Date of Award

2026

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

College

College of Education and International Services

Program

Leadership PhD

First Advisor

jay L. Brand

Second Advisor

Jerry W. Lee

Third Advisor

Kaye Judge

Abstract

Problem

Intimacy is in crisis and is being culturally defined and redefined through a number of influencing factors. These include the ongoing development of individualist and narcissistic relationships; the fragmentation of human wholeness; the influence of social media and an increasingly entertainment focused society; the permeation of technology influencing personal choice and lifestyle, including the use of generative AI; and the diminishing influence of Judeo-Christian principles and values as key drivers in the development of life-long marriage relationships. This study seeks to address the need for establishing a foundation for relational intimacy based on the biblical relationship demonstrated by God’s desire for an intimate relationship with His human family. Intimacy with God is fulfilled through a relationship based on wholeness and oneness that is incongruent with loneliness. The purpose of this study was to validate the Touch/Bonding sense of the metaphorical Five Senses Intimacy Model by examining how spiritual meaning, religious involvement, intimacy bonding, pseudo-intimacy, whole-person intimacy, and loneliness interact within romantic relationships.

Method

Structural equation modeling was used to test a theoretically grounded model of seven latent variables proposing that Self and Perceived Partner Religious variables would positively influence Spiritual Meaning, which would then predict strong Intimacy Bonding devoid of Pseudo-Intimacy, which would result in Whole-Person Intimacy, and erase Loneliness. This was a cross-sectional study of 225 adults (n=225) who were mostly female (198), aged 18-65+ with most over age 35, and highly educated (161 completing college or graduate school).

Results

Self Religious strongly predicted Spiritual Meaning while Perceived Partner Religious predicted a slight decrease in Spiritual Meaning. Spiritual Meaning did not directly influence Intimacy Bonding. Self Religious was a negative predictor of Intimacy Bonding by itself, but it predicted Perceived Partner Religious which in turn predicted Intimacy Bonding through this indirect pathway. Pseudo-Intimacy strongly undermined Intimacy Bonding. Intimacy Bonding was the primary driver of Whole-Person Intimacy. Whole-Person Intimacy was the strongest protective factor against Loneliness. PseudoIntimacy did not directly predict Whole-Person Intimacy but instead had a negative effect through Intimacy Bonding.

Conclusions

These findings suggest a relational system in which Intimacy Bonding is the central mechanism linking spirituality, relational behavior, and Whole-Person Intimacy; whereas, Pseudo-Intimacy is a relational disruptor with directly opposite effects of Intimacy Bonding. This finding validates the Touch/Bonding sense of the Five Senses Intimacy model in that Pseudo-Intimacy bypasses the knowing and being known of Intimacy Bonding. This lack of Intimacy Bonding predicts lower relational quality and satisfaction in Whole-Person Intimacy as well as Loneliness in the relationship. Implications for practice include the importance of building both intrapersonal and interpersonal religiosity, the need to address pseudo-intimacy directly, a focus on building intimacy bonding as the key relational foundation, and addressing intimacy bonding as an important antidote for loneliness.

Subject Area

Intimacy (Psychology)--Religious aspects--Christianity; Interpersonal relations--Religious aspects--Christianity

Download

Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS