The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intimacy as an interpersonal process
Abstract
In this chapter, we propose a model of the intimacy process. The process begins when one person expresses personally revealing feelings or information to another. It continues when the listener responds supportively and empathically. For an interaction to become intimate, the discloser must feel understood, validated, and cared for.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In particular, reciprocal exchange has been defined as a crucial factor in developing close relational bonds [35] [36] [37].”
From "I tell him everything that I do": An investigation of privacy and safety implications of AI companion usage (2025) · cites this paper as [36]
In the citing paper
“Replika users feel a close bond to it despite acknowledged power imbalance with Luka being involved in Replika's behaviour and lack of reciprocity, challenging theories on intimacy and reciprocity in building relationships [36], [37].”
From "I tell him everything that I do": An investigation of privacy and safety implications of AI companion usage (2025) · cites this paper as [36]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Acitelli, L. K. , & Duck, S. W. (1987). Intimacy as the proverbial elephant. In D. Perlman & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 297–308). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Daily Well-Being: The Role of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167200266002 · Cited by 2,067
Self-citationManaging impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x · Cited by 1,616
Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00246 · Cited by 1,454
The social consequences of expressive suppression
Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48 · Cited by 1,400
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1053 · Cited by 1,303
Metadata
- Authors
- Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P.
- Venue
- Relationships, Well-Being and Behaviour
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2018-05-15
- Pages
- 113-143
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
