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 01/2004; 16(2):25-42.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Social ecologies shape the way people initiate and maintain social relationships. Settings with much opportunity will lead to more fine-grained similarity among friends; less opportunity leads to less similarity. We compare two ecological contexts—a large, relatively diverse state university versus smaller colleges in the same state—to test the hypothesis that a larger pool of available friendship choices will lead to greater similarity within dyads. Participants in the large campus sample reported substantially more perceived ability to move in and out of relationships compared to participants in the small colleges sample. Dyads were significantly more similar on attitudes, beliefs, and health behaviors in the large campus than in the small colleges sample. Our findings reveal an irony—greater human diversity within an environment leads to less personal diversity within dyads. Local social ecologies create their own “cultures” that affect how human relationships are formed.Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 01/2012; 15(1):119-131. · 1.24 Impact Factor