Behavior Modification

http://bmo.sagepub.com/

Fear of Intimacy among Dating Couples

Mark H. Thelen, Jillon S. Vander Wal, Ann Muir Thomas and Robert Harmon
Behav Modif 2000 24: 223
DOI: 10.1177/0145445500242004

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/24/2/223

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Behavior Modification can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://bmo.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/24/2/223.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2000

What is This?

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

BEHAVIOR
Thelen et al. /MODIFICATION
FEAR OF INTIMACY
/ April 2000

Fear of intimacy among heterosexual dating couples was examined with the Fear-of-Intimacy
Scale (FIS) and the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR). Following a
6-month interval, couples were again contacted to determine whether they continued to date.
Males reported higher FIS scores than females, and FIS scores were positively correlated within
couples. Also, FIS scores of males and females were significantly correlated with indices of
actual and desired intimacy; however, for females, correlations of FIS scores with desired inti-
macy were significantly lower than correlations with actual intimacy. Females who were no
longer in the dating relationship at the 6-month follow-up had higher FIS scores than those who
were continuing in their dating relationship. These findings increase our understanding of fear of
intimacy, especially gender differences in dating couples.

Fear of Intimacy
Among Dating Couples

MARK H. THELEN
JILLON S. VANDER WAL
University of Missouri–Columbia

ANN MUIR THOMAS

University of California–Irvine

ROBERT HARMON
University of Missouri–Columbia

Satisfying intimate relationships are one of the most important

sources of delight and purpose in life (Freedman, 1978; Klinger,
1977), and theoreticians have long deemed intimacy vital to mental
health, psychosocial adjustment, and basic human needs (Erikson,
1963; Maslow, 1954/1970; Sullivan, 1953). Theory is supported by “a
growing body of data which suggests that intimacy is an important
predictor of healthy psychological and physiological functioning”

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors are grateful to Michelle Sherman for her helpful comments
about the manuscript. Please send correspondence to Mark H. Thelen, Psychology Department,
210 McAlester Hall, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211; phone:
(573)882-7410; fax: (573)882-7710.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION, Vol. 24 No. 2, April 2000 223-240
© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

223

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

224 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

(Miller & Lefcourt, 1982, p. 514). Because intimacy represents an

important component of human functioning (Erikson, 1963; Sullivan,
1953; Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975), an impaired ability to form intimate
bonds with others may have negative consequences. Fear of intimacy
may inhibit progress in courtship (King & Christensen, 1983) and
influence the onset and course of neurotic disorders (Wilhelm &
Parker, 1988). Indeed, problems with intimacy are among the most
common reasons that couples seek therapy (Horowitz, 1979). An
important impediment to the growth of intimacy in close relationships
may be the fear of intimacy itself (Hatfield, 1984), which has been
defined as an inhibited capacity to share thoughts and feelings of per-
sonal significance with another individual who is highly valued
(Descutner & Thelen, 1991). It is hypothesized that fear of intimacy
will be related to various types of intimacy within active dating
relationships.
The fear-of-intimacy construct may be aligned with Hazan and
Shaver’s (1987) framework, which adopts Bowlby’s (1977) proposi-
tion that a continuity exists between early attachment processes and
the capacity to form intimate relationships in adulthood. Conceptual-
izing adult love as an attachment process, Hazan and Shaver (1987)
adapted the three styles of infant attachment—secure, avoidant, and
anxious—identified by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) to
research on adult relationships. The work of Hazan and Shaver (1987)
was extended by Collins and Read (1990), who developed an 18-item
self-report inventory, the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS), based on the
three dimensions of adult attachment hypothesized by Hazan and
Shaver (1987). Factor analyses revealed three underlying dimensions:
comfort with closeness, confidence in the dependability of others, and
fear of abandonment. Subsequent studies revealed that the AAS was
associated with relationship quality as measured by quality of com-
munication, trust, and overall satisfaction. This line of research sug-
gests, but does not directly assess, an association between perceived
risk associated with relationships and intimacy (Pilkington & Rich-
ardson, 1988).
The Fear-of-Intimacy Scale (FIS), a 35-item self-report measure,
was developed to measure a traitlike disposition to fear intimacy
(Descutner & Thelen, 1991). The definition cited earlier, an inhibited

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

 Thelen et al. / FEAR OF INTIMACY 225

capacity to share thoughts and feelings of personal significance with

another individual who is highly valued, includes three vital compo-
nents: (a) content (the communication of personal information), (b)
emotional valence (strong feelings about the information being
exchanged), and (c) vulnerability (high regard for the individual
receiving the information).
The relationship of the FIS to adult attachment styles was investi-
gated in an earlier study that replicated and extended the validity of the
FIS to include middle-aged couples (Doi & Thelen, 1993). The FIS
significantly correlated with closeness (r = –.59), confidence in
other’s dependability (r = –.40), and fear of abandonment (r = –.40);
these correlations were substantially reduced after partialing out trait
anxiety (rs = –.46, –.19, and .11, ns, respectively). The magnitude of
the correlations suggests that these concepts are related, especially
fear of intimacy and comfort with closeness, but are not identical. The
fear-of-intimacy construct appears similar to the fearful attachment
style described by Bartholomew (1990) that is characterized by a
desire for social contact inhibited by fears of loss or rejection. It would
appear that the FIS may assess a trait that underlies each of these three
dimensions, or the ambivalence and avoidance of Hazan and Shaver
(1987). Unlike the categorical nature of these descriptions, the FIS is a
continuous measure of fear of intimacy. The present study used the
FIS to expand previous research by addressing the relationship
between fear of intimacy and the experience of both actual and desired
intimacy in active dating relationships.
Interpersonal theorists have suggested that people select partners
who allow them to sustain their interpersonal dispositions (Sullivan,
1953; Swann, 1983), or who have complementary attachment patterns
(Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Researchers have found that partners often
share many demographic and personality characteristics, including
values, attitudes, opinions, intellectual desires, and physical features
(Buss, 1984; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Hinsz, 1989). Indeed, individuals
tend to date people who share similar beliefs and feelings about
becoming close and intimate with others and about others’ depend-
ability (Collins & Read, 1990). Adults who avoid close relationships
may choose persons similar to themselves to maintain a safe interper-
sonal distance (Bartholomew, 1990). Not surprisingly, fear of inti-

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

226 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

macy is associated with workaholism (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Thus,

it was predicted that fear of intimacy would be positively correlated
within couples. Persons with high fear-of-intimacy are likely to be
drawn to other high fear of intimacy persons because the pressure for
intimacy would be limited. Conversely, low fear-of-intimacy persons
should be attracted to other low fear-of-intimacy persons because they
desire high levels of intimacy.
Second, fear of intimacy was hypothesized to be negatively associ-
ated with both the degree of actual and the degree of desired intimacy
in a current dating relationship. Evidence from the developmental
stage of the FIS demonstrated that FIS scores were positively corre-
lated with self-report measures of being difficult to get to know, low
satisfaction in dating relationships, uneasiness in developing close
relationships, and briefer relationships (Descutner & Thelen, 1991).
However, these were retrospective data obtained from respondents
who were not necessarily involved in dating relationships at the time
of the study. Another study found that individuals who scored high on
a measure of perceived risk in intimacy reported fewer close relation-
ships, reduced trust in others, more introverted characteristics, and
less assertiveness in their relationships than those who scored low
(Pilkington & Richardson, 1988). Emmons and Colby (1995) found
that those high in fear of intimacy were unlikely to share personal
information, intimate feelings, or feelings of distress; indeed, they
may have experienced conflict at the prospect of disclosing emotion-
ally charged personal information, which would likely have impeded
the formation of a close, intimate relationship. In addition, persons
high in fear of intimacy may seek relationships with low levels of inti-
macy. A descriptive study of college women suggested that women
who fear intimacy approach potential relationships with a great deal of
ambivalence and enter superficial relationships to protect themselves
from getting involved in closer relationships that carry emotional risks
such as rejection, becoming subservient to one’s partner, hurt, anger,
resentment, or grief (Lutwak, 1985).
In a related vein, would fear of intimacy be more strongly corre-
lated with actual intimacy or with desired intimacy? Although one
would hope that actual and desired intimacy would be associated,
there is some evidence to suggest that fear of intimacy may be more

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

 Thelen et al. / FEAR OF INTIMACY 227

strongly related to one’s ratings of actual intimacy than desired inti-

macy, at least for women. One study suggests that women are social-
ized to desire intimacy to such a strong degree that a woman may
express the desire for an intimate relationship although she may actu-
ally fear entering such a relationship (Baxter, 1986). Another study
found that women scored higher on a measure of motivation for inti-
mate relationships than did men, but did not score higher on beliefs,
values, or attitudes about intimacy or about self-ascribed traits
(McAdams, Lester, Brand, McNamara, & Lensky, 1988). Therefore,
fear of intimacy may be more strongly associated with actual intimacy
than with desired intimacy for women. However, no evidence sug-
gests any differential relationship between fear of intimacy and actual
intimacy or desired intimacy for men.
Third, would one’s perceptions of intimacy be associated with the
fear of intimacy status of one’s partner? For example, if a low fear-of-
intimacy person were dating a high fear-of-intimacy person, would
the former perceive less intimacy than if dating a low fear-of-intimacy
person? Would the gender of either person make a difference?
Emmons and Colby (1995) examined the relationship between fear of
intimacy and perceptions of social support. Results revealed that those
who were high in fear of intimacy perceived less social support, had a
negative attitude toward the usefulness of asking for assistance from
others, were less likely to seek support, and were more likely to use
avoidant coping strategies. However, fear of intimacy was not related
to measures of socially supportive behaviors. That is, although indi-
viduals high in fear of intimacy perceived less available social sup-
port, they reported levels of social support equal to those reported by
individuals low in fear of intimacy. This finding was substantiated by
observational reports.
Interestingly, Collins and Read (1990) found that an individual’s
evaluation of a relationship was predicted by both that individual’s
scores on the AAS as well as by the scores of his or her partner.
Women whose partners were comfortable with closeness reported
more satisfaction in their relationships, less conflict, better communi-
cation, and rated their partners as more dependable. Men’s evaluations
of the relationship reflected better communication, more self-
disclosure, more trust, and more predictability if their partner was

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

228 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

comfortable with closeness. However, a man’s evaluations of the rela-

tionship were quite negative if his partner was anxious, reporting less
satisfaction, more conflict, less trust, and less dependability. Con-
versely, women who scored high on anxiety, a correlate of fear of inti-
macy, were less satisfied with their relationships, reporting less close-
ness, less trust, rated their partner as less dependable, and perceived
more communication problems. Men who were anxious had less trust
in their partners and felt that they were less dependable. Men and
women who were comfortable with closeness viewed their relation-
ships more positively. To the extent that fear of intimacy is related to
the three underlying factors of the AAS (comfort with closeness, con-
fidence in the dependability of others, and fear of abandonment), one
would predict a similar pattern of associations between the FIS and
ratings of actual intimacy.
Fourth, fear of intimacy should be related to relationship endur-
ance. To the extent that fear of intimacy may be conceptualized in the
Hazan and Shaver (1987) framework as an indicator of insecure
attachment, one may speculate that insecurity of attachment may lead
to relationship difficulties and high rates of relationship dissolution.
Relevant research supports this prediction, as couples with high inti-
macy were better able to resolve conflict (Prager, 1991), and persons
with high FIS scores reported briefer relationships (Descutner & The-
len, 1991). As relationships progress, the degree to which a partner
provides comfort and emotional support becomes increasingly impor-
tant (Reedy, Birren, & Schaie, 1981); thus, if such support is missing,
the partners may grow increasingly dissatisfied and may be more
likely to end the relationship. Couples who are high in self-disclosure
are more likely to have enduring relationships (Berg & McQuinn,
1986; Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988; Sprecher, 1987). Con-
versely, couples with lower levels of intimacy are more likely to termi-
nate their relationships (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976). In addition,
unequal involvement and different levels of seeking intimacy within
couples have been associated with poorer conflict resolution and
shorter relationship duration (Hill et al., 1976; Jacobson, 1989).
Because variables such as self-disclosure were associated with fear of
intimacy (Descutner & Thelen, 1991; Doi & Thelen, 1993), fear of
intimacy should be associated with less enduring relationships. In

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

 Thelen et al. / FEAR OF INTIMACY 229

addition, the influence of fear of intimacy on relationship endurance

may be greater for one partner than for the other. Females were more
likely than males to terminate relationships (Hagistad & Smyer, 1982;
Hill et al., 1976), often because of concerns about intimacy (Baxter,
1986). Indeed, Hill et al. (1976) found that a woman’s feelings toward
her dating partner were a stronger predictor of dating status than a
man’s feelings toward his dating partner. Therefore, it was hypothe-
sized that females’fear-of-intimacy status would have a stronger asso-
ciation with relationship endurance than males’ fear-of-intimacy
status.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included 243 college-aged heterosexual dating cou-

ples (N = 486); at least one member of each couple was enrolled in a
psychology class at a midwestern university. The average length of
their relationship was 15 months, with a median of 12 months and
range of 1 to 61 months. The mean age of males and females was 19.77
years and 19.41 years, respectively.

MEASURES

The FIS, a 35-item self-report inventory, measures individuals’

anxiety about close, dating relationships (Descutner & Thelen, 1991;
Doi & Thelen, 1993). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale,
ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (extremely charac-
teristic of me). Approximately one half of the items are reverse scored
to mitigate response bias. Higher scores are indicative of greater fears.
Instructions were modified slightly, such that subjects were directed
to answer the questions with reference to their current dating relation-
ship, rather than to an imagined dating relationship. The FIS demon-
strated high internal consistency (α = .93) and high test-retest reliabil-
ity (r = .89) over a 1-month interval. Factor analysis revealed the
dominance of one primary factor. Convergent and discriminant valid-

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

230 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

ity were established with a number of related self-report measures and

with therapists’ impressions of a clinical population (Descutner &
Thelen, 1991; Doi & Thelen, 1993).
The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR), a
well-established instrument, measures the following five categories of
intimacy: (a) emotional—feelings of closeness, (b) social—sharing
common friends and social networks, (c) sexual—expressions of affec-
tion or sexual activity, (d) recreational—shared interests and activi-
ties, and (e) intellectual—sharing of ideas (Schaefer & Olson, 1981).
Each scale contains six items that are scored on a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sepa-
rate scores are generated for each subscale in a profile format; no total
score is generated. The scale is to be completed twice, first for actual
intimacy in a current relationship and then for desired intimacy in a
current relationship. Construct validity was evidenced by significant
correlations with related measures including marital satisfaction.
Internal consistency for the five PAIR scales was considered adequate;
all had Cronbach’s alpha values of at least .70 (Schaefer & Olson,
1981).
The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (M-CSD), a 33-
item scale with a true-false format, measures the tendency to give
socially valued responses to self-report questions (Crowne & Mar-
lowe, 1960). Crowne & Marlowe (1964) reported a test-retest correla-
tion of .89 over a 1-month interval and an internal consistency coeffi-
cient of .88. The M-CSD is a well-established and frequently used
measure of social desirability.

PROCEDURE

Questionnaires were administered in group testing sessions. Cou-

ples were physically separated so that they could not see each other’s
answers. Subjects completed the PAIR twice: once for actual intimacy
in their current relationship and once for desired intimacy in their cur-
rent relationship. Five couples were excluded from the sample
because the man and woman reported highly disparate lengths of their
relationship (over 4 months’ difference). It was suspected that these
subjects were not dating couples, but were motivated by the wish to
acquire credit for research participation in their psychology classes.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

 Thelen et al. / FEAR OF INTIMACY 231

Approximately 6 months after initial testing, an attempt was made

to contact all of the subjects by phone to determine if they were still
dating. Information was obtained from one or both members of 171
(70%) of the couples. Of the remaining 72 couples (30%), 6 were con-
tacted but refused to participate, and the remainder had moved and left
no new phone number or were not home and did not respond to mes-
sages. Of those contacted, 107 couples were continuing to date and 64
were not dating.

RESULTS

PRELIMINARY ANALYSES

An analysis of gender differences on the FIS with a paired compari-

sons t test revealed that males (M = 70.77, SD = 18.83) had higher FIS
scores than females (M = 65.51, SD = 18.55), t(242) = 3.93, p < .0001.
Females scored significantly higher on all PAIR ratings of actual inti-
macy and on all PAIR ratings of desired intimacy, except for the Sex-
ual Scale, in which a significant difference was not obtained. Com-
parisons between PAIR ratings of actual and desired intimacy within
gender revealed that ratings of actual intimacy were significantly
greater than ratings of desired intimacy for every subscale, for both
men and women. (Means and relevant statistics may be obtained from
the senior author.)

PRIMARY ANALYSES

With regard to the first hypothesis, FIS scores within each couple
were significantly correlated, r = .35, p < .001, N = 243, which indi-
cates that the subjects were more likely than chance level to be dating
someone with a similar level of fear of intimacy. Likewise, correla-
tions between partners’perceptions of actual intimacy revealed agree-
ment (rs ranged from .25 to .44, ps < .0001), indicating that couples
shared similar perceptions of actual intimacy within their relationships.
Correlations between partners’ perceptions of desired intimacy were
somewhat lower (rs ranged from .13 to .21, ps from < .05 to < .001).

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

232 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

TABLE 1
Correlations of the PAIR Scales (actual and desired) With the FIS and
Differences in Correlations Between Actual and Desired Intimacy
Actual Desired Fischer z p

PAIR–Men
Social –.18* –.34* 2.59 .005
Sexual –.27* –.30* .41 .341
Emotional –.37* –.40* .45 .323
Recreational –.36* –.35* .28 .390
Intellectual –.36* –.37* .17 .432
PAIR–Women
Social –.26* –.13 2.01 .022
Sexual –.37* –.08 4.80 .001
Emotional –.47* –.28* 3.44 .001
Recreational –.34* –.23* 1.87 .031
Intellectual –.48* –.29* 3.30 .001

NOTE: PAIR = Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationship; FIS = Fear-of-Intimacy Scale.

*p < .05.

Couples tended to agree on the level of actual intimacy within their

relationship, but shared somewhat different perceptions of desired
intimacy.
With regard to the second hypothesis, correlations between the FIS
and the PAIR subscales for actual and desired intimacy are reported by
gender in Table 1. As predicted, strong negative correlations were
obtained between the FIS and actual intimacy as measured by the
PAIR scales for both males and females. A similar pattern held
between the FIS and desired intimacy, particularly for males. The cor-
relation between the FIS and the M-CSD for males was –.14, p < .05,
and for females was –.05, p < .45. Partial correlations between the FIS
and PAIR scales, when variance shared by social desirability was
removed, did not appreciably change the results. All correlations that
were originally significant were also significant when social desirabil-
ity was partialed out. Thus, higher fear-of-intimacy levels were asso-
ciated with lower perceptions of both actual and desired intimacy in
the relationship.
As is evident in Table 1, correlations between the FIS and desired
intimacy were significantly smaller than the correlations between the
FIS and actual intimacy for females. Significant differences in corre-
lations between the FIS and actual intimacy and the FIS and desired

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

 Thelen et al. / FEAR OF INTIMACY 233

intimacy were not obtained for males, except for the Social scale, in
which the correlation with desired intimacy was higher than the corre-
lation with actual intimacy. Comparisons of the PAIR-FIS correla-
tions between males and females with the Fischer z statistic revealed
no gender differences for the FIS-PAIR actual intimacy scale correla-
tions and two differences for the FIS-PAIR desired intimacy scale cor-
relations. On the Social and Sexual scales of the PAIR, the correlations
between desired intimacy and the FIS were significantly higher for
males than for females (p < .01). Thus, it would appear that fear of inti-
macy is associated with perceptions of actual intimacy for both men
and women. However, whereas fear of intimacy is associated with
desired intimacy for men, it does not appear to be as strongly associ-
ated with desired intimacy for women.
The third hypothesis, that one’s perception of actual intimacy in a
relationship depends not only on one’s own fear of intimacy status but
that of one’s partner, was analyzed next. Couples were divided into
four groups. Each participant was designated as either High or Low
based on whether they scored above or below the normative mean FIS
score reported by Descutner and Thelen (1991). Thus, High FIS men
scored above 81 on the FIS and High FIS women scored above 76. The
following groups were created: Both High (n = 25), Woman
High–Man Low (n = 29), Man High–Woman Low (n = 46), and Both
Low (n = 143). The four groups were compared within gender on
measures of actual intimacy (see Table 2). MANOVA analyses on the
five PAIR scales for actual intimacy revealed significant results for
both men and women, F(3, 236) = 4.04, p < .001 and F(3, 236) = 5.18,
p < .001, respectively. Several trends were notable from the univariate
F tests and post hoc group comparisons. For actual intimacy ratings by
men, the Both Low group was significantly higher on three of the five
categories of intimacy than the Man High–Woman Low group and the
Both High group, but not different on any of the actual intimacy scales
from the Woman High–Man Low group. For actual intimacy ratings
by women, the Both Low group was significantly higher on all five
categories of intimacy than the Woman High–Man Low group, on four
of the five categories for the Both High group, and on two of the cate-
gories for the Man High–Woman Low group. These findings suggest
that when men or women, but especially women, fear intimacy, they
tend to perceive less intimacy in their dating relationships, regardless

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

234 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

TABLE 2
Means for Women and Men on Actual Intimacy,
Overall F Tests, and Group Comparisons
Fear-of-Intimacy Scale
Both Woman High– Man High– Both
Low Man Low Woman Low High F(3, 240) p

PAIR-Men
Social 21.01 21.66 20.50 19.40 1.30 .227
a ab ab b
Sexual 24.50 22.76 23.11 21.12 5.31 .002
a ab b b
Emotional 24.78 24.03 22.00 21.92 7.03 .001
a ab b b
Recreational 24.73 24.10 22.09 22.44 6.74 .001
a ab b ab
Intellectual 24.28 23.48 21.59 22.32 6.73 .001
PAIR-Women
Social 23.11a 20.28b 21.89ab 21.00ab 4.28 .006
Sexual 26.06a 23.00
b
24.43
b
22.24
b
12.35 .001
a b ab b
Emotional 25.93 22.00 24.22 22.08 13.84 .001
a b b b
Recreational 26.34 24.21 24.39 23.16 11.54 .001
a
Intellectual 26.03 22.48b 24.74a 22.16b 14.04 .001

NOTE: Means with unlike superscripts differ significantly, p < .05. PAIR = Personal Assessment
of Intimacy in Relationship.

of the fear-of-intimacy status of their partner. These findings are miti-

gated by the lack of significant differences on 9 of the 10 intimacy rat-
ings between the Woman High–Man Low and Man High–Woman
Low groups.
The question of whether one’s own or one’s partner’s level of fear of
intimacy was a stronger predictor of actual intimacy in a relationship
was answered through the use of simultaneous stepwise regressions.
A total-PAIR score, created by summing the subscale scores, was used
as the criterion; fear-of-intimacy status for men, women, and an inter-
action term were used as predictors. Men’s reports of actual intimacy
in the relationship were predicted solely by their own fear-of-intimacy
status, F(1, 241) = 58.52, p > .0001. Women’s reports of actual inti-
macy were predicted mostly by their own fear-of-intimacy status F(2,
240) = 73.46, p < .0001; men’s fear-of-intimacy status also contrib-
uted to the model F(2, 240) = 6.41, p < .05. These results demonstrate
that one’s own fear of intimacy status is the primary predictor of one’s
perceptions of intimacy within a relationship.
Finally, the question of whether fear-of-intimacy status is related to
relationship endurance was addressed. Before examining the

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

 Thelen et al. / FEAR OF INTIMACY 235

follow-up data, preliminary analyses were conducted to determine

whether respondents (n = 171 couples) differed from nonrespondents
(n = 72 couples) with regard to their fear-of-intimacy levels. A 2 × 2
ANOVA, gender by continuation status (continued or discontinued
participation), revealed a significant general model, F(2, 483) = 5.07,
p < .01. Main effects for gender were significant, F(1, 483) = 10.04,
p < .01; main effects for continuation status were not statistically sig-
nificant, F(1, 483) = .10, ns. The follow-up data were examined in two
ways. First, was fear-of-intimacy status related to relationship endur-
ance? Part A of Table 3 shows that couples in which both partners were
low in fear of intimacy were most likely to be dating at follow-up.
Using this group for comparison, planned comparisons revealed that
these couples were more likely to be dating at follow-up than Man
High–Woman Low couples, χ (1, n = 119) = 9.01, p < .01, and Both
2

High couples, χ (1, n = 119) = 6.42, p < .02; however, Both Low cou-
2

ples did not differ from Man High–Woman Low couples, χ (1, n =
2

133) = 2.48, ns. These analyses suggest that the fear-of-intimacy

status of the woman, not the man, predicted whether the couple would
be dating at follow-up. However, this interpretation is mitigated by the
lack of a significant difference between the Man High–Woman Low
and Woman High–Man Low groups, χ (1, n = 51) = 1.68, ns.
2

Part B of Table 3 shows relationship status with respect to male and

female FIS scores. Women whose relationships had ended had signifi-
cantly higher FIS scores than women whose relationships continued.
Men whose relationships had ended did not have significantly higher
FIS scores than those who were still in relationships, although the
trend was in the same direction.

DISCUSSION

Most of the predictions concerning the relationship between fear of

intimacy and intimacy in college-aged couples were supported. With
regard to the first hypothesis, fear of intimacy was positively corre-
lated in couples. With regard to the second, fear of intimacy was nega-
tively associated with various types of actual and desired intimacy for
both males and females. Subjects who had a generalized fear of inti-
macy reported having and desiring less intimacy in their current dat-

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

236 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

TABLE 3
Tests of Fear-of-Intimacy Scale (FIS)
Differences by Relationship Status at Follow-up
A. Chi-Square Test of Relationship Status by FIS Group

FIS
Both Man High– Woman High– Both
Low Woman Low Man Low High
Relationship
Status n % n % n % n %

Together 73 73.00 19 57.58 7 36.84 8 42.11

Broken-up 27 27.00 14 42.42 12 63.16 11 57.89

B. Mean FIS Scores and F Tests for Together and Broken-Up Groups

Relationship Status
FIS Scores Together (n = 107) Broken-Up (n = 64) F (df = 1, 169) p

Males 69.79 74.89 2.83 .095

Females 62.64 71.19 8.95 .003

NOTE: Chi-square (df = 3, n = 171) = 13.77, p = .003.

ing relationships. This finding supports the conceptual basis of the FIS
and enhances its construct validity. If a man and woman are to find one
another compatible for a dating relationship, the couple would need to
be roughly matched on fear of intimacy. A high fear-of-intimacy indi-
vidual would likely become uncomfortable or anxious with a low
fear-of-intimacy partner who wanted more closeness. Indeed, self-
disclosure and closeness are necessary ingredients for the develop-
ment of intimacy (Schaefer & Olson, 1981).
The pattern of correlations between the FIS and actual and desired
intimacy supported current theories of gender differences in socializa-
tion for intimacy. For men, the FIS was significantly but equally corre-
lated with both actual and desired intimacy, but for women, the FIS
was correlated more strongly with actual than with desired intimacy.
Furthermore, correlations between the FIS and desired intimacy
tended to be higher for men than for women, especially on the impor-
tant dimensions of social and sexual intimacy. Because women are
more strongly socialized to desire intimacy (Baxter, 1986), fear of
intimacy may not reduce desired intimacy for women as it does for
men.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

 Thelen et al. / FEAR OF INTIMACY 237

Results obtained with regard to the third hypothesis, whether one’s

own perceptions of intimacy are associated with one’s own or one’s
partner’s status on the FIS, suggest that when men or women, but espe-
cially women, fear intimacy, they tend to perceive less intimacy in
their dating relationships, regardless of the fear-of-intimacy status of
their partner. These results differed somewhat from those obtained by
Collins and Read (1990), who found that an individual’s evaluations
of a relationship were predicted by both that individual’s scores on the
AAS as well as by the scores of their partner. Although the FIS and
AAS are moderately correlated, they appear to assess different under-
lying dimensions of interpersonal dispositions.
In accord with the fourth hypothesis, the follow-up data highlighted
the critical influence of the woman’s fear of intimacy on relationship
endurance. The relationships among women with a high fear of inti-
macy were more likely to have ended at the 6-month follow-up, even if
their partners had scored low on the FIS. Furthermore, women who
were not dating their partner at the 6-month follow-up had signifi-
cantly higher FIS scores than those still dating. There was no equiva-
lent gender difference for men. These data suggest that the female
partner’s level of fear of intimacy may be more important to the endur-
ance of a relationship than the male partner’s level of fear of intimacy.
An alternative interpretation that women may terminate relationships
not because of their fear of intimacy but rather because they do not
have the level of intimacy in their relationships that they desire was
ruled out by the strong positive correlations between women’s actual
and desired levels of intimacy. Thus, these findings may explain why
women are more likely than men to terminate relationships (Baxter,
1986; Hagistad & Smyer, 1982; Hill et al., 1976). Traditionally,
women strive for greater intimacy and closeness, whereas men seek
autonomy (Hatfield, 1984). When the woman does not fit the tradi-
tional role because of fearing intimacy, neither partner strives for inti-
macy and, therefore, the relationship may not survive. The specific
perceptions, behaviors, and interactions that lead to the demise of a
relationship when a woman fears intimacy should be examined in
future research.
A few limitations should be noted. First, subjects in the present
study were all college-aged young adults; this period is critical for the
development of potentially long-term intimate relationships. Although

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

238 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

research has reported similar fear-of-intimacy scores for college-aged

and middle-aged subjects (Doi & Thelen, 1993), generalizability of
the present study’s results to other age groups is questionable. Second,
unlike previous studies (one of which was with a college population)
that revealed no gender differences on the FIS (Descutner & Thelen,
1991; Doi & Thelen, 1993), males had significantly higher FIS scores
than did females in the present study. Possible explanations for these
differences include (a) the larger sample size in the present study, and
(b) the fact that subjects in the present study were more homogene-
ous due to their status in a dating relationship. Finally, it should be
noted that the mean FIS scores were lower in the present study for
both males and females than in either of the two previous studies.
However, this finding is consistent with a prior result, that college
students in exclusive dating relationships had lower FIS scores than
those who were not in such relationships (Descutner & Thelen,
1991).
The present study suggests several future areas of investigation.
First, why does the female’s fear of intimacy appear to be more predic-
tive of relationship endurance? Second, at what point in a relationship
do differences between the partner’s fear-of-intimacy levels become
important for relationship endurance? Although the first few dates
may be based on infatuation, at some point a deeper level of commit-
ment would be necessary. Third, to what degree is fear of intimacy
associated with vital relationship components, such as social skills,
communication, and reciprocating a partner’s affection? Does a fear
of intimacy impede the demonstration of these skills or is the person’s
ability to perform these skills deficient, perhaps leading to a fear of
intimacy? Fourth, how may the findings of the present study be
extended to gay and lesbian couples? The association between fear of
intimacy and the development of enduring relationships is an area
fruitful for further research.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psy-
chological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

 Thelen et al. / FEAR OF INTIMACY 239

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.
Baxter, L. A. (1986). Gender differences in the heterosexual relationship rules embedded in
bread-up accounts. Journal of Social Relationships, 3, 289-306.
Berg, J. H., & McQuinn, R. D. (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and noncontinuing
dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 942-952.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. British Journal of Psychiatry,
130, 201-210.
Buss, D. M. (1984). Marital assortment for personality dispositions: Assessment with three dif-
ferent data sources. Behavior Genetics, 14, 111-123.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality
in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psycho-
pathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: John Wiley.
Descutner, C. S., & Thelen, M. H. (1991). Development and validation of a Fear-of-Intimacy
Scale. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3,
218-225.
Doi, S., & Thelen, M. H. (1993). The Fear-of-Intimacy Scale: Replication and extension. Psy-
chological Assessment, 5, 377-383.
Emmons, R. A., & Colby, P. M. (1995). Emotional conflict and well-being: Relation to perceived
availability, daily utilization, and observer reports of social support. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68(5), 947-959.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Freedman, J. (1978). Happy people: What happiness is, who has it, and why. New York: Har-
court Brace Jovanovitch.
Hagistad, G. O., & Smyer, M. A. (1982). Dissolving long-term relationships: Patterns of divorc-
ing in middle age. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relation-
ships. London: Academic Press.
Hatfield, E. (1984). The dangers of intimacy. In V. J. Derlenga (Ed.), Communication, intimacy,
and close relationships (pp. 207-220). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love satisfaction,
and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980-988.
Hill, C. T., Rubin, E., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs.
Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147-168.
Hinsz, V. B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 6, 223-229.
Horowitz, L. M. (1979). On the cognitive structure of interpersonal problems treated in psycho-
therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 5-15.
Jacobson, N. S. (1989). The politics of intimacy. Behavior Therapist, 12, 29-32.
King, C. E., & Christensen, A. (1983). The relationship events scale: A Guttman scaling of prog-
ress in courtship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 671-676.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014

240 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2000

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentive in people’s lives. Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lutwak, N. (1985). Fear of intimacy among college women. Adolescence, 20(77), 15-20.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row. (Original work
published 1954)
McAdams, D. P., Lester, R. M., Brand, P. A., McNamara, W. J., & Lensky, D. B. (1988). Sex and
the TAT: Are women more intimate than men? Do men fear intimacy? Journal of Personality
Assessment, 52(3), 397-409.
Miller, R. S., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The assessment of social intimacy. Journal of Personal-
ity Assessment, 46, 514-518.
Pilkington, C. J., & Richardson, D. R. (1988). Perceptions of risk in intimacy. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 5, 503-508.
Prager, K. J. (1991). Intimacy status and couple conflict resolution. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 8, 505-526.
Reedy, M. N., Birren, J. E. & Schaie, K. W. (1981). Age and sex differences in satisfying love
relationships across the adult life span. Human Development, 24, 52-66.
Rubin, K. H. (1973). Egocentrism in childhood: A unitary construct? Child development, 44,
102-110.
Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 47-60.
Sprecher, S. (1987). The effects of self-disclosure given and received on affection for an intimate
partner and stability of the relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,
115-127.
Sullivan, H. H. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Swann, W. B. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J.
Suls and A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self, Vol. 2. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life-course perspectives on friendship. In M. F. Lowen-
thal, M. Thurnher, & D. Chiriboga (Eds.), Four stages of life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wilhelm, K., & Parker, G. (1988). The development of a measure of intimate bonds. Psychologi-
cal Medicine, 18, 225-234.

Mark H. Thelen, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at the University of Missouri–

Columbia. His research interests include close relationships, eating disorders, and pro-
fessional issues.

Jillon S. Vander Wal, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Illi-
nois–Chicago. She received her Ph.D. in clinical psychology at the University of Mis-
souri–Columbia. Her research interests include interpersonal relationships, eating
disorders, and schizophrenia.

Ann Muir Thomas, Ph.D., is assistant professor of behavioral sciences at Bentley Col-
lege in Waltham, MA. She received her Ph.D. in health psychology from the University of
California–Irvine and her M.A. in clinical psychology from the University of Mis-
souri–Columbia. Her research interests include self-disclosure in intimate relationships,
peer relations in youth with chronic illnesses, and development of commitment to life
roles.

Robert Harmon, M.A., works as a psychologist in the North Carolina state prison system.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at R.M.I.T. Libraries Bundoora on August 22, 2014