Intimacy in psychology

4 Types of Intimacy and How to Cultivate Them

To strengthen your relationships you may want to work on four types of intimacy: physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual closeness.

Intimacy, in general, refers to the level of proximity between two people. It requires vulnerability, openness, and trust.

Getting intimate with someone else on one level doesn’t necessarily guarantee intimacy in other aspects.

Whether it’s your relationship with your parents, significant other, friends, or employers, you may experience different intimacy types depending on the power dynamics at play.

If a relationship has an equal power dynamic, intimacy becomes easier to cultivate, says Gloria Lopez-Henriquez, a doctor of social work and faculty member at The Ackerman Institute for the Family in New York City.

For instance, romantic relationships where decisions are typically made jointly, and one person doesn’t exert control or has more resources than their partner.

Not all relationships involve all types of intimacy, but these four are the most common to share:

physical
emotional
mental or intellectual
spiritual

Physical intimacy refers to body closeness. It can involve hugging, cuddling, kissing, and holding hands, depending on the nature of the relationship.

Physical intimacy is not exclusive to romantic partners, though. Parents and children and even friends can develop non-sexual physical intimacy.

This type of intimacy involves safe touch and proximity that can enhance feelings of emotional closeness.

According to a 2020 study, physical touch can help build bonds and can reduce perceptions of loneliness.

This type of closeness is not typical of other relationships where trust and vulnerability may not be present.

“You cannot disrobe your soul with a colleague the way you do with a trusted friend or romantic partner,” says Lopez-Henriquez. “The difference is you’re on an equal footing in these relationships. It’s not the same as a relationship with a teacher or a supervisor, […] because they have some control over you.”

To nourish this type of intimacy, you can have an open conversation with the other person about their level of comfort with different types of touch.

Another way to cultivate physical intimacy is to make the other person feel safe with your touch. For this, you may want to start with light caresses, soft hugs, or kisses on the forehead. It’s important to be receptive to the other person’s reactions and respect boundaries.

Being emotionally intimate with another person means being transparent with your deepest feelings, fears, and thoughts. It involves feeling safe and not judged, says Lopez-Henriquez. And it’s all about being the same for the other person.

To nourish emotional intimacy in a relationship, you need to take risks and be open, she adds. However, if one or both people are emotionally unavailable or fear intimacy, closeness in this aspect may become challenging.

This type of intimacy may be developed in most types of relationships.

Parents and children can build on their emotional intimacy, for example, if they maintain a sense of curiosity about the relationship, says Lopez-Henriquez.

“It’s important for a parent or guardian to ask questions or come from a place of curiosity rather than make an accusation,” she adds. “If a child (even if they’re an adult) feels like they’ll be judged, they won’t share intimate details of their lives with their parent.”

The same goes for friendships and romantic relationships.

Emotional intimacy can be developed by listening better to the other person and being able to speak clearly and honestly.

This type of intimacy may also require reassurance that, despite differences in experiences and emotions, you are safe with each other because you find support and comfort when you express your deepest fears, pains, and doubts.

Mental intimacy refers to sharing your ideas, opinions, and life perspectives. It may also involve intellectually challenging each other and being open to learning, or at least considering, the other person’s ideas.

Having stimulating discussions about different topics and feeling safe about expressing your own views is part of nourishing mental intimacy.

The key is to show mutual respect, even when you have differing views, Lopez-Henriquez says.

To cultivate intellectual intimacy, you may want to keep a curious attitude. It’s important to share points of view with the intention of learning from each other more so than debating opinions.

Spiritual intimacy means feeling close, validated, and safe sharing your innermost ideas and beliefs on life’s purpose and your connection with divine energies.

It’s still a blurred concept because it may mean different things to different people.

Spiritual intimacy doesn’t necessarily mean both people have the same beliefs, but it may involve sharing a broader concept of spirituality.

For example, you may both believe that you must be faithful and honest in all things you do, even if you belong to different religions.

Sharing this higher sense of purpose may develop an intimate closeness that allows you to project a life together, for instance.

To nourish spiritual intimacy you may want to learn more about each other practices and beliefs and, more significantly, why those are important to the other person. Spiritual intimacy is about sharing the impact your beliefs have on your life and respecting this may be different for the other person.

Fear of intimacy refers to being scared of getting too close to someone else in one or more aspects.

There are several reasons why someone may fear intimacy, depending on age and type of relationship, says Lopez-Henriquez.

Instead of dedicating time to improving their current relationships and cultivating intimacy, many younger people may focus their energy on looking for other potential partners, says Lopez-Henriquez.

Another possible fear regarding relationship intimacy may be linked to the sense of losing your identity.

Fear of vulnerability can also be involved in a parent and child dynamic. If a child — even if they’re an adult — is afraid of disappointing a parent or guardian, they may choose not to have an intimate relationship with them.

One way to work on your fear of intimacy is by seeking the support of a mental health therapist. They may be able to explore possible causes of your fear and work with you in developing a plan that helps in your particular case.

Intimacy refers to a level of closeness where you feel validated and safe. In relationships, four types of intimacy are key: emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual.

If you feel you fear intimacy of any type, or your loved one does, seeking the support of a therapist may help you.

Intimacy | Definition | Britannica

intimacy, the state of being intimate, which is marked by the consensual sharing of deeply personal information. It has cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Intimates reveal themselves to one another, care deeply about one another, and are comfortable in close proximity.

Self-disclosure, the sharing of private thoughts, dreams, beliefs, and emotionally meaningful experiences, is often viewed as synonymous with intimacy. However, self-disclosure is only half of the process; the other half is partner responsiveness. According to psychologist Harry Reis and colleagues, for a relationship to be intimate, self-disclosure must occur in a context of appreciation, affection, understanding, and acceptance. Indeed, an intimate experience has not taken place until there is empathic feedback—until acceptance and acknowledgment are communicated verbally or nonverbally as an indication that trust is justified.

In the absence of empathy, attempts at intimate support can miss the mark. Those making emotional disclosures usually want an emotional response. Those making pragmatic or factual disclosures often want a factual response. In the absence of empathy, emotional concerns may be met with a pragmatic or problem-solving response, or, conversely, pragmatism may be met with emotion. Studies suggest that emotional disclosures lead to greater intimacy than do factual disclosures. But regardless of kind, mismatched responses leave the discloser feeling misunderstood and devalued rather than affirmed and validated. Under these conditions, intimacy will suffer.

Establishing intimacy

Research suggests that the capacity to establish affectional bonds begins in infancy and is rooted in the kinds of attachments that infants develop to their early caretakers. When caretakers are consistently responsive and warm, infants tend to develop a secure attachment style that may carry over into adulthood and be characterized by an ease in trusting and getting close to others. When parents are inconsistent and insensitive, children tend to develop anxious-ambivalent or preoccupied attachment styles. An anxious-ambivalent style in adulthood is characterized by overdependency, in which there is a desperate desire to merge with a partner alternating with a fear of not being loved sufficiently. When parents are cold and rejecting, children tend to develop an avoidant style. According to psychologist Kim Bartholomew, there are two types of avoidance—fearful and dismissive. Those who are fearfully avoidant in adulthood want intimacy but experience pervasive interpersonal distrust and fear of rejection. Those who are dismissively avoidant place much value on independence. They focus on work or hobbies and defensively assert that relationships are relatively unimportant.

Intimacy and well-being

Availability and quality of intimacy are associated with well-being for men and women alike. Studies showed that men who reported that they felt a lack of emotional support from their wives were far more likely to experience heart attacks. Several other studies showed that both men and women in relationships rated as high in intimacy were less likely to report symptoms of depression and anxiety than those in relationships rated as low in intimacy.

Janice M. Steil The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Psychological intimacy - what is it? - N.

Naritsyn, M. Naritsyna

Random quote

The fear of death is, in fact, the reverse side of the instinct of self-preservation. Animals have such an instinct, but there is no "fear of death" - because animals, like small children, mostly live for today.

Text error?

Select it with the "mouse" and press: Ctrl + Enter

Creation date: 07.10.2002
Update date: 02.19.2015

According to the definition of psychotherapist E. Berne, intimacy is "a person's sincere behavior free from games. As a rule, it does not lead to trouble unless some kind of game intervenes." Well, let's talk about what psychological games are and why people need them; how "real closeness" differs from the illusion of closeness and "pseudo-closeness"; do really close people always have to be together; and much more.

Speaking about the "theory of psychological intimacy", I will offer for starters two definitions given at one time by well-known psychotherapists. Eric Erickson used this concept in his works with the interpretation of "the ability of one person to take care of another, to share everything essential with him without fear of losing himself." And the author of the theory of transactions, Eric Berne, argued that psychological intimacy is “a game-free, sincere behavior of a person. It usually does not lead to trouble unless some kind of game intervenes.”

In Berne's understanding, a psychological game, as a rule, carries an element of deception, manipulation, competition, even if most often of the unconscious. And here we can offer a third criterion for the presence in a particular pair of psychological closeness: such closeness is the absence of a rigid hierarchy in the relationship, fixed roles and responsibilities, a “top-down” relationship.

If there are manipulative games in a couple, then they are played in order for one of the partners to receive, albeit unconsciously, a "win". And this means that the other person gets a loss. Which is hardly conducive to intimacy.
The presence of such opportunities, as it were, "does not allow you to relax", makes you always "keep ready to return the game" or keep track of the game of a partner / partner. Such a life together soon becomes very tiring. At a minimum, the sense of psychological security that is important with proximity is lost when coexisting.

The well-known psychotherapist V.V. Makarov often emphasizes that a family, a couple is created most often so that each of the spouses/partners is a kind of "psychotherapist" for the other: at least - support, rear in difficult times according to their capabilities and needs the other side (moreover, the roles of "helping" and "receiving help" are not fixed tightly and do not entail hierarchical constructions according to the "strong-weak" principle). But sometimes it happens that instead of a psychotherapeutic factor, existence in a couple becomes a traumatic factor. This also happens when “psychological intimacy” means something else, for example, dependence / co-dependence, the need for total control, a pronounced hierarchy, etc.

Very often, a kind of "commodity-consumer relations" in the worst sense of the word: according to the principle "you - to me, I to you" become an illusion of proximity. Here, everything seems to be said directly and without bluntness, but the presence of a reciprocal need of the second partner is by no means always taken into account. For example, a person somehow wants to keep a piece of his "self" in the union. And the second one objects to this and is almost even jealous of the first one for his personal thoughts and needs for solitude. And often, offended, he appeals specifically to closeness: "We are almost native people, and you again! .."

Here, alas, most often either the illusion of proximity, or a game of proximity. "I need this, so I let you do the same, and we will assume that the closeness between us is preserved and my need does not violate it." And in fact, it turns out that the second partner or partner does not need this "same" one, and therefore does not want to take it. But he needs something else, about which he cannot directly say or also does not want to and prefers to perform his manipulations with his first spouse.

In fact, psychological intimacy largely consists in the need and ability to discuss the intricacies of relationships with each other aloud. And the result of recognizing each other's needs will not be the manipulation of the partner with the help of this knowledge, but the mutual respect of needs. In addition, both close partners are ready for some kind of compromise, and they do not need to force each other to go for them with the help of the same games. And here, first of all, there is a desire to reduce intersecting transactions and intersecting interests.
By the way, in a psychologically close couple, the needs of each side are usually taken into account and options for their implementation are found - because both benefit from the feeling of comfort in this pair, and therefore both try to achieve this mutual feeling with minimal losses.

But the trouble is that most of our couples don’t have this particular benefit, and their understanding of intimacy on the principle of “well, that’s it, now you are mine / mine” implies precisely “exchange”: “Oh, you need to flirt, then I will flirt! Although I don’t need it for anything and I’ll get myself into continuous problems from this (to play the game “That’s what you got me to” later. Or in other words: “Oh, you need to flirt - please, and I will never do this so that I have a reason to play with you in an offended spouse (spouse) and accuse you of being an egoist (ka) ", etc. That is, there is no desire for both to feel comfortable , but there is a desire to "win" something at the expense of another. And if you want, people often have this very right to win that is called "closeness". But in fact, closeness is, first of all, mutual respect for individuality and mutual unwillingness to hurt each other And if someone needs something, they don't need to build bastions of excuses for it. 0005

Now about the other extreme: the so-called "complete intimacy", which many romantically inclined people love to dream about. Like, "they became so dear to each other that they completely grew together in souls," etc. In fact, this is very difficult, because a person always has at least his own unconscious and those needs that are formed at this level. It is especially difficult when, again, one of the partners seeks to "absorb the personality of the other" under the sauce of achieving intimacy (the option is that the person himself seeks to give his partner his individuality according to the principle "Now you answer for me").

One of the possible markers of such an "illusion of closeness" is the situation when at least one of the partners in a couple uses the phrase "We love each other."

Yes, the feeling of intimacy is a mutual feeling, and it is usually difficult to say that "partner A is close to partner B, and partner B is not close to partner A." It's about the same. as "point A is five centimeters from point B. and point B is five kilometers from point A." But at the same time, intimacy is not a complete merger, it is a union of two independent personalities, and in this union, neither partner assumes the right to decide for the other. Therefore, in such a direct, confident form, conclusions about the feelings of the "second side" are usually not made.

In order to be close people, again, it is not necessary to necessarily "do everything only together." Proximity as a form of communication does not require constant being together almost by force. And it can easily happen that in one pair - really psychologically close! - one partner is sleeping and the other is preparing breakfast. And in the other, close only illusory or "one-sided", both will certainly go to the kitchen together (to the point that they cut bread together with one knife), because if they are separated even for a moment, they will immediately lose their "sense of closeness", requiring constant confirmation and proof. Sometimes such "closeness" is sarcastically called the "closeness of Siamese twins."

Of course, if really close people sometimes like to cut bread together with one knife for the sake of entertainment - who forbids them? But in "Siamese intimacy" such constant joint interaction becomes painful over time and no longer confirms the feeling of intimacy, but refutes it, turning into the same manipulative mutual game.
Close people go somewhere or do something together not because they have to (because they call themselves close), but because they want it and they can afford it. If circumstances force them to do something one by one, this is not perceived as a tragedy, and does not threaten the feeling of intimacy.

And to build intimacy, it is not at all necessary that partners have similar tastes and needs in everything. They may well coincide in general, but have different tastes in details: one, for example, may love semolina (Picasso, jazz ...), and the other mayonnaise (Aivazovsky, country . ..). And this will in no way be a cause for contention.

And the attempt to "get into a person's heart and stay there, while bringing order there" - alas, not closeness. An attempt to pester "Tell me what you are thinking about now, we are close people" is also not intimacy. It's more of a "not a single thought out of my control" manipulation. Proximity implies precisely respect for needs, and not mutual destruction and merging.

Here is the most primitive illustration.
Husband sat down to watch football.
Of course, he does not want his close wife to sit next to him and saw him for it.
What does he want? So that she would sit next to her and shout "goal"?
Not always. Sometimes he wants her to mind her own business and give him the opportunity to watch the match alone (or go to friends for this time). The main thing is that his need be understood and, if possible, not condemned.
And if a wife wants to watch some kind of "movie about love", she does not always want her husband to sit next to her and ask questions - maybe she wants to watch it alone. Just to let her do it and not scold her for it.
It is clear that if a husband watches football instead of an important business meeting for the family, this is already more difficult. But if there is closeness between the spouses and precisely global common goals, in this case the husband will go to the meeting, but he won’t remember about football. But if there are no global goals, but there is a declaration of them, then the husband’s car will break down along the way, and the train will leave, etc.
And most importantly: as soon as between spouses there is a need for control on the one hand, disobedience on the other and confrontation on both sides, it is already difficult to talk about intimacy. Solid psychological games begin.

But what if one of the partners needs games for some reason at certain moments in their life?

Often I have to tell about one elderly storekeeper who tirelessly put her own, familiar order on the shelves with goods. She spared no effort rearranging everything anew "as it suits her", even when her shift ended and she went home for two days. It turned out that a woman of pre-retirement age was desperately afraid of seeming unnecessary and strove so that at least in this warehouse nothing could be found without her. This is how women often put things in order in the kitchen - so that a man, if he happens to poke his head to cook scrambled eggs for himself, will not find anything without it. Therefore, the products are in the most "illogical" places, and she answers all the questions of her husband: "But it's more convenient for me." Maybe she really is more comfortable that way. Only she herself can not understand - why. However, if there was closeness, the products would lie where it is convenient for both, since both have to cook; at least there was no such perception "he encroached on my territory", there would not be this competitive, protective component in behavior. In other words, there would be no need to receive this hidden benefit "I'm more important than you at least in the kitchen."

And perhaps we can offer such a "recognition of the game": if somewhere in communication you stumble upon a persistent illogicality, then most likely there is a game going on. Conscious or unconscious, it doesn't matter. Perhaps that is why psychological manipulative games are so widespread in our life that a person uses logic in his behavior much less often than it is commonly thought.

And what is important: any psychological closeness in no way implies a rejection of games. Rather, there is a gradual departure "as unnecessary" of these games from the communication of close people. For the formation of intimacy actually goes through games, but again - through constructive ones that do not cause pain, and carry more of a training load than a control-suppressive-manipulative one.

But even this - "gradual care of uselessness" - is also not entirely true. Here, the expression "freedom from games" may be more appropriate: that is, games in a close pair can be applied "at will", and most likely for mutual pleasure, for the exchange of additional, specific, veiled strokes, etc. And not at all in order for one to "win" over the other. It is closeness that allows you to gradually give this "win without a fight" to another: "Do you want this? Please take it. " Here, it is precisely the mutual desire to abandon mutual hidden manipulations that is already felt by both as a kind of deception that peeps through and becomes important.

And if the game has to be broken, abandoned, and this hurts, then this person still needs the game as a manipulative or protective function, and you can’t take it away from him until you figure it out - and it’s clear that raping "let's figure it out" also useless, this readiness should be allowed to ripen; this is also the time from which the establishment of intimacy is formed.

Psychological intimacy in itself can be built quite complicated: because each partner has his own past personal experience with his pain points, complexes, fears, censorship, etc. As they say - "when two meet, each brings his own suitcase, and not empty." Moreover, in the course of the lesson, it was announced that almost the main condition for the successful building of psychological intimacy is the coincidence of life attitudes at the censorship level. And/or sufficient flexibility in this area.

Also, in matters of psychological intimacy, it is desirable to avoid binarity. For example, there is often an opinion that one should strive for one hundred percent psychological intimacy, since all other relationships are inferior. However, any evaluation in a conversation about relationships (especially about strangers) is hardly legitimate. And if both partners are satisfied with the relationship in which they are currently located, then this means that this is the optimal state for them at the moment. And if they want to get closer, they will do it, but not because they are told from outside, but because they want to. One might even say - for perfectionists! – that "100% psychological intimacy" is a spherical horse in a vacuum. And if we imagine a straight line, at one end of which is this most complete closeness, and at the other end - the relationship of completely strangers, then each individual pair is between these states at its point: closer either to one end or to the other.

In general, there is no complete enough psychological intimacy right away. It builds up gradually, while the partners go towards each other. And you can meet halfway in the process of mutual study even all your life, because people change .. That is, intimacy has no final. You can't say "I've finished studying my partner/partner, now we are close people and know everything about each other, now we have nowhere to study each other to get closer." As soon as a thick line was drawn under the "study of the partner" - there was a movement in the opposite direction, a divergence. Intimacy is precisely the need to constantly listen to a partner / partner, to constantly monitor his / her reactions, to think about his / her needs, moreover, it is extended over time: after all, a person changes over time, both “observed” and "watching". And most importantly - this study is not difficult, but rather interesting. After all, each personality is infinite, like the cosmos, and just as it can be extremely exciting to explore the depths of space, it can also be exciting and exciting to study the person with whom you want to build this very psychological intimacy. Especially if he studies you in the same way, and both of you have the opportunity to discuss your observations, share them for the joint benefit, and so on.

E-Doctor orders most relevant to the article:
I want to trust my loved ones
I want to trust my loved ones
I want my girlfriend back
I want my wife back
I want my woman's love back
I want my wife's love back
I want I want my husband's love back
I want my husband's love back
I want my husband back
I want my relationship back

Topics: partnership, psychological intimacy, transactional analysis.

Love and Intimacy, Psychology - Gestalt Club

This feeling can be perceived and transmitted in different ways, verbally and non-verbally - through sights, sounds, facial expressions and gestures, through touch and bodily contact, and through other, more subtle methods of energy exchange.

And such contact can be of varying degrees involvement and depth of sense of presence. Here is for some no small degree of such presence can be called this contact proximity.

This is for feeling in a particular moment.

I want to expand the concept of proximity to a larger period than direct human contact. This and anticipation, anticipation of such contact. And the aftertaste, the feeling after contact. And even some inner feeling in the breaks between a contact, but which is clearly related to that person.

Such closeness is usually very valuable to us. Though even if elusive or rare.

And a person with whom such contact is sufficient often happens and it is very important - this is the kind of person you want call "my friend".

And love is what brings us to this closeness leads. And it consists of three components.

1. Desire for intimacy.

2. The energy we are ready to channel into achieving intimacy.

3. Ability to be close.

And now the relationship between love and intimacy is different times (or even almost always) very non-obvious.

I'll tell you more.

The first point is the easiest - most often we can to say that we love someone, meaning that with this person we want to be close.

This is what is most often called love. But here too we are already in trouble. Who do we want to be close to? a real person or with the image that we have associated with him? IN to one degree or another, we are always captivated by our fantasies and do not know what but in reality this person represents. And determine what reality, we can only approach it.

This is where such an important element of love comes into play, as a choice to be together. There is a risk that the person to whom we strive to be far from the image that is in our representation. But, choosing to move exactly to a real person, we begin to move towards true intimacy.

If this longing for intimacy is strong enough, then we have a lot of energy that we are ready to spend on achieving intimacy. Cases where such energy is noticeably more our average level is usually called falling in love. But if at this energy is directed not at a real person, but at our internal image, then even strong love does not lead to a real sense of closeness. If we are good with the first paragraph figured out, and the object to which this energy is directed is enough is real, then the chance to achieve intimacy is greater than

But another subtlety may interfere with us. Kind and the way we spend our energy getting closer to a partner. The discrepancy between what is expected and what is given can reduce our labors to No. This problem is well analyzed in the book by Gary Chapman "Five love languages". In the general case, you need to talk with a partner in order to better to know how we can communicate better with each other energies. After all, even the coincidence of types of energy (languages of love) can not lead to the desired rapprochement due to some insignificant for one of the partners of the disagreement, and a lot of energy will fall past or even repel a partner. At this stage it is very important detailed and attentive dialogue with each other.

But when with the first two points we have enough well understood (or lucky

) and the convergence is very successful, then the third element of love comes into play. The ability to be in proximity.

It often happens that we reach that level closeness to which they aspired. Finally, upon reaching this level, aspiration and energy come to naught and we just feel good together.

I call this level of intimacy realized love. The love we had for this man realized in the level of intimacy at which we are. WITH This, of course, changes over time. But the main thing is pretty a comfortable state, which I wish everyone!

And if this feeling of closeness suits both partners - this is the key to long-term close relationships. so often and happens with old friends.

But this is rarely the case with the closest people Just. To be in the state of closest proximity for us (and close to to) we can't for long.

In my opinion, this is the most difficult moment. Why do we it can be difficult for a long time to be in the sensations of a large and comprehensive intimacy? Scary? Unbearable?

Sometimes everything is fine, and there are not even conscious negative feelings, but still want to run away. It happens that even we are not aware of the desire to move away, but suddenly we find ourselves further, not understanding why it happened.

There may be many reasons for this, but the ability to be close with another person can be developed. try to be smooth and gradually get closer. Stay longer, but not too much, so that do not run suddenly sharply and far. Here you have to be careful to our energy and longing for intimacy did not turn against us. It is with those closest to us that we open up the most and get to know each other. friend closest to reality. And the closer we get, the more it hurts sometimes we do to each other when intimacy becomes excessive.

The ability to be close is a very important element love.

Learn more