This is the presentation of my Doctoral Thesis, which was defended at University of Lisbon on Dec 19th, 2013. More info at https://sites.google.com/site/intimacyanddesire

1. Faculdade de Psicologia da Universidade de Lisboa
Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação
da Universidade de Coimbra
Intimacy and sexual desire in couple relationships:
The paradox of couple differentiation
Luana Cunha das Neves Teixeira Ferreira
Supervisors:
Isabel Narciso, PhD & Rosa Novo, PhD
Interuniversity Doctoral Program in Clinical
Psychology: Family Psychology and Intervention
December 19th, 2013

2. Theoretical Framework
Couple sexuality:
neglected research
theme
Individual;
college–age
samples
Focus on sexual
frequency and other
narrow variables
Desire & Intimacy:
essential to couple
satisfaction
Lack of studies
investigating
associations
Definition and
assessment problems
regarding construct.
Clinical models of couple therapy:
Increase emotional intimacy and desire will follow
Sexual desire decreases
(Basson, 2002; Regan & Bersheid, 1999)
?
Intimacy increases ?
(Acker & Davies, 1992, Baumeister &
Bratslavsky, 1999)
Ferreira, L. C., Narciso, I., & Novo, R. F. (2012). Intimacy, sexual desire and differentiation in couplehood: A
theoretical and methodological review. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 38(3), 263–80.

3. Theoretical Framework
Why do healthy couples with high
emotional intimacy also report low desire?
Can ‘too much intimacy’ dampen desire?
No studies
addressing these
models
Differentiation of self (DoS):
The ability to maintain a sense of autonomy while in a deep
intimate relationship
How can differentiation of self contribute
to the understanding of the association
between intimacy and desire?
Ferreira, L. C., Narciso, I., & Novo, R. F. (2012). Intimacy, sexual desire and differentiation in couplehood: A
theoretical and methodological review. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 38(3), 263–80.

4. Initial question
How are the processes of
intimacy and differentiation of self
defined and articulated,
and in which ways do they associate with
sexual desire and couple satisfaction?
Gender
Cohabitation
duration
Age
Children

5. Conceptual Framework
Interaction
Information
Sensitizing concepts
Language
Language
Social experience Communication
Lived reality
Circularity
Social construccionism
Systemic complexity
Eco-systemic theory
Post-positivism
Patterns
Context
Networks
Development
Heuristics
Chaos
Multiverse
reality

6. Methodological Framework
N=492
Couples
Individuals in a couples relationship
N=33
N=428
Self report Questionnaire:
Intimacy (MSIS); Differentiation of self (DSI-R);
Sexual desire (HISD); Couples satisfaction (EASAVIC)
Joint couple interview:
Intimacy; Sexual desire Differentiation of
self; Trajectories; Inter-relationships
Qualitative studies
Quantitative studies
Validation studies
Intimacy
Desire &
Differentiation
Couple
Discrepancies
Predictive
models

7. Qualitative studies

8. Qualitative analysis: Constructivist grounded theory

9. Study 1
How is intimacy defined by couples who are
reflecting together on their experience of intimacy?
Which influences do they perceive as impacting
their couple intimacy ?
Ferreira, L. C., Narciso, I., & Novo, R. F. (2013). Authenticity, work and change: A qualitative
study on couple intimacy Families, Relationships and Societies, 2 (3), 339-354.

10. COUPLE INTIMACY
Methods
• Constructivist grounded theory
• Semi-structured, joint interviews
• N=33 couples
Study 1 + Study 2

11. COUPLE INTIMACY
Selected results
What is couple intimacy ?
Authenticity
Sharing
understanding
Trust

12. COUPLE INTIMACY
Selected results
Work
Limits
Change
What factors are perceived as
impacting intimacy?
Work schedule (-)
Feeling rewarded (+)
Boundaries with subsystems (-)
(children, family of origin)
Routine (-)
New experiences (+)

13. Study 2
How do couples perceive the articulation and
development of sexual desire and differentiation of
self through the couple relationship?
Which factors do couples perceive as influencing
desire and differentiation processes and trajectories?
Ferreira, L. C., Fraenkel. P., Narciso, I., & Novo, R. F. Is committed desire intentional? A
qualitative exploration of sexual desire and differentiation of self in couples (submitted)

14. SEXUAL DESIRE AND DIFFERENTIATION
Selected results
Desire
strategies
Desire
factors
• Enhancing:
• Change
• Autonomy
• Ease
• Disturbing:
• Stress
• Conflict
• Children
•
•
•
•
Innovation
Effort
Sharing
Autonomy
Differentiation
strategies
• Fostering
personal
interests
• Investing in a
positive
connection
• Enhancing
personal
integrity

15. SEXUAL DESIRE AND DIFFERENTIATION
Selected results

16. Quantitative studies

17. Quantitative measures
Variable
Self-report measure
Intimacy
Miller Social Intimacy Scale - MSIS
Cronbach
Alpha α
.92
Miller & Lefcourt (1982), PV: Ferreira, Narciso & Novo (2010)
Sexual desire
Hurlbert Index of sexual Desire - HISD
.95
Hurlbert & Apt (1992); PV: Ferreira, Narciso & Novo (2010)
Differentiation of
self (DoS)
Couple
satisfaction
Differentiation of Self Inventory Revised - DSI-R
.95
Skowron & Friedlander (1998); PV: Relvas et al.(2013)
Scale for the Evaluation of Satisfaction in areas of Couple
Life - EASAVIC
Narciso & Costa (1996)
.97

18. Study 3
How are differences and similarities between the
partners related to gender and to individual levels
of sexual desire, differentiation of self and couple
satisfaction?
Ferreira, L. C., Narciso, I., Novo, R. F., & Pereira, C. Partner’s similarity in differentiation of self
contributes to higher couple sexual desire: A quantitative dyadic study. (submitted)

19. DYADIC ASSOCIATIONS OF INTIMACY, DESIRE, DIFFERENTIATION AND
COUPLE SATISFACTION
Methods
• Quantitative analysis:
• t-tests, correlations
• multi-level hierarchical linear analysis
• 2 levels: couple and individual
• Self-report questionnaires (MSIS; DSI-R; HISD)
• N=33 couples

20. DYADIC ASSOCIATIONS OF DESIRE, DIFFERENTIATION AND COUPLE
SATISFACTION
Individual
level
Individual score
(e.g., sexual desire)
S1
Couple
level
S1
(S 1 + S 2)
2
Couple average score
(i.e., Couple average desire)
S2
│ S 1 - S 2│
Couple discrepancy score
(i.e., Desire discrepancy score)

21. DYADIC ASSOCIATIONS OF DESIRE, DIFFERENTIATION (DOS)AND COUPLE
SATISFACTION
Selected results
Hypothesis
Partners within a couple will show
less discrepancy of DoS than
unrelated individuals
Women will have the same chances of
being the lower desire partners as men
Couple discrepancy regarding DoS
will be inversely associated with
individual desire
Average couple desire and DoS will
be positively associated with average
couple satisfaction.
Similarity hypothesis not
supported
Women reported lower desire
than men
Confirmed hypothesis
DoS similarity
Desire
DoS similarity predicted desire
Confirmed hypothesis
Satisfaction
Desire + DoS

22. DYADIC ASSOCIATIONS OF DESIRE, DIFFERENTIATION AND COUPLE
SATISFACTION
Selected results: Multi-level analysis
The couple discrepancy of DoS negatively predicted individual sexual
desire, even after controlling for sex and other variables.

23. Study 4
How can sexual desire and intimacy explain the
potential contributes of differentiation of self for
couple satisfaction?
How do these relationships associate with gender?
Ferreira, L. C., & Novo, R. F., Narciso, I., & Pereira, C. Predictors of sexual desire and couple
satisfaction: Intimacy and differentiation of self in couple relationships. (submitted)

24. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION
Methods
• Qualitative analysis:
• Structural equation modeling with latent variables
• Multi-group analysis
• Self report questionnaires (MSIS; DSI-R; HISD;
EASAVIC)
• N= 428 individuals in a committed relationship

25. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION
Selected results
Proposed model

26. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION
Selected results
Alternative model

27. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION
Selected results
Better representation of the psychological process involving
the relationship between DoS and couple satisfaction.

28. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION
Multi-group analysis
n men = 174
n women = 264

29. Main contributes
Research
•
•
•
•
Empirically-based dimensional definition of intimacy
Strong perception of impact of the multiple subsystems
Diversity of sexual desire trajectories
Couples perception of differentiation of self processes and
trajectory
• Structural role of DoS in desire, intimacy and couple satisfaction
• Central role of sexual desire as a predictor of intimacy and
satisfaction

30. Main contributes
Clinical
•
•
•
•
Couples agentic posture (strategies vs spontaneity)
Integration of sharing and autonomy
Role of authenticity
Relevance on a dyadic perspective regarding desire issues in
couplehood.
• Awareness of fusion might trigger the couple’s promotion of DoS
• Assessment: Work stress related factors in intimacy and desire
• Prevention: Turning points in desire, intimacy and DoS
trajectories

31. Selected limitations
Cross-sectional study
Convenience samples
• Low diversity sample: White, well-educated, heterosexual
• Mostly satisfied couples
• No assessment of psychopathology or therapeutic intervention
Quantitative studies
•
•
•
•
Multicollinearity; Interdependence
Lack of sub-scale analysis
DSI-R issues with the assessment of both high and low DoS
MSIS targeted love and affection dimensions of intimacy
Qualitative studies: Joint interview

32. Future studies
Longitudinal analysis of
trajectories:
Diary records
Clinical samples:
Couples referred for
therapy
Quantitative studies:
Actor partner
interdependence models
Therapeutic processes of
DoS, desire and intimacy:
Observational strategies
Balance between autonomy & togetherness
• Risk regulating systems: self-protection vs connectedness goals
• Interpersonal neurobiology

33. Faculdade de Psicologia da Universidade de Lisboa
Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação
da Universidade de Coimbra
Intimacy and sexual desire in couple relationships:
The paradox of couple differentiation
Luana Cunha das Neves Teixeira Ferreira
Supervisors:
Isabel Narciso, PhD & Rosa Novo, PhD
Interuniversity Doctoral Program in Clinical
Psychology: Family Psychology and Intervention
December 19th, 2013