Defining Intimacy in Romantic Relationships

Moss, Barry F.; Schwebel, Andrew I.

doi:10.2307/584918

Cited by 156 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A basic characteristic of romantic relationships is reciprocity, or equity of exchange (Moss & Schwebel, 1993), which is thought to be lacking in parasocial relationships. Researchers have found that a lack of reciprocity or imbalance in relationships (such that one party is overbenefitted while the other is underbenefitted) is related to dissatisfaction in the relationship (e.g., Sprecher, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parasocial Romance: A Social Exchange Perspective

Adam

Sizemore

2013

IJPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parasocial relationships are one-sided relationships that people hold with media figures. Although it has been previously demonstrated that people often feel strong friendships with people that they have never met, parasocial romantic attachments have not been well-studied. In the current study, we examined reasons why people form parasocial romances from a social exchange perspective by surveying participants on perceived costs and benefits of both real-life and parasocial romantic relationships (PSROMs), and on the strength of their PSROMs. We found that participants who reported stronger PSROMs also reported greater perceived benefits (relative to costs) of PSROMs, and that these benefits are surprisingly similar to those received from real-life relationships (RLRs). The results suggest that parasocial relationships are formed for similar reasons as real-life relationships, but that there are some unique costs associated with PSROMs. This research helps to explain why people form romantic attachments with media characters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parasocial Romance: A Social Exchange Perspective

Adam

Sizemore

2013

IJPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, establishing a clear and specific definition of the concept is rather difficult. Moss and Schwebel [22] identified five key components describing intimacy as a mutual exchange between people, that is characterized by the receipt and expression of affect (e.g. feelings of compassion, validation of a person's worth, providence of assistance), cognitions (e.g.…”

Section: Need For Self-disclosure Intimacy and Relationships To Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling self, intimacy and a sense of home in dementia

Wallace

Thieme

Wood

et al. 2012

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design and digital technologies to support a sense of self and human relationships for people living with dementia are both urgently needed. We present an enquiry into design for dementia facilitated by a public art commission for an adult mental health unit in a hospital in the UK. The interactive art piece was informed by the notion of personhood in dementia that foregrounds the person's social being and interpersonal relationships as sites where self is maintained and constructed. How clients, clients' family members and staff used the piece is reported and insights related to the notions of home, intimacy, possessions and self are presented. The art piece served as window on both dementia and the institution leading to a number of insights and implications for design.

show abstract

“…According to Moss and Schwebel (1993) to continuously thinking about close relationships; internal relationship control refers to close relationships are derived from self-control; relational consciousness refers to perception capacity of in all of the aspects of close relationships; relational motivation refers to desire for close relationships; relationship anxiety refers to concern about sentimental relationship; relationship assertiveness refers to initiative towards close relationships; relationship depression refers to discourage, unhappiness, disappointment, and despair about close relationships; external relational control refers to believe that close relationships are controlled by chance or fate; relationship monitoring refers to considering external evaluation as important; fear of relationship refers to fear of building up a close relationship and relationship satisfaction refers to being happy and feeling joy about close relationship (Büyükşahin, 2005).…”

Section: Romantic Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Early Maladaptive Schemas on Romantic Relationships: A Review Study

Eken¹

2018

pijss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human beings are a social entity, and the relationships have an important role in the lives of people. Beliefs and patterns of behavior in relationships are shaped by early life experiences (Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998;Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Ainsworth and Bowlby (1991) (Messman Moore and Coates (2007), divorce process (Yousefi, Etemadi, Bahrami, Ahmadi & Sadat Fatehi 2010), inclinations of romantic relationship (Cihan Güngör, 2015), marital satisfaction (Kebritchi, & Mohammadkhani, 2016), couple satisfaction and individual mate value (Dumitrescu, & Rusu, 2012

show abstract

Defining Intimacy in Romantic Relationships

Cited by 156 publications

References 42 publications

Parasocial Romance: A Social Exchange Perspective

Parasocial Romance: A Social Exchange Perspective

Enabling self, intimacy and a sense of home in dementia

The Role of Early Maladaptive Schemas on Romantic Relationships: A Review Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About