Intensity Is Not Intimacy: Why high-passion relationships without emotional closeness carry higher risk of psychological aggression
Saturday, January 10, 2026.
Romantic relationships high in passion but low in intimacy and commitment are associated with significantly higher levels of severe psychological aggression and coercive control.
That finding comes from new research published in Violence Against Women, and it punctures one of our most cherished American cultural illusions—that relational intensity protects us.
It does not.
Psychological Intimate Partner Violence Is Common—and Quietly Devastating
Psychological intimate partner violence is not a fringe phenomenon. It is not rare, and it is not mild.
It includes patterns of behavior meant to dominate rather than connect: verbal degradation, threats, intimidation, emotional manipulation, isolation, and economic control. Unlike physical violence, it leaves no bruises.
Unlike sexual violence, it is often minimized. Yet its effects are enduring.
The World Health Organization estimates that nearly one in three women globally experiences violence from an intimate partner during her lifetime. In some European surveys, psychological violence alone affects more than 40 percent of women.
The downstream effects are not subtle. Survivors show elevated rates of chronic pain, gastrointestinal disorders, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. As usual, the body keeps receipts.
The Mistake We Keep Making About Love
We like to imagine that love and abuse occupy opposite ends of the emotional universe. If harm exists, love must be absent. If love feels strong, harm must be minimal.
This study says that framing is wrong.
Love does not disappear just because a relationship becomes unsafe. In fact, love—especially the intense kind—can coexist with, obscure, or even entangle psychological aggression.
As study author Patrick Raynal, a senior research scientist at INSERM, notes, psychological IPV is both widespread and highly damaging, yet its relationship to love itself has remained surprisingly underexamined.
The question was not whether abuse occurs in loveless relationships. We already know that.
The question was whether certain forms of love carry their own risks.
Love, Disassembled
To answer that question, the researchers turned to Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love, which breaks love into three components:
Intimacy: emotional closeness, trust, mutual understanding
Passion: desire, infatuation, physiological arousal
Commitment: stability, future orientation, staying power
Love, in this model, is not a feeling. It is a configuration.
And configurations matter.
What the Study Actually Did
The researchers surveyed 1,061 adult women who had been in a romantic relationship for at least a year. The average age was about 30. Most participants were partnered with men.
They measured three things:
Psychological aggression (minor and severe).
Controlling behaviors, including emotional, economic, threatening, intimidating, and isolating control.
Levels of intimacy, passion, and commitment.
Using cluster analysis, they grouped women by how love showed up in their relationships.
Not how romantic it felt.
How it was structured.
Four Love Profiles, Four Different Risk Patterns
Four relationship patterns emerged.
Moderate Love:
Nearly half the sample fell here. Intimacy, passion, and commitment were all present in reasonable balance.
This group reported the lowest levels of psychological aggression.
No Love:
Low intimacy, low passion, low commitment.
This group showed the highest levels of abuse and control, consistent with relationships that have already collapsed into harm.
No surprises there.
Low Passion:
High intimacy and commitment, low passion.
Think companionate love. Familiar. Stable. Possibly boring.
This group showed relatively low levels of psychological aggression.
And then there was the group worth paying the most attention to:
Mostly Passion:
High passion.
Low intimacy.
Low commitment.
This group reported significantly higher levels of severe psychological aggression than the Low Passion group—and more threatening and emotionally controlling behavior overall.
What “Mostly Passion” Actually Means
A Mostly Passion relationship is not love “at its peak.”
It is love without ballast.
These relationships are fueled by intensity but lack trust, emotional safety, and long-term orientation. They often feel electric early on. They are often described as chemistry. They are often defended as “just very intense.”
They are also more volatile.
The Uncomfortable Finding
Here it is, stated plainly:
High passion without intimacy and commitment was more strongly associated with severe psychological aggression than relationships with low passion but emotional stability.
Not minor conflict.
Not sharp words in a fight.
Severe psychological aggression—threats, intimidation, sustained emotional control.
This is where the cultural story breaks down. We are taught to fear boredom more than instability. The data suggest we have that backward.
Why This Pattern Is Risky
The authors are careful not to claim causality, but the mechanism is not mysterious.
Passion amplifies emotional arousal.
Without intimacy, there is no buffer of trust.
Without commitment, there is no stabilizing future.
What fills the gap is often jealousy, fear of loss, monitoring, and control.
Intensity does not become safety by wishing it would.
What This Study Does Not Say
This matters.
The study does not claim:
That passion causes violence.
That low-passion relationships are inherently healthy.
That love profiles replace direct safety assessment.
It does say that the structure of love matters, and that intensity alone is not protective.
Why This Matters Clinically
For therapists, advocates, and support professionals, this finding explains a familiar clinical moment: the client who describes her relationship as “overwhelmingly intense” while quietly recounting patterns of control.
High passion can deepen attachment even as harm escalates. That does not make someone naïve. It makes them human.
Leaving a relationship like this is not a logic problem. It is an attachment problem shaped by emotional chemistry.
FAQ
What is the difference between intensity and intimacy in relationships?
Intensity refers to emotional and physiological arousal—excitement, urgency, and heightened feeling. Intimacy refers to emotional closeness, trust, safety, and mutual understanding. The two often coexist, but they are not the same, and one does not guarantee the other.
Can a relationship have strong chemistry but still be unhealthy?
Yes. Research suggests that relationships high in passion but low in intimacy and commitment are associated with higher levels of severe psychological aggression. Chemistry alone does not predict emotional safety.
Does high passion cause psychological abuse?
No. The research does not show that passion causes abuse. It shows that passion without emotional closeness and commitment may coexist with conditions—such as instability, jealousy, and lack of regulation—that increase the risk of psychological aggression.
Why do intense relationships feel so meaningful at first?
Because intensity activates the nervous system. Novelty and uncertainty heighten attention and emotional engagement, which can feel profound even when trust and stability are underdeveloped.
Are calm relationships less loving or less real?
Not necessarily. Calm often reflects emotional safety and predictability. For people accustomed to relational volatility, calm may feel unfamiliar or “flat” at first, even when the relationship is healthy.
What matters more than chemistry in long-term relationships?
Balance. Research and clinical experience suggest that relationships with aligned levels of intimacy, passion, and commitment tend to show lower levels of psychological harm than relationships dominated by intensity alone.
Final thoughts
Love is not a single force.
It is a configuration.
When passion is disconnected from intimacy and commitment, intensity can become a risk factor rather than a safeguard.
Chemistry is not care.
Desire is not safety.
And love—when poorly structured, tragically, —does not protect.
Understanding that difference matters.
REFERENCES:
Ablana, C., Raynal, P., & Séjourné, N. (2025). Love’s paradox: Unraveling the dynamics of love and psychological intimate partner violence against women. Violence Against Women.