Psychological interdependence theories address the determinants and motivations of human interactions. Such frameworks propose diverging perspectives on intimacy in relationships. The Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Communal Theory differently address the levels of friendship, which include the acquaintances, casual friends, and best friends.
The three psychological theories of interdependence explore the intimacy in various levels of friendship. Exchange Theory suggests that the relationship comprises a set of resource exchanges and their evaluation by the participants. The members of the connection assess the costs and benefits of the relationship. Exchange theory effectively addresses the friendship level of acquaintances because people evaluate these low intimacy links through the pragmatic perspective. Equity theory implies the assumption that the resources invested in a relationship should be equal for all the participants, who aim to maintain balance in their interactions. This framework is suitable for the analysis of casual friendship, since people in such a link with moderate intimacy level focus on reciprocity rather than on personal benefits and disadvantages. Communal Theory involves the orientation of the relationship members on the provision of noncontingent benefits for the well-being of others. A communal orientation efficiently reflects the nature of close friendships with high levels of intimacy because people in such relationships care about the needs and opinions of their partners. Therefore, different interdependence perspectives illustrate the various levels of friendship.
Overall, Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Communal Theory exemplify the nature of diverse relationship levels. The Exchange and Equity frameworks demonstrate the reciprocity of friendships with low and moderate levels of intimacy. However, the Communal Theory displays the altruistic nature of close and intimate friendships.
The articles “Creativity and Romantic Passion” and “The Effect of Stress on Empathic Accuracy in Romantic Couples” investigate the intimacy of partners in romantic relationships. While both of the works analyze the factors of intimacy, the results of the studies are contradictory. The authors of the “Creativity and Romantic Passion” suggest the cognitive determinant of passion among partners in a couple, whereas the creators of the other paper emphasize the physical predictors of empathetic aspects and intimacy.
The selected papers on the intimacy factors in romantic relationships generate diverging results and their application. The first article on creativity and its association with passion ina couple suggests that cognitive structures about the image of a partner shape the intimacy in a couple. The scholars state that positive illusions concerning the partner’s physical attractiveness mediate the link between creativity and passion.
Consequently, the perspective of one’s physical appearance shapes the patterns and intensity of intimacy in romantic relationships (Carswell et al. 935). However, the other research on the impact of stress on empathetic capabilities of partners demonstrates that intimacy in the form of arousal and empathy depends on physical external or internal stressors. Furthermore, the authors of the second paper suggest a set of strategies for the application of their findings to psychological practice, while the other work does not suggest such implications (Crenshaw et al. 334). Therefore, the discussed articles propose diverging perspectives on the determinants of intimacy in romantic relationships.
Overall, the selected evaluations of intimacy in romantic interactions generate opposing results. The first study about the association of creativity and passion discusses the cognitive mediator of the aspects and does not generate clinical implications for the utilization of the findings. Nonetheless, the second research addresses the physical factors affecting intimate behaviors and perceptions while suggesting a strategy for the application of the results in psychological practice.
Works Cited Carswell, Kathleen L., et al. “Creativity and Romantic Passion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, vol. 116, no. 6, 2019, pp. 919–941., doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000162. Crenshaw, Alexander O., et al. “The Effect of Stress on Empathic Accuracy in Romantic Couples.” Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 33, no. 3, 2019, pp. 327–337., doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000508.