McClelland, S.I. (2014). Intimate Justice. In Teo, T. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. (pp.

1010-1013). London: Springer Reference.

I 1010 Intimate Justice

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). InterViews: Learning

the craft of qualitative research interviewing. SOCIAL
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rapley, T. J. (2001). The art (fullness) of open-ended
interviewing: Some considerations on analysing PSYCHOLOGICAL
interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 303–323.

RELATIONAL

Intimate Justice BEHAVIORAL

Sara I. McClelland
Sexual satisfaction
Departments of Psychology and Women’s
APPRAISAL
Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
Intimate Justice, Fig. 1 Ecological model illustrating
social and psychological antecedents of sexual satisfac-
tion appraisals
Introduction

Intimate justice is a theoretical framework that include undocumented women in intimate rela-
links experiences of inequity in the sociopolitical tionships with US citizens, as well as men and
domain with how individuals imagine and evalu- women with histories of violence or sexual abuse,
ate the quality of their sexual and relational expe- just to name a few. Given these and other contexts
riences. Developed initially to guide research on in which sexual relationships and activities occur,
sexual satisfaction (McClelland, 2010, 2011), individuals’ sexual expectations may signifi-
intimate justice encourages researchers to ques- cantly vary from, for example, peers who face
tion how social conditions, such as racial and fewer limits on their sexual rights (e.g., Diamond
gender-based stereotypes (Fasula, Carry, & & Lucas, 2004). Intimate justice asks researchers
Miller, 2012) and sexual stigma (Herek, 2007), to methodologically consider how biographies
impact what individuals feel they deserve in their and structural contexts move under the skin and
intimate lives. In addition to theorizing the into the bedroom, influencing how individuals
impact of social conditions on deservingness, think, feel, and experience their intimate lives.
intimate justice encourages a critical engagement In other words, individuals’ expectations for sex-
with research methods. Specifically, intimate jus- ual fulfillment precede satisfaction ratings (see
tice argues that research on individuals’ evalua- Fig. 1). Notably for psychologists who are inter-
tions of their lives – and specifically their levels ested in satisfaction scores, these varied criteria
of satisfaction, well-being, and happiness – and the role of expectations remain unmeasured
should be assessed using measures and methods in conventional satisfaction research designs.
that always consider both potential group differ- Without a framework of intimate justice,
ences and the social conditions that may influ- researchers risk misrepresenting self-report rat-
ence these appraisals. ings as if the scale anchors were the same, thus
For example, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans- missing potential research and/or intervention
gender (LGBT) men and women contend with opportunities. McClelland (2010) argued that it
social stigmas related to their sexuality and is not enough to examine whether sexual out-
sexual behaviors and are not afforded the same comes are distributed equally; we must also
sexual rights in the political domain as heterosex- inquire as to the nature of the benchmarks being
uals. Other examples of relationships potentially used and the history of the groups and individuals
affected by dynamics of disadvantage might being assessed—and, with this information
Intimate Justice 1011 I
as central, then evaluate how each is deciding Keywords
what is “good enough.” McClelland offered
three suggestions for how researchers might use Sexual satisfaction; life satisfaction; happiness;
intimate justice to help guide data collection and expectations; deservingness; measurement; con-
data analysis. These included the following: struct validity
(1) measure entitlement to sexual pleasure along-
side sexual satisfaction, (2) study what people
imagine when responding to Likert and similar Traditional Debates
scales (e.g., McClelland, 2011), and (3) attend to
construct validity issues, specifically how Developed initially to study the assessment of
researchers measure a phenomenon of interest, sexual satisfaction, intimate justice is embedded
and consider whether one’s measures attend to within debates in the larger field of life satisfac-
potential preexisting social inequalities. tion. For example, Cantril’s Self-Anchoring
Ladder (1965) was an early methodological inno-
vation that asked participants to rate their overall
Definition sense of well-being and, additionally, to define
their own scale anchors. Cantril (1965) argued
I
Intimate justice has roots in several related that by providing their own low- and high-scale
theories developed in feminist and anti- anchors (“best possible life” and “worst possible
discrimination research. In particular, four life”), participants’ well-being scores would be
theories are linked and extended in the theory of a reflection of their own self-defined criteria.
intimate justice. These include thick desire (Fine More recently, researchers have relied on subjec-
& McClelland, 2006), a theory which links sexual tive evaluations of life satisfaction using items
well-being with economic, educational, and such as “In most ways my life is close to my
social conditions; relative deprivation (Crosby, ideal” (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin,
1982), a theory which describes how inequity 1985). There is some controversy in the field as
becomes normalized, particularly through self- to where imagined ideals are generated, i.e.,
blame; sexual stigma, a theory for understanding within oneself or in relationship to social norms.
how hetero-normative public policies negatively Researchers who have developed and led the
impact the development of LGBTQ lives (Herek, development of the study of subjective well-
2007); and, finally, social comparison (Major, being have argued that satisfaction appraisals
McFarlin, & Gagnon, 1984), a theory which are self-generated: “how satisfied people are
attends to how individuals rely on social cues to with their present state of affairs is based on
determine the extent to which they are content or a comparison with a standard which each individ-
deprived. Intimate justice links these four theo- ual sets for him or herself; it is not externally
ries in order to highlight the synergy of this pre- imposed” (Diener et al., 1985, p. 71). This defi-
vious work and to draw attention to several nition of life satisfaction sets the individual
dimensions relevant to the study of sexuality: within a self-imposed set of criteria. In response
the sociopolitical conditions of sexual develop- to this definition, others have argued that this
ment, psychological self-evaluation processes, definition does not sufficiently address the degree
and norms concerning the distribution of justice. to which sociocultural contexts affect individ-
Together, these dimensions ask us to attend to the uals’ expectations for and evaluations of life sat-
development of intimate and sexual expectations isfaction (Henderson, Lehavot, & Simoni, 2009;
in disparate sociopolitical conditions and to McClelland, 2010).
address the inherent challenges of assessing At the level of satisfaction in the sexual
normalized conditions of injustice in research domain, the field of sexual satisfaction research
settings. has been plagued by inconsistent definition and
I 1012 Intimate Justice

measurement, hindered in part by the assumption (social, psychological, interpersonal, and

that definitions of satisfaction are self-evident. behavioral) that precede a person’s judgment as
Schwartz and Young (2009) argued that “the to their level of sexual satisfaction. For example,
word satisfaction can be defined in various sexual inequalities experienced at the social level
ways and satisfaction may mean different things (e.g., marriage restrictions) may be translated
to different people, [but] . . .because of into individual psychologies in the form of sexual
a presumption that everyone knows what it expectations, which in turn influence sexual
means. . .much of the literature on sexual satis- relationships and experiences and, ultimately,
faction and relationship satisfaction never really how sexual satisfaction is evaluated. Ecological
defines the word” (p. 1). Across the body of models, such as the one presented in Fig. 1, have
research in this field, sexual satisfaction has encouraged the development of research that
been defined in terms of positive affect associated emphasizes the role of cultural, political, social,
with one’s sexual relationship, the level of reward and dyadic contexts in psychological phenomena
one feels in relationship, as well as orgasm (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tolman, Striepe, &
frequency. Harmon, 2003).
Researchers working on issues related to sat-
isfaction, well-being, and happiness – in and out
Critical Debates of the sexual domain – are encouraged to con-
sider three elements of satisfaction appraisals: the
Similar to the research on life satisfaction, some role of sociopolitical antecedents and anticipated
have argued that sexual satisfaction is “a univer- consequences of satisfaction ratings, the devel-
sal human experience” (Štulhofer, Buško, & opment of expectations for well-being, and lastly,
Brouillard, 2010). However, others have argued how expectations affect an individual’s evalua-
that universal definitions overlook several types tion of the quality of his or her life. In short, when
of social and relational inequities. For example, collecting and analyzing data on how people rate
Tolman and colleagues developed a model of their satisfaction and well-being, researchers
sexual health for young women that places sexual should increasingly attend to relational, struc-
health “in relation to multiple contexts, including tural, and historic dynamics within and surround-
dating and romantic relationships, social relation- ing the individual in order to systematically
ships, and sociocultural-sociopolitical factors” reflect these conditions in their data and findings.
(2003, p. 8). McClelland (2011) argued that
descriptions of sexual satisfaction as universal
overlook issues related to power, violence, and References
the opportunity structures surrounding sexuality
and partnership. Given that sexual experiences Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human devel-
opment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
and relationships are deeply lodged within socio- Cantril, H. (1965). The patterns of human concerns.
political contexts, it is important to examine New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
whether sexual satisfaction is the same psycho- Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working
logical phenomena across individuals who have women. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Diamond, L. M., & Lucas, S. (2004). Sexual-minority and
different experiences and access to rights within
heterosexual youths’ peer relationships: Experiences,
the sexual domain. expectations, and implications for well-being. Journal
In an effort to systematically describe the of Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 313–340.
limitations of current research on sexual satisfac- Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
tion, McClelland (2009) offered a contextual
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
model of sexual satisfaction appraisals. This Fasula, A. M., Carry, M., & Miller, K. S. (2012).
model includes four levels of antecedents A multidimensional framework for the meanings of
Introjection 1013 I
the sexual double standard and its application for
the sexual health of young Black women in the Introjection
U.S. Journal of Sex Research. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2012.716874.
Fine, M., & McClelland, S. I. (2006). Sexuality education Ross Truscott
and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard University of Fort Hare, East London, South
Educational Review, 76(3), 297–338. Africa
Henderson, A., Lehavot, K., & Simoni, J. (2009). Ecolog-
ical models of sexual satisfaction among lesbian/
bisexual and heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 38(1), 50–65. Introduction
Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prej-
udice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues,
63(4), 905–925. Introjection is a psychoanalytic concept referring
Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). to the psychic process whereby objects from the
Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender external world – prototypically parental objects –
differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Person- are taken into the ego, internalized. It is most
ality and Social Psychology, 47, 1399–1412.
McClelland, S. I. (2009). Intimate justice: Sexual frequently defined in opposition to projection –
satisfaction in young adults (Doctoral dissertation). the expulsion of unpleasant impulses, often
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses through negation or repudiation – and usually
database. I
denotes a merging with the object, a movement
McClelland, S. I. (2010a). Intimate justice: A critical anal-
ysis of sexual satisfaction. Social and Personality Psy- from difference and distinctness to sameness; as
chology Compass, 4(9), 663–680. such, introjection is closely associated with psy-
McClelland, S. I. (2011). Who is the “self” in self-reports choanalytic formulations of identification (see
of sexual satisfaction? Research and policy implica- Freud, 1921, pp. 47–53). Introjection is
tions. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(4),
304–320. a phantasmatic process – it is not real objects
Schwartz, P., & Young, L. (2009). Sexual satisfaction in that are taken in – that finds its bodily analogue
committed relationships. Sexuality Research and in orality, ingestion, as opposed to excretion. At
Social Policy, 6(1), 1–17. a basic level, then, it is through introjection that
Štulhofer, A., Buško, V., & Brouillard, P. (2010). Develop-
ment and bicultural validation of the new sexual satis- a subject is able to assert, “I am like this” (I have
faction scale. Journal of Sex Research, 47(4), 257–268. taken this in, I am identified with it), and through
Tolman, D. L., Striepe, M. I., & Harmon, T. (2003). projection, “I am not like that” (I have spat that
Gender matters: Constructing a model of adolescent out, excreted it) (Freud, 1925).
sexual health. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 4.
The two processes of introjection and projec-
tion are not easily separable, though. To say, “I
Online Resources
McClelland, S. I. (2010). Intimate justice: A critical am not like that” – the classic example being
analysis of sexual satisfaction. Social and Personality a son saying, “I am nothing like my father” –
Psychology Compass, 4, 663–680. Retrieved from often points to who or what one fears oneself to
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.
be but would really rather not acknowledge
2010.00293.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMess
age¼&userIsAuthenticated¼false (Freud, 1925). Conversely, to declare, “I am like
Abraham, L. (2011, November 16). Teaching good sex. this,” is to signal precisely the otherness that
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. constitutes one’s identity, the objects from out-
nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex.
side of oneself taken in through introjection.
html?_r¼3&ref¼magazine&
The Center for Sexual Pleasure & Health. (2011, There is, then, in the notions of introjection and
February 15). Intimate justice review. Retrieved from projection, a fundamental blurring of the “interi-
http://thecsph.org/intimate-justice-review ority” of psychic reality and the real “external”
Mark, K. (2012, March 7). Self reports of sexual satisfac-
world: on the one hand, within the subject are
tion: Who is the Self? Kinsey Confidential Blog.
Retrieved from http://kinseyconfidential.org/reports- introjected objects or parts thereof, others, and
sexual-satisfaction/ one is, at the very core, alien to oneself; on the