. W. Sup	0.94	0.76	0.85
5. Conflict	−.19	− 0.09	−0.22	− 0.21
6. C. Ant	−.24	− 0.13	− 0.26	− 0.26	0.90
7. C. Dom	−.12	− 0.07	− 0.15	− 0.10	0.83	0.62
8. C. Qua	−0.14	− 0.05	− 0.16	− 0.17	0.90	0.77	0.59
9. Rivalry	−0.31	−0.25	−0.29	− 0.30	0.37	0.32	0.31	0.35
10. R. Mat	−0.27	− 0.24	− 0.25	− 0.25	0.35	0.29	0.29	0.34	0.88
11. R. Pat	−0.23	−0.13	− 0.24	− 0.25	0.31	0.30	0.27	0.25	0.87	0.48
12. Distress	−0.04	− 0.03	− 0.03	− 0.06	0.16	0.14	0.13	0.14	0.18	0.16	0.12
13. Esteem	0.01	0.03	0.01	−0.01	−0.15	−0.11	− 0.15	−0.13	− 0.12	− 0.10	−0.09	− 0.60
Mean	2.8	2.91	2.74	2.74	1.92	1.79	1.74	2.22	0.59	0.63	0.54	13.96	30.38
SD	0.91	0.87	0.98	1.07	0.72	0.74	0.83	0.88	0.52	0.57	0.59	5.96	6.47
Skewness	0.23	0.07	0.25	0.25	0.85	0.80	1.23	0.69	0.67	0.67	0.97	0.66	−0.40

Note. SD Standard deviation, W. Kno Knowledge, W. Int Intimacy, W. Sup Support, C. Ant Antagonism, C. Dom Dominance; C. Qua Quarreling, R. Mat Maternal rivalry, R. Pat Paternal rivalry. All correlations above 0.10 were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Whereas the means, standard deviations, and skewness coefficients for dominance were computed on the raw variables, the correlations involving dominance were computed after the latter had been log transformed