top of page
The Story of Eminence: Collaborative Relationships on the Path to Greatness
Theoretical Framework for Intimacy
In this study, I created and used a theoretical framework for intimacy to capture the experiences of eminent scholars. Specifically, this framework included trust, self-disclosure, and closeness. These are qualities of relationships that bring a “specific sort of knowing, loving, and caring for a person” (Jamieson, 1989, p. 71). Intimacy is defined here as "a quality of a relationship in which the individuals must have reciprocal feelings of trust and emotional closeness toward each other and can openly communicate thoughts and feelings to each other" (Timmerman, 1991, p. 23). These are dynamic and interconnected facets that have emerged in the literature on collaborations between seminal figures. Trust is the foundation of intimacy. It includes aspects of safety, reliance, risk, and performance. Self-disclosure brings about the sense of deep knowing that manages intimacy. It is a driver for emotions and varies in depth and intensity. Closeness, the final construct, speaks to the interdependency in thought and behavior that can develop between partners. There is a shared vision and commitment to continued development in their careers.
Trust
Trust is the foundation for intimacy (Aron & Fraley, 1999; Seemann, 2009; Timmerman, 1991). I feel safe because I trust you, and you share your ideas because you trust me. We keep each other’s secrets and through these shared experiences, we strengthen the trust in our relationship (Rempel et al., 1985; Rotter, 1967). However, trust is not guaranteed. We must decide to trust and in turn, we can take it away. These negotiations are ongoing (Korsgaard et al., 2015), indicative of the risks we take in our relationships. When we trust we have something to lose. If I share your ideas, they could be taken. And if you break your promises, I could miss a deadline. Johns (1996) captured this in his conceptualization of trust, which he described as the "willingness to place oneself in a relationship that establishes or increases vulnerability with reliance upon someone or something to perform as expected" (p. 81). Regardless, we trust and in time, we develop a dependency that fosters our intimacy.
The role of trust in intimate collaborations was highlighted by Rouse (2020), who theorized that “intimate interactions can operate alongside perceptions of safety and trust to support the development of creative ideas” (p. 182). Similarly, in a case study of seminal scholars and artists, Farrell (2001) found that intimacy was emergent, noting that trust is a critical element that brings us closer together throughout our lives.
Successful collaborations (Johns, 1996; John-Steiner, 2000) have often been trusting relationships. For example, Gardner (1993b) emphasized “the interpretive role of a trusted other person at times of creative breakthroughs” (as cited in John-Steiner, 2000, p. 147) Similarly, Parker and Hackett (2012) highlighted that collaborations can meet our emotional needs and enable partners to, “share their most half-baked ideas, trusting that others will not destructively attack or plagiarize them” (as cited in Farrell, 2001, p. 285). They were able to challenge one another more freely and engage in a discourse of disruption. This dynamic can foster Big-C creativity by supporting incubation (Wallas, 1926). That is, we can express and formulate our ideas to one another in discussion, then set them aside, later returning with new perspectives. This can lead to what Harvey (2014) referred to as creative synthesis. Here, collaborators "consider not only the original question but also whether there is a better question to be asked" (p. 492). In turn, we are able to bring about creative solutions (Glaveanu et al., 2021; John-Steiner, 1997) and moreover, broaden our thinking in future explorations such that we consider an increasingly wider range of solutions (Fredrickson, 2004).
Trusting partners can meet our emotional needs. When we believe they will be there in times of struggle, and they believe in our abilities, we are more willing to receive their feedback (Rempel et al., 1985; Rotter, 1967). However, to foster communication conducive to trust, we must increase our capacity for empathy, as well as our ability to give and take constructive criticism (John-Steiner, 2000; Timmerman, 1991). We grow close and are able to share more of ourselves through deeper conversations.
Music
Jai Paul. (2019). “All night,” Leak 04-13 (Bait ones). XL Recordings.
The role of trust in intimate collaborations was highlighted by Rouse (2020), who theorized that “intimate interactions can operate alongside perceptions of safety and trust to support the development of creative ideas” (p. 182). Similarly, in a case study of seminal scholars and artists, Farrell (2001) found that intimacy was emergent, noting that trust is a critical element that brings us closer together throughout our lives.
Successful collaborations (Johns, 1996; John-Steiner, 2000) have often been trusting relationships. For example, Gardner (1993b) emphasized “the interpretive role of a trusted other person at times of creative breakthroughs” (as cited in John-Steiner, 2000, p. 147) Similarly, Parker and Hackett (2012) highlighted that collaborations can meet our emotional needs and enable partners to, “share their most half-baked ideas, trusting that others will not destructively attack or plagiarize them” (as cited in Farrell, 2001, p. 285). They were able to challenge one another more freely and engage in a discourse of disruption. This dynamic can foster Big-C creativity by supporting incubation (Wallas, 1926). That is, we can express and formulate our ideas to one another in discussion, then set them aside, later returning with new perspectives. This can lead to what Harvey (2014) referred to as creative synthesis. Here, collaborators "consider not only the original question but also whether there is a better question to be asked" (p. 492). In turn, we are able to bring about creative solutions (Glaveanu et al., 2021; John-Steiner, 1997) and moreover, broaden our thinking in future explorations such that we consider an increasingly wider range of solutions (Fredrickson, 2004).
Trusting partners can meet our emotional needs. When we believe they will be there in times of struggle, and they believe in our abilities, we are more willing to receive their feedback (Rempel et al., 1985; Rotter, 1967). However, to foster communication conducive to trust, we must increase our capacity for empathy, as well as our ability to give and take constructive criticism (John-Steiner, 2000; Timmerman, 1991). We grow close and are able to share more of ourselves through deeper conversations.
Music
Jai Paul. (2019). “All night,” Leak 04-13 (Bait ones). XL Recordings.
Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure is the sharing of personal information (Timmerman, 1991). It is an essential component of relationships (Anderson, 2011; Chelune et al., 1980) and serves as an equilibrium for intimacy (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Timmerman, 1991). When individuals share details about themselves, vulnerabilities are revealed. Self-disclosure can hinge on trust (Fitness, 1996), although it cannot be assumed that disclosures will develop trust (Kelley et al., 1983). Nor can it be assumed they will sustain a relationship (Bloch, 2002; Cozby, 1973). Instead, self-disclosure relates more to the depth of knowing and in turn, when we share, our intimacy is strengthened (Cozby, 1973; Fitness, 1996; Jourard, 1971; M. S. Clark & Grote, 2003).
The self-disclosures observed by researchers have often involved the sharing of skills, resources, ideas, and emotions (Farrell, 2001). This dynamic highlights the importance of complementary abilities. Importantly, though, intimacy thrives on reciprocity. As you share, so must I. And as the depth of my disclosure increases, so must yours as if only one benefits, the intimacy can fail to deepen.
Rouse (2020) highlighted the influence of self-disclosure in their research on the collaborative efforts of academia. As scholars shared ideas and grew close, they were able to communicate and create more effectively. Similarly, Farrell (2001) noted that intimacy often builds from the escalating reciprocity of self-disclosures between collaborators. The benefits of self-disclosure are influential to one’s work. This was observable in the collaborative relationship between eminent scientists Marie and Pierre Curie. Marie possessed a deep understanding of abstract mathematics, whereas Pierre thrived in developing instruments for measurement (John-Steiner, 2000). Their relationship spanned their careers, and the complementary nature of their talents was evident in their work. However, their productivity and successes were arguably more related to their deep understanding of one another. This included work habits, values, and emotional boundaries, all of which can support individual and collaborative success.
Although the sense of knowing that develops within relationships can support achievements, the willingness to share can differ based on current perceptions of trust and motivations for establishing the relationship (Cozby, 1973; Fitness, 1996; Jourard, 1971), personalities (Reno & Kenny, 1992), and changes in moods (Forgas, 2011). Additionally, the power dynamics within relationships can influence inhibitions. Consider the mentor/mentee relationships supported in the literature (e.g., Bloom, 1985; John-Steiner, 2000; Kronborg, 2010). Here, one individual most often holds the power—status and resources—while the other remains in development and in need. This has led some (Farrell, 2001; Nijstad, 2015; Taylor & Altman, 1975) to raise concerns about the ability to be creative in these relationships. Those without power may hesitate to present new ideas due to a fear of harsh judgment or a sense of indebtedness to the mentor's paradigm. Nonetheless, relationships evolve. As skills develop and social contexts change, so can the balance of power. Abilities can become matched and if complementary, intimacy can develop.
Music
Beirut. (2006). “Postcards from Italy,” Gulag Orkestar. Ba Da Bing.
The self-disclosures observed by researchers have often involved the sharing of skills, resources, ideas, and emotions (Farrell, 2001). This dynamic highlights the importance of complementary abilities. Importantly, though, intimacy thrives on reciprocity. As you share, so must I. And as the depth of my disclosure increases, so must yours as if only one benefits, the intimacy can fail to deepen.
Rouse (2020) highlighted the influence of self-disclosure in their research on the collaborative efforts of academia. As scholars shared ideas and grew close, they were able to communicate and create more effectively. Similarly, Farrell (2001) noted that intimacy often builds from the escalating reciprocity of self-disclosures between collaborators. The benefits of self-disclosure are influential to one’s work. This was observable in the collaborative relationship between eminent scientists Marie and Pierre Curie. Marie possessed a deep understanding of abstract mathematics, whereas Pierre thrived in developing instruments for measurement (John-Steiner, 2000). Their relationship spanned their careers, and the complementary nature of their talents was evident in their work. However, their productivity and successes were arguably more related to their deep understanding of one another. This included work habits, values, and emotional boundaries, all of which can support individual and collaborative success.
Although the sense of knowing that develops within relationships can support achievements, the willingness to share can differ based on current perceptions of trust and motivations for establishing the relationship (Cozby, 1973; Fitness, 1996; Jourard, 1971), personalities (Reno & Kenny, 1992), and changes in moods (Forgas, 2011). Additionally, the power dynamics within relationships can influence inhibitions. Consider the mentor/mentee relationships supported in the literature (e.g., Bloom, 1985; John-Steiner, 2000; Kronborg, 2010). Here, one individual most often holds the power—status and resources—while the other remains in development and in need. This has led some (Farrell, 2001; Nijstad, 2015; Taylor & Altman, 1975) to raise concerns about the ability to be creative in these relationships. Those without power may hesitate to present new ideas due to a fear of harsh judgment or a sense of indebtedness to the mentor's paradigm. Nonetheless, relationships evolve. As skills develop and social contexts change, so can the balance of power. Abilities can become matched and if complementary, intimacy can develop.
Music
Beirut. (2006). “Postcards from Italy,” Gulag Orkestar. Ba Da Bing.
Closeness
Closeness grows when there is an openness to the emotions of intimacy and disclosures of others (Aron & Fraley, 1999; Dibble et al., 2012; Forgas, 2011). This enables a deeper engagement in our relationships and strengthens the commitments made. As a result, the interpersonal distance begins to diminish (Kirshner et al., 1978; Laurenceau et al., 1998), leading to a deeper understanding of how others think and feel. In close relationships, a common knowledge of what matters develops (Hopwood & Edwards, 2017). These shared values support effective communication (Laurenceau et al., 1998). This facilitates trust and continued sharing (H. T. Reis, 2017; H. T. Reis et al., 2004) and ultimately, the intimacy in relationships.
Aron et al. (1997) argued that "closeness is including the other in the self" (p. 27), a notion that echoed Merleau-Ponty's (1962) description of our double beings. Closeness can be experienced in multiple ways as there are both cognitive and emotional components. Cognitive closeness can be described as the ability to take another's perspective, recognizing the reasoning behind their reactions, and predicting how they will react in different contexts (Dibble et al., 2012). This can provide a sense of control as predictability reduces the perceived risks taken - allowing for continued closeness. Emotional closeness refers to the affectivity felt in relationships. This includes the intensity of our feelings, which Hackenbracht and Gasper (2013) found can be indicative of the closeness in relationships. At the same time, closeness varies in different relationships. For example, low enthusiasm for a collaborator's success may indicate a close yet highly competitive relationship, demonstrating a different dynamic that still reflects closeness.
When cognitive and emotional aspects of closeness combine, a productive interdependency can develop (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003). This fosters shared goals and visions (Farrell, 2001; Rouse, 2020). In these relationships, frequent and strong influences occur in diverse ways over time (Kelley et al., 1983). An interconnectedness is felt that fosters trust and encourages self-disclosures (Aron & Fraley, 1999; Aron et al., 1997; Khalifian & Barry, 2020). This increases the intimacy, with “I” becoming “We” (van Lange & Balliet, 2015). Van Lange and Balliet (2015) emphasized the work of K. Lewin and G. W. Lewin (1948), who described the experience of interdependency as,
“The essence of a group is not the similarity or dissimilarity of its members, but their interdependence. A change in the state of any subpart changes the state of any other subpart. Every move of one member will, relatively speaking, deeply affect the other members, and the state of the group.” (K. Lewin & G.W. Lewin, 1948, as cited in Lange & Balliet, 2015, pp. 87-88)
The productivity of intimate collaborators can depend on the type of interdependency developed. It may be positive, with effective communication and an even distribution of power (Deutsch, 2011; Rusbult, 2003). Here, collaborators can use competition as an opportunity to develop and share skills. The feedback is constructive and coalesces with the others’ temperaments in ways that enable confidence and forward movement. This further underscores the importance of not only complementary self-disclosures but also individual personalities (Rusbult, 2003; Rusbult & van Lange, 2003). Some temperaments work better with others and collaborate with a stronger desire to trust and share. In turn, they grow closer and develop intimacy in their relationship.
Music
Tyler, the Creator, featuring Yebba (2025). “I’ll take care of you,” Don’t tap the glass. Columbia.
Aron et al. (1997) argued that "closeness is including the other in the self" (p. 27), a notion that echoed Merleau-Ponty's (1962) description of our double beings. Closeness can be experienced in multiple ways as there are both cognitive and emotional components. Cognitive closeness can be described as the ability to take another's perspective, recognizing the reasoning behind their reactions, and predicting how they will react in different contexts (Dibble et al., 2012). This can provide a sense of control as predictability reduces the perceived risks taken - allowing for continued closeness. Emotional closeness refers to the affectivity felt in relationships. This includes the intensity of our feelings, which Hackenbracht and Gasper (2013) found can be indicative of the closeness in relationships. At the same time, closeness varies in different relationships. For example, low enthusiasm for a collaborator's success may indicate a close yet highly competitive relationship, demonstrating a different dynamic that still reflects closeness.
When cognitive and emotional aspects of closeness combine, a productive interdependency can develop (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003). This fosters shared goals and visions (Farrell, 2001; Rouse, 2020). In these relationships, frequent and strong influences occur in diverse ways over time (Kelley et al., 1983). An interconnectedness is felt that fosters trust and encourages self-disclosures (Aron & Fraley, 1999; Aron et al., 1997; Khalifian & Barry, 2020). This increases the intimacy, with “I” becoming “We” (van Lange & Balliet, 2015). Van Lange and Balliet (2015) emphasized the work of K. Lewin and G. W. Lewin (1948), who described the experience of interdependency as,
“The essence of a group is not the similarity or dissimilarity of its members, but their interdependence. A change in the state of any subpart changes the state of any other subpart. Every move of one member will, relatively speaking, deeply affect the other members, and the state of the group.” (K. Lewin & G.W. Lewin, 1948, as cited in Lange & Balliet, 2015, pp. 87-88)
The productivity of intimate collaborators can depend on the type of interdependency developed. It may be positive, with effective communication and an even distribution of power (Deutsch, 2011; Rusbult, 2003). Here, collaborators can use competition as an opportunity to develop and share skills. The feedback is constructive and coalesces with the others’ temperaments in ways that enable confidence and forward movement. This further underscores the importance of not only complementary self-disclosures but also individual personalities (Rusbult, 2003; Rusbult & van Lange, 2003). Some temperaments work better with others and collaborate with a stronger desire to trust and share. In turn, they grow closer and develop intimacy in their relationship.
Music
Tyler, the Creator, featuring Yebba (2025). “I’ll take care of you,” Don’t tap the glass. Columbia.
bottom of page