Intimate relationship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Personal relationship)
"Intimacy" redirects here. For other uses, see Intimacy (disambiguation).
"Paramour" redirects here. For the band, see Paramore. For the ship, see HMS
Paramour (1694).
"Sexual relationship" redirects here. For sexual relationships between non-human
animals, see Mating system.
Relationships
Types[show]
Activities[show]
Endings[show]
Emotions and feelings[hide]
Affinity Attachment Intimacy Jealousy Limerence Love Platonic unconditional Passion
Sexuality
Practices[show]
Abuse[show]
vte
Part of a series on
Love

Types of love[show]
Cultural views[show]
Related[show]
vte
An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves physical or
emotional intimacy. Physical intimacy is characterized by romantic or passionate
attachment or sexual activity. While the term intimate relationship commonly

implies the inclusion of a sexual relationship, the term is also used as a euphemism
for a relationship that is strictly sexual.

Intimate relationships play a central role in the overall human experience.[1]

Humans have a general desire to belong and to love, which is usually satisfied
within an intimate relationship.[2] These relationships involve feelings of liking or
loving one or more people, romance, physical or sexual attraction, sexual
relationships, or emotional and personal support between the members.[1] Intimate
relationships allow a social network for people to form strong emotional
attachments.[1]

Contents [hide]
1

Intimacy

1.1

Types

Physical and emotional

History

3.1

Ancient philosophers: Aristotle

3.2

1880s to early 1900s

3.3

Empirical research

3.4

1960s and 1970s

3.5

1980s to 2000s

3.6

Current studies

See also

References

External links

Intimacy[edit]
Intimacy generally refers to the feeling of being in a close personal association and
belonging together. It is a familiar and very close affective connection with another
as a result of a bond that is formed through knowledge and experience of the other.
Genuine intimacy in human relationships requires dialogue, transparency,
vulnerability, and reciprocity. The verb "intimate" means "to state or make known".

The activity of intimating (making known) underpins the meanings of "intimate"

when used as a noun and adjective. The noun "intimate" means a person with
whom one has a particularly close relationship. This was clarified by Dalton (1959)
who discusses how anthropologists and ethnographic researchers access "inside
information" from within a particular cultural setting by establishing networks of
intimates capable (and willing) to provide information unobtainable through formal
channels.[3] The adjective "intimate" indicates detailed knowledge of a thing or
person (e.g., "an intimate knowledge of engineering" and "an intimate relationship
between two people").[4]

In human relationships, the meaning and level of intimacy varies within and
between relationships. In anthropological research, intimacy is considered the
product of a successful seduction, a process of rapport building that enables parties
to confidently disclose previously hidden thoughts and feelings. Intimate
conversations become the basis for "confidences" (secret knowledge) that bind
people together.[5][6]

To sustain intimacy for any length of time requires well-developed emotional and
interpersonal awareness. Intimacy requires an ability to be both separate and
together participants in an intimate relationship. Murray Bowen called this "selfdifferentiation". It results in a connection in which there is an emotional range
involving both robust conflict, and intense loyalty.[7] Lacking the ability to
differentiate oneself from the other is a form of symbiosis, a state that is different
from intimacy, even if feelings of closeness are similar.

From a center of self-knowledge and self differentiation, intimate behavior joins

family members and close friends as well as those in love. It evolves through
reciprocal self-disclosure and candor. Poor skills in developing intimacy can lead to
getting too close too quickly; struggling to find the boundary and to sustain
connection; being poorly skilled as a friend, rejecting self-disclosure or even
rejecting friendships and those who have them.[unreliable source][8] Psychological
consequences of intimacy problems are found in adults who have difficultly in
forming and maintaining intimate relationships. Individuals often experience the
human limitations of their partners, and develop a fear of adverse consequences of
disrupted intimate relationships. Studies show that fear of intimacy is negatively
related to comfort with emotional closeness and with relationship satisfaction, and
positively related to loneliness and trait anxiety.[9]

Types[edit]

Bonding between a mother and child

Scholars distinguish between four different forms of intimacy: physical, emotional,
cognitive, and experiential.[10]

Physical intimacy is sensual proximity or touching,[11] examples include being

inside someone's personal space, holding hands, hugging, kissing, petting and other
sexual activity.
Emotional intimacy, particularly in sexual relationships, typically develops after a
certain level of trust has been reached and personal bonds have been established.
The emotional connection of "falling in love", however, has both a biochemical
dimension, driven through reactions in the body stimulated by sexual attraction
(PEA, phenylethylamine),[12] and a social dimension driven by "talk" that follows
from regular physical closeness or sexual union.[13]
Cognitive or intellectual intimacy takes place when two people exchange thoughts,
share ideas and enjoy similarities and differences between their opinions. If they
can do this in an open and comfortable way, they can become quite intimate in an
intellectual area.
Experiential intimacy is when two people get together to actively involve
themselves with each other, probably saying very little to each other, not sharing
any thoughts or many feelings, but being involved in mutual activities with one
another. Imagine observing two house painters whose brushstrokes seemed to be
playing out a duet on the side of the house. They may be shocked to think that they
were engaged in an intimate activity with each other, however from an experiential
point of view, they would be very intimately involved.[14]
Distinguishing intimate (communal) relationships from strategic (exchange)
relationships may also be a factor. Physical intimacy occurs in the latter but it is
governed by a higher-order strategy, of which the other person may not be aware.
One example is getting close to someone in order to get something from them or
give them something. That "something" might not be offered so freely if it did not
appear to be an intimate exchange and if the ultimate strategy had been visible at
the outset.[15] Mills and Clark (1982) found that strategic (exchange) relationships
are fragile and easily break down when there is any level of disagreement.
Emotionally intimate (communal) relationships are much more robust and can
survive considerable (and even ongoing) disagreements.

Physical and emotional[edit]

Sleep thou, and I will wind thee in my arms....
So doth the woodbine the sweet honeysuckle gently entwist;
the female ivy so enrings the barky fingers of the elm.
O, how I love thee! How I dote on thee!
Titania, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 4, Scene 1
Love is an important factor in physical and emotional intimate relationships. Love is
qualitatively and quantitatively different from liking, and the difference is not merely
in the presence or absence of sexual attraction. There are three types of love in a
relationship; passionate love, companionate love and sacrificial love. Sacrificial love
reflects the subsumation of the individual self will within a union and is said to be
expressed within the Christian Godhead and towards humanity. Companionate love
involves diminished potent feelings of attachment, an authentic and enduring bond,
a sense of mutual commitment, the profound feeling of mutual caring, feeling proud
of a mate's accomplishment, and the satisfaction that comes from sharing goals
and perspective. In contrast, passionate love is marked by infatuation, intense
preoccupation with the partner, throes of ecstasy, and feelings of exhilaration that
come from being reunited with the partner.[16]

Two people who are in an intimate relationship with one another are often called a
couple, especially if the members of that couple have placed some degree of
permanency to their relationship. These couples often provide the emotional
security that is necessary for them to accomplish other tasks, particularly forms of
labor or work.

History[edit]
Ancient philosophers: Aristotle[edit]
Over 2,300 years ago, interpersonal relationships were being contemplated by
Aristotle. He wrote: "One person is a friend to another if he is friendly to the other
and the other is friendly to him in return" (Aristotle, 330 BC, trans. 1991, pp. 7273).
Aristotle believed that by nature humans are social beings.[2] Aristotle also
suggested that relationships were based on three different ideas: utility, pleasure,
and virtue. People are attracted to relationships that provide utility because of the
assistance and sense of belonging that they provide. In relationships based on
pleasure, people are attracted to the feelings of pleasantness when the parties
engage. However, relationships based on utility and pleasure were said to be short-

lived if the benefits provided by one of the partners was not reciprocated.
Relationships based on virtue are built on an attraction to the others' virtuous
character.[1]

Aristotle also suggested that relationships based on virtue would be the longest
lasting and that virtue-based relationships were the only type of relationship in
which each partner was liked for themselves. The philosophical analysis used by
Aristotle dominated the analysis of intimate relationships until the late 1880s.[17]

1880s to early 1900s[edit]

Modern psychology and sociology began to emerge in the late 19th century. During
this time theorists often included relationships into their current areas of research
and began to develop new foundations which had implications in regards to the
analysis of intimate relationships.[17] Freud wrote about parentchild relationships
and their effect on personality development.[2] Freud's analysis proposed that
people's childhood experiences are transferred or passed on into adult relationships
by means of feelings and expectations.[17] Freud also founded the idea that
individuals usually seek out marital partners who are similar to that of their
opposite-sex parent.[17]

In 1891, William James wrote that a person's self-concept is defined by the

relationships endured with others.[2] In 1897, mile Durkheim's interest in social
organization led to the examination of social isolation and alienation.[2] This was an
influential discovery of intimate relationships in that Durkheim argued that being
socially isolated was a key antecedent of suicide.[2] This focus on the darker side of
relationships and the negative consequences associated to social isolation were
what Durkheim labeled as anomie.[17] Georg Simmel wrote about dyads, or
partnerships with two people.[1] Simmel suggested that dyads require consent and
engagement of both partners to maintain the relationship but noted that the
relationship can be ended by the initiation of only one partner.[17] Although the
theorists mentioned above sought support for their theories, their primary
contributions to the study of intimate relationships were conceptual and not
empirically grounded.[1]

Empirical research[edit]
The use of empirical investigations in 1898 was a major revolution in social analysis.
[17] A study conducted by Monroe,[18] examined the traits and habits of children in

selecting a friend. Some of the attributes included in the study were kindness,
cheerfulness and honesty.[1] Monroe asked 2336 children aged 7 to 16 to identify
"what kind of chum do you like best?" The results of the study indicate that children
preferred a friend that was their own age, of the same sex, of the same physical
size, a friend with light features (hair and eyes), friends that did not engage in
conflict, someone that was kind to animals and humans, and finally that they were
honest. The two characteristics that children reported as least important included
wealth and religion.[18]

The study by Monroe was the first to mark the significant shift in the study of
intimate relationships from analysis that was primarily philosophical to those with
empirical validity.[1] This study is said to have finally marked the beginning of
relationship science.[1] However, in the years following Monroe's influential study,
very few similar studies were done. There were limited studies done on children's
friendships, courtship and marriages, and families in the 1930s but few relationship
studies were conducted before or during World War II.[17] Intimate relationships did
not become a broad focus of research again until the 1960s and 1970s when there
was a vast amount of relationship studies being published.[1]

1960s and 1970s[edit]

An important shift was taking place in the field of social psychology that influenced
the research of intimate relationships. Until the late 1950s, the majority of studies
were non-experimental.[17] By the end of the 1960s more than half of the articles
published involved some sort of experimental study.[17] The 1960s was also a time
when there was a shift in methodology within the psychological discipline itself.
Participants consisted mostly of college students, experimental methods and
research were being conducted in laboratories and the experimental method was
the dominant methodology in social psychology.[17] Experimental manipulation
within the research of intimate relationships demonstrated that relationships could
be studied scientifically.[1] This shift brought relationship science to the attention of
scholars in other disciplines and has resulted in the study of intimate relationships
being an international multidiscipline.[1]

1980s to 2000s[edit]
In the early 1980s the first conference of the International Network of Personal
Relationships (INPR) was held. Approximately 300 researchers from all over the
world attended the conference.[17] In March 1984, the first journal of Social and
Personal Relationships was published.[17] In the early 1990s the INPR split off into

two groups; in April 2004 the two organizations rejoined and became the
International Association for Relationship Research (IARR).[1]

Donald Nathanson, a psychiatrist who built his study of human interactions off of
the work of Silvan Tomkins, notes the relationship between two individuals,
intimacy, is best when the couple agrees to maximize positive affect, minimize
negative affect and allow for the free expression of affect (Shame and Pride, 1994).
These findings were based on Tomkin's blueprint for emotional health which also
emphasizes doing as much of the maximizing, minimizing and expressing as
possible.[19]

Current studies[edit]

Romantic relationship is often crowned with marriage.

Today, the study of intimate relationships (relationship science) uses participants
from diverse groups and examines a wide variety of topics that include family
relations, friendships, and romantic relationships, usually over a long period.[1]
Current study includes both positive and negative or unpleasant aspects of
relationships.

Research being conducted by John Gottman (2010) and his colleagues involves
inviting married couples into a pleasant setting, in which they revisit the
disagreement that caused their last argument. Although the participants are aware
that they are being videotaped, they soon become so absorbed in their own
interaction that they forget they are being recorded.[1] With the second-by-second
analysis of observable reactions as well as emotional ones, Gottman is able to
predict with 93% accuracy the fate of the couples' relationship.[1]

Another current area of research into intimate relationships is conducted by Terri

Orbuch and Joseph Veroff (2002). They monitor newlywed couples using self-reports
over a long period (a longitudinal study). Participants are required to provide
extensive reports about the natures and the statusses of their relationships.[1]
Although many of the marriages have ended since the beginning of the study, this
type of relationship study allows researchers to track marriages from start to finish
by conducting follow-up interviews with the participants in order to determine which
factors are associated with marriages that last and which with those that do not.[1]

Though the field of relationship science is still relatively young, research conducted
by researchers from many different disciplines continues to broaden the field.[1]

Evidence also points to the role of a number of contextual factors that can impact
intimate relationships. In a recent study on the impact of Hurricane Katrina on
marital and partner relationships, researchers found that while many reported
negative changes in their relationships, a number also experienced positive
changes. More specifically, the advent of Hurricane Katrina led to a number of
environmental stressors (e.g., unemployment, prolonged separation) that negatively
impacted intimate relationships for many couples, though other couples'
relationships grew stronger as a result of new employment opportunities, a greater
sense of perspective, and higher levels of communication and support.[20] As a
result, environmental factors are also understood to contribute heavily to the
strength of intimate relationships.

One study suggests that married straight couples and cohabiting gay and lesbian
couples in long-term intimate relationships may pick up each other's unhealthy
habits. The study reports three distinct findings showing how unhealthy habits are
promoted in long-term, intimate relationships: through the direct bad influence of
one partner, through synchronicity of health habits, and through the notion of
personal responsibility.[21][22]

See also[edit]
Affection
Dating
Free union
Human bonding
Human sexuality
Love
Loving kindness
Marriage
Monogamy
Outline of relationships

Parenting
Pederasty
Physical intimacy
Polygamy
Polyamory
Relationship status
Romance
Terms for members of intimate relationships

Boyfriend / Girlfriend
Companion
Concubine
Confidant or confidante
Family member
Friend
Life partner
Lover
Mistress
Partner
Primary / Secondary
Sexual partner
Significant other
Spouse
Socionics
Back-up partner (China)
References[edit]

^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Miller, Rowland & Perlman, Daniel

(2008). Intimate Relationships (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-337018-7
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Perlman, D. (2007). The best of times, the worst of times:
The place of close relationships in psychology and our daily lives. Canadian
Psychology, 48, 718.
Jump up ^ Dalton, M. (1959) Men Who Manage, New York: Wiley.
Jump up ^ Ridley-Duff, R.J. (2010) Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy: Alternative
Perspectives on Human Behaviour (Third Edition), Seattle: Libertary Editions, ISBN
978-1-935961-00-0
Jump up ^ Moore, M. (1985) "Nonverbal Courtship Patterns in Women: Contact and
Consequences", Ethnology and Sociobiology, 6: 237247.
Jump up ^ Ridley-Duff, R.J. (2005) "Interpersonal Dynamics: A Communitarian
Perspective", paper to the 1st ENROAC-MCA Conference 79 April, Antwerp.
Jump up ^ Aronson, E. (2003) The Social Animal, Ninth Edition, New York: Worth
Publishers.
Jump up ^ Vitalio, D. (2005) Be Your Woman's Hero, not Wuss: Part 1, internet
newsletter 21 April 2005.
Jump up ^ Khaleque, A. (2004). Intimate Adult Relationships, Quality of Life and
Psychological Adjustment. Social Indicators Research, 69, 351-360.
Jump up ^ Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. (2004) Intimacy: International Survey of
the Sex Lives of People at Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Jump up ^ "University of Florida physical intimacy". Counseling.ufl.edu. Retrieved
2014-06-12.
Jump up ^ Lowndes, L. (1996) How to Make Anyone Fall in Love with You, London:
Element.
Jump up ^ Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Blackwell Publishers
Ltd.
Jump up ^ Healthy Place (2008). How to Develop Intimate Relationships?
HealthyPlace. HealthyPlace.com - Trusted Mental Health Information and Support HealthyPlace.
Jump up ^ Mills, J., Clark, K. (1982) "Exchange and communal relationships" in L.
Wheeler (ed) Review of personality and social psychology (Vol III), Beverly Hills:
Sage.

Jump up ^ Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R.L. (1993). Historical and cross-cultural
perspectives on passionate love and sexual desire. Annual Review of Sex Research,
4, 6797
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Vangelisti, A.L., & Perlman, D. (2006). The
Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
^ Jump up to: a b Monroe, W.S. (1898). Discussion and reports. Social consciousness
in children. Psychological Review, 15, 6870.
Jump up ^ Costello, Bob (2009). The Restorative Practices Handbook. Pennsylvania:
International Institute for Restorative Practices. pp. 7172.
Jump up ^ Lowe, S. R., Rhodes, J. E., & Scoglio, A. A. (2012). "Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 36", 286-300. doi: 10.1177/0361684311434307
Jump up ^ Fuller, Dawn. "Long-Term, Intimate Partnerships Can Promote Unhealthy
Habits". UC News online Aug, 18, 2011. Retrieved Aug 26, 2011.
Jump up ^ Reczek, Corinne, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at
the University of Cincinnati. "The Promotion of Unhealthy Habits in Gay, Lesbian,
and Straight Intimate Partnerships". Tue, Aug 23, 2011 - 12:30pm - 2:10pm. 106th
Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Retrieved Aug 26, 2011.
External links[edit]
International Association for Relationship Research
Process of Adaption in Intimate Relationships
Pure Relationship (Christian perspective)
[hide] v t e
Human sexuality and sexology
Sexual relationship
phenomena
Asexuality Gray asexuality Bisexuality Casual relationship Casual sex Celibacy
Celibacy syndrome Committed relationship Free love Heterosexuality Homosexuality
One-night stand Polyamory Promiscuity Female promiscuity Romance (love) Sex life
Sexual abstinence Sexual partner Single person
Sexual dynamics
Hermaphrodite Hypergamy Physical attractiveness Sexual attraction Sexual ethics

Authority control
GND: 4026924-3
Categories: Intimate relationshipsInterpersonal relationships
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information

Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages

Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Espaol
Esperanto

Franais

Hrvatski
Italiano

Nederlands
Polski
Portugus
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska


Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 October 2015, at 16:56.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersMobile view