Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 66 (2016) 109–116

Disponible en ligne sur

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

Original article

Personal assessment of intimacy in relationships: Validity and

measurement invariance across gender
Évaluation personnelle de l’intimité au sein des relations : validité et mesure de
l’invariance selon le genre
E. Constant ∗ , F. Vallet , J.-L. Nandrino , V. Christophe ∗
Lille University, UMR CNRS 9193 SCALab “Cognitive and Affective Sciences”, rue du Barreau, BP 60149, 59653 Villeneuve-d’Ascq cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction. – Intimacy is central in close relationships and a variety of definitions and instruments exist
Received 26 May 2015 in scientific literature, making this concept complex to investigate. Furthermore, gender differences were
Received in revised form 5 February 2016 identified in the definition and experience of intimacy.
Accepted 28 April 2016
Objectives. – This study aims to confirm the three-factor structure of the personal assessment of inti-
macy in relationships (PAIR, Schaefer & Olson, 1981), commonly used in research and marital therapy,
Keywords: developed by Moore et al. (1998) and to examine the measurement equivalence of the scale across gender.
Intimacy
Method. – A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the responses of 313 women and 251
Couples
Confirmatory factor analysis
men in committed relationships in a French population. Measurement equivalence of the scale across
Measurement invariance gender was then conducted with the best-fitting model.
Scale validation Results. – The results of CFA and post-hoc analyses revealed that the three-factor model revised with 18
items was the best fit to the data: (1) engagement (10 items), (2) communication (5 items), (3) shared
friends (3 items). PAIR-18 displayed a lack of metric and scalar invariance across gender but estimated
means of latent variables is not very different between the full invariant model and the unconstraint
models.
Conclusion. – Nevertheless, consideration of gender differences in the construct of intimacy is very impor-
tant for theoretical research on intimacy in romantic relationships and for the interventions of marital
therapists based on intimacy.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

r é s u m é

Mots clés : Introduction. – L’intimité est centrale dans les relations proches et un grand nombre de définitions et
Intimité d’outils existent, rendant ce concept complexe à étudier. De plus, des différences de genre ont été
Couples identifiées concernant la définition et l’expérience de l’intimité.
Analyse factorielle confirmatoire Objectifs. – Cette étude vise à confirmer la structure en 3 facteurs développée par Moore et al. (1998) de
Mesure d’invariance
l’échelle originale « évaluation personnelle de l’intimité au sein des relations » (PAIR, Schaefer & Olson,
Genre
1981), couramment utilisée en recherche et thérapie conjugale et d’examiner l’équivalence de l’échelle
Validation d’échelle
selon le genre.
Méthode. – Une analyse factorielle confirmatoire (AFC) a été réalisée auprès de 313 femmes et
251 hommes engagés dans une relation sérieuse au sein de la population française. La mesure d’invariance
selon le genre a ensuite été réalisée sur le modèle le mieux ajusté.
Résultats. – Les résultats de l’AFC et des analyses post-hoc ont révélé qu’un modèle en 3 facteurs révisé
en 18 items est le mieux ajusté aux données : (1) engagement (10 items), (2) communication (5 items),
(3) amis communs (3 items). La PAIR-18 présente un manque d’invariance métrique et scalaire selon le
genre mais les moyennes estimées des variables latentes ne sont pas très différentes entre le modèle
totalement contraint à invariance et le modèle non contraint.

∗ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: emilie.constant@univ-lille3.fr (E. Constant), veronique.christophe@univ-lille3.fr (V. Christophe).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2016.04.008
1162-9088/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
110 E. Constant et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 66 (2016) 109–116
Conclusion. – Néanmoins, prendre en considération les différences de genre dans le construit de l’intimité
est très important pour les recherches théoriques explorant l’intimité au sein des relations amoureuses
ainsi que pour les interventions des thérapeutes conjugaux basées sur l’intimité.
1. Introduction
Intimacy is at the core of loving relationships (Sternberg &
Grajek, 1984) and many researchers have attempted to conceptual-
ize it. According to Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, intimacy is
the emotional component of love and refers particularly to feelings
of closeness, bondedness, and connectedness (Sternberg, 1986).
Intimate relationships are important for human functioning and
well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; McAdams & Vaillant, 1982;
Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000) and many developmental theo-
ries agree that intimacy is essential for individual adjustment and
needs (Erikson, 1950; Maslow, 1954; Sullivan, 1953). The concept
of intimacy has often been investigated in the scientific litera-
ture where a variety of definitions and operationalizations can
be found (see Heller & Wood, 1998; Schaefer & Olson, 1981).
Moss and Schwebel (1993) proposed that “intimacy in enduring
romantic relationships is determined by the level of commit-
ment and positive affective, cognitive, and physical closeness one
experiences with a partner in a reciprocal (although not neces-
sarily symmetrical) relationship”. Besides, Reis and Shaver (1988)
defined intimacy as an interpersonal and transactional process with
two principal components: self-disclosure and partner responsive-
ness. Indeed, intimacy is initiated when a person share relevant
information, thoughts, and feelings to another person (nonver-
bal or verbal disclosures). To maintain intimacy, the listener must
communicate understanding and validation in response to a part-
ner’s self-disclosure (Laurenceau, Rivera, Schaffer, & Pietromonaco,
2004; Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005). Due to its interpersonal
nature and multidimensional definition, intimacy is complex to
measure (Kouneski & Olson, 2004). Nevertheless, its assessment
is important for researchers as well as in couple counseling in
order to help each partner express their intimacy needs, under-
stand their partner’s needs (Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley,
2003) and improve feelings of intimacy in their romantic relation-
ship (Schaefer & Olson, 1981).
1.1. Assessment of intimacy and validation studies of the personal
assessment of intimacy in relationships (PAIR, Schaefer & Olson,
1981)
Empirical studies confirmed a multidimensional conceptualiza-
tion of intimacy (for a review see Van den Broucke, Vandereycken,
& Vertommen, 1995) and enabled the examination of individual
differences through the degree and needs of intimacy.
Van den Broucke et al. (1995) examined the psychological litera-
ture about marital intimacy and they identified several self-report
questionnaires that could be used in order to assess intimacy in
couple relationships. The Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (WIQ;
Waring & Reddon, 1983) describes close, dyadic relations as being
composed of three interpersonal dimensions: boundary, power
and intimacy (Gaia, 2002); the Marital Intimacy Questionnaire
(MIQ; Van den Broucke et al., 1995) assess intimacy problems,
consensus between partners, openness, affection and commit-
ment; the Intimate Relationship Scale (IRS; Hetherington & Soeken,
1990) measures the perception of change in the physical, cog-
nitive, and emotional dimensions of intimacy and sexuality and
finally, the Relationship Intimacy Styles Questionnaire (RISQ; Moss
& Schwebel, 1993) measures the cognitive, affective, physical and
commitment intimacy (Prager, 1995).
© 2016 Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Among the different available tools, there are three popu-
lar scales used by researchers and couple therapists in this field
(Hook et al., 2003): the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS; Miller
& Lefcourt, 1982), the Fear of Intimacy Scale (FIS; Descutner &
Thelen, 1991) and the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Rela-
tionships (PAIR, Schaefer & Olson, 1981). The MSIS is a 17-item
questionnaire, which assesses the frequency of intimacy and the
intensity of the intimacy experienced in a given relationship.
The FIS (Descutner & Thelen, 1991) concerns items about anxiety
to exchange thoughts and feelings of personal significance with
another individual on three dimensions. Particularly, the PAIR is
commonly used to assess relationship intimacy in research and
marital therapy (Elliott, Bingham, Nielsen, & Warner, 1986; Harper
& Elliott, 1988; Heller & Wood, 1998; Nezhad & Goodarzi, 2011;
Reiter, Richmond, Stirlen, & Kompel, 2009; Worthington, Buston,
& Hammonds, 1989) and to examine differences between partners
(Schaefer & Olson, 1981). The original instrument was developed
in 36 items to investigate the experience of intimacy and contained
six subscales: emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, recreational
and conventionality. This latter dimension is only used to “indicate
how much individuals attempt to ‘fake good’.” (Schaefer & Olson,
1981). However, serious concerns were pointed involving furthers
research in order to demonstrate the reliability of the scale (Hook
et al., 2003). Researchers attempted to investigate the factor struc-
ture of the PAIR in general (e.g., Moore, McCabe, & Stockdale, 1998)
and clinical (e.g., Walker, Hampton, & Robinson, 2014) populations,
but none of these studies confirmed these six dimensions. Moore,
McCabe, and Stockdale (1998) proposed a 27-item scale with three
subscales using Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA):
• communication: experiencing an open and fluent exchange of
ideas;
• engagement: feeling connected with one’s partner;
• shared friendships: sharing common activities with friends.
In the same way, Walker et al. (2014) proposed a 23-item scale
with three subscales using also EFA:
• understanding: ability to understand one’s partner and to express
one’s emotions and beliefs freely to them. This subscale expands
beyond the conceptualized “communication” subscale of Moore
et al.;
• engagement: degree to which a person feels connected to their
partner;
• shared friends: degree to which a couple participates in valued
social activities with mutual friends.
We focused our attention on the factorial validation developed
in general population by Moore et al. (1998) and to our knowledge,
there are no empirical studies supporting the PAIR three-dimension
structure by a confirmatory factorial validation.
1.2. Gender differences in intimacy
Identifying similarities or differences between each partner in
a romantic relationship seems to be helpful for couples in order
to understand and accept their partner’s feelings (Heller & Wood,
1998). Some authors support the hypothesis that the perception of
 E. Constant et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 66 (2016) 109–116
intimacy occurs when both partners have similar intimacy needs
(Schaefer & Olson, 1981). However, studies have reported gen-
der differences in the definition and expression of intimacy. Thus,
women may define intimacy as love, affection, and the expres-
sion of warm feelings, while men define it as sexual behavior and
physical closeness (Ridley, 1993). In addition, gender differences
are revealed in the experience and expression of intimacy (Greeff
& Malherbe, 2001; Patrick & Beckenbach, 2009). Women report
greater feelings of intimacy than men on several dimensions of
the PAIR (emotional, intellectual and recreational; Heller & Wood,
1998). Women also express more affection, love and personal vali-
dation and have a better understanding of their partner’s needs in
their relationships (Hook et al., 2003).
Investigating how women and men define and experience inti-
macy is an important issue in order to understand this concept
more precisely according to gender and the partner’s adjustment
within a stable romantic relationship. These gender differences in
the expression of intimacy may lead to marital conflict or problems
during the romantic relationship, in particular to misunderstand-
ing by the partners. Furthermore, these differences regarding the
meaning of intimacy may have repercussions on its assessment,
for example in the examination of mean differences across gen-
der. Comparisons can lead to misleading interpretations in cases
where measures are not invariant across gender (Borsboom, 2006).
A scale is considered invariant when its measurement properties
function in the same way across gender. Because the meaning of
intimacy seems to differ according to gender, the examination of
measurement equivalence is particularly important when explor-
ing intimacy in close relationships.
Thus, the present paper aims:
• to confirm the previous three-factor structure based on the origi-
nal scale developed by Moore et al. (1998) in general population;
• to examine the measurement equivalence of the scale across gen-
der.
To our knowledge, there are no empirical studies supporting
the PAIR three-dimension structure by a confirmatory factorial vali-
dation and gender similarities/differences in factorial structure and
measurement invariance have not yet been tested for this inven-
tory.
2. Method
The sample consisted of 313 French women (aged 18 years to
73 years, M = 33.9, SD = 12.1) and 251 men (aged 20 years to 71
years, M = 37.0, SD = 12.3) in a committed romantic relationship for
at least one year (M = 12.1, SD = 10.5). Forty-nine percent of partici-
pants lived with a partner or had a civil union contract and 51% were
married. Concerning the level of education, 41.3% participants in
our sample had a level two or more years above the baccalaureate,
19.3% a level below or equal to two years after the baccalaureate,
20.4% a bachelor’s degree, 17% a middle-school qualification or less
and 2% did not give their level of education.
2.1. Procedure
Participants were contacted by investigators in the university,
on campus, or through personal social networks or Internet. They
were invited to participate in a university investigation on their
current perception of intimacy in their romantic relationship by
completing a questionnaire. Confidentiality and anonymity were
guaranteed.
After indicating their age, gender and relationship duration, par-
ticipants were asked to rate the 36-item PAIR Inventory (Schaefer &
111
Olson, 1981). The scale was translated from English into French by a
researcher and then independently back-translated by a bilingual
researcher. Discrepancies were analyzed and discussed by three
French researchers of the university. Participants answered items
using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree” with 18 of the items being reversed. A high score
indicated that participants had a high level of intimacy.
2.2. Data analysis
2.2.1. Preliminary analysis
Data on 574 participants were initially conducted in order to
check statistical assumption of normality. Skewness and Kurto-
sis indices have been use to assess respectively the degree of
asymmetry and “peakedness” in the distribution of our different
variables (Hopkins & Weeks, 1990). Moreover, extreme multivari-
ate outliers were removed from the analyses in our sample using
the Squared Mahalanobis Distance test (Byrne, 2009; Kline, 2005),
which resulted in a sample of 564 participants. Based on our final
sample, the analyses were performed in three steps based on the
27-item version of the scale proposed by Moore et al. (1998).
2.2.2. Step 1: testing for the factorial structure of the three-factor
model
The factor structure of the PAIR proposed by Moore et al. (1998)
was first examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and
maximum likelihood (ML) estimation in Amos 21.0. We evaluated
how well the model fit the data using multiple goodness-of-fit
indices including the 2 /df ratio, the comparative fit index (CFI), the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the stan-
dardized root mean square residual (SRMR). A well-fitting model
is indicated by a cutoff value lower than or equal to 3 for the 2 /df
ratio, equal to or higher than .95 for the CFI, close to .06 or less for
the RMSEA, and close or less to .08 for the SRMR (Hu & Bentler,
1999).
2.2.3. Step 2: measurement invariance across gender
The best-fitting model was then examined for its invariance
across gender by performing multigroup CFAs to test a similar
structure for women and men (e.g. Gregorich, 2006; Schmitt &
Kuljanin, 2008; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). For these models, the
mean was fixed at 0 and the variance at 1 in order to examine all
factor loadings and intercepts invariance for each latent variable.
An increasing level of constraints was used across different mod-
els as follows: model 1 represented configural invariance, which
imposed the same structure for each group; model 2 represented
metric invariance, which constrained the factor loadings to be
invariant across gender; model 3 represented scalar invariance,
which also constrained intercepts to be invariant across gender;
(Schmitt & Kuljanin, 2008; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). The last two
multigroup models were compared to the nested configural model.
To conclude that there is measurement invariance across gen-
der, the 2 difference between models should be non-significant,
the CFI difference < .01, RMSEA < .015, SRMR < .03 for metric invari-
ance and < .01 for scalar invariance (Chen, 2007). In cases in which
the non-invariance hypothesis was rejected, we tested the par-
tial invariance meaning of some invariant parameters (i.e., factor
loading, intercepts), which were constrained to invariance while
non-invariant parameters were released to be freely estimated in
both groups (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989).
2.2.4. Step 3: internal consistency reliability
Internal consistency reliability for each of the PAIR subscales
was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Alpha values of .70 or higher
indicate acceptable internal consistency (Kline, 2010).
112 E. Constant et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 66 (2016) 109–116
3. Results
3.1. Factor structure
The 27-item three-factor structure of the PAIR (model 1) devel-
oped in previous study was tested and revealed a poor fit of the
model to the data: 2 = 1287.009[321], p = .000, 2 /df ratio = 4.009,
CFI = .808, RMSEA = .073 (90% CI [.069, .077]) and SRMR = .0675. We
did not confirm the structure proposed by Moore et al. (1998) in
our sample data.
3.2. Development of a revised model of the PAIR
In front of this poor fit, we chose to conduct post-hoc analyses
using CFA in a theoretically driven approach in order to obtain a
stable structure of the scale. To identify the best-fitting structure,
we examined:
• factor loading of each item to only retain those that strongly
saturate on their dimension;
• modification indices (MI) option which provide specific informa-
tion about model misspecification and to identify the construct
validity of a model that better represents the sample data.
First, this option is conducted empirically by considering large
MIs that argue for the presence of factor cross-loadings and error
covariance respectively (Byrne, 2009). Second, a reflection on the
content validity was led (i.e., the semantic analysis of the item with
regard to the concept/dimension measured, its inter-relation with
others items and personal considerations between researchers
about the meaning of the items).
Based on the first model included 27 items that represented
the three-factor structure developed by Moore et al. (1998), we
identified five low factor loading (under .40) in the engagement
dimension which were removed (model 2): item 28 “My partner
seldom tries to change my ideas” ( = .033), item 8 “As a couple, we
usually keep to ourselves” ( = .007), item 15 “I am able to tell my
partner when I want sexual intimacy” ( = .380), item 32 “My part-
ner disapproves of some of my friends” ( = .264), item 14 “We have
few friends in common” ( = .290). This model did not fit the data
according to goodness-of-fit indices, but we noted an improvement
of the adjustment: 2 = 723.338[206], p = .000, 2 /df ratio = 3.511,
CFI = .884, RMSEA = .067 (90% CI [.062, .072]) and SRMR = .0530.
Then, this model was modified examining MI greater than 10
indicating a model misspecification in our sample data. Through
this procedure, and after verification of theoretical and conceptual
reasons, four items were deleted: one from the engagement dimen-
sion (item 10) and three from the communication dimension (item
35, 17 and 3).
Large MI for error covariances indicated a high degree of overlap
in item content for item 35 (“We share few of the same interests”)
with item 11 (“I share in few of my partner’s interests”) and item 10
(“When having a serious discussion, it seems we have little in com-
mon”). Moreover, MI showed the presence of factor cross-loadings
Table 1
Goodness-of-fit indices for alternative models of the structure of the PAIR.
Model Overall fit indices
2
1. Hypothesized model (PAIR 27-item; Moore et al., 1998) 1287.009
2. Model 1 (factor loadings below .40 removed) 723.338
3. Model 2 (correlated uniqueness model) 266.781
PAIR: personal assessment of intimacy in relationships; CFI: comparative fit index; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA: root mean square error of
approximation.
for item 35 on the dimension engagement and communication that
revealing this ambiguity. Factor cross-loading was also identifying
for item 17 (“We like playing and having fun together”) on the com-
munication and engagement dimensions and it was also redundant
with item 29 (“We seldom find time to do fun things together”).
Moreover, when we examined the meaning of this item with regard
to this initial dimension “communication”, we can suggest that
this item do not correspond to the definition of this dimension. MI
revealed also problem of misspecification for the item 3 (“I am satis-
fied with the level of affection in our relationship”), particularly the
analysis of its meaning revealed a nonsense and ambiguity in the
communication dimension. Item 10 (“When having a serious dis-
cussion, it seems we have little in common”) revealed high degree
of overlap with three others items.
With regard to these statistical informations and a seman-
tic analysis among three researchers, these items seemed to be
ambiguous in their initial dimension or redundant. We chose to
remove them in order to obtain a stable and clear structure of this
scale.
Finally, we respecified the model by adding error covariance
between three pairs of items with the largest MI within a same
factor after having analyzed semantically each item and hav-
ing determined that they were not ambiguous regarding their
dimension or redundant with others items. Respecification of the
hypothesized model of the PAIR structure (Moore et al., 1998) pro-
vided an improvement of the model adjustment and an acceptable
model fit (model 3): 2 = 266.781[129], p = .000, 2 /df ratio = 2.068,
CFI = .956, RMSEA = .044 (90% CI [.036, .051]) and SRMR = .0395.
Table 1 provides a summary comparison of the fit indices for the
three models.
The final version of the scale contains 18 items: 10 in the engage-
ment dimension, five in the communication dimension and three
in the shared friends dimension.
3.3. Invariance measurement across gender
To identify the non-invariance for each factor loading, we tested
the 2 difference between the full metric invariance model (all
factor loadings were fixed to be invariant, M2) and the full met-
ric invariance minus one free factor loading (the same analysis
was conducted for each factor loading). A factor loading was con-
sidered invariant if the comparison between these models had a
significant 2 difference (we examined also a 2 with a p < .08).
A partial metric invariance model (M2p) was achieved by releas-
ing the non-invariant factor loadings. From the partial metric
invariance model, we proceeded in the same way to identify the
non-invariant intercepts and to construct a partial scalar invariance
model.
The comparison between the configural invariance model
and the partial invariance models were based on differences
between these models on 2 , CFI, SRMR and RMSEA. The partial
measurement invariant model (M2p) was not found to be different
from the configural model. Regarding the partial scalar invariant
model (M3p-M2p ), the 2 difference was near significant with the
df p 2 /df CFI SRMR RMSEA 90% CI
321 .000 4.009 .808 .0675 .073 [.069, .077]
206 .000 3.511 .884 .0530 .067 [.062, .072]
129 .000 2.068 .956 .0395 .044 [.036, .051]
 E. Constant et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 66 (2016) 109–116 113

Table 2
Goodness-of-fit indices of the models testing measurement invariance and partial invariance.

Overall fit of the models Difference between models and M1

Model 2 df 2 /df CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA [90% CI] 2 df p of the 2 CFI SRMR RMSEA

M1 393.289 258 1.524 .957 .041 .031 [.024; .036]

M2 451.081 276 1.634 .945 .053 .034 [.028; .039] 57.792 18 < .001 .012 .012 .003
M3 589.092 294 2.004 .907 .054 .042 [.037; .047] 195.803 36 < .001 .05 .013 .011
M2p 413.037 272 1.519 .955 .049 .030 [.024; .036] 19.748 14 .138 .002 .008 −.001
M3-M2p 552.312 290 1.905 .917 .051 .040 [.035; .045] 159.023 32 < .001 .04 .01 .009
M3p-M2p 427.775 281 1.522 .954 .049 .030 [.025; .036] 34.486 23 .058 .003 .008 −.001

CFI: comparative fit index; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; : difference; M1: configural invariance;
M2: metric invariance; M3: scalar invariance; p: partial invariance; M2p: partial metric invariance; M3-M2p : scalar invariance releasing the non-invariant factor loadings;
M3p-M2p : partial scalar invariance releasing the non-invariant factor loading.

configural model (p = .058), but the differences on the other indices
showed no substantial difference between these models. More-
over, results demonstrated good fit indices for partial invariance
models (Table 2).
Results from the partial scalar invariance model showed four
non-invariant factor loadings and nine non-invariant intercepts.
Three non-invariant factor loadings in the engagement dimension
were identified – two of which were higher for men than for women
and one higher for women than for men – and one in the commu-
nication dimension – higher for women than for men. Moreover,
six non-invariant intercepts were found in the engagement dimen-
sion – two of which were higher for men than for women and four
higher for women than for men – and three in the communication
dimension – two of which were higher for men than for women
and one higher for women than for men. To summary, in the shared
friends dimension, all factor loadings and intercepts were invariant
and mixed patterns of non-invariant factor loadings and inter-
cepts were found in engagement and communication dimensions
(Table 3).
Because metric and scalar non-invariance may influence latent
variable means, they were estimated for the full scalar invariance
model (M3), the partial scalar invariance model (M3p-M2p ), and the
free model (M1 or configural model, also called the ‘true’ model).
We constructed a model when the means and variance values of
the latent variables were released and the intercepts were fixed at
0 and the factor loadings were fixed at 1 for the first invariant item
for each dimension (items 2, 4 and 11). Results showed (Table 4)
that the means estimated in the full and partial invariance models
did not differ much from the means estimated by in the configurale
model.

Table 3
Items assignment, factor loadings and intercepts of the partial invariance model (M3p-M2p ).

Items Factor loading Stand. Intercept

Women Men Women Men

Shared friends
2 We enjoy spending time with other couples (Nous aimons passer du temps avec d’autres couples) .626 .650 3.017 3.017
20 Having time together with friends is an important part of our shared activities (Prendre du temps .853 .868 2.593 2.593
ensemble avec des amis est une part importante de nos activités communes)
26 Many of my partner’s closest friends are also my closest friends (Beaucoup des meilleurs amis de .413 .418 2.284 2.284
mon/ma partenaire sont aussi mes amis les plus proches)
Communication
1 My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to (Mon/ma partenaire m’écoute quand j’ai .730 .467 3.453 3.564
besoin de parler à quelqu’un)
4 My partner helps me clarify my thoughts and feelings (Mon/ma partenaire m’aide à clarifier mes .702 .732 3.152 3.152
pensées et mes sentiments)
7 I can state my feelings without him/her getting defensive (Je peux exprimer mes sentiments sans .652 .661 2.967 2.967
qu’il/elle soit sur la défensive)
19 My partner can really understand my hurts and joys (Mon/ma partenaire peut vraiment comprendre .621 .716 3.04 3.325
mes blessures et mes bonheurs)
34 We have an endless number of things to talk about (Nous avons un nombre infini de choses à nous .627 .606 2.714 2.531
raconter)
Engagement
9 I feel our level of affection is just routine (Je sens que l’affection que l’on se porte l’un à l’autre est juste .734 .636 3.123 2.931
basée sur la routine)
11 I share in few my of my partner’s interests (Je partage peu les centres d’intérêts de mon/ma partenaire) .412 .397 2.678 2.678
13 I often feel distant from my partner (Je me sens souvent distant(e) de mon/ma partenaire) .801 .700 3.243 3.243
16 I feel “put-down” in a serious conversation with my partner (Je me sens méprisé(e) au cours d’une .546 .522 3.406 3.406
conversation sérieuse avec mon/ma partenaire)
21 Because of my partner’s lack of caring, I “hold back” my sexual interest (En raison du manque d’amour .663 .618 3.266 3.027
de mon/ma partenaire, je freine mon désir sexuel)
22 I feel it is useless to discuss some things with my partner (Je sens que c’est inutile de discuter de .646 .623 3.258 3.258
quelque chose avec mon/ma partenaire)
25 I feel neglected at times by my partner (Je me sens parfois négligé(e) par mon/ma partenaire) .563 .599 2.570 2.816
29 We seldom find time to do fun things together (Nous trouvons rarement le temps de faire des choses .469 .586 2.817 2.636
amusantes ensemble)
31 I sometimes feel lonely when we’re together (Je me sens parfois seul(e) quand nous sommes ensemble) .687 .771 2.879 3.324
33 My partner seems disinterested in sex (Mon/ma partenaire semble désintéressé(e) du sexe) .409 .584 3.152 2.872

Stand.: standardized. The non-invariant values are in bold type.

114 E. Constant et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 66 (2016) 109–116

Table 4 revealed a better intimacy concerning listening and understanding

Means and standard errors of the latent variables for women and men for full and
by their partner (item 1 et item 9), whereas women expressed a
partial invariance models and free model as well as estimation bias.
better communication in the variety of subjects raised (item 34).
Full invariant Partial invariant Free These results agreed those of previous studies in that women
Model M3 M3p-M2p M1 are more inclined to emotional closeness, affection and commu-
nication (e.g. emotional self-disclosure), whereas men are more
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
inclined to sharing joint activities or leisure time, giving instru-
Women mental help and accord a prominent place to the sexuality in
Engagement 2.666 .055 2.686 .057 2.696 .068
their romantic relationship (Heller & Wood, 1998; Ridley, 1993;
Communication 3.080 .057 3.085 .057 3.045 .059
Shared friends 3.028 .047 3.028 .047 3.016 .053 Tannen, 1990). In addition, women are more listening and under-
Men standing to their partner’s needs (Hook et al., 2003). Our results
Engagement 2.687 .055 2.661 .057 2.645 .075 are consistent with the scientific literature supporting the idea
Communication 3.241 .050 3.218 .054 3.263 .058 that men and women define and experience intimacy in differ-
Shared friends 3.007 .050 3.007 .049 3.020 .059
ent ways, which may be partly explained by gender socialization
SE: standard error. (Gaia, 2002; Heller & Wood, 1998; Hook et al., 2003). Gender
is considered as a social construct in which men and women
3.4. Internal consistency reliability receive gender messages throughout life (Heller & Wood, 1998). It
would contribute to the construction of a gender identity through
Following model respecification and measurement invariance which men report globally higher separateness (i.e., self-other
across gender of the PAIR, Cronbach’s alphas were estimated of the differentiation and independence) whereas women report higher
revised factors as follows: .84 for the revised engagement factor, connectedness with others – and particularly their partner – that
.80 for the revised communication factor and .635 for the shared is essential for themselves (Lang-Takac & Osterweil, 1992). More-
friends factor, which presented a limited internal consistency. over, Gaia (2002) proposed that men’s emotional withdrawal or
independence relative to each other could be explained by their
fear of social rejection because these behaviors would seem to
4. Discussion suggest vulnerably or weakness in accordance to social expecta-
tions and gender norms. Continuing to examine gender differences
This study aimed to confirm the previous three-factor structure in intimacy appears to be important in order to determine how
based on the original scale in general population (Moore et al., 1998) women and men conceive intimacy and its impact on the evolution
and to assess its measurement equivalence to test whether the scale of the relationship (e.g., pattern of communication, problem solving
has the same function across gender. This previous three-factorial techniques).
structure that has been developed was not confirmed because it In view of this lack of metric and scalar invariance, assess-
presented a poor model fit. Therefore, the PAIR revised structure ment of its impact on the estimation of latent variables means
based on this previous study was created using post-hoc analysis in was important in order to compare the means of intimacy for men
order to detect misfitting parameters and to obtain a structure with and women. A lack of invariance may impair the interpretation
a good adjustment. Finally, nine items in the engagement dimen- of gender differences especially when the pattern of invariance is
sion and one item in the communication dimension were removed. uniform and the proportion of non-invariant items is high (Chen,
The obtained solution of the PAIR contained 18 items distributed 2008). In this present study, the non-invariant factor loadings were
over three revised factors: minors, mixed and the non-invariant intercepts were not uniforms.
The estimation of means did not show high differences of means
• engagement (10 items); between the full, the partial and the configurale models. There-
• communication (5 items); fore, we recommend the use of this scale to assess intimacy but we
• shared friends (3 items), and presented a good fit according to encourage further studies to examine the validity of the compari-
the goodness-of-fit statistics. son of means between men and women if one does not take into
account of the lack of invariance.
The present study provided complementary results concerning Finally, internal consistency was acceptable for the engagement
gender differences in the factorial structure of the revised version of and communication subscale. The shared friends subscale also pre-
the PAIR. Findings related to measurement invariance concerning sented a limited internal consistency. This may be explained by the
factor loadings indicated that the scale presents a lack of invari- presence of few items in these subscales (Kline, 2010).
ance for three-factor loadings in the engagement dimension with To our knowledge, this is the first study in which measure-
a mixed pattern of invariance: mutual activities with the partner ment invariance across men and women on the PAIR is examined.
(item 29) and sexuality (item 33) are more explained by engage- Strength of the present study provides valuable information
ment factor for men than women, and this was the case for women regarding the construct of intimacy across gender as assessed by the
concerning the emotional proximity with the partner (item 13). PAIR. Although findings revealed a lack of invariance across women
Moreover, one factor loading in the communication dimension con- and men in the construction of intimacy, these differences are very
cerning the listening of partner (item 1) is more explained by the interesting from theoretical and clinical perspectives. It would be
communication factor for women than for men. particularly interesting to take into consideration these gender
Findings revealed also nine non-invariant intercepts in a mixed differences in future research that investigates the link between
pattern of invariance, but more non-invariant intercepts are higher intimacy and other couple variables (e.g. marital satisfaction and
for men than women. In the engagement dimension, four intercepts marital adjustment) or individual variables of emotional function-
were higher for men that mean a lower intimacy than women con- ing (e.g. empathic abilities, emotional regulation), notably because
cerning the sexuality area (item 21 and item 33) or the sharing of of the importance of emotional transactions between partners in a
common and various activities (item 9 and item 29). By contrast, romantic relationship.
women expressed more negligence by their partner (item 25) or Further studies are required to specify gender differences
loneliness when they are together (item 31). Finally, in the com- regarding the contribution of each element to intimacy and their
munication dimension, two intercepts were higher for men that respective levels (e.g. sexual, feeling neglected).
 E. Constant et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 66 (2016) 109–116
The version of the PAIR proposed in this study and the identifi-
cation of gender differences in the theoretical meaning and level
of intimacy across men and women confirm the importance to
consider gender differences in future studies trying to understand
the dynamic of couple relationships. The multidimensional opera-
tionalization of intimacy is important in order to investigate the
contribution of each component of intimacy and to analyze gender
patterns of intimacy and their mutual influence on marital adjust-
ment. Using inter-influence analyses between partners, it would be
important to explore these gender differences regarding the per-
ception and definition of intimacy in relation to partners’ emotional
functioning in order to deepen understanding of romantic rela-
tionships. Another development will concern the characterization
of the patterns of interaction, in intimate situations, using behav-
ior analyses and somatic/physiological markers. Nevertheless, it
seems important to consider gender differences on the means of
engagement and communication subscales with caution.
Our results may also have clinical implications in couple
counseling to help couples increase their level of intimacy and
understand gender differences that may impact the quality of their
romantic relationship. Marital therapists may target their interven-
tion on the understanding of one partner’s intimacy representation
and needs – particularly on the engagement and communication
dimensions – and thus facilitate the expression and feelings of inti-
macy in romantic relationships (Heller & Wood, 1998; Schnarch,
1991). Therapists could also discuss with couples about the rela-
tionship dynamic and how gender socialization may partially
explain their difficulties in the expression of intimacy.
This short instrument may facilitate its use in applied research.
It also could be helpful to assess couple intimacy routinely and offer
a complementary useful guidance for therapies.
Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to extend their grateful thanks to all the par-
ticipants of the study. The authors also thank The Conseil Régional
du Nord-Pas-de-Calais and the SIRIC ONCOLille, (grant INCa-DGOS-
Inserm 6041) for their help.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71(3),
425–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6
Van den Broucke, S., Vertommen, H., & Vandereycken, W. (1995). Construction and
validation of a marital intimacy questionnaire. Family Relations, 44(3), 285–290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/585527
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence
of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measure-
ment invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applica-
tions, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indexes to lack of measure-
ment invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3),
464–504.
Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact
of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005–1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0013193
Descutner, C. J., & Thelen, M. H. (1991). Development and validation of a Fear of
Intimacy scale. Psychological Assessment, 3(2), 218–225.
Elliott, M. L., Bingham, R. D., Nielsen, S. C., & Warner, P. D. (1986). Marital intimacy
and satisfaction as a support system for coping with police officer stress. Journal
of Police Science and Administration, 14, 40–44.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
115
Gaia, A. C. (2002). Understanding emotional intimacy: A review of conceptualiza-
tion, assessment and the role of gender. International Social Science Review, 77,
151–170.
Greeff, A. P., & Malherbe, H. L. (2001). Intimacy and marital satisfaction in spouses.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 27(3), 247–257.
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons
across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the
confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11, Suppl. 3), 78–94.
Harper, J. M., & Elliott, M. L. (1988). Can there be too much of a good thing? The rela-
tionship between desired level of intimacy and marital adjustment. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 351–360.
Hetherington, S. H., & Soeken, K. L. (1990). Measuring changes in intimacy and sex-
uality: A self-administered scale. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 16(3),
155–163.
Heller, P. E., & Wood, B. (1998). The process of intimacy: Similarity, understanding
and gender. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24(3), 273–288.
Hook, M. K., Gerstein, L. H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Mea-
suring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling & Devel-
opment, 81(4), 462–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00273.x
Hopkins, K. D., & Weeks, D. L. (1990). Tests for normality and measures of skewness
and kurtosis: Their place in research reporting. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 50, 717–729.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Kouneski, E. F., & Olson, D. H. (2004). A practical look at intimacy: ENRICH couple
typology. In D. J. Mashek, & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy
(pp. 117–133). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.
Lang-Takac, E., & Osterweil, Z. (1992). Separateness and connectedness: Differ-
ences between the genders. Sex Roles, 27(5–6), 277–289. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF00289929
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process
model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach.
Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 314–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0893-3200.19.2.314
Laurenceau, J.-P., Rivera, L. M., Schaffer, A. R., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2004). Intimacy
as an interpersonal process: Current status and future directions. In D. J. Mashek,
& A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 61–78). Mahwah, NJ:
Psychology Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
McAdams, D. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1982). Intimacy motivation and psychosocial
adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 486–493.
Miller, R. S., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The assessment of social intimacy.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(5), 514–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa4605 12
Moore, K. A., McCabe, M. P., & Stockdale, J. E. (1998). Factor analysis of the Personal
Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale (PAIR): Engagement, commu-
nication and shared friendships. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13(4), 361–368.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02674659808404254
Moss, B. F., & Schwebel, A. I. (1993). Defining intimacy in romantic relationships.
Family Relations, 42(1), 31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/584918
Nezhad, M. Z., & Goodarzi, A. M. (2011). Sexuality, intimacy, and marital satisfac-
tion in Iranian first-time parents. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37(2), 77–88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011.547336
Patrick, S., & Beckenbach, J. (2009). Male perceptions of intimacy: A qualitative study.
The Journal of Men’s Studies, 17(1), 47–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.1701.47
Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford Press.
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of
human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 844–872.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.6.844
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck
(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Reiter, M. D., Richmond, K., Stirlen, A., & Kompel, N. (2009). Exploration of intimacy in
intercultural and intracultural romantic relationships in college students. College
Student Journal, 43(4), 1080–1083.
Ridley, J. (1993). Gender and couples: Do men and women seek different kinds
of intimacy? Sexual and Marital Therapy, 8(3), 243–253. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/02674659308404971
Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The pair inventory*.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7(1), 47–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and
implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 210–222.
Schnarch, D. M. (1991). Constructing the sexual crucible: An integration of sexual and
marital therapy (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2),
119–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(2), 312–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.312
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
116 E. Constant et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 66 (2016) 109–116

Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involve-
ment in best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 73–90. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01638539009544747
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measure-
ment invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–69.
Walker, L. M., Hampton, A., & Robinson, J. W. (2014). Assessment of rela-
tional intimacy: Factor analysis of the personal assessment of intimacy in
relationships questionnaire. Psycho-oncology, 23(3), 346–349. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/pon.3416
Waring, E. M., & Reddon, J. R. (1983). The measurement of intimacy in mar-
riage: The Waring Intimacy Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(1),
53–57.
Worthington, E., Buston, B., & Hammonds, T. (1989). A component analysis of mar-
riage enrichment: Information and treatment modality. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 67(10), 555–560.