Doctoral defenseluanacunhaferreira2013

548 views
408 views

Published on

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

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
548
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Doctoral defenseluanacunhaferreira2013

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. Qualitative studies
  8. 8. Qualitative analysis: Constructivist grounded theory
  9. 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. 10. COUPLE INTIMACY Methods • Constructivist grounded theory • Semi-structured, joint interviews • N=33 couples Study 1 + Study 2
  11. 11. COUPLE INTIMACY Selected results What is couple intimacy ? Authenticity Sharing understanding Trust
  12. 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. 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. 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. 15. SEXUAL DESIRE AND DIFFERENTIATION Selected results
  16. 16. Quantitative studies
  17. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 25. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION Selected results Proposed model
  26. 26. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION Selected results Alternative model
  27. 27. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION Selected results Better representation of the psychological process involving the relationship between DoS and couple satisfaction.
  28. 28. PREDICTING SEXUAL DESIRE AND COUPLE SATISFACTION Multi-group analysis n men = 174 n women = 264
  29. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×