s (1988) interpersonal process model of intimacy suggests that both selfdisclosure and partner responsiveness contribute to the experience of intimacy in interactions. Two studies tested this model using an event-contingent diary methodology in which participants provided information immediately after their social interactions over 1 (Study I ) or 2 (Study 2) weeks. For each interaction, participants reported on their self-disclosures, partner disclosures, perceived partner responsiveness, and degree of intimacy experienced in the interaction. Overall, the findings strongly supported the conceptualization of intimacy as a combination of self-disclosure and partner disclosure at the level of individual interactions with partner responsiveness as a partial mediator in this process. Additionally, in Study 2, self-disclosure of emotion emerged as a more important predictor of intimacy than did self-disclosure of facts and information.Most theorists and researchers agree that intimacy is an essential aspect of many interpersonal relationships (e.g., Bartholomew

The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly altered people's daily lives and created multiple societal challenges. One important challenge of this unique stressor is maintaining well-functioning intimate relationships, which are inextricably tied to emotional and physical health. Yet research on romantic relationships shows that external stressors such as economic hardship, demanding jobs, and disasters can threaten the quality and stability of couples' relationships. Research within relationship science investigating how external stressors and existing vulnerabilities shape couple functioning can inform predictions about how the current pandemic will impact couples' relationships and which couples in which contexts may be most at risk for adverse relationship consequences. Drawing on theory and research from relationship science, the presented conceptual framework, adapted from the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), suggests that facing COVID-19-related external stress is likely to increase harmful dyadic processes (e.g., hostility, withdrawal, less responsive support), which will undermine couples' relationship quality. These harmful effects are likely to be exacerbated by the broader preexisting context in which couples' relationships are situated (e.g., social class, minority status, age), and their individual vulnerabilities (e.g., attachment insecurity, depression). The framework presented identifies the essential factors that need to be addressed in order to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the current crisis on relationships, and offers key directions for future research.

No abstract

The internal working models concept is the foundation for understanding how attachment processes operate in adult relationships, yet many questions exist about the precise nature and structure of working models. To clarify the working models concept, the authors evaluate the empirical evidence relevant to the content, structure, operation, and stability of working models in adult relationships. They also identify 4 theoretical issues that are critical for clarifying the properties of working models. These issues focus on the central role of affect and goals in working models, the degree to which working models are individual difference or relational variables, and the definition of attachment relationships and felt security in adulthood.

Objectives Health psychology has contributed significantly to understanding the link between psychological factors and health and well-being, but it has not often incorporated advances in relationship science into hypothesis generation and study design. We present one example of a theoretical model following from a major relationship theory (attachment theory) that integrates relationship constructs and processes with biopsychosocial processes and health outcomes. Methods We briefly describe attachment theory and present a general framework linking it to dyadic relationship processes (relationship behaviors, mediators and outcomes) and health processes (physiology, affective states, health behavior and health outcomes). We discuss the utility of the model for research in several health domains (e.g., self-regulation of health behavior, pain, chronic disease) and its implications for interventions and future research. Results This framework revealed important gaps in knowledge about relationships and health. Future work in this area will benefit from taking into account individual differences in attachment, adopting a more explicit dyadic approach, examining more integrated models that test for mediating processes, and incorporating a broader range of relationship constructs that have implications for health. Conclusions A theoretical framework for studying health that is based in relationship science can accelerate progress by generating new research directions designed to pinpoint the mechanisms through which close relationships promote or undermine health. Furthermore, this knowledge can be applied to develop more effective interventions to help individuals and their relationship partners with health-related challenges.