Examination of The Psychometric Properties of The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships With Individuals in Same-Sex Couple Relationships

Journal of GLBT Family Studies
ISSN: 1550-428X (Print) 1550-4298 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgfs20
Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the

Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships
with Individuals in Same-Sex Couple Relationships
Marie-France Lafontaine, Laura Hum, Nicolas Gabbay & Cathy Dandurand
To cite this article: Marie-France Lafontaine, Laura Hum, Nicolas Gabbay & Cathy Dandurand
(2017): Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in
Relationships with Individuals in Same-Sex Couple Relationships, Journal of GLBT Family Studies,
DOI: 10.1080/1550428X.2017.1326017
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1326017
Published online: 24 May 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wgfs20
Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 30 May 2017, At: 03:05
JOURNAL OF GLBT FAMILY STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1326017
Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Personal

Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships with Individuals in
Same-Sex Couple Relationships
Marie-France Lafontainea, Laura Huma, Nicolas Gabbaya, and Cathy Dandurandb
a
School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; bOttawa Institute of Cognitive
Behavioural Therapy, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
As a concept, romantic intimacy may be examined through Romantic intimacy; same-sex
Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) measure, the Personal Assessment couples; psychometric
of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR), which identified five properties; romantic
dimensions of intimacy: emotional, intellectual, recreational, attachment; relationship
happiness
sexual, and social intimacy. Moore, McCabe, and Stockdale’s
(1998) attempt to replicate this five-factor model was not
successful, and they instead proposed a three-factor model of
intimacy: engagement, communication, and shared friendships.
The objective of the present study was to examine the
psychometric properties of the PAIR with individuals involved in
same-sex couple relationships using these two models. Three
hundred fifty participants completed the PAIR, the Experiences
in Close Relationships, and the brief 4-item version of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale. Confirmatory factor analyses were not able to
replicate both the original five-factor structure and the
proposed three-factor structure of the PAIR. Rather, results
supported the factor structure, reliability, and concurrent validity
of our revised version of Moore et al.’s (1998) three-factor model
of intimacy, which retained the three dimensions after various
modifications (i.e., addition of covariance terms, deletion of an
item, and transference of items) were made. Links were found
between these three dimensions of intimacy and insecure
romantic attachment, as well as relationship happiness.
Introduction
If there is one nontangible, inexplicable necessity beyond a self-preservation strat-
egy seen on a universal platform for social animals such as our own species, it
would be the need to establish a bond, an intimate connection, with another being.
Harlow and Zimmerman’s (1959) study on monkeys is an exemplar of the univer-
sal need for intimacy. We are compelled to yearn for intimacy, especially within
couple relationships, and this is seen for individuals of all sexual orientations. Since
CONTACT Marie-France Lafontaine [email protected] School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136

Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ONK1N 6N5, Canada.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 M.-F. LAFONTAINE ET AL.
recent movements and laws have come to pass, more individuals are willing to
openly self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexualities. Despite this,
most studies on intimacy have only been conducted using samples of individuals
in heterosexual relationships. Moreover, where the psychometric measurement of
intimacy is concerned, studies examining the validity of intimacy questionnaires
when administered to individuals in same-sex relationships remain scarce. This is
particularly concerning because studies (e.g., Leavitt & Willoughby, 2015) have
indicated an association between intimacy and relational outcomes. Without suffi-
cient empirical research and properly validated measures intended for use with
individuals involved in same-sex couple relationships, our understanding of the
intimacy needs of this population remains limited. Thus, the purpose of the pres-
ent study is to examine the psychometric properties of the Personal Assessment of
Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR; Schaefer & Olson, 1981) with individuals
involved in same-sex couple relationships.
Overview of romantic intimacy and its importance

The importance of intimacy is illustrated by its strong association with psychological
(Dempster, McCarthy, & Davies, 2011) and physical (Stadler, Snyder, Horn, Shrout,
& Bolger, 2012) well-being. Moreover, intimacy has been shown to be related to
other constructs often deemed important to couple relationships, such as romantic
attachment (Birnbaum, 2016; see Collins & Feeney, 2004, for a review) and relation-
ship satisfaction (Eldridge & Gilbert, 1990; Hand, Thomas, Buboltz, Deemer, &
Buyanjargal, 2013), both of which have also been shown to be related to general
well-being and life satisfaction (Demirtas & Tezer, 2012; Hinnen, Sanderman, &
Sprangers, 2009). By and large, many studies that have examined the relationship
between intimacy and adult attachment in heterosexual populations have indicated
that both insecure adult general attachment (see Collins & Feeney, 2004, for a
review) and insecure adult romantic attachment (e.g., Dandurand & Lafontaine,
2013; Du Rocher Schudlich, Stettler, Stouder, & Harrington, 2013) were negatively
associated with diverse forms of intimacy. Individuals high in attachment anxiety
and/or attachment avoidance (i.e., two insecure attachment orientations) respond to
intimacy within their relationships in different manners (for reviews, see Collins &
Feeney, 2004, and Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). More specifically, individuals with an
anxious attachment orientation crave intimacy; however, their propensity to use
hyperactivating strategies (e.g., clinging to partner to solicit their support; Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2005) when their attachment system is activated hinders their prospect of
achieving their intimacy needs (Collins & Feeney, 2004). Conversely, although indi-
viduals with an avoidant attachment orientation have intimacy needs (Collins &
Feeney, 2004), these individuals are characteristically uncomfortable with intimacy,
and thus tend to employ deactivating strategies (e.g., attempts to elude intimacy;
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005) when their attachment system is activated (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2012). With regard to the relationship between intimacy and couple
JOURNAL OF GLBT FAMILY STUDIES 3
satisfaction, numerous studies (e.g., Greeff & Malherbe, 2001; Volsky, 1998; Yoo,
Bartle-Haring, Day, & Gangamma, 2014) have supported the general pattern of find-
ings of a positive association between relationship satisfaction and various dimen-
sions of intimacy.
To this day, the most prominent conceptualizations of this construct have
focused and revolved around the basis that intimacy is a sense of a dyadic bond
shared with another individual (Sternberg, 1997). There are two main approaches
in terms of conceptualizing intimacy, with the more recent notion stipulating that
(a) intimacy encompasses multiple dimensions (e.g., Schaefer & Olson, 1981),
which contrasts with the previously dominant notion that (b) intimacy is the prod-
uct of a union and is one-dimensional (e.g., Sternberg, 1997). Many early concep-
tualizations placed emphasis on communication within a romantic relationship
(e.g., the Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire [JSDQ]; Jourard & Lasakow,
1958). Over time, it was recognized that a sole focus on self-disclosure was not a
comprehensive assessment of this construct, and thus efforts were focused on other
known behavioral cues indicative of intimacy during interactions (e.g., degree of
propinquity and frequency of eye contact; Argyle & Dean, 1965). This paved the
way for numerous succeeding conceptualizations to further discern and define dis-
tinctive behavioral aspects with regard to romantic intimacy. It was not uncom-
mon for definitions of romantic intimacy to be associated with physical and sexual
activity (Schaefer & Olson, 1981) as well as corresponding sexual gratification (e.g.,
the Physical Intimacy Questionnaire; Tolstedt & Stokes, 1983).
Although all the elements described above are still regarded as underlying con-
stituents of romantic intimacy, the discounting of multifaceted aspects remains a
strong limitation of one-dimensional conceptualizations. For this reason, a multi-
dimensional approach was adopted in many subsequent constructs of romantic
intimacy. An exemplar of this approach is seen in Olson’s (1975) definitions of
intimacy, in which he described seven specific facets: (a) aesthetic intimacy (i.e.,
the experience of mutual attachment due to shared appreciation); (b) emotional
intimacy (i.e., the mutual experience of profound feelings and ease of self-disclo-
sure); (c) intellectual intimacy (i.e., the experience of dyadic contribution of ideas);
(d) recreational intimacy (i.e., the experience of having mutual interests in hobbies
and other activities); (e) sexual intimacy (i.e., the experience of reciprocating gen-
eral adoration and/or sexual congress); (f) social intimacy (i.e., the experience of
shared friendships); and (g) spiritual intimacy (i.e., the experience of mutual
understanding of life and beliefs; Schaefer & Olson, 1981). After two stages of
development, during which all of the items in the instrument cohered to four psy-
chometric test construction criteria (see Schaefer & Olson, 1981, for details), five
of these seven facets (i.e., emotional, intellectual, recreational, sexual, and social
intimacy) would later be the focus of Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) measure of inti-
macy, the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships. Ultimately, they
described intimacy as an experience and a two-way process that manifests over
time, while specifying that this process requires constant maintenance by both
partners (Schaefer & Olson, 1981).
While some studies examining intimacy (e.g., Frost, 2011a; Frost & Gola, 2015;
Kurdek, 2004) have reported no significant differences between individuals in
same-sex couple relationships and individuals in opposite-sex couple relation-
ships, there have been other studies (e.g., Degges-White & Marszalek, 2007) that
have found differences. More specifically, based on the handful of comparison
studies (e.g., Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008; Kurdek, 2001)
available to date, there is evidence to purport that individuals involved in same-
sex couple relationships experience higher levels of perceived intimacy than indi-
viduals involved in opposite-sex couple relationships (see Rostosky & Riggle,
2017, for a review).
Validation of a measure of intimacy with individuals in a same-sex

couple relationship
At present, the PAIR (Schaefer & Olson, 1981) is often administered to assess an
individual’s perception of romantic intimacy with his or her significant other
(spouse or otherwise), applicable in both clinical and nonclinical settings. More-
over, there have been a number of studies (e.g., Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine,
2005; Manne, Siegel, Kashy, & Heckman, 2014; Moreira & Canavarro, 2013;
Nezhad & Goodarzi, 2011) that have used the PAIR as an evaluation of global inti-
macy within the relationship, and these studies reported great internal consistency,
despite the fact that Schaefer and Olson (1981) explicitly stated that a single total
score bears no value. Since the PAIR is a cost-effective, short-in-length, easy-to-
administer self-report instrument that is capable of assessing multiple dimensions
of intimacy, it makes for an attractive measure of choice when evaluating intimacy.
The PAIR was developed in response to the escalating demand for a more precise
evaluation of intimate relationships. By design, the PAIR provides discernment of
the individual’s perceived experience, as well as the individual’s expectation, of
intimacy within the romantic dyad (Schaefer & Olson, 1981). In order to deter-
mine the extent to which a respondent is adhering to social desirability, Schaefer
and Olson (1981) included a subscale of Conventionality, which was adapted from
Edmond’s Conventionality Scale (Edmonds, 1967).
Overall, the PAIR has proven to be a reliable and valid measure in assessing
romantic intimacy with heterosexual individuals. Specifically, Schaefer and Olson
(1981) reported Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients ranging between .70 and
.77 for all PAIR subscales, and other studies (e.g., Dandurand & Lafontaine,
2013; Du Rocher Schudlich et al., 2013) have reported similar findings. Schaefer
and Olson (1981) reported significant negative correlations with the PAIR’s emo-
tional, intellectual, and recreational subscales when compared to the Family Envi-
ronment Scale’s (FES; Moos & Moos, 1976) control and conflict subscales, and
significant positive correlations with all subscales of the PAIR when compared to
the FES’s cohesion and expressiveness subscales. In addition, Schaefer and Olson
(1981) demonstrated positive correlations between all intimacy subscales and
marital satisfaction. Despite not being officially published, yet mentioned in
Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) article, Hanes and Waring (1979) discovered a statis-
tically significant positive correlation upon comparison of the Waring Intimacy
Questionnaire (WIQ; Waring & Reddon, 1983) and the PAIR when testing for
convergent validity. In spite of the strengths of the PAIR, the construct validity
might be considered slightly disconcerting due to the subpar factor loading crite-
ria and lack of details pertaining to the decision process of selecting the items for
each subscale (Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley, 2003).
While the internal consistency and validity of the PAIR have been well estab-
lished, Moore, McCabe, and Stockdale (1998) were unable to replicate the original
five-factor structure of the PAIR with their nonclinical sample of 157 participants
involved in heterosexual relationships. Instead, their findings indicated a three-fac-
tor solution, which they identified as intimacy dimensions of engagement (i.e.,
experience of mutual connection and similar intimacy desires), communication
(i.e., experience of mutual understanding and ease of self-disclosure), and shared
friendships (i.e., experience of having mutual interests in activities shared with a
similar circle of friends). This model consisted of only 27 items from the PAIR,
with the Conventionality subscale being excluded, and items from the Recreational
Intimacy subscale (i.e., Items 5 and 23) and Sexual Intimacy subscale (i.e., Item 27)
eliminated during their analyses (see Moore et al., 1998, for details). In terms of
content, all 27 items were analogous with the original PAIR items developed by
Schaefer and Olson (1981); however, there were several minor wording differences
with regard to certain items. Although the internal consistency of these three
dimensions ranged from .70 to .96, Moore et al. (1998) were not able to replicate
their three-factor structure with a clinical sample of individuals seeking treatment
for sexual dysfunction. To our knowledge, Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-
factor model has been tested but has yet to be supported via a confirmatory facto-
rial validation (Constant, Vallet, Nandrino, & Christophe, 2016); however, links
have been found between relationship satisfaction and these three dimensions of
intimacy in a later study (i.e., Moore, McCabe, & Brink, 2001). Two recent studies
(Constant et al., 2016; Walker, Hampton, & Robinson, 2014) have examined the
validity of Moore et al.’s (1998) model, but were unable to replicate their three-fac-
tor structure. As a result, with their general sample, Constant et al. (2016) found
that a different three-factor solution, which was essentially an abridged version as
the remaining items were classified under the same dimension names, was more
suitable for their data. They named their model the PAIR-18, and reported alpha
coefficients ranging between .64 and .84 for their revised three dimensions (Con-
stant et al., 2016). Similarly, with their clinical sample, Walker et al. (2014) found
that a different three-factor solution was more appropriate for their data, which,
besides the number of items, differed such that they renamed the communication
dimension to understanding. They named their model the PAIR-23, and reported
alpha coefficients ranging between .69 and .90 for their revised three dimensions
(Walker et al., 2014). Given the discrepancy between the factorial structures of the
PAIR, the present study will assess the psychometric properties of the PAIR using
both Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor model and Schaefer and Olson’s
(1981) original five-factor model with individuals involved in same-sex couple
relationships.
Although there have been measures adapted to assess gay and lesbian couples
that have included a subscale of intimacy (i.e., Kurdek, 1995, 1996), to our knowl-
edge, there is only one measure that solely focuses on romantic intimacy that has
been reworded specifically to assess gay males in same-sex couple relationships.
This measure is adapted from the Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (WIQ; Waring
& Reddon, 1983) to create the Relationship Assessment Measure for Same-Sex
Couples (RAM-SSC; Burgoyne, 2001), which is also intended to assess eight
dimensions of relationship functioning: affection, autonomy, cohesion, compatibil-
ity, conflict resolution, expressiveness, identity, and sexuality (Burgoyne, 2001). It
is, however, important to note Burgoyne’s (2001) study was preliminary, had a
small sample size (N D 64), and the psychometric properties of the RAM-SSC
have yet to be validated. Although the RAM-SSC was tailored to evaluate gay men
involved in same-sex couple relationships, we found the PAIR (Schaefer & Olson,
1981) to be the better measure for our purposes because of its inclusion of multiple,
yet distinct, facets of intimacy that clearly illustrate its overall relevance as a mea-
sure of this construct according to its definitions.
Objective
Given the profound effect a sense of intimacy holds with respect to an individual’s
perception of experiences within a romantic dyad (see Collins & Feeney, 2004)
and the important role of romantic relationships on individual well-being (e.g.,
physical health; August, Kelly, & Markey, 2016), it is crucial to have access to a val-
idated multidimensional intimacy questionnaire for use with individuals involved
in same-sex couple relationships. With little information to aid us in our attempt
to determine which of the two models is more appropriate for our data, the objec-
tive of this study is to examine the psychometric properties of these two models of
intimacy (Moore et al., 1998; Schaefer & Olson, 1981) when administered to a sam-
ple of individuals presently involved in romantic same-sex couple relationships.
More specifically, the factorial structure, reliability, and concurrent validity of the
PAIR will be examined using Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) original five-factor
model. In addition, due to discrepancies with regard to the replicability of the five-
factor structure identified by Schaefer and Olson (1981), we will also examine the
psychometric properties (i.e., factorial structure, reliability, and concurrent valid-
ity) of Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor model with our sample. As the
Conventionality subscale was excluded from the initial factor analysis for both
studies (Moore et al., 1998; Schaefer & Olson, 1981), we also decided not to include
this subscale in our analyses due to our sole interest in the respective five and three
dimensions of intimacy.
Research questions
Factorial structure
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) will be conducted to assess the factorial
structure of the PAIR, in which both a forced five-factor solution (Schaefer &
Olson, 1981) and a forced three-factor solution (Moore et al., 1998) will be
applied to (a) discriminate the items into the original five facets of intimacy
(i.e., Emotional Intimacy, Social Intimacy, Sexual Intimacy, Intellectual Inti-
macy, and Recreational Intimacy) and (b) discriminate the items into the
three dimensions of intimacy (i.e., Engagement, Communication, and Shared
Friendships), respectively. The questions we anticipated to answer in the pres-
ent study were as follows:
RQ1: Will one or both of these two models of intimacy (Moore et al., 1998;
Schaefer & Olson, 1981) be an appropriate representation of a population of indi-
viduals involved in same-sex couple relationships?
RQ2: Which one of these two models (Moore et al., 1998; Schaefer & Olson,
1981) will we be able to better support as a viable measure of intimacy with our
sample of individuals involved in same-sex couple relationships?
Internal consistency
As mentioned earlier, with reported alpha coefficients of at least .70 for all six sub-
scales, which were originally obtained by Schaefer and Olson (1981), the PAIR has
demonstrated adequate reliability. With reported alpha coefficients of .96 for
Engagement, .81 for Communication, and .70 for Shared Friendships, Moore
et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor model has demonstrated adequate to excellent
reliability. Hence, another research question we intended to answer in the present
study was as follows:
RQ3: Will our internal consistency coefficients be more comparable with the
five-factor model (Schaefer & Olson, 1998) or the three-factor model (Moore et al.,
1998) of intimacy?
Concurrent validity
We anticipate establishing concurrent validity with our sample of individuals
involved in same-sex couple relationships. To our knowledge, we are not
aware of any published studies that have specifically examined the link
between romantic attachment and intimacy within same-sex couples. Further-
more, while studies have supported the notion that intimacy is related to cou-
ple satisfaction within romantic same-sex relationships, research linking these
two constructs within a population of same-sex couples is scarce. The
questions we aimed to answer in the present study concerning concurrent

validity were as follows:
RQ4: Will there be negative associations between insecure romantic attachment
(i.e., Attachment Anxiety and Attachment Avoidance), as measured by the Experi-
ences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), and all
dimensions of intimacy described in both the five-factor model (Schaefer & Olson,
1981) and three-factor model (Moore et al., 1998)?
RQ5: Will there be positive associations between Relationship Happiness, as
measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale-4 items (DAS-4; Sabourin, Valois, &
Lussier, 2005), and all dimensions of intimacy described in these two models of
intimacy (Moore et al., 1998; Schaefer & Olson, 1981)?
Method
Participants
Data were collected between 2012 and 2013. The present study comprised 397
individuals presently involved in same-sex couple relationships. However, due to
participant attrition, missing values, and deletion of outliers, a total of 350 partici-
pants were included in the primary statistical analyses. These participants were
recruited according to specific criteria, which were as follows: (a) at least 18 years
of age; (b) involved in a same-sex couple relationship for a minimum of six months
at the time of participation; and (c) had a good understanding of the English lan-
guage. Out of the 350 individuals included in the primary analyses, 224 (64%) par-
ticipants were females and 126 (36%) were males. One hundred seventy-three
(49.4%) of the participants identified as gay or lesbian, 91 (26%) as bisexual, 53
(15.1%) as queer, 30 (8.6%) as pansexual, and three (0.9%) as asexual.
It should be noted that there is an ongoing debate regarding whether or not
individuals who self-identify as bisexual should be collapsed into a binary category
with the gay/lesbian classification or be classified in their own distinct category
(see Carr, 2007, for a review), and it would appear that researchers are leaning
toward the latter (see Carr, 2011, for a review). More recent issues have centered
on the recognition of a term that is inclusive of diverse nonmonosexual/plurisexual
identities (e.g., fluid, queer, pansexual, and pomosexual; Elizabeth, 2013; Galupo,
Davis, Grynkiewicz, & Mitchell, 2014; Galupo, Mitchell, Grynkiewicz, & Davis,
2014), as past research tended to adhere to a monosexual (i.e., gay and lesbian)
and bisexual dichotomy, and the term bisexual does not encompass the entire
spectrum of nonmonosexual identities (see Morgan, 2013, for a review). These
issues are directly related to debates surrounding the complexity of the bisexual
umbrella in research with regard to which sexual identities should be included
under this term (see Flanders, 2017, for a review). In addition, there have been
many questions raised with respect to asexuality in research (Galupo, Davis, et al.,
2014; Hinderliter, 2009; Morgan, 2013). That being said, as the purpose of the
present study is to assess the psychometric properties of the PAIR using two
models (Moore et al., 1998; Schaefer & Olson, 1981) with individuals involved in
same-sex couple relationships, and given that all participants fit eligibility criteria,
we found it appropriate to include all participants involved in same-sex couple
relationships regardless of their reported sexual orientation.
Participants ranged from 18 to 79 years of age, with the mean age being
29.99 years (SD D 10.09). The mean length of current relationship was 4.46 years
(SD D 4.99; range D 0–38 years). The majority of participants were living
together (53.7%) and did not have children (89.4%). Three hundred fourteen
(89.7%) of the participants’ mother-tongue language was English, 20 (5.7%) was
French, and 16 (4.6%) were other. Two hundred fifty-eight (73.7%) of the partici-
pants were Caucasian, 34 (9.7%) were Black, 23 (6.6%) were Asian, 24 (6.9%)
were Latino or Hispanic, two (0.6%) were Pacific Islander, seven (2%) were
Middle Eastern, 34 (9.7%) were Native Canadian, and five (1.4%) were other (i.e.,
biracial, European/Middle Eastern, Native American, and Ukrainian). Fifty-five
(15.7%) participants were either students or unemployed. The annual income, in
Canadian dollars, reported by the rest of the participants were as follows: (a)
nine (2.6%) fell within the range of $0 to $999; (b) 34 (9.7%) fell within the range
of $1K to $9,999; (c) 90 (25.7%) fell within the range of $10K to $35,999; (d) 42
(12%) fell within the range of $36K to $55,999; (e) 42 (12%) fell within the range
of $56K to $75,999; (f) 40 (11.4%) fell within the range of $76K to $95,999; (g)
25 (7.1%) fell within the range of $96K to $115,999; (h) 11 (3.1%) fell within the
range of $116K to $150K; and (i) two (0.6%) participants reported an annual
income greater than $150K. Two hundred fifty-five (72.8%) participants had
completed a college or university program, while 95 (27.1%) had received a high
school diploma.
Procedure
The present study was approved by a Research Ethics Board at a Canadian univer-
sity. Participants were recruited through various active and passive solicitation
techniques. Active solicitation approaches entailed research assistants to be present
at local community events to engage potentially interested individuals and distrib-
ute pamphlets. Passive solicitation approaches entailed online advertisements and
strategic placement of pamphlets and posters. While recruitment efforts were
focused in the Ottawa region, individuals from across Canada and the United
States were allowed to participate in the study, provided they met the three eligibil-
ity criteria. Those who were interested in participating in this study contacted us
either by e-mail or by phone. Only eligible individuals received an e-mail contain-
ing a link to Survey Monkey, which is an encrypted and secure site, where they
were instructed to individually complete the online questionnaires. A standard let-
ter of consent, which guaranteed confidentiality and detailed the purpose as well as
the voluntary nature of the study, was first displayed before participants could
begin the survey. The entire survey required approximately 85 to 120 minutes to
complete. As compensation for participating in the study, all participants received

a check worth 10 Canadian dollars via mail, which was sent to their home address.
Measures
A sociodemographic questionnaire was administered, which included relevant
questions regarding personal information (e.g., age, income, and sex) and relation-
ship-related information (e.g., duration of romantic relationship).
The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR; Schaefer & Olson,
1981) inventory is a 36-item self-report instrument created to gauge five dimen-
sions of intimacy: Emotional Intimacy (e.g., “I often feel distant from my partner”),
Intellectual Intimacy (e.g., “My partner helps me clarify my thoughts”), Recrea-
tional Intimacy (e.g., “We enjoy the same recreational activities”), Sexual Intimacy
(e.g., “I am satisfied with our sex life”), and Social Intimacy (e.g., “We have very
few friends in common”). Each of the intimacy subscales comprised six items,
where responses were based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly dis-
agree) to 4 (strongly agree). Once reverse scoring was applied to applicable items,
scores were then calculated, where the total score for each subscale can range from
0 to 24. Higher scores are indicative of a more profound sense of intimacy. Alpha
coefficients from the current study are presented in the Results section.
Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor model of the PAIR (Schaefer &
Olson, 1981) is intended to measure three dimensions of intimacy: Engagement
(16 items), Communication (8 items), and Shared Friendships (3 items). The items
used in this model correspond to the PAIR items used to assess the five-factor
model of intimacy (Schaefer & Olson, 1981). Responses were based on the same
5-point Likert scale used in Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) model. Once reverse scor-
ing was applied to applicable items, scores were then calculated. The total score
can range from (a) 0 to 64 for Engagement; (b) 0 to 32 for Communication; and
(c) 0 to 12 for Shared Friendships. Higher scores are indicative of a more profound
sense of intimacy. Alpha coefficients from the current study are presented in the
Results section.
It should be noted that there were minor discrepancies in the wording of equiva-
lent items on the original PAIR (Schaefer & Olson, 1981) and the PAIR that was
administered in this study. More specifically, Item 28 (i.e., “My partner frequently
tries to change my ideas”) of the original PAIR was negatively worded whereas our
Item 28 (i.e., “My partner seldom tries to change my ideas”) was positively worded,
and thus was not reverse scored. In addition, Item 35 of the original PAIR (i.e., “I
think that we share some of the same interests”) was positively worded; however,
our Item 35 (i.e., “We share few of the same interests”) was negatively worded, and
thus was reverse scored. Likewise, there were minor discrepancies in the wording
of equivalent items on Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor model and the
PAIR that was administered in this study. More specifically, Item 15 of their pro-
posed model (i.e., “I am unable to tell my partner when I want sexual intercourse”)
was negatively worded; however, our Item 15 (i.e., “I am able to tell my partner
when I want sexual intercourse”) was positively worded, in accordance to Schaefer
and Olson’s (1981) wording of this item, and thus we did not reverse score this
item. See Tables 1 and 2 for a complete list of items that were recoded for each
model.
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale-4 items (DAS-4; Sabourin et al., 2005) was used
to assess relationship happiness. More specifically, due to an inexplicably low inter-
nal consistency (–.14) within the present study, only the item intended to gauge the
degree of happiness in the relationship (i.e., “The descriptions on the following line
represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point,
“happy,” represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please select the
number, which best describes the degree of happiness, all things considered, of
your relationship”) was used. Responses were reported based on a 7-point Likert-
type scale, which ranged from 0 (extremely unhappy) to 6 (perfect). A higher score
is indicative of better relationship happiness. As only the fourth item of the DAS-4
was considered, we are unable to report the reliability in the present study; how-
ever, the DAS-4 has revealed good internal consistency with a standardized alpha
coefficient of .84 (Sabourin et al., 2005). The original Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(DAS; Spanier, 1976) has been validated with same-sex couples (Kurdek, 1992).
The Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire (ECR; Brennan et al.,
1998) is a 36-item self-report instrument intended to measure two dimensions
of romantic attachment: anxiety (e.g., “I worry about being abandoned”) and
avoidance (e.g., “I am nervous when partners get too close to me”). Responses
were reported based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
Table 1. Average mean scores, standard deviations, minimum, and maximum of the respective
PAIR, proposed three-factor model, revised three-factor model, and ECR subscales for males and
females combined.
Subscale Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Five-Factor Model
Emotional Intimacy 2.75 .88 .33 4.00
Social Intimacy 2.32 .74 .00 4.00
Sexual Intimacy 2.74 .85 .50 4.00
Intellectual Intimacy 2.68 .79 .17 4.00
Recreational Intimacy 2.71 .78 1.17 4.00
Three-Factor Model
Engagement 2.53 .81 .50 4.00
Communication 2.89 .82 .50 4.00
Shared Friendships 2.45 .96 .00 4.00
Revised Three-Factor Model
Engagement-R 2.50 .88 .00 4.00
Communication-R 2.96 .88 .38 4.00
Shared Friendships-R 2.45 .96 .00 4.00
Romantic Attachment
Attachment Anxiety 3.71 1.21 1.00 6.67
Attachment Avoidance 2.97 1.09 1.00 5.83
Note. PAIR D Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (Schaefer & Olson, 1981); ECR D Experiences in Close
Relationships (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998).
Table 2. Factor loadings for Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) five-factor model with our sample of 350
individuals involved in same-sex couple relationships.
Factor
PAIR Items Emotional Social Sexual Intellectual Recreational
1. My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to. .722

7. I can state my feelings without him/her getting defensive. .662
13. I often feel distant from my partner. (R) .708
19. My partner can really understand my hurts and joys. .687
25. I feel neglected at times by my partner. (R) .629
31. I sometimes feel lonely when we’re together. (R) .706
2. We enjoy spending time with other couples. .733
8. As a couple, we usually “keep to ourselves.” (R) .153
14. We have few friends in common. (R) .514
20. Having time together with friends is an important part of .669
our shared activities.
26. Many of my partner’s closest friends are also my closest .399
friends.
32. My partner disapproves of some of my friends. (R) .489
3. I am satisfied with the level of affection in our .719
relationship.
9. I feel our level of affection is just routine. (R) .523
15. I am able to tell my partner when I want sexual intimacy. .655
21. Because of my partner’s lack of caring, I “hold back” my .737
sexual interest. (R)
27. Sexual expression is an essential part of our relationship. .549
33. My partner seems disinterested in sex. (R) .615
4. My partner helps me clarify my thoughts and feelings. .741
10. When having a serious discussion, it seems we have little .667
in common. (R)
16. I feel “put-down” in a serious conversation with my .687
partner. (R)
22. I feel it is useless to discuss some things with my partner. .703
(R)
28. My partner seldom tries to change my ideas. .322
34. We have an endless number of things to talk about. .597
5. We enjoy the same recreational activities. .701
11. I share in few of my partner’s interests. (R) .477
17. We like playing and having fun together. .709
23. We enjoy the outdoors together. .553
29. We seldom find time to do fun things together. (R) .563
35. We share few of the same interests. (R) .488
Note. PAIR D Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (Schaefer & Olson, 1981). Items with an (R) were reverse
scored. The Conventionality subscale (Items 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36) was excluded from the CFA.
disagree) to 7 (agree strongly). Higher scores are indicative of higher levels of

attachment anxiety and avoidance. In comparison to other measures of attach-
ment, the two-factor structure of the ECR demonstrated optimal psychometric
properties (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). When validated with a sample
of gay and lesbian individuals in same-sex relationships, the ECR revealed
impressive alpha coefficients of .93 and .90 for anxiety over abandonment and
avoidance of intimacy, respectively, while also retaining its two-factor struc-
ture (Matte, Lemieux, & Lafontaine, 2009). In the present study, the alpha
coefficients are reported to be .90 for Attachment Anxiety and .90 for Attach-
ment Avoidance.
Results
Preliminary analyses
We utilized Amos version 23.0 (Arbuckle, 2014) to conduct confirmatory factor
analyses. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 23.0 was used to con-
duct all other statistical analyses. Preceding the primary analyses, data were scruti-
nized for missing values and outliers. Missing values could be attributed to
participants who did not respond to at least one of the three questionnaires. As a
result, all data pertaining to these participants were eliminated from the primary
analyses. Subsequently, given that there were less than 5% missing values in the
data set, which is the recommended threshold for missing values (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007), we used SPSS to input the missing values via expectation maximiza-
tion. Table 3 presents the mean score, standard deviation, and range for each
Table 3. Factor loadings for Moore, McCabe, and Stockdale’s (1998) proposed three-factor model
with our sample of 350 individuals involved in same-sex couple relationships.
Factor
PAIR Items Engagement Communication Friendship
21. Because of my partner’s lack of caring, I “hold back” my .713

sexual interest. (R)
16. I feel “put-down” in a serious conversation with my partner. .702
(R)
10. When having a serious discussion, it seems we have little in .703
common. (R)
28. My partner seldom tries to change my ideas. .069
22. I feel it is useless to discuss some things with my partner. (R) .742
3. I am satisfied with the level of affection in our relationship. .757
20. Having time together with friends is an important part of .767
our shared activities.
26. Many of my partner’s closest friends are also my closest .454
friends.
Note. PAIR D Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (Schaefer & Olson, 1981). Moore et al.’s (1998) model
did not include PAIR items from the Conventionality subscale, nor Item 27 from the Sexual Intimacy subscale, as well
as Items 5 and 23 from the Recreational Intimacy subscale. In our sample, Items 15 and 28 were not reverse scored,
while Item 35 was reverse scored.
respective dimension from the five-factor model of the PAIR (Schaefer & Olson,
1981) and three-factor model of the PAIR (Moore et al., 1998), as well as the two
ECR dimensions.
Factor structure
In an attempt to replicate the initial five-factor structure of the PAIR, as reported

by the original authors (Schaefer & Olson, 1981), and the proposed three-factor
structure of the PAIR, as presented by Moore et al. (1998), separate confirmatory
factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted with our sample of 350 individuals
involved in same-sex couple relationships. To determine if either model is an
appropriate representation of our data, a nonsignificant chi-square is usually indic-
ative of this (Fischer & Fontaine, 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007); however,
because a CFA is extremely susceptible to assumption violations, as well as sample
size, it was not sufficient to report the chi-square value alone to evaluate the good-
ness of fit (van de Vijver & Leung, 2010). Given that the comparative fit index
(CFI; Bentler, 1990) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA;
Browne & Cudeck, 1993) are the most common fit indices reported (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007), we decided to use the CFI and RMSEA to determine whether the
structure of (a) Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) original five-factor model, which we
will refer to as Model 1, or (b) Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor model,
which we will refer to as Model 2, was more appropriate for our sample popula-
tion. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), a CFI value greater than .95 and a
RMSEA value lower than .06 are both considered indications that the model is a
good fit for the data (as cited in Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Model 1: Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) original five-factor model

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted (see Figure 1). Our findings suggested
that the initial fit of the five-factor model was a poor fit for our data, x2 D 2276.39,
p < .001, CFI D .56, RMSEA D .12.Based on Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) factor-
loading criterion level, only Item 8 failed to achieve a factor loading of at least .20.
Standardized factor loadings for Model 1 are compiled in Table 2.
Model 2: Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor model

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted (see Figure 2). In comparison to Model
1, our findings suggested that the initial fit of the proposed three-factor model was a
better fit for our data, x2 D 1152.97, p < .001, CFI D .79, RMSEA D .086.Only Item
28 failed to achieve a factor loading of at least .20. Standardized factor loadings for
Model 2 are compiled in Table 3. Examination of the modification indices revealed
three pairs of items with significant correlated errors (i.e., Items 15 and 28; 8 and
9; 10 and 11). Albeit these minor modifications (i.e., addition of covariance terms)
were applied to Model 2, the fit indices remained more or less unchanged.
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis path diagram for Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) five-factor model.
Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis path diagram for Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor
model.
Model 3: Our revised three-factor model

As Moore et al.’s (1998) three-factor model was revealed to be a better fit for our
data, we conducted another CFA (see Figure 3), modifying their original pro-
posed structure to create a revised version, which we will refer to as Model 3.
Following the aforementioned minor modifications, the pathway between Item
28 and the Engagement factor was removed. In addition, the pathway between
Item 35 and the Communication factor was removed, as it was moved to the
Engagement factor based on improved fit indices. Likewise, Item 15 was moved
from the Engagement factor to the Communication factor. Lastly, a covariance
term was added between Items 11 and 35. Results indicated that the final fit of
our revised model was a good fit for our data, x2 D 738.78, p < .001, CFI D .88,
RMSEA D .065. With standardized regression weights that ranged from .25 to
.84, all items fulfilled the minimum factor loading criterion level of .20 (Schaefer
& Olson, 1981). Standardized factor loadings for Model 3 are compiled in Table 4.
The mean score, standard deviation, and range for our revised three-factor model
are presented in Table 1.
We conducted independent samples t tests to determine whether there were dif-
ferences between males and females on these factors. Results indicated that scores
on the Engagement-R subscale were significantly lower for males (M D 2.25, SD D
0.92, SE D 0.08) than for females (M D 2.64, SD D 0.83, SE D 0.06), t(348) D
¡4.09, p < .001. However, results indicated that scores on the Communication-R
subscale were not significantly different for males (M D 2.85, SD D 0.85, SE D
0.08) and females (M D 3.01, SD D 0.90, SE D 0.06), t(348) D ¡1.69, p D .09. In
addition, scores on the Shared Friendships-R subscale were not significantly differ-
ent for males (M D 2.37, SD D 0.98, SE D 0.09) and females (M D 2.49, SD D 0.94,
SE D 0.06), t(348) D ¡1.09, p D .28.
Reliability
In order to determine internal consistency, reverse scoring was first applied to all
appropriate PAIR items prior to the calculation of scores for the original five-fac-
tor model (Schaefer & Olson, 1981) and proposed three-factor model (Moore
et al., 1998). With regard to Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) model, the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients were .78 for the Emotional Intimacy subscale, .58 for the Social
Intimacy subscale, .73 for the Sexual Intimacy subscale, .69 for the Intellectual
Intimacy subscale, .65 for the Recreational Intimacy subscale, and .70 for
the Conventionality subscale. With regard to Moore et al.’s (1998) model, the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .89 for Engagement, .83 for Communication,
and .63 for Shared Friendships. Likewise, scores were calculated for our revised
dimensions of Moore et al.’s (1998) three-factor model. The Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients were .90 for Engagement-R, .88 for Communication-R, and .63 for
Shared Friendships-R.
Figure 3. Confirmatory factor analysis path diagram for our revised three-factor model.
Table 4. Factor loadings for our revised three-factor model with our sample of 350 individuals
involved in same-sex couple relationships.
Factor
PAIR Items Engagement Communication Friendship
21. Because of my partner’s lack of caring, I “hold back” my sexual .712

interest. (R)
16. I feel “put-down” in a serious conversation with my partner. (R) .705
10. When having a serious discussion, it seems we have little in .696
common. (R)
22. I feel it is useless to discuss some things with my partner. (R) .742
3. I am satisfied with the level of affection in our relationship. .752
20. Having time together with friends is an important part of our .769
shared activities.
26. Many of my partner’s closest friends are also my closest friends. .447
Note. PAIR D Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (Schaefer & Olson, 1981). Item 28 was excluded from
the CFA. Item 35 was moved from the Communication factor to the Engagement factor. Item 15 was moved from
the Engagement factor to the Communication factor.
Concurrent validity
Concurrent validity was established via calculation of Pearson correlations. Pear-
son correlation was considered to be the appropriate choice of method because our
variables were continuous. In order to assess the extent to which these associations
were considered significant, the magnitudes of effect sizes were examined. The
classification of the effect sizes were based on Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2007) cate-
gorization, where effect sizes between .2 and .3 were deemed to be moderate while
effect sizes greater than .4 were deemed to be large.
Romantic attachment
The concurrent validity of the PAIR was first tested with a measure of romantic
attachment. Our findings revealed that the two insecure romantic attachment
dimensions of the ECR were negatively associated with the five dimensions of
Model 1. Results indicated that there were moderate statistically significant inverse
associations between the following: (a) Attachment Anxiety and Emotional
Intimacy, r(350) D ¡.39, p < .01; (b) Attachment Anxiety and Social Intimacy,
r(350) D ¡.32, p < .01; (c) Attachment Anxiety and Sexual Intimacy, r(350) D
¡.35, p < .01; (d) Attachment Anxiety and Intellectual Intimacy, r(350) D ¡.28,
p < .01; and (e) Attachment Anxiety and Recreational Intimacy, r(350) D ¡.32,
p < .01. A moderate statistically significant inverse association was revealed
between Attachment Avoidance and Social Intimacy, r(350) D ¡.37, p < .01. Large
statistically significant inverse associations were revealed between the following: (a)
Attachment Avoidance and Emotional Intimacy, r(350) D ¡.67, p < .01; (b)
Attachment Avoidance and Sexual Intimacy, r(350) D ¡.61, p < .01; (c) Attach-
ment Avoidance and Intellectual Intimacy, r(350) D ¡.63, p < .01; and (d) Attach-
ment Avoidance and Recreational Intimacy, r(350) D ¡.60, p < .01.
Likewise, the two romantic attachment dimensions of the ECR were negatively
associated with the three dimensions of Model 2. Results indicated that there were
no statistically significant associations between the following: (a) Attachment Anx-
iety and Communication, r(350) D ¡.13, ns; and (b) Attachment Anxiety and
Shared Friendships, r(350) D –.01, ns. A large statistically significant inverse asso-
ciation was revealed between Attachment Anxiety and Engagement, r(350) D
¡.54, p < .01. A moderate statistically significant inverse association was revealed
between Attachment Avoidance and Shared Friendships, r(350) D ¡.22, p < .01.
Large statistically significant inverse associations were revealed between the follow-
ing: (a) Attachment Avoidance and Engagement, r(350) D ¡.62, p < .01; and (b)
Attachment Avoidance and Communication, r(350) D ¡.63, p < .01.
Not surprisingly, the two romantic attachment dimensions of the ECR were
often negatively associated with the three dimensions of Model 3 as well. Results
indicated that there were no statistically significant associations between the fol-
lowing: (a) Attachment Anxiety and Communication-R, r(350) D ¡.08, ns; and
(b) Attachment Anxiety and Shared Friendships-R, r(350) D ¡.01, ns. A large sta-
tistically significant inverse association was revealed between Attachment Anxiety
and Engagement-R, r(350) D ¡.56, p < .01. A moderate statistically significant
inverse association was revealed between Attachment Avoidance and Shared
Friendships-R, r(350) D ¡.22, p < .01. Large statistically significant inverse associ-
ations were revealed between the following: (a) Attachment Avoidance and
Engagement-R, r(350) D ¡.59, p < .01; and (b) Attachment Avoidance and Com-
munication-R, r(350) D ¡.61, p < .01.
Relationship happiness
Furthermore, the concurrent validity of the PAIR was tested with a measure of
relationship happiness. Our findings revealed that the fourth item of the DAS-4
was positively associated with the five dimensions of Model 1. Results indicated
that there was a moderate statistically significant association between Relationship
Happiness and Social Intimacy, r(350) D .33, p < .01. Large statistically significant
associations were revealed between the following: (a) Relationship Happiness and
Emotional Intimacy, r(350) D .54, p < .01; (b) Relationship Happiness and Sexual
Intimacy, r(350) D .48, p < .01; (c) Relationship Happiness and Intellectual Inti-
macy, r(350) D .49, p < .01; and (d) Relationship Happiness and Recreational Inti-
macy, r(350) D .43, p < .01.
Likewise, the fourth item of the DAS-4 was positively associated with the
three dimensions of Model 2. Results indicated that there were moderate sta-
tistically significant associations between the following: (a) Relationship Hap-
piness and Engagement, r(350) D .35, p < .01; and (b) Relationship
Happiness and Shared Friendships, r(350) D .36, p < .01. A large statistically
significant association was revealed between Relationship Happiness and Com-
munication, r(350) D .62, p < .01.
Not surprisingly, the fourth item of the DAS-4 was positively associated with the
three dimensions of Model 3 as well. Results indicated that there were moderate
statistically significant associations between the following: (a) Relationship Happi-
ness and Engagement-R, r(350) D .29, p < .01; and (b) Relationship Happiness
and Shared Friendships-R, r(350) D .36, p < .01. A large statistically significant
association was revealed between Relationship Happiness and Communication-R,
r(350) D .63, p < .01.
Discussion
Romantic intimacy is a special, profound form of intimacy typically experienced
between individuals within a couple relationship. The present study provides a sig-
nificant contribution toward validating the psychometric properties (i.e., factor
structure, reliability, and concurrent validity) of a measure of intimacy with indi-
viduals involved in same-sex couple relationships. Our findings suggested that the
factorial structure of our revised version of Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-
factor model, which underwent a few modifications to improve the fit of the model,
was more suitable for our sample population. Thus, as is, we were unable to cor-
roborate the use of the original five-factor structure of the PAIR (Schaefer & Olson,
1981) as a viable measure of intimacy for individuals involved in same-sex couple
relationships. There are several potential explanations for these results. For
instance, with regard to our sample, and according to Moore et al.’s (1998) find-
ings, the PAIR may have less than five underlying factors of intimacy. In other
words, several factors (e.g., Recreational Intimacy or Social Intimacy) could be
weak individually, and thus could potentially be collapsed into an existing factor
or be constituents of an entirely new factor. Furthermore, there could have been
significant generational/cohort differences since their original study (Schaefer &
Olson, 1981) was conducted more than three decades ago. Nevertheless, our results
were congruent with both Moore et al.’s (1998) and Walker et al.’s (2014) findings,
as both studies were similarly unable to replicate the original five-factor structure
of the PAIR (Schaefer & Olson, 1981).
While our findings supported Moore et al.’s (1998) three-factor model of inti-
macy (i.e., Engagement, Communication, and Shared Friendships), minor
modifications (i.e., addition of covariance terms between Items 15 and 28; 8 and 9;
and 10 and 11) intended to improve the fit of their model (Moore et al., 1998) had
little impact, and thus it was evident that further changes had to be applied. Under
careful inspection, we found Item 28 (i.e., “My partner seldom tries to change my
ideas”) to be particularly problematic as it revealed a significantly low factor load-
ing (standardized regression weight of 0.06). In retrospect, this might be because
the parallel item in the original PAIR (Schaefer & Olson, 1981) was negatively
worded (i.e., “My partner frequently tries to change my ideas”). Moreover, the
wording of this item, whether positive or negative, could potentially make it diffi-
cult to interpret if this item should be reverse scored or not, as the word seldom
could arguably be an indicator of a lack of intimacy (e.g., individual does not care
enough to bother trying to alter the ignorant ideas of his or her stubborn partner).
Regardless, as this item was hindering the potential of this model, we determined
it would be best to remove Item 28. In addition, we found a weak association
between Item 35 (i.e., “We share few of the same interests”) and the dimension of
Communication. This weak association is likely due to the fact that this item is
about a difference in personal preference rather than an issue regarding the ability
to communicate one’s interests to one’s partner. We concluded this item was more
appropriate in the dimension of Engagement, and thus Item 35 was transferred to
the Engagement dimension. Similarly, Item 15 (i.e., “I am able to tell my partner
when I want sexual intimacy”) was weakly associated with the dimension of
Engagement. Given that this item is about verbal expression of internal desire
rather than engaging in sexually intimate acts, we deemed Item 15 was better
suited in the dimension of Communication. Lastly, the final modification made
was the addition of a covariance term between Items 11 and 35 in order to improve
the overall fit. This resulting revised three-factor model (i.e., Engagement-R, Com-
munication-R, and Shared Friendships-R), which comprised 26 out of the 27 PAIR
items used in Moore et al.’s (1998) model, was considered a good fit for our data.
In addition, the internal consistency of the three dimensions of intimacy speci-
fied in our revised model was considered fairly adequate. With regard to potential
gender differences, we found that males reported significantly lower levels of
Engagement-R than females; however, males did not differ significantly on both
Communication-R and Shared Friendships-R when compared to females. These
results partially contrast Moore et al.’s (1998) findings, as they found no differen-
ces between males and females on all three of their dimensions (i.e., Engagement,
Communication, and Shared Friendships) with their sample of heterosexual indi-
viduals; however, there have been comparison studies that have found that same-
sex partnered individuals experienced higher levels of perceived intimacy than
different-sex partnered individuals (see Rostosky & Riggle, 2017, for a review),
and thus there may be potential differences between these two populations. Our
findings are in line with the findings that women in same-sex couple relation-
ships typically report greater levels of intimacy when compared to men in same-
sex couple relationships (Mackey, Diemer, & O’Brien, 2000; see Rostosky &
Riggle, 2017, for a review). Furthermore, Umberson, Thomeer, and Lodge (2015)
found that in comparison to same-sex partnered males, same-sex partnered
females appeared to place a greater emphasis on the importance of minimizing
boundaries with their partner to maintain intimacy. Same-sex partnered females
reported engaging in more efforts to develop their emotional connection in order
to connect sex with emotional intimacy. This could explain the significant differ-
ence found between males and females on the Engagement-R dimension.
In brief, although Moore et al.’s model (1998) was a better fit for our data,
akin to two recent studies (i.e., Constant et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2014), we
were unable to replicate their exact three-factor structure, and thus we imple-
mented modifications to improve the fit of the three-factor structure. Since our
revised three-factor model is of focal interest, as it was found to be the most
suitable fit for our sample population, we will be using this model to interpret
our results to establish concurrent validity. As mentioned earlier, studies (e.g.,
Du Rocher Schudlich et al., 2013) have indicated a negative association between
insecure romantic attachment and multiple facets of intimacy. In line with
those findings, we found that individuals involved in same-sex couple relation-
ships with greater levels of attachment anxiety were less engaged with their
partners. The literature suggests that anxiously attached individuals desperately
vie for proximity, support, and love from their partners (Collins & Feeney,
2004; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). However, as these individuals are prone to
utilizing hyperactivating strategies (e.g., excessive attempts to garner their
partner’s support), this could induce a series of problematic reactions (e.g., self-
doubts and distorted thinking) that are projected onto their partner and/or lead
to the internalization of these negative emotions (see Mikulincer & Shaver,
2005, for a review). Furthermore, there are additional unique stressors that sex-
ual-minority individuals may experience at an individual level and couple level
(for reviews, see Frost, 2011b, LeBlanc, Frost, & Wight, 2015, and 2003) that
could underscore their insecurities, as same-sex partnered individuals have
documented more instances of stigma-related content in their relationship sto-
ries when compared to those of different-sex partnered individuals (Frost &
Gola, 2015), which could lead to more circumstances that could trigger the
attachment system. As such, the inclination for anxious individuals to yearn for
the engagement of intimate behaviors/acts with their partners might be negated
not only by their maladaptive sense of self-worth and insecurities (Collins &
Feeney, 2004), but also by the consequences of poignant minority stressors
(e.g., marginalization and the corresponding internalization of homophobia;
Meyer, 2003), which could further intensify and confirm their negative views of
self, doubts, and self-loathing. As a result, these feelings of worthlessness and
indecisive beliefs could potentially dissuade them from engaging with their
partner. Moreover, the use of these hyperactivating strategies could be counter-
productive, as they may cause their partner to want to create distance between
them, which would result in overall lower levels of engagement. Furthermore,
anxiously attached individuals have been shown to lack the interpersonal skills
that would facilitate genuine engagement with their partners (Collins & Feeney,
2004).
Surprisingly, there were no significant correlations found between Attachment
Anxiety and both Communication-R and Shared Friendships-R in our sample of
individuals involved in same-sex couple relationships. Our findings are inconsis-
tent with existing literature on attachment, which outline that individuals report-
ing high attachment anxiety tend to have difficulties attaining a supportive
network of friends due to lack of interpersonal skills (see Collins & Feeney, 2004,
for a review). Moreover, while anxiously attached individuals are often willing to
self-disclose (Collins & Feeney, 2004), their tendency to use hyperactivating strate-
gies could pose a barrier to effective communication. In addition, it is possible that
the concept of both communication and friendships are bidirectional such that the
attachment orientation of the partner could influence the anxiously attached indi-
vidual’s perception. Ergo, a third (e.g., mediator or moderator) variable may be in
play, which could explain the insignificant links found between Attachment Anxi-
ety and those of Communication-R and Shared Relationships-R with our sample
of same-sex partnered individuals. For example, given the various potential sources
of stressors (e.g., discrimination, fear of rejection, internalized homophobia, and
stigmatization; Frost, 2011c; LeBlanc et al., 2015; Meyer, 2003; Otis, Rostosky, Rig-
gle, & Hamrin, 2006; Rostosky, Riggle, Gray, & Hatton, 2007) that sexual-minority
individuals might endure, perhaps sexual-minority stressors might be a confound-
ing variable. It is also plausible that rather than an indication of intimacy, the items
of the Communication-R dimension may reflect the degree to which partners are
comfortable with mutually disclosing their general life experiences, as same-sex
partners would likely be familiar with, and be able to empathize with, the chal-
lenges associated with being a part of a sexual minority. This may empower them
to voice their thoughts on stigma- and minority stress-related matters to their part-
ner, thus avoiding the activation of their attachment system, allowing them to
focus on aspects of themselves that they feel safe enough to divulge, which might
not only satisfy their need for intimate communication, but bias (i.e., overestimate)
their communication skills. It is, however, important to remember that the roman-
tic attachment system functions in the same manner for all individuals regardless
of sexual orientation (see Mohr & Jackson, 2016, for a review), and thus even if the
triggers that could lead to the activation of the attachment system may differ
depending on an anxiously attached individual’s sexual orientation, the point
remains that such differences do not indicate a difference in the mechanism behind
romantic attachment. Overall, it is clear that further research is required to explore
this unexpected insignificant result.
As mentioned earlier, individuals who scored higher on our assessment of
Attachment Avoidance reported lower levels of Engagement-R, Communica-
tion-R, and Shared Friendships-R. Our findings are consistent with existing lit-
erature on attachment theory, as avoidantly attached individuals tend to
express discomfort with intimacy, as well as have poor communication and

interpersonal skills (see Collins & Feeney, 2004, for a review). Compared to
their anxious counterparts, avoidantly attached individuals are prone to utiliz-
ing deactivating strategies (e.g., refusal to acknowledge their attachment needs),
which act as a sort of suppressant of conflicting emotional states (see Miku-
lincer & Shaver, 2005, for a review). As such, this is consistent with research
demonstrating that these individuals may stray from engaging and communi-
cating with their partners because they prefer to avoid intimate interactions,
and thus report lower levels of intimacy (Collins & Feeney, 2004; Tidwell, Reis,
& Shaver, 1996). Again, as mentioned earlier, the attachment system functions
uniformly across sexual orientation, and there may be stressors unique to
same-sex partnered individuals of all attachment orientations that could lead
to the activation of the attachment system, especially for those high in attach-
ment avoidance due to possible susceptibility to fear of accepting one’s sexual-
minority identity (Mohr & Fassinger, 2003; see Mohr & Jackson, 2016, for a
review). For instance, there is the potential that one or both partners are not
ready to come out (i.e., reveal their sexual orientation and relationship with a
partner of the same sex) to their friends, which may make it difficult for these
individuals to enjoy certain activities as a couple at social gatherings or with
other couples, especially if they feel there will be negative consequences (e.g.,
judgment and ostracization) brought on by the reveal of their relationship.
This fear or reluctance to disclose one’s same-sex couple relationship to others
(see Connolly, 2004, for a review) and express affection with one’s partner in
public due to possible negative repercussions could lead to detrimental rela-
tional outcomes (e.g., overall lower levels of affection; Gaines & Henderson,
2004) over time, especially if one has an avoidant attachment orientation
because these individuals try to avoid intimacy when distressed (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2005). In other words, the concealment of their relationship in public
(Meyer, 2003) and the weight of other sexual-minority stressors might instigate
a snowball effect, whereby the inability to express intimacy in all aspects of
their lives could deeply affect the couple’s relationship to the point where one
or both partners may eventually feel the void, resulting in reports of overall
lower levels of intimacy. In addition, since avoidant individuals have poor rela-
tional skills (Collins & Feeney, 2004), this could potentially hinder their pros-
pect of forming and maintaining friendships with others, in which it would
seem difficult for these individuals to not only share a similar circle of friends
with their partner, but also consider them as a preferred source of social inter-
action, especially when there are easily accessible alternative methods of inter-
acting with other like-minded people (e.g., online forums and social media
platforms) without the dread associated with physical face-to-face interactions.
Ultimately, these findings appear to indicate that if a partner has an insecure
romantic attachment orientation, this could potentially result in overall lower
levels of experienced and perceived intimacy due in part to their tendency to
use secondary attachment strategies when their attachment system is activated

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005).
Aligned with findings reported by other studies, we found that individuals who
scored higher on our assessment of Relationship Happiness indicated higher levels
of Engagement-R, Communication-R, and Shared Friendships-R. Given that these
factors are essentially composed of PAIR items, our results are congruent with
Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) findings, where all five original dimensions of inti-
macy were positively correlated with marital satisfaction. Moreover, studies (e.g.,
Manne et al., 2015; Schultz-Saindon, 2013; Yoo et al., 2014) have found that the
perception of intimacy is associated with relationship satisfaction. In addition, inti-
mate communication has been found to be an important contributor to the longev-
ity of same-sex couple relationships (Riggle, Rothblum, Rostosky, Clark, & Balsam,
2016) and relationship satisfaction (Mackey, Diemer, & O’Brien, 2004). All in all,
these findings seem to suggest that individuals who feel that their significant other
understands, and is in tune with, their intimacy needs are more likely to be satis-
fied with their current relationship.
Limitations and future directions

Despite important and innovative findings, some methodological limitations
should be taken into account and addressed in future studies. First, although a
number of diverse methods of recruitment were utilized and our final sample con-
sisted of individuals ranging widely in age as well as in the duration of their current
relationship, it would be presumptuous to assume our final sample was generaliz-
able to the entire population of individuals involved in same-sex couple relation-
ships in Canada and the United States. In fact, the majority of participants in our
final sample were female, Caucasian, did not have children, and highly educated.
Given the controversies mentioned earlier regarding the extent to which nonmo-
nosexual identities (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, queer, and fluid) should be encom-
passed under the bisexual umbrella in research (see Flanders, 2017, for a review), it
might be wise for future studies to attain larger, more diverse samples to explore
whether there are differences in the experiences of intimacy among sexual-minor-
ity populations, as sexual-minority individuals have often been erroneously judged
to be a homogenous group despite research proving otherwise (Mathy, Lehmann,
& Kerr, 2004), and to take one’s sex/gender into consideration. Furthermore, inti-
macy is universally experienced by individuals of all sexual orientations, so even if
the factorial structure of a measure tested with a population of same-sex partnered
individuals is found to be the same as a population of different-sex partnered indi-
viduals, the means of a measure’s subscales might be significantly different accord-
ing to sexual orientation. As we have only just begun to examine the concurrent
validity of our revised three-factor model, it might be advantageous for future stud-
ies to experiment with the original DAS (Spanier, 1976) since it has been validated
with same-sex couples (Kurdek, 1992), as the poor internal consistency of the
DAS-4 (Sabourin et al., 2005) in the present study appears to be an anomaly, or

with a different measure of relationship satisfaction (e.g., Gay and Lesbian Rela-
tionship Satisfaction Scale [GLRSS]; Belous & Wampler, 2016) altogether. It would
also be beneficial to explore other constructs that are closely related to intimacy,
such as dyadic trust (see Rostosky & Riggle, 2017, for a review). In addition, given
the breadth of modern technology, there are a multitude of questions that could
not have even been conceived during the time the PAIR (Schaefer & Olson, 1981)
was created, which could shine a light on the intimacy experiences of individuals
of different sexual orientations in the twenty-first century. Thus, it would be sensi-
ble to modernize the items of the measure (e.g., include items concerning the use
of communication technologies in relation to interactions with one’s partner) in
order to ensure that potentially relevant questions pertaining to intimacy in this
era are put forth. As mentioned earlier, some comparison studies (e.g., Balsam
et al., 2008) have highlighted a potential difference between same-sex couples and
different-sex couples in terms of their perceptions of intimacy, and thus there
might be several factors relevant to same-sex couples that have not been addressed
in the measure since the PAIR was initially created to assess different-sex couples.
Conclusion
In order to better understand the experiences of intimacy within same-sex
couple relationships, it is essential that reliable and valid measures of romantic
intimacy be readily available to assess members of this population. Although
the findings presented in this preliminary study suggested it was not appropri-
ate to use the original five-factor model of the PAIR (Schaefer & Olson, 1981)
with individuals involved in same-sex couple relationships, it remains to be
determined if their model could be validated in future studies with this popu-
lation. Our results indicated that the three dimensions from Moore et al.’s
(1998) proposed model, which comprised 27 out of the 36 original PAIR
items, were more appropriate for our sample population. Therefore, after
slight modifications to these three dimensions of intimacy (i.e., Engagement-R,
Communication-R, and Shared Friendships-R) to better fit our data, this
newly revised three-factor model, which comprised 26 out of 27 PAIR items,
appeared to be a valid measure of intimacy for our sample. Ultimately, it
would be worthwhile to further examine the psychometric properties of our
revised three-factor model (i.e., Engagement-R, Communication-R, and Shared
Friendships-R) with a different sample of same-sex partnered individuals.
While our revised three-factor model requires further exploration and valida-
tion, we believe this instrument has the potential to provide researchers with
helpful insight on the experiences of individuals involved in same-sex couple
relationships. Given the diversity of relationships and the ways intimacy can
be experienced, it is important that researchers continue to conduct studies
that are more inclusive of diverse groups (e.g., sexual-minority individuals,
persons of color, and marginalized relationships) and remain conscientious of

minority stressors that marginalized individuals experience throughout their
lives and relationships when interpreting results.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos (Version 23.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304.
doi:10.2307/2786027
August, K. J., Kelly, C. S., & Markey, C. N. (2016). Marriage, romantic relationships, and health.
In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 46–52). Wal-
tham, MA: Academic Press.
Balsam, K. F., Beauchaine, T. P., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Three-year follow-
up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil
unions, and heterosexual married couples. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 102–116.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.102
Belous, C. K., & Wampler, R. S. (2016). Development of the Gay and Lesbian Relationship Satis-
faction Scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42(3), 451–465. doi:10.1111/jmft.12158
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107
(2), 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Birnbaum, G. E. (2016). Attachment and sexual mating: The joint operation of separate
motivational systems. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 464–483). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attach-
ment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),Attachment theory
and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &
J. S. Long. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Burgoyne, R. W. (2001). The Relationship Assessment Measure for Same-Sex Couples (RAM-
SSC): A standardized instrument for evaluating gay couple functioning. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, 27(3), 279–287. doi:10.1080/009262301750257137
Carr, C. L. (2007). Bisexuality as a category in social research: Lessons from women’s gendered
narratives. Journal of Bisexuality, 6(4), 27–46. doi:10.1300/J159v06n04_03
Carr, C. L. (2011). Women’s bisexuality as a category in social research, revisited. Journal of
Bisexuality, 11(4), 550–559. doi:10.1080/15299716.2011.620868
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). An attachment theory perspective on closeness and inti-
macy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 163–187).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Connolly, C. M. (2004). Clinical issues with same-sex couples: A review of the literature. Journal
of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 3(2–3), 3–12. doi:10.1300/J398v03n02_02
Constant, E., Vallet, F., Nandrino, J.-L., & Christophe, V. (2016). Personal assessment of inti-
macy in relationships: Validity and measurement invariance across gender. Revue Euro-
peenne de Psychologie Appliquee[European Review of Applied Psychology], 66(3), 109–116.
doi:10.1016/j.erap.2016.04.008
Dandurand, C., & Lafontaine, M.-F. (2013). Intimacy and couple satisfaction: The moderating
role of romantic attachment. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 5(1), 74–90.
doi:10.5539/ijps.v5n1p74
Degges-White, S., & Marszalek, J. (2007). An exploration of long-term, same-sex relationships:

Benchmarks, perceptions, and challenges. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(4), 99–
119. doi:10.1300/J462v01n04_07
Demirtas, S. C., & Tezer, E. (2012). Romantic relationship satisfaction, commitment to career
choices and subjective well-being. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2542–2549.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.519
Dempster, M., McCarthy, T., & Davies, M. (2011). Psychological adjustment to Type 2
diabetes and relationship quality. Diabetic Medicine, 28(4), 487–492.doi:10.1111/
j.14645491.2010.03214.x
Du Rocher Schudlich, T. D., Stettler, N. M., Stouder, K. A., & Harrington, C. (2013). Adult
romantic attachment and couple conflict behaviors: Intimacy as a multi-dimensional media-
tor. Interpersona, 7(1), 26–43. doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.107
Edmonds, V. H. (1967). Marital conventionalization: Definition and measurement. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 29(4), 681–688. doi:10.2307/349220
Eldridge, N. S., & Gilbert, L. A. (1990). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in lesbian couples.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14(1), 43–62.doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00004.x
Elizabeth, A. (2013). Challenging the binary: Sexual identity that is not duality. Journal of Bisex-
uality, 13(3), 329–337. doi:10.1080/15299716.2013.813421
Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2010). Methods for investigating structural equivalence. In D.
Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp.
179–215). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Flanders, C. E. (Ed.). (2017). Under the bisexual umbrella: Diversity of identity and experience
[Special issue]. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(1), 1–6. doi:10.1080/15299716.2017.1297145
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-
report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2),
350–365. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.350
Frost, D. M. (2011a). Similarities and differences in the pursuit of intimacy among sexual
minority and heterosexual individuals: A personal projects analysis. Journal of Social Issues,
67(2), 282–301. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01698.x
Frost, D. M. (2011b). Social stigma and its consequences for the socially stigmatized. Social &
Personality Psychology Compass, 5(11), 824–839. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00394.x
Frost, D. M. (2011c). Stigma and intimacy in same-sex relationships: A narrative approach.
Journal of Family Psychology, 25(1), 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0022374
Frost, D. M., & Gola, K. A. (2015). Meanings of intimacy: A comparison of members of hetero-
sexual and same-sex couples. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 15(1), 382–
400. doi:10.1111/asap.12072
Gaines, S. O., & Henderson, M. C. (2004). On the limits of generalizability: Applying resource
exchange theory to gay relationship processes. Journal of Homosexuality, 48(1), 79–102.
doi:10.1300/J082v48n01_04
Galupo, M. P., Davis, K. S., Grynkiewicz, A. L., & Mitchell, R. C. (2014). Conceptualization of
sexual orientation identity among sexual minorities: Patterns across sexual and gender iden-
tity. Journal of Bisexuality, 14(3–4), 433–456. doi:10.1080/15299716.2014.933466
Galupo, M. P., Mitchell, R. C., Grynkiewicz, A. L., & Davis, K. S. (2014). Sexual minority reflec-
tions on the Kinsey Scale and the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid: Conceptualization and
measurement. Journal of Bisexuality, 14(3–4), 404–432. doi:10.1080/15299716.2014.929553
Greeff, A. P., & Malherbe, H. L. (2001). Intimacy and marital satisfaction in spouses. Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy, 27(3), 247–257. doi:10.1080/009262301750257100
Hand, M. M., Thomas, D., Buboltz, W. C., Deemer, E. D., & Buyanjargal, M. (2013). Facebook
and romantic relationships: Intimacy and couple satisfaction associated with online social
network use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 8–13. doi:10.1089/
cyber.2012.0038
Hanes, J., & Waring, E. M. (1979). Marital intimacy and nonpsychotic emotional illness. Unpub-
lished manuscript, School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Harlow, H. F., & Zimmerman, R. R. (1959). Affectional responses in the infant monkey. Science,
130(3373), 421–432. doi:10.1126/science.130.3373.421
Hinderliter, A. C. (2009). Methodological issues for studying asexuality. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 38(5), 619–621. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9502-x
Hinnen, C., Sanderman, R., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2009). Adult attachment as mediator
between recollections of childhood and satisfaction with life. Clinical Psychology & Psycho-
therapy, 16(1), 10–21. doi:10.1002/cpp.600
Hook, M. K., Gerstein, L. H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring
intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(4),
462–472. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00273.x
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisci-
plinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. The Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 56(1), 91–98. doi:10.1037/h0043357
Kurdek, L. A. (1992). Dimensionality of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Evidence from heterosexual
and homosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 22–35. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.6.1.22
Kurdek, L. A. (1995). Developmental changes in relationship quality in gay and lesbian cohabi-
tating couples. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 86–94.
Kurdek, L. A. (1996). Deterioration of relationship quality for gay and lesbian cohabitating cou-
ples: A five-year prospective longitudinal study. Personal Relationships, 3(4), 417–442.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00125.x
Kurdek, L. A. (2001). Differences between heterosexual-nonparent couples and gay, lesbian, and
heterosexual-parent couples. Journal of Family Issues, 22(6), 727–754. doi:10.1177/
019251301022006004
Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabitating couples really different from heterosex-
ual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 880–900. doi:10.1111/j.0022-
2445.2004.00060.x
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of inti-
macy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 19(2), 314–323. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314
Leavitt, C. E., & Willoughby, B. J. (2015). Associations between attempts at physical intimacy
and relational outcomes among cohabiting and married couples. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 32(2), 241–262. doi:10.1177/0265407514529067
LeBlanc, A. J., Frost, D. M., & Wight, R. G. (2015). Minority stress and stress proliferation
among same-sex and other marginalized couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1),
40–59. doi:10.1111/jomf.12160
Mackey, R. A., Diemer, M. A., & O’Brien, B. A. (2000). Psychological intimacy in the lasting
relationships of heterosexual and same-gender couples. Sex Roles, 43(3–4), 201–227.
doi:10.1023/A:1007028930658
Mackey, R. A., Diemer, M. A., & O’Brien, B. A. (2004). Relational factors in understanding satis-
faction in the lasting relationships of same-sex and heterosexual couples. Journal of Homo-
sexuality, 47(1), 111–136. doi:10.1300/J082v47n01_07
Manne, S. L., Kissane, D., Zaider, T., Kashy, D., Lee, D., Heckman, C., & Virtue, S. M. (2015).
Holding back, intimacy, and psychological and relationship outcomes among couples coping
with prostate cancer. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(5), 708–719. doi:10.1037/fam0000096
Manne, S. L., Siegel, S., Kashy, D., & Heckman, C. J. (2014). Cancer-specific relationship awareness,
relationship communication, and intimacy among couples coping with early-stage breast cancer.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(3), 314–334. doi:10.1177/0265407513494950
Mathy, R. M., Lehmann, B. A., & Kerr, D. L. (2004). Bisexual and transgender identities in a
nonclinical sample of North Americans: Suicidal intent, behavioral difficulties, and mental
health treatment. Journal of Bisexuality, 3(3–4), 93–109. doi:10.1300/J159v03n03_07
Matte, M., Lemieux, A., & Lafontaine, M.-F. (2009). Brief report: Factor structure of the Experi-
ences in Close Relationships with gay and lesbian individuals. North American Journal of
Psychology, 11(2), 361–368.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual pop-
ulations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships:
Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Per-
sonal Relationships, 12(2), 149–168. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108.x
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). An attachment perspective on psychopathology. World
Psychiatry, 11(1), 11–15. doi:10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.003
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Self-acceptance and self-disclosure of sexual orientation in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: An attachment perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 50(4), 482–495. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.482
Mohr, J. J., & Jackson, S. D. (2016). Same-sex romantic attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 484–
506). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Moore, K. A., McCabe, M. P., & Brink, R. B. (2001). Are married couples happier in their rela-
tionships than cohabiting couples? Intimacy and relationship factors. Sexual and Relation-
ship Therapy, 16(1), 35–46. doi:10.1080/14681990020021548
Moore, K. A., McCabe, M. P., & Stockdale, J. E. (1998). Factor analysis of the Personal Assess-
ment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale (PAIR): Engagement, communication, and shared
friendships. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13(4), 361–368. doi:10.1080/02674659808404254
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typology of family social environments. Family Process, 15
(4), 357–371. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1976.00357.x
Moreira, H., & Canavarro, M. C. (2013). Psychosocial adjustment and marital intimacy among
partners of patients with breast cancer: A comparison study with partners of healthy women.
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 31(3), 282–304. doi:10.1080/07347332.2013.778934
Morgan, E. M. (2013). Contemporary issues in sexual orientation and identity development in
emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 52–66. doi:10.1177/2167696812469187
Nezhad, M. Z., & Goodarzi, A. M. (2011). Sexuality, intimacy, and marital satisfaction in Iranian
first-time parents. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37(2), 77–88. doi:10.1080/
0092623X.2011.547336
Olson, D. H. (1975). Intimacy and the aging family. Realities of aging. Unpublished manuscript.
College of Home Economics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and relationship quality
in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 81–99. doi:10.1177/
0265407506060179
Riggle, E. D. B., Rothblum, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., Clark, J. B., & Balsam, K. F. (2016). “The secret
of our success”: Long-term same-sex couples’ perceptions of their relationship longevity.
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12(4), 319–334. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2015.1095668
Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2017). Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A review and
synthesis of the empirical literature (2000–2016). Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gen-
der Diversity, 4(1), 1–13. doi:10.1037/sgd0000216
Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Gray, B. E., & Hatton, R. L. (2007). Minority stress experiences
in committed same-sex couple relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
38(4), 392–400. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.4.392
Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a brief version of
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychological
Assessment, 17(1), 15–27. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.15
Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR Inventory. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 7(1), 47–60. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x
Schultz-Saindon, K. L. (2013). Perceived similarity of desired intimacy in same-sex couples (Doc-
toral dissertation). Retrieved from https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/handle/
10217/80175/SchultzSaindon_colostate_0053A_11772.pdf?sequenceD1
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28. doi:10.2307/
350547
Stadler, G., Snyder, K. A., Horn, A. B., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. P. (2012). Close relationships
and health in daily life: A review and empirical data on intimacy and somatic symptoms.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(4), 398–409. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31825473b8
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 27(3), 313–335. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199705)27:3<313::AID-
EJSP824>3.0.CO;2-4
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Tidwell, M.-C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and social
interaction: A diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 729–745.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.729
Tolstedt, B. E., & Stokes, J. P. (1983). Relation of verbal, affective, and physical intimacy to mar-
ital satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 573–580.doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.30.4.573
Umberson, D., Thomeer, M. B., & Lodge, A. C. (2015). Intimacy and emotion work in lesbian,
gay, and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 542–556.
doi:10.1111/jomf.12178
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2010). Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, models,
and data analytic procedures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural
research methods in psychology (pp. 17–45). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Volsky, J. A. (1998). Intimacy, marital satisfaction and sexuality in mature couples (Master’s the-
sis). Retrieved from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0003/
MQ39448.pdf
Walker, L. M., Hampton, A., & Robinson, J. W. (2014). Assessment of relational intimacy: Fac-
tor analysis of the personal assessment of intimacy in relationships questionnaire. Psycho-
Oncology, 23(3), 346–349. doi:10.1002/pon.3416
Waring, E. M., & Reddon, J. R. (1983). The measurement of intimacy in marriage: The Waring
Intimacy Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(1), 53–57. doi:10.1002/1097-4679
(198301)39:1<53::AID-JCLP2270390110>3.0.CO;2-0
Yoo, H., Bartle-Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014). Couple communication, emo-
tional and sexual intimacy, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,
40(4), 275–293. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2012.751072

Examination of The Psychometric Properties of The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships With Individuals in Same-Sex Couple Relationships

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examination of The Psychometric Properties of The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships With Individuals in Same-Sex Couple Relationships

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examination of The Psychometric Properties of The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships With Individuals in Same-Sex Couple Relationships

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of GLBT Family Studies

ISSN: 1550-428X (Print) 1550-4298 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgfs20

Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the

Marie-France Lafontaine, Laura Hum, Nicolas Gabbay & Cathy Dandurand

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1326017

Published online: 24 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Personal

CONTACT Marie-France Lafontaine [email protected] School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136

Overview of romantic intimacy and its importance

Validation of a measure of intimacy with individuals in a same-sex

questions we aimed to answer in the present study concerning concurrent

complete. As compensation for participating in the study, all participants received

PAIR Items Emotional Social Sexual Intellectual Recreational

1. My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to. .722

disagree) to 7 (agree strongly). Higher scores are indicative of higher levels of

PAIR Items Engagement Communication Friendship

21. Because of my partner’s lack of caring, I “hold back” my .713

In an attempt to replicate the initial ﬁve-factor structure of the PAIR, as reported

Model 1: Schaefer and Olson’s (1981) original ﬁve-factor model

Model 2: Moore et al.’s (1998) proposed three-factor model

Model 3: Our revised three-factor model

PAIR Items Engagement Communication Friendship

21. Because of my partner’s lack of caring, I “hold back” my sexual .712

express discomfort with intimacy, as well as have poor communication and

use secondary attachment strategies when their attachment system is activated

Limitations and future directions

DAS-4 (Sabourin et al., 2005) in the present study appears to be an anomaly, or

persons of color, and marginalized relationships) and remain conscientious of

Degges-White, S., & Marszalek, J. (2007). An exploration of long-term, same-sex relationships:

You might also like