Author/Creator ORCID







Citation of Original Publication


Distribution Rights granted to UMBC by the author.
Access limited to the UMBC community. Item may possibly be obtained via Interlibrary Loan thorugh a local library, pending author/copyright holder's permission.
This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.


Intimacy – a sense of closeness between individuals – is a fundamental component of healthy relationships and promotes mental and physical health. Social relationships facilitate emotion-regulation, and relationships characterized by greater intimacy promote better regulation. Theorists agree that intimacy increases when individuals' disclosures of personal thoughts and emotions (i.e., vulnerable disclosures) are met with partners' attentive, understanding, and supportive responses. Intimacy process theories have received some empirical support. However, current theories do not account for qualities of vulnerable disclosures that may alter their function within intimacy processes. The present research expands intimacy process theory by examining two such qualities of vulnerable disclosures: 1) the extent to which the disclosure includes or implicates the partner (i.e., partner-inclusiveness); and 2) the extent to which the disclosure describes specific, rather than general, thoughts and emotions (i.e., specificity). The first aim of the present study proposed that partner-inclusiveness and specificity of vulnerable disclosures would alter intimacy processes. Explicitly, disclosing specific partner-inclusive vulnerability (i.e., disclosures that implicate the partner in feelings of vulnerability; such as sharing pain related to a specific partner infidelity) would result in lower responsiveness and reinforcement and higher punishment. Conversely, specific partner-exclusive disclosures (i.e., disclosures that do not include or implicate the partner; such as sharing a difficult experience from childhood) would elicit higher partner responsiveness and reinforcement and less punishment. The second aim of this research examined emotion regulatory factors that should influence the expanded model. This study proposed that partners who have less adaptive emotion-regulation styles (i.e., insecure attachment or lower mindfulness) should be less responsive and reinforcing and more punishing in responsive to specific partner inclusive disclosures. Data were collected from 82 opposite sex cohabiting couples. Couples completed questionnaire assessments of emotion regulation styles, and then participated in two video recorded vulnerability discussions in the laboratory. Couples were randomly assigned to discuss either partner-inclusive or partner-exclusive vulnerabilities. After each discussion, participants rated how responsive, reinforcing, and punishing their partner was during the discussion. Partner-inclusiveness and specificity of disclosures were coded by trained research assistants. Hypotheses were tested with multilevel modeling. Findings supported the first aim. Results confirmed that individuals perceived lower responsiveness and reinforcement and higher punishment when disclosing specific examples of vulnerability that implicated the partner in causing hurt. Comparatively, when disclosing specific examples of vulnerabilities that were not associated with partners, individuals perceived higher responsiveness, reinforcement, and lower punishment. The second aim was partially supported. Regarding attachment style, women perceived less responsiveness during partner inclusive disclosures when men (their partners) had higher avoidant attachment but not when they had lower avoidance. Additionally, both men and women perceived lower reinforcement during disclosures characterized by more specific examples when their partners had higher avoidant attachment but not when their partners had lower avoidant attachment. Regarding mindfulness, individuals perceived lower responsiveness when disclosing more specific, partner-inclusive vulnerabilities when their partners had lower mindfulness but not when their partners had higher mindfulness. Additionally, individuals perceived lower reinforcement when disclosing more specific vulnerabilities and their partners had lower mindfulness but not when their partners had higher mindfulness. This research expands current intimacy theories by illuminating two qualities of vulnerable disclosures that influence intimacy process outcomes – partner-inclusiveness and specificity. Furthermore, this research suggests that attachment style and mindfulness are important emotion regulation factors to assess and potentially modify in order to promote couple cohesiveness. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.