Sex Roles, Vol. 43, Nos.

3/4, 2000

Psychological Intimacy in the Lasting Relationships

of Heterosexual and Same-Gender Couples
Richard A. Mackey,1 Matthew A. Diemer, and Bernard A. OBrien
Boston College

This research focused on the meaning of psychological intimacy to partners

in heterosexual and same-gender relationships that have lasted for an average
of 30 years. In-depth interviews were used to explore the meaning of intimacy
to 216 partners in 108 relationships. The participants were whites, blacks,
and Mexican-Americans, with Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant religious
backgrounds; they were employed in both blue- and white collar occupations.
Psychological intimacy was defined as the sense that one could be open
and honest in talking with a partner about personal thoughts and feelings
not usually expressed in other relationships. Factors that had a significant
role in shaping the quality of psychological intimacy in the last 5 to 10 years
of these relationships (recent years) were the absence of major conflict, a
confrontive conflict management style between partners, a sense of fairness
about the relationship, and the expression of physical affection between
partners. Women in same-gender relationships, compared to their heterosexual and gay counterparts, were more likely to report that psychologically
intimate communication characterized their relationships. The findings are
important for understanding factors that contribute to psychological intimacy
in long-term relationships and how the gender roles of partners may shape
the quality of psychological intimacy in heterosexual and same-gender relationships.
This paper explores the meaning of psychological intimacy from the
perspectives of 216 partners in 108 heterosexual and same-gender relationships that have lasted an average of 30 years. The paper adds to the existing
literature on relational intimacy. Most previous studies of intimacy have
1

To whom correspondence should be addressed at Graduate School of Social Work, Boston

College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02167-3807. Fax: (617) 552-6190; URL: www2.bc.edu/
~mackey; e-mail: mackey@bc.edu
201
0360-0025/00/0800-0201$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

202

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

sampled younger participants in relationships that have not lasted as long

as those in this study. Our research focused on the meaning of psychological
intimacy among partners in middle and old age. In contrast to the white,
middle class samples utilized in many studies, we focused on couples in
long-term relationships who were diverse in terms of race, educational
level, and sexual orientation. Most research on relational intimacy has
employed quantitative methodology; we used in-depth interviews to explore
the meaning of psychological intimacy from the perspective of each partner
in these relationships.
The research on which this paper is based started 10 years ago and
was conducted in two phases. In phase one we focused on qualitative
analysis of data from 216 in-depth interviews of spouses in 108 heterosexual
and same-gender relationship (Mackey & OBrien, 1995; Mackey,
OBrien & Mackey, 1997). In the second or current phase, we recoded the
interview data so as to analyze them from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective.
The goal of the paper is to develop an understanding of factors that
contributed to reported psychological intimacy in recent years, defined
as the last 5 to 10 years of these relationships. The paper addresses the
following questions:
1. What does being psychologically intimate mean to individual partners (i.e., participants) in heterosexual, lesbian and gay male relationships that have lasted for many years?
2. What factors are associated with the quality of psychological intimacy during the recent years of these relationships?

INTRODUCTION
The paper is organized as follows: Perspectives on defining psychological intimacy are discussed, which is followed by a review of recent empirical
studies of intimacy, and the theoretical framework for the current study.
The research methodology of the current study is summarized. A definition
of psychological intimacy, the dependent variable, based on the reports of
participants is presented, followed by the definitions of the independent
variables that contributed to reported psychological intimacy in recent
years. The findings are presented, including a chi-square analysis of those
variables related significantly to psychological intimacy in recent years,
correlations of the independent variable with the dependent variables, a
logistic regression analysis of factors that contribute to psychological intimacy in recent years, and an examination of the qualitative data that help

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

203

to clarify the effects of gender and sexual orientation on psychological

intimacy during recent years. The limitations of the research are then
discussed. The paper ends with a summary and conclusion.

Defining Psychological Intimacy

Despite the widespread attention in the professional literature to studies of intimate behavior, there has been little agreement about the meaning
of intimacy in human relationships. Any attempt to define intimacy in a
meaningful way must attend to various perspectives on the subject as well
as clarify the potential linkages between differing perspectives. In addition,
the meaning of intimacy must be differentiated from related concepts, such
as communication, closeness, and attachment (Prager, 1995). If we are to
be meaningful, not to mention relevant to human relationships in general,
Prager cautions that any definition of intimacy needs to be compatible with
everyday notions about the meaning of psychological intimacy. Because of
the contextual and dynamic nature of relationships over time, however, a
simple and static definition of intimacy is probably unobtainable
(Prager, 1995).

Components of Psychological Intimacy

Summarizing a large body of research, Berscheid and Reis (1998)
stated:
Intimacy has been used variously to refer to feelings of closeness and affection
between interacting partners; the state of having revealed ones innermost thoughts
and feelings to another person; relatively intense forms of nonverbal engagement
(notably, touch, eye contact, and close physical proximity); particular types of
relationships (especially marriage); sexual activity; and stages of psychological maturation (p. 224).

Most frequently, intimacy has been used synonymously with personal

disclosure (Jourard, 1971) which involves putting aside the masks we wear
in the rest of our lives (Rubin, 1983, p. 168). To be intimate is to be open
and honest about levels of the self that usually remain hidden in daily life.
The extent of personal disclosure is proportionate to how vulnerable one
allows oneself to be with a partner in revealing thoughts and feelings which
are not usually apparent in social roles and behaviors of everyday life.
Intimacy also has been thought of as companionship (Lauer, Lauer &
Kerr, 1990) and has been associated with emotional bonding (Johnson,
1987). Others have defined intimacy as a process which changes as relation-

204

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

ships mature (White, Speisman, Jackson, Bartos & Costos, 1986). Schaefer
and Olson (1981) considered intimacy to be a dynamic process which included emotional, intellectual, social, and cultural dimensions.
Helgeson, Shaver, and Dyer (1987) asked individuals to describe instances where they had experienced feelings of intimacy with members of
the same and opposite gender. Self-disclosure, physical contact, sexual
contact, sharing activities, mutual appreciation of the other, and warmth
emerged as the major themes. Sexual and physical contact were mentioned
frequently in describing intimacy in heterosexual relationships, but rarely
mentioned in describing relationships with members of ones own gender.
Participants definitions were not specific to either romantic or platonic
relationships, so it is difficult to delineate what components of intimacy
apply to different types of relationship.
Monsour (1992) examined conceptions of intimacy in same- and opposite-gender relationships of 164 college students. Self-disclosure was the
most salient characteristic of intimacy, followed by emotional expressiveness, unconditional support, shared activities, physical contact, and lastly,
sexual contact. It is important to note that the low ranking of sexual contact
in this study may have been due to participants describing platonic, rather
than romantic, relationships. This study also focused (like others) on short
term relationships of young adults.
In studying the characteristics of relationships that had lasted an average of 30 years Mackey, OBrien and Mackey (1997) reported that sense
of psychological intimacy emerged as a significant predictor of satisfaction
between partners. Across same- and opposite-gender couples, participants
described intimacy as the verbal sharing of inner thoughts and feelings
between partners along with mutual acceptance of those thoughts and
feelings.
Relatively little is known about nonverbal communication as an aspect
of intimacy. Prager (1995) suggested that a glance or a touch may have
great meaning between partners because of the mutual recognition of
shared, albeit unspoken, experiences. However, it is less well known how
nonverbal factors influence the development of intimacy in ongoing relationships (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). It appears reasonable to assume,
however, that metacommunications in the form of nonverbal messages
must be congruent with the exchange of words, if a sense of psychological
intimacy is to develop and be sustained between two individuals. At a
minimum, metacommunications at a behavioral level cannot undermine or
contradict words that may be used to enhance a sense of psychological
intimacy between partners in a meaningful relationship.
Sexual involvement between partners in a relationship is another aspect
of intimacy. The phrase intimate relationship has been equated with

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

205

sexual activity in several studies (Swain, 1989). In a study of the meanings

associated with close and intimate relationships among a sample of college
students, 50% of the participants referred to sexual involvement as the
characteristic that distinguished intimate from close relationships (Parks &
Floyd, 1996). As mentioned earlier, Helgeson, Shaver, and Dyer (1987)
also found that participants in their research associated intimacy with sexual contact.
Although studies tend to support the observations of Berschid and
Reis (1998) regarding the components of intimacy, a significant issue in
studies of intimacy is the failure to control for relationship type, the effects
of gender, and relationship duration. All of these factors impact how intimacy is perceived and manifested by partners.

Gender and Intimacy

Intimate communication may be experienced differently by men and
women. According to Prager (1995), few contextual variables have been
studied more than gender, and few have been found more likely to affect
intimate behavior (p. 186). In part, differences based on gender may be
attributed to developmental experiences. What it is to be psychologically
intimate in friendships and romantic relationships may be quite different
to each gender, since males and females have been socialized to adopt
different roles (Julien, Arellano, & Turgeon, 1997). Traditionally, males
were prepared for the breadwinner role, while females were socialized
in ways that foster their abilities to maintain the emotional aspects of
family life (p. 114). Macoby (1990) catalogued some of the interpersonal
behaviors that men may learn through socialization: competitiveness, assertiveness, autonomy, self-confidence, instrumentality, and the tendency to
not express intimate feelings. Noller (1993) described some of the behaviors
women may learn through socialization: nurturance, emotional expressivity,
verbal exploration of emotions, and warmth. As a consequence, men may
experience intimacy through shared activities and women experience intimacy through verbal self-disclosure and shared affect (Markman & Kraft,
1989). Changing cultural values toward androgyny in child-rearing and
adult relationships are having a significant impact on gender roles today,
and may be changing the meaning of intimacy for males and females in
heterosexual and same-gender relationships (Levant, 1996).
In a self-report survey by Parks and Floyd (1996), 270 college students
were asked what made their same- and cross-gender friendships close and
how this closeness was expressed. Across same- and different-gender friendships the authors found no support for hypotheses suggesting that women

206

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

or those with a feminine gender role identification would label their friendship as intimate more than men or people with a more masculine gender
role identification (p. 103). The findings of Parks and Floyd support their
argument that sharp sex (sic) differences in interpersonal behavior has
always been scant (p. 90). While helpful, this research, like many studies
of intimacy, was conducted with a young adult and homogeneous sample
that were reporting primarily on short-term relationships.
The extent to which men and women define and express intimacy
differently remains ambiguous, not unlike the concept itself. Men may
value shared activities as an instrumental means to experiencing relational
connectedness that may lead to a sense of psychological intimacy, while
women may place greater value on sharing thoughts and feelings about
themselves. Even if these processes differentiate the meaning of intimacy
to men and women, they cannot account for temperamental, contextual, or
intervening factors in relationships at different points over their life spans.

Sexual Orientation and Intimacy

Research focused on qualities in the relationships of same-gender
partners has been reported in the professional literature over the past two
decades. Peplau (1991) observed that research on gay male and lesbian
relationships dates mainly from the mid-1970s (p. 197).
Studies have found no significant differences between gay males and
lesbians on measures of dyadic attachment and personal autonomy within
relationships (Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986; Peplau, 1991). High dyadic attachment and low personal autonomy have been associated with the quality
of relationships, a positive aspect of which was effective communication.
Research on the quality of communication in same-gender relationships has
been, however, inconclusive. Some studies have found emotional distancing
(Levine, 1979) and impaired communication (George & Behrendt, 1987)
between gay male partners. Perhaps, those characteristics of gay male relationships suggest gender differences, rather than differences based on sexual
orientation. That is, males may experience comfort in valuing separateness
and autonomony in relationships, whether or not they are gay or straight,
a hypothesis originally proposed by Gilligan (1982) in her studies of gender
differences. In gay male relationships, distancing may become mutually
reinforcing and lead to impaired communication between partners.
There has been much discussion over fusion in lesbian relationships
based on hypotheses that have emerged from womens developmental
research. Fusion, as an element in lesbian relationships (Burch, 1982),
has been characterized by high levels of self disclosure between partners

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

207

(Slater & Mencher, 1991). Elsie (1986) found that lesbian partners tended
to merge emotionally, as compared to gay male partners who maintained
emotional distance from each other. Mackey, OBrien and Mackey (1997)
found that a sample of lesbian couples together for more than 15 years
valued autonomy within attachment and rejected the idea of fusion in their
relationships. Although these discrepancies may reflect gender differences
within the context of these committed relationships, they may also be
affected by how attachment and autonomy were defined operationally and
how they were measured in these studies. Moreover, there is the issue of
clarifying self-disclosure, fusion, and differentation as elements in psychological intimacy, especially in lesbian relationships.
The achievement of a sense of equity has been associated with mutuality in decision-making among heterosexual and same-gender couples (Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1986), and equity has been identified as a
central value in relationships that last, especially in those of lesbians (Kurdek, 1988; Schneider, 1986). When partners in a relationship have felt
relatively equal in their capacity to influence decisions, decision-making
has been characterized by negotiation and discussion (DeCecco & Shively,
1978). Fairness in decision-making over roles, household responsibilities,
and finances have been linked to relational satisfaction and potentially to
perceptions of psychological intimacy.
In a recent study, Kurdek (1998) compared relational qualities among
heterosexual, gay male, and lesbian couples at 1-year intervals over a 5year period. These qualities were levels of intimacy, autonomy, equity,
ability to constructively problem-solve, and the ability barriers to leave the
relationship. Of particular interest to our research were the scales that
purported to measure intimacy. Although there were many similarities
between the three groups on other measures of relational quality (i.e.,
problem-solving and conflict management styles), lesbians reported higher
levels of intimacy than partners in heterosexual relationships (p. 564).
That finding resonates with other research on intimacy in relationships and
has been attributed to the relational orientation of women. The valuing of
mutuality rather than of autonomy within relationships (Surrey, 1987), may
nurture the development of psychological intimacy in womens relationships.

The Significance of Psychological Intimacy to Well-Being

Apart from its heuristic value in understanding loving relationships,
psychological intimacy is important to an individuals well-being. Prager
(1995) summarized the research on the positive effects of being involved

208

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

in psychologically intimate relationships. Citing several investigations by

college students of Nazi Holocaust survivors, Prager argued for the benefits
to well-being: individuals are able to share their thoughts and feelings about
stressful events and receive support by someone who cares. Openness within
a meaningful relationship has been found to reduce stress, enhance selfesteem and -respect, and reduce symptoms of physical and psychological
impairment. Conversely, studies of isolated individuals unable to engage
in relationships that promote openness and disclosure of inner thoughts
and feelings are at risk for developing physical and psychological symptoms.
Drawing from several studies, Prager concluded that even people with
sizable social networks are likely to develop symptoms of psychological
disturbance in the face of stressful events if they lack confiding relationships. (pp. 23).

A THEORETICAL FRAME WORK

Our efforts to identify components of psychologically intimacy in a
relationship underscored the complexity of the concept and the importance
of being as precise as possible in developing an operational definition of
it in our research. The definition that was developed (see Method section)
was framed within the context of other contiguous dimensions of these
relationships (e.g., equity, decision-making, and conflict-management
styles).
In this framework, psychological intimacy referred to the meaning
associated with relational experiences, as reported in participants interviews. Operationally, psychological intimacy was defined as the sense that
one could be open and honest in discussing with a partner personal thoughts
and feelings not usually expressed in other relationships. This concept of
intimacy is different from actual observations of verbal and nonverbal
interactions, which may contribute (or not contribute) over time to an inner
sense of being psychologically intimate in relationships. The focus of our
research was on inner psychological themes (i.e., schemas of intimacy) as
reported by participants, which were assumed to be contingent on the
quality of specific relational experiences between partners.
Based on our review of the literature on the meaning and experience
of psychological intimacy, we suggest that any approach to understanding
this important dimension of relationships must consider four interrelated
components: proximity, openness, reciprocity, and interdependence of partners. These elements must be assessed at different points over the lifespan of individuals and within the context of culture. For example, these
components may have a different significance for older couples who have

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

209

been together for many years, such as those in this study, compared to
couples who are at the beginning of a loving relationship. The meaning
and expression of psychologically intimate communication may also vary
between ethnic and racial groups, males and females, and partners in heterosexual and same-gender relationships. Given the potential connections between physical and psychological well-being, the quality of relationships and
the demographic reality of an aging population, research into psychological
intimacy among a diverse group of older heterosexual and same-gender
couples is timely.

METHOD
A semistructured interview format was developed and pretested by
the researchers. The resulting interview guide consists of focal questions
that were designed to elicit how participants viewed several dimensions of
their relationships. Collaborative researchers conducted additional pilot
testing and provided feedback that led to further refinement of the interview guide.
The guide, which was used in all interviews, was divided into four
sections: the participants relationship; social influences, including economic
and cultural factors; the relationships of the parents (all participants had
been reared by heterosexual parents); and experiences of participants and
views of their relationships from the early to recent years. The recent
years, the focus of this paper, can be categorized as the last 5 to 10 years
prior to the interviews. The early years are the years prior to the birth
of the first child for couples who had children, or the first 5 years for those
without children or who adopted children after being together for 5 years.
The interview structure was designed to acquire in-depth information
from the point of view of individual participants, to develop an understanding of how each partner adapted over the life span of their relationships.
An open-ended style of interviewing allowed for freedom of expression,
to elicit information from the perspectives of participants about interactions
with partners. The approach, which adapted clinical interviewing skills to
the needs of the research, explored the experiences of individuals within
relationships as they remembered and reported them.
The interviewers, advanced doctoral students with extensive clinical
experience, were trained in the use of the interview guide. They were
respectful and accepting of the uniqueness of each participants perceptions.
Their empathic interviewing skills were a valuable resource in collecting
the data (Hill, Thomson & Williams, 1997).
The interviews were held in the participants homes, which provided

210

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

additional information about lifestyles and environments. Prior to each

interview, participants were told about the purpose of the study, given an
overview of the interview schedule, and assured their identities would
remain anonymous. Informed consent for audiotaping and the use of interviews for research were obtained. Each partner was interviewed separately;
the length of each of the interviews was approximately 2 hours.
Sample
Couples were recruited through business, professional, and trade union
organizations, as well as through churches, synagogues, and a variety of
other community organizations. Most couples resided in the northeast part
of the country.
The sample was chosen purposively to fit with the goal of developing
an understanding of a diverse and older group of heterosexual and samegender couples in lasting relationships. Couples were recruited who met
the following criteria:
1. They were married or in a committed same-gender relationship for
at least 15 years.
2. They were diverse in race/ethnicity, education, religious background, and sexual orientation.
Of the 216 partners who were interviewed, 76% were white and 24%
were people of color (African-Americans and Mexican-Americans). The
religious background of the couples was as follows: 46% were Protestant;
34% were Catholic; and 20% were Jewish. Fifty-six percent were college
graduates and 44% were non-college graduates. The mean age for the
sample was 57 years (SD 10.24): 27% of participants were in their 40s,
33% in their 50s, 26% in their 60s, and 14% in their 70s. Sixty-seven percent
of couples were heterosexual and 33% in same-gender relationships. The
mean number of years shared together was 30.22 (SD 10.28): 18% of
couples had been together 40 years or longer; 29% between 30 and 39
years; 34% between 20 and 29 years; and 19% less than 20, but more than
15 years. Seventy-seven percent of the couples had children; 23% did not
have children. By total gross family income, 7% of couples earned less
than $25,000; 25% between $25,000 and $49,999; 29% between $50,000 and
$74,999; and 39% had gross incomes of $75,000 or more.
Coding
Each interview was tape-recorded and transcribed to facilitate coding
and prepare the data for both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Inter-

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

211

view passages were coded for relational themes, which were then developed
into categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Initially, a research team (two women, two men) coded eight transcriptions blindly and individually. Detailed notes were kept and categories
were generated. A relationship coding sheet was developed and used in
subsequent coding of eight additional interviews. As new categories arose,
previous interviews were recoded in keeping with the constant comparative
process. Having both genders involved in that process helped control for
gender bias and contributed to the development of a shared conceptual
analysis. A scoring system was developed to identify themes that evolved
from each section of the interviews. There were over 90 categories in 24
topic areas for every participant.
Once the Relationship Coding Sheet was developed, each interview
was coded and scored independently by two raters (one male, one female),
who noted themes and categories as they emerged from the transcripts.
One of the authors coded all 216 interviews to ensure continuity in the
operational definitions of variables and consistency of judgments from case
to case. The agreement between raters, determined by dividing the number
of identical judgments by the total number of codes, was 87%. Cohens
kappa, used as a measure of interrater reliability, ranged from .79 to .93.
When discrepancies occurred the raters met to discuss their differences
and to re-examine the original transcripts until a consensus was reached
on how a particular item was to be scored.
HyperResearch software (Hesse-Biber, Dupuis, & Kinder, 1992) enabled the researchers to perform a thorough content analysis of interview
transcripts (totalling over 8,000 double-spaced pages) and identify, catalogue, and organize specific interview passages on which categorical codes
were based.
In the second or current phase of the study, we re-examined the codes
so as to prepare the data for quantitative analysis. Many variables were
re-coded into dichotomous categories. For example, psychological intimacy
was originally coded into three categories (positive, mixed, and negative).
Because we were interested in understanding factors that contributed to
psychological intimacy during recent years, the positive category was retained and compared with a recoded mixed/negative category. Vignettes
from the transcripts are used in the following pages to illustrate the meaning
of psychological intimacy to participants during recent years.
Data-Analysis
The coded data from the scoring sheets yielded frequencies that were
analyzed using SPSS software. Chi-square analysis was used to examine the

212

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

relationship between the independent variableswhich included personal,

demographic, and participants reports of various dimensions of relationshipsand the dependent variable of psychological intimacy in recent years
(see Table I). The Alpha criterion was set at .01 for the chi-square analysis.
The chi-square statistic seemed appropriate, since certain conditions
were met. First, it has been very difficult to ensure randomness of samples
in social and behavioral research, especially in studies that focus on new
territory. This nonprobability sample was selected deliberately to include
older couples who have been understudied in previous researchnamely,
heterosexual and same-gender relationships that had lasted an average of
30 years. The goal was to identify factors that contributed to satisfaction
from the perspectives of individual partners rather than to test hypotheses.
Table I. Psychological Intimacy During Recent Years by Independent Variables (Row
Percentages)
Independent Variables
Gender
Male
Female
Gender orientation of couples
Heterosexual
Lesbian
Gay Males
Communication
Negative
Positive
Conflict
% Minimal
% Major
Conflict management style of partner
% Avoidant
% Confrontive
Decision-making
% Separate
% Mutual
Equity
% No
% Yes
Sexual relationship
% Negative
% Positive
Importance of sex
% Not important
% Important
Physical affection
% No/mixed
% Yes
Note: N 216; *p .001

Psychological Intimacy
Mixed/Negative Positive %Totals

.45
.37

.55
.63

100
100

1.46

.49
.21
.29

.51
.79
.71

100
100
100

12.93*

.54
.09

.46
.91

100
100

54.02*

.19
.57

.81
.43

100
100

20.05*

.39
.15

.61
.85

100
100

15.63*

.54
.20

.46
.80

100
100

14.98*

.58
.17

.42
.83

100
100

28.88*

.39
.12

.72
.93

100
100

16.81*

.42
.19

.58
.81

100
100

11.15*

.44
.10

.56
.90

100
100

35.52*

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

213

Second, compared to other tests of statistical significance, chi-square has

fewer requirements for population characteristics. Third, the expected frequency of five observations in most table cells was met.
To assess the strength of the associations between psychological intimacy and the independent variables, a correlation analysis was conducted.
Because of the dichotomous nature of the variables, a phi coefficient was
computed for the dependent variable and each independent variable (see
Table II).
Variables that had been related significantly to psychological intimacy
in the chi-square analysis and identified in previous studies as having importance to understanding psychological intimacy were selected for building
a theoretical model. Based on the phi coefficients, communication was not
included in the model (see next section). Two models were tested using
logistic regression: one model included the sexual orientation of couples
(heterosexual, lesbian, and gay males), the other substituted gender (male
and female) for the sexual orientation of couples. Logistic regression was
a useful tool in this exploratory research, where the goal was to develop
theory rather than test it (Menard, 1995).

TOWARD A DEFINITION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INTIMACY

The dependent variable was psychological intimacy. Participants talked
of experiencing psychological intimacy when they were able to share their
inner thoughts and feelings they felt to be accepted, if not understood,
by the partner. Such experiences were associated with feelings of mutual
connection between partners. When participants talked of being psychologiTable II. Phi Coefficients: Psychological Intimacy During Recent Years by Independent
Variables
Independent Variables

Phi
Coefficients

Gender
Gender orientation of couples*
Communication
Conflict
Conflict management style of partner
Decision-making
Equity
Sexual relationship
Importance of sex
Physical affection

.03
.17
.50
.30
.27
.26
.37
.28
.23
.39

Approximate
Significance
.67
.05
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

Note: *the contingency coefficient for this 2 3 table also equaled .17 (p .05) **indicates
a significance level of .01

214

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

cally intimate with their partners, a sense of peace and contentment permeated their remarks. This definition, derived from the participants reports,
resonated with components of psychological intimacy identified in the literature review of this paper.
Coding this variable involved an assessment of responses to questions
that asked each partner to talk about their relationships. These questions
included a range of topics such as what the partner meant to the participant,
how their relationships may have been different from other relationships,
how participants felt about being open with their partners, what words best
described the meaning of the partner to a participant, etc. Of particular
importance were questions that elicited responses about the quality of
communication such as, How would you describe the communication
between you? Communication was coded positive in recent years when
participants spoke positively about their comfort in carrying on discussions
with their partners about a wide range of issues. Otherwise, communication
was coded as poor/mixed. Positive communication was essential for the
development of psychological intimacy. Although positive communication
could be present without having a sense that the relationship was psychologically intimate, at least in a theoretical sense, the two factors were correlated
substantially (phi .50). Therefore, we decided not to include communication as an independent variable in the regression analysis. Psychologically
intimate communication captures what we are referring to as psychological intimacy.
When responses reflected themes of openness, reciprocity, and interdependence between partners, psychological intimacy was coded as positive. Opposite responses were coded as negative/mixed. A lesbian participant discussed the meaning of psychological intimacy in the relationship
with her partner that had lasted over 20 years:
I feel like I can be who I am. Now, she doesnt always like everything about that.
But I can still be that way, and I dont have to pretend. Thats never been something
that weve had to do. I would be horrified if that had to be. I just cant imagine
what thats like . . . I dont see us as fused. Its important to me not to be. I dont
like it. I dont think its healthy . . . I dont want to be in a relationship like that.
Its important to me, for us, to be individuals, as well . . . Shes my best friend .
. . Theres a peacefulness about that . . . I can be whoever I am. I can say stuff
to her that I would never say to anyone else. There are parts of myself that I dont
particularly like, and I dont really share with other people, but its OK to share
with her. Shell take them in. Shell understand where its coming from.

The partner spoke of how their psychological intimacy had evolved:

Although we like a lot of the same things, our interests are different . . . Ive
appreciated the fact that she has been the one who will raise an issue or problem
for the purpose of resolution or improvement, and not just because shes angry.
She seems to be willing to take that initiative. I didnt grow up in that kind of
setting, so I think thats one reason this has worked. I think we both each really

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

215

like the other one a lot . . . There was a bond early on, in part because it was a
different kind of relationship . . . we were isolated for a long time, but that experience also bonded us . . . I can be much more vulnerable now . . . I look to her
for help with it, which wasnt something I knew how to do before.

As the couples in this study grew older together the experience of

psychological intimacy was marked by a deepening sense of relational
communion between them, yet a respect for their differences, as illustrated
in the relationships of that couple.
A heterosexual couple reflected on the meaning of intimacy in their
relationship that had lasted 30 years. The wife experienced her spouse as:
My best friend, best lover . . . the person I can come home to when something
bad happens to me. Unfortunately, we have not had parents for many years. He
is my parent as well as my friend. He is the person who most cares what is happening
to me.

The meaning of intimacy to her husband was described by him:

I just like her to be next to me, near me. If you dont have that feeling, I think
there is a piece that is missing. I think we are our own people, but we do it together.
You just have to respect the other person . . . trust their decisions and beliefs and
want to be with them.

The responses of these four partners reflected several themes that were
central to understanding and defining psychological intimacy. One theme,
openness, reflected a sense of comfort in being ones self, to be able to
reveal and say things to a partner that one felt could not be said to others;
the use of the expression, best friend, was often used by participants in
describing this reciprocal dimension of their relationships. The second
theme, interdependence, referred to maintaining separateness within the
attachment to a partner. Maintaining interpersonal boundaries in these
relationships apparently helped to sustain a sense of psychological intimacy;
that is, individuals felt safe in revealing their inner thoughts and feelings
because they could count on a partner to respect their separateness and
to accept, if not understand, them. Third, psychological intimacy was not
a constant in relationships but a sense or a representation in ones mind
that one could confide in a partner if one needed to discuss personal matters.
For both women and men, themes of connectedness, separateness, and
mutuality were apparent in their responses, although men tended to emphasize proximity and women mutuality.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
In selecting the independent variables, two criteria were used:
1. The variable had to be identified in previous studies as a significant
factor in shaping psychological intimacy.

216

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

2. The variable had to be related significantly to psychological intimacy

in the chi-square analysis (see Table I) and not be correlated substantially with the dependent variable (see Table II).
Based on these criteria, the independent variables were: conflict, conflict
management style of the partner, decision-making, equity, sexual relations,
importance of sexual relations, and physical affection.
There were questions that explored the nature of conflict. If disagreements and differences between partners had a negative effect on a participant and were viewed as disruptive to relationships, such as a cut-off in all
verbal communication, conflict was coded as major. Other conflictual
matters between partners were coded minimal.
Conflict management style was defined as the predominant way in
which a participant and the partner dealt with differences and disagreements. Direct or face-to-face discussions of interpersonal differences between partners were coded confrontive. If participants reported that they
did not or could not discuss their thoughts and feelings in face-to-face
encounters with their partners, such as denying their feelings or leaving
the scene, the style was coded as avoidant.
Participants were asked to discuss their ways of making decisions.
If decisions were usually made separately by one partner without the
involvement of the other one, decision-making was coded separate. If
important decisions were made together, this variable was coded mutual.
The latter involved separate decision-making, depending on circumstances.
For example, mothers at home with children often made decisions about
discipline without talking with their partners. The criteria dealt with predominant modes of making decisions about significant matters, such as
major purchases.
Equity referred to the sense of fairness in relationships. The questions were framed as follows: Overall, have you felt a sense of fairness in
the relationship? Despite differences, have things balanced out? Do
you feel that your ways of solving problems as a couple has been generally
fair to each of you? If the responses to these inquiries were in the direction
of an overall sense of fairness, this variable was coded yes; if not, it was
coded no.
Sexuality in relationships was explored through several inquiries. Participants were asked about physical affection, which referred to physical
contact, such as hugging. If touching was a regular part of the relationship,
physical affection was coded yes; if it was not, it was coded no/mixed.
This was part of the exploration of sexual relations, which included such
questions as, How have you gotten along sexually in terms of nonsexual
intimacy, like hugging and touching? Participants were also asked to assess

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

217

the importance of genital sex in their relationships, coded as important

or not important. Genital sex that was very important early in relationships began to wane after several years. As the frequency and satisfaction
with genital sex declined, psychological intimacy developed among most
participants. For example, during the early years of these relationships,
76% of participants reported satisfaction with the quality of their sexual
relations compared to 49% in the last 5 to 10 years. Although comparable
figures for psychological intimacy were 57% in the early years and 76% in
recent years, this change was not statistically significant. Physical affection,
such as hugging and touching, remained relatively constant throughout the
years in contrast to the regression in sexual intimacy and the progression
in psychological intimacy. Despite the change in sexual intimacy, genital
sex continued to be seen as important from early through recent years.

FINDINGS
Cross tabulations were done for all research variables with reports of
psychological intimacy in recent years. Personal and demographic factors
did not have a statistically significant relationship to psychological intimacy
during recent years (i.e., p .01). The gender of participants was not related
significantly to psychological intimacy, neither was the age of participants
(categories 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s). The number of years together (1519,
2029, 3039, and 40 or more) was not significant. Indices of socioeconomic
status were not significant: gross family income (5 categories, from $25,000
to $100,000), and level of education (less than college, and college graduate graduate or more). Other social factors that were not significantly related
to psychological intimacy in recent years included religious backgrounds
(Protestant, Catholic and Jewish), race (white and non-white), and whether
couples had children.
Table I shows the relational variables that were related significantly
to psychological intimacy in recent years (p .01). More than 9 out of
10 participants described their relationships as psychologically intimate in
recent years if they had also reported positive sexual relations and physical
affection. Eight out of ten participants felt psychological intimacy in recent
years was significantly associated with minimal relational conflict, a confrontive conflict management style in ones partner, mutual decision-making, a sense of relational equity and a continued importance of sexual
reactions in their relationships.
Table II shows the phi coefficients of a correlation analysis between
the dependent variable and each of the independent variables. A substantial
correlation was found between psychological intimacy and the quality of

218

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

communication ( .50). Based on this analysis, communication was not

included as an independent variable in the theoretical model tested with
logistic regression. (The rationale for that decision was discussed under
the definition of psychological intimacy in the Methods section.) Low to
negligible correlations were found between psychological intimacy and the
independent variables of gender and sexual orientation. These variables
were included in the two theoretical models: the first model contained the
sexual orientation of couples, along with the other relational variables; the
second model substituted gender of the participants for sexual orientation.
Table III shows the results of a logistic regression analysisthis includes variables from Table I, which had also been found in previous
research to be related significantly to psychological intimacy. Included in
the model was the sexual orientation of couples. Variables in the model that
were not related significantly to psychological intimacy included decisionmaking, the quality of sexual relations, and the importance of sexual relations to relationships. Factors that were predictive of psychological intimacy
during recent years were physical affection between partners (B 1.63,
p .01); the seriousness of conflict between partners (B 2.24, p
.01); the conflict management styles of partners, as reported by participants
(B 1.16, p .01); and the fairness or equity of relationships (B 1.29,
p .01). On the factor of the sexual orientation of couples, lesbian couples
differed from heterosexual couples (B 1.47, p .05) and gay male couples
(B 1.96, p .03). Compared to the gay males and heterosexuals, lesbians
Table III. Logistic Regression Coefficients for Variables Associated with Psychological Intimacy in Recent Years
Variable
Gender orientation of couples
Heterosexual/lesbian
Heterosexual/gay
Gay/lesbian*
Conflict
Conflict management
style of partner
Decision-making
Equity
Sexual relations
Importance of sex
Physical affection
Constant

SE

Sigf

Exp(B)

1.47
.49
1.96
2.24
1.16

.74
.65
.92
.67
.43

.05
.45
.03
.01
.01

4.34
.61
7.09
.11
3.19

.81
1.29
.79
.18
1.63
2.63

.62
.52
.49
.51
.47
.90

.19
.01
.10
.72
.01
.01

2.24
3.62
2.20
1.20
5.12

Note: 216; Model 2 85.33 (9df); p .001

*To accommodate the SPSS program, a separate model with the same independent variables
was constructed with gay males as the reference group. Except for a slight variation in the
constant (B 2.75), all values remained the same as in the model with heterosexuals as
the reference group.

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

219

were more likely to report that their relationships were psychologically

intimate in recent years: 90% of lesbian, 75% of gay male, 72% of heterosexual participants; (2 6.04 (2df ), p .05).
To clarify whether the differences between lesbians and the other two
groups was a matter of sexual orientation or gender, a second model was
constructed and tested with logistic regression. Gender was substituted
for sexual orientation of couples in that model. The results are shown in
Table IV.
Table IV suggests that factors that contributed to understanding psychological intimacy in the first regression analysis continued to have a
similar effect in this modified model. The gender of participants had a
moderate effect on the reported psychological intimacy in recent years
(B .81, p .08).

Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Psychological Intimacy

To examine the interacting effects of gender and sexual orientation
on psychological intimacy, we returned to the original qualitative data. The
four elements in the theoretical model for this study discussed earlier in
this paper (proximity, openness, reciprocity and interdependence) were
useful in this task. Subtle differences were found in how these elements were
weighed by participants, as they talked about the meaning of psychological
intimacy in their relationships.
Themes of proximity and interdependence were evident among males,
as illustrated in the responses of a gay male:
Emotionally, things are really good now . . . it feels good knowing Im growing
old with [his partner], even though were very different people . . . Im very social

Table IV. Logistic Regression Coefficients for Variables Associated with Psychological Intimacy in Recent Years: Gender Substituted for Sexual Orientation
Variable

SE

Signf

Exp(B)

Gender
Conflict
Conflict management
style of partner
Decision-making
Equity
Sexual relations
Importance of sex
Physical affection
Constant

.81
1.86
1.39

.47
.60
.46

.08
.01
.01

2.25
.16
5.63

.87
1.36
.60
.42
1.73
2.94

.61
.51
.47
.49
.45
.80

.16
.01
.20
.39
.01
.01

2.38
3.91
1.83
1.53
5.63

Note: N 216; Model 2 82.54 (8df); p .001

220

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

and I have a lot of friends, and hes not as social and he doesnt have as many
friends . . . We both place a really great importance on togetherness. We make
sure that we have dinner together every night and we have our weekend activities
that we make sure we do together . . . I think that both of us understand its also
important to be an individual and have your own life . . . I think you become really
uninteresting to each other if you dont have another life you can come back and
share . . . You need to bring things into the relationship . . . [things] that keep it
growing and changing.

The importance of proximity in the connection to his partner became

evident as this individual responded to our inquiry about psychological
intimacy. At the same time, he noted the value that he placed on separateness from his partner. By implication, he was also talking about the element
of interdependence as he expressed the joy of growing old with his
partner in spite of the differences in their individual psychological makeups.
He emphasized proximity along with interpersonal differentiation as he
discussed the relationship in recent years.
The responses of many women tended to reflect themes of openness
and mutuality, along with differentiation in the psychologically intimate
connection with their partners. A lesbian participant spoke of those elements in her relationship:
What has been good is the ongoing caring and respect and the sense that there is
somebody there who really cares, who has your best interest, who loves you, who
knows you better than anybody, and still likes you . . . and just that knowing, that
familiarity, the depth of that knowing, the depth of that connection [that makes it]
so incredibly meaningful. There is something spiritual after awhile. It has a life of
its own. This is what is really so comfortable.

Variations by gender may have reflected how individuals perceived

and valued different elements of psychological intimacy within themselves
and in their partners. Because of the gender differences between partners
in heterosexual relationships, these variations on the theme of psychological intimacy were manifested in a different way. The following observations of a heterosexual male illustrated those variations; he viewed his
wife as
very unselfish, and she would sacrifice so that I could go out and do my thing. One
thing that we have always done, always, is talk constantly to each other. I dont
know what we talk about, and I dont know what weve had to talk about all these
years, but we still communicate with each other . . . Weve had fights . . . when
she gets mad at me I stop talking to her. And then she feels very bad, and this
may last a day or two, and then it passes and everything is fine again . . . Shes
more open than I am. I keep a lot inside and I dont let it out, and thats probably
not good. But, thats the way I am.

Many heterosexual males viewed observable qualities in their wives,

such as support and their style of managing conflict, as important in developing and maintaining a sense of psychological intimacy in their marriages.
Females, on the other hand, often commented on the observable and then

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

221

went on to identify their understanding of the underlying dynamics that

shaped behavior. More than men, women talked about the interplay of
relational dynamics. The spouse in this marriage reported that she
filled certain needs in him, and I know he filled certain needs in me . . . he
didnt have very high self-esteem. I may have boosted his confidence a lot
. . . He tells me I go ballistic over stupid things, and he is outwardly very
calming . . . I dont always agree with him, and he does not always agree with
me . . . but were good friends through it all, and I think that if you have a
good friend, you should be able to disagree or agree, or get angry or be happy,
or any number of emotions, if thats your friend, thats your friend . . . I dont
even know how to describe it, you just have that closeness . . . there has to
be enough there so that when all these little outside things are finally gone, its
not Who are you? I dont know you, and we dont have anything. You have
to really work at keeping that level of a relationship active . . . not just a
physical spark, but just the whole picture.

Themes of connectedness and separateness in these four interview

passages were important dynamics in understanding the meaning of psychological intimacy to participants. The elements of proximity, closeness, mutuality, and interdependence may have been shaped most significantly by the
interaction of males and females in same- and opposite-gender relationships. That is, it may not be gender alone that accounts for the differences
between males and females. If women value attachment in relationships in
a way different from men, then the data may suggest a mutually reinforcing
process toward strengthening connectedness in lesbian relationships. In
heterosexual and gay male relationships, the value that males place on
separateness in relationships may temper the quality of attachment that
develops over the years, and therefore results in different forms of psychological intimacy.
Psychological intimacy between lesbian partners had a different relational history from that of heterosexual and gay male partners. From the
early years to recent years, our data suggest a progressive shift toward
psychological intimacy between lesbian partners. Lesbians were as evasive
of face-to-face discussions of conflict as heterosexual and gay male males,
during the early years of their relationships. For lesbians, the avoidance
appeared to be a consequence of fearing abandonment by their partners
if they openly confronted differences. Only as lesbian couples became
increasingly disenchanted with their relationships did modification in conflict management styles occur. Usually, one partner took the risk of expressing her unhappiness. That encounter resulted in 85% of lesbians applying
for couple therapy. Based on the reports of lesbian respondents about the
meaning of therapy to their relationships, being involved in treatment may
have supported the development of psychologically intimate communication between partners.

222

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

LIMITATIONS
Qualitative modes of data collection based on in-depth interviews
conducted are an effective tool for studying elusive phenomena, such as
psychological intimacy. The richness of data elicited through the method
used in this study is quite different from data collected through other means,
although there are concerns about validity and reliability, as well as the
nature of the sample.
It is difficult to assess the validity of the data in the traditional sense
of that concept, since we were eliciting the personal perceptions and evaluations of participants about the meaning of psychological intimacy in their
relationships at a particular point in time. The candor of participants on
highly personal matters, such as the decline in sexual relations because of
sexual dysfunctions, suggests that participants were equally candid about
other aspects of their relationships, such as psychological intimacy. By
interviewing partners separately and asking them to talk about themselves,
as well as their observations of their partners in these relationships, we
were able to compare responses to determine if there were significant
differences over common realities. For example, did both partners assess
the nature of conflict in their relationships similarly? Did a participant, in
commenting on an aspect of a partners behavior, come close to the partners
observations about the same factor? Correspondence between partners was
permitted in the study, which was illustrated in the responses to conflict
management styles, when participants were asked to describe their style
as well as the style of their partners. For example, partners who described
themselves as having an evasive style were viewed by their partners in an
equivalent way.
In a cross-sectional design in which participants are asked to report
on their life today and in the past, traditional measures of reliability are
inadequate. The meaning-of-life events and an individuals response to
these events will vary, and may even vary within the same person at different
points over the lifespan. While longitudinal designs may be superior in
contending with problems of validity and reliability, cross-sectional designs
that use interviews to uncover the meaning of behavior have the strength
of eliciting the richness in the experiences of human beings.
There is a shortfall in recoding the data from multiple categories into
dichotomous ones. This step built onto the earlier qualitative analysis by
offering a different lens through which to understand the data. To offset
the potential reductionistic effects of recoding, we have incorporated a
discussion of the qualitative data into the results. The integration of qualitative and quantitative procedures was intended to enhance the theory development objective of the research.

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

223

The use of an interdisciplinary team throughout the research process

enhanced the quality of the study. Issues of bias, misinterpretation, and
other matters that could affect the validity and reliability of the data were
discussed. One of the principal investigators read all 216 interview transcripts and served as a second blind coder for each interview. Having one
researcher read and code every interview provided for continuity in the
operational definitions of variables. To insure that there was both a male
and a female perspective on the data, the second coder was a woman. As
a measure of inter-rater reliability, Cohens kappa was used and ranged
from .79 to .93.
The sample was selected purposively to include participants not often
included in other studies in lasting relationships; namely, people of color,
blue-collar participants, and same-gender couples. The goal was not to
test theory but to develop an understanding of a subjectpsychological
intimacy among an older group of diverse partners in lasting relationships
that has not received much attention by researchers. The sample fit with
the goal of this exploratory study.

SUMMARY
The study of psychological intimacy in human relationships is a
highly complex and dynamic process. Defining intimacy is a challenge,
as is the importance of specifying the operational parameters. We
defined psychological intimacy as the sense that participants had of their
relationships as a place in which they could share personal thoughts
and feelings about themselves and their relationships not expressed
customarily with others. In this definition, positive communication was
a quintessential component of psychological intimacy. We focused on
cognitive themes about the meaning of relationships to individual partners
rather than on specific interpersonal behaviors. The sample consisted of
heterosexual and same-gender couples in relationships that had lasted
approximately 30 years.
A chi-square analysis of all research variables with the independent
variable revealed that social and demographic factors such as age, race,
education, income, and religion did not have significant relationships to
psychological intimacy in recent years. That finding is important to the
process of understanding factors that contribute to the quality of psychological intimacy in committed relationships that last for many years. It may
also suggest that factors within relationships are more important than are
socioeconomic and demographic factors in shaping psychological intimacy
between partners in these relationships.

224

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

In the chi-square analysis, several factors were associated significantly

with reports of psychological intimacy in recent years, defined as the
last 5 to 10 years of these relationships (see Table I). They were the
quality of communication between partners, minimal relational conflict,
conflict management style of partners, couple decision-making, relational
equity, quality of sexual relations, importance of sexual relations, and
physical affection. These data are similar to findings reported in previous
studies that have explored psychological intimacy (Berscheid & Reis,
1998), although those studies tended to focus on younger participants.
Phi coefficients were then computed to determine the strength of the
associations between the dependent variable and each of the independent
variables. Based on the substantial correlation between communication and
psychological intimacy ( .50), communication was not included as a
dependent variable in the theoretical models that were tested with logistic
regression. In this study, it is appropriate to consider psychological intimacy
as psychologically intimate communication.
Based on the statistically significant relationships of the above variables
with psychological intimacy, along with their identification in previous research as important factors in shaping intimacy (Kurdek, 1998; Swain,
1989; Howard, Blumenstein, & Swartz, 1986), two theoretical models were
constructed and tested with logistic regression analysis. The first model
included the sexual orientation of couples (heterosexual, lesbian, or gay
male) as an independent variable. The results pointed to five factors predictive of psychological intimacy in these lasting relationships (see Table
III). They were minimal levels of relational conflict (B 2.24, p .01),
a confrontive conflict management style in the partners of participants
(B 1.16, p .01), a sense of equity about their relationships (B 1.29,
p .01), and expressions of physical affection between partners (B 1.63,
p .01). The fifth factor was sexual orientation of couples: more lesbians
reported their relationships as psychologically intimate in recent years than
did heterosexuals (B 1.47, p .05) and gay males (B 1.96, p .03),
a finding that resonated with the work of Kurdek, who compared intimacy
in heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male relationships (1998).
To assess the significance of gender over sexual orientation on reported
psychological intimacy, gender was substituted for sexual orientation in a
second model (see Table IV). The four factors that contributed significantly
to psychological in the first model did not change substantially in this second
model, and the gender of participants had a moderate effect on the results
(B .81, p .08). That finding is compatable with those of Parks and
Floyd (1998), who argued that gender role identification of males and
females is not as powerful a factor in shaping intimacy in friendship relationships as may be assumed.

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

225

CONCLUSIONS
This study focused selectively on a sample of 108 heterosexual and
same-gender partners in 216 relationships that had lasted an average of 30
years. The results suggested that factors within relationships themselves
had a more powerful effect in shaping the meaning of psychological intimacy
than did social and demographic factors. The data suggested that a sense
of psychological intimacy was nurtured when interpersonal conflict was
kept to minimal levels, when ones partner dealt with conflict in the relationship by initiating face-to-face discussion of differences, when one had a
feeling that the relationship was fair, and when there were expressions of
affection between partners through touching and hugging. Perhaps, a reason
that these relationships endured was that these factors nurtured a sense of
psychological intimacy that contributed to relational stability.
The data offer hypotheses for exploration and testing in future research
on lasting relationships. In addition to the factors that had a shaping effect
on psychological intimacy in recent years, subtle differences were found
between lesbian and other participants. Differences based on gender and
sexual orientation suggest a subtle interacting dynamic of these factors on
psychological intimacy in relationships that last. We suggest that a mutually
reinforcing dynamic between two women committed to personal and relational development may explain the subtle yet important differences between lesbian couples and the other couples in this study. We hope that
these findings and our observations about them will be helpful to other
researchers engaged in the study of lasting relationships.

REFERENCES
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S.
T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol 1, pp.
391445). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Blasband, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1985). Sexual exclusivity versus sexual openness in gay male
male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 395412.
Burch, B. (1982). Psychological merger in lesbian couples: A joint ego psychological and
systems approach. Family Therapy, 9, 201208.
DeCecco, J. P., & Shively, M. G. (1978). A study of perceptions of rights and needs in
interpersonal conflicts in homosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 205216.
Duck, S. W., & Wright, P. H. (1993). Re-examining gender differences in same-genderfriendships: A close look at two kinds of data. Sex Roles, 28, 119.
Elise, D. (1986). Lesbian couples: The implications of sex differences in separation-individuation. Psychotherapy, 23, 305310.
George, K. D., & Behrendt, A. E. (1987). Therapy for male couples experiencing relationship
problems and sexual problems. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 7788.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

226

Mackey, Diemer, and OBrien

Gottmann, J., Coan, J., Carriere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital unhappiness
and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 522.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on
close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 122.
Hegelson, V. S., Shaver, P. R., & Dyer, M. (1987). Prototypes of intimacy and distance in
same-sex and opposite-sex relationhips. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
4, 195233.
Hesse-Biber, S., Dupuis, P., & Kinder, T. S. (1992). HyperRESEARCH: A tool for the analysis
of qualitative data. (Computer Program). Randolph, MA: Researchware.
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual
qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517572.
Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1986). Sex, power, and influence tactics in
intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 102109.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New
York: Wiley.
Julien, D., Arellano, C., & Turgeon, L. (1997). Gender issues in heterosexual, gay male and
lesbian couples. In Halford, W. K. & Markman, H. J. (Eds.), Clinical handbook of
marriage and couples interventions, (pp. 107127). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Kurdek, L. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from
heterosexual married, gay male cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 60, 553568.
Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Relationship quality of gay male and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal
of Homosexuality, 15, 93118.
Kurdek, L. A. (1991). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in cohabiting gay male and lesbian
couples: Integration of contextual, investment, and problem-solving models. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 910922.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual
married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay male and lesbian relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 711720.
Lauer, R. H., Lauer, J. C., & Kerr, S. T. (1990). The long-term marriage: Perceptions of stability
and satisfaction. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 31, 189195.
Levant, R. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
27, 259269.
Levine, M. (1979). Gay male men: The sociology of male homosexuality. New York:
Harper & Row.
Mackey, R. A., & OBrien, B. A. (1997). Gay male and lesbian couples: Voices from lasting
relationships. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Mackey, R. A., & OBrien, B. A. (1995). Lasting marriages: Men and women growing together.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Mackey, R., & OBrien, B. A. (1998). Marital conflict management: Gender and ethnic
differences. Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers, 43,
128141.
Mackey, R., & OBrien, B. A. (1999). Adaptation in lasting marriages: A multi-dimensional
prospective. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 80,
587596.
Macoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships. American Psychologist, 45, 513520.
Markman, H. J., & Kraft, S. A. (1989). Men and women in marriage: Dealing with gender
differences in marital therapy. Behavior Therapist, 12, 5156.
Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross- and same-sex friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 277295.
Noller, P. (1993). Gender and emotional communication in marriage. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 12, 132154.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 85107.
Peplau, L. A. (1991). Lesbian and gay male relationships. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich

Psychological Intimacy in Lasting Relationships

227

(Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy, (pp. 177196). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford Press.
Reilly, M. E., & Lynch, J. M. (1990). Power sharing in lesbian partnerships. Journal of
Homosexuality, 19, 130.
Rosenbluth, S. C., & Steil, J. M. (1995). Predictors of intimacy for women in heterosexual
and homosexual couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 12, 163175.
Rubin, L. B. (1983). Intimate strangers. New York: Harper & Row.
Schaefer, M., & Olson, D. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR Inventory. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 7, 4759.
Schneider, M. S. (1986). The relationships of cohabiting lesbian and heterosexual couples: A
comparison. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 234239.
Slater, S., & Mencher, J. (1991). The lesbian family life cycle: A contextual approach. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 372382.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Surrey, J. L. (1987). Relationship and empowerment. Work in Progress, No. 30. Wellesley,
MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.
Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in mens friendships. In B. Risman & P. Schwartz
(Eds.), Gender in intimate relationships: A microstructural approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
White, K., Speisman, J., Jackson, D., Bartis, S., & Costos, D. (1986). Intimacy, maturity and
its correlation in young married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 152162.