Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Intimacy: Behavioral Interpretation: James V. Cordova and Rogina L. Scott University of Illinois at
Intimacy: Behavioral Interpretation: James V. Cordova and Rogina L. Scott University of Illinois at
1 (Spring)
75
76 JAMES V. CORDOVA & ROGINA L. SCOTT
their form but maintain similar func- may be destructive both to the individ-
tions. This provides the definition with ual and to others. For example, inti-
a certain breadth despite its specificity. mate partnerships may develop around
As long as interpersonally vulnerable drug usage or other types of criminal
behavior is reinforced, the definition of behavior. This conceptualization im-
an intimate event has been met. Thus, plies that some types of destructive be-
reciprocal self-disclosure and unidirec- havior may be maintained through the
tional confession and absolution can same processes that develop and main-
both be regarded as functionally inti- tain other more socially accepted forms
mate. of intimacy.
Fourth, and of most importance, this
conceptualization ties the various mean- IMPLICATIONS
ings of intimacy together as products of FOR RESEARCH
operant processes. Intimate interactions,
feelings of intimacy, and intimate rela- What implications does the concep-
tionships are not simply subcategories tualization of intimacy developed in
of intimacy. From the perspective of this paper have for the study of inti-
the current conceptualization, intimate macy as a behavioral phenomenon?
events set a behavioral process in motion First, it implies the necessity of addi-
that leads to developing intimate part- tional measures. In other words, means
nerships characterized by accumulating of observing and measuring intimate
ratios of reinforcement to punishment of events, the punishment of interperson-
interpersonal vulnerability and resulting ally vulnerable behavior, and intimate
in self-reportable feelings of safety or safety need to be developed and vali-
discomfort. dated to assist in the prediction and in-
Finally, a behavioral conceptualiza- fluence of intimacy. The current con-
tion of intimacy identifies the "darker" ceptualization easily lends itself to the
side of intimacy. First it recognizes that development of observational coding
the process by which intimate partner- systems for measuring the occurrence
ships develop makes the emotional of intimate events and the punishment
pain associated with the punishment of of vulnerability in partners' interac-
vulnerable behavior an unavoidable tions. Such coding systems should be
and integral aspect of intimacy. One useful in the study of intimacy in mar-
cannot remain actively engaged in a riage, in friendships, and in therapy.
developing intimate partnership with- The current conceptualization of inti-
out accepting vulnerability and a high- mate safety also lends itself to the de-
er probability of suppressive events velopment of brief self-report instru-
than occurs outside of intimate part- ments for use in circumstances that
nerships. Vulnerability is a necessary make observational coding impractical.
component of intimacy, and the fre- A number of research questions stem
quency of vulnerable behavior will be from the current conceptualization.
highest (and therefore most susceptible The first set of questions concerns
to punishment) within intimate partner- reliable prediction of the occurrence of
ships. Many other conceptualizations intimate events. In other words, what
describe intimacy in wholly positive individual and environmental condi-
terms and specifically exclude the neg- tions influence whether interpersonally
ative products of the process (e.g., Pra- vulnerable behaviors will occur? What
ger, 1995). Such exclusions, we argue, individual and environmental condi-
remove from consideration an aspect tions influence whether or not vulner-
of the process that is vital to our un- able behavior will be reinforced or
derstanding of intimacy development. punished? Such questions may be ad-
Second, the current conceptualization dressed at the very beginning of a part-
allows that intimate partnerships can nership as well as after a stable part-
develop that reinforce behavior that nership has been established. For ex-
INTIMACY: A BEHAVIORAL INTERPRETATION 83
ample, the current conceptualization ries. In addition, such research should
suggests that individuals will begin re- also address the influence of individu-
lationships with different rates of en- als' current environments, addressing
gaging in vulnerable behavior or re- specifically the probability of punish-
sponding to vulnerable behavior de- ment or reinforcement of vulnerable
pending on their history. Similar to behavior across settings.
conceptualizations of attachment (e.g., A second set of questions concerns
Bartholomew, 1990), individuals with prediction of the course of intimate
histories in which vulnerable behavior partnerships over time. In other words,
had a high probability of punishment once an intimate partnership has been
should (a) initiate intimate events less established, what influences predict its
frequently than others, (b) reinforce the further development and maintenance
vulnerable behavior of others less ef- versus its deterioration? Are these pro-
fectively, and (c) establish lower levels cesses distinct from those that predict
of intimate safety in their relationships. relationship satisfaction or stability?
These predictions can be tested using For example, the current conceptuali-
both observational and self-report mea- zation suggests that engaging in vul-
sures. The current conceptualization nerable behavior is essential to the es-
also suggests that the probability that tablishment and maintenance of inti-
vulnerable behavior will be punished mate partnerships and that communi-
should increase with the number of cating emotions may be a common
people who observe it. Thus, one type of vulnerable behavior. Further,
would predict that vulnerable behavior the current conceptualization suggests
will occur more probably in dyads and that because punishment of vulnerable
small groups than in larger groups. The behavior is inevitable, tolerance of
theory also predicts that the most ef- such events without retaliating should
fective discriminative stimuli would be be essential to the maintenance of in-
those historically associated with the timate partnerships. Such tolerance
highest rates of reinforcement. Thus likely involves effectively monitoring
one would predict that both those who one's private experience and respond-
have established themselves as dis- ing appropriately rather than impul-
criminative stimuli through a history of sively. Both of these suppositions lead
intimate events (intimate partners) and to the prediction that facility in iden-
those with limited opportunities to tifying and communicating emotions
punish (e.g., people who are seen only should be influential in the establish-
once or only in limited circumstances ment and maintenance of intimate part-
such as strangers on a plane or psycho- nerships. Further, the current concep-
therapists) may occasion vulnerable tualization predicts that couples who
behavior more readily than others (e.g., have established ratios high in rein-
co-workers, supervisors). Finally, his- forcement of vulnerable behavior and
tories of punishment establishing inter- low in punishment of vulnerable be-
personally vulnerable behavior likely havior should report higher levels of
differ between genders, suggesting that intimate safety and higher levels of re-
certain behaviors should be more vul- lationship satisfaction and should dem-
nerable for men (e.g., expressions of onstrate higher relationship stability.
sadness) and certain other behaviors In addition, we hypothesize that in-
should be more vulnerable for women timate partner formation begins with
(e.g., expressions of anger). In sum, re- displays of behavior that are relatively
search predicting the occurrence of in- less vulnerable and proceeds to include
timate events should address differenc- increasingly vulnerable behavior and
es in individual histories regarding the increasingly frequent vulnerable be-
reinforcement and punishment of vul- havior as that behavior continues to be
nerable behavior, including the effects met with high rates of reinforcement.
of gender and culture on those histo- Partners may describe the initial dra-
84 JAMES V. CORDOVA & ROGINA L. SCOTT
matic increase in intimate events as tolerate the occasional punishment of
emotionally intense and passionate. In vulnerable behavior. In addition, such
other words, our formulation predicts a research should examine the ratio of
sharp increase in intimate events when reinforcement to punishment of vulner-
the opportunity is available, and this able behavior that is characteristic of
initially steep slope may be emotion- individual partnerships and the prog-
ally exhilarating. Over time, as the in- ress of intimate safety as partnerships
dividual discriminates effectively be- mature.
tween conditions with high and low A third set of questions concerns the
probabilities of punishment within the facilitation of the intimacy process in
particular partnership, he or she will therapy. For example, the current con-
begin to report greater feelings of safe- ceptualization predicts that therapeutic
ty and comfort and fewer of the origi- interventions that emphasize interper-
nal feelings of exhilaration. According sonally vulnerable behavior should re-
to our conceptualization, this occurs sult in higher levels of reported inti-
because the person learns that he or she macy. The current conceptualization
is safe doing many things with the in- predicts that facilitating intimate events
timate partner that would not be safe within the session should be particu-
with most others. As an intimate part- larly effective for individuals who ex-
nership rich in intimate events matures, perience difficulty establishing and
several previously vulnerable behav- maintaining intimate relationships. In
iors become substantially less vulner- addition, the current conceptualization
able within that partnership. For ex- would predict that couple therapies that
ample, sharing embarrassing failures promote intimate events in the session
early in a relationship may be very (e.g., integrative couple therapy; Ja-
risky, but over time if one experiences cobson et al., 2000) should be effective
little punishment for such disclosures, at increasing self-reported intimacy. In
such behavior may become common- sum, research that examines the influ-
place within that relationship, even if ence of intimacy processes should ad-
it remains rare outside that relation- dress the effective facilitation of inti-
ship. More comically, we also tend to mate events within the therapy session.
scratch, burp, slurp, and slouch more
in our intimate partnerships than out- SUMMARY AND
side them. These are behaviors that are CONCLUSION
generally suppressed by the culture.
Behaviors that are unsafe outside the The purpose of this paper has been
relationship become safe within the re- to present a new theory of intimacy.
lationship. Are these, then, still inti- Previous conceptualizations of intima-
mate events? Our contention is that cy have failed to specify an underlying
they are, particularly when the behav- process that integrates the various
ior in question remains highly vulner- components of intimacy and that posits
able to punishment outside the intimate an explanation of why intimacy is
partnership. The progression of inti- composed of certain elements and not
mate partnerships follows a course in others and why intimate interactions
which a host of behaviors that are usu- develop into intimate relationships that
ally suppressed by others increase in sometimes remain stable and some-
frequency and are maintained at that times disintegrate. The present concep-
increased frequency over time. tualization posits just such a process
In sum, research predicting the de- based on empirically demonstrated
velopmental progress of intimate rela- principles of behavior, and it addresses
tionships should address the likelihood existing conceptual deficits. Beginning
that individuals will engage in vulner- with a functional analysis of the term
able behavior, will respond appropri- intimacy, we construct a conceptuali-
ately to vulnerable behavior, and will zation of intimacy as a process that de-
INTIMACY: A BEHAVIORAL INTERPRETATION 85
velops from the reinforcement of inter- tions for the treatment of depression. In R. J.
personally vulnerable behavior (inti- Stemnberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in
close relationships (pp. 307-334). New York:
mate events). We argue that intimate Guilford Press.
events necessarily result in increases in Cordova, J. V., Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen,
the probability of classes of vulnerable A. (1998). Acceptance versus change inter-
behavior under the stimulus control of ventions in behavioral couple therapy: Impact
a developing intimate partnership (in- on couples' in-session communication. Jour-
nal of Marriage & Family Therapy, 24, 437-
timate partnership formation). We fur- 455.
ther argue that the development of in- Cordova, J. V., & Kohlenberg, R. J. (1994). Ac-
timate partnerships necessarily in- ceptance and the therapeutic relationship. In
volves both the reinforcement of vul- S. C. Hayes, N. S. Jacobson, V. M. Follette,
& M. J. Dougher (Eds.), Acceptance and
nerable behavior and the punishment change: Content and context in psychotherapy
of vulnerable behavior and that the in- (pp. 125-140). Reno, NV: Context Press.
timate partnership process can be rep- Cusinato, M., & L'Abate, L. (1994). A spiral
resented by the resulting accumulated model of intimacy. In S. M. Johnson & L. S.
ratio. Finally, we argue that histories of Greenberg (Eds.), The heart of the matter:
Perspectives on emotion in marital therapy
intimate versus suppressive events re- (pp. 108-123). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
sult lawfully in higher or lower levels Dougher, M. J. (1994). The act of acceptance.
of intimate safety as a self-reportable In S. C. Hayes, N. S. Jacobson, V. M. Follette,
private event. In sum, we have at- & M. J. Dougher (Eds.), Acceptance and
change: Content and context in psychotherapy
tempted to distill the principal referents (pp. 37-45). Reno, NV: Context Press.
for the term intimacy and begin to ex- Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Sched-
plicate the process by which intimate ules of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-
events develop into intimate partner- Crofts.
ships that may either remain stable or Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce:
The relationship between marital processes
deteriorate. Our goal has been to pro- and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
vide a conceptualization of intimacy Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and compassion-
that is capable of stimulating and sup- ate love. In R. J. Stemnberg & M. L. Barnes
porting a program of research on inti- (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 191-217).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
macy. Hayes, S. (1989). Rule-governed behavior:
Cognition, contingencies, and instructional
REFERENCES control. New York: Plenum Press.
Hayes, S. (1996). Developing a theory of de-
Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1997). Relational rived stimulus relations. Journal of the Exper-
frame theory and the experimental analysis of imental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 309-31 1.
human sexual arousal: Some interpretive im- Jacobson, N. S. (1992). Behavioral couple ther-
plications. In K. Dillenburger & M. O'Reilly apy: A new beginning. Behavior Therapy, 23,
(Eds.), Advances in behaviour analysis (pp. 493-506.
183-204). Dublin, Ireland: Appelbergs Boh- Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (1996). In-
tryckeri. tegrative couple therapy: Promoting accep-
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of inti- tance and change. New York: Norton.
macy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Jacobson, N. S., Christensen, A., Prince, S. E.,
Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147- Cordova, J. V., & Eldridge, K. (2000). Inte-
178. grative behavioral couple therapy: An accep-
Christensen, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1991). In- tance-based, promising new treatment for
tegrative behavioral couple therapy. Unpub- marital discord. Joumnal of Consulting and
lished treatment manual. Clinical Psychology, 68, 351-355.
Christensen, A., Jacobson, N. S., & Babcock, J. Jenkins, H. M. (1965). Measurement of stimu-
C. (1995). Integrative behavioral couple ther- lus control during discriminative operant con-
apy. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman ditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 365-
(Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy 376.
(pp. 31-64). New York: Guilford Press. Kohlenberg, R. J., & Tsai, M. (1991). Func-
Cordova, J. V., & Jacobson, N. S. (1993). Cou- tional analytic psychotherapy: Creating in-
ple distress. In D. H. Barlow (Ed.), Clinical tense and curative therapeutic relationships.
handbook of psychological disorders: A step- New York: Plenum Press.
by-step treatment manual (pp. 481-512). New Kohlenberg, R. J., & Tsai, M. (1995). Func-
York: Guilford Press. tional analytic psychotherapy: A behavioral
Cordova, J. V., & Jacobson, N. S. (1997). Ac- approach to intensive treatment. In W. T
ceptance in couple therapy and its implica- O'Donohue & L. Krasner (Eds.), Theories of
86 JAMES V. CORDOVA & ROGINA L. SCOTT
behavior therapy: Exploring behavior change factors involved in the stimulus control of op-
(pp. 637-658). Washington, DC: American erant behavior. Journal of the Experimental
Psychological Association. Analysis of Behavior, 1, 103-107.
Lane, S. D., Clow, J. K., Innis, A., & Critchfield, Prager, K. (1995). The psychology of intimacy.
T. S. (1998). Generalization of cross-modal New York: Guilford Press.
stimulus equivalence classes: Operant pro- Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as
cesses as components in human category for- interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Hand-
mation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis book of personal relationships: Theory, rela-
of Behavior, 70, 267-279. tionships, and intervention (pp. 367-389).
Masia, C. L., & Chase, P. N. (1997). Vicarious Chichester, UK: Wiley.
learning revisited: A contemporary behavior Skinner, B. F (1953). Science and human be-
analytic interpretation. Journal of Behavior havior. Toronto: MacMillan.
Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 28, 41- Skinner, B. F (1957). Verbal behavior. Engle-
51. wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mcllvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (1990). Do Skinner, B. F (1974). About behaviorism. New
stimulus classes exist before they are tested? York: Vintage.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 13-17. Stemnberg, R. J. (1988). Triangulating love. In
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, 0. (1991). At- R. J. Stemnberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The
tachment styles and patterns of self-disclo- psychology of love (pp. 119-138). New Ha-
sure. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- ven, CT: Yale University Press.
chology, 6, 321-331. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investi-
Morse, W. H., & Skinner, B. F (1958). Some gations. New York: Macmillan.