Article

The Family Journal: Counseling and

Therapy for Couples and Families
Who Can Give Me Satisfaction? Partner 2015, Vol. 23(3) 247-253
ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
Matching in Fear of Intimacy sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1066480715573709
and Relationship Satisfaction tfj.sagepub.com

Maria Pedro Sobral1, Cátia P. Teixeira2, and Maria Emı́lia Costa1

Abstract
This study aimed to better understand couples’ satisfaction. We hypothesized that similar levels on the two dimensions of fear of
intimacy (fear of losing the self [FLS] and fear of losing the other [FLO]) would buffer the negative association between fear of
intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Findings revealed a positive influence in relationship satisfaction from partner similarity in FLS.
No effects were found from partner similarity in FLO. Relationship satisfaction decreased when one partner’s higher fear of losing
the self was combined with lower fear of losing the other from the other partner. Repercussions for couple therapy are discussed.

Keywords
fear of intimacy, relationship satisfaction, partner matching, similarity

Research has shown that fear of intimacy has a negative influ-
ence on relationship quality (Brunell, Pilkington, & Webster,
2007; Descutner & Thelen, 1991; Thelen, Vander Wal, Thomas,
& Harmon, 2000). We argue that this link may not be that
straightforward and that fear of intimacy is not always negative
for a relationship. Previous research examined the impact of fear
of intimacy on relationship quality of the individual without con-
sidering the two members of the romantic dyad. We know, how-
ever, that partner matching effects are crucial for the
understanding of intimate relationship dynamics (Robins, Caspi,
& Moffitt, 2000; Strauss, Morry, & Kito, 2012). For instance,
partner similarity on personality traits or values seems to increase
relationship satisfaction (Gaunt, 2006; Robins et al., 2000).
This approach allows for a better understanding of the
(apparently) negative association between fear of intimacy and
relationship satisfaction at the individual level (by controlling the
potential effect of the romantic partner). More importantly, it
allows to analyze to what extent fear of intimacy of one member
of the romantic dyad influences the impact of fear of intimacy on
relationship satisfaction of the other one. We hypothesize that the
association between fear of intimacy and relationship satisfaction
is negative when partners are dissimilar in fear of intimacy. In
contrast, similarity between partners will buffer this link.
similarity hypothesis postulates that individuals search for
partners who are similar in personality, behaviors, goals, or
attitudes. This hypothesis rises from the assumption that
individual preference for similar partners would have the
psychological advantage of providing self-enhancement,
since partners who are similar provide each other with
favorable feedback concerning representations of the self and
the world (Baumeister, 1982). Research provided support for
similarity as a positive influence in romantic relationships.
Couples with similar personalities, attachment styles, and
values were found to experience more intimacy, greater
satisfaction with life, and longer lasting relationships (Gaunt,
2006; Robins et al., 2000; Strauss et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, literature on the link between partner similar-
ity and relationship outcomes is not consensual. The opposite
idea, that is, the complementary hypothesis, has also received
some empirical support (see Holmes & Johnson, 2009, for a
review). The complementary hypothesis postulates that
complementary preferences provide self-consistency, by
allowing individuals to confirm expectations about themselves
and others (Swann & Read, 1981). As a matter of fact, research
suggests that similarity and complementarity may both be

1
Similarity as a Protective Factor for Center for Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Uni-
versity of Porto, Porto, Portugal
Romantic Relationships 2
Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Nueve, Belgium
Similarity in romantic relations has been studied mainly in an
Corresponding Author:
attempt to explain (a) why individuals choose their romantic Maria Pedro Sobral, Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação,
partners instead of somebody else and (b) how two partners Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.
maintain high levels of relationship satisfaction. The Email: mpsobral@fpce.up.pt
248 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(3)
associated with positive relationship outcomes when consider-
ing different variables, samples, or contexts. For instance, Mar-
key and Markey (2007) found that romantic couples who
reported the highest levels of relationship quality were more
dissimilar in terms of dominance but more similar in terms
of warmth than romantic couples who reported the lowest lev-
els of relationship quality.
Importantly for the present study, research on fear of inti-
macy showed that individuals tend to date partners with similar
levels of fear of intimacy (Thelen et al., 2000). This result is in
accordance with findings revealing that individuals tend to date
partners with similar beliefs and feelings about closeness, inti-
macy, and dependence (Collins & Read, 1990). Nevertheless, it
remains to verify whether this similarity preference is associ-
ated with positive relationship outcomes, that is, whether
high-fear-of-intimacy individuals are happy in a relationship
with high-fear-of-intimacy partners.
Given that individuals with high levels of fear of intimacy
feel discomfort with sharing and depending on their partners
(Sobral & Costa, 2015), it is reasonable to assume that
high-fear-of-intimacy individuals seek relationships with low
levels of sharing and interdependence. Therefore, although
individual fear of intimacy is associated with low relationship
quality and length (Brunell et al., 2007; Descutner & Thelen,
1991; Thelen et al., 2000), this should be the case only for
individuals whose partners ‘‘demand’’ sharing and
dependency. If one’s romantic partner has the same intimacy
reluctance as oneself, we can hypothesize that both will be
reassured and, therefore, satisfied. In turn, if partners have
different attitudes toward sharing and dependence (i.e., if
partners mismatch in fear of intimacy), we can expect that
both will be threatened and therefore unsatisfied. We can thus
presume that partner similarity on fear of intimacy may
prevent high-fear-of-intimacy individuals from relationship
dissatisfaction. In turn, dissimilarity on fear of intimacy may
aggravate the negative link between fear of intimacy and
relationship satisfaction.
The Two Dimensions of Fear of Intimacy
Literature on fear of intimacy has traditionally focused on a
one-dimension conception. Indeed, since fear of intimacy was
proposed as ‘‘the inhibited capacity of an individual, because of
anxiety, to exchange thoughts and feelings of personal signifi-
cance with another individual who is highly valued’’ (Descutner
& Thelen, 1991, p. 219), research has been mainly based on this
definition (e.g. Cash, Thériault, & Annis, 2004; Phillips et al.,
2013). However, an intimate relationship requires not only the
capacity to exchange thoughts and feelings but also the capac-
ity to be autonomous and yet comfortable with dependence
(e.g., Alperin, 2006; Arseth, Kroger, Martinussen, & Bakken,
2009; Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2010). Following this line
of reasoning, Sobral and Costa (2015) proposed a two-
dimension conception of fear of intimacy that encompasses
both exchanging and dependence as components of intimacy.
The authors found empirical support for the existence of two
components of fear of intimacy, that is, fear of losing the self
(FLS) and fear of losing the other (FLO). Both high-FLS and
high-FLO individuals feel discomfort in intimacy, however,
for different reasons. High-FLS individuals feel discomfort
with allowing themselves to depend on the romantic partner,
whereas high-FLO individuals fear to expose the self so they
lose the other’s (their partner’s) approval.
Following this conception of fear of intimacy, there is two
ways of being (dis)similar. We will talk about within-
dimension or cross-dimension similarity. The first type of simi-
larity refers to a more quantitative perspective, as it looks at
effects of different levels of fear of intimacy between partners
for the same measure (e.g., high FLS–high FLS or low FLS–
high FLS). Cross-dimension similarity concerns not only quan-
titative but also qualitative differences in fear of intimacy (e.g.,
high FLS–high FLO or high FLS–low FLO).
Distinguishing Relationship Satisfaction From
Other Relationship Quality Components
Overall, research showed that fear of intimacy hinders intimate
relationships and individual well-being (Alperin, 2006; Hook,
Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley, 2003). Particularly, fear of inti-
macy was shown to be an obstacle to intimacy (Thelen et al.,
2000) and to relationship quality (Brunell et al., 2007). How-
ever, relationship outcomes of fear of intimacy still need better
understanding. Although we assume the importance of other
relationship quality indicators such as commitment or trust,
we need to distinguish the association between fear of intimacy
and relationship quality from its association with relationship
satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction is considered a compo-
nent of relationship quality and one can conceive other compo-
nents as leading to or covarying with satisfaction (Fletcher,
Simpson, & Thomas, 2000). Although relationship satisfaction
highly correlates with other components of relationship quality
(e.g., commitment, intimacy, trust), it is possible that people
are satisfied with a relationship in which the other quality com-
ponents are low—provided that their desires and needs are sat-
isfied. This is particularly important when considering fear of
intimacy. That is, if high-fear-of-intimacy individuals feel dis-
comfort with intimacy (Descutner & Thelen, 1991; Sobral &
Costa, 2015), one may expect that these individuals can be sat-
isfied within relationships where the levels of other compo-
nents of relationship quality, such as commitment, are low.
For example, commitment may be a weakest predictor of rela-
tionship satisfaction for individuals with high levels of FLS
than for individuals with low levels of FLS, given that the for-
mer are more concerned with not losing their individuality in
the relationship. It may well be that people are ‘‘satisfied’’ in
their relationship in spite of not scoring high in all variables
measuring relationship ‘‘quality.’’
Male and Female Experiences of Intimacy
Previous research on gender differences in fear of intimacy has
presented inconsistent results. Research showed support for
Sobral et al.
both the absence of gender differences (e.g., Doi & Thelen,
1993; Hook et al., 2003) and the presence of higher levels of
fear of intimacy in men than in women (e.g., Sobral, Matos,
& Costa, 2014; Thelen et al., 2000). Independent of the ques-
tion of differences in levels of intimacy, scholars argue that
males and females experience intimacy in different ways. Tra-
ditionally, women strive more for intimacy than men do, and
men seek more for autonomy than women do (Hatfield,
1984; Hook et al., 2003). Women also desire more intimacy
than men do, and women’s fear of intimacy is more determi-
nant of relationship endurance (Thelen et al., 2000). Thelen and
colleagues (2000) argue that these gender differences may
explain why women are more likely than men to terminate
romantic relationships: When the female partner fears
intimacy, she will not follow her ‘‘traditional’’ role of striving
for intimacy, which will lead to dissatisfaction with the rela-
tionship and ultimately to the end of it. Given the importance
of gender for intimacy experience, we analyzed gender mod-
eration effects on the link between partner similarity in fear
of intimacy and relationship satisfaction.
The Present Study
In this study, we explore how matching in fear of intimacy in
couples can influence relationship satisfaction. We do so con-
sidering three important research gaps. First, we distinguish the
two dimensions of fear of intimacy (FLS and FLO; Sobral &
Costa, 2015). Second, we examine the impact of fear of inti-
macy specifically on relationship satisfaction rather than on a
higher order assessment of relationship quality indicators.
Finally, we collect information about fear of intimacy and rela-
tionship satisfaction from both the individual and his or her
partner. These methodological options will allow us to have a
clearer picture of how fear of intimacy affects relationship
satisfaction in an actual romantic relationship.
People differ in needs and goals within relationships, and
partners differ in the ability to satisfy them (Holmes & Johnson,
2009). The (mis)matching in fear of intimacy can therefore add
information to the previously supported negative link between
fear of intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Given that part-
ner similarity in attitudes toward intimacy can increase rela-
tionship satisfaction (Collins & Read, 1990), we assume that
the opposite (i.e., partner dissimilarity in attitudes towards inti-
macy) can hinder relationship satisfaction. Therefore, we
expect the link between fear of intimacy and relationship satis-
faction to be negative only when partners are dissimilar in fear
of intimacy. Specifically, we predict that (1) relationship satis-
faction will decrease when there is a mismatching on dimen-
sions of fear of intimacy (i.e., when higher levels of FLS are
combined with higher levels of FLO), (2) partners’ higher lev-
els of FLS will buffer the negative link between actor-FLS and
relationship satisfaction, and (3) partners’ higher levels of FLO
will buffer the negative link between actor-FLO and relation-
ship satisfaction as well.
Given that men and women experience intimacy differently
(Hook et al., 2003; Sobral et al., 2014; Thelen et al., 2000), we
249
have reason to expect different results for our hypotheses
across genders. Considering that relationship endurance is
affected by female and not male fear of intimacy (Thelen
et al., 2000), partner relationship satisfaction should also be
more influenced by female than by male fear of intimacy. In
other words, (4) we expect the predicted partner effects to be
stronger for men (revealing the stronger influence of the female
partner) than for women.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data were collected in a website devised for this research in
which couples data were programmed to be paired. To couple
the responses, each participant provided the e-mail of her or his
partner. E-mails were automatically encrypted into a code,
allowing the anonymous coupling of responses. To avoid bias
associated with remarriage, participants who had ever got
divorced and their respective partners were excluded (n ¼ 12
dyads). Our final sample had 276 heterosexual couples, with
ages ranging from 18 to 55 (M ¼ 32.79, SD ¼ 8.91). Average
relationship length was 10.74 years (SD ¼ 8.95), 49.4% were
married, 41.3% were dating, and 10.9% were cohabiting.
Measures
Fear of Intimacy Components questionnaire. The Fear of Intimacy
Components Questionnaire (Sobral & Costa, 2015) is an
attachment-based questionnaire that assesses two dimensions
of fear of intimacy within the current romantic relationship,
namely, FLS and FLO. Each dimension is measured by 5 items.
FLS addresses feelings of discomfort regarding dependence
toward the romantic partner (e.g., ‘‘I don’t like to justify myself
to my partner’’). FLO regards fear of exposure, self-disclosure,
and rejection (e.g., ‘‘I try to hide my weaknesses from my part-
ner’’). Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Confirmatory factor analyses revealed adequate goodness-of-
fit for male (comparative fit index [CFI] ¼ .946; root mean
square error of approximation [RMSEA] ¼ .070; w2/df ¼
2.277) and female (CFI ¼ .988; RMSEA ¼ .032; w2/df ¼
1.255) samples. Both subscales were found to have good com-
posite reliability (CR) for both men (CR ¼ .82 and CR ¼ .87
for FLS and FLO, respectively) and women (CR ¼ .82 and
CR ¼ .87 for FLS and FLO, respectively).
Satisfaction component of the Perceived Relationship Quality
Components Inventory. Relationship satisfaction was assessed
via the satisfaction subscale of the Perceived Relationship
Quality Components Inventory (PRQC; Fletcher et al., 2000).
The PRQC has 18 items equally distributed by six subscales.
These subscales (Satisfaction, Commitment, Intimacy, Trust,
Passion, and Love) can form a global index of relationship
quality, with higher scores indicating greater perceived rela-
tionship quality. However, each subscale assesses a specific
and relatively independent component of perceived
250 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(3)

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among All Study Variables for Male and Female Partners.

Male Female

M (SD) 2 3 1 2 3

Male 1 ¼ FLS 2.24 (0.68) .572** .350** .228** .241** .278**

2 ¼ FLO 2.31 (0.78) — .400** .226** .294** .368**
3 ¼ Relationship satisfaction 6.26 (0.90) — — .236** .237** .661**
Female 1 ¼ FLS 2.08 (0.69) — — — .501** .358**
2 ¼ FLO 2.10 (0.74) — — — — .395**
3 ¼ Relationship satisfaction 6.32 (0.88) — — — — —

Note. FLS ¼ fear of losing the self; FLO ¼ fear of losing the other.
**p < .01. *p < .05.

Table 2. Male and Female Models for Interactive Effects, Individual Fear of Intimacy, and Partner Fear of Intimacy on Relationship Satisfaction.

Male Relationship Satisfaction Female Relationship Satisfaction

Predictor B SE B b B SE B b

M-Satisfaction — — — .529 .052 .540***

F-Satisfaction .581 .057 .569*** — — —
M-FLS .201 .076 .153*** .062 .074 .048
M-FLO .131 .068 .115*** .086 .065 .077
F-FLS .006 .072 .005 .151 .068 .120*
F-FLO .070 .068 .057 .214 .063 .180***
M-FLS  F-FLS .358 .123 .228** .137 .119 .089
M-FLO  F-FLO .098 .119 .063 .078 .113 .051
M-FLS  F-FLO .151 .130 .1000 .155 .124 .106
M-FLO  F-FLS .345 .106 .220*** .014 .104 .009
M-FLS  M-FLO .022 .078 .016 .040 .075 .029
F_FLS  F_FLO .029 .082 .019 .056 .078 .038
Note. M ¼ Male; F ¼ Female; FLS ¼ fear of losing the self; FLO ¼ fear of losing the other.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

relationship quality (Fletcher et al., 2000). Since our purpose
was to analyze partners’ subjective satisfaction, we selected the
satisfaction component. Responses to each item were made on
a 7-point Likert-type scale (e.g., How content are you with your
relationship?’’). CR was good for male partner (.97) and female
partner (.98) subsamples.
Results
Men showed higher levels of FLS and FLO than women, t(246)
¼ 2.883, p < .005; t(246) ¼ 3.715, p < .001, respectively. No
gender differences were found for relationship satisfaction,
t(246) ¼ 1.161, p > .05. In line with previous research, associa-
tions between individual fear of intimacy (FLS and FLO) and
relationship satisfaction were negative and significant, for both
genders (see Table 1).
To test for moderating effects from partners’ fear of inti-
macy on relationship satisfaction, we performed two interac-
tion models, namely, one model for the male partner
relationship satisfaction in which female partner’s fear of inti-
macy was the moderator and one model for the female partner
relationship satisfaction in which male partner’s fear of inti-
macy was the moderator. Actors’ and partners’ FLS and FLO
(mean centered) and all the respective two-way interactions
were entered as predictors in the regression. Because actor and
partner relationship satisfaction are correlated (see Table 1),
these variables were included as covariates in the regression
models. Findings were different for male and female relation-
ship satisfaction (see Table 2), F(11,235) ¼ 21.972, p < .001,
and F(11,235) ¼ 24.241, p < .001, respectively. For males,
results revealed moderating effects of partner-FLS on the link
between actor-FLO and relationship satisfaction and on the link
between actor-FLS and relationship satisfaction. No modera-
tion effects from partner-FLO were found. For females, no sig-
nificant interaction effects emerged (see Table 2).
Simple slope analyses designed to decompose the statisti-
cally significant interactions (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed
that for males our first and second hypotheses were supported.
The first hypothesis was supported by the significant interac-
tion of actor-FLS and partner-FLO on relationship satisfaction
(Figure 1). Relationship satisfaction decreased significantly
when higher levels of FLS of one partner were combined with
higher levels of FLO of the other partner. In turn, the links
between FLS or FLO and relationship satisfaction were non-
significant when lower levels of FLS were combined with
lower levels of FLO.
Sobral et al. 251

Low partner-FLS High partner-FLS Low partner-FLS High partner-FLS

6 6

5 5
Relationship satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction
4 4

β = .036 ns β = .094 ns
3 3

2 2
β = -.342*** β = .323***

1 1
Low actor-FLO High actor-FLO Low actor-FLS High actor-FLS

Figure 1. Interactive effects between partners’ fear of intimacy on male relationship satisfaction. ***p < .001.

The second hypothesis was also supported. The association
between actor-FLS and relationship satisfaction was signifi-
cantly negative when partner-FLS was lower, whereas the asso-
ciation between actor-FLS and actor-relationship satisfaction
was nonsignificant when the partner presented higher levels
of FLS (see Figure 1). In contrast, our third hypothesis did not
receive empirical support. Indeed, matching in FLO did not
affect satisfaction as evident by the absence of interactions
between actor-FLO and partner-FLO (see Table 2).
Discussion
This study aimed to verify the effect of fear of intimacy match-
ing between partners on relationship satisfaction. Building on a
two-dimension conception of fear of intimacy (FLS and FLO),
we analyzed the interactive effects between partners’ levels of
fear of intimacy on relationship satisfaction. Our major ques-
tion was whether similarity in fear of intimacy (either in its lev-
els or in its components) would moderate the negative link
between individual fear of intimacy and relationship satisfac-
tion. This question emerged from two different arguments
found in previous research. On one hand, individual fear of inti-
macy has a negative influence on the quality of the relationship
(Brunell et al., 2007; Thelen et al., 2000). On the other hand,
partner matching on personality or values may change it
(Gaunt, 2006; Robins et al., 2000). The fact that similarity on
either positive or negative dispositions toward intimacy
enhances relationship quality (Collins & Read, 1990) is partic-
ularly interesting when focusing on the effects of couples’ fear
of intimacy. We argued therefore that the negative effects of
fear of intimacy on relationship satisfaction could be attenuated
by the levels of fear of intimacy of the romantic partner.
Going beyond the traditional approach that considers the
individual as the primary unit of analysis, we analyzed fear
of intimacy of both partners. For males, we verified that (1) the
negative link between FLO and relationship satisfaction was
buffered by partner similarity and aggravated by partner dis-
similarity in the dimensions of fear of intimacy (i.e., when
partner-FLS was lower, the link between actor-FLO and rela-
tionship satisfaction was non-significant, but when partner-
FLS was higher, the link between actor-FLO and relationship
satisfaction was significantly negative); (2) the negative link
between FLS and relationship satisfaction was buffered by
partner similarity and aggravated by partner dissimilarity in
levels of FLS (i.e., when partner-FLS was higher, the link
between actor-FLS and relationship satisfaction was nonsigni-
ficant, but when partner-FLS was lower, the link between
actor-FLS and relationship satisfaction was significantly nega-
tive). In summary, relationship satisfaction of higher-FLO
males was aggravated when the couple mismatched in dimen-
sions of fear of intimacy (i.e., when their female partners had
higher levels of FLS). Relationship satisfaction of higher-
FLS males was aggravated when the couple mismatched in lev-
els of FLS (i.e., males who were high in FLS were with low
FLS female partners).
The negative influence that dissimilarity presented on rela-
tionship satisfaction supported our first hypothesis for males.
Since high-FLS individuals fear dependence and high-FLO
individuals fear disapproval (Sobral & Costa, 2015), a high-
FLS individual will likely become uncomfortable with a
high-FLO partner who searches for proximity and approval.
In turn, high-FLO individuals will likely feel anxious with
high-FLS partners whose distant behavior probably confirms
their fear of rejection.
The fact that male relationship dissatisfaction was aggravated
by partner dissimilarity and buffered by partner similarity in lev-
els of FLS supported our second hypothesis for men. This find-
ing can be understood in light of the characteristics related to this
dimension of fear of intimacy. On one hand, high-FLS individ-
uals experience discomfort with allowing themselves to depend
on the romantic partner (Sobral & Costa, 2015). On the other
hand, fear of intimacy is associated with desired intimacy and
252 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(3)
with actual intimacy (Thelen et al., 2000), therefore high-FLS
individuals are expected to both desire and experience lower
levels of intimacy. If both feel discomfort with dependence, both
will demand lower intimacy, so the individual will be more sat-
isfied with the characteristics of their relationship.
Contrary to predictions, FLO similarity did not seem to
affect relationship satisfaction neither for males nor for
females. Indeed, individual FLO had a negative influence on
relationship satisfaction, regardless of the partner’s level of
FLO. Although high-FLS partners can meet each other’s pre-
ferences for space and distance and buffer dissatisfaction with
such relationship functioning, high-FLO partners seem not to
be able to do it. Apparently, and contrary to FLS, the link
between individual FLO and individual relationship satisfac-
tion does not seem to be shaped by partner’s fear of intimacy.
Perhaps more independent partners are able to enhance comfort
in high-FLS individuals (who fear dependence), but closer part-
ners are not able to minimize fears of rejection in high-FLO
individuals.
The presence of significant effects for males and not for
females is in line with previous research which found that men
are more affected than women by partner’s intimacy-related
variables. Webster, Brunell, and Pilkington (2009) showed that
female warmth affected their male partners’ experience of dis-
closure reciprocity but not the opposite. Brunell, Pilkington,
and Webster (2007) found that actor perceptions of risk in inti-
macy affected partner relationship quality in men, but female
relationship quality was not influenced by male perceptions
of risk in intimacy. These findings are thus congruent with the
idea that when women fear intimacy they are unable to fulfill
their traditional role of striving for intimacy which affects both
their and their partners’ relationship satisfaction.
Because relationship intimacy and relationship satisfaction
are associated (Fletcher et al., 2000), one could expect that the
pattern of associations between fear of intimacy and intimacy
was similar to the pattern of associations between fear of inti-
macy and relationship satisfaction. However, previous research
has shown no effects of individual fear of intimacy on partners’
perceptions of relationship intimacy (Thelen et al., 2000). Nev-
ertheless, our findings for males may not necessarily diverge
from these ones. First, Thelen and colleagues did not distin-
guish the two components of fear of intimacy (Sobral & Costa,
2015). As a matter of fact, the importance of this distinction
was empirically demonstrated in our study by the differential
impact of the two dimensions of fear of intimacy on relation-
ship satisfaction. Second, we find that the present results and
Thelen’s results are somehow complementary. Indeed, even
if partners’ fear of intimacy has no role in relationship intimacy
(Thelen et al., 2000), it may have a role in relationship satisfac-
tion (present study). If avoiding intimacy serves the purpose
of maintaining a comfortably safe interpersonal distance
(Bartholomew, 1990), finding a partner with such an avoidant
disposition toward intimacy may give high-fear-of-intimacy
individuals what they are looking for in a relationship.
These findings give rise to some issues for couple therapy.
Even if the benefits of intimacy are widely shown (e.g, Arseth
et al., 2009; Hook et al., 2003), the present study shows that,
among males, high levels of FLS coupled with similarly high
levels of FLS of the partner seem to be some way to prevent
them from being dissatisfied in their relationships. Although
it is less likely that a satisfied couple seeks clinical help, we
may wonder whether, in clinical interventions with high FLS
couples, it is or not wise to develop intimacy-based interven-
tions since such interventions might endanger couples’ home-
ostasis and satisfaction. Clinical studies with high-FLS
couples should be conducted in order to verify whether or not
to intervene in their fear of intimacy is a good strategy. What-
ever the case may be, our findings suggest that such interven-
tions must take great care not to unbalance the members of
the couple, by for example, decreasing only the female part-
ner’s FLS. Indeed at least for male satisfaction two high-FLS
partners seem to be more satisfied than one high-FLS partner
combined with one low-FLS one.
Although our goal was to examine the effects of partner
matching—and not to analyze the ability of partners to influ-
ence one’s fear of intimacy schemas—the potential change in
these schemas may be important to understand the fear-of-
intimacy mechanisms. Scholars have already speculated that
a securely attached romantic partner may buffer his or her part-
ner’s fear of intimacy, that is, individual insecure patterns of
feelings and behaviors within the relationship may be
decreased when the romantic partner is secure and strongly
committed to her or his partner (Tran & Simpson, 2012). The
fact that people are likely to have partners with similar beliefs
and feelings about intimacy (Collins & Read, 1990; Emmons &
Colby, 1995) led us to wonder why this happens. Is this simi-
larity there from the beginning, that is, do individuals choose
their partners based on convergence concerning these disposi-
tions? Or, do couples influence each other, creating with time a
rapprochement on patterns of fear of intimacy? The present
cross-sectional study cannot provide such data. Longitudinal
studies will be valuable to analyze whether couples’ interactive
effects of fear of intimacy on relationship satisfaction may also
be the product of a long-term adaptation of the two members of
the romantic dyad to each other. Moreover, further research
shall verify how these findings may be extended to gay and les-
bian couples, since our sample was limited to participants in a
heterosexual relationship.
Another question that our research triggers is whether or not
the levels of relationship satisfaction of these high-fear-of-
intimacy individuals can persist in time. We may wonder
whether high-fear-of-intimacy couples, even if satisfied, are
as able to deal with eventual relationship crises as low-fear-
of-intimacy ones and which is the role of fear–of-intimacy
similarity in these processes.
In a nutshell, our findings demonstrate that in certain cases
men with higher levels of fear of intimacy can after all be sat-
isfied within the romantic relationship. The answer to who can
give them satisfaction seems to reside on a combination
between the individual’s and the partner’s fear of intimacy:
female partners who have high FLS for men with high FLS,
or low FLS levels for men with high FLO. Contrarily,
Sobral et al.
relationship satisfaction of high-FLS men may be harmed by
dissimilar low-FLS female partners, whereas relationship satis-
faction of higher FLO men may be harmed by higher FLS ones.
At a more general level, our findings put forward the need to
consider both members of the dyad when attempting to under-
stand the link between individual dispositions and relationship
outcomes. These findings should make us relativize the dysfunc-
tional label that we might readily put on certain dispositions by
considering the context in which they might manifest
themselves.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study
was supported by a grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science
and Technology, SFRH/BD/60287/2009.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alperin, R. M. (2006). Impediments to intimacy. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 34, 559–572.
Arseth, A. K., Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Bakken, G. (2009). Inti-
macy status, attachment, separation-individuation patterns, and
identity status in female university students. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 26, 697–712.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment per-
spective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7,
147–178.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phe-
nomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
Beyers, W., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2010). Does identity precede inti-
macy? Testing Erikson’s theory on romantic development in emer-
ging adults of the 21st century. Journal of Adolescent Research,
25, 387–415.
Brunell, A. B., Pilkington, C. J., & Webster, G. D. (2007). Perceptions
of risk in intimacy in dating couples: Conversation and relationship
quality. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 92–119.
Cash, T. F., Thériault, J., & Annis, N. M. (2004). Body image in an
interpersonal context: Adult attachment, fear of intimacy, and social
anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 89–103.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working mod-
els, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Consult-
ing Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Descutner, C. S., & Thelen, M. H. (1991). Development and validation
of a fear-of-intimacy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 3, 218–225.
Doi, S. C., & Thelen, M. H. (1993). The fear of intimacy scale: Repli-
cation and extension. Psychological Assessment, 5, 377–383.
Emmons, R. A., & Colby, P. M. (1995). Emotional conflict and well-
being: Relation to perceived availability, daily utilization, and
253
observer reports of social support. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 947–959.
Fletcher, G., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement
of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory fac-
tor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26, 340–354.
Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are sim-
ilar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74, 1401–1420.
Hatfield, E. (1984). The dangers of intimacy. In V. Derlaga (Ed.),
Communication, intimacy and close relationships (pp. 207–220).
New York, NY: Praeger.
Holmes, B. M., & Johnson, K. R. (2009). Adult attachment and
romantic partner preference: A review. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 26, 833–852.
Hook, M. K., Gerstein, L. H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How
close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differ-
ences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 462–472.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic
obtainment, and relationship experiences: The complementarity
of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 24, 517–533.
Phillips, T. M., Wilmoth, J. D., Wall, S. K., Peterson, D. J., Buckley,
R., & Phillips, L. E. (2013). Recollected parental care and fear of
intimacy in emerging adults. The Family Journal: Counseling and
Therapy for Couples and Families, 21, 335–341.
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities,
one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality
of their relationship. Personality Processes and Individual Differ-
ences, 79, 251–259.
Sobral, M. P., & Costa, M. E. (2015). Development of Fear of Inti-
macy Components Questionnaire (FICQ): Embracing a new
dependence component. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment. DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000238
Sobral, M. P., Matos, P. M., & Costa, M. E. (2014, March). The role of
attachment to parental and romantic figures on couples’ fear of
intimacy. Communication presented at the IFTA 2014 World Fam-
ily Therapy Congress. Panama City, Panama.
Strauss, C., Morry, M. M., & Kito, M. (2012). Attachment styles and
relationship quality: Actual, perceived, and ideal partner matching.
Personal Relationships, 19, 14–36.
Swann, W. B. Jr., & Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes:
How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 17, 351–372.
Thelen, M. H., Vander Wal, J. S., Thomas, A. M., & Harmon, R.
(2000). Fear of intimacy among dating couples. Behavior Modifi-
cation, 24, 233–240.
Tran, S., & Simpson, J. A. (2012). Attachment, commitment, and rela-
tionship maintenance: When partners really matter. In L. Camp-
bell, J. G. La Guardia, J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The
science of the couple: The Ontario symposium, ( Vol. 12, pp.
95–117). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Webster, G., Brunell, A., & Pilkington, C. (2009). Individual differ-
ences in men’s and women’s warmth and disclosure differentially
moderate couples’ reciprocity in conversational disclosure. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 46, 292–297.
Copyright of Family Journal is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.