The degree of intimacy experienced in one's marital relationship significantly contributes to a person's physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. This contribution is attested by the growing number of research findings linking the failure to develop an intimate relationship with a partner to a variety of problems, including loneliness (Derlega & Margulis, 1982), marital dissatisfaction (Schaefer & Olson, 1981; Waring, McElrath, Mitchell, & Derry, 1981), physical illness (Reis, Wheeler, Kernis, Spiegel, & Nezlek, 1985), depression (Hickie et al., 1990; Waring & Patton, 1984), psychosomatic illness (Waring, 1983), and sexual abuse (Marshall, 1989). In view of these findings, it is not surprising to see that intimacy is increasingly recognized as a key characteristic of marital relationships, of which the importance is reflected in a large body of literature (for a review, see Van den Broucke, Vandereycken, & Veommen, in press). According to recent conceptualizations, marital intimacy may be regarded either as a process (i.e., a characteristic way of relating of two partners that develops over time), or as a state (i.e., a relatively stable structural quality of a relationship that emerges from this process; Acitelli & Duck, 1987). In the latter sense, it refers to a multidimensional construct, which may include such diverse aspects as reciprocal understanding, affection, self-validation, support, and commitment (Chelune, Robison, & Kommor, 1984; Reis & Shaver, 1988; Sternberg, 1988). Several of these aspects are contained in existing measures of marital intimacy. Examples of such instruments are the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR; Schaefer & Olson, 1981), which provides information about the expected and perceived degree of marital intimacy in five areas (emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, and recreational); the Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (WIQ; Waring & Reddon, 1983), which measures eight components of intimacy (affection, expressiveness, compatibility, cohesion, sexuality, conflict resolution, autonomy, and identity); and the Intimate Bond Measure (IBM; Wilhelm & Parker, 1988), which assesses two dimensions of intimacy (care and control). All of these instruments have been empirically validated and their psychometric properties are well established. An important disadvantage, however, is that they are not based on a theoretical model of marital intimacy. As a result, it is not clear exactly what they measure. Although they all claim to assess marital intimacy, it is obvious that they are not tapping into the same dimensions, which raises concerns about their construct validity. Moreover, in want of a sound theoretical basis, the term intimacy is used in these questionnaires to indicate a heterogeneous mixture of variables, referring to both experiential aspects (e.g., cohesion or sexual fulfillment) and behavioral ones (e.g., expressing thoughts or resolving conflicts), and making no distinction between relational characteristics (e.g., compatibility), individual capabilities (e.g., expressing feelings), or qualities of the relationship between a couple and its social environment (e.g., autonomy towards one's parents). Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, some of the dimensions assessed by the above instruments could be viewed as possible manifestations or outcomes of marital intimacy rather than as actual subdimensions of the construct. Sexuality, for example, has been found to correlate only moderately with marital intimacy (Patton & Waring, 1985). By including this aspect in an operational definition of intimacy, the latter, in fact, becomes a synonym for marital quality in general and does not add any new meaning to it. A THEORETICAL MODEL OF MARITAL INTIMACY A possible way to address the above shortcomings is to integrate theory formulation and test construction into a construct validation approach (Wiggins, 1973). …
Read full abstract