What does being psychologically intimate mean to individual partners (i.e., participants) in heterosexual, lesbian and gay male relationships that have lasted for many years?Ģ. The paper addresses the following questions:ġ. The goal of the paper is to develop an understanding of factors that contributed to reported psychological intimacy in recent years, defined as the last 5 to 10 years of these relationships. In the second or current phase, we recoded the interview data so as to analyze them from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. In phase one we focused on qualitative analysis of data from 216 in-depth interviews of spouses in 108 heterosexual and same-gender relationship (Mackey & O'Brien, 1995 Mackey, O'Brien & Mackey, 1997). The research on which this paper is based started 10 years ago and was conducted in two phases. Most research on relational intimacy has employed quantitative methodology we used in-depth interviews to explore the meaning of psychological intimacy from the perspective of each partner in these relationships. In contrast to the white, middle-class samples utilized in many studies, we focused on couples in long-term relationships who were diverse in terms of race, educational level, and sexual orientation. Our research focused on the meaning of psychological intimacy among partners in middle and old age. Most previous studies of intimacy have sampled younger participants in relationships that have not lasted as long as those in this study. The paper adds to the existing literature on relational intimacy. This paper explores the meaning of psychological intimacy from the perspectives of 216 partners in 108 heterosexual and same-gender relationships that have lasted an average of 30 years. The findings are important for understanding factors that contribute to psychological intimacy in long-term relationships and how the gender roles of partners may shape the quality of psychological intimacy in heterosexual and same-gender relationships. Women in same-gender relationships, compared to their heterosexual and gay counterparts, were more likely to report that psychologically intimate communication characterized their relationships. Factors that had a significant role in shaping the quality of psychological intimacy in the last 5 to 10 years of these relationships (recent years) were the absence of major conflict, a confrontive conflict management style between partners, a sense of fairness about the relationship, and the expression of physical affection between partners. Psychological intimacy was defined as the sense that one could be open and honest in talking with a partner about personal thoughts and feelings not usually expressed in other relationships. The participants were whites, blacks, and Mexican-Americans, with Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant religious backgrounds they were employed in both blue-and white collar occupations. In-depth interviews were used to explore the meaning of intimacy to 216 partners in 108 relationships. This research focused on the meaning of psychological intimacy to partners in heterosexual and same-gender relationships that have lasted for an average of 30 years. Although cross-covering was stressful, AHD positivelyĬontributed to resident well-being.Published 8/00: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research Residents valued protectedĮducational time without clinical responsibilities and thought that small-group discussionsĪt AHD facilitated learning. Noted better topic selection but fewer covered topics. When clinical supervisors supported their educational time. Learning and engagement and resident well-being.

Yielded 5 themes: aids and barriers to AHD attendance teaching curricular content Thirty-two residents participated in focus groups and interviews. Positive responses regarding perceived protected educational time improvedįrom 50% to 95% (2015 class) and from 19% to 50% (2016 class) ( P < .001). After AHD implementation, resident attendance increased from 55% (of residents expectedĪt NC) to 94% (of residents scheduled for AHD) ( P < .001) interruptions decreased from 0.25 to 0.01 per resident per hour ( P < .001).

Hyperresearch 2.6