Defamiliarising fear, intimacy, loneliness and violence in relationship: A study of the socio-biological factors in the present Indian Society

Dr Sudhansu Kumar Dash

1. Introduction                                                      

Fear influences all our activities consciously or unconsciously. So the point of discussion is; what fear is? Certainly fear comes into being when our comprehension of relationship is not complete intimately..As long as this relationship is not fully understood, fear must be there in us. To be is to be related as life is relationship and without relationship life does not exist at all. Nothing can exist in isolation and as long as mind seeks isolation, there must be fear. So fear is not an abstraction, it exists in relation to something. We have the idea that to overcome something is to conquer something, but the fact is that no problem can be finally conquered; it can be understood, not conquered. Understanding and conquering are two different processes .The conquering process leads to further confusion and further fear. To resist, to dominate ,or to build a defense against it is only to create further conflicts ,but if one can understand fear ,go into it completely step by step ,explore the whole content of it ,then fear will not return in any form .Of many fears, the one that one is most aware is that of intimacy. Intimacy means exposing oneself before a stranger. It is certain that we all are strangers-nobody knows anybody. Intimacy brings one close to a stranger. When one drops one’s defenses intimacy is possible and the fear is that if one drops one’s defenses, all one’s mask, he knows not what the stranger is going to do with him. A thousand and one thing we are hiding, not only from others but also from ourselves because we have been brought up in a sick humanity with all kind of repressions ,inhibitions , taboos .The fear with the somebody is who is a stranger-does not matter living with the person for as many years ;the strangeness never disappears-it feels safer to keep a little defense ,a little distance ,because somebody can take advantage of one’s weakness ,of one’s frailties, of one’s vulnerability. The problem becomes more complicated because everybody wants intimacy, since without intimacy we are alone in this universe-without a friend, without a lover, without anybody one can trust, without anybody one can open one’s wounds. No wound can be healed up unless it is opened as the more it is hidden the more it becomes dangerous and finally becomes cancerous. Intimacy is an essential need in one hand and therefore everybody longs for it .One wants the other person to be intimate, so that the other person drops his defense, becomes vulnerable, drops all his masks and false personality, stand naked as he is .On the other hand, everybody is afraid of intimacy with the other person without dropping one’s own defenses. This is the strangeness. This is one of the conflicts between friends, between lovers, as nobody wants to drop his defenses, nobody wants to come to utter nudity, sincerity and openness but both need intimacy. Unless one drops repressions and inhibitions, one will never be intimate with someone. For this one must take the initiative. We live in such pretentions, such hypocrisies-that is the reason why intimacy creates fear.  Once we accept ourselves as we are, the fear of intimacy will disappear

The fear of intimacy is highly intertwined with the fear of vulnerability. For many people, however, the two issues are separate. You may be comfortable with becoming vulnerable, showing your true self to the world or at least to trusted friends and relatives. Yet you might cringe when you feel a relationship becoming too close or intimate. The fear of vulnerability, then, can be loosely defined as a fear of showing your true self, while the fear of intimacy is the fear of sharing a deep relationship with someone else.

Social Phobia

Some experts classify the fear of intimacy as a subset of social phobia or social anxiety disorder. People who are afraid of others are naturally more likely to shy away from making intimate, personal connections. However, the fear of intimacy may be entirely unrelated to any other form of social anxiety. Some people are comfortable in loose social situations, numbering their acquaintances and social media "friends" in the hundreds, but have no deeply personal relationships at all. Whether your fear of intimacy is based in a fear of abandonment, a fear of engulfment, or something else entirely, it can wreak havoc on both romantic and nonromantic relationships. One of the most basic keys to battling this fear is a willingness to accept uncertainty. There are no guarantees in life or in human relationships. Every connection with another person is ultimately a gamble. Yet social relationships are a basic driving goal of human existence. Those who fear intimacy ultimately fear the consequences of a relationship that turns sour. In order to successfully battle the fear of intimacy, you must first be comfortable in yourself. If you truly know and accept your own value and worth as a person, then you know that rejection is not the end of the world. You will be able to set appropriate boundaries to avoid engulfment, and cope with abandonment if it comes along.

Purpose of the Study

 The issues of fear and intimacy are tricky and often complex. Professional guidance is often required, especially if the fear of intimacy is rooted in complicated past events a social phobia, the fear of abandonment and engulfment.  Mutual respect and trust are essential to the work of healing. a therapist will help to come to terms with any past or present events that are clouding the situation, and help a man in  designing a series of small steps to gradually work through the fear. Therefore healing a fear of intimacy is quite challenging a study but the rewards are tremendous.

2. Review of Literature

Researches have moved toward considering body-image dissatisfaction as a powerful mediator for the emotional quality of life of obese individuals (Friedman & Brownell,(1995);Jagsdaidt,(2001); Cash & Pruzinsky (2002). Friedman . (2002) propose several additional riskfactors that may determine which obese individuals will suffer negative psychological consequences. These factors included social class, degree of obesity, and body-image dissatisfaction Excessive weight  carries psychological consequences in developed societies that value thinness and physical attraction; the resulting affect may motivate avoidant cognitions and behaviors. Body-image factors (attitudinal and perceptual) conspire to discriminate obese from their non-obese counterparts and manifest in avoidant behavior Cash, (1993). Obese individuals overestimate or distort the size of their body more, are more dissatisfied and preoccupied with their appearance, and tend to avoid more social interactions because of their appearance than normal weight individuals Cash (1990). Marshall (1989, 1993) has observed that many sexual offenders lack deep and intimate relationships, are emotionally isolated, and have had numerous superficial and unfulfilling relationships. With these observations in mind, Marshall and his colleagues have hypothesized that intimacy deficits and loneliness may be critical factors in a more general theory of sexual offending Marshall( 1989, 1993,) . Garlick(1989) and Seidman, Marshall, Hudson, and Robertson (1994)have found support for an association among intimacy deficits, loneliness, and sexual offending. Garlick matched incarcerated child molesters and rapists with an incarcerated no sexually offending inmate. Psychometric properties  suggest that it is a reliable and valid measure of social intimacy (Downs& Hillje, 1991; Miller & Lefcourt, (1982). Other important surveys are the National Family Violence Surveys (Straus, (1995); Straus & Gelles,( 1987), the National College Student Behavioral Risk Factor Survey (Brener, McMahon, Warren &Douglas, (1999), and the National Survey of Naval Recruits (Merrill, Hervig, Milner,Newell & Koss,( 1997;) Merrill, Newell,( 1998; )White, Merrill & Koss, (2001). An oft-quoted statistic is that one of every three women has experienced physical, emotional, or sexual violence in an intimate relationship (Heise et al. 1999). In 48population-based surveys from around the world, between 10 percent and 69 percent of women are reported being physically assaulted by an intimate male partner at some point in their lives (WHO 2002). In many developing countries, domestic violence still is absent from the national agenda despite increasing evidence that domestic violence is a pervasive phenomenon (DHS2004), and that it is often disproportionate among the poor Heise (1998;) Ellsberg (1999). As pointed out by Laing and Bobic, “Once governments acquire a monetary portrait of violence, they will act to maximize benefits and minimize costs, which will ultimately work to reduce and eliminate domestic violence” Laing andBobic (2002). The health

related, economic, and social costs ofdomestic or intimate partner violence (IPV) against women – on women themselves, their families, andsocial and economic development – are considered by researchers to be enormous.  The World Bank (1993) estimates the loss of 9 million years of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) each year worldwide as a result of rape and IPV, more than that lost due to all known types of cancer. For women between the ages of 15-44, IPV is the leading contributor to death, disability, and illness(VicHealth 2004). Violence against women also generally has been found to be the third highest cause of death in Mexico City (Acencio 1999). Among developing countries, few studies on the costs of violence are available. One study by Mansingh andRamphal (1993) estimated the direct costs of treating victims of IPV in Jamaica’s Kingston Public Hospital in1991 to be $454,000. Another study conducted by theInter-American Development Bank in Chile and Nicaragua in 1999 (Morrison and Orlando 1999) IPV is a narrower concept encompassing violence between adults in an intimate relationship, usually of asexual nature. It includes individuals either in a current or recently ended relationship. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines IPV as “violence committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, or current or former boyfriend or girlfriend” (CDC 2003: p.3). behaviors include sexual coercion, , sexual harassment, and rape. Financial abuse includes deprivation of material goods, control of money, and control over assets. In the costing studies surveyed, the primary focus is on physical, sexual, and psychological abuse within the intimate relationship (Roberts 1988; Associates 1991; KPMG 1994; Stanko,Crisp et al. 1998; Yodanis and Godenzi 1999). There is, however, some divergence in how rape and sexual assault are treated. Most studies consider both rape and sexual assault to be part of the behaviors that constitute IPV (Roberts 1988; Associates 1991;KPMG 1994; Stanko, Crisp  (1998; )Yodanis andGodenzi 1999; Walby 2004). Others perceive that rape and sexual assault require specialized services and thus calculate costs of these separately (Blumel et al. 1993;Greaves  1995; Miller, Cohen  1996).. In studies looking at crime, the key measure that is utilized is the number of victimizations rather than the number of people, which captures the fact that people sometimes face multiple attacks (Cohen 1994). In terms of violence within the intimate relationship, women often experience repeated behaviors, resulting in repeated injuries and their repeat use of services Samity (2002).

3. Objectives

1. To study the fear of intimacy as a of social phobia

2. To study the relationship between childhood experiences with various forms of violence

3. To study physical abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence for fear

4. To study various criminal history variables

5. To study overall intimacy in adult relationships, the fear of intimacy in adult relationships, and loneliness

6. To study the fear of loneliness

4. Methodology

The data collection covered a variety of dimensions – namely, personal characteristics of the offender (family, experiences of childhood victimization, juvenile delinquency, and adult delinquency), characteristics of the criminal event that led to pre-crime situation and the crime scenario, and characteristics of the crime and the victim – and included a number of psychological tests, including IQ tests. Those computerized IQ test results were used in this study.

Universe of the study

This study deliberately used a limited number of variables, and used a sample of incarcerated sex offenders without distinction as to subtypes. Considering the great heterogeneity of sex offenders the use of a validated and reliable taxonomic system would have been preferable. Unfortunately, it was impossible to use a typology due to the small number of subjects for which all the information was available for coding. The strategy of including all incarcerated sex offenders were allowed for the inclusion of other subgroups of sex offenders, such as incest and pseudo-incest offenders and marital rapists, thus considerably expanding the sex offender population coverage.

5. Sample for the study

Three groups of individuals voluntarily participated in the current project:  rapists of adult women, violent but nonsexual offending inmates, and community controls. The adult rapist group consisted of27 adult men incarcerated for forced sexual contact with an individual over 18 years of age. Participants in both sexual offender groups were currently involved or had been selected to participate in the study. A sample of 21 adult males incarcerated for violent but nonsexual offenses voluntarily served as a nonsexual offending inmate control group. The offenses committed by these inmates were crimes against persons and were violent in nature (e.g., murder, manslaughter, assault, armed robbery, kidnapping). Both self-reports of these inmates and an examination of the inmates ‘records were used in an attempt to ensure that they had not committed prior sexual offense. Finally, a sample of 60 adult males was recruited from  community colleges  to voluntarily serve as a community control group. These men were involved in introductory psychology courses at the community colleges and received extra credit in their class for participating in the project. Each of the community control participants denied any history of arrests or convictions for any crime and denied having ever committed a sexual assault. All participants were approached by the investigator who described the project to them. Those who voluntarily agreed to participate signed an informed consent form indicating their understanding of the nature of the project and procedures involved. Confidentiality and anonymity of their responses were emphasized..After giving informed consent, all participants received the packet of questionnaires and were instructed to complete the research packet individually. With the exception of the community controls, participants were instructed to complete the intimacy, fear of intimacy, and loneliness measures from the perspective of their relationships and attitudes prior to their arres

6. Procedure and Analysis

6.1. Demographic and descriptive information. Participants completed demographic data sheet to provide age, race, marital status, and number of years of education. Further descriptive data were gathered from inmate self-reports and from the inmates’ mental health and  their experiences with violence in childhood  and criminal backgrounds, number of prior arrests, number of prior convictions, use of violence in adult relationships.

6.2. Social Intimacy Scale: The Social Intimacy Scale was designed to assess intimacy in adult relationships. The measure consists of 6 items that measure the frequency of intimate contacts and 11 items that assess the intensity of intimate relations. Each of the items are rated on 10-point scales, ranging from 1 (very rarely or not much) to 10 (almost always or a great deal). Higher scores indicate more intimacy in relationships. Psychometric properties of the scale are strong and suggest that it is a reliable and valid measure of social intimacy. Therefore, for the purpose of the present study, all participants completed SIS four times, describing typical relationships with (a) male friends, (b) female friends, (c) family members, and (d) a spouse. Participants are asked to rate their agreement with each of the items on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never)to 4 (often). Half of the items are reversed scored, and all items are summed to obtain a total score. Higher scores are indicative of more loneliness.. Detailed information regarding the psychometric properties suggest that the scale is valid and reliable

6.3. Fear of Intimacy Scale The Fear of Intimacy Scale (FIS) was designed to assess individuals’ anxieties about close relationships. Items were based on the definition that fear of intimacy is the inhibited capacity of an individual to exchange personally significant thoughts and feelings with another individual who is highly valued. Participants are instructed to complete the questionnaire while imagining themselves in a close dating relationship and rate each of the 35 items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1(not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me).Fifteen items are reverse scored, and all items are summed to obtain a total score, with higher scores reflecting a greater fear of intimacy. The psychometric properties of the FIS are strong, with high internal consistency and test-retest reliability,

7. Findings

 Consistent with previous empirical research as well as anecdotal reports, the present findings provide additional support for the theory that intimacy deficits and loneliness may be distinctive and influential contributors to the multifaceted etiology and maintenance of sexually offending behaviors. Overall, the rapists in the present study were found to suffer from significant intimacy deficits in adult relationships and experienced more loneliness (particularly emotional loneliness) than the nonsexual offending inmates and community controls. The data further suggest that these intimacy deficits may be relationship specific, best accounted for by emotional loneliness. The various predictors of intimacy fear of intimacy and loneliness was a history of childhood physical abuse, indirectly suggesting an increased likelihood of the poor-quality attachments. It is important to note that although the overall number of prior convictions for any type of criminal behavior was found to be a significant predictor of overall intimacy and fear of intimacy in adult relationships, having engaged in and been convicted of criminal behaviors in general was insufficient in predicting intimacy, fear of intimacy, overall loneliness, or emotional loneliness. The exploratory multiple regression analyses offered additional support for the relationship of intimacy, fear of intimacy, and loneliness to sexual offending. More specifically, among the best predictors of the degree of overall intimacy, fear of intimacy, overall loneliness, and emotional loneliness were the perpetration of rape, with these variables accounting for a relatively large proportion of the total variance. With regard to fear of intimacy in adult relationships, an interesting pattern emerged. Although it was hypothesized that both the rapists would report greater fears of intimacy in adult relationships than the nonsexual offending inmates and community controls,. Finally, the rapists are found to be experiencing significantly more overall loneliness and emotional loneliness than did the nonsexual offending inmates and community controls.

 Intimacy deficits and experiences of loneliness may be associated with poor-quality attachments and the specific interpersonal problems associated with insecure attachment styles in adulthood. Therefore, one would presume that childhood experiences of abuse or violence, which may subsequently be associated with poor-quality attachments and specific expectations and functioning in interpersonal relationships, would be found in the histories of sexual offenders. Indeed, such experiences i.e., physical abuse, sexual abuse, witnessing domestic violence were prevalent within the samples of sexual offenders in the present study. Specifically, 71% of the rapists reported a history of childhood physical abuse , 29% of the rapists alleged a history of childhood sexual victimization, and 68% of the rapists reported having witnessed domestic violence during childhood. Although not directly assessed in the current study, it would seem logical that these offenders would have a predisposition toward developing insecure attachments and a subsequent proneness for intimacy deficits and experiences of loneliness.

8. Suggestions

In defense of the retrospective methodology in the present study, however, it has been suggested that retrospective reports are most valid and defensible when they are used as indicators of relative rank within a distribution, as opposed to use as precise indicators of event frequencies and event dates. A final consideration worth noting is the issue of whether intimacy deficits and loneliness precede sexually offending behaviors or simply result from the arrest for the sexual offense and subsequent incarceration. However, in light of the findings of greater intimacy deficits and loneliness in both incarcerated and non incarcerated sexual offenders, it may be reasonable to suggest that intimacy deficits and loneliness are not merely aftereffects of incarceration. Given the apparent significance of intimacy deficits, fear of intimacy, and loneliness in relation to sexual offending, it is imperative not only to incorporate these factors into comprehensive theoretical models of sexual offending but also to address these elements in the assessment and treatment process by stressing the importance of assisting sexual offenders in understanding the close relationship among emotions, behaviors, and intimate relationships. By doing so, the sexual offenders may be able to identify chain of emotions and behaviors associated with their intimate relationships and subsequently develop specific interventions to modify the problematic patterns that exist in those relationships.

9. Notes and References

1.Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independentof psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology,

2.Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluationdependence. New York: John Wiley.

3.Descutner, C. J., & Thelen, M. H. (1991). Development and validation of a Fear-of-Intimacy Scale. Psychological Assessment,

4.Doi, S. C., & Thelen, M. H. (1993). The Fear-of-Intimacy Scale: Replication and

validation. Psychological Assessment,

5.Downs, A. C., & Hillje, E. S. (1991). Reassessment of the Miller Social Intimacy

Scale: Use with mixed- and same-sex dyads produces multidimensional structures.

Psychological Reports.

6.Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York: FreePress.

7.GaHall, G. C. N. (1990). Prediction of sexual aggression. Clinical Psychology Review,

.

8.Henry, B., Moffi tt, T. E., Caspi, A,, Langley, J., & Silva, P. A. (1994). On the “remembranceof things past”: A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective

method. Psychological Assessment.

9.Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., & Bartholomew, K. (1993). Interpersonal problems,attachment styles, and outcome in brief dynamic psychotherapy. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology.

10Marshall, W. L. (1989). Intimacy, loneliness, and sexual offenders. Behavior Researchand Therapy.

11.Marshall, W. L. (1993). The role of attachments, intimacy, and loneliness in the etiology and maintenance of sexual offending. Sexual and Marital Therapy.

12.Miller, R. S., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The assessment of social intimacy. Journalof Personality Assessment.

13.Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J., & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness:An examination of Weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology.

14.Russell, D., Peplau, L. A,, & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The Revised UCLA LonelinessScale: Concurrent and discriminative validity evidence. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology.

15.Saunders, D. G. (1991). Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for socialdesirability bias. Journal of lnterpersonal Violence.

16.Seidman, B. T., Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., & Robertson, P. J. (1994). An examinationof intimacy and loneliness in sex offenders. Journal of lnterpersonal Violence,

17.Tesch, S. A. (1985). The Psychosocial Intimacy Questionnaire: Validation studies

and an investigation of sex roles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

18.Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., Marshall, W. L., & Siegert, R. (1995). Attachment style andintimacy defi cits in sexual offenders: A theoretical framework. Sexual Abuse.

19.Waring, E. M., & Reddon, J. R. (1983). The measurement of intimacyrlick, Y. (1989). Intimacy failure, loneliness and the attribution of blame in sexual