Quick answer
Higher scores on Descutner and Thelen's fear-of-intimacy scale tracked briefer relationships and therapists' ratings. That outside view is a reason to ask a clinician rather than an online list, and nothing here promises the worry will lift.
In 1991, Carol J. Descutner and Mark H. Thelen published a 35-item self-report of anxiety about close dating relationships. The paper, in Psychological Assessment, is a validation study of a Fear-of-Intimacy Scale. It isn't a diagnosis this page can hand you, and it isn't a promise that a worry you have will shrink on a schedule. If you have been searching for what to do after the phrase "fear of intimacy" got stuck in your head, start with the study's actual checks, then with a person who can see you. An essay can't see you.
What higher scores tracked
The authors reported high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. In plain language, the items hung together as a questionnaire, and scores were stable enough on retest for the checks they ran. The abstract that was opened doesn't include a cutoff score or an average you should compare yourself with. Don't borrow a number from a different summary and lay it over your life.
Higher scores went with a positive correlation on a loneliness measure. They went with negative correlations on self-disclosure, social intimacy, and social desirability. Those relations held after the authors partialed out social desirability. People who scored higher also tended to report more loneliness and less self-disclosure and social intimacy, and the pattern wasn't explained away by a simple wish to look good on the form. Higher scores also went with briefer relationships in self-report, and with therapists' ratings of clients' fear of intimacy.
That last link is the hinge. A clinician's outside view mattered in the validation. The scale wasn't checked only against the person's own story of how long relationships lasted. Therapists' ratings lined up with higher scores as well. An online list can't supply that outside view. This essay won't reproduce questionnaire items, because a copied item is how a webpage pretends to be the scale. Even a faithful copy would miss the part of the validation that required another person, trained to rate a client, looking from outside.
The same paper found that androgynous subjects had less fear of intimacy than masculine and undifferentiated subjects. That's a result in the sample. The report used here doesn't define those categories, so this page won't invent a gender lesson on top of them. One comparison isn't a rule for how you should style yourself.
Why a list on a screen is the wrong next step
You might be thinking you already know the answer, and that a score would only confirm it. Maybe. The validation still says the outside rating mattered. Your own length of relationships is one track the scores followed. A therapist's rating is another. If you only have the first, you have half of the picture the study used, and you have it without the reliability work that belongs to the instrument rather than to a blog checklist.
Hazan and Shaver, writing in 1987 about love as an attachment process, characterized avoidant love with fear of intimacy, emotional highs and lows, and jealousy. That's a different tool from the 1991 scale: a newspaper self-description, not a 35-item measure. The phrase shows up in both places. The methods don't collapse into one test. Don't treat a style label from the earlier paper as if it were a completed Fear-of-Intimacy Scale, and don't treat a high concern as if the 1987 paper proved your childhood caused it in a strong, tidy way.
Hazan and Shaver put a brake on the childhood story. Links they found with parent history were real, yet they were not strong, and they expected the association to fade as people got older. They also wrote that later relationships can revise an earlier model, pointing to Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy in 1985 and to parents who interrupted a pattern that had run across generations. Take that as their limit, not as a promise. Nothing in their paper proves infant experience is the engine of your adult choices, and nothing in it schedules a rewrite. Waiting to be changed by the next romance isn't a plan, and it isn't a reason to avoid a clinician while you wait.
The American Psychological Association's dictionary, in an entry updated April 19, 2018, uses "attachment" for the bond between a human infant or a young nonhuman animal and a caregiver, and also for the tendency in adulthood to seek emotionally supportive social relationships. Fear about closeness sits near that second use. Naming it doesn't tell you whether you qualify for a scale score. It tells you the topic is about support you can or can't stand to want.
Where to ask a person
The National Institute of Mental Health, on its help page last reviewed in April 2026, says it can't give medical advice or referrals. This essay can't either. If a situation is life-threatening, call 911 or go to the nearest emergency room. If you're in suicidal or emotional distress, call or text 988, or use the chat at the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. That line is 24-hour and confidential. Veterans can call 988 and then press 1, or text 838255. Those routes are for crisis and distress. A worry about intimacy isn't the same thing as a crisis. If the worry arrives with danger, use the crisis route first.
For non-emergency care, NIMH says treatment is usually therapy, medication, or both. A primary care clinician can screen and refer. SAMHSA has a helpline and a treatment locator. This page won't invent a SAMHSA phone number. Employee Assistance Programs, college health centers, insurance directories, and state or county health departments are other routes NIMH names. If you already have a provider, don't stop treatment without talking with a health care provider.
When you reach someone, NIMH suggests questions worth asking: their experience with the issue, their usual approach, the length of care they expect, whether insurance applies, and what it costs. You can write those down before the appointment so the first visit isn't only a feeling of panic. Experience tells you whether they have seen concerns like yours. Approach tells you what the hours will actually be like. Length and cost tell you whether you can stay long enough for the work to be real. None of those questions guarantees a good fit. They do keep you from treating the first open slot as the whole decision.
A fair limit belongs at the end. Talking with a clinician may help you look at anxiety about closeness. It may not change the feeling as fast as you want, or at all. The 1991 paper ties higher scores to briefer relationships and to therapists' ratings. It doesn't report a cure rate. Hazan and Shaver's note that some adults revise their models isn't a timetable. You can ask for an outside view this week without promising yourself a new personality by spring.
Which route can you actually reach: a primary care clinician, an employee assistance program, a college health center, or a locator through SAMHSA?
Scale paper and help routes
- Carol J. Descutner and Mark H. Thelen, "Development and validation of a Fear-of-Intimacy Scale," Psychological Assessment 3(2), 218–225, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.3.2.218
- Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver, "Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(3), 511–524, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
- APA Dictionary of Psychology, "attachment," updated April 19, 2018. https://dictionary.apa.org/attachment
- National Institute of Mental Health, "Help for Mental Illnesses," last reviewed April 2026. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/find-help
Frequently Asked Questions
- Will a high concern on this topic shrink on a schedule?
- No promise of that kind is available here. The 1991 paper doesn't report a cure rate, and later revision of a model isn't a timetable.
- Why talk to a clinician instead of totaling a webpage?
- Therapists' ratings of clients lined up with higher scores in the validation, alongside briefer relationships people reported themselves. A screen can't supply that outside view.
- Did parent history strongly determine adult answers in the 1987 paper?
- Links were real and not strong, and the authors expected them to fade with age. Some people revise models in later relationships. That isn't proof and isn't a scheduled rewrite.
- Where can I ask for help without using this page as a referral?
- Life-threatening moments belong with emergency dispatch or an ER visit. Distress and suicidal thoughts: the 988 line, by voice or text. For ongoing care, start with a family doctor, SAMHSA's finder, a workplace assistance benefit, or student health. In the first meeting, ask what they have handled, how they work, how long it may last, and what you will pay, with or without coverage. The federal institute won't give you a referral, and this page won't either.
- Should I stop current treatment because a blog described this scale?
- No. Talk with your health care provider before stopping. The scale's items aren't reprinted here, and an average score isn't supplied because the opened abstract doesn't give one.