Intimacy,attachment to the partner,and daily well-being in romantic relationships

Abstract

Self-disclosure ordinarily benefits individual well-being; however, if someone discloses with an unresponsive listener, self-disclosure may fail to enhance well-being. Because prior research has primarily studied the additive effects of disclosure and listener’s responsiveness on well-being, this study investigated their interactive effects on well-being in romantic relationships. Because attachment orientation is closely associated with needs for intimacy, we further inquired into moderating effects of attachment on associations between intimacy and well-being. One-hundred fifteen cohabiting couples completed 21 daily diaries in which they recorded their experiences interacting with their partners. High self-disclosure during interactions that lacked expressed understanding yielded negative rather than positive outcomes. Multiple interactions between participants’ and partners’ attachment insecurity and intimacy were especially associated with depressive symptoms and relationship satisfaction. Results highlight the importance of the relational context of self-disclosure and well-being.

Keywords

intimacy couples adult attachment self-disclosure well-being gender romantic relationships attachment and daily well-being in romantic relationships

Frequent self-disclosure contributes positively to psychological health and well-being (Pasipanodya, et al., 2012). Research on self-disclosure, or the sharing of personal, private facts, thoughts, and feelings about the self, has revealed its many benefits, including improved mood, fewer and less severe illnesses, better adjustment to life stressors, and higher quality intimate relationships (Frattaroli, 2006; Pennebaker, 1995; Prager, 1995).

Researchers who study close relationships have argued that a listener’s response to self-disclosure, as much as the self-disclosure itself, accounts for associations between intimacy and well-being. Studies based on Reis and Shaver’s (1988) interactional model of intimacy, in which both self-disclosure and listener responsiveness are necessary elements of an intimate interaction, have treated these two dimensions of intimacy as additive, equally important elements of intimacy (Campbell & Renshaw, 2013; Lippert & Prager, 2001; Tan et al., 2012).

Some scholars (Murray et al., 2003) have argued that self-disclosure comes with some psychological risks. These risks stem partly from the quality of the listening partner’s response to the other’s self-disclosure. Even a thoughtful partner will occasionally respond insensitively to individuals’ efforts to share themselves (Cordova, 2003). Under these circumstances, individuals who self-disclose may feel hurt (Lepore & Revenson, 2007), and conclude that their disclosure reduced rather than promoted their well-being. The repetition of this pattern over time could contribute to the well-documented, negative association between poor intimacy and individual well-being, including depression (Beach, 2001), reduced life satisfaction, poor self-esteem (Johnson et al., 2020), and increases in negative affect in response to stress (Pasipanodya et al., 2012).

To understand the association between self-disclosure and individual well-being, it may be necessary to consider how the two dimensions of intimacy interact in the context of a close relationship. Research has shown that both self-disclosure and responsiveness yield beneficial consequences (Laurenceau et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the interactive effects of self-disclosure and responsiveness on individual well-being may tell a more complex story. On the one hand, if individuals disclose to their romantic partners and partners are unresponsive, the disclosing individual can experience reduced well-being. On the other hand, a partner who responds to disclosures with understanding and appreciation enhances the individual’s well-being. Therefore, it is possible that need fulfilling outcomes from self-disclosure stem disproportionately from the enhancing effects of partner responsiveness. Our study addresses a previously unexamined process by which self-disclosure offered in the absence of understanding may have a negative effect on individual well-being.

Scholars conceptualize intimate interactions as creations of two individuals, each of whose behavior is heavily influenced by the other (Prager, 2014); this conceptualization deserves more attention in research on self-disclosure. Intimacy here is conceptualized as a couple interaction. We therefore summed individual perceptions of self and partner self-disclosure and understanding to create male and female partners’ ratings of their experience with daily couple interactions.

Attachment theory and intimacy

Feeling understood and appreciated in intimate interactions may be differentially associated with well-being, depending on the individual’s needs for intimacy (Collins & Feeney, 2004b; Reis & Patrick, 1996). By acknowledging the importance of feeling understood as a significant aspect of an intimate interaction, Reis and Patrick (1996) clarified the connection between adults’ felt security with their partners and their willingness to risk self-disclosure.

An attachment figure is someone whose emotional availability offers the individual security and comfort in the face of stress (Bowlby, 1982). The romantic partner is usually the adult’s primary attachment figure (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson & Rholes, 2015). If an attachment relationship is not secure, adults’ efforts to cope vary along two dimensions: anxiety and avoidance (e.g., Brennan et al., 1998). The attachment anxiety dimension reflects the degree to which a person worries that the partner will not be available in times of need. Hypervigilance for impending abandonment cues is the strategy associated with attachment anxiety. The attachment avoidance dimension reflects a stance of emotional hyper-independence, adopted because the individual mistrusts the partner’s emotional availability (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). Attachment strategies (i.e., hypervigilance or hyper-independence) are defensive behaviors that insulate the insecure individual from anticipated hurt and disappointment when the partner fails to meet their needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Because anxiously attached individuals are known to react favorably when their partners are emotionally available (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005), we expected anxious individuals to experience intensified elevations in well-being on days when their interactions were self-disclosing and responsive (i.e., intimate), and aggravated detriments on days when their interactions lacked responsiveness. Anxious individuals interpret a partner’s lack of responsiveness as signaling the partner’s waning affection (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005; Collins & Feeney, 2004a). Because of the anxious individual’s hypervigilance, daily interactions with the partner can be intensely emotional, reactive to small changes in the quality of those interactions. Anxious individuals’ partners in turn may experience compromised well-being if the anxious individual’s hypervigilance elicits frequent complaints for the partner to address (Brunet and Schmidt, 2007; Sprecher and Hendrick, 2004).

Conversely, avoidant individuals prefer less self-disclosure because maintaining distance protects them from hurts that they learned to expect from relationship partners (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). More avoidant individuals may report few intimacy-related detriments to well-being, either daily or overall, because emotional distance from the other prevents the hurt feelings that might ensue. In contrast, their partners will likely experience less well-being due to their unmet needs for intimacy. Given that intimacy offers risks as well as rewards (Prager, 2014), and given that attachment insecurity affects both positive and negative emotional responses to a romantic partner’s behavior (Mikulincer et al., 2001), we hypothesized that insecure attachment could moderate effects of intimate relating on well-being. The partners’ attachments to each other offer another aspect of the relationship context for self-disclosure’s association with individual well-being. Because either dimension of attachment insecurity is liable to affect individuals’ experiences with self-disclosure and understanding, we have assessed attachment insecurity as an important context for understanding the influence of self-disclosure on well-being.

Current study

This study adds to existing knowledge about self-disclosure’s well-being benefits by evaluating its influence in the overlapping social contexts of partner’s expressed understanding and the security of attachment partners feel in their relationship. We conceptualized well-being as an individual’s daily feelings of relationship satisfaction, positive and negative affect, and depressive symptoms (Diener et al., 2016). We examined self-disclosure within well-established romantic relationships, couples cohabiting for 6 months or more. This context for self-disclosing to a romantic partner has not been addressed with sufficient frequency (Derlega et al., 1993; Frattaroli, 2006). Cohabiting partners may find a lack of understanding and appreciation compromises their well-being more seriously the more insecure they feel with their partners.

Hypotheses

I. Self-disclosing interactions with romantic partners should make increasingly beneficial contributions to well-being as interactions convey more understanding.

II. The quality of an individual’s attachment to their partner should moderate the association between intimacy and well-being. We proposed that self-disclosure’s association with partners’ needs for intimate relating should be different for anxious or avoidant attachments to partner.

2A: Individuals with more anxious attachments, and those with anxious partners, should especially benefit from intimate communication with their partners.

2B: More avoidant individuals should experience fewer detrimental effects on days lacking in intimate interactions, relative to less avoidant individuals. Conversely, individuals with more avoidant partners will benefit most on days when the couple has more intimate interactions.

Method

Participants

One-hundred fifteen heterosexual cohabiting couples (230 individuals; 43% married) participated, at least one of whom attended a southwestern university in the United States and participated for research exposure credit. The university’s online recruitment website was used to recruit participants. All were required to be 20 years of age and to have lived with their partner for at least 6 months. Both participants and partners completed their daily diaries independently in the evening before going to bed. Male participants were 20–62 years of age (M = 29.33 years, Mdn = 25 years, SD 6.64); females were 20–53 years of age (M = 26.53 years, Mdn = 26 years, SD = 5.80). The cohabitation duration range was 6–335 months (M = 51.37). The sample included 52.9% Euro-Americans, 11.0% Asian-Americans, 9.1% African-Americans, 18.6% Hispanic-Americans, and 8.4% other ethnicities. Participants’ level of education was as follows: Less than high school (1%), high school (9.8%), some college/associate’s (54.7%), bachelor’s degree (21.8%), graduate degree (12.9%), missing (.7%). Couples’ income was as follows: M = $31,634.03, SD = 65,783.95, Mdn. = $20,000, Range = $0–$500,000. Participants listed 450 different occupations; 50.82% listed student only or student in addition to employment.

Out of 166 couples who began the study, one or both partners of 115 couples provided the minimum of 3 diary entries required to be included in the analyses (M= 20.1 diary entries per participant, SD= 6.6; 11 participants completed 3–5 diaries, 15 participants completed 6–10; the remaining 204 participants completed 11 or more). Of 82 individuals dropped from the study, 53 completed fewer than three diaries whereas 24 completed the diaries but omitted the initial questionnaires. The remaining five couples were dropped because they had many missing items from the initial questionnaires.

Measures

Attachment insecurity

The Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; Simpson et al., 1996) measured the quality of individuals’ attachments to their partners. The AAQ is a 17-item self-report questionnaire that assesses anxious and avoidant attachment. Each item asked how the person felt in their current romantic relationship (recommended by Fraley et al., 2011). Individuals rated 17 statements using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores on the attachment anxiety scale reflect individuals’ worries about abandonment, loss, and the partner’s level of commitment (e.g., “I rarely worry about my partner abandoning me,” reverse scored). Higher scores on the avoidant scale reveal individuals’ avoidance of emotional involvement in their thoughts and behavior and the degree to which they withdraw from closeness (e.g., “I’m not very comfortable having to depend on my partner.”) Internal consistency was α = .78 for the anxiety scale and α = .82 for the avoidance scale.

Daily intimate experiences

The Interaction Record Form–Intimacy (IRF-I; Prager & Buhrmester, 1998; Prager et al., 2015) assessed daily fluctuations in intimacy in couples’ interactions. Each partner rated their experiences of the couple’s daily interactions, using a scale ranging from (1) not at all true of this interaction to (4) very true of this interaction.

The IRF-I contains two subscales, self-disclosure (α = .80; within-person reliability, or the consistency within each participant’s ratings over the 21 days was R_C = .82) and understanding and appreciation (hereafter, understanding; α = .82, R_C =.93). Participants rated their own and their partners’ behavior during each day’s couple interactions. These ratings were summed, creating a score representing each partner’s experience with self-disclosure and expressed understanding, respectively, that day. Items from the self-disclosure subscale included “My partner [I] told me [my partner] about his/her [my] feelings or emotions,” and “My partner (I) shared something personal or private with me (my partner) today.” Items from the UA scale included “My partner [I] listened attentively at least once,” and “I (my partner) expressed positive feelings toward me (my partner).” Higher scores indicated more intimacy.¹

Well-being indicators

Based on their frequent use in the literature to indicate well-being or its absence, we chose daily experiences of marital dissatisfaction and depression (e.g., Culp & Beach, 1998) and daily positive and negative affect (e.g., Kiesswetter et al., 2020) for this study.

Daily affect

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) assessed variations in participants’ affect on a five-point scale for each of the 21 days of the diary. The negative affect scale consisted of 10 negative emotions (e.g., distressed, hostile; α = .86). The positive affect scale consisted of 10 positive emotions (e.g., enthusiastic, proud; a = .92). The within-person reliability for the positive affect scale was Rc = .81; for the negative affect scale, R_C = .78. Higher scores indicated more positive or negative affect that day, respectively.

Daily satisfaction ratings

Six items assessed daily fluctuations in relationship satisfaction (Prager et al., 2015). Sample items included: “I am satisfied with our relationship today” and, reverse-scored, “Today our relationship feels fragile or breakable.” Higher scores indicated more satisfaction that day. Participants rated each item from 1 = not at all true to 4 = very true. All items loaded .80 or above on a single satisfaction factor, with eigenvalue 2.916, accounting for 72.9% of the variance. Item-total correlations ranged from .67 to .85; α = .90; R_C = .76.

Daily depressive symptoms

Six items taken from DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) assessed the extent to which participants reported depressive symptoms, such as “I don’t enjoy things I usually enjoy.” Participants rated these statements on a scale ranging from (1) “very slightly or not at all” to (6) “extremely,” with α= .90; R_C = .87. Higher scores indicated more severe symptoms.

Procedure

After giving consent, participants and their partners (separately) completed a one-time questionnaire packet and a daily diary for 21 days, both online (via Survey Monkey). Once both partners completed the questionnaires and all diary entries, the student participant received credit for participating.

Data analysis

Data for this study are non-independent due to the dyadic and longitudinal nature of the data set. Because of this non-independence, we tested all hypotheses with SPSS 26 MIXED using multilevel dyadic modeling to account for non-independence in the intercepts and the time specific residuals (Bolger et al., 2013). We used Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006) to separately assess actor effects (associations among participants’ own scores) and partner effects (associations between Partner A’s and Partner B’s scores) in the same models. Reports of daily fluctuations in intimacy, positive and negative affect, relationship satisfaction, and depressive symptoms were nested within persons and comprised the Level 1 data. Persons (gender) and their individual attachment scores were nested within dyads and comprised the Level 2 data.

APIM requires a unique ordering of a dataset called pairwise, in which every couple is identified with a single unique couple ID. Partners’ IDs identify participants as individuals and as partners within the couple. Each diary entry contains actor and partner data on the same line.² The pairwise organization allows APIM analyses to consider both partners’ data in a single equation that controls for the non-independence of observations.

All APIMs were cross-lagged (Ackerman et al., 2011) and thereby evaluated variation due to intimacy and attachment while controlling for normal day-to-day variations in each partners’ scores on dependent variables. This control is achieved by adding each partner’s dependent variable score from the previous day to each equation.

We standardized all non-dichotomous predictors. In addition, we determined if the predictive effect of intimacy’s two components was due to (1) differences between individuals in different dyads (the between persons effect), or (2) variation in individual partners’ daily experiences over the 3-week diary period (the within persons effect). We used the self-disclosure and understanding dimension sums to assess the between-persons effect and the individual partner means to test for within-person daily variation.

The percentage of missing items in the PANAS, the IRF-I, depressive symptoms, and daily satisfaction was equal to or less than 0.8% (in 34 out of 4452 records) for all measures. Because imputing with the mean is supported for computing parameter estimates when randomly distributed missing items constitute fewer than 1% of the total (Nijman et al., 2021), we used item mean imputation to replace missing item values. Only individual items were replaced (never entire scales).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and ranges for all study variables. To compute inter-correlations (Table 2), we conducted multilevel models with one predictor and one outcome each for male and female participants respectively. The two IRF-I subscales, self-disclosure and understanding, were highly correlated (r = 0.65 for men’s ratings and r = 0.62 for women’s ratings, p < .01), supporting a two-dimensional model of interaction intimacy. IRF-I scores indicated that couples’ interactions consisted of disclosed personal information for 50% of diary days, a shared need for 53.3% of diary days, and shared feelings for 55% of diary days.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and ranges for study variables.

	Women			Men
Study Variables	Mean	SD	Range	Mean	SD	Range
Relationship length	51.4	61.6	6–335	51.4	61.6	6–335 mo
Number of diaries^a	20.5	6.4	3–34	19.8	6.7	3–31
Positive affect	27.7	9.7	10–50	30.0	9.5	10–50
Negative affect	14.0	5.2	10–50	13.4	5.3	10–50
Daily satisfaction	22.0	3.0	6–24	22.1	2.8	6–24
Depressive symptoms	7.1	3.1	6–30	6.9	2.8	6–30
Intimacy-UA	35.5	4.3	10–40	35.2	4.17	10–40
Intimacy-SD	19.1	3.7	6–24	18.8	3.5	6–24
Attachment anxiety	2.6	1.1	1–5.8	2.5	1.1	1–5.7
Attachment avoidance	2.1	0.9	1–6.3	2.0	0.8	1–5

^a1Due to a glitch in the Survey Monkey software, some diaries appeared to be lost. Couples were asked to complete additional diaries. Eventually the original diaries were successfully downloaded, resulting in more than the 21 originally requested.

Table 2.

Correlations among study variables.^a,b,c

	Age	Depressive Symptoms	PANAS Positive	PANAS Negative	IRF-I Understand and Appreciate	IRF-I Self-Disclosure	Day-to-Day Satisfaction	Attachment (Avoidant)	Attachment (Anxious)	Marital Quality (QMI)	Partners’ Avoidant Attachment	Partners’ Anxious Attachment
Age	1	−.04	−.04	−.17	−.02	.05	.04	.01	−.17**	−.03	−.34*	−.19
Depressive symptoms	.16**	1	−.19**	.38**	−.27**	−.09 **	−.50**	.33*	.43**	−.52**	.19	.02
PANAS positive affect^d	−.02	−.11**	1	−.15**	.25**	.18**	.23**	−.13	−.08	.02	.05	−.16
PANAS negative affect	.07	.47**	−.10**	1	−.20**	−.07**	−.30**	.23	.26*	.10	.16	.07
Intimacy: Understand and appreciate	−.05	−.24**	.29**	−.20**	1	.62**	.48**	−.23**	−.12	.13	−.14	−.12
Intimacy: Self-disclosure	−.05	−.10**	.24**	−.03	.65**	1	.27**	−.10	−.20*	−.01	−.13	−.09
Day-to-day satisfaction	−.07	−.56**	.19**	−.40**	.53**	.23**	1	−.05	−.15	.35**	−.12	−.31**
Actor’s anxious attachment	.05	.24	−.23*	.14	−.38**	−.03	−.23	1	.09	−.19	.08**	.35**
Actor’s avoidant attachment	−.24**	.12	−.07	.08	−.01	−.02	−.16	.20	1	−.62**	.29*	.40*
Partner’s anxious attachment	−.25	.12	.16	.10	−.22	−.19*	−.18	.14	.42	−.43*	1	—
Partner’s avoidant attachment	−.34*	−.23	−.03	.16	−.03	−.09	−.23*	−.75**	.32	−.44*	—	1
Relationship length	.81**	.01	.09	−.07	.07	−.17	.03	−.13	−.15	.07	−.14	−.21
Marital quality (QMI)	−.06	−.23	.09	.05	.08	−.05	.34*	−.29*	−.19	1	−.20*	−.28*

^aCorrelations for male partners (effect coded 1) are below the diagonal; those for female partners (effect coded −1) are above the diagonal.

^bCorrelations were computed using simple z-score multilevel models in SPSS.

^cIn the online supplement, Table 4S displays all estimates from equations 2A and 2B.

^dPositive and Negative Affect Scales—PANAS Positive and Negative, respectively.

Assessment of gender distinguishability

We ran a gender-distinguishability APIM series to test the goodness-of-fit of equations that were distinguishable (or not) by partner gender. This required testing for interactions between our effect-coded gender variable and our primary predictors—actor ratings of intimacy in the couples’ daily interactions and actor and partner attachment scores—to determine if we needed to construct models for distinguishable dyad members.

These preliminary tests required us to construct two equations for each dependent variable (eight equations total to test between- and within-persons effects). One set of eight included gender interactions with all predictors. These were compared with matching models from which all gender interactions had been removed. Chi-square tests compared each gender-absent equation’s −2 log likelihood with the same metric from the corresponding equation that contained the gender interactions. For all pairs of equations, gender distinguishable equations fit the data better than those without. Therefore, predictors in all subsequent equations were assessed separately for men and women (that is, there is a male and female parameter for each predictor), and all equations used the heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure.

Structure of equations testing hypothesis 1

Eight equations regressed the four well-being indicators on between- and within-persons main and interaction effects of actors’ intimacy experiences. Between-persons effects stem from individuals in different couples having different experiences. Within-person effects stem from variations in individuals' ratings over time. Equations were constructed as follows:

1. The intercepts, reflecting the values of the dependent variable when intimacy levels were average;

2. Cross-lagged control variables: men’s and women’s previous day dependent variable scores;

3. Couple-level control variables (not assessed separately for male and female partners): couple’s marital status, length of the couple’s relationship, and total number of diary days completed.

Two terms apiece for predictors 4–7, one assessing between-persons effects and one assessing within-persons effects.

4. Two main effects for men’s self-disclosure;

5. Two main effects for women’s self-disclosure;

6. Two main effects for men’s understanding;

7. Two main effects for women’s understanding;

Two terms apiece for interactions between- and within-persons for predictors 8–13:

8. Two interactions between men’s self-disclosure and understanding ratings;

9. Two interactions between women’s self-disclosure and understanding ratings;

10. Two interactions between men’s experiences with self-disclosure and women’s self-disclosure ratings;

11. Two interactions between men’s experiences being understood and women’s experiences being understood;³

12. Two interactions between men’s experiences with self-disclosure and women’s experiences being understood;

13. Two interactions between men’s experiences being understood and women’s experiences with self-disclosure;

14. A repeated effect accounting for the non-independence of individual ratings across the 21 diary days;

15. A random effect accounting for non-independence between couple partners’ scores.

All equations were computed using the REML (restricted maximum likelihood) method of computing parameter estimates, designed to reduce Type I errors. Table 3 reveals parameters and standard errors for each of the four indicators of individual well-being; actual p values can be found in the text, rounded to the nearest 1/1000.

Table 3.

Actor-actor and actor-partner paths linking participants’ well-being and their experiences of intimacy (self-disclosure and understanding) during daily conversation with their romantic partners.^a,b,c

	Satisfaction		Positive Affect		Negative Affect		Depressive Symptoms
	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women
Parameter	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE
Control variables
Previous day’s well-being scores	.03/.03	.07/.02	.13/.03	.10/.02	.06/.02	.08/.03	.04/.03	.11***/.02
Marital status	.04/.10			−.03/13	−.16/.14			−.03/.09
Length of relationship	−.001/.00			.00/.00	−.00/.00			.00/.00
Number of records	.01/.01			−.01/.01	.−00/.01			−.00/.01
Main effects of intimacy
Self-disclosure (between persons)	−.19/.11	−.06/.10	.20/.14	.05/.13	−.15/.15	.21/.14	−.11/.10	.04/.09
Self-disclosure (within persons)	−.14***/.03	−.05/.03	−.05/.03	.03/.03	.11***/.03	.07*/.03	.01***/.03	.07**/.03
Understanding (between persons)	.09/.11	.22/.14	.08/.17	.02/.18	.04/.18	−.27/.19	−.00/.15	−.00/.13
Understanding (within persons)	.27***/.03	.32***/03	.10***/.03	.19***/.03	−.16***/.04	−.16***/.04	−.17***/.03	−.12***/.03
Hypothesis 1
Man-man and woman-woman actor paths: Self-disclosure × own understanding ratings
Self-disclosure × understanding (both assessed between persons)	−.01/.13	−.10/.11	.05/.17	−.13/.15	−.05/.18	.06/.15	.01/.11	.22*/.10
Self-disclosure × understanding (both assessed within persons)	.06***/.02	.02/.02	.03/.02	.01/.03	−.05*/.02	−.04/.03	−.06***/.02	.06*/.02
Man-woman and woman-man partner paths: Self-disclosure × partner understanding ratings
Self-disclosure (man) × self-disclosure (woman; both assessed between persons)	.24/.17		−.19/.22		−.08/.23		−.15/.15
Self-disclosure (man) × self-disclosure (woman; both assessed within persons)	−.18***/.02		.01/.03		−.02/.04		.14***/.02
Understanding (man) × understanding (women; both assessed between persons)	.01/.18		−.19/22		−.27/.24		−.17/.15
Understanding (man) × understanding (woman; both within persons)	−.18***/.02		−.01/.02		.11***/.03		.14***/.02
Self-disclosure (man) × understanding (woman; both between)	.18/.20		−.23/.23		−.22/.27		−22/.17
Self-disclosure (man) × understanding (woman; both within)	.20***/.04		.01/.02		−.05/.04		−.18***/.03
Self-disclosure (woman) × understanding (man; both assessed between)	−.08/.20		−.23/.23		.33/.28		.08/.18
Self-disclosure (woman) × understanding (man; both assessed within)	.06*/.03		.00/.03		−.02/.03		.00/.02
Repeated measures over time (diagonal)^d	.36/.01		.39/.01		.50/.01		.29/.01
Random variance within couples (man, woman) (unstructured)^e	.06/.03		.06/.05		.12/.05		.01/.03

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

^aCorrelations were computed using simple z-score multilevel models in SPSS.

^bAll coefficients standardized.

^cPredictive effects of intimacy’s two components are either due to differences between individuals in different dyads (the between persons effect) or variation in individual partners’ daily experiences over the 3-week diary period (the within persons effect).

^dThe estimate and standard error of the level 1 residual (i.e., the covariance among the daily diary variables over the 3 week period).

^eWith the unstructured (UN) covariance structure, every value in the variance-covariance matrix was estimated. This value gives the covariance between the random intercept (partner gender) and the random slope (predictors × outcomes).

*p < .05; **p < .01 ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 1

We predicted that self-disclosure would be increasingly beneficial as interactions conveyed more understanding. Conversely, we suspected deficient understanding would compromise participants’ experiences of well-being and self-disclosure. Results were obtained via the Model 1 equations (pp. 11–12).

There were two ways that the two dimensions of intimacy could interact to affect participants’ well-being. One is via daily interactions between individuals’ own experiences of self-disclosure and understanding. The second is via interactions between female and male partners’ respective experiences.

Main effects (Table 3) show men to be less satisfied when partners self-disclosed more (β = −.14, p < .001). Negative affect (β = .11, p = .001 for men, β = .07, p = .027 for women) and depressive symptoms (β = .10, p < .001 for men, β = .07, p = .007 for women) also increased when couples disclosed more. These negative main effects run counter to most self-disclosure research, suggesting that self-disclosure’s benefits are minimized when assessed over and above benefits from understanding. In contrast, feeling understood accounted for significant benefits in all indices of well-being (beyond p = .001; Table 3). Variations in intimacy experiences between individuals in different couple relationships (i.e., between persons) did not explain self-disclosure’s association with well-being. Rather, all significant associations between well-being and self-disclosure arose from daily variations in partners’ interactions (i.e., within persons ratings).

Interactions between actors’ own daily self-disclosure and feeling understood predicted their well-being (within persons). APIMs reveal variations in men’s daily self-disclosure predicted their relationship satisfaction (β = .06, p = .047), negative affect (β = −.05, p = .013), and depressive symptoms (β = −.06, p < .001). Women’s experiences predicted their depressive symptoms (β = .22, p = .029).

To “interrogate” the meaning of significant interactions discovered via Model 1 APIMs (Table 3), we ran simple slopes analyses (Preacher et al., 2006). These analyses allowed us to regress each well-being indicator on self-disclosure (the predictor) at a specific value of understanding (the moderator), thus assessing the conditional relation between them. “High” in each figure means more self-disclosure, stronger feelings of being understood, or higher attachment anxiety or avoidance versus “low” which means less. All figures report parameters, standard errors, and p values from simple slopes analyses.

Table 2 and the on-line supplement report APIM results, which reveal interactions between women’s and men’s respective within-persons experiences of self-disclosure and understanding that predicted well-being, especially relationship satisfaction and conversely, depressive symptoms. Simple slopes analyses (see Figure 1) revealed satisfaction (men; β = −.21, p < .001), negative affect (men, β = −.18, p < .001) and depressive symptoms (men, β = .16, p < .001; women, β = .22, p < .001) to worsen when men disclosed more but did not feel understood (actor paths, within persons). Interactions between men’s and women’s intimate experiences (partner paths, within persons) paralleled the actor paths; men were less satisfied (β = −.35, p <.001) and more depressed (β = .24, p < .001) when they disclosed more but their female partners felt less understood (Figure 2). Women were less satisfied when they disclosed more but men did not feel understood ( $β$ = −.10 p = .019).

Figure 1.

Actor paths (feeling understood) predict men’s satisfaction, negative affect, and depression, and women’s depression.

Figure 2.

Partner paths (feeling understood) predict men’s satisfaction and depressive symptoms and women’s satisfaction.

In sum, interactions between participants’ own experiences of self-disclosure and understanding partially supported Hypothesis 1. Similarly, inter-partner findings showed that as long as one partner self-disclosed and the other expressed little understanding, both men’s and women’s well-being suffered.⁴

Hypothesis 2

Drawing from attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) and previous research on attachment in couple relationships (e.g., Lozano et al., 2021), Hypothesis 2A proposed that people with more anxious attachments to their partners would benefit more from intimacy (both dimensions) than less anxious individuals, and conversely, 2B, more avoidant individuals would be unresponsive to daily fluctuations in intimacy. Model 2A tested interactions between intimacy and attachment anxiety, beginning with all of the predictors in Model 1 listed on pp. 11–12 above, along with the following:

16. Two main effects, one for the male partner’s attachment anxiety and one for the female partner’s;

17. Four interactions between men’s and women’s attachment anxiety and their own respective between- and within-persons scores on self-disclosure;

18. Four interactions between men’s and women’s attachment anxiety and their own respective between- and within-persons scores on understanding,

19. Four interactions between men’s and women’s attachment anxiety, respectively, and their partners’ self-disclosure, between- and within-persons;

20. Four interactions between men’s and women’s attachment anxiety, respectively, and their partners’ understanding, between- and within-persons.

Model 2B was identical to Model 2A, with all instances of attachment anxiety replaced with avoidance (Table 4). We tested predictions regarding attachment anxiety and avoidance in separate equations because of the large number of predictors already in the equations. Replicating previous works (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990), we found an inverse relationship between participants’ relationship satisfaction and their attachment anxiety, respectively (men, β = −.22, p < .001; women, β = −.20, p = .004).

Table 4.

Interactions between insecurity of attachment to partner and participants’ experiences of intimacy as they predict psychological well-being.^a

	Satisfaction		Positive Affect		Negative Affect		Depressive Symptoms
	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women
Parameter	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE	β/SE
Intimacy and attachment anxiety
Main effects for attachment anxiety	−.22***/.05	−.02/.06	−.02/.07	−.06/.08	−.02/.07	−.06/.03	.06/.06	−.08/.06
Man-man and woman-woman actor paths: Self-disclosure × understanding ratings
Self-disclosure (between persons) × attachment anxiety	−.12/.12	−.06/.11	.11/.17	.20/.19	.11/.17	.20/.19	−.23/.13	.03/.14
Self-disclosure (within persons) × attachment anxiety	−.02/.03	.03/.03	−.04/.03	.01/.03	−.04/.03	.01/.02	−.01/.03	−.02/.12
Understanding (between persons) × attachment anxiety	.04/14	.02/.10	−.11/.20	−.03/.03	−.11/.20	−.39/.17	.00/.16	−.02/.12
Understanding (within persons) × attachment anxiety	.04/.14	.10***/.03	.01/.03	.02/.03	.01/.03	.02/.03	−.02/.03	.06*/.03
Man-woman and woman-man partner paths: Self-disclosure × partner understanding ratings
Actor’s self-disclosure rating (between persons) × partner’s attachment anxiety	−.07/.11	−.06/12	−.03/.15	−.22/.17	−.34/.15	−.22/.17	.18/.12	.07/.13
Actor’s self-disclosure rating (within persons) × partner’s attachment anxiety	.03/.03	−.00/.03	−.01/.03	.03/.03	−.01/.03	.03/.03	−.04/.03	.02/.02
Actor’s understanding rating (between persons) × partner’s attachment anxiety	.02/.13	.25/.13	.17/.18	.30/.19	.17/.18	.30/.19	−.21/.14	.13/.14
Actor’s understanding rating (within persons) × partner’s attachment anxiety	−.06/.03	.07*/.03	.03/.03	−.03/.03	.03/.03	.03/.03	.10**/.03	−.04/.03
Estimates of covariance parameters
Repeated measures (across days, within individuals) (diagonal)	.35/.01		.38/.01		.38/.01			.29/.01
Random effects (partners within couples)	.04/.03		.07/.06		.07/.06			.03/.04
Intimacy and attachment avoidance
Main effects for attachment avoidance	.07/.07	−.20**/.06	.05/10	−.04/.09	−.04/.10	.19*/.09	−.12/.06	.11/.05
Man-man and woman-woman actor paths: Intimacy × attachment avoidance
Self-disclosure (between persons) × attachment avoidance	.01/.21	.01/.13	.08/.30	−.19/.17	−.18/31	−.13/.19	−.26/.19	−.30*/.11
Self-disclosure (within persons) × attachment avoidance	−.02/.03	.02/.03	−.03/.03	.03/.03	.02/.04	−.01/.03	.07*/.03	−.03/.02
Understanding (between persons) × attachment avoidance	.11/.18	.23/15	−.18/.25	−.18/.20	.03/.26	−.03/.16	−.07/.16	−.20*/.01
Understanding (within persons) × attachment avoidance	.07*/.03	.02/.03	−.02/.03	−.04/.03	−.04/.03	−.01/.03	−.02/.03	.00/.03
Man-woman and woman-man partner paths: Intimacy × attachment avoidance
Actor’s self-disclosure rating (between persons) × partner’s attachment avoidance	.08/.13	.01/.12	−.06/.17	.20/.16	.18/.18	.12/.18	.36**/.12	.21/.10
Actor’s self-disclosure experience (within persons) × partner’s attachment avoidance	.00/.03	.03/.03	−.03/.03	.02/.03	.01/.03	.00/.03	.01/.03	−.08***/.02
Actor’s understanding experience (between persons) × partner’s attachment avoidance	−.15/.11	−.13/.12	.06/.15	−.18/.16	−.03/.16	.20/.17	−.20*/.01	.27*/.10
Actor’s understanding experience (within persons) × partner’s attachment avoidance	.01/.03	−.03/.03	.06/.03	.07*/.03	.01/.04	.05/.04	.03/.03	.10***/.03
Estimates of covariance parameters
Repeated measures (across days, within individuals) (diagonal)	.36/.01		.38/.01		.51/02			.29/.01
Random effects (partners within couples)	.02/.01		.09/.06		.16*/.06			.00/.03

For all tables and figures: *p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.

^aTable 4S, in the OLS, shows results from all predictors in the equations used to test Hypothesis 2.

Actor paths: Attachment anxiety

We predicted that intimate interactions would especially enhance participants’ well-being if they were anxiously attached to their partners. Interactions between actors’ attachment anxieties and their own self-disclosure and feelings of being understood did not support Hypothesis 2A (Table 4)⁵ with two exceptions. Variations in anxiously attached women’s feelings of being understood (overtime, within persons) predicted their relationship satisfaction (β = = .10, p = .002) and their depressive symptoms (β = .06, p = .032). Simple slopes (Figure 3) showed that women’s satisfaction increased as they felt more understood, regardless of their attachment anxiety (β = .40, p < .001). More anxious women were less depressed when they felt understood ( $β =$ .24, p < .001). The latter finding (but not the former) supports our second hypothesis that anxiously attached participants would benefit most from intimate interactions.

Figure 3.

Actor paths (anxiety × feeling understood) predict women’s satisfaction and depressive symptoms.

Partner path: Attachment anxiety

We expected intimate interactions to enhance well-being in actors with anxiously attached partners. APIM results revealed women’s satisfaction (β = .07, p < .001) and men’s depressive symptoms (β = .10, p < .001) varied as a function of their anxious partners’ expressed understanding. In both cases, day-to-day variations in intimacy (within-persons) were more influential than between-persons effects (Table 4).

The more they felt understood, the more women with less anxious partners felt satisfied (β = .25, p < .001) and the fewer depressive symptoms men with less anxious partners had (β = .22, p < .001; Figure 4). However, this salubrious effect was not evident in participants with more anxious partners.

Figure 4.

Partner paths (anxiety × feeling understood) predict women’s satisfaction and men’s depressive symptoms.

Actor paths: Avoidant attachment

Hypothesis 2B proposed that more avoidant individuals would experience little detriment to well-being from poor intimacy. APIM results were consistent with our prediction, except for depressive symptoms (Table 4). Depressive symptoms varied with avoidant women’s self-disclosure (between persons; β = −.30, p = .04) and understanding (between persons, β = −.20, p = .013), and with avoidant men’s daily self-disclosure (within persons; β = .07, p = .019). However, follow-up simple slopes failed to detect significant results for avoidance as a moderator, leading us to conclude that our expectation was correct, and avoidant individuals were mainly unmoved by fluctuations in intimacy.

Partner paths: Avoidant attachment

Hypothesis 2B predicted that intimacy would help participants with more avoidant partners maintain well-being. Daily interactions affected depressive symptoms, with men (self − disclosure, between persons: β = −.36, p = .003; understanding, between persons: β = −.20, p = .050) and women (self-disclosure, within persons: β = −.08, p = 001; understanding between persons, β = .27, p =.017; understanding, within persons, β = .10, p < .001; Table 4). Simple slopes revealed the following (Figures 5 and 6). For men with less avoidant partners, more self-disclosure ( $between persons; β = - .36, p =$ .003) and more understanding (also between persons; β = .36, p = .003) were associated with aggravated symptoms, counter to our predictions. For women with less avoidant partners, more self-disclosure (β = −.08, p = .001) and feelings of being understood (β = .10, p < .001) relieved their depressive symptoms (within persons). Between persons effects (β = .27, p = .017) revealed the same pattern: feeling understood relieved depressive symptoms best for women with less avoidant partners (β = −.25, p < .001). Supporting Hypothesis 2B, women’s positive affect increased when their more avoidant partners were more understanding (β = .07, p < .05; Figure 7).

Figure 5.

Partner path (avoidance × self-disclosure) predicts women’s depressive symptoms.

Figure 6.

Partner paths (avoidance × understanding) predict women’s and men’s depressive symptoms.

Figure 7.

Partner paths (avoidance × feeling understood) predict positive affect and depressive symptoms for women (between and within persons) and men (between persons).

Discussion

Self-disclosure is associated with many positive outcomes in people’s daily lives (e.g., Hicks & Diamond, 2008). Individuals who self-disclose are less stressed, think about problems in a healthier way, and approach problem-solving more readily (Frattaroli, 2006). However, self-disclosure’s associations with individual well-being in naturalistic settings may depend upon factors characterizing the context (e.g., Pennebaker, 1995; Laurenceau et al., 1998). When people self-disclose to intimate others, they expect a warm response. When that expectation is not met, people are unlikely to benefit from self-disclosure. The current study sought to extend our knowledge of self-disclosure’s beneficial effects by examining (1) its associations with individual well-being in the day-to-day lives of cohabiting couples, (2) the extent to which its co-occurrence with expressed understanding determines those associations, and (3) the extent to which the quality of the individual’s attachment to the partner interacts with components of intimacy to predict well-being.

Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and well-being

Using daily diaries to obtain participants’ same-day assessments of their own well-being and the couple’s interaction intimacy, we investigated processes by which the two components of intimacy—self-disclosure and understanding and appreciation—were associated with partners’ daily experiences of relationship satisfaction, positive affect, and absence of negative affect or depressive symptoms. We assessed each partner’s intimate experience in the couples’ interactions based on the assumption that intimate interactions are co-created by couples; each individual’s behavior affects and is affected by the other’s (Cox & Paley, 2003).

We also focused on individual well-being as it is affected by self-disclosure in its natural setting. Frattaroli’s (2006) meta-analysis confirmed self-disclosure’s “positive . . . psychological consequences” (2006, p. 823) while also noting that research often fails to account for self-disclosure’s relational context. We assessed relational context in two ways: (1) via the understanding each individual experienced in interactions and (2) in light of the individual’s insecure attachment to their partner.

Finally, we explored the sources of variance in self-disclosure, understanding, and well-being by assessing between- and within-person influences. Perhaps it is not surprising that well-being, assessed daily here, was best predicted by within-person, daily fluctuations in intimacy and less influenced by between-person average differences between individuals in different couples.

If our notion is correct, and self-disclosure in a relationship context must be accompanied by understanding if it is to facilitate well-being, interactions between self-disclosure and understanding, rated daily, should reveal the well-being benefits of self-disclosure increasing as understanding increases. Results supported this hypothesis in the reverse. Self-disclosure, in the face of little understanding, predicted decreasing satisfaction, more negative affect and more depressive symptoms. Our first hypothesis was thereby mostly supported: when self-disclosure was not accompanied by understanding, it predicted negative rather than positive experiences.

We predicted that high levels of intimacy in couples’ daily conversations would enhance individual well-being, but in the main, it was days lacking in intimacy that predicted dissatisfaction and negative affect. This finding is consistent with other studies that found negative experiences with one’s partner to be closely associated with relationship dissatisfaction or depression (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Because couples expect positive interactions to dominate their relationships, it is the negative ones that grab their attention and affect their well-being (e.g., Helgeson et al., 2021).

The predominance of depressive symptoms on days when interactions lacked understanding is consistent with research showing that poor marital relationships predict partner depression (Beach, 2001; Schudlich et al., 2011). Conversely, an already depressed individual may be unable to take pleasure in a partner’s intimate overtures (Finkbeiner et al., 2013). Also contributing, depressed partners’ self-disclosures may be more negative and aggressive than those of non-depressed partners (Gabriel et al., 2010).

Men had consistently negative experiences with self-disclosure in interactions lacking understanding. Possibly, men expect more understanding from their wives than women expect of their husbands, leading them to react with more dissatisfaction and depression when their disclosures fail to elicit sympathy. These high expectations likely originate from the “Doctrine of Two Spheres,” a 19^th century discourse that presented wife’s responsibility as maintaining a serene home where husbands could find repose after their grueling work day (Doctrine of separate spheres Law and legal definition, 2020; Lewis, 2019). This discourse continues to influence men’s expectations of their wives via traditional role expectations and gender stereotypes (Travaglia et al., 2009), and may in turn precipitate declines in men’s well-being when they compare their flesh-and-blood wives with an idealized stereotype.

Self-disclosing feelings and needs in romantic relationships could be received as demands for behavior change for cohabiting couples (Gabriel et al., 2010). Whereas self-disclosure between friends could signal mutual trust, self-disclosure of unmet needs or sad feelings could implicitly demand change from one’s spouse. Because we assessed self-disclosure daily for 3 weeks, controlled for understanding, and tested couples cohabiting at least 6 months, we may have uncovered an important context within which self-disclosure induces stress rather than well-being.

Self-disclosure and anxious attachment

Because an anxious attachment to one’s partner influences interpretations of partners’ day-to-day responses (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005) we expected intimacy to reassure the anxious individual and thereby intensify associations between intimate interactions and individual well-being. This pattern was supported for understanding; anxiously attached women were most satisfied and least depressed on days when they felt understood. This intensification was even more pronounced for less anxiously attached women. We suspect that anxiously attached women interpret their partners’ expressions of understanding as reassurances of their partners’ sympathy and devotion (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

We also expected partners of anxious individuals to experience enhanced well-being when the couple engaged in more daily intimacy. Our hypothesis was only supported for partners of low-anxiety individuals. On days when a partner with little attachment anxiety offers understanding, women’s relationship satisfaction and men’s depressive symptoms improve. In contrast, however, participants’ well-being was not associated with expressed understanding by highly anxious partners. Possibly, even when they try, anxiously attached individuals may lack skill for offering understanding (Mizrahi et al., 2016). Because people’s expectations for a partner’s support are high, insufficient understanding may be more frustrating than reassuring.

Self-disclosure and avoidant attachment

Because intimacy is frequently what avoidant individuals avoid, we hypothesized that more avoidant individuals would receive little benefit from intimacy and little detriment in its absence. Overall, avoidant women were more dissatisfied and had more negative affect than other women. Otherwise, our assumption that avoidant individuals would be unmoved by variations in intimacy was supported (i.e., results supported the null hypothesis). Participants’ avoidant attachments did not interact with either of intimacy’s components to predict well-being.

We expected intimacy to soften the negative effects of living with an avoidant partner. Women’s depressive symptoms improved with more understanding but worsened with more self-disclosure; however, this pattern was only evident with women who had less avoidant partners. Only women’s positive affect improved when their more avoidant partners expressed more understanding. Our prediction that partners of avoidant individuals would experience more well-being when the couple interacted intimately was therefore only minimally supported.

More difficult to understand because it contradicted our other results regarding intimacy and depressive symptoms, men’s symptoms worsened as they experienced more understanding from their non-avoidant partners over the 3 weeks. This finding may reflect the extra understanding that partners of depressed individuals offer in hopes of cheering them up. Because understanding does not ordinarily succeed in relieving a person’s depression for long, an unsuccessful effort by their partners to understand may not soothe but rather intensify men’s hopelessness.

Limitations and conclusions

Certain limitations suggest caution in interpreting these results. First, the couples recruited from our college population received no monetary benefit. We may have oversampled healthy, conscientious couples. Second, we did not ask participants their gender identity (beyond male and female) nor did we ask them about any disabilities. Expanding research questions to include these participant characteristics should further the generalizability of studies such as this one. In addition, testing many interactions compounded odds of obtaining Type 1 errors. Some confidence is warranted because most results were significant beyond p < .01. Interpretations of results were also challenged because our four measures of well-being were differentially predicted via complex combinations of intimacy, attachment insecurity, and gender. Finally, we conceptualized our study based on research indicating that intimacy contributes to well-being. However, some of our results were more consistent with research on the consequences of living with a depressed partner. Finally, lack of specific content about partners’ disclosure content limited the scope of our interpretations.

These results reveal how important expressions of understanding and appreciation are to partners’ experiences of intimacy and well-being. Our evidence indicates that intimate interactions may protect against negative associations between anxious attachment and well-being, and contribute to the well-being of partners of avoidant individuals. In order to understand perplexing differences between men’s and women’s responses to expressed understanding in their interactions (especially for men with less anxious) partners, it will behoove us to gain more detailed information about the interactions that couple partners are rating. Discovering contexts in which either self-disclosure or understanding are not offered with enough skill to counteract a negative response can illuminate relationship processes that fail to enhance well-being, even when individuals have good intentions to promote their partners’ welfare.

Supplemental material

sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075211060392 – Supplemental Material for Intimacy, Attachment to the Partner, and Daily Well-Being in Romantic Relationships

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075211060392 for Intimacy, Attachment to the Partner, and Daily Well-Being in Romantic Relationships by Jesse Poucher, Karen J. Prager, Forouz Shirvani, Julie Parsons and Juhi Patel in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Karen J. Prager

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online. Open research statement Notes

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The aspects of the research that were pre-registered were N/A. The registration was submitted to: N/A. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing kprager@utdallas.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained at kprager@utdallas.edu.

Notes

References

Ackerman

R. A.

Witt

E. A.

Donnellan

M. B.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Robins

R. W.

Kashy

D. A.

(2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67-87.

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). APA.

Beach

S.R.H.

(2001). Marital therapy for co‐occurring marital discord and depression (pp. 205–224). In Beach

S.R.H.

(Ed.), Marital and family processes in depression: A scientific foundation for clinical practice. American Psychological Association.

Bolger

Laurenceau

J. P.

& Ebooks Corporation . (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research (Methodology in the social sciences). Guilford Press.

Bowlby

(1982) Attachment and loss (2nd ed., Vol.1). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969).

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.). In Attachment theory and close relationships. (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.

Brunet

P. M.

Schmidt

L. A.

(2007). Is shyness context specific? Relation between shyness and online self-disclosure with and without a live webcam in young adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 938–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.09.001

Campbell

S. B.

Renshaw

K. D.

(2013). PTSD symptoms, disclosure, and relationship distress: Explorations of mediation and associations over time. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 27(5), 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.06.007

Campbell

Simpson

J. A.

Boldry

Kashy

D. A.

(2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510

10.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004a). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363

11.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004b). An attachment theory perspective on closeness and intimacy. In Mashek

D.J.

Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 163–188). : Erlbaum.

12.

Collins

N.L.

Read

(1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644

13.

Cordova

J. V.

(2003). Behavior analysis and the scientific study of couples. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100776

14.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

(2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01259

15.

Culp

L. N.

Beach

S. R. H.

(1998). Marriage and depressive symptoms: The role and bases of self-esteem differ by gender. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 647-663.

16.

Derlega

V. J.

Metts

Petronio

Margulis

S. T.

(1993). Self-disclosure. Sage.

17.

Diener

Heintzelman

S. J.

Kushlev

Tay

Wirtz

Lutes

L. D.

Oishi

(2016). Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 58(2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000063

18.

Doctrine of separate spheres Law and legal definition (2020). USlegal.com. https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/doctrine-of-separate-spheres

19.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2010). Of memes and marriage: Towards a positive relationship science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x

20.

Finkbeiner

N. M.

Epstein

N. B.

Falconier

M. K.

(2013). Low intimacy as a mediator between depression and clinic couple relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20, 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01415.x

21.

Fraley

R. C.

Heffernan

M. E.

Vicary

A. M.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

(2011). The experiences in close relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615-625.

22.

Frattaroli

(2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 823–865. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.823

23.

Gabriel

Kawakami

Bartak

Kang

S.-J.

Mann

(2010). Negative self-synchronization: Will I change to be like you when it is bad for me? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 857-871.

24.

Griffin

D. W.

Bartholomew

(1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In Bartholomew

Perlman

(Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17–52). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

25.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

26.

Helgeson

V. S.

Naqvi

J. B.

Gary-Webb

Korytkowski

(2021). 8). Observed couple interactions among white and black persons with Type 2 diabetes. Journal of Family Psychology, 35, 1117-1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000857.

27.

Hicks

A. M.

Diamond

L. M.

(2008). How was your day? Couples’ affect when telling and hearing daily events. Personal Relationships, 15(2), 205-228.

28.

Johnson

M. D.

Neyer

F. J.

Finn

(2020). Subjective well-being across partnerships. Journal of Family Psychology. 35(4), 546–551. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/fam0000793

29.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

30.

Kiesswetter

Marsoner

Luehwink

Fistarol

Mahlknecht

Duschek

(2020). Impairments in life satisfaction in infertility: Associations with perceived stress, affectivity, partnership quality, social support and the desire to have a child. Behavioral Medicine, 46(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2018.1564897

31.

Laurenceau

J.-P.

Barrett

L. F.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

(1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238

32.

Laurenceau

J. -P.

Barrett

L. F.

Rovine

M. J.

(2005). Interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A Daily-Diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1238

33.

Lepore

S. J.

Revenson

T. A.

(2007). Social constraints on disclosure and adjustment to cancer. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00013.x

34.

Lewis

J. J.

(2019, September 11). Separate spheres ideology. ThoughtCo. thoughtco.com/separate-spheres-ideology-3529523

35.

Lippert

Prager

K. J.

(2001). Daily experiences of intimacy: A study of couples. Personal Relationships, 8(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00041.x

36.

Lozano

E. B.

Sze

W. Y.

Fraley

R. C.

Chong

J. Y.

(2021). Dyadic effects of attachment and relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(5), 1572–1595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521999443

37.

Mikulincer

Gillath

Halevy

Avihou

Avidan

Eshkoli

(2001). Attachment theory and reactions to others’ needs’: Evidence that activation of the sense of attachment security promotes empathic responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1205-1224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1205.

38.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford.

39.

Mizrahi

Hirschberger

Mikulincer

Szepsenwol

Birnbaum

G. E.

(2016). Reassuring sex: Can sexual desire and intimacy reduce relationship-specific attachment insecurities? European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2184

40.

Murray

S. L.

Bellavia

G. M.

Rose

Griffin

D. W.

(2003). Once hurt, twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily marital interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.84.1.126

41.

Nijman

S. W. J.

Groenhof

T. K. J.

Hoogland

Bots

M. L.

Brandjes

Jacobs

J. J. L.

Asselbergs

F. W.

Moons

K. G. M.

Debray

T. P. A.

(2021). Real-time imputation of missing predictor values improved the application of prediction models in daily practice. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.003

42.

Pasipanodya

E. C.

Parrish

B. P.

Laurenceau

J. -P.

Cohen

L. H.

Siegel

S. D.

Graber

E. C.

Belcher

A. J.

2012). Social constraints on disclosure predict daily well-being in couples coping with early-stage breast cancer. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028655

43.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(1995). Emotion, disclosure & health. American Psychological Association.

44.

Prager

K. J.

(1995). The psychology of intimacy. The Guilford Press.

45.

Prager

K. J.

(2014). The dilemmas of intimacy: Conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Routledge.

46.

Prager

K. J.

Buhrmester

(1998). Intimacy and need fulfillment in couple relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(4), 435–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598154001

47.

Prager

K. J.

Shirvani

Poucher

Cavallin

Truong

Garcia

J. J.

(2015). Recovery from conflict and revival of intimacy in cohabiting couples. Personal Relationships, 22(2), 308–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12082

48.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437

49.

Reis

H. T.

Patrick

B. C.

(1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In Higgins

E. T.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523–563). Guilford Press.

50.

Reis

H. T.

Shaver

(1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Wiley.

51.

Schudlich

T. D. D.

Papp

L. M.

Cummings

E. M.

(2011). Relations between spouses’ depressive symptoms and marital conflict: A longitudinal investigation of the role of conflict resolution styles. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024216

52.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(2015). Attachment theory and research: New directions and emerging themes. Guilford.

53.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Phillips

(1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899

54.

Sprecher

Hendrick

S. S.

(2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 857–877. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.6.857.54803

55.

Tan

Overall

N. C.

Taylor

J. K.

(2012). Let’s talk about us: Attachment, relationship-focused disclosure, and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 19(3), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01383.x

56.

Travaglia

L. K.

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

(2009). Benevolent and hostile sexism and preferences for romantic partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(6), 599–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.015

57.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.79 MB