Introduction
Intimacy is an important aspect when it comes to romantic relationships. According to people’s description of their own intimate behavior, physical intimacy plays a central role and is acknowledged as an essential aspect of intimate relationships [1]. The loss of (physical) intimacy is potentially problematic, because intimacy is emphasized as a necessary factor of the romantic relationship [2]. Maintaining (physical) intimacy between partners that are separated by distance is hard or even impossible with current technology.
As current telecommunication systems lack the ability to transfer the feeling of intimacy in a physical way, there is an opportunity for a new technology that mediates touch between the geographically separated partners. The goal of this technology is to increase the sense of interpersonal closeness by means of physical stimulation. Research has been done and prototypes have been made in the area of mediated touch and especially touch devices, but research about social and emotional effects is limited.
The objective of this literature review is to gain insight in the already existing technologies that enhance intimacy between romantic partners. The following research question is raised: ‘How does current technology influence the feeling of intimacy (in a romantic relationship) between partners?’ This question is answered by firstly discussing the factors that play a role in intimacy in a romantic relationship, secondly by determining how these factors change when partners are separated (by distance), and lastly by discussing which of these factors are influenced by technology and how.
DEFINITION OF INTIMACY
Six main factors play a role in intimacy in a romantic relationship. According to Saadation et al. [2], intimacy consists of cognitive and emotional expressiveness, support, engagement, physical contact, self-disclosure, and privacy that comes with self-disclosure. Kjeldskov et al. [1] agree that intimacy consists of physical intimacy and with that, physical contact, self-disclosure and privacy, cognitive intimacy and affective/emotional intimacy. However, it is stated in [1] that non-verbal communication, presence, commitment and mutuality also contribute to the feeling of intimacy. In addition, Bales et al. [3] agree with Kjeldskov et al. [1], but also mention that implicit cues play a role in intimacy. Lastly, Mullenbach et al. [4] support [1]-[3]. In conclusion, factors that play a role in intimacy in a romantic relationship are physical intimacy, non-verbal communication, emotional/
affective intimacy, self-disclosure, cognitive intimacy and presence.
Definitions of physical intimacy, non-verbal communication, emotional/affective intimacy, self-disclosure, cognitive intimacy and presence are composed by one group of researchers. According to Kjeldskov et al. [1], physical intimacy is “the sharing of physical encounters ranging from close physical proximity to sexual contact”. In addition, Kjeldskov et al. [1] mention that physical intimacy does not only involve physical contact, but it also involves experiences such as butterflies in the stomach and a weak feeling at the knees. Moreover, this group of researchers state that these experiences arise from physical or mediated contact with one another. When it comes to non-verbal communication, Kjeldskov et al. [1] state that non-verbal communication is “communication by means of actions, gestures, facial mannerisms, close physical proximity or touch.” They add that non-verbal communication is “the aspect of intimacy that is better expressed through sensory evocations rather than linguistic forms, and helps to avoid the confusion that is sometimes caused by words”. Expressed through both sensory evocations and linguistic forms, emotional/affective intimacy is “the reception and expression of emotion” and is often accentuated as a key differentiator between close friendships and romantic relationships [1]. Another key differentiator between intimate and non-intimate relationships is self-disclosure [1]. According to Kjeldskov et al. [1], self-disclosure is “the act of revealing private information, such as the personal feelings of one person toward another.” Self-disclosure increases the amount of cognitive intimacy, as cognitive intimacy reflects the depth of awareness and knowledge intimates have of one another [1]. It is demonstrated that increasing the amount of cognitively exchanged information between partners increases the level of intimacy they experience [1]. Lastly, presence is defined by Kjeldskov et al. [1] as “the subjective feeling of another person being present in either a physical and/or a nonphysical manner”.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CUES
One aspect of presence becomes important when partners are geographically separated. This aspect represents different cue types. According to Bales et al. [3], geographically separated couples lack awareness cues associated with physical proximity. These couples must use technologies such as mobile phones to stay in sync. Implicit cues, including awareness cues, are an important means of communication between the partners of a couple. Bales et al. [3] elaborate on this statement by creating a prototype that puts implicit awareness cues into practice. In addition, Dodge [5] states that “we, as humans, rely on a wide range of subtle, but nevertheless profound, environmental cues that convey a sense of togetherness or co-presence”. Dodge [5] elaborates on this statement by the creation of a prototype that puts environmental cues into practice. Whitty and Gavin [6] talk about the importance of available social cues in the creation and maintenance of online relationships. They also discuss a possible relative lack of social cues on the Internet. In conclusion, different cues play a role in a romantic relationship when partners are geographically separated. Among these cues are awareness cues, environmental cues and social cues.
PRESENCE & PHYSICAL CONTACT
Two factors of intimacy are influenced by current technology in different ways. These factors are presence and physical contact. They are prototyped by different researchers and by means of different technologies.
Firstly, a sense of presence is obtained by four different non-verbal communication technologies. Lottridge et al. [7] designed MissU, a “technology probe” which shares music and background sounds. MissU focuses on the non-verbal communication aspect of intimacy. The technology probe manipulates intimacy by creating the sense that couples are in the same environment. It provides two-way interaction. Executed field studies show that MissU comforts and supports couples with established routines. Similarly to the idea of Lottridge et al. [7], Dodge [5] presents The Bed. The Bed is an environment for intimate, non-verbal communication. The Bed focuses on “abstracted presence” and elaborates on environmental cues that convey a sense of togetherness or co-presence. Akin to MissU, The Bed manipulates intimacy by creating the sense that couples are in the same environment. In addition, the environment provides two-way interaction to users. Bales et al. [3] built CoupleVIBE, an implicit messaging channel. CoupleVIBE is a mobile application that uses vibrotactile cues to push a user’s location information to their partner’s mobile phone. Similarly to The Bed, CoupleVIBE elaborates on implicit awareness cues. Similarly to MissU and The Bed, it provides two-way interaction. In contrast to MissU and The Bed, CoupleVIBE is not particularly used to convey a sense of togetherness. CoupleVIBE manipulates intimacy by sharing location data that, for example, provides information about whether their partner arrived home safely. Results of a user study show that CoupleVIBE serves as a non-verbal messaging channel that helps to keep couples in sync. In addition, Willemse et al. [8] present Nakama. Nakama is an affective communication technology that is used by a child and its geographically separated parent. Nakama has several communication channels, including sound, social touch, temperature and vibrotactile heartbeats. Similarly to MissU and The Bed, Nakama’s communication channels aim at increasing the sense of presence. Similarly to MissU, The Bed and CoupleVIBE, Nakama serves as a non-verbal communication channel for intimate communication. However, Nakama is not created for intimacy between romantic partners and only provides one-way interaction.
Secondly, a sense of physical contact is obtained by three non-verbal communication technologies that simulate social touch. Tsetserukou [9] created a haptic display named HaptiHug, which represents a hug over a distance. This virtual hug is achieved by combining an online communication system and a haptic feedback system. HaptiHug manipulates intimacy by creating a sense of bodily contact. Similarly to MissU, The Bed and CoupleVIBE, HaptiHug provides two-way interaction to users. Similarly to MissU, The Bed, CoupleVIBE and Nakama, HaptiHug serves as a non-verbal communication channel. However, HaptiHug provides this non-verbal communication channel through simulation of social touch. Results of a user study show that HaptiHug is successful in increasing the hugging immersion as well as the hugging sensation. Mueller et al. [10] developed Hug Over a Distance, which is an air-inflatable vest that creates a sensation resembling a hug. Similarly to HaptiHug, Hug Over a Distance provides a non-verbal communication channel though simulation of social touch. In contrast to HaptiHug, Hug Over a Distance does not provide two-way interaction to users. In addition, Huisman et al. [11] present the TaSST, the “Tactile Sleeve for Social Touch”. The TaSST is a sleeve that is worn on the forearm. By touching one's own TaSST, a sensation resembling the touch is sent to someone else's TaSST. Similarly to MissU, The Bed, CoupleVIBE and HaptiHug, TaSST provides two-way interaction. Similarly to both HaptiHug and Hug Over a Distance, the TaSST provides a non-verbal communication channel though simulation of social touch. In contrast to HaptiHug and Hug Over a Distance, TaSST requires self-touch to convey a sense of physical touch to the partner. Results of a user study show that the TaSST is more suitable for communicating simple and protracted touches than for communicating dynamic touches.
In conclusion, the factors presence and physical contact are influenced by current technology. Presence and physical contact are influenced based on the principle of non-verbal communication. Technologies that influence presence are aimed at increasing the sense of togetherness by providing a non-verbal communication channel. Technologies that influence physical contact are aimed at increasing the sense of togetherness by providing a non-verbal communication channel though simulation of social touch.
Conclusion
Based on the research done in this literature review, the research question ‘How does current technology influence the feeling of intimacy (in a romantic relationship) between partners?’ is answered. Current technology can influence the feeling of intimacy (in a romantic relationship) between romantic partners in several ways.
Firstly, current technology influences the feeling of presence through non-verbal communication technologies that increase the sense of togetherness. These technologies provide both one- and two-way interaction. Intimacy is manipulated by current technologies by either creating the sense that couples are in the same environment or by sharing location data. Non-verbal communication technologies include technology probes that comfort and support couples with established routines, environments that enhance abstracted presence for intimate, non-verbal interpersonal communication, mobile phone applications that help to keep couples in sync, and communication devices that support affective communication.
Secondly, current technology influences the feeling of physical contact by providing non-verbal communication channels though simulation of social touch. These technologies provide both one- and two-way interaction. Intimacy is manipulated by current technologies by creating a sense of bodily contact. Social touch technologies include haptic displays and prototypes that increase the hugging immersion and hugging sensation, and prototypes that are suitable for communicating simple and protracted touches.
The research question is only answered to a certain extend. Factors of intimacy that are represented by current technology are presence and physical contact. Aspects of intimacy that are represented by current technology are non-verbal communication and different types of cues. However, intimacy consists of additional factors, namely emotional/affective intimacy, cognitive intimacy and self-disclosure. These factors of intimacy are not yet influenced by current technology. It would be interesting to explore opportunities that enhance intimacy though technology devices that influence self-disclosure, emotional/affective intimacy and/or cognitive intimacy.