Psychological Assessment: Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1040-3590/91/53,00

1991, Vol. 3, No. 2, 218-225

Development and Validation of a Fear-of-Intimacy Scale

Carol J. Descutner and Mark H. Thelen

University of Missouri

Two independent studies showed the Fear-of-Intimacy Scale (FIS) to be a valid and reliable mea-
sure of individuals' anxiety about close, dating relationships. Item-total analyses yielded a 35-item
scale with high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Construct validity was established by
factor analysis and significant correlations. The FIS correlated positively with a loneliness measure;
it correlated negatively with self-disclosure, social intimacy, and social desirability measures. These
relations were maintained when partial correlations were conducted to control for social desirabil-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ity. Subjects1 FIS scores were significantly related to self-report data (e.g,, subjects with higher scores
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

reported briefer relationships) and positively related to therapists ratings about clients' fear of
intimacy. It was also found that androgynous subjects had less fear of intimacy than masculine and
undifferentiated subjects. The FIS holds promise for use in the assessment of clinical populations
and for use as a research instrument.

Intimacy has long been considered by theoreticians to be a Several self-report measures of intimacy have been devel-
vital need of humans for mental health and psychosocial ad- oped from interviews aimed at defining the characteristics of
justment (Erikson, 1963; Sullivan, 1953). Empirical research intimacy, for example, the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS;
.substantiates a strong connection between intimacy and Miller & Lefcourt, 1982). Some have applied interview data to
various indices of adjustment. For example, deficiencies in inti- existing theory, as in the development of the Intellectual, Physi-
macy have been associated with depression (Costello, 1982) and cal, and Emotional scales of the Intimacy Development Inven-
with weak ego strength (Waring, McElrath, Lefcoe, & Weisz, tory (IDI; Holt, 1977). However, items for the proposed Fear-of-
1981). In a prospective study, McAdams and Vaillant (1982) Intimacy Scale (FIS) were developed directly from a conceptual
found that intimacy motivation predicted psychosocial adjust- model based on the authors' definition of fear of intimacy. In
ment 17 years later. One would then expect that individuals who addition, the MSIS, IDI, and Schaefer and Olson's (1981) Pair
fear intimacy would be at risk for emotional difficulties. In- Inventory assess intimacy only in the context of a current rela-
deed, one of the most common problems identified by psycho- tionship. Whereas there is a possibility that scores on these
therapy outpatients is difficulty with intimacy in relationships existing measures reflect the lack of an immediate close rela-
(Horowitz, 1979). tionship rather than an intimacy problem, the FIS assesses indi-
The many definitions of intimacy illustrate the complexity of viduals' fear of intimacy whether or not they are in a relation-
this construct and the need for clearer conceptualization and ship.
operationalization (Schaefer & Olson, 1981; Sexton & Sexton, The Intimacy Status Interview (Orlofsky, Marcia, & Lesser,
1982). Rubenstein and Shaver (1982) have cataloged the fea-
1973) more closely parallels the objectives of the FIS because it
tures of intimacy to include openness, honesty, mutual self-dis-
was developed from theory and examines past as well as
closure, care, warmth, protection, helpfulness, devotion, mu-
current relationships. Using criteria derived from Eriksonian
tual attentiveness, mutual commitment, surrender of control,
theory in human development, Orlofsky et al. determined that
dropping of defenses, emotional attachment, and distress when
there are different intimacy statuses reflecting varying levels of
separation occurs. These features are described within a variety
intimacy. However, the interview is time-consuming when
of individual, familial, extrafamilial, and sexual relationships.
compared with the self-report format of the FIS, which has the
Many theorists define intimacy as a significant phenomenon
advantage of assessing a large population in a short period of
outside of a sexual relationship (Maslow, 1954; Sullivan, 1953)
time.
or consider nonsexual and sexual intimacy to greatly enhance
In sum, the FIS was designed to assess a specific variable that
one another (Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982). We chose to focus on
influences intimacy (fear of intimacy) in a close relationship or
fear of intimacy because we believe that it is often an anteced-
at the prospect of a close relationship. This is in contrast to
ent to intimacy problems.
social anxiety scales (e.g., the Social Anxiousness Scale; Leary,
1983), in which the assessed anxiety is experienced in different
situations with various individuals, without an exchange of
We are grateful to the students and faculty who participated, to Lin-
Ann Townsend and Ann Thomas for reviewing the manuscript, and to
emotional significance. Our goal was to develop a self-report
Human Dynamics Inc. for their support of this project. measure of fear of intimacy, based on a conceptual model of the
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to construct, with acceptable levels of validity and reliability. The
MarkH. Thelen, Department of Psychology, 210 McAlesterHall, Uni- current format of the FIS was intended to assess close, hetero-
versity of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211. sexual dating relationships, although the sexual orientation of

218
 FEAR-OF-INTIMACY SCALE 219

the target was unspecified. It was assumed that some individ- Stage 2. A refined 41-item FIS was administered to Stage 2 subjects
uals would answer the FIS with reference to a same-sex partner from which the final 35-item FIS was developed (see Appendix). To
but, because of the small number of such persons, this should determine construct and discriminant validity, subjects also completed
not interfere with the scale's development. modified versions of the Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire
(JSDQ; Jourard, 1964) and the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS;
Items for the FIS were based on the definition that fear of
Miller & Lefcourt, 1982),' the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Rus-
intimacy is the inhibited capacity of an individual, because of
sell, Peplau, &Cutrona, 1980), the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirabil-
anxiety, to exchange thoughts and feelings of personal signifi-
ity Scale (M-CSD; Crowne& Marlowe, 1960), a short form of the Need
cance with another individual who is highly valued. The fear-
for Cognition Scale (NCS; Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984),2 demo-
of-intimacy construct takes into account three defining fea- graphic questions, and self-report items (see Table 2). Finally, 1 month
tures: (a) content, the communication of personal information; later, 83 of the subjects completed the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI;
(b) emotional valence, strong feelings about the personal infor- Bern, 1974) and the FIS a second time. Using the median split method
mation exchanged; and (c) vulnerability, high regard for the inti- of classification for the BSRI (Bern, 1977), (a) subjects with a mean
mate other. We propose that it is only with the coexistence of self-rating on the Bern Masculinity scale at or above the group median
content, emotional valence, and vulnerability that intimacy can of 5.20, and a mean self-rating on the Bern Femininity scale below the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

exist. Consider, for example, the customer who talks to an un- group median of 4.85 were classified as masculine, (b) subjects below
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

known bartender about his or her troubles. Although there may the median on the Masculinity scale and at or above it on the Feminin-
be personal content and emotional valence within the ex- ity scale were classified as feminine, (c) subjects with scores at or above
the median on both the Masculinity and Femininity scales were classi-
change, the bartender is not a significant other, and the self-dis-
fied as androgynous, and (d) subjects with both scores below the me-
closing customer is not vulnerable or at risk of being hurt by the
dian were classified as undifferentiated.
bartender. Such a situation would not be considered an inti-
Stage 3. Clients completed the FIS. The therapists of these clients
mate exchange. The proposed fear-of-intimacy construct pro- were provided with the definition of fear of intimacy and asked to rate
vides a framework for understanding the interaction. clients whom they had seen for a minimum of two sessions. On a 7-
Two studies on the FIS were undertaken. The purpose of the point scale that ranged from no fear of intimacy (1) to a high fear of
first study was to develop test items and to establish the con- intimacy (7), therapists rated how much fear of intimacy the client
struct validity and reliability of the scale. The second study would have in a close, dating relationship. Also, on a 7-point scale that
served as cross-validation of the measure. ranged from not at all self-disclosing (1) to very self-disclosing (7), thera-
pists rated how self-disclosing the client had been with them. Finally,
Study 1 on a scale that ranged from not at all confident (1) to very confident (7),
therapists were asked how confident they were about their fear-of-inti-
Method
macy rating. A confidence rating of 5 or above was required for inclu-
Subjects sion in the study. Two clients were excluded because their data did not
Stage 1 Preliminary test items were administered to 116 male and meet this criterion.
115 female Introductory Psychology students. Ethnic background was
not determined.
Stage 2. Refined scale items and validation measures were adminis- Results
tered to an independent sample of 133 Introductory Psychology stu-
Test Construction
dents of unknown ethnic origin; 4 subjects were dropped because of
language difficulties or noncompliance. The final subject pool of 129 Stage 1. Item-total analysis of the initial 49-item scale
students (mean age = 19.11 years, SD = 1.66) consisted of 59 men and showed 41 items with a correlation of .39 or above (mean r for 41
70 women. Thirty-nine of the male subjects and 44 of the female sub-
items = .54, SD = .09). The eight items with correlations below
jects completed the scale items of the FIS a second time 1 month later,
.39 were dropped from the scale, and seven of the remaining
along with a measure of sex-role orientation.
Stage 3. Therapists from a university counseling center, a private items were reworded to reduce response set effects and ambi-
counseling agency, and a graduate training clinic provided information guity.
on 33 clients who completed the FIS. Ethnic background was not deter- Stage 2. Following item-total analysis of Stage 2 data (N =
mined. Of these, 1 subject was excluded because of incomplete thera- 129), one item with a correlation of .01 was dropped. Six consec-
pist responses, and 2 subjects were excluded because of low therapist utive item-total analyses were then performed with the removal
ratings of confidence. The final subject poo! of 6 male and 24 female of the lowest correlated item until all remaining items had
clients had a mean age of 31.50 years (SD = 9.99).
item-total correlations of .40 or above (mean r for 35 items =
Materials and Procedure .57, SO =.10).

Stage 1. The initial items for the FIS (N = 49) were based on the
fear-of-intimacy construct. Items were developed by us or modified
1
from existing test measures. Eight items from the Intimacy Develop- The instructions were modified to align the measures more closely
ment Inventory (Holt, 1977) and two items from the intimacy subscale with the FIS. On the JSDQ, subjects were asked to "indicate the extent
of Erikson's subscales (Ochse & Plug, 1986) were modified for use in that you would talk about the item to your closest opposite-sex friend
the FIS. Most items included the construct features of content, emo- who is not a relative." On the MSIS subjects were asked to "describe
tional valance, or both. The target person of each item (i.e., an individ- your relationship with your closest opposite-sex friend who is not a
ual with whom the subject imagines to be with in a close, dating rela- relative."
1
tionship) provided the feature of vulnerability. Each item was pre- Item content was the same as in the referenced article, with the
sented on a 5-point scale ranging from not at all characteristic of me (1) addition of six filler items. Each item was presented on a 5-point scale
to extremely characteristic of me (5). Thus, a high score on the FIS anchored by extremely uncharacteristic (1) and extremely characteristic
indicates a high fear of intimacy. (5) instead of on a 9-point scale, as reported in the referenced article.
 220 CAROL J. DESCUTNER AND MARK H. THELEN

Subject scores on the final 35-item FIS ranged from 40 to were found for subjects not in an exclusive relationship (M =
132, with a mean score of 78.75 (men = 81.90, women = 76.10), 83.45, SID = 21.80, « = 78) compared with those dating one
and a standard deviation of 21.82 (men = 20.58, women = person exclusively (M= 71.54, SD = 20.48, n = 46), ((123) =
22.61). No sex difference by independent /-test analysis was 3.00, p < .005. Also, subjects who had been told by dating
found, ((128) = 1.51, p > .10. Internal consistency of the scale partners that they were difficult to get close to (M= 94.47, SD=
was demonstrated by an alpha coefficient of .93. 20.89, n = 34) had higher FIS scores than those who had not
been given this feedback (M = 73.13, SD = 19.59, n = 90),
Construct Validity r(123) = 5.31, p < .001. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) pro-
Factor analysis. Nunnally (1978) has proposed factor analy- cedures suggested that these significant relationships were
sis to be an important secondary procedure following scale con- maintained when social desirability was controlled (i.e, subjects
struction by item-total analysis. Examination of the scree test in an exclusive versus those not in an exclusive dating relation-
from a principal-components analysis of the 35-item FIS (N = ship, F[\, 121 ] = 14.11, p < .001, and subjects who are difficult
129) showed the dominance of one primary factor (eigenvalue = versus not difficult to get close to, F[l, 121 ] = 27.22, p < .001).
11.68) that accounted for 33.4% of the variance. The second Comparison with sex-role orientation. The relationship be-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

factor (eigenvalue = 2.60) and third factor (eigenvalue = 1.83) tween the FIS and the Bern Sex Role Inventory was investigated
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

accounted for 7.4% and 5.2% of the variance, respectively. Fac- at Stage 2 (see Table 3). One-way analyses of variance (ANO\As)
tor loadings of the items on the primary factor ranged from .39 among the masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferen-
to .77. tiated subjects indicated a significant group difference, F(3,
Correlational analyses. Construct validity was also exam- 79) = 3.53, p < .05. Androgynous subjects scored significantly
ined by comparing the FIS with measures expected to be re- lower on the FIS (M= 67.81, SID = 25.04) than did the mascu-
lated and unrelated to the fear-of-intimacy construct. Correla- line (M = 84.31, SD = 21.80) and the undifferentiated (M =
tion coefficients are presented in Table 1. Pearson product-mo- 86.87, SD = 20.57) subjects. No significant difference was
ment correlations indicated a significant positive relationship found between androgynous subjects and feminine subjects
between the FIS and the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (r = (M= 80.72, SD = 19.63), although androgynous subjects had a
.48), whereas a significant negative relationship was found be-
lower FIS score.
tween the FIS and the JSDQ (r = -.55), MSIS (r = -.60), M-
Therapist and client data. The FIS scores of clients ranged
CSD (r = -.39), and NCS (r = -.24). When partial correlations
from 42 to 139 (M = 94.47, SD - 26.04). Spearman rank-order
were calculated to control for the influence of social desirability
correlation coefficients indicated a significant positive relation-
(see Table 1), the significant associations found between the FIS
ship between client FIS scores and therapist's fear-of-intimacy
and measures of loneliness (r = .41), self-disclosure (r — —.52),
ratings (r = .37, p < .05), but found no significant relationship
and social intimacy (r = -.58) were maintained. However, the
between client FIS scores and self-disclosure ratings (r = —.29,
partial correlation between the FIS and NCS was not signifi-
p> . 10). The clients' FIS scores were significantly higher (M=
cant (r = —. 11). Correlational analyses also indicated a signifi-
94.47, SD = 26.04) than were the FIS scores of the Stage 2
cant relationship between the M-CSD and the measures of
students (M= 78.75, SD = 21.82), ((158) = 3.42, p < .001.
loneliness (r = — .26, p < .005), social intimacy (r= .20, p < .05),
self-disclosure (r = .11, p< .05), and need for cognition, <r= .37, Test-Retest Reliability
p < .005).
Test-retest reliability of the FIS was determined by compar-
Comparison with self-report data. Spearman rank-order
ing 83 of the Stage 2 subjects' original scores (M= 77.54, SD =
correlations (see Table 2) and independent (tests were used to
20.46) with their scores 1 month later (M = 79.07, SD = 23.13).
investigate the relationship between the FIS and subjects' self-
A Pearson correlation of .89, p < .001, indicates high reliability.
report of their feelings about relationships, dating behavior, and
family relationships. Spearman rank-order correlations were Study 2
performed because the procedure required fewer assumptions
about the nature of the self-report data than did parametric Method
statistics. Individuals with high FIS scores reported that they Subjects and Procedure
considered themselves less easy to get to know (r = —.62), less
An independent sample of 94 Introductory Psychology students par-
satisfied with the quality of their dating relationships (r = —.39),
ticipated in the follow up to Study 1. Information on ethnic back-
less satisfied with what they expect from a long-term relation- ground was not obtained. One participant did not complete the mea-
ship ir = —.38), less comfortable getting close to people (r = sures properly and was dropped from the subject pool, leaving a final
—.61), and as having briefer relationships (r = —.34). Partialing sample of 73 women and 20 men (mean age = 18.59 years, SD= 1.47).
out the common variance with social desirability maintained Measures were the same as those obtained in Study 1, except that data
these significant relationships (see Table 2). In contrast, no sig- were not obtained from therapists.
nificant association was found between fear of intimacy and
interest in an intimacy-based workshop (r = —. 13) or the num- Results
ber of reported long-term relationships (r = —. 15). Partial corre- Item-total analysis of the data from Study 2 subjects sug-
lational analyses yielded similar results. gested similar item selection for inclusion in the FIS with only
A significant group difference was not found between sub- three of the thirty-five scale items (rs = .37, .32, .30) having
jects with divorced parents (M= 72.88, SD= 22.37, n = 26) and correlations below .40 (mean r of 35 items = .56, SD = .12).
those with married parents (M = 80.45, SD = 21.72, n = 99), Scores on the FIS ranged from 37 to 135 with a mean score of
((124) = 1.57, p > .10. However, significantly higher FIS scores 75.78 (men = 77.65, women = 75.27), and a standard deviation
 FEAR-OF-INTIMACY SCALE 221

Table 1
Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Partial Correlation Coefficients Between
the Fear-of-Inlimacy Scale and Other Measures

Study I Study 2

Measure Partial r n Partial r n

Revised UCLA Loneliness

Scale (Russell, Peplau,
&Cutrona, 1980) .48" 129 .41" 124 .54" 93 .50** 93
Jourard Self-Disclosure
Questionnaire (Jourard,
1964) -.55" 124 -.52" 124 -.46" 93 -.39" 93
Miller Social Intimacy
Scale (Miller &
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Lefcourt, 1982) -.60** 127 -.58" 124 -.50" 93 -.46" 93

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Need for Cognition Scale

(Cacioppo, Petty, &
Kao, 1984) -.24* 129 -.11 124 -.03 93 .06 93
Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale
(Crowne & Marlowe,
1960) -.39** 129 — — -.40" 93 — —

*p<.01. "p<.005.

of 22.13 (men = 23.77, women = 21.80). As in Study 1, no items on the primary factor ranged from .28 to .85. In addition,
significant sex difference was found, t(92) = .42, p > .50, and the analyses of the test measures and self-report data replicated
internal consistency of the scale was demonstrated with an al- most of the significant correlations found in Study 1; the ab-
pha coefficient of .93. sence of a significant relationship between fear of intimacy and
Construct validity. In general, Study 2 findings upheld the need for cognition was a notable exception. Correlation coeffi-
construct validity of the FIS. Factor analysis (N = 93) again cients are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and are not repeated here.
indicated the presence of one primary factor (eigenvalue = As in Study 1, significant correlations between the Social Desir-
11.36) accounting for 32.5% of the variance. Factor loadings of ability Scale and measures of fear of intimacy (r = —.40, p <

Table 2
Spearman Correlation Coefficients and Partial Correlation Coefficients Between
the Fear-of-Intimacy Scale and Self-Report Data

Study 1 Study 2

Item r n Partial r n r n Partial r n

1. How difficult or easy to get to

know -.62** 126 -.59** 119 -.35" 93 -.36" 90
2. Number of persons dated longer
than two months -.15 126 -.01 119 -.22* 93 -.19* 90
3. Satisfaction with quality of
dating relationships -.39** 126 -.34** 119 -.54** 92 -.52** 90
4. Satisfaction expected with long-
term/marriage-type relationship -.38" 125 -.33" 119 -.41" 93 -.49" 90
5. Interest in a workshop on how to
get closer to people -.13 126 -.04 119 -.01 93 -.03 90
6. Comfort in getting close to
people -.61** 122 -.60" 119 -.50" 92 -.45" 90
7. Time of longest, closest dating
relationship -.34** 124 -.24* 119 -.28* 92 -.16 90

Note. Subjects were asked to respond to each item in reference to themselves. Item I was on a 6-point scale
ranging from very difficult (1) to very easy (6). Item 2 had the choices of 0,1-2,3-4,5-6,7 or more. Items 3
and 4 were on 6-point scales ranging from very dissatisfied (I) to very satisfied (6). "Interest" on Item 5 and
"comfort" on Item 6 were assessed by one of the following descriptors: not at all (1), somewhat (2),
moderately (3), very (4). Item 7 was an open-ended question.
* p < .05. " p < .005.
 222 CAROL J. DESCUTNER AND MARK H. THELEN

Table 3
One-way ANOVAs of Sex-Role Orientation for Study 1, Study 2, and Pooled Data

Sex-role orientation n Mean FIS SD df F P

Study 1
Undifferentiated 23 86.87" 20.57 3, 79 3.53 <.05
Masculine 16 84.3 r 21.80
Feminine 18 80.72" 19.63
Androgynous 26 67.81" 25.04
Study 2
Undifferentiated 23 88.35" 20.99 3, 89 5.93 <.005
Masculine 22 80.77" 22.11
Feminine 23 68.04" 21.99
Androgynous 25 66.96" 17.00
Pooled Data for Men
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Undifferentiated 16 86.00" 21.27 3,55 1.30 .28

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Masculine 21 82.86' 22.27

Feminine 7 76.71" 17.78
Androgynous 15 70.80" 27.78
Pooled Data for Women
Undifferentiated 30 88.47" 20.49 3, 113 7.13 <.005
Masculine 17 81.53"" 21.75
Feminine 34 72.97"° 22.59
Androgynous 36 65.97' 18.18

Note. Superscripts indicate results of Duncan's Multiple Range tests based on the harmonic mean.
Means with different letters are significantly different. FIS = Fear-of-Intimacy Scale score.

.001), loneliness (r = — .24, p< .05), social intimacy (r=.25,p< macy and need for cognition among men (r = —.29, p < .05) but
.05), self-disclosure (r = .28, p < .01), and need for cognition (r= not among women (r = -.09, p > .05). Second, there was a
.20, p = .05) were found. Covariance techniques controlling for significant relationship between fear of intimacy and the num-
social desirability indicated that the association between fear of ber of reported long-term relationships among women (r =
intimacy and loneliness, social intimacy, and self-disclosure— —.21, p< .05) but not among men (r= — .17, p> .05).
as well as with most of the self-report data—remained (see Ta- Comparison of the FIS with sex-role orientation was (a) inves-
bles 1 and 2 for partial correlation coefficients). tigated among the Study 2 subjects and (b) then pooled with
Findings from independent t tests replicated findings in Study 1 subjects who had completed the BSRI. The previously
Study 1, with a higher FIS score found for subjects not in an described median split method of classification (Bern, 1977)
exclusive relationship (M= 80.57, SD = 23.61, « = 46) versus was used based on Masculinity and Femininity scale medians
subjects in an exclusive relationship (M= 71.11, SD = 19.71, n = of 5.10. Findings are presented in Table 3. One-way analysis of
47), ((92) = 2.10, p< .05. In addition, subjects told by dates that variance among the Study 2 subjects yielded results similar to
they are difficult to get close to (M = 87.75, SD = 22.93, n = 24) Study 1, F(3, 89) = 5.93, p < .005. Both androgynous (M =
had higher FIS scores than subjects who reported not getting 66.96, SD = 17.00) and feminine (M = 68.04, SD = 21.99)
this feedback(M= 71.75, SD= 20.53, « = 68), t(9l) = 3.18, p< subjects scored significantly lower on the FIS than did the mas-
.005. As with Study 1, there was no significant difference in FIS culine (M = 80.77, SD = 22.11) and Undifferentiated (M =
scores between subjects whose parents were divorced (M = 88.35, SD = 20.99) subjects. Analysis of covariance supported
80.11, SD = 20.88, n = 19) versus subjects whose parents were the association between fear of intimacy and sex-role orienta-
married (M= 74.68, SD = 22.44, n = 74), /(92) = .95, p > .10. tion while controlling for social desirability, ^"(3, 88) = 2.89,
The results of an ANCOVA to control for social desirability p < .05.
were consistent with the just-mentioned findings (i.e., subjects To examine whether gender influenced the sex-role orienta-
in an exclusive dating relationship versus those not in this kind tion findings, the data from both studies were pooled (men, n =
of relationship, F[l, 90] = 5.96, p < .05, and subjects who are 59 and women, n = 117). A one-way ANOVA among the female
difficult versus not difficult to get close to, F[\, 89] = 7.96, subjects indicated a significant difference among groups, F(3,
/K.01). 113) = 7.13, p < .005, whereas similar analysis among the male
To examine the data for men and women separately, subjects subjects was not significant, F(3,55) = 1.30, p >. 10. Among the
from Study 1 and Study 2 were pooled (men, n = 79; women, n = women, androgynous subjects scored significantly lower on the
143) because of the small number of men in Study 2. Correla- FIS than did the masculine and Undifferentiated subjects. Femi-
tional and t test analyses of the self-report data and test mea- nine subjects scored significantly lower than the Undifferen-
sures revealed similar results for men and women, and these tiated subjects.
results were consistent with the results of Study 1 and Study 2 in A final series of analyses used covariance techniques to exam-
all but two instances. In both of these instances, the results for ine the relationship of the FIS and the 10 self-report items while
Study 1 had not been consistent with the results for Study 2. controlling for the social intimacy, self-disclosure, and loneli-
First, there was a significant relationship between fear of inti- ness measures. Subjects from the two studies were combined
 FEAR-OF-INTIMACY SCALE 223

for each analysis (pooled n = 222). One item, number of persons In both of the present studies, the measure of social desirabil-
dated longer than 2 months, had shown inconsistent results be- ity was significantly correlated with other measures as well as
tween Study 1 and Study 2. Excluding that item, the significant with the FIS. The association of social desirability with other
or nonsignificant findings between the FIS and self-report data measures is not without precedent (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960;
in Study 1 and Study 2 were maintained in all but three cases.3 Millham & Jacobson, 1978). Researchers have suggested that
First, subjects in an exclusive relationship, versus those not in self-presentational biases are unlikely to account for experimen-
an exclusive relationship, did not differ on the FIS when com- tal results when the effects of social desirability are statistically
mon variance with the MSIS was controlled, F(l, 213) = . 11, eliminated (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) and that a socially desir-
p> .05. Similarly, when partialing out the common variance able response style is not a threat to the construct validity of
with the JSDQ, there was no longer a significant relation be- measures (Edwards, Edwards, & Clark, 1988). These statements
tween the FIS and the length of a subject's longest, closest dat- are supported by our data indicating a strong correlation be-
ing relationship (r = —. 11, p > .05, n = 207). Finally, when the tween the FIS and other measures even when social desirability
common variance with the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale was statistically controlled.
was partialed out, there was a significant relation that was not Further support for the validity of the FIS was demonstrated
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

previously obtained between the FIS and a subject's reported by comparing therapists' ratings with their clients' FIS scores.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

interest in an intimacy-based workshop (r = — .12, p < .05, n = The prediction of a positive correlation between FIS scores and
209). Although the correlation is not strong, it does indicate therapist ratings of fear of intimacy was upheld. Although the
that those subjects with a high level of intimacy fear had less relationship between ratings of clients' self-disclosure and the
interest in attending the workshop. Overall, the FIS predicted FIS was not significant, the negative correlation was in the ex-
the responses to the self-report items, even when controlling for pected direction and consistent with the fear-of-intimacy con-
the measures of social intimacy, self-disclosure, and loneliness. struct. Also of interest was the marked difference between
client and student FIS scores. As predicted, clients indicated a
significantly higher fear of intimacy than did students who were
Discussion
assumed not to be in therapy. Because difficulty with intimacy
Data from the present studies show the FIS to be a valid and in relationships is a frequently presented problem for therapy
reliable measure of individuals' anxiety about close, dating rela- (Horowitz, 1979), the FIS is a promising instrument for assess-
tionships. The conceptual model and scale allow for this assess- ment of client problems with intimacy and assessment of ther-
ment even with people who are not presently involved in a rela- apy gains.
tionship. The first study established the item content, construct Study 2 replicated many of the findings in Study 1. The con-
validity, and reliability of the scale. A follow-up study provided sistency of results over two independent samples supported the
cross-validation of the FIS. item selection, internal consistency, factor structure, and con-
Study 1 showed the FIS to have high internal consistency, struct validity of the FIS. Overall, the association between fear
high test-retest reliability, and acceptable construct validity of intimacy and sex-role orientation was also upheld.
supported by factor analysis and comparison with other mea- The investigation of sex-role orientation in the present stud-
sures. The dominance of one primary factor provided support ies was useful because there was not a significant difference
for the construct validity of the scale as a unidimensional mea- between the FIS scores of men and women, although the mean
sure. Comparison of the FIS with related established measures, score for men was higher. The findings on sex-role orientation
sex-role orientation, and subjects' self-report ratings on behav- are consistent with the view that low fear of intimacy is indica-
ioral and emotional indices also supported the scale's validity. tive of good mental health. Both studies found androgynous
Finally, validation of the FIS to an external criterion was ob- subjects to have significantly lower scores on the FIS than mas-
tained by comparison of a client sample with therapists' rat- culine and undifferentiated subjects. Androgynous individuals
ings. have generally been considered psychologically healthy (Bern,
Correlational analyses provided empirical evidence for the 1974; Gilbert, 1981) and have been found to be more loving
construct validity of the FIS. As expected, fear of intimacy was (Coleman & Ganong, 1985) and more expressive (Ganong &
significantly correlated with loneliness, low self-disclosure, and Coleman, 1985). The question of whether men or women ac-
low social intimacy. Moderately strong correlations supported count for the present findings was investigated by pooling the
these measures as overlapping but not identical constructs. subjects in Study 1 and Study 2 and analyzing the data for men
Such findings are consistent with those of other researchers and women separately. Although the pattern of results re-
who have identified, for example, self-disclosure as one part of mained the same for both sexes (the undifferentiated subjects'
intimacy (Gilbert, 1976; Waring & Chelune, 1983). In contrast, mean FIS score was the highest, followed by masculine, femi-
the weaker but significant correlations found between the FIS nine, and androgynous subjects' scores, respectively), only the
and measures of social desirability and need for cognition had women showed significant differences in fear of intimacy be-
not been predicted. These had been expected to be unrelated tween androgynous and undifferentiated, and androgynous
constructs supportive of discriminant validity. However, covar- and masculine subjects.4 It is possible that a larger sample of
iate techniques to control for social desirability indicated that
need for cognition was not associated with fear of intimacy, and 5
Tables listing all partial correlations and /"statistics for the covari-
supported the original prediction of independence of the mea- ance analyses are available on request.
4
sures. Furthermore, no significant correlation was obtained be- Androgynous is different from undifferentiated and masculine,
tween need for cognition and fear of intimacy in Study 2. but the latter two are not different (see Table 3).
 224 CAROL I DESCUTNER AND MARK H. THELEN

men would reveal the same statistically significant differences retrospective community study. Psychological Medicine, 12, 329-
as were found for women. 339.
Finally, the FIS appears to be a better measure of fear of Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
intimacy than other related measures. When the influence of independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
24, 349-354.
established measures of social intimacy, self-disclosure, and
Edwards, L. K., Edwards, A. L., & Clark, C. (1988). Social desirability
loneliness were controlled, the strong associations between the
and the frequency of social-reinforcement scale. JoumalofPersonal-
FIS and several external validators remained. Thus, the FIS is
ity and Social Psychology, 54. 526-529.
supported by incremental validity in addition to strong con- Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. (2nd ed.). New York:
struct validity. Norton Press.
The current findings show the FIS to be a promising instru- Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1985). Sex, sex roles, and emotional
ment for the assessment of fear of intimacy and the investiga- expressiveness. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 405-411.
tion of its role in mental health. The specific focus of a close, Gilbert, L. A. (1981). Toward mental health: The benefitsof psycholog-
dating relationship seemed appropriate for the scale in its early ical androgyny. Professional Psychology, 12, 29-37.
Gilbert, S. J. (1976). Self-disclosure, intimacy and communication in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

stages of development and closely fit the conceptual model of

families. The Family Coordinator. 25, 221-231.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

fear of intimacy. Whether the FIS can be extended to assess

Holt, M. L. (1977). Human intimacy in young adults: An experimental
intimacy in family or client-therapist relationships has yet to be
developmental scale. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia,
shown. Also, it is possible that the FIS is suitable to assess fear
1977). Dissertation Abstracts International. 38, 4583-A. (University
of intimacy in homosexual relationships. At present, the FIS's
Microfilms No. 77-30, 475).
application to a limited target population may be considered a Horowitz, L. M. (1979). On the cognitive structure of interpersonal
weakness; however, the instrument's strength at this point in its problems treated in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
development may just as likely be in its specificity Application cal Psychology, 47, 5-15.
of the FIS to other types of relationships is an indicated direc- Jourard, S. M. (1964). The transparent self. Princeton, NJ: Van Nos-
tion for future research. trand.
Several lines of study might be profitably pursued with the Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measure-
FIS. Research with other populations (e.g., older subjects, ment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 66-75.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van
married subjects vs. single subjects) are needed to test the gener-
Nostrand Reinhold.
alizability of the current results. Comparisons with additional
McAdams, D. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1982). Intimacy motivation and
measures, such as clinical interviews and assessment of inti- psychosocial adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personal-
macy-based behaviors, would further assess the construct valid- ity Assessment, 46, 586-593.
ity of the scale. Discriminant validity would be strengthened by Millham, I, & Jacobson, L. I. (1978). The need for approval. In H.
comparison of the FIS with measures of social anxiety in order London & ). E. Exner (Eds.), Dimensions of personality (pp. 365-
to distinguish fear of intimacy from low sociability. It is ex- 390). New York: Wiley.
pected that the two constructs are unrelated; for example, an Miller, R. S., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The assessment of social inti-
outgoing, talkative, and frequent dater can still be anxious macy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 514-518.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
about intimate relationships. If subsequent research affirms the
McGraw-Hill.
validity and reliability of the FIS, future studies should be di-
Ochse, R, & Plug, C. (1986). Cross-cultural investigation of the validity
rected toward its use with clinical populations and the assess-
of Erikson's theory of personality development. Journal of Personal-
ment of intimacy in different types of relationships. Finally, ity and Social Psychology, 50,1240-1252.
identification of the developmental antecedents of fear of inti- Orlofsky, J. L., Marcia, J. E., & Lesser, L M. (1973). Ego identity status
macy is an area for further research. and the intimacy versus isolation crisis of young adulthood. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 211-219.
Rubenstein, C, & Shaver, P. (1982). In search of intimacy: Surprising
References new conclusions from a nationwide survey on loneliness and what to do
about it. New York: Delacorte Press.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Jour-
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA
nal af Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42,155-162.
Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence.
Bern, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472-480.
psychological androgyny Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychol- Schaefer, M. T, & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The Pair
ogy, 45,196-205. Inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 47-60.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Sexton, R. E., & Sexton, VS. (1982). Intimacy: A historical perspective.
Personality and Social Psychology, 42,116-131. In M. Fisher & G. Strieker (Eds.), Intimacy (pp. 1-20). New York:
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assess- Plenum Press.
ment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New "York:
306-307. Norton Press.
Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (1985). Love and sex role stereotypes: Waring, E. M., & Chelune, G. J. (1983). Marital intimacy and self-dis-
Do macho men and feminine women make better lovers? Journal of closure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 183-190.
Personality and Social Psychology, 49,170-176. Waring, E. M., McElrath, D., Lefeoe, D., & Weisz, G. (1981). Dimen-
Costello, C. G. (1982). Social factors associated with depression: A sions of intimacy in marriage. Psychiatry, 44,169-175.
 FEAR-OF-INTIMACY SCALE 225

Appendix

Fear-of-Intimacy Scale

Part A Instructions: Imagine you are in a close, dating relationship. Respond to the following statements as you would if you were in that close
relationship. Rate how characteristic each statement is of you on a scale of 1 to 5 as described below, and put your responses on the answer sheet.

5
not at all
slightly moderately very extremely
characteristic
characteristic characteristic characteristic characteristic
ofme
ofme ofme ofme ofme

Note. In each statement "0" refers to the person who would be in the X21. I would be comfortable revealing to 0 what I feel are my
close relationship with you. shortcomings and handicaps.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

X22. I would be comfortable with having a close emotional tie

1. I would feel uncomfortable telling 0 about things in the past
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

between us.
that I have felt ashamed of.
23. I would be afraid of sharing my private thoughts with 0.
2. I would feel uneasy talking with 0 about something that has
24. I would be afraid that I might not always feel close to 0.
hurt me deeply.
X25. I would be comfortable telling 0 what my needs are.
X3. I would feel comfortable expressing my true feelings to 0.
26. I would be afraid that 0 would be more invested in the
4. If 0 were upset I would sometimes be afraid of showing that I
relationship than I would be.
care.
X27. I would feel comfortable about having open and honest
5. I might be afraid to confide my innermost feelings to 0.
communication with 0.
X6. I would feel at ease telling 0 that I care about him/her.
28. I would sometimes feel uncomfortable listening to O's personal
X7. I would have a feeling of complete togetherness with 0.
problems.
X8. I would be comfortable discussing significant problems with 0.
X29. I would feel at ease to completely be myself around 0.
9. A part of me would be afraid to make a long-term commitment
X30. I would feel relaxed being together and talking about our
toO.
personal goals.
XI0. I would feel comfortable telling my experiences, even sad ones,
toO.
Part B Instructions: Respond to the following statements as they
11. I would probably feel nervous showing 0 strong feelings of
apply to your past relationships. Rate how characteristic each
affection.
statement is of you on a scale of 1 to 5 as described in the instructions
12. 1 would find it difficult being open with 0 about my personal
thoughts. for Part A.
13. I would feel uneasy with 0 depending on me for emotional 31. I have shied away from opportunities to be close to someone.
support. 32. I have held back my feelings in previous relationships.
X14. I would not be afraid to share with 0 what I dislike about myself. 33. There are people who think that I am afraid to get close to them.
15. I would be afraid to take the risk of being hurt in order to 34. There are people who think that I am not an easy person to get
establish a closer relationship with 0. to know.
1 6 . 1 would feel comfortable keeping very personal information to 35. I have done things in previous relationships to keep me from
myself. developing closeness.
XI7. I would not be nervous about being spontaneous with 0.
XI8. I would feel comfortable telling 0 things that I do not tell other Note. X denotes items reversed for scoring.
people.
XI9. I would feel comfortable trusting 0 with my deepest thoughts
and feelings. Received March 6,1990
20. I would sometimes feel uneasy if 0 told me about very personal Revision received July 20,1990
matters. Accepted September 18,19901