Référence bibliographique 
Birnie-Porter, Carolyn et Lydon, John E. 2013. «A Prototype Approach to Understanding Sexual Intimacy through its Relationship to Intimacy ». Personal Relationships, vol. 20, no 2, p. 236-258.
«In a series of four studies, we explored laypeople’s prototypes of intimacy and sexual intimacy. Our primary goals were to determine whether sexual intimacy is prototypically structured (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and whether it is fundamentally an intimacy construct (Studies 1 and 2). We also explored the degree to which sexual intimacy is a subtype of intimacy, which would likely be evidenced by a majority overlap between the two concepts in features listed (Study 1) and in central features (Study 2), and the degree to which it may be the product of intimacy and sexuality, which would likely be reflected by a number of central features that are highly unique.» (p. 239-240)
In study one «[t]hree hundred and thirty-five participants were recruited by students at McGill University as part of a research component of a psychology class. The sample included 180 females and 155 males, aged 18–74 (Mdn = 22); 59% were currently involved in a romantic relationship.» (p. 240) «One hundred and twenty-four participants from Montreal, including 63 females and 61 males, aged 18–49 (Mdn = 21), 56% currently involved in a romantic relationship, participated» in the second study. (p. 245) «One hundred and twenty-three students from McGill University in Montreal, including 62 females and 61 males, aged 17–46 (Mdn = 20), 37% currently involved in a romantic relationship, participated» in the third study. (p. 250) In the fourth study, «[o]ne hundred and ninety-four self-reported heterosexuals were recruited by university students as part of a research component of a psychology class». (p. 252)
Type de traitement des données :
«Data from these four studies point to several main findings about the nature of intimacy and sexual intimacy. First, intimacy and sexual intimacy are highly related but distinct constructs. Second, both concepts are prototypically organized. Finally, sexual intimacy may be best conceptualized as a subtype of intimacy that possesses some qualities that are not prototypical of intimacy. […] First, there was considerable overlap between the prototypes of intimacy and sexual intimacy. In Study 1, the majority of intimacy attributes were also sexual intimacy attributes and vice versa, and in Study 2, although there were a substantial number of highly central, unique attributes for both intimacy and sexual intimacy, almost half of the central features of each concept were shared attributes, such as trust and passionate. In addition, ratings of intimacy and sexual intimacy were positively correlated in participants’ own romantic relationships in Study 4. Second, we found both intimacy and sexual intimacy were associated with actual relationship quality. In Study 4, intimacy was a stronger predictor of relationship satisfaction than was sexual intimacy, and sexual intimacy was a relatively stronger predictor of sexual satisfaction than was intimacy.» (p. 254)