The process of intimacy: similarity, understanding and gender.
ABSTRACT This study examined gender and three aspects of marital intimacy using a method to establish both objective and subjective indices of intimacy. Fifty couples answered the Personal Assessment of Intimate Relationships (Schaefer & Olson, 1981) twice: once as a self-report and once to respond as they predicted their spouses would answer. Couples who were less accurate in predicting each other's responses also diverged in their experience of intimacy and reported lower intimacy. Results suggest that high intimacy is based on both understanding and similarity of intimate experience. Women reported significantly higher levels of intimacy and were also better than men in predicting their partners' feelings. These findings suggest that women may be more attuned to intimacy or that definitions and assessment of intimacy are gender biased or both.
- SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: To compare the effectiveness of rational, behavioral and emotive therapy (REBT) and person-centered therapy (PCT) on self-differentiation and intimacy among divorce clients. Methods: In quasi-experimental study, 42 divorce clients (both males and females) who presented to the Counsling Center of Sanandaj, Iran were sampled. They were categorized into three groups of PCT, REBT, and control group (each group contained 14 subjects). The recovery indices (dependent variables) employed were the subject of self-differentiation and intimacy, which were measured twice before and after intervention of Differentiation of Self Inventory-2 (DSI-2) and intimacy. The therapy involved 8 one-hour sessions. It was held twice a week and therapeutic effects were traced after 8 months. Results: The results showed that REBT and PCT were effective on self-differentiation scale and intimacy. Also they were influential in recovery self-differentiation scale and intimacy follow up stage. Conclusion: REBT and PCT were effective on self-differentiation and its subscales (Emotional reactivity, "I" position, Emotional cut off and Fusion with other) and general intimacy. Declaration of interest: None.Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences 01/2014; 8(1):32-41.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Social exchange theory (SET) provides a comprehensive description of how people interact within relationships, as well as how they make decisions outside of partnerships and groups. This theory, however, does not address how social structure and power processes influence this exchange. Specifically, it fails to recognize how gender shapes the way people behave within relationships. In this paper, we summarize the constructs and assumptions of SET, critique the theory and highlight areas of omission related to gender, and we address culture and other contextual issues that may affect the application of this theory. Finally, we provide a case example demonstrating how clinicians and researchers may consider gender issues in a social exchange process.Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 12/2004; 16(2):25-42.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study explored the effects of avatars on deception – how perceived avatar likeness to self can affect the truthfulness and accuracy of interactions online. More specifically, this study examined the extent to which perceived avatar similarity influences self-awareness and users’ degree of attraction to them, and how these psychological states affect deception in the context of Second Life. The results, based on web-based survey data of 159 Second Life users, revealed that avatar similarity in attitude and behavior to the owner heightened self-awareness, which, in turn, reduced deception. Perceived avatar similarity in terms of appearance was found to have a direct negative impact on deception so that those who perceived their avatars to look similar to themselves were less likely to engage in deceptive behavior. Implications of the findings are discussed.Computers in Human Behavior 01/2013; 29(1):276–284. · 2.27 Impact Factor