FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2016110904> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2016110904 endingPage "285" @default.
• W2016110904 startingPage "285" @default.
• W2016110904 abstract "The degree of intimacy experienced in one's marital relationship significantly contributes to a person's physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. This contribution is attested by the growing number of research findings linking the failure to develop an intimate relationship with a partner to a variety of problems, including loneliness (Derlega & Margulis, 1982), marital dissatisfaction (Schaefer & Olson, 1981; Waring, McElrath, Mitchell, & Derry, 1981), physical illness (Reis, Wheeler, Kernis, Spiegel, & Nezlek, 1985), depression (Hickie et al., 1990; Waring & Patton, 1984), psychosomatic illness (Waring, 1983), and sexual abuse (Marshall, 1989). In view of these findings, it is not surprising to see that intimacy is increasingly recognized as a key characteristic of marital relationships, of which the importance is reflected in a large body of literature (for a review, see Van den Broucke, Vandereycken, & Veommen, in press). According to recent conceptualizations, marital intimacy may be regarded either as a process (i.e., a characteristic way of relating of two partners that develops over time), or as a state (i.e., a relatively stable structural quality of a relationship that emerges from this process; Acitelli & Duck, 1987). In the latter sense, it refers to a multidimensional construct, which may include such diverse aspects as reciprocal understanding, affection, self-validation, support, and commitment (Chelune, Robison, & Kommor, 1984; Reis & Shaver, 1988; Sternberg, 1988). Several of these aspects are contained in existing measures of marital intimacy. Examples of such instruments are the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR; Schaefer & Olson, 1981), which provides information about the expected and perceived degree of marital intimacy in five areas (emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, and recreational); the Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (WIQ; Waring & Reddon, 1983), which measures eight components of intimacy (affection, expressiveness, compatibility, cohesion, sexuality, conflict resolution, autonomy, and identity); and the Intimate Bond Measure (IBM; Wilhelm & Parker, 1988), which assesses two dimensions of intimacy (care and control). All of these instruments have been empirically validated and their psychometric properties are well established. An important disadvantage, however, is that they are not based on a theoretical model of marital intimacy. As a result, it is not clear exactly what they measure. Although they all claim to assess marital intimacy, it is obvious that they are not tapping into the same dimensions, which raises concerns about their construct validity. Moreover, in want of a sound theoretical basis, the term intimacy is used in these questionnaires to indicate a heterogeneous mixture of variables, referring to both experiential aspects (e.g., cohesion or sexual fulfillment) and behavioral ones (e.g., expressing thoughts or resolving conflicts), and making no distinction between relational characteristics (e.g., compatibility), individual capabilities (e.g., expressing feelings), or qualities of the relationship between a couple and its social environment (e.g., autonomy towards one's parents). Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, some of the dimensions assessed by the above instruments could be viewed as possible manifestations or outcomes of marital intimacy rather than as actual subdimensions of the construct. Sexuality, for example, has been found to correlate only moderately with marital intimacy (Patton & Waring, 1985). By including this aspect in an operational definition of intimacy, the latter, in fact, becomes a synonym for marital quality in general and does not add any new meaning to it. A THEORETICAL MODEL OF MARITAL INTIMACY A possible way to address the above shortcomings is to integrate theory formulation and test construction into a construct validation approach (Wiggins, 1973). …" @default.
• W2016110904 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2016110904 creator A5047602298 @default.
• W2016110904 creator A5061284905 @default.
• W2016110904 creator A5073205669 @default.
• W2016110904 date "1995-07-01" @default.
• W2016110904 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2016110904 title "Construction and Validation of a Marital Intimacy Questionnaire" @default.
• W2016110904 cites W108821184 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2008302184 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W203381123 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2044951106 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2056622261 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2063208248 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2068898283 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2074643792 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2088786693 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2091903063 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2134388330 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2149666905 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2158053129 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W2799149956 @default.
• W2016110904 cites W3035754763 @default.
• W2016110904 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/585527" @default.
• W2016110904 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W2016110904 type Work @default.
• W2016110904 sameAs 2016110904 @default.
• W2016110904 citedByCount "22" @default.
• W2016110904 countsByYear W20161109042012 @default.
• W2016110904 countsByYear W20161109042013 @default.
• W2016110904 countsByYear W20161109042014 @default.
• W2016110904 countsByYear W20161109042015 @default.
• W2016110904 countsByYear W20161109042016 @default.
• W2016110904 countsByYear W20161109042018 @default.
• W2016110904 countsByYear W20161109042020 @default.
• W2016110904 countsByYear W20161109042022 @default.
• W2016110904 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2016110904 hasAuthorship W2016110904A5047602298 @default.
• W2016110904 hasAuthorship W2016110904A5061284905 @default.
• W2016110904 hasAuthorship W2016110904A5073205669 @default.
• W2016110904 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W2016110904 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2016110904 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W2016110904 hasConceptScore W2016110904C138496976 @default.
• W2016110904 hasConceptScore W2016110904C15744967 @default.
• W2016110904 hasConceptScore W2016110904C70410870 @default.
• W2016110904 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2016110904 hasLocation W20161109041 @default.
• W2016110904 hasOpenAccess W2016110904 @default.
• W2016110904 hasPrimaryLocation W20161109041 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W1968116410 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W2016713905 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W2030000401 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W2052460212 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W2064484569 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W2092756134 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W2150658094 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W2334446790 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W2983282696 @default.
• W2016110904 hasRelatedWork W4241181729 @default.
• W2016110904 hasVolume "44" @default.
• W2016110904 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2016110904 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2016110904 magId "2016110904" @default.
• W2016110904 workType "article" @default.