This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Parks, M. R. Articles by Floyd, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Meanings for Closeness and Intimacy in Friendship

University of Washington, macp{at}u.washington.edu

Kory Floyd

University of Washington

Closeness and intimacy are fundamental, but poorly defined, concepts in the study of personal relationships. We sought to contribute to a more precise understanding of closeness and intimacy by first examining participants' meanings for closeness in friendships, and then by comparing meanings for closeness with participants' meanings for intimacy. In a self-report survey 270 college students were asked what made their same-sex and cross-sex friendships close and how close-ness was expressed. Thirteen different meanings for close-ness were derived. Individuals assigned an average of three meanings for closeness, with the most common being self-disclosure, support, shared interests and explicit expression of the value of the relationship. Native meanings for closeness differed relatively little across sexes and relational types. Respondents envisioned three possible relationships between closeness and intimacy. Just under half the respondents appeared to view them as equivalent terms, while the remaining respondents emphasized either qualitative or quantitative differences. The chief qualitative difference was that intimacy implied a romantic or sexual dimension to about one quarter of the respondents. Quantitative differences generally took the form of believing that an intimate relationship was a more intense form of a close relationship. Closeness appeared to be a richer, more inclusive term than intimacy. Respondents generated more meanings for it and thought of a greater variety of relationships as close. There were fewer sex differences in meanings for closeness than in meanings for intimacy.

Key Words: closeness • friendship • intimacy • sex differences

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 13, No. 1, 85-107 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0265407596131005


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. M. Smith, T. J. Loving, E. E. Crockett, and L. Campbell What's Closeness Got to Do with It? Men's and Women's Cortisol Responses When Providing and Receiving Support Psychosom Med, October 1, 2009; 71(8): 843 - 851. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Ben-Ari and Y. Lavee Dyadic closeness in marriage: From the inside story to a conceptual model Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, October 1, 2007; 24(5): 627 - 644. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. Lavee and A. Ben-Ari Dyadic distance: From the inside story to a conceptual model Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, October 1, 2007; 24(5): 645 - 655. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. L. Servaty-Seib and B. R. Burleson Bereaved adolescents' evaluations of the helpfulness of support-intended statements: Associations with person centeredness and demographic, personality, and contextual factors Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, April 1, 2007; 24(2): 207 - 223. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. A. Sanderson, K. B. Rahm, and S. A. Beigbeder The link between the pursuit of intimacy goals and satisfaction in close same-sex friendships: An examination of the underlying processes Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, February 1, 2005; 22(1): 75 - 98. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. Hess Distance Regulation in Personal Relationships: The Development of a Conceptual Model and a Test of Representational Validity Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, October 1, 2002; 19(5): 663 - 683. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. T. Reis, K. M. Sheldon, S. L. Gable, J. Roscoe, and R. M. Ryan Daily Well-Being: The Role of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness Pers Soc Psychol Bull, April 1, 2000; 26(4): 419 - 435. [Abstract] [PDF]