See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222844009

Marital intimacy: Conceptualization and assessment

Article  in  Clinical Psychology Review · December 1995

DOI: 10.1016/0272-7358(95)00007-C

CITATIONS READS

15 1,111

3 authors, including:

Stephan Van den Broucke Hans Vertommen

Université Catholique de Louvain - UCLouvain KU Leuven
124 PUBLICATIONS   3,096 CITATIONS    111 PUBLICATIONS   3,476 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Preventagri View project

Diabetes Literacy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephan Van den Broucke on 12 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 217-233, 1995
Cbpyright 6 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in the USA All rights reserved
0272~73x3/95 $9.50 + .oo

027%7358(95)00007-0

MARITAL INTIMACY=
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT

Stephan Van den Broucke, Walter Vandereycken,

and Hans Vertommen

Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium

ABSTRACT. This paper examines the psychological literature with regard to marital intimacy,
paying specific attention to the cvmponents and d&em&rants of intimacy, its contribution to the
development and maintenance of a satisfactory marital relationship, and its connection with the
spouses ‘psychological well-being. Based upon a reuiew of thearetical and empirical appnnzches to
th conc+tualizatkm of intimacy, the authors propose a multidi~nal model which includes
six dimensions of intimacy two on the individuul level (authentibty and openness), thme on the
dyadic level (affccte, cognitive, and instrumental in-), and 072e on the sod
pup or n&work level (exclusiveness). The article con&des with a brief discussion of the most
important instruments fm the assessment of marital intimacy.

PERSONAL relationships have become an important research focus in social psy-

chology and related disciplines. For a number of decades, studies of interpersonal
behavior were primarily concerned with phenomena involving casual meetings
among strangers. More recently, however, it is recognized that close relationships,
such as those between husbands and wives, are the cornerstones of interpersonal
behavior, which not only provide the social context in which individual lives develop,
but also influence the well-being of these individuals (Jones & Perlman, 1991).
As a part of this emergent interest, efforts have been made to identify the attribut-
es and processes which contribute to the quality of relationships. In this regard, the
concept of intimacy seems to occupy a central role. While the formal study of intima-
cy dates back to the writings of neoFreudians such as Erikson (1950) and Sullivan
(1953), the notion has recently been re-introduced in social psychology to indicate a
qualitative attribute which discriminates “intimate” from “superficial’ relationships.
Its importance is reflected in the large number of publications which explicitly deal
with intimacy or intimacy-related topics.
In a review article about interpersonal processes in close relationships, for
example, Clark and Reis (1988) were able to identify 35 major empirical contri-
butions to the understanding of intimacy published in primary journals since

Correspondence should be addressed to Prof. W. Vandereycken, Liefdestraat 10, B3300

Tienen, Belgium.

217
218 S. Van den Bnnuke, W Vandewycken,and H. Vertommen

1980. Furthermore, Reis (1990) pointed out that in the 1988 volume of theJournal
of Social and Personal Relutionships, 19 of 28 articles were concerned with intimacy-
related issues, either as dependent or independent variables, or as the focus of
theoretical analysis. Nevertheless, the status of intimacy as a unique concept with-
in the science of relationships has not yet been fully established, and further clar-
ification is needed as to its similarities and differences with related concepts
(Perlman & Fehr, 1987).
An overview of the existing psychological literature with regard to marital intimacy
will be presented in this article. Focusing on the conceptualization of intimacy first,
we will start with a discussion of the main theoretical models and theory-based defin-
itions of intimacy, then report the findings of empirical studies involving the compo
nents of intimacy, and arrive at a multidimensional intimacy model which integrates
theory and research. Next, we will discuss the major determinants of marital intima-
cy, and consider its role in the development and maintenance of a successful marital
relationship, as well as its contribution to the spouses’ psychological well-being. To
conclude, we will briefly discuss the assessment of marital intimacy.

THEORETICAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF MARITAL INTIMACY

The importance of intimacy as a construct may be estimated from its prevalence in

psychological theories and research pertaining to such diverse issues as motivation,
personality development, communication, and well-being (Reis, 1990). Evidently, the
idea of intimacy being crucial to the human condition has managed to cross the tra-
ditional boundaries in psychological theory. Yet in spite of its apparent importance,
an integrative approach across these barriers seems to be missing, and its definition
depends very much on the perspective adopted. Sometimes, for instance, intimacy is
defined simply in terms of external categories of relationship status (e.g., married or
unmarried). In other instances, the term is equated with the degree of physical (sex-
ual) proximity or the level of verbal selfdisclosure, involving more or less ‘intimate”
(i.e. personal) topics of discussion.
Some researchers, however, have investigated intimacy as a broader construct,
referring to the quality of an ongoing relationship. In the latter sense, Perlman and
Fehr (1987) have identified four major theoretical approaches to the study of inti-
macy as a psychological construct.

The lifespan Developmental Model

This approach generally starts from the definitions of intimacy advanced by Erikson
(1950) and Sullivan (1953). According to Sullivan, intimacy refers to a need which
arises during pre-adolescence, and which can be fulfilled in a (not necessarily sexual)
dyadic relationship characterized by mutuality and collaboration. In such an intimate
relationship, both partners reveal themselves and validate each other’s attributes and
world views. In a similar vein, Erikson (1950) defined intimacy as a fusion of identities
between two people who deeply care about each other. In his view, the resolution of
the intimacy versus isolation crisis is a central developmental task determining one of
the eight stages in human life, notably the progression from adolescence to adulthood.
An empirical validation and further elaboration of Erikson’s intimacy concept was
provided by Orlofsky, Marcia, and Lesser (1973). On the basis of semi-structured
interviews of 54 male college students, these authors could distinguish between five
intimacy “statuses,” depending on the success with which a resolution for the intima-
cy crisis is attained: (a) the intimatestatus refers to the fact that one has established an
 Marital Intimacy 219

intimate relationship with one or more partners; (b) the pintimute status means that
one has experienced interpersonal contact without having committed oneself to a
partner; (c) the stereotyped and (d) @ud&ntimute statuses indicate the presence of
superficial (i.e., traditional or fleeting) relationships only; and (e) the isoolatestatus
refers to the virtual absence of social contacts. This elaborated conceptualization has
been the basis for a series of investigations, focusing mostly on the relationship
between identity and intimacy. The main findings of these studies will be reported fur-
ther on in this paper.

The Motivational Model

According to this second theoretical approach (M&lams, 1982), intimacy must be con-
sidered as an enduring motive, which reflects the individual’s preference or readiness
to experience closeness, warmth, and communication. Persons high in intimacy moti-
vation demonstrate higher levels of self-disclosure, engage more in positive nonverbal
behavior (e.g., eye contact, smiling, etc.), express greater trust in and concern for
friends, report greater marital enjoyment, and have more positive interpersonal
thoughts in daily interactions. The empirical basis of this view consists of an analysis of
the relationship quality manifested by characters in imaginative stories written by sub
jects. It may be pointed out that, similar to the developmental approach, intimacy is con-
sidered here as an individual attribute which manifests itself across situations.

The Equilibrium Model

As contrasted with the above perspectives, the equilibrium model states that inti-
macy must be conceived as a property of relationships rather than as an individual
attribute. The basic tenet of this model is that people strive towards attaining an
optimum level of intimacy: Being comfortable with a partner involves maintaining
a balance between a desire to achieve and to avoid intimacy in the interactions. An
example of this approach is provided by Argyle and Dean (1965), according to
whom intimacy is a joint function of the discussion topic and nonverbal behaviors
such as eye contact, smiling, or physical distance. If one component changes, one
or more of the others will shift in the opposite direction, so that the equilibrium can
be maintained. This model is substantiated by empirical data showing that subjects
reduce eye contact as they move closer to each other, and alternatively, that subjects
move closer to a confederate whose eyes are shut than to one whose eyes are open
(Argyle & Dean, 1965).

The Equity Model

The fourth approach to conceptualizing intimacy is based on the application to

personal relationships of equity theory, which has been welldocumented for casual
relationships (e.g., Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). In terms of this model, rela-
tionships are equitable if the partners perceive their own input to output ratio with
regard to resources such as money, physical attractiveness, and knowledge as compa-
rable to that of their partner. Equitable relationships are more likely to progress to
higher levels of intimacy, which is defined here as a process by which a dyad attempts
to move towards complete communication on all levels (Hatfield, 1982). Intimate rela-
tionships are then characterized by the greater intensity of liking or loving, the depth
and breadth of the information which is exchanged, the value and the variety of the
resources exchanged, the substitutability of resources, the degree of commitment, and
220 S. Van a!en Bmuke, W Vandereycken,and H. Vkrtommm

the emergence of a dyadic identity (“we-ness”). The applicability of equity theory to

intimate relationships has been investigated in a number of studies, which have been
reviewed by Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, and Hay (1985). Similar to the
equilibrium model, this approach also draws mainly from social psychological theory
to define intimacy as a quality of interactions between partners.
Although the respective focus on either individual or interactional attributes in the
above models appears contradictory, the issue of whether intimacy is a quality of per-
sons or of interactions need not necessarily be an “either/or” question. As pointed
out by Acitelli and Duck (1987)) it can be a property of both, once the meaning of the
term is clarified. Partners may, for instance, have the capacity or motive to achieve
intimacy, but fail to attain it in their relationship. A conceptualization of intimacy
must, therefore, encompass both perspectives, just as most researchers will acknowl-
edge that individual behavior is determined by the interaction of personal and situa-
tional influences.
This view has been incorporated in most recent social psychological definitions of
intimacy. With the emergent cross-disciplinary interest in close relationships (Hinde,
1978; Duck 8c Perlman, 1985), earlier definitions of intimacy have been expanded
and refined. For a long time, most investigators of close relationships relied on
Altman and Taylor’s (1973) influential social penetration theory to define intimacy as
the disclosure of personally relevant thoughts and feelings to another person (e.g.,
Derlega & Chaikin, 1975; Hinde, 1978). Recent conceptualizations, however, suggest
that the self-disclosure process alone is insufficient to capture the essence of intima-
cy. Chelune, Robison, and Kommor (1984), for example, propose that intimacy
should also entail an aspect of shared, reciprocal understanding, arising from the
appraisal of revealed information. In a similar vein, Acitelli and Duck (1987) stress the
importance of a meta-perspective or “relationship awareness” to maintain intimacy in
a personal relationship. Such an awareness is more than self-awareness or the knowl-
edge of the other person; it involves a conscious yet not always verbally communicat-
ed acknowledgement of the behavioral, cognitive, and affective interaction patterns
that describe the relationship.
In addition to these cognitive aspects, some theorists have also argued for the inclu-
sion of emotional components in the definition of intimacy. Reis and Shaver (1988),
for instance, posit that a fundamental characteristic of intimacy is the discloser’s feel-
ings of being understood, validated, and cared for. To support this assertion, they
point out that significant self-disclosure seems unlikely if the listener is perceived as
disinterested or uncaring. Similarly, Stemberg (1988), in his triangular theory of love,
considers intimacy to be the emotional component of love, which refers to feelings of
warmth, support, and commitment to the relationship. His ideas have been further
elaborated by Levinger (1988), who defines intimacy as a combination of affective
and behavioral interdependence of two partners.
In sum, all of the above views suggest that intimacy must be thought of as a multi-
component phenomenon that includes such diverse aspects as the disclosure of per-
sonally relevant facts and feelings, reciprocal understanding, self-validation, affection,
and caring. Intimacy may accordingly be defined as a process, that is, a characteristic
way of relating which develops over time (Clark & Reis, 1988). However, because
intimacy processes may cause relationships to acquire relatively stable higher-order
qualities, such as mutuality, interdependence, trust, and commitment, which can be
measured at a given point in time, the term intimacy may also be used to indicate a rela-
tionship state (Acitelli & Duck, 1987). In that case, the term intimate must be reserved
for relationships that fulfill the conditions of the intimacy processes described above.
 Marital Zntimq 221

It should be pointed out that the above conceptualizations are largely based on the-
oretical contemplation, rather than empirical analysis. In contrast, some scholars have
attempted to empirically investigate the components of intimacy. The findings result-
ing from these attempts will be presented in the next section.

EMPIRICAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF MARITAL INTIMACY

Instead of building upon existing theoretical views and models of interpersonal rela-
tionships, some authors have based their definition of marital intimacy on what lay
people think about relationship qualities. Because the word intimacy is part of our
everyday vocabulary, it inevitably carries various meanings. This is illustrated by the
findings of a study by Waring, Tillman, Frelick, Russell, and Weisz (1980)) who inter-
viewed a random sample of 50 adults about their concepts of intimacy in the context
of an interpersonal relationship. The results indicated that the issues of selfdisclo-
sure and expression of affection, compatibility, cohesion, identity, and the ability to
resolve conflicts were all considered as important aspects of intimacy. In contrast,
sexual satisfaction was considered as less important than many formal definitions of
the term would suggest.
In a similar vein, Helgeson, Shaver, and Dyer (1987) and Monsour (1992) con-
cluded from questionnaire data that lay people consider the expression of affection,
sharing activities, and giving and receiving support as central components of intima-
cy, whereas sexual contact is only seen as important in relationships with opposite sex
partners, and more so by males than by females. Apparently, these aspects are not a
part of the more generic meaning of intimacy. On the other hand, intimacy does
seem to refer to a multidimensional construct.
Elaborating on these lay conceptualizations, some authors have attempted to devel-
op an empirically-based working definition of intimacy. For example, Waring et al.
(1980) used a standardized interview technique to identify eight components of inti-
macy in the marital relationships of 24 clinical couples and 24 couples chosen at ran-
dom from the general population. These components are: (a) affection, that is, the
degree to which feelings of emotional closeness are expressed by the spouses; (b)
expressiveness, that is, the degree to which thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings are
communicated within the marriage; (c) compatibility, or the degree to which the cou-
ple is able to work and play together comfortably; (d) cohesion, that is, the degree of
commitment to the marriage; (e) sexuality, or the degree to which sexual needs are
communicated and fulfilled; (f) conflict resolution, that is, the ease with which differ-
ences of opinion are resolved; (g) autonomy, that is, the couple’s degree of positive
connectedness to family and friends; and (h) identity, or the couple’s level of self-
esteem and selfconfidence. This operational definition was subsequently used in a
series of studies involving samples from the general population and clinical groups
(e.g., Waring, 1983; Waring, McElrath, Lefcoe, & Weisz, 1981; Waring 8c Patton, 1984;
Waring, Reddon, Corvinelli, Chalmers & van der Laan, 1983).
In a similar effort, Parelman (1983) used factor analysis to distinguish between
nine dimensions of emotional intimacy or closeness, which she uses as interchange-
able terms: (a) caring and emotional support; (b) sacrifice; (c) verbal expression of
feelings; (d) similarity, that is, sharing values, beliefs, etc.; (e) togetherness, or the
preference for spending time with one’s spouse; (f) sharing friends; (g) traditional
role obligations (e.g., having more power for husbands, or feeling protected for
wives); (h) sexual expression; and (i) secure partnership, that is, an underlying sense
of security and trust.
222 S. Van den Bmcke, W kndaycken, and H. Vkrtammen

Although both these working definitions are well established empirically and
acknowledge the multicomponent nature of the intimacy construct, their main dis-
advantage is that they are not rooted in theory. As a result, they reduce intimacy to a
heterogeneous aggregate of dimensions. In neither one of them, for example, is a
clear conceptual distinction made between experiential variables such as closeness,
commitment, caring, or sexual gratification, and behavioral variables such as expres-
siveness and conflict resolution. Secondly, no distinction is made between dimensions
which refer to individual attributes (e.g., the partners’ roie obligations or capacities
to express feelings) or to relational qualities (e.g., closeness or sharing). As outlined
above, a conceptualization of marital intimacy should acknowledge both aspects, yet
their differential nature should be indicated. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly,
some of the elements contained in these models (e.g., sexuality, conflict resolution,
or sharing friends) may be viewed as possible manifestations or consequences of
intimacy instead of components of the construct itself. With regard to sexuality, for
example, this is substantiated in a study involving a factor analysis of the scores of 250
couples (Patton 8c Waring, 1985). This study revealed that for the husbands, sexuali-
ty constitutes a separate factor from intimacy, and that for both the husbands and the
wives the correlations between sexuality and total intimacy were only moderate. By
including these aspects in the definition of intimacy, the term, in fact, becomes a syn-
onym for marital quality in general, and does not add any new meaning to it.

AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF MARITAL INTIMACY

One way to address the above shortcomings is to pursue a concept validation approach
(Wiggins, 1973), whereby an operational definition of marital intimacy is developed
from existing theoretical models and then empirically validated. An alternative work-
ing definition of intimacy could, for example, be based on the aforementioned social
psychologists’ views regarding “intimate” relationships. In addition, we would suggest
incorporation of the systemic principle that relational phenomena must be considered
in relation to elements at other-individual and situational-system levels (Hinde,
1978). Starting from this theoretical basis, the following model can be proposed.
As a quality of a personal relationship at a certain point in time, intimacy primarily
refers to a dyudic phenomenon, that is, the degree of connectedness or interdepen-
dence between two partners. As such, it includes affective, cognitive, and behavioral
aspects; partners who are in an “intimate” relationship with each other depend upon
one another for the appreciation and the cognitive construal of their relationship, as
well as for the regulation of their interactions. On a covert level, these three types of
interdependence are reflected in the couples’ emotional closeness, the validation of
each other’s ideas and values, and the implicit or explicit consensus about the rules
which guide their interactions. In other words, intimate partners are affectively, cog-
nitively, and behaviorally directed toward their relationship as a “unit.” In the overt
interactions, these relational characteristics are expressed through the partners’ pos-
itive control of each other’s behavior, their expressions of mutual agreement, and the
maximalization of mutual outcomes, respectively.
Relationships only exist by the grace of the individuals who build and sustain them.
Therefore, a definition of intimacy must also take the indiuiduat level into account.
On this level, intimacy implies two aspects: authenticity, or the ability to “be oneself”
in the relationship with the partner, and openness, or the readiness to share ideas and
feelings with the partner. In the overt interactions, these aspects are manifested in the
partners’ assertiveness and expressiveness. Note that the latter aspect is usually
 Marital Intimacy 223

referred to as self-disclosure, defined as the act of revealing information about one-

self that the partner was probably not aware of (Jourard, 1971). However, although
some authors consider self-disclosure as an equivalent of intimacy, we propose to con-
sider it as an expression of intimacy. At the same time, it also represents an important
determinant of intimacy, as will be discussed below.
Finally, because each marital pair is part of a larger group, such as a family or an
acquaintance network, a third level to be considered here is the social group or net-
work level. As pointed out by Levinger (1977)) this level is often neglected in the study
of dyads. However, there appears to be an inverse relationship between a couple’s
closeness and the “connectedness” of their social network in that, with the enhance-
ment of their intimacy, the couple’s dyadic privacy is likely to increase, just as the part-
ners’ individual privacy decreases. As such, intimacy on this level entails an aspect of
exclusiveness. In the couple’s overt interactions, this exclusiveness dimension is
demonstrated when the partners use private expressions which are meaningful to
them only, or when they refer to their relationship in dyadic terms (i.e., “us” or “we”
instead of “me” or ,I”).
To summarize, the model proposed here contains six structural dimensions of inti-
macy (see Table 1): three on the dyadic level (affective, cognitive, and instrumental
interdependence), two on the individual level (authenticity and openness), and one
on the social group or network level (exclusiveness). The main advantage of this
model is that it integrates existing views about marital intimacy as accumulated from
theoretical and empirical perspectives. It is consistent with both lay views and current
theoretical models in that it acknowledges the multidimensional nature of intimacy,
and reflects social psychological views concerning intimate relationships by including
dimensions which refer to individual capacities and others referring to relational
qualities. Unlike the atheoretical definitions of intimacy proposed by Waring et al.
(1980) and Parelman (1983), however, the difference between these dimensions is
clarified by making reference to the systems levels involved. In addition, a third level
is added by including the often neglected social group or network level. Contrary to
the view expressed by Clark and Reis (1988), marital intimacy is mainly considered
here as a relationship state, and not as a process. However, because this relationhip
state emerges from a specific way of interacting by the partners, the intimacy process-
es of interest are implied. This is exemplified by the fact that the behavioral expres-
sions of intimacy may be observed in the partners’ overt interactions.
While the above argument attests to the theoretical basis of the intimacy model, its
empirical validaty is documented by two studies. In the first study (Van den Broucke,
1991), a preliminary questionnaire based on the model was given to 93 couples rep-
resentative of the Belgian population. A factor analysis on these questionnaire data
yielded a high degree of congruence between the obtained factor solution and a hypo-
thetical target matrix reflecting the dimensions of the intimacy model (similarity
indices ranging between .43 and 66). Further, a VARIMAX rotation of the five primary
factors of the solution to a large extent reflected the dimensions contained in the inti-
macy model, with two factors corresponding with a preconceived dimension, and two
additional factors reflecting a plausible combination of preconceived dimensions. The
fifth factor did not reflect a dimension contained in the model as such, but measured
the nonachievement of intimacy as implied by the other dimensions. The second
study (Van den Broucke, Vandereycken, & Vertommen, 1995) focused on the clinical
relevance of the intimacy model. Using a refined version of the above-mentioned mar-
ital intimacy questionnaire, a discrimination could be made between 21 maritally dis-
tressed and 21 nondistressed couples on the basis of their intimacy scores.
224 S. Van den Bmucke, W Vandaycken, and H. Vertomm.en

TABLE 1. Components of Marital Intimacy

Dyadic level
Affective interdependence The degree of emotional closeness
experienced by the partners
Cognitive interdependence The degree to which the partners
validate each other’s ideas and values
Instrumental interdependence The degree of implicit or explicit
consensus about the rules which
regulate the partners’ interactions
Individual level
Authenticity The ability to “be oneselF in the
relationship with the partner
Openness The readiness to share ideas and
feelings with the partner
Social group or network level
Exclusiveness The degree to which dyadic privacy is
maintained in the relationship with
others (e.g., friends, family, etc.)

Although these empirical findings largely support the conceptual intimacy model
proposed above, further research is required to establish its relationship to other inti-
macy models, and to related concepts such as self-disclosure, commitment, and love.
In the meantime, the model may serve as a useful basis to guide further research.
Once intimacy has been defined and its components identified, two important
questions remain. The first question concerns the determinants of intimacy: If rela-
tionships differ with regard to their degree of intimacy, what are the factors that
enhance the development of intimacy, and what are the conditions that need to be
fulfilled to achieve and maintain intimacy? The second question has reference to the
consequences of intimacy: Why is intimacy considered important for the partners’
well-being, and how should the relationship between intimacy and mental health be
conceived? Both issues will be discussed in further detail.

DETERMINANTS OF INTIMACY

The development of intimacy in relationships depends to a large extent on three fac-

tors, each of which is situated on different systems levels. First, on the dyadic level,
intimacy is promoted by the partners’ mutual self-disclosure. Second, on the indi-
vidual level, both partners must have attained a secure identity. And third, on the
social group level, the partners must have become emotionally separated from their
families of origin. As each of these concepts has been investigated from a different
theoretical perspective (i.e., a social psychological, developmental, and systemic per-
spective, respectively), we will discuss these three issues separately to maintain con-
ceptual clarity.

Self-disclosure may be defined as the intentional or unintentional process of making

oneself known to another person by revealing personal information (Jourard, 19’71).
The information that is revealed in this process may vary as to its affective value and
 Marital Intimuqy 225

degree of confidentiality. The latter quality is usually referred to as the intimacy of

self-disclosure. This notion must not be confused with intimacy as a relationship char-
acteristic: whereas self-disclosure refers to a particular class of interactive behavior
that does not necessarily reflect the meaning of these behaviors for the participants
(Chelune et al., 1984), intimacy in the latter sense represents a ‘higher order” quali-
ty of a relationship, which emerges from the partners’ interactions. As such, selfdis-
closure constitutes one of the most important determinants of intimacy. This view is
corroborated by a study of Waring and Chelune (1983)) who demonstrated that
aspects of self-disclosing behavior in couples, as measured by way of a quantitative
coding procedure, accounted for approximately 50% of the variance in the couples’
general level of intimacy, as rated by trained observers.
The role of self-disclosure in the enhancement of intimacy is clarified in Altman
and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory. According to this theory, interper-
sonal relationships progressively become more “intimate” as information of increas-
ing confidentiality is exchanged by the partners. In the early stages of relationship
development, the interactions are characterized by the exchange of relatively
unconfidential information; however, as a relationship continues to develop, more
self-disclosure of increasing confidentiality takes place. This process is monitored by
the partners’ continuous assessment of the costs and benefits of their interactions,
and of the estimated cost/benefit ratio of future interactions at similar or higher
levels of confidentiality. In the case of a positive evaluation, the relationship is con-
tinued and deepened; in the case of a negative evaluation, it may be terminated.
The fact that self-disclosure is a key process in the establishment of personal rela-
tionships is substantiated by a large number of empirical studies (e.g., Cozby, 1973;
Derlega & Chaikin, 1975; Jourard, 1971). Consequently, most theorists will agree that
in developing relationships, self-disclosure is likely to enhance intimacy by promoting
mutual liking and by reducing uncertainty about the partner. In established relation-
ships, however, the role of self-disclosure may be less clearcut. As pointed out by
dialectical theorists (e.g., Bochner, 1984), ongoing relationships are characterized by
a continual “ebb and flow” of superficial versus deeper contact, rather than by a uni-
directional increase of openness.
Indeed, conversation in established relationships needs to serve a number of func-
tions other than revealing oneself to one’s partner. For instance, one of the expec-
tations in intimate relationships is that each partner can trust the other to respect
the personal vulnerabilities revealed in earlier self-disclosing interactions. In order
to protect the partner’s vulnerability, it is sometimes necessary to conceal thoughts
or feelings that one knows may hurt the other. In other words, the need to be open
and honest towards spouses may sometimes conflict with the need to validate them.
So, in order to maintain intimacy in an ongoing relationship, the appropriateness of
self-disclosure must always be balanced against the need to respect the partner’s feel-
ings. Consequently, in established personal relations, the relationship between self-
disclosure and intimacy must be conceived as a curvilinear one.

/den tity

In terms of Erikson’s (1950) epigenetic theory of psychosocial development, ego

identity may be defined as someone’s unique, personal lifestyle that is recognized and
validated by others, and through which the person acquires a sense of remaining the
same individual in varying circumstances. Although identity formation is an impor-
tant issue during all stages of psychosocial development, it is generally regarded as the
226 S. Van den BIVUC~E,
N Vanahyhen, and H. Viommen

preeminent developmental task of adolescence. In fact, bringing the so-called “iden-

tity crisis” of adolescence to a positive solution is considered a sine ~UZluynfor moving
on to the next task, which is the acquisition of intimacy.
In E&son’s view, the negotiation of identity issues has at least two components:
the experience of a crisis, and the making of commitments. Depending on the pres-
ence or absence of these two components, Marcia (1966) suggested distinguishing
between four “identity statuses,” or possible outcomes of the identity crisis. Hence,
individuals who have gone through a period of “crisis” (i.e., reflection and explo
ration with regard to occupational, ideological, or religious alternatives), and who
have subsequently committed themselves to certain options, are called identity
achievers. Those who are currently exploring identity alternatives, but who have not
yet made firm commitments to any particular paths, are in the moratorium status.
The foreclosure status contains individuals who have made deep, unchanging com-
mitments to an identity, but without reflection. Finally, those individuals who are not
currently exploring alternatives, and who have not made commitments are in the
identity diffusion status.
Several investigators have relied on Marcia’s (1966) identity status construct to
explore the relationship between identity and intimacy (e.g., Fitch & Adams, 1983;
Kacerguis & Adams, 1980; Orlofsky, Marcia, & Lesser, 1973; Tesch 8c Whitbourne,
1982). As one would expect, the results of their investigations generally support the
developmental hypothesis that someone who has achieved an identity is more capa-
ble of establishing an intimate relationship with a partner than someone who has not.
However, there may also be a significant sex difference involved: whereas in male
subjects the resolution of the identity crisis generally precedes the development of
intimacy, in women the capacity to establish an intimate relationship may emerge
simultaneously with or even precede the development of identity (Hodgson & Fisher,
1979; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985). This does not necessarily imply a linear causality
between identity and intimacy among males, however. The relationship between the
two developmental tasks may be conceived of as interactive rather than unidirection-
al, which would imply that the establishing of intimate bonds may influence the
achievement of identity as well as vice versa.
Whereas in the above studies intimacy is considered as an individual attribute,
Whitbourne and Weinstock (1979) propose to apply the intimacy status concept to
couples rather than to individuals, and hence to integrate the identity status construct
within a relational process approach to intimacy. On the analogy of the statuses
described by Orlofsky et al. (1973), they distinguish between four “relational” intima-
cy statuses: (a) mutual intimacy refers to a relationship in which both partners are com-
mitted to the relationship, but maintain their own identities; (b) @u&intimacy is used
to characterize couples in which the partners interact frequently, yet at a superficial
level; (c) mergeris used to designate relationships in which one of the partners has a
dominant position and thereby absorbs the other partner’s identity; and (d) i.soZu~e sta-
tus refers to a situation in which a meaningful involvement with another person is lack-
ing. For each of these intimacy statuses, Whitbourne and Weinstock identified the
possible combinations of partners as regards their identity status, and described the
hypothetical interaction patterns that could result from such combinations.
For instance, in a mutually intimate relationship between two “identity achieving”
adults, the interactions will most likely be characterized by an adequate perception of
each other’s needs and feelings, an open and direct communication, and a construc-
tive resolution of conflicts. In turn, these interactions would further enhance the indi-
vidual development of both partners. In contrast, an intimate relationship between
 Marital Intimacy 227

two “identity diffused” spouses, for example, would imply that the partners maintain
a state of mutual dependency whereby each relies upon the other for self-definition.
On the surface these couples may present an ‘ideal” state of togetherness, however,
the communication will probably remain superficial, and open conflicts will be avoid-
ed. A similar lack of communication and conflict avoidance (or, adversely, destructive
modes of conflict resolution) would also be expected to occur in pseudo-intimate
relationships with two partners in the identity achieving, foreclosure, or moratorium
status, as in this case neither partner will be particularly invested in the relationship.
Similarly, merger relationships with one of the partners in the foreclosure status will
most likely be characterized by an absence of meaningful communication. These
types of relationships will not promote the growth of either partner. On the other
hand, a merger relationship with one partner in the identity achievement status may
eventually develop into a mutually intimate relationship. This again underscores the
interactivity of the relationship between identity and intimacy.

Separation From the Family of Origin

One of the preconditions for the acquisition of identity and hence for the capacity to
engage in an intimate relationship with a partner, is that the persons involved must have
achieved an emotional separation from the relationship with their parents. Connected
with the acquisition of a personal lifestyle one usually refers to this as the separation-
individuation process (Mahler, 1961). The very beginning of this process is situated in
the first years of life, however, its fulfilment is normally attained during late adolescence,
which in many cases may also include the first years of marriage.
In order to cope successfully with the separation-individuation task, it is essential
that this process is stimulated by the person’s social environment. According to fami-
ly theorists (e.g., Boszormenyi-Nagy 8c Spark, 19’73; Stierlin, 1974), parents must grant
their adolescent children the opportunity to become emotionally involved in rela-
tionships with peers, and to experience the consequences of their own decisions.
Parents may negatively influence the separation-individuation process by restricting
their children’s autonomy, by imposing their own norms on them, or by threatening
to break off the relationship and crippling the adolescent’s affective needs.
This view has been largely substantiated by research data (reviewed by Grotevant,
1983). For instance, in a study of the connection between identity formation and the
quality of the parental relationship, Campbell, Adams, and Dobson (1984) found that
their subjects’ identity status could be predicted by the degree of connectedness with
their parents (i.e., affectivity and openness of communication) and their perceived
independence. More specifically, a moderate degree of connectedness with the parents
combined with the acceptance of the adolescent’s own individuality by the parents was
related to the subjects’ attainment of the identity achievement or moratorium status,
whereas an emotionally enmeshed parental relationship and intolerance for the ado
lescent’s individuality by the parents resulted in a foreclosure status. On the other
hand, a low degree of affectivity in the relationship with the parents was related to iden-
tity diffusion. In a same vein, Bosma and Gerrits (1985) have observed that adolescents
in the identity achievement status exhibited more autonomy and participated more
actively in family decision making than those in the moratorium or identity confusion
statuses; the latter group were least involved in family discussions.
It is important to note, however, that in these studies identity status and family rela-
tions characteristics were measured simultaneously. Hence, no conclusions can be
drawn with regard to the causality of the relationships that were observed. On the
228 S. Van den Bmucke, W Vandeyyckm, and H. Vmhmmen

analogy of our conclusions regarding the relationship between identity and intimacy,
we may assume that the relationship between identity formation and the characteris
tics of the relation with one’s parents may also be conceived of as interactive rather
than unidirectional.

MARITAL INTIMACY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

Most theoretical analyses of intimacy are based on the assumption that the degree of
intimacy experienced in someone’s personal relationships contributes to that per-
son’s well-being. This assumption is supported by a growing body of research findings.
Indeed, it has been found that satisfaction with one’s marriage is strongly correlated
with someone’s overall sense of well-being (Diener, 1984). On the other hand, the fail-
ure to develop a close, confiding relationship with a partner has been linked to the
experience of loneliness (Derlega & Margulis, 1982), marital dissatisfaction (Schaefer
SCOlson, 1981; Waring, McElrath, Mitchell & Den-y, 1981), physical illness (Reis,
Wheeler, Kernis, Spiegel, & Nezlek, 1985), and psychiatric problems such as depres
sion (Brown & Harris, 1978; Costello, 1982; Hickie et al., 1990), psychosomatic illness
(Waring, 1983), and sexual abuse (Marshall, 1989).
This does not necessarily imply, however, that intimacy cannot have any negative
effects on well-being. It has been noted, for one, that high prior levels of intimacy can
make coping with the ending of a relationship more painful (Perlman & Fehr, 1987).
Other authors (e.g., Hatfield, 1982) have pointed at the negative consequences of
“too much” intimacy, including the inhibition of personal growth, enmeshment, fear
of abandonment, and loss of control over one’s destructive impulses. Indeed, as inti-
mate partners are aware of each other’s innermost feelings and needs, they know pre-
cisely how to exploit or injure each other. According to Fitzpatrick (1988), too much
intimacy may be particularly harmful for those couples who define their relationships
as emotionally distant, and for whom intimate self-disclosure and open communica-
tion violate the partners’ privacy and autonomy.
It can be questioned, however, whether these items should be regarded as negative
consequences of intimacy in itself. Given the definition of intimacy proposed above,
it actually seems more plausible to consider those instances where partners harm or
exploit each other’s autonomy as a failure to achieve intimacy. As such, we would tend
to underscore the consensus view according to which intimacy is generally beneficial
to a person’s well-being, while not achieving or maintaining intimacy in the relation-
ship with one’s partner may negatively influence one’s physical, emotional, or psy-
chological well-being (Clark & Reis, 1988; Perlman & Fehr, 1987).
Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain why a failure to achieve intima-
cy may lead to negative effects. These hypotheses involve such diverse concepts and
processes as the disruption of complementary role behavior in collusive relationships
(Hafner, 1986), a discrepancy between the person’s “true” and “false” self (Jourard,
1971), and a homeostatic reaction to an intolerably high or low distance between the
partners (Byng-Hall, 1980). Notwithstanding their conceptual differences, these views
are all based on the assumption that the emergence of symptom behavior serves the
purpose of avoiding something which the partners perceive as threatening to their
individuality or their relationship. Thus, to account for the relationship between a low
degree of marital intimacy and the emergence of physical or psychopathological
symptoms, the avoidance function of symptom behavior seems to play a crucial role.
In terms of the escape conditioning paradigm, it could thus be assumed that the
emergence of symptoms represents an avoidance reaction to situations that are per-
 Marital Intimacy 229

ceived as threatening the patient’s identity (e.g., the partner’s attempts to achieve
more intimacy), or alternatively, the existence of the relationship itself (e.g., overt
conflicts that arise as a result of the low level of intimacy).
This assumption, which should be substantiated empirically, underscores the role of
the overt behavioral correlates of intimacy in accounting for its effects on well-being.
In this respect, it is important to emphasize the interrelatedness of marital intimacy and
marital communication. Indeed, communication is not only the medium that carries
the behavioral expressions of intimacy, but also the vehicle through which intimacy can
be achieved and maintained. For pragmatic reasons, however, we have restricted the
present review to intimacy only, realizing that communication is probably one of the
best documented features of personal relationships (cf., Fitzpatrick, 1988).

ASSESSMENT OF MARITAL INTIMACY

As discussed above, marital intimacy can be conceived of as a process (i.e., a charac-

teristic way of relating of two partners which develops over time), yet can also refer to
the relatively stable higher-order relationship qualities which emerge from this
process. Theoretically, both these perspectives may be adopted to assess intimacy. In
practice, however, the existing operationalizations of the construct generally endorse
a static view. Moreover, because intimacy primarily refers to covert phenomena (i.e.,
the ways the spouses experience their relationship and acknowledge the interdepen-
dence of their interactions), most investigators rely on the partners’ self-reports about
their relationship to assess the above properties. To that effect, some elaborate stan-
dardized interview techniques have been developed, such as the Victoria Hospital
Intimacy Interview (VHII; Waring et al., 1980) and the Intimacy Maturity Scales (IMS;
White, Speisman, Jackson, Bartis, & Costos, 1986). In addition, a number of ques-
tionnaires have been proposed, of which we briefly mention the most important ones.
The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR; Schaefer & Olson, 1981)
is a 36item questionnaire which measures the expected and perceived degrees of
intimacy in five areas: emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, and recreational. This
allows for an analysis of the scores both in terms of the differences within each part-
ner’s perceived and expected intimacy, and in terms of the differences between the
two partners. The Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS; Miller & Lefcourt, 1982) is a 17-
item questionnaire which assesses the maximum level of intimacy currently experi-
enced in a given relationship. The Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (WIQ Waring &
Reddon, 1983), is a go-item questionnaire measuring the eight dimensions implied
in Waring’s marital intimacy model de&bed above.
With the exception of the MSIS, which only consists of one scale, all of these
instruments acknowledge the multicomponent nature of intimacy. However, they
measure different dimensions than the ones specified in our integrative model. The
five dimensions measured by the PAIR, for example, are primarily concerned with
the communication and compatibility aspects of intimacy, and neglect its affective,
individual, and situational components. The WIQ and the VI-III, on the other hand,
measure a conceptually heterogeneous aggregate of intimacy dimensions, without
distinguishing between experiential and behavioral variables, and without specifying
the systems levels of their subdimensions. The IMS focuses on developmental stages
in the attainment of intimacy rather than on intimacy processes or states proper, as
implied in the above definition.
An assessment tool which is more commensurate with our theoretical model is the
Marital Intimacy Questionnaire (MIQ Van den Broucke, 1991; Van den Broucke et al.,
230 S. Van den Bntucke, N Vandereycken, and H. lkrtommen

1995). This 56item self-report questionnaire measures five factor-analytically derived

dimensions: (a) intimacy problems (lack of intimacy); (b) consensus, generally exem-
plifying cognitive and behavioral aspects of intimacy; (c) openness, which also mea-
sures authenticity (i.e., the individual components of intimacy); (d) affection; and (e)
commitment (i.e., the social group component of intimacy).
For each of the above questionnaires, the psychometric qualities have been well
established. As such, these instruments may provide useful information about the
spouses’ perceptions of their marital intimacy. However, they also suffer from the
shortcomings that are typical of self-report measures, such as a vulnerability to influ-
ences of social desirability, defensiveness, acquiescence, carelessness, and (because
they are measuring marital properties) pseudomutuality (Metts, Sprecher, 8c Cupach,
1991). A fundamental concern is that these questionnaires fail to capture the dyadic
nature of marital intimacy because they only produce scores for the individual mem-
bers of a dyad. Husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of their intimacy as assessed by self-
reports may differ greatly. Although this problem may be circumvened by combining
the spouses’ individual scores into “second-order” couple scores, such operations
always result in a loss of information. An average couple score may, for example, just
as well be the result of combining a very low and a very high score, as of combining
two moderate scores (Fisher, Kokes, Ransom, Phillips, & Rudd, 1985). Moreover,
questionnaires also fail to capture the dynamic aspect of intimacy. Marital intimacy, by
definition, involves a dynamic interaction between the partners and questionnaire
items make abstraction of this dynamic feature by asking the subjects to report about
the overall status of their relationship. As a result, only retrospective and possibly
selective information is obtained, based upon a summary of all that has happened up
to the moment of inquiry.
The latter objection calls for a more process-oriented approach to the assessment
of intimacy, which could be achieved by way of systematically observing and subse-
quently coding the expressions of intimacy in the spouses’ overt interactions. Such an
approach, which has been used successfully in the study of such marital relationship
features as communication and conflict management (for a review, see Baucom &
Adams, 198’7; Notarius & Markman, 1989), would also capture the dyadic nature of
intimacy, and is less vulnerable to self-report bias. A disadvantage, however, is that sys
tematic observation of interaction is a timeconsuming and cumbersome method
(Baucom & Sayers, 1989)) which may render it less suitable for use in clinical practice.
In sum, we think that the systematic observation of spouses’ interactions could pro
vide an innovative and conceptually sound method to operationalize marital intima-
cy. Within the context of clinical practice, however, the use of intimacy questionnaires
such as the ones discussed above may represent a pragmatic strategy to obtain infor-
mation about the spouses’ perceptions of their marital intimacy. It may be added that
these perceptions, albeit subjective, are not necessarily less important than the “real”
interactions (Duck & Montgomery, 1991).

CONCLUSIONS

As appears from this review, considerable advances have been made in recent years to
conceptualize and operationalize the complex feature which is referred to as marital
intimacy. A further step would be to try and integrate these theories, approaches and
assessment methods with those concerning other important aspects of marital rela-
tionships, especially communication and conflict regulation, Some efforts have
already been made to link up an integrative intimacy model with theories concerning
 Marital Intimacy 231

other relationship features (see Jones & Perlman, 1991; Van den Broucke, 1991).
Other efforts have focused on integrating one particular intimacy model with related
notions. For example, starting from a developmental perspective, Pager (1989,199l)
demonstrated that a full capacity for intimacy is associated with deeper levels of com-
municative self-disclosure, whereas intimacy status is only partly related to the way in
which partners resolve conflicts in their relationship. In our opinion, further studies
along those lines will produce more insight in the attributes and processes which fos-
ter relationship quality, and in the long run may provide a basis for the development
of an integrated approach to personal relationships.

Acktww&~t.+l%is paper is based upon the first author’s dissertation filfillmg the require-
ments for the PhD degree in Psychology at the Catholic University of Leuven. The first author
is now associated with the Flemish Institute for Health Promotion, Brussels, Belgium.

REFERENCES
Acitelli, L. K, & Duck, S. W. (1987). Postscript Intimacy as the proverbial elephant. In D. Perlman & S. W.
Duck (Eds.), Intimab tda#iomhips. h-t, dynamics, and dcurimatir (pp. 297-308). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social pnetmtian: The develapmcnt of interpersonal vrkationships. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. So&m&y, Z&289-304.
Baucom, D. H., & Adams, A N. (1987). Assessing communication in marital interaction. In K_ D. O’Leary
(Ed.), Assessment of maritaldiscord:An inkpntion for research and clinical practice (pp. 25-39). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baucom, D. H., & Sayers, S. (1989). The behavioral observation of couples: Where have we lagged and what
is the next step in the sequence? BchavioraZAssessmen t. 11, 149-159.
Bochner, A. P (1984). Tbe functions of human communication in interpersonal bonding. In C. C. Arnold &
J. W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbo&of&bicalandwmmunicatbm theory (pp. 544-621). NewYork Academic Press.
Bosma, H. A., & Gerrits, R. S. (1985). Family functioning and identity status in adolescence.JoumaZ of &rfy
Adol.esccnce, 5, 69-80.
Boszonnenyi-Nagy, I., & Spark, M. (1973). Znvi.rib~ZoyoUies:Reci#nvcifyin intqperational family therapy.
Hagerstown, MD: Harper & Row.
Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. (1978). social origins of dcpresion: A study of psychiahic disorder in women.London:
Tavistock.
Byng-Hall, J. (1980). Symptom bearer as marital distress regulator: Clinical implications. Family Z+ucm, 19,
355-365.
Campbell, E. G., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1984). Familial correlates of identity formation in late
adolescence. Journal of Y&h and Adolcsunce, 13,509-525.
Chelune, G. J.. Robison, J. T., & Kommor, M. J. (1984). A cognitive interaction model of intimate relation-
ships. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communicufion, intimacy, and close relutiunships (pp. 11-40). New York:
Academic Press.
Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Reuicw of Psychology,
39,609-672.
Costello, C. G. (1982). Social factors associated with depression: A retrospective community study.
Psychological Medicine, 12,329-340.
Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79,73-91.
Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1975). Sharing intimacy: Wha.t we rcucal to others and why. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Derlega, V. J., & Margulis, S. T. (1982). Why loneliness occurs: The interrelationship of social-psychological
and privacy concepts. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sounxbook of current theq, research
and therapy (pp. 152-165). NewYork: John Wiley.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological BuLbtin, 95,542-575.
Duck, S. W., & Montgomery, B. M. (1991). The interdependence among interaction substance, theory, and
methods. In B. M. Montgomery & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Studying infnpnsonal interaction (pp. 3-15). New
York Guilford Press.
232 S. Van den Browh, W Vandeycken, and H. Vertommen

Duck, S. W., & Perlman, D. (Eds.). (1985). Understandingpersonal nldionships: An int.&isciplina~ approach
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
E&son, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fisher, L., Rakes, R. F., Ransom, D. C., Phillips, S. L., & Rudd, P. (1985). Alternative strategies for creating
“relational” family data. Family &ocess, 24,213-224.
Fitch, S. A., & Adams, G. R (1983). Ego identity status: Replication and extension. Deuebpmentd Psychobgy.
19.839-845.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). fktzomahwhndr and wiues:Communicatiain muwiuge, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Grotevant, H. D. (1983). The contribution of the family to the facilitation of identity formation in early ado
lescence. Journal of Early Adoltscence, 3,225-237.
Hafner, R J. (1986). Maniagc and mental illness: A sex roles perspective. New York Guilford Press.
Hatfield, E. (1982). Passionate love, companionate love, and intimacy. In M. Fisher & G. Snicker (Eds.),
In#iw (pp. 267-292). New York: Plenum Press.
Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, J. (1985). Equity and intimate relations: Recent
research. In W. Ickes (Ed.), CompdiMeand incorn@&& t~&ion.rhips(pp. 91-117). NewYork Springer Verlag.
Helgeson, V. S., Shaver, P, & Dyer, M. (1987). Prototypes of intimacy and distance in same sex and oppo
site sex relationships. Journal of Social and Pemmal Belutionships, 4, 195-233.
Hi&e, I., Wilhelm, R., Parker, G., Boyce, P, Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Brodaty, H., & Mitchell, P. (1990). Perceived
dysfunctional intimate relationships: A specific association with the non-melancholic depressive subtype.
Journal of Affective LXsorders, 19.99-107.
Hinde, R. (1978). Interpersonal relationships: In quest of a science. Psychological Medtine, 3,378-386.
Hodgson, J. W., & Fisher, J. L. (1979), Sex differences and intimacy development in college students.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 37-50.
Jones, W. H., & Perlman, D. (Eds.). (1991). Advances in personal nlationships (Vol 2). London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). SelfDisclosun: An experimental analysis of the Tmnspanmt SelfI New York: John Wiley.
Eacerguis, M., & Adams, G. R (1980). Erikson stage resolution: The relationship between identity and inti-
macy. Journal of Youth and Adokxmce, 5.145-160.
Levinger, G. (1977). Reviewing the close relationship. In G. Levinger & H. Raush (Eds.), Uose t&tionships.
Pnspcctiva on the meaning ofintimq (pp. 137-161). Amherst, MA: University of Massachussetts Press.
Levinger, G. (1988). Can we picture love? In R. J. Stemberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The @$o~~ of bve
(pp. 139-158). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mahler, M. (1961). On sadness and grief in infancy and chitdhood. PsyGihwnufyticStudy of the Chi& 16,332-331.
Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Perxonal$ and Social
Psychology, 13.551-558.
Marshall, W. L. (1989). Intimacy, loneliness and sexual offenders. &/r&our Z&search and Them@, 27,
491603.
McAdams, D. P. (1982). Intimacy motivation. In A J. Stewart (Ed.), Motivation andsociety (pp. 133-171). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Met& S., Sprecher, S., & Cupach, W. R. (1991). Retrospective self-reports. In B. Montgomery 8c S. W. Duck
(Eds.), Studying intqbersonol inter-u&m (pp. 162-178). New York Guilford Press.
Miller, R S., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The assessment of social intimacy. Psychobgicaal Medicine, 8,337-386.
Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross and same-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal
Rekztiunships, 2, 277-295.
Notarius, C. I., & Markman, H. J. (1989). Coding marital interaction: A sampling and discussion of current
issues. Behavioral Assessm-ent, 11,111.
Orlofsky, J., Marcia, J., & Lesser, I. (1973). Ego identity status and the intimacy versus isolation status of
young adulthood. Journal o/Personality and Social Psychology, 27,211-219.
Parehnan, A. (1983). Emotiunul intimacy in muniuge: A sex n&s perspectiue. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Research Press.
Patton, D., & Waring, E. M. (1985). Sex and marital intimacy. Journalof Sexand Mari& Therapy, II, 176-184.
Perlman, D., & Fehr, B. (1987). The development of intimate relationships. In D. Perhnan & S. W. Duck
(Eds.), Intimate nlationships: Lkuelopaent, dynamics, and deteriomtia (pp. 1%42). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Prager, R. J. (1989). Intimacy status and couple communication. Journal ofSocial and Personal Behztionships,
6,435-449.
Prager, K. J. (1991). Intimacy status and couple conflict resolution. Journal of Social andPersunalZ?ekztionships,
8,505-526.
Reis, H. T. (1990). The role ofintimacyin interpersonal relations. Jozllnalof&&dnnd CZiniazlPqcholcgy, 9,15-30.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook ofper-
sonal relationships: Theory, research and intzrventions (pp. 367-389). New York: John Wiley.
 Marital Intimacy 233

Reis, H. T., Wheeler, L., Remis, M. H., Spiegel, N., & Nezlek, J. (1985). On specificity in the impact of social
participation on physical and psychological health. Joural of Pcnonali(r and Social Psychdogy. 48,456-471.
Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Joumal of Mar&l andFan#
Thmrpy, 7,47-60.
Schiedel, D. G., & Marcia, J. E. (1985). Ego identity, sex role orientation and gender. DNclopmntal
Psychology, 21,149-160.
Stemberg, R J. (1988). Triangulating love. In R. J. Stemherg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The p@&gy of love
(pp. 119-138). New Haven, CTZYale University Press.
Stierlin, H. (1974). scpamCing#armts and u&~lcscmtsNew York: Quadrangle.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The int+rsonal tw ofpsychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton.
Tesch, S. A., & Whitbnume, S. K. (1982). Intimacy and identity status in young adults. Joumat of Perso&*
and SocialP@wlogq, 43,1041-1051.
Van den Broucke, S. (1991). Partners through thick and thin: Intimacy, communication, and wnflict wgukation in
the nlationships of married an& and butimia newosa patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
Van den Broucke, S., Vandereycken, W., & Vertommen, H. (1995). Marital intimacy in patients with an eat-
ing disorder: A controlled sel-freport study. British Journal of Clinical psychology, 34.67-78.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and RcsearcA Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Waring, E. M. (1983). Marriages of patients with psychosomatic illness. GenemlHospital Psychiatry, 5,49-53.
Waring, E. M., & Chelune, G. J. (1983). Marital intimacy and selfdisclosure. Joumal of Clinicat Psychology, 39,
183-190.
Waring, E. M., McElrath, D., Lefcoe, D., & Weisz, G. (1981). Dimensions of intimacy in marriage. Psych&y,
44, 169-175.
Waring, E. M., McElrath, D., Mitchell, P., & Deny, M. E. (1981). Intimacy and emotional illness in the gen-
eral population. Gsnadian Journal of Psychology, 26.167-172.
Waring, E. M., & Patton, D. (1984). Marital intimacy and depression. Bvifish Journal of Psychiahy, 145,
641-644.
Waring, E. M., & Reddon, J. R. (1983). The measurement of intimacy in marriage: The Waring intimacy
Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 53-57.
Waring, E. M., Tillman, M. P., Frelick, L., Russell, L., 8c Weisz, G. (1980). Concepts of intimacy in the gen-
eral population. Journal of Nervous and MentalLXsease, 168,471-474.
Waring, E. M., Reddon. J. R., Cotvinelli, M., Chalmers, W. S., & van der Laan, R. (1983). Marital intimacy
and mood states in a nonclinical sample. Joumal of Pychor$y, 115.263-273.
Whitboume, S. EL, & Weinstock, C. S. (1979). Adult deve~t: The &ffnn#&ion of +erience. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
White, R. M., Speisman, J., Jackson, D., Bar&, S., & Gxtos, D. (1986). Intimacy maturity and its correlates
in young married couples. Joumal of Pcrxmalify and Social Psychology, 56,152-162.
Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Person&y andprediction. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

View publication stats