Personal Relationships, 18 (2011), 110–124. Printed in the United States of America.
Copyright © 2010 IARR; DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01314.x
Why do close partners snoop? Predictors
of intrusive behavior in newlywed couples
CHARLOTTE D. W. VINKERS,a CATRIN FINKENAUER,a
SKYLER T. HAWKb
a VU University Amsterdam and b University of Amsterdam
AND
Abstract
Existing research shows that intrusive behavior has detrimental consequences for relationships. Surprisingly, little is
known about why close relationship partners snoop. This study examined why romantic partners engage in intrusive
behavior among newlywed couples in the Netherlands. As predicted, the results showed that perceiving a lack of
partner disclosure is linked to intrusive behavior, and importantly, that trust moderates this link. Only when people
did not trust their partner were their perceptions of partners’ low disclosure associated with intrusive behavior. When
people trusted their partner, perceived partner disclosure was not associated with intrusive behavior. These results
help to explain why people snoop and highlight the importance of trust as a powerful protective buffer against
intrusive behavior in close relationships.
People can be intrusive when it comes to
their partners’ private matters. They ask about
their partners’ whereabouts, give unsolicited
advice, and may even read partners’ text messages without consent, to name just a few
examples. Research on intrusive behavior has
focused mostly on its consequences, such as
increased conflict (Hawk, Keijsers, Hale, &
Meeus, 2009), and the tactics that people
use to restore their privacy after it has been
violated (Petronio, 1994). These studies suggest that people regard intrusive behavior in
Charlotte D. W. Vinkers and Catrin Finkenauer, Department of Social Psychology, VU University Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Skyler T. Hawk, Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vinkers is now at the Department of Clinical and
Health Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Hawk is now a postdoctoral fellow at the Research
Centre Adolescent Development, Utrecht University, The
Netherlands.
This research was supported by a grant to the second
author from the Netherlands Organization of Scientific
Research (452-05-322).
Correspondence should be addressed to Charlotte
D. W. Vinkers, Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Universiteit Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS
Utrecht, The Netherlands, e-mail: [email protected].
close relationships as undesirable and that
intrusive behavior may have potentially detrimental effects on the quality of the relationship. Why, then, would people act intrusively
toward their partners? Surprisingly, little is
known about the circumstances that give rise
to intrusive behavior in close relationships.
Furthermore, while prior studies have examined intrusive behavior in parent–adolescent
relationships (e.g., Hawk, Hale, Raaijmakers,
& Meeus, 2008; Hawk et al., 2009; Petronio,
1994), little research has investigated intrusive behavior in equal relationships between
adults. In this study, we sought to fill these
gaps in knowledge by investigating whether
married couples exhibit intrusive behavior and
delineating possible circumstances in which
married partners engage in this behavior.
Defining intrusive behavior
The literature has described different types
of intrusive behavior. Covert intrusive behavior occurs without a partner’s permission
or knowledge, such as reading a partner’s
e-mail in his or her absence (Petronio, 1994).
Overt intrusive behavior occurs when people
110
Intrusive behavior in marital relationships
excessively intervene into others’ private
matters, such as by meddling with the other’s
affairs. In contrast to covert intrusive behavior, the other is aware of this type of intrusive behavior and is typically present when it
occurs. Intrusive behavior can also be categorized in terms of intrusive acts and intrusive attitudes, a distinction that we will use
throughout this article. Intrusive acts refer
to concrete and specific activities, such as
checking a partner’s text messages without
his or her permission. Intrusive attitudes refer
to people’s more abstract judgments about
certain behaviors as being intrusive, which
reflects that they regard their own or others’
behaviors as intrusive. To illustrate, people
may acknowledge that they snoop into their
partner’s private affairs.
The literature considers intrusive behavior
as a means by which partners can regulate
their privacy within the relationship (Derlega,
Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Petronio & Durham, 2008). According to communication privacy management theory, people regulate the amount and kind of personal
information they reveal to others by creating
metaphorical privacy boundaries (Petronio &
Durham, 2008), which represent their desired
level of control over others’ access to their
private information (e.g., internal states or
possessions; Petronio, 2002). By acting intrusively, people disregard their partner’s need
for personal space, psychological distance,
autonomy (Vaughn & Leff, 1981), and privacy (Bok, 1982). Intrusive behavior does not
only violate the other’s privacy, however; it
also allows people to access and control a
partner’s private matters when these matters
are otherwise inaccessible (Margulis, 2003).
In this sense, intrusive behavior is likely to
be functional for the person engaging in it. In
line with this functional approach, the clinical literature identifies intrusive behavior as
a means to gain psychological control over
another’s behavior (Leff & Vaughn, 1985; cf.
Fredman, Chambless, & Steketee, 2004).
Intrusive behavior in close relationships
Prior research on intrusive behavior has primarily focused on unequal relationships, in
111
which one relationship partner has more
power or status than the other. For instance,
studies show that parents exhibit intrusive
behavior toward their children (e.g., Hawk
et al., 2008; Van Ingen, Moore, & Fuemmeler,
2008), and close relatives of adult psychiatric patients often engage in intrusive
attempts to control patients’ actions and
choices (Fredman et al., 2004). In these
unequal relationships, intrusive behavior negatively affects the relationship quality between
relationship partners, as evidenced by increased conflict (Hawk et al., 2009), decreased
mutual trust (Petronio, 1994), and high levels
of experienced stress and tension during interaction (Cutting, Aakre, & Docherty, 2006).
To our knowledge, no research has examined
whether partners with equal status or power
also engage in intrusive behavior. Furthermore, previous studies have focused on possible consequences of intrusive behavior. Little
is known, however, about the circumstances
that give rise to intrusive behavior in relationships. Assuming that intrusive behavior
has detrimental consequences for the relationship—regardless of the (in)equality between
relationship partners—it is important to not
only examine whether close partners snoop
but also why they do so. The present research
begins to answer these questions. Specifically,
we propose that intrusive behavior may be the
result of two relational processes—disclosure
and trust—that are not only at the heart of
most relationships (Rubin, 1973; Simpson,
2007) but have also been shown to be closely
related to privacy in relationships.
Partner disclosure and intrusive behavior
Disclosure, or the process of revealing personally relevant information, thoughts, and feelings to others (Greene, Derlega, & Mathews,
2006), is an important means by which
relationship partners regulate their privacy
(Derlega & Chaikin, 1977; Petronio, 2002).
Intrusive behavior defies the privacy boundaries established by partner disclosure. Specifically, we propose that when partners engage
in high levels of disclosure, people perceive
them to have permeable boundaries and do
not need to be intrusive. In contrast, when
112
C. D. W. Vinkers, C. Finkenauer, and S. T. Hawk
partners engage in low levels of disclosure,
people perceive them to have rigid boundaries and may be more likely to be intrusive
to increase their control over, and access to,
their partner’s private information.
The literature provides indirect support for
this suggestion. Baxter (1979) argued that
another’s disclosure serves as the primary
relational cue for the extent to which people feel that they are able to access the
other’s private information. Indeed, openness
about private matters between close partners is indispensable for relationship quality and satisfaction (Baxter & Bullis, 1986).
A partner’s disclosure fosters people’s feelings of connectedness (Laurenceau, Barrett,
& Rovine, 2005; Waring, Tillman, Frelick,
Russell, & Weisz, 1980) and strengthens
beliefs that the partner is truthful (Greene
et al., 2006). Conversely, when a partner is
perceived to withhold private information,
people feel hurt, devalued (Feeney, 2004),
and excluded by their partner (Finkenauer,
Kerkhof, Branje, & Righetti, 2009). Low
levels of partner disclosure violate people’s
expectations regarding intimate relationships
(Baxter, 1986; Vangelisti, Caughlin, &
Timmerman, 2001). Thus, a partner’s lack
of disclosure is incompatible with people’s
desires and expectations toward close relationships, including a permeable privacy
boundary (Metts & Cupach, 1990).
Limited access to a partner’s innermost
thoughts and feelings undermines people’s
confidence that their partner is sincere, emotionally involved, and accessible (Parks &
Floyd, 1996; Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985).
When a partner violates people’s relational
expectations for openness, people experience uncertainty about their relationship (Afifi
& Metts, 1998; Knobloch, 2008; Knobloch
& Solomon, 2002; Planalp, Rutherford, &
Honeycutt, 1988; Turner, 1990). Conversely,
the more people in romantic relationships
communicate with each other, the less uncertainty they experience (Parks & Adelman,
1983). Thus, perceiving a lack of disclosure
from one’s partner evokes uncertainty and
doubts because it deprives people of valuable
knowledge about one’s partner and the future
of one’s relationship, and contradicts people’s
expectations for intimacy and closeness. To
cope with these feelings of uncertainty, people may be motivated to increase their access
to, and control over, their partner’s private
information by engaging in intrusive behavior. Bell and Buerkel-Rothfuss (1990) provide
support for this suggestion. They examined
the information-seeking strategies that people
employ to gain information about their partner’s relational intentions. They found that
people engage in intrusive behavior, such as
questioning a partner’s friends or listening
in on the other’s phone conversations, and
that these behaviors yielded information that
allowed people to predict the future course of
their relationship. Thus, we propose that people engage in intrusive behavior when they
perceive low disclosure from their partner
(Hypothesis 1).
The protective power of trust
Certain relationship features may attenuate
the proposed link between a perceived lack
of partner disclosure and intrusive behavior.
Trust represents people’s level of confidence
that a partner will respond to their needs,
can be relied upon, and is concerned with
their well-being (Larzele & Huston, 1980;
Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). When people trust their partner, they perceive their partner as predictable, dependable, and motivated
to remain caring and responsive, regardless
of what the future may hold. Not surprisingly, trust is argued to be the “antithesis of
doubt” (Sorrentino, Holmes, Hanna, & Sharp,
1995, p. 314). Trust dispels doubts and uncertainties about a partner, partly because of its
powerful effects on the manner in which people evaluate their partner’s ambiguous behavior (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Rempel, Ross,
& Holmes, 2001). People with high levels of trust in their partner attribute their
partner’s behavior to benign intentions, even
when they feel that their partner behaved
in an unresponsive or inconsiderate manner
(Miller & Rempel, 2004). They even transform the meaning of potentially negative
information about their partner in ways that
confirm their positive expectations (Murray &
Holmes, 1993). Conversely, people who do
Intrusive behavior in marital relationships
not trust their partner amplify the implications
of a partner’s negative behavior, thereby reinforcing existing beliefs that their partner is not
trustworthy (Camper, Jacobson, HoltzworthMunroe, & Schmaling, 1988).
These findings suggest that trust may serve
as a protective mechanism that helps to
buffer against the uncertainty people experience when they perceive their partner’s lack
of disclosure. Therefore, we propose that trust
acts as a moderator on the link between people’s perceptions of a partner’s low disclosure
and their intrusive behavior (Hypothesis 2). At
low levels of trust, a perceived lack of partner disclosure should be associated with more
intrusive behavior. Conversely, at high levels
of trust, a perceived lack of partner disclosure should not be associated with intrusive
behavior.
Overview of this study
This study examined why romantic partners
engage in intrusive behavior. On the basis
of the existing literature on relational processes that characterize close relationships
and that have been linked to privacy regulation (Petronio, 1994, 2002), we advanced
two hypotheses about why romantic partners
engage in intrusive behavior. First, we predicted that perceiving low disclosure from
one’s partner is associated with intrusive
behavior. Because we obtained data from both
partners within each couple, we were able to
examine our predictions while controlling for
confounding factors, such as the dependence
of partner’s scores within couples (Cook &
Kenny, 2005), and biased perceptions of partners due to projection effects (Kenny &
Aticelli, 2001). Specifically, we controlled for
(a) respondents’ own disclosure, (b) partners’
own disclosure, and (c) partners’ perceptions
of respondents’ disclosure. Second, we predicted that the level of trust in one’s partner moderates the link between perceived
partner disclosure and intrusive behavior, in
that perceived partner disclosure and intrusive behavior should be negatively associated
when people have low trust in their partner,
but should not be associated when people
have high trust in their partner.
113
We tested these predictions in a sample of newlywed couples. We included two
indices of intrusive behavior, intrusive attitudes (reflecting people’s judgment of their
behavior as being intrusive) and intrusive
acts (concrete intrusive activities that people
engage in). We did not expect different effects
for the two indices of intrusive behavior.
We extend current conceptual and empirical work on intrusive behavior in close
relationships in three unique ways. First, in
contrast to previous work, our study examined intrusive behavior in close relationships that are characterized by equal status
and interdependence. Second, although the
literature emphasizes that effective privacy
management in relationships depends on both
relationship partners (Petronio & Durham,
2008), most research has focused on the people whose privacy is at stake (e.g., Burgoon
et al., 1989; Hawk et al., 2009; Petronio,
1994). Our study, in contrast, focuses on
the people who engage in intrusive behavior in order to illuminate why they snoop.
Third, emerging evidence suggests that intrusive behavior may have harmful consequences
for relationships, which makes studies on the
conditions that may give rise to intrusive
behavior all the more important. By investigating two possible predictors of intrusive
behavior, perceived partner disclosure and
trust, we provide new insights as to when and
why people exhibit such behavior.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 188 married couples, drawn from an ongoing longitudinal
investigation of newlywed couples in the
Netherlands. The mean age of the husbands
was 33.74 years (SD = 4.89) and the mean
age of wives was 30.84 years (SD = 4.35).
The couples had been married on average
for 2.07 years (SD = 0.09). At the time of
the study, 2% of the wives and 6.5% of
the husbands were not doing paid work. The
majority of the husbands worked 33–40 hr
a week (64%). Wives’ working hours were
more variable: 17–24 hr (28%), 25–32 hr
114
C. D. W. Vinkers, C. Finkenauer, and S. T. Hawk
(29%), and 33–40 hr (29%). Couples were
primarily Dutch (98.5% of the husbands and
96.4% of the wives).
to measure partners’ own and perceived disclosure. Spouses reported the extent to which
they disclosed their intimate thoughts and
feelings to their partner, as well as the extent
to which they perceived this behavior from
their partner. The seven items were rated on a
5-point scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Example items
are “I talk to my partner about my biggest
fears,” “I tell my partner what moves me,”
and “I share my most intimate thoughts and
feelings with my partner.” We calculated the
average score for own (Cronbach’s α = .92)
and perceived (α = .91) disclosure for each
partner, separately.
Procedure
The sample consisted of newlywed couples
who participated for the third time in a
longitudinal investigation of well-being and
marriage, which started in 2006 (Finkenauer
et al., 2009). Of the original 199 couples, 188
couples (94%) participated in the third data
collection, during which all data relevant to
this article were collected. The present data
were collected from April 2008 until June
2008.
At the beginning of the study in 2006, participants were recruited via the municipalities
in which they got married. The municipalities
provided names and addresses of couples who
married in the previous month. Each couple
was sent a letter inviting them to participate in
a study concerning the factors that contribute
to marital and individual well-being. Of all
couples, 19% agreed to participate. At that
time, we verified that couples were married
for the first time, had no children, and were
between 25 and 40 years old. During the third
data collection in 2008, 124 couples (66%)
had one or more children or were expecting
a child.
Both members of each couple separately
filled out an extensive questionnaire at home,
which took about 90 min to complete. During
each data collection, a trained interviewer was
present to ensure that partners did not discuss
questions or answers with each other. After
the partners completed the questionnaire, they
received 15 euros and a pen set. Furthermore, we increased couples’ commitment to
the study by sending them birthday cards, as
well as regular updates on the progress of the
study via e-mail and the Web site that was
created for the longitudinal project.
Measures
Disclosure
We used the Partner-Specific Disclosure Scale
(Finkenauer, Engels, Branje, & Meeus, 2004)
Intrusive attitudes
We measured intrusive attitudes with a Dutch
translation of the Intrusiveness subscale of
the Level of Expressed Emotion questionnaire (Hale, Raaijmakers, Gerlsma, & Meeus,
2007). The questionnaire has been used previously to examine parent–adolescent relationships, so we modified it for use with married
couples. It consists of seven items, which partners rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1
(never) to 5 (very often). Example items are “I
have to know everything about my partner,”
“I am always nosing into my partner’s business,” and “I butt into my partner’s private
matters.” Respondents rated their own intrusive attitudes toward their partner (α = .82)
and their perceptions of their partner’s intrusive attitudes toward themselves (α = .84).
Intrusive acts
We measured intrusive acts by an adapted
version of Petronio’s (1994) questionnaire
on privacy invasion in parent–child relationships. The questionnaire includes concrete
intrusive activities that pertain to gaining
access to matters that people typically consider private. These include internal states,
such as feelings and opinions, which may be
expressed through verbal or written communications (e.g., e-mail, diary, letters), as well
as personal space and possessions (e.g., the
content of pockets or drawers). The items
for the Intrusive Acts Scale were derived
from previous studies on privacy invasion in
Intrusive behavior in marital relationships
parent–child relationships (Hawk & Keijsers,
2010; Petronio, 1994), further refined and
adjusted for use with romantic partners. Couples reported the frequency with which they
exhibited intrusive acts. The 11 items were
rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1
(never) to 5 (very often). Example items
are “. . . reading my partner’s e-mail without permission,” “. . . rummaging through my
partner’s personal belongings, for example,
pockets,” and “. . . trying to find out which
Internet sites my partner has visited.” Again,
we measured and averaged spouses’ own (α =
.71) as well as their perceptions of their partner’s (α = .76) intrusive acts.
Trust
To assess interpersonal trust, we used the
12-item measure developed by Rempel and
colleagues (1985). This scale is one of the
most widely used scales to assess trust in close
relationships. It includes three components of
trust: predictability (e.g., “My partner behaves
in a very consistent manner”), dependability
(e.g., “I can rely on my partner to keep the
promises he/she made to me”), and faith (e.g.,
“Though times may change and the future is
uncertain, I know my partner will always be
ready and willing to offer me strength and
support”). The scale is generally examined
as a single average score that emphasizes a
people’s expectations that their partner will
be caring and act in ways that are responsive
to people’s needs (e.g., Holmes & Rempel,
1989). Partners rated items on a 5-point scale,
ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5
(completely agree). We averaged the scores
for each partner (α = .89).
Results
Strategy of analysis
To deal with the nonindependent nature of
dyadic data, we used hierarchical linear modeling, a multilevel regression method in
which the scores of the two partners are
treated as nested within the same dyad
(Hox, 2002). Specifically, we adopted an
analytical approach that is based on the
actor–partner interdependence model (APIM;
115
Cook & Kenny, 2005; Kenny, 1996). The
APIM assumes that each dyad member’s
score on the outcome variable is not only
affected by his or her own score on the predictor variable (i.e., an actor effect) but also
by his or her partner’s score on that predictor variable (i.e., a partner effect). Therefore,
actor effects are estimated while controlling
for partner effects (Cook & Kenny, 2005). For
the APIM analysis, we used the SPSS MIXED
procedure, which is comparable to the SAS
PROC MIXED procedure (see Campbell &
Kashy, 2002). All variables were centered
prior to analyses.
We present our results in three sections.
In the first part, we present basic analyses
and correlations for all measured variables. In
the second part, we consider the hypothesized
link between perceived disclosure and both
indices of intrusive behavior. In the final part,
we report our findings with regard to the
moderating role of trust in this link.
Descriptive analyses and correlations
To our knowledge, there is no research investigating whether partners in close, equal relationships engage in intrusive behaviors. To
examine this question and explore sex differences and target effects, we conducted 2 (sex:
husbands vs. wives) × 2 (target: self vs. partner) repeated measures analyses of variance,
with both variables treated as within-couple
factors (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). For disclosure, the analysis
revealed a significant main effect for target,
F (1,184) = 25.75, p < .01, ηp 2 = .123, indicating that partners reported more own than
perceived disclosure. There was no difference
between husbands and wives, F (1, 184) =
.48, p > .05. The interaction effect was significant, F (1, 184) = 47.40, p < .01, ηp 2 =
.205, with wives reporting more own than
perceived and husbands reporting more perceived than own disclosure (Table 1). Thus,
both partners seem to agree that wives disclosed more than husbands.
For both intrusive attitudes and intrusive
acts, significant main effects for sex emerged,
F (1, 186) = 7.62, p < .01, ηp 2 = .039, and
F (1, 176) = 5.89, p < .05, ηp 2 = .032;
116
C. D. W. Vinkers, C. Finkenauer, and S. T. Hawk
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of self-reported own (o) and perceived (p) variables
by sex
Husbands
Disclosure (o)
Disclosure (p)
Intrusive attitudes (o)
Intrusive attitudes (p)
Intrusive acts (o)
Intrusive acts (p)
Trust
∗∗ p
Wives
M
SD
M
SD
Range
4.12∗∗
4.19∗∗
1.87∗∗
2.11
1.80∗∗
1.83
4.22
.59
.48
.54
.67
.28
.38
.48
4.35
4.03
2.20
2.05
1.96
1.83
4.20
.48
.55
.64
.62
.34
.37
.47
1.71–5.00
1.86–5.00
1.00–4.14
1.00–4.29
1.00–3.45
1.00–4.00
2.42–5.00
< .01.
Table 2. Correlations between variables within and between partners
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Disclosure (o)
Disclosure (p)
Intrusive attitudes (o)
Intrusive attitudes (p)
Intrusive acts (o)
Intrusive acts (p)
Trust
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.11∗
.45∗∗
−.00
.18∗∗
.04
−.13∗∗
.46∗∗
.31∗∗
.23∗∗
−.20∗∗
−.09
−.13∗
−.07
.54∗∗
−.12∗
−.02
.05
.46∗∗
.59∗∗
.33∗∗
−.22∗∗
−.01
−.10∗
.25∗∗
.11∗
.27∗∗
.59∗∗
−.30∗∗
−.02
.11∗
.06
.24∗∗
.09
.51∗∗
−.15∗∗
.02
.05
.21∗∗
.13∗
.24∗∗
.15∗∗
−.24∗∗
.20∗∗
.26∗∗
−.03
−.09
−.02
−.07
.27∗∗
Note. Values on and above the diagonal represent correlations across partners (between-partner correlations) and values
under the diagonal represent correlations within individual partners (within-partner correlations). o = own behavior;
p = perceived behavior.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
wives, compared to husbands, reported more
own and perceived intrusive behavior. For
intrusive attitudes, the analysis yielded no
main effect for target, F (1, 186) = 1.80, p >
.05. For intrusive acts, a main effect for target
emerged, F (1, 176) = 9.87, p < .01, ηp 2 =
.053. This indicates that partners reported similar levels of own and perceived intrusive attitudes, whereas they reported more own than
perceived intrusive acts. Finally, a significant
interaction effects emerged for both intrusive attitudes, F (1, 186) = 31.82, p < .01,
ηp 2 = .146, and intrusive acts, F (1, 176) =
25.04, p < .01, ηp 2 = .125. For both indices
of intrusive behavior, wives reported more
own than perceived and husbands reported
more perceived than own intrusive behavior.
Thus, both partners agreed that wives engaged
in more intrusive behavior than husbands.
Table 2 summarizes the correlations between
all measured variables within each partner and
between partners within each couple.1
Perceived partner disclosure and intrusive
behavior
To examine whether perceived partner disclosure is negatively associated with intrusive
behavior (Hypothesis 1), we used the APIM.
In addition to perceived partner disclosure,
1. As can be seen in Table 2, the two indices of intrusive
behavior were highly correlated (r = .59). Therefore,
we conducted a principal component analysis, which
revealed that the items from the two scales loaded
on two components, confirming that these scales measure two related but separate dimensions of intrusive
behavior. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this
suggestion.
Intrusive behavior in marital relationships
117
Table 3. Testing the moderating role of trust on the link between perceived partner disclosure
and intrusive behavior (N = 188 dyads)
Intrusive attitudes
b
Intercept
Sex
Actor effects
Disclosure (o)
Disclosure (p)
Trust
Partner effects
Disclosure (o)
Disclosure (p)
Trust
Interaction effects
Disclosure (p) × Trust
Intrusive acts
t
p
2.04
−0.14
62.95
−4.27
.000
.000
0.04
−0.21
−0.24
0.57
−2.95
−3.17
−0.01
−0.01
0.06
−0.17
−0.11
0.83
0.37
3.07
t
p
1.88
−0.07
104.84
−3.95
.000
.000
ns
.003
.002
0.02
−0.09
−0.10
0.52
−2.42
−2.65
ns
.016
.008
ns
ns
ns
0.01
0.06
−0.03
0.26
1.56
−0.88
ns
ns
ns
0.27
4.15
.002
b
.000
Note. b-values are unstandardized regression coefficients. o = own behavior; p = perceived behavior.
we included several other predictors in the
model to control for the effects of confounds,
namely (a) sex, (b) partner-reported perceived
disclosure, (c) self-reported own disclosure,
and (d) partner-reported own disclosure.2 All
predictor variables were centered around their
sample mean prior to analysis. Table 3 summarizes the results of this analysis. Although
the effects were small (Cohen, 1992), consistent with our predictions, the analyses yielded
significant actor effects of perceived partner
disclosure on both intrusive attitudes, b =
−.18, p < .01, and intrusive acts, b = −.07,
p < .05. Despite the fact that respondents’
own disclosure predicted their perceptions of
their partner’s disclosure, respondents’ own
disclosure did not predict intrusive attitudes,
b = .04, p > .05 or intrusive acts, b = .02,
p > .05.
No significant partner effects emerged for
perceived and own disclosure on either indicator of intrusive behavior. Finally, we examined whether the hypothesized link between
perceived disclosure and indicators of intrusive behavior was different for husbands and
wives. Therefore, we added interaction terms
between sex and perceived disclosure in the
model, for actor’s and partner’s sex separately. These interaction effects were not significant (all ps > .05), indicating that the
link between perceived disclosure and intrusive behavior did not vary as a function of sex.
In sum, the results indicate that, in support of
our prediction, the extent to which spouses
perceived disclosure from their partner was
negatively associated with their own intrusive
attitudes and acts.
The protective power of trust: Does trust act
as a moderator?
2. We included these predictors on the basis of preliminary analyses, which revealed that, within couples,
perceptions of a partner’s disclosure, intrusive acts,
and intrusive attitudes were not only predicted by partners’ reports but also by people’s own reports on these
variables. In other words, couples showed so-called
projection effects (Kenny & Aticelli, 2001), indicating
that people tend to infer their partner’s behavior and
feelings by using self-related information. To control
for these projection effects, we included these variables in the model (results available upon request).
To analyze the moderating role of trust
between perceived disclosure and intrusive
behavior (Hypothesis 2), we again used the
APIM. To test our hypothesis, we added
interaction terms between trust and perceived
disclosure to the main effects of perceived disclosure, trust, and sex. This interaction was
significant for intrusive attitudes (b = .37,
118
C. D. W. Vinkers, C. Finkenauer, and S. T. Hawk
Low Trust
High Trust
2.5
2.4
Intrusive Attitudes
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
Low Perceived Disclosure
High Perceived Disclosure
Figure 1. Interaction between perceived disclosure and trust on intrusive attitudes.
attitudes, b = .06, t (369) = .66, p > .05, or
intrusive acts, b = .09, t (369) = 2.02, p >
.05. At low levels of trust, however, the slope
differed significantly from zero for both intrusive attitudes, b = .27, t (364) = −2.65, p <
.01, and intrusive acts, b = −.17, t (364) =
−3.27, p < .01. This indicates that when
spouses trusted their partner, perceptions of
their partner’s level of disclosure did not
predict their intrusive behavior. Conversely,
when spouses did not trust their partner,
perceived disclosure from their partner was
negatively associated with intrusive behavior.
Thus, in support of our prediction, the results
show that trust moderates the link between
perceived disclosure and both indices of intrusive behavior.
Low Trust
High Trust
Discussion
2.5
2.4
Intrusive Acts
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
Low Perceived Disclosure High Perceived Disclosure
Figure 2. Interaction between perceived disclosure and trust on intrusive acts.
p < .01), as well as for intrusive acts (b =
.27, p < .01). Subsequently, we examined
whether the link between perceived disclosure
and intrusive behavior was different for people
with high levels of trust in comparison with
those with low levels of trust. Figures 1 and 2
depict these interaction effects upon intrusive
attitudes and acts, respectively.
To test whether the interaction slopes at
high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD
below the mean) levels of trust were different
from zero, we conducted simple slope analyses by regressing both indices of intrusive
behavior on perceived disclosure and high
and low trust. These analyses revealed that at
high levels of trust, the slope did not differ
significantly from zero for either intrusive
This study sought to empirically investigate
two possible predictors of intrusive behavior
in order to explain why married partners
snoop into each other’s private affairs. Our
findings confirmed both our hypotheses. First,
lower levels of perceived partner disclosure
were associated with higher levels of intrusive
behavior. Second, perceived disclosure was
negatively associated with intrusive behavior
at lower levels of trust in one’s partner, but
not at higher levels of trust.
Intrusive behavior in close relationships
Previous research showed that intrusive behavior takes place in relationships that are
characterized by inequality in status and
dependence, such as parent–adolescent relationships (e.g., Hawk et al., 2008). We expand
upon this work by demonstrating that people in equal relationships engage in intrusive behavior, as well. Specifically, marital
partners reported enacting intrusive behaviors, as indicated by both the frequency of
specific intrusive acts (e.g., reading a partner’s e-mail without his or her knowledge
or rummaging through a partner’s belongings) and the strength of intrusive attitudes
(e.g., wanting to know everything about one’s
partner and one’s awareness of nosing into
a partner’s business). Furthermore, couples
Intrusive behavior in marital relationships
agreed that wives engaged more often in
intrusive behavior than husbands. This result,
although not expected, may be explained by
earlier findings suggesting that women are
more verbally demanding and seek more emotional involvement than men (Vogel, Murphy,
Werner-Wilson, Cutrona, & Seeman, 2007)
and that men have a greater need to control
their privacy than women (Rosenfeld, 1979).
Our findings did not yield differences
between the two indices of intrusive behavior
assessed in our study. This lack of differences is not surprising; the high correlation
between the two measures suggests that both
measures tap the extent to which people defy
their partner’s privacy boundaries. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that the two scales
assessed related, but different, dimensions of
intrusive behavior. More research is needed to
pit the two dimensions against each other and
examine their similarities and differences.
Partner disclosure and intrusive behavior
As hypothesized, perceived disclosure predicted intrusive behavior. People who
perceived their partner to display low levels of
disclosure intruded on their partner’s privacy.
Emphasizing the importance of perceived disclosure, this finding held even when we controlled for gender. This result is striking in the
light of findings showing that men and women
differ in the value they place on intimate disclosure (Derlega et al., 1993) and in the extent
to which they are expected to disclose as a
function of their gender role (Dindia & Allen,
1992). The lack of gender differences in our
study suggests that people’s relational expectations, including openness (Baxter, 1986) and
interpersonal accessibility (Baxter, 1979), are
more predictive of their responses to a partner’s lack of disclosure than are more specific,
gender-related differences or sex roles.
We can also rule out some alternative
explanations for our findings. For example,
the negative associations between perceived
disclosure and intrusive behavior also held
when controlling for people’s own disclosure,
indicating that it is no artifact of projection
or a “bias of assumed similarity” (Kenny
& Aticelli, 2001). We did find evidence for
119
projection, however, in that perceptions of
a partner’s disclosure were associated with
reports of one’s own disclosure (Caughlin
& Golish, 2002; Lemay & Clark, 2008).
Nonetheless, our results also show that people detect their partner’s level of disclosure.
Importantly, it is the detection of partner disclosure, above and beyond projection effects,
that is related to their reports of intrusive
behavior. This finding supports our suggestion that when partners are perceived to have
permeable boundaries (Petronio, 2002), as
reflected by high levels of disclosure, people
need not be intrusive. In contrast, when partners are perceived to have rigid boundaries,
as reflected by low levels of disclosure, people are more likely to be intrusive in order
to increase their access to, and control over,
their partner’s private information.
Taken together, these findings are consistent with our suggestion that when people perceive themselves as having limited
access to their partner’s private matters—as
reflected by a perceived lack of partner disclosure—they become intrusive. We theorized
that a lack of disclosure increases uncertainty
about a partner and a relationship. Because
we did not assess uncertainty, we cannot conclude that intrusive behavior provides a means
to reduce uncertainty. However, intrusive acts,
such as spying behaviors, have been linked to
jealousy, which may represent a specific form
of uncertainty about a partner’s commitment
(Afifi & Reichert, 1996; Guerrero, 1998).
Nonetheless, more research needs to examine
the mechanisms underlying the link between
perceived partner disclosure and intrusive
behavior. Also, future studies should examine whether related communicative behavior,
such as perceived concealment (Finkenauer
et al., 2009) and topic avoidance (Baxter &
Wilmot, 1985; Guerrero & Afifi, 1995), yields
similar effects on intrusive behavior.
The protective power of trust
As predicted, trust moderated the association between perceived low disclosure from
a partner and intrusive behavior. This finding
supports our suggestion that trust is an
antithesis of doubt (Sorrentino et al., 1995).
120
C. D. W. Vinkers, C. Finkenauer, and S. T. Hawk
Trust may buffer the deleterious effects of
a perceived lack of partner disclosure in a
variety of ways. First, it may allow people
to feel secure in their relationship despite
the lack of disclosure from their partner.
Indeed, people who feel secure about their
partner’s benevolence make optimistic inferences about their partner’s behavior (Murray
& Holmes, 1993; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
1996). Second, trust may motivate people
to use more constructive strategies to deal
with their partner’s lack of disclosure. Existing research shows that people who have
positive beliefs about the future of their relationship respond constructively to their partner’s unpleasant behavior (Rusbult, Verette,
Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Rusbult,
Zembrodt, & Gunn, 1982). Thus, trust may
lead people to explicitly address their dissatisfaction by initiating a discussion rather than
responding with intrusive behavior. Finally,
trust may deflect any perceived threat to one’s
relationship satisfaction and commitment that
nondisclosure may elicit (Finkenauer et al.,
2009).
These findings further underline trust as a
crucial element for relationship satisfaction,
maintenance, and survival (Holmes, 2004;
Kelley, 1979; Rempel et al., 1985). Given
the detrimental consequences that intrusive
behavior may have on people’s interpersonal
interactions (e.g., Hawk et al., 2009; Petronio,
1994), it is important to shed light on the
factors that may prevent people from engaging in this potentially deleterious behavior.
Other relational factors may have similar
protective effects. For example, commitment
may be a key factor as to whether people
engage in intrusive behavior (Finkel, Rusbult,
Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). People in committed relationships may be able to downregulate the threat posed by perceived lack
of partner disclosure, given their long-term
orientation, their intent to persist, and their
psychological attachment to the relationship
(Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).
From a broader perspective, our results
raise some interesting questions about the
functional value of intrusive behavior in
close relationships. We theorized that intrusive behavior may represent a form of
information seeking that serves to reduce
uncertainty about one’s partner. It may also
allow people to prepare for a feared outcome
or to prevent it from occurring. The question arises, however, whether intrusive behavior actually helps people to gain reassurance
and escape relationship-threatening thoughts
and feelings. Furthermore, it may only provide a temporary relief of uncertainty. When
people find the incriminating evidence that
they are looking for, for example, the information may fuel further doubts. The literature suggests that information that is gained
through intrusive behavior is often ambiguous and unreliable, which raises doubts rather
than firmly confirming or refuting them (Afifi
& Burgoon, 1998). When people fail to find
what they are looking for, intrusive behavior may be negatively reinforced. In line with
this suggestion, the existing literature indicates that worried people detect, perceive, and
interpret information in such a way that it
reinforces and worsens their worries (Craske,
1999; Mathews, 1990). This implies that once
people engage in intrusive behavior, they may
be drawn into an ongoing downward spiral of uncertainty and intrusiveness, which
may have deleterious effects on their relationship. In support of this suggestion, research
found that people who frequently grapple with
doubts about their partner’s commitment are
more likely to break up than those without
doubts (Arriaga, Reed, Goodfriend, & Agnew,
2006). Thus, although intrusive behavior may
seem an effective coping tool to deal with
uncertainty, it may actually perpetuate doubts
and reinforce even more intrusive behavior.
Strengths and limitations
This study has several important strengths.
First, our work is the first to delineate circumstances that may give rise to intrusive behavior in a large sample of newlywed couples.
We contribute to the existing literature not
only by demonstrating that intrusive behavior occurs in egalitarian relationships, in our
study married partners, but also by identifying
two possible predictors of intrusive behavior.
Second, we obtained data from both partners within each couple, which allowed us
Intrusive behavior in marital relationships
to examine associations within and across
couples, as well as to control for confounds
caused by the interdependence within couples.
Third, our findings extend our current understanding on the tension that exists between
disclosure and privacy in close relationships
(Petronio, 2002). In contrast to previous work
(e.g., Caughlin & Afifi, 2004), we highlight
the position of the recipient of (non)disclosure
to investigate intrusive behavior in close relationships. Our study suggests that the perception of partner disclosure may affect the
extent to which people defy their partner’s privacy boundaries. It thereby underscores the
notion that successful privacy regulation in
close relationships depends on the dynamics of both partners’ behavior, rather than
on just one partner’s behavior (Petronio &
Durham, 2008).
There are also several limitations to this
study. First, because the data are correlational, a note of caution is warranted in
the interpretations of our findings. Although
our findings may indicate that a perceived
lack of partner disclosure among low trusting people may cause these people to engage
in intrusive behavior, and our hypotheses
reflect such an assumption, it is not possible to rule out alternative interpretations. It
is possible that when people do not trust
their partner, their intrusive behavior causes
them to believe that their partner discloses
little private information. This suggests that
there may be reciprocal effects between perceived disclosure and intrusive behavior. Second, variables not measured in this study may
cause the observed effects of perceived disclosure and trust on intrusive behavior. For
example, the literature suggests that people’s
self-esteem negatively affects both inferences
about a partner’s behavior and the extent to
which they feel confident in the strength of
their relationship (Murray, Holmes, Griffin, &
Rose, 2001). More studies need to examine
these suggestions. Third, we examined intrusive behavior in newlywed couples. This prevents generalization of our findings to romantic partners at other stages of their relationship. For example, especially in the beginning
of romantic relationships, uncertainty about
the future of a relationship is particularly
121
high (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002) and the
content and frequency of intimate disclosure
are restricted (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985). This
would imply that the links we found may be
especially pronounced in dating couples, in
comparison with married couples. Finally, we
did not measure whether people who reported
relatively low levels of perceived disclosure
actually regarded this as a lack of disclosure
or as undesirable. It is possible that some people feel that it is perfectly acceptable when
their partner does not engage in full disclosure, out of respect for their partner’s privacy
and autonomy or because their partner is not
a “talker.” Existing research, however, suggests that perceiving a partner as withholding
private information is aversive and has detrimental effects on relationships (Finkenauer
et al., 2009). Moreover, although this limitation raises additional questions about the
underlying mechanism of the link between
perceived disclosure and intrusive behavior,
it does not contradict our finding that they are
indeed negatively associated. Future research
that directly assesses the perception of nondisclosure as being undesirable is essential for
providing an explanation for its associations
with intrusive behavior. Finally, we did not
examine the specific issues over which marital partners claim a right to privacy. Married
couples share a lot of private information,
space, and property, which renders individual privacy an ambiguous concept (Petronio,
2002). Furthermore, even when people are
aware that their intrusive behavior violates
their partner’s privacy, they may justify it
with the rationale that they have the right to
access their partner’s private matters (Petronio
& Durham, 2008). Future research should illuminate how equal relationship partners view
intrusive behavior, privacy, and possible violations thereof. Ideally, these studies should
investigate both points of view, namely, the
person whose privacy is intruded upon and
the person enacting the intrusive behavior.
Conclusion
The overarching goal of this work was to
explore the predictors of intrusive behavior in close relationships. We proposed that
122
C. D. W. Vinkers, C. Finkenauer, and S. T. Hawk
perceiving a lack of disclosure from one’s
partner may motivate people to engage in
intrusive behavior. A perceived lack of partner
disclosure, after all, is incompatible with people’s desires and expectations for an open
and intimate relationship (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985). Importantly, we predicted that
trust may buffer the link between perceived
partner disclosure and intrusive behavior, in
that it protects people from doubts and uncertainties about their partner and relationship.
A large study among newlywed couples confirmed our predictions, extending our understanding of the potential reasons for snooping
into a partner’s private affairs. Underlining
the protective power of trust in close relationships, people who trusted their partner did
not show a link between perceived lack of
partner disclosure and intrusive behavior, but
people who did not trust their partner did
show this association. Given the detrimental consequences that intrusive behavior may
have for relationships, we believe that our
study has opened up exciting and important
new avenues for future research on intrusive
behavior in romantic relationships.
Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in
close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 2, 253–269.
Bell, R. A., & Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L. (1990). S(he)
loves me, s(he) loves me not: Predictors of relational
information-seeking in courtship and beyond. Communication Quarterly, 38, 64–82.
Bok, S. (1982). Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and
revelation. New York: Pantheon.
Burgoon, J. K., Parrott, R., Le Poire, B. A., Kelley, D. L.,
Walther, J. B., & Perry, D. (1989). Maintaining and
restoring privacy through communication in different
types of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 6, 131–158.
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor,
partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using
PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide.
Personal Relationships, 12, 327–342.
Camper, P. M., Jacobson, N. S., Holtzworth-Munroe, A.,
& Schmaling, K. B. (1988). Causal attributions for
interactional behaviors in married couples. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 12, 195–209.
Caughlin, J. P., & Afifi, W. A. (2004). When is topic
avoidance unsatisfying? A more complete investigation into the underlying links between avoidance and dissatisfaction in parent-child and dating
relationships. Human Communication Research, 30,
479–513.
Caughlin, J. P., & Golish, T. D. (2002). An analysis
of the association between topic avoidance and
dissatisfaction: Comparing perceptual and interpersonal explanations. Communication Monographs, 69,
275–295.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner
interdependence model: A model of bidirectional
effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.
Craske, M. G. (1999). Anxiety disorders: Psychological
approaches to theory and treatment. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Cutting, L. P., Aakre, J. M., & Docherty, N. M.
(2006). Schizophrenic patients’ perceptions of stress,
expressed emotion, and sensitivity to criticism. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32, 743–750.
Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1977). Privacy and selfdisclosure in social relationships. Journal of Social
Issues, 33, 102–115.
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T.
(1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex-differences in selfdisclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
1, 106–124.
Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Towards integrative models of the negative
effects of hurtful events. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487–508.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon,
P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness?
References
Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). “We never talk
about that”: A comparison of cross-sex friendships
and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic
avoidance. Personal Relationships, 5, 255–272.
Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
15, 365–392.
Afifi, W. A., & Reichert, T. (1996). Understanding the
role of uncertainty in jealousy experience and expression. Communication Reports, 9, 93–103.
Arriaga, X. B., Reed, J. T., Goodfriend, W., & Agnew,
C. R. (2006). Relationship perceptions and persistence: Do fluctuations in perceived partner commitment undermine dating relationships? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1045–1065.
Baxter, L. A. (1979). Self-disclosure as a relationship
disengagement strategy: An exploratory investigation.
Human Communication Research, 5, 215–222.
Baxter, L. A. (1986). Gender differences in the heterosexual relationship rules embedded in break-up
accounts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 289–306.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in
developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12, 469–493.
Intrusive behavior in marital relationships
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
956–974.
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Branje, S., & Meeus,
W. (2004). Disclosure and relationship satisfaction
in families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
195–209.
Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., Branje, S., & Righetti, F.
(2009). Living together apart: Perceived concealment
as signal of exclusion in marital relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1410–1422.
Fredman, S. J., Chambless, D. L., & Steketee, G. (2004).
Development and validation of an observational coding system for emotional overinvolvement. Journal of
Family Psychology, 18, 339–347.
Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Selfdisclosure in personal relationships. In A. L.
Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of personal relationships (pp. 409–428).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in
the experience and expression of romantic jealousy.
Personal Relationships, 12, 273–291.
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1995). What parents
don’t know: Topic avoidance in parent–child relationships. In T. Socha & G. Stamp (Eds.), Parents,
children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and
research (pp. 219–247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Gerlsma, C., &
Meeus, W. (2007). Does the level of expressed
emotion (LEE) questionnaire have the same factor structure for adolescents as it has for adults?
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42,
215–220.
Hawk, S. T., Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., &
Meeus, W. (2008). Adolescents’ perceptions of privacy invasion in reaction to parental solicitation and
control. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 583–608.
Hawk, S. T., & Keijsers, L. (2010, March). To snoop or
not to snoop? Behavioral and emotional responses to
parental privacy invasion. Poster session presented for
Society for Research on Adolescence, Philadelphia,
PA.
Hawk, S. T., Keijsers, L., Hale, W. W., & Meeus, W.
(2009). Mind your own business! Longitudinal relations between perceived privacy invasion and
adolescent-parent conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 511–520.
Holmes, J. G. (2004). The benefits of abstract functional
analysis in theory construction: The case of interdependence theory. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8, 146–155.
Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close
relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187–220).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
123
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in
dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294.
Kenny, D. A., & Aticelli, L. K. (2001). Accuracy and
bias in the perception of a partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 439–448.
Knobloch, L. K. (2008). The content of relational uncertainty within marriage. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 25, 467–495.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Intimacy
and the experience of episodic relational uncertainty
within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships,
29, 457–478.
Larzele, R. E., & Huston, T. (1980). The dyadic trust
scale: Toward understanding trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 595–604.
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005).
The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel approach. Journal
of Family Psychology, 19, 314–323.
Leff, J., & Vaughn, C. (1985). Expressed emotion in
families: Its significance for mental illness. New York:
Guilford.
Lemay, E. P., & Clark, M. S. (2008). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness
guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 94, 647–671.
Margulis, S. T. (2003). Privacy as a social issue and
a behavioral concept. Journal of Social Issues, 59,
243–261.
Mathews, A. M. (1990). Why worry? The cognitive function of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28,
455–468.
Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (1990). The influence of relationship beliefs and problem-solving responses on
satisfaction in romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 17, 170–185.
Miller, P. J. E., & Rempel, J. K. (2004). Trust and partner-enhancing attributions in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 695–705.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in
faults—Negativity and the transformation of motivation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
707–722.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996).
The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and
the construction of satisfaction in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
79–98.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., & Rose, P.
(2001). The mismeasure of love: How self-doubt
contaminates relationship beliefs. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 423–436.
Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic
relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction
theory. Human Communication Research, 10, 55–79.
124
C. D. W. Vinkers, C. Finkenauer, and S. T. Hawk
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 13, 85–107.
Petronio, S. (1994). Privacy binds in family interactions: The case of parental privacy invasion.
In W. R. E. Cupach & B. H. E. Spitzberg (Eds.),
The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp.
241–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of
disclosure (SUNY Series in Communication Studies).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Petronio, S., & Durham, W. T. (2008). Communication privacy management theory. In L. E. Baxter
& D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in
interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives
(pp. 309–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that
increase uncertainty in personal relationships. Human
Communication Research, 11, 593–604.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M.
(1988). Events that increase uncertainty in personal
relationships 2: Replication and extension. Human
Communication Research, 14, 516–547.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985).
Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112.
Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust
and communicated attributions in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
57–64.
Rosenfeld, L. B. (1979). Self-disclosure avoidance: Why
I am afraid to tell you who I am. Communication
Monographs, 46, 63–74.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to
social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998).
The investment model scale: Measuring commitment
level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and
investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F.,
& Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in
close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical
evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982).
Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect—responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230–1242.
Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of
trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16,
264–268.
Sorrentino, R. M., Holmes, J. G., Hanna, S. E., & Sharp,
A. (1995). Uncertainty orientation and trust in close
relationships: Individual differences in cognitive
styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68, 314–327.
Turner, L. H. (1990). The relationship between communication and relationship uncertainty: Is “her” marriage
different from “his” marriage? Women’s Studies in
Communication, 13, 57–83.
Vangelisti, A. L., Caughlin, J. P., & Timmerman, L.
(2001). Criteria for revealing family secrets. Communication Monographs, 68, 1–27.
Van Ingen, D. J., Moore, L. L., & Fuemmeler, J. A.
(2008). Parental overinvolvement: A qualitative study.
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities,
20, 449–465.
Vaughn, C. E., & Leff, J. P. (1981). Patterns of emotional response in relatives of schizophrenic patients.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 7, 43–44.
Vogel, D. L., Murphy, M. L., Werner-Wilson, R. J.,
Cutrona, C. E., & Seeman, J. (2007). Sex differences
in the use of demand and withdraw behavior in
marriage: Examining the social structure hypothesis.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 165–177.
Waring, E. M., Tillman, M. P., Frelick, L., Russell, L., &
Weisz, G. (1980). Concepts of intimacy in the general
population. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
168, 471–474.