An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy.

Abstract

A theoretical model designed to explain and predict reactive changes in the expression of interpersonal intimacy is presented. The model basically proposes that in an interaction, sufficient changes in one person's intimacy behaviors (e.g., interpersonal distance, eye contact, touch) precipitate arousal change in the other person. Depending upon the type of relationship, the setting, and other factors, this arousal change may be labeled either a positive or negative emotional state. The model predicts that positively labeled states facilitate reciprocal or enhancing reactions to the other person's intimacy changes, while negatively labeled states facilitate compensatory reactions. Applications and limitations of the model are discussed. Research into the role of nonverbal communication in social interaction has increased rapidly over the last several years. Although there is considerable disagreement regarding the use of the label communication to describe these behaviors (see Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Wiener, Devoe, Rubinow, & Geller, 1972), there is little doubt that a wide variety of nonverbal behaviors is important in the interaction process. Argyle and Dean (196S) have suggested that one set of these behaviors, primarily nonverbal and including interpersonal distance, eye contact, leaning, smiling, and intimacy of topic, is critical in indicating interpersonal intimacy. Mehrabian (1969) has discussed many of the same behaviors in a review and has used the label immediacy to refer to a limited number of dimensions including touch, distance, eye contact, body lean, and body orientation. Mehrabian cited considerable evidence indicating that increased immediacy in one or more of these dimensions is related to a more positive attitude toward another. Thus, both Argyle and Dean (1965) and Mehrabian (1969) seem to be describing a common process in postulating a direct relationship between in

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 317 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.