Sociobiological: Dimensions of Love: A Interpretation

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 25
At a glance
Powered by AI
The article discusses five dimensions of love (passion, closeness, attachment, manic love, practicality) and uses an evolutionary framework to explore gender differences and relationship factors related to these dimensions.

The five dimensions of love are passion, closeness, attachment, manic love, and practicality.

Sternberg's triangular theory of love proposes that love has three components: passion, intimacy, and commitment.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1991, pp.

206-230

DIMENSIONS OF LOVE: A
SOCIOBIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
CLYDE HENDRICK AND SUSAN S. HENDRICK
Texas Tech University

Previous work (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1 989) assessed several current theories of love,
finding that the various measures could be reduced to five
independent love dimensions.
The present study used the previous data set to form five generic love attitude scales,
named Passion, Closeness, Attachment, Manic Love, and Practicality. A general
evolutionary framework was used to explore the five love attitudes with respect to
gender differences, relationship satisfaction, and current and past relationship history.
Females endorsed closeness and practicality more than males did, as expected, but
females also endorsed passion more, which was not hypothesized. Passion and
closeness were predictors of relationship satisfaction, in line with our hypothesis.
Current love and sexual relationship status were also related to the love attitudes in
ways consistent with evolutionary thinking. Different types of love attitudes appear
to serve the function of pair bonding, especially at different stages of relationship

formation and development. The results were sufficiently suggestive that evolutionary
interpretations of love deserve careful consideration in future research. This and
similar work can contribute toward the development of an evolutionary psychology.

During past few years, several theories of love have been proposed,
the
each with associated measurement scale. In a previous paper (Hendrick
an

& Hendrick, 1989), we compared these measurement scales and found


that the large number of subscales they included could be reduced to
five independent factors, from which five general measurement scales
could be derived. Because the original set of scales was based on different
theories of love, one unfinished task was to make some theoretical sense
from the outcome of combining and reducing the many specific love
subscales to five generic concepts of love. In this article we propose that
a
general sociobiological orientation makes sense of and is consistent
with the generic love concepts that emerged in the previous study. Using
the data set from our 1989 study, we propose hypotheses consistent
with an evolutionary approach to love that can account for gender dif-

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Clyde Hendrick, Department


of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409.

206
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 207

ferences, relationship satisfaction, and love biographical differences with


respect to the five general love
concepts.

CONTEMPORARY THEORIES AND RESEARCH ON LOVE

The attachment
perspective on love was articulated by Shaver and Hazan
(e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Hazan, 1988), based on John
Bowlby's (1969) work on infant formation of affectional bonds with a
caregiver. Building on their own and Bowlby's work, Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, and Wall (1978) proposed three types of attachment: secure
(stable/trusting), avoidant (mistrusting, distant), and anxious/ambivalent
(anxious, unsure) attachment. Based on this work, Hazan and Shaver
(1987) developed single-item measures that described the three attachment
styles and approached the study of love as an emotion-focused, dis
positional tendency in the human organism.
Another conceptually rich contemporary approach to love was ar
ticulated by Sternberg (1986, 1987) in his triangular theory of love. Stern
berg proposed that love can be understood as combinations of the con
structs of passion (a motivational component), intimacy (an emotional
investment component), and commitment (a cognitive component). Types
of love generated by various mixes of the three components were named
Nonlove, Liking, Infatuated Love, Empty Love, Romantic Love, Com
panionate Love, Fatuous Love, and Consummate Love.
Interest in both love and friendship has characterized the work of
Davis and his colleagues (most recently, Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987;
Davis & Todd, 1985). Davis has been particularly interested in archetypal
or "ideal"
examples of love and friendship and has developed a rating
scale encompassing multiple relationship characteristics that may be found
in varying proportions in both love and friendship relationships. These

relationship characteristics include viability (respect, acceptance), intimacy


(closeness), passion (sexual intimacy), care (aid), satisfaction (contentment),
and conflict (ambivalence). Similarly, to Sternberg, Davis views the various
characteristics or components as having different (though related) prop
erties and as occurring differentially in different types of love relationships

(e.g., romantic involvement, friendship).


Our own approach to the study of love is based on Lee's (1973)
work. He proposed a typology of love encompassing three primary types
or styles, three secondary styles, and a series of tertiary styles. We have

worked with the primary and secondary styles (six in all), in general
treating them as six attitudes toward love. The six love attitudes are as
follows:
208 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

Eros Passionate, romantic love, characterized by strong physical


attraction and involvement, intensity, intimacy.
Ludus Game-playing, courtly love, characterized by casual inter
actions and avoidance of intimacy and intensity.
Storge Friendship-based love, characterized by slow, ordered de
velopment, shared attitudes and values, strong companionship.
Pragma Practical love, compound of Ludus and Storge, characterized
by an intentional search for a suitable love partner and awareness of
what partner qualities are important.
Mania Possessive, dependent love, compound of Eros and Ludus,
characterized by intensity and some intimacy but also by jealousy, mis-
communication, and physical and psychological "symptoms."
Agape Altruistic love, compound of Eros and Storge, characterized
by love that is given, rather than earned, and by self-sacrifice for the
partner's welfare.
After initially developing a scale to measure the six love attitudes
(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986), we have more recently focused on their
relevance to dating couples (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988).

Finally, an approach to love more focused than the approaches


described above is Hatfield's research on passionate love, using the
Passionate Love Scale (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). Hatfield views pas
sionate love as composed of cognitive, affective, and behavioral com

ponents (somewhat similar to Shaver and Hazan's [1988] dispositional


approach) and as characterized by both strong positives and strong neg
atives.

EVALUATION OF THE THEORIES

Each of the five theories of love has a measurement instrument associated


with it. Some research is to compare the theories through
beginning
data collections using several of the love scales. For example, Levy and
Davis (1988) compared the attachment approach (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
with the love styles (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Lee, 1973). Measures

representing these two approaches were correlated with various rela


tionship characteristics, most of which were measured by the Relationship
Rating Form (Davis & Todd, 1985) and the Sternberg Triangular Theory
of Love Scale (Sternberg, 1986). A number of interesting conclusions
were drawn regarding
relationships both within and among the several
measures.

In an
attempt to assess the five theories more
completely, we ad
ministered the relevant scales to a
large sample of subjects (Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1989). All of the total scales and their various subscales (19
in all) exhibited suitable internal consistency. Some of the subscales,
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 209

especially for the Relationship Rating Form and for the Triangular Theory
of Love Scale, were more
highly intercorrelated than would be desirable
for scales that purport to measure more or less
independent constructs.
Nevertheless, the scales appeared to be good enough to assess for scale
commonalities across the five measurement instruments. Using each
subscale score as an unweighted
summary measure, a principal com
ponents factor analysis of the 19 subscales yielded five factors that ac
counted for 69% of the total variance (see Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989,
Table 4).
The five factors that emerged represented five love constructs: Passion,
Closeness, Attachment, Mania, and Practicality. Passion (or passionate
love) was the most important factor, accounting for 32% of the total
variance, but each of the remaining factors made a substantial contribution,
and each appeared to represent a real construct.

CURRENT RESEARCH

The emergence of the five factors suggested that the subscales loading
on a factor
might be combined, thereby forming five different "superscales"
to assess the five different love constructs. Each of the original subscales
(except Hazan and Shaver's [1987] scales) consisted of several items.
Therefore, combining two or more of the subscales scores should result
in a more reliable and sound measure of the relevant construct than any
given subscale considered separately.
The data collected by Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) provided the
basis for thepresent article. The five composite measures of love derived
from the factor analysis were construed as the best operational definitions
of love measures were treated as dependent
available. These
currently
variables that could beexplored as a function of the subjects' relationship
history and experience and as independent variables to predict relationship
satisfaction. To measure relationship experience, we expanded a Back
ground Inventory used in several previous studies (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1986, 1987, 1988) to include topic areas drawn from previous research
by ourselves and others (e.g., Cunningham & Antill, 1981). The result
was the Love and Relationship Biography, consisting of 16 questions

relating to past and current relationship experience (see "Method").

THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS

Because the five love variables were derived from specific but disparate
theories of love, it was not immediately clear what theoretical approach
should guide the framing of research questions for the love variables.
210 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

Sociobiology is one general approach that has been applied to heterosexual


relations, including love (e.g., Buss, 1988; Hinde, 1984; Kenrick, 1987,
1989; Kenrick & Trost, 1989). Love is a particularly appropriate application
if, as some have argued, feelings rather than behavior is the natural
domain for tests of evolutionary hypotheses (Knoth, Boyd, & Singer,
1988; Symons, 1979). Thus, a general evolutionary hypothesis may be
an excellent theoretical tool to make sense of variations in love attitudes.
We consider such an
evolutionary hypothesis and examine its implications
for the five love attitudes, including gender differences, prediction of

relationship satisfaction, and impact of current relationship experience


and problems.

EVOLUTION OF LOVE

Mellen (1981) argued that love evolved in humans as a mechanism to


perpetuate the species. Because of the long period of human infant
dependency, caretaking is required of both mother and father. Strictly
speaking, males are needed only for fertilization. Thus, some further
means is
required to bond the male to the female and her offspring.
Development of the emotional complex of love is such a bonding mech
anism. Thus, love and reproduction are linked in the evolutionary history
of heterosexual relations (Kenrick & Trost, 1989).
Although love serves as a
bonding mechanism for both males and
females, it may serve somewhat different functions for the two genders.
At a general level, Crawford and Anderson (1989) noted that males and
females may have slightly different genetic life histories (i.e., "A genetically
organized life course that describes the allocation of energy, time, or
resources to reproduction, growth, or survival functions during different
stages of an
organisms's life" [p. 1450]). As a specific example of love
serving different functions for males and females, Guttentag and Secord
(1983) proposed that romantic love may have been developed by males
as a mechanism to ensure successful
mating during periods of high sex
ratios of men relative to women. During such periods, women can exercise
more
personal preference in choice of a mate and therefore in reproduction.
Romantic love may thus serve a short-term courting function as well as
a
long-term evolutionary bonding function.
Sexual dimorphism is the physical concomitant of differing genetic
life histories. One implication of sexual dimorphism is the physiological
differences with respect to childbearing. In an evolutionary sense, such
physiological differences imply slightly different reproductive strategies.
A differential parental investment model (Kenrick, 1989; Trivers, 1972)
indicates that females can ensure reproductive fitness by investing in
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 211

the survival of the


relatively few infants they can produce. However,
males can maximize their fitness
by fertilizing as many females as possible
(Kenrick, 1987). Such differences in reproductive strategies suggest possible
gender differences in behaviors related to courtship, love, and intimate
relations (Hinde, 1984). Buss
(1988) made the important point that if
love evolved to serve the tasks of
reproduction, we should see its effects
in relationship behaviors,
including display of resources, relative relationship
exclusivity, relationship bonding (e.g., marriage), sexual intimacy, re
production, resource sharing, and parental investment. Many (or all) of
this sequence of behaviors
might involve gender differences because of
the basic gender difference in
reproduction strategy. Buss (1989a) found
gender differences in mate preferences in a large cross-cultural study,
using evolutionary hypotheses as a guide to the research. Males preferred
good looks and younger mates, more so than females; females preferred
"good financial prospects," more so than males. Such differences suggest
that gender differences in "love
strategies" may also be a viable evolutionary
difference between the sexes.

Thisgeneral approach suggests that love is a crucial factor in human


evolution. But love is nota
unitary phenomenon. As indicated previously,
at the level of
consciously held attitudes love has at least five relatively
independent facets. With the evolutionary hypothesis as a guide, what
predictions can we make with respect to the five love attitudes?

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Our previous work on Lee's (1973) love styles (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1986) found substantial gender differences. Males are always more game-
playing (ludic) than females, and females generally are more practical
(pragmatic) than males. Hinde (1984) pointed out that such differences
can be given an evolutionary interpretation. More ludic
game-playing
by young males should, on the average, lead to more sexual liaisons,
thereby enhancing their reproductive success. A more pragmatic ori
entation toward love by young females should, on the average, enhance
their reproductive success because it will
likely take into account both

genetic and economic "fitness" of a potential partner.


For the five composite love variables, the following predictions for

gender were made: (a) Passion no difference expected; both males and
females should be equally high on Passion; (b) Closeness females should
more than males because the scale is composed of measures con
agree
cerned with intimacy and lack of conflict, a set of behaviors promoting
heterosexual bonding (Mellen, 1981); (c) and (d) Attachment and Manic
no specific warrant from evolutionary
Love theory to expect gender
212 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

differences; and (e) Practicality females expected to be more practical


than males for reasons noted previously.
Of course there have been considerable changes in dating and mating
behavior in the Western world the past few decades. For example,
across

the availability of birth control and women's resulting power over their
reproduction have resulted in a wider range of sexual behavior options
for women. Currently, it is impossible to isolate the sociobiological sig
nificance of such changes from the cultural/historical/economic context
in which a particular behavior occurs (Crawford & Anderson, 1989).
However, proximal changes in sexual norms, attitudes, or even behavior
do not necessarily imply distal changes in reproductive strategies. It is

likely that a diffuse male mating strategy, with some controls on female
sexuality to ensure paternity, and a more concentrated female mating
strategy are still operating. Sexual gender differences certainly still exist
(Filsinger, 1988; Sprecher, 1989). Therefore, the predictions regarding
gender differences in love attitudes appear to be viable.

RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

The five love variables might be expected to relate differentially to re

lationship satisfaction. In terms of Buss's (1988) taxonomy of love acts,


college students should be in the process of resource display and pre
liminary commitment of tentative pair bonds, often with sexual intimacy.
Other approaches such as Erickson's (1963) stages of development would
view love and intimacy as the primary tasks of this age group. Therefore,
the love attitudes of Passion and Closeness should be strongly related
to and predict variance in relationship satisfaction. No particular predictions
for satisfaction appeared to be implied by the three remaining attitudes
of Practicality, Mania, and Attachment.

CURRENT LOVE AND SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP STATUS

Both males and females have a better chance of


long-term reproductive
success from an
enduring, bonded
relationship. Among college students,
items asking about current love and sexual relationship status should

provide an index of degree of pair-bondedness. Bonded subjects should


exhibit love attitudes that include more passion, closeness, and attachment
than do those seen in nonbonded subjects. A bonded relationship is
relatively secure and certain. Therefore, the more bonded (i.e., in love,
sexually involved), the less subjects should exhibit mania because mania
indicates uncertainty and relationship insecurity. Practicality is relatively
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 213

unimportant at this stage because mating per se is ultimately not a

practical matter. Therefore, current love and sexual relationship status


should be unrelated to
practicality.

CURRENT RELATIONSHIP DIFFICULTIES AND


PAST EXPERIENCE

Troubled or broken
relationships should relate to people's love attitudes
quite differently from ongoing, committed relationships. If bonded re
lationships are reproductively adaptive, then loving someone other than
the relationship partner, having fallen out of love, or
having had a recent
breakup should be associated with less passion and closeness, and possibly
less attachment, than if these events had not occurred. Subjects recently
broken up or fallen out of love should be in a stage of uncertainty and
therefore should exhibit more mania. No effect for practicality was an
ticipated.
Previous relationship experience (e.g., number of times in love,
number of previous sexual encounters) might affect current love attitudes.
However, college students have not had vast amounts of previous ex
perience. Further, the experience of passion and closeness from a current
romance is often so intense as to render trivial the effects of previous

experience. Stated differently, passion does not learn from experience!


Therefore, no predictions were made for current love attitudes from past
relationship experience.

NOTE ON ATTITUDES AND TRAITS

In our development of the scale to measure the love styles (Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1986), we had to consider whether we were
measuring per
sonality traits or attitudes, or some combination of both. Because the
love style means varied as a function of variables such as
gender and
current love status, and because the love styles were correlated with
sexual attitudes (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1988), we concluded that the
love styles function primarily as attitudes (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989).
Therefore, we assume that the five "superscales" explored in the current
research are assessing five attitudinal orientations toward
best viewed as

love. The issue may not be too important from a functional standpoint.
Sherman and Fazio (1983) compared the attitudes/behavior and the traits/
behavior literatures and found much in common between them. Sherman
and Fazio noted that both traits and attitudes guide information processing
and perception in ways that tend to shape behavior so that it is consistent
214 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

with the underlying traits or attitudes. If true, then love (like attitudes)
should be on the distal behavior of repro
expected to have an impact
duction. One does not need to assume that the genes control the cultural
content of attitude, but different genetic life histories may make some
an

attitude and belief systems more probable than others (McGuire, 1985),

especially attitude and belief systems that serve the functions of repro
duction or survival. In this sense, it is reasonable to view love attitudes
within the framework of an
evolutionary psychology (Buss, 1989b).

METHOD

PROCEDURE

A questionnaire was administered to a sample of 424 university under


graduate students in introductory psychology. The sample was the same
as in Hendrick and Hendrick (1989). Subjects were given course credit

for participation. Questionnairs were administered to groups of about


30-40 subjects and included several measures, which are described below,

along with scoring information.

MEASURES

Background Inventory. These 13 background questions assessed basic


demographic information such as gender, age, religion, and so on. Items
were scored
individually.
Love and Relationship Biography. This series of 16 questions solicited
information about the subject's past and current relationship experience.
The items were scored individually, with response choices varying from
two to five categories. The items were as follows, numbered as they

appeared on the questionnaire:


14. At what age did you first fall in love?
15. How many times have you been in love?
16. Have you ever been in love with more than one
person at the
same time?
17. Are you in love now? If "Yes," how long?
18. If you are in love now, how deeply are you in love?
19. Have you fallen out of love within the past few months?
20. How important is romantic love to you as part of your life?
21. Are you currently in a relationship? If "Yes," how long?
22. If you are
currently involved in a
relationship, is your relationship
a sexual relationship?
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 215

23. Are you in love with your relationship partner?


24. Are instead
you currently in love with someone in addition to or

of yourrelationship partner?
25. Do you live with your relationship partner?
26. How many previous romantic relationships have you had?
27. How many previous sexual relationships have you been involved
in?
28. What is your marital status?
29. Have you had a
relationship breakup (or divorce) within the
past year?
Attachment/love items. These three items, developed by Hazan and
Shaver (1987) had previously been used in a forced-choice format; however,
in the current study they were scored on a
5-point Likert basis (A =

strongly agree, E strongly disagree).


=

Love Attitudes Scale. This 42-item scale was


developed by the authors
(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986), based on the love typology proposed by
Lee (1973). The scale is composed of six 7-item subscales: Eros, Ludus,
Storge, Pragma, Mania, Agape. Reliability analyses conducted previously
produced alpha coefficients above .70 for five of the subscales (.62 for
Storge) and test-retest correlations ranging from .60 to .78. The scale
items were scored on a Likert basis (A strongly agree, E
=

strongly =

disagree).
The Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love Scale. This 45-item scale (with
subscales of Intimacy, Passion, Commitment) is based on Sternberg's
previous theoretical work on love (e.g., 1986, 1987) and was provided
to us by the author (R. J. Sternberg, personal communication, June 27,

1987). The scale items were scored on a Likert basis (A extremely, =

E =
not at all). Sample items include: Passion (Just seeing excites

me), Intimacy (I am actively supportive of s


well-being), and
Commitment (I know that I care about ).
Passionate Love Scale. This 30-item scale was developed by Hatfield
and Sprecher (1986) and has a reported alpha coefficient of .94 (alpha
of shorter version .91). It is a unidimensional scale, with items scored
=

on a Likert basis (A =
true, E
definitely not at all true).
=

Relationship Rating Form. This 58-item measure was developed by


Davis and Todd (1985) and employed in a revised format by Davis and
Latty-Mann (1987). It has six subscales (Viability, Intimacy, Passion,
Care, Satisfaction, Conflict), and scale items were scored on a Likert
completely or extremely, E not at all). =

basis (A =

Relationship Assessment Scale. This 7-item satisfaction


measure correlates

the widely known Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier,


highly with more

has reported alpha coefficient of .86 (S. Hendrick, 1988).


1976) and a

The scale items are scored on a


5-point Likert basis.
216 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

RESULTS

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

Subjects (N 76) dropped from analyses because of incomplete


=
were

data (N =
11) or because
they were or had been married (N 22) or =

had never been in love (N 43). Previous research (Hendrick & Hendrick,
=

1988) suggests that college students who have never been in love may
represent a different population. These 43 subjects were left in the sample
for purposes of factor analysis in the initial report (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1989) but were excluded from the present report because such subjects
could unduly affect the outcome of ANOVAs reported in this article.
The remaining sample consisted of 348 unmarried undergraduate students
who previously or currently had at least one love/romance experience.
Subjects not currently in love were instructed to answer the questions
with their most recent partners in mind. The general demographic char
acteristics of the sample were as follows: 48% male and 52% female.
Some 84% described their religious background as Catholic or Protestant,
and 77% were either moderately or very religious. Most of the respondents
were white,
non-Hispanic (88%), and 76% were age 19 or less. In general,
these demographic characteristics were consistent with those of previous
samples (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).

CREATION OF COMPOSITE LOVE SCALES

The 19 subscales were treated as 19 individual scores for each subject.


These data were intercorrelated and factored, using the current sample
of 348 subjects and using the same procedure described in Hendrick
and Hendrick (1989, Table 4). That procedure used a principal components
analysis with Varimax rotation, using a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 or
larger. The analysis yielded five factors that accounted for 69% of the
total variance; they were named Passion, Closeness, Attachment, Manic
Love, and Practicality. All 19 subscales loaded on a factor. The subscale
loadings on the factors were as follows: The Passion factor included Eros
(.74) and Agape (.47) from the Love Attitudes Scale, Sternberg's Passion
(.82) and Commitment (.74) subscales, Hatfield's Passionate Love Scale
(.76), and Davis's Passion (.81), Satisfaction (.67), and Caring (.62) sub-
scales. The Closeness factor included Intimacy (.61) (Sternberg); the
Viability (.76), Intimacy (.63), and Conflict (.69) (reverse-scored) subscales
from Davis's Relationship Rating Form; and Ludus (.61) (reverse-scored)
from the Love Attitudes Scale. The Attachment factor included Hazan
and Shaver's Secure (.83) (reverse-scored) and Avoidant (.83) attachment.
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 217

Manic Love included Mania (.63) and Anxious/ Ambivalent (.78) attach
ment.
Finally, the Practicality factor included Pragma (.77) and Storge
(.77) from the Love Attitudes Scale.
Because all items on all instruments were scored on a 5-point basis,
subject's average score for each subscale could be treated as a single
a

score. In the same way, the subjects' subscale scores were averaged for
the subscales loading on a given factor to form a composite scale score

for that factor. This approach defined five new variables, which were

considered as five love scales, with each


subject having a single score

on each scale: Passion, Closeness, Attachment, Manic Love, and Prac


ticality. When these five variables were intercorrelated, the only correlation
over .31 was that of .73 between Passion and Closeness. Although this
correlation was substantial, because Passion and Closeness emerged as

distinct sets of subscales in the factor analysis, it seemed


likely that these
two scales might be differentially sensitive to different independent vari
ables; in any event, they defined different constructs.

GENDER EFFECTS

A MANOVA performed using gender as the independent variable


was

and the five love attitudes as the set of dependent variables. The overall

MANOVA for gender was significant, and there were significant univariate
effects for three of the five love attitudes. As predicted, females subscribed
more to Closeness and Practicality than did males. In contrast to prediction,

females also subscribed more to Passion than did males. Most of our

previous research on the Love Attitudes Scale has found no


gender
difference for Eros, but in a couple of instances females
significantly
were

more erotic. Also, Hatfield and Rapson (1987) noted that females are

sometimes more positive than males on measures of romanticism. Because


Passion is based on eight subscales from various love questionnaires,
the data suggest college females may be somewhat more passionate
that
in love orientation than are college males.

The means and F ratios for gender effects for the five love attitudes
are shown in Table 1.

RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

The five love attitudes were


regressed (using simple regression) onto
relationship satisfaction, as measured by the Relationship Assessment
Scale. A summary of the results is shown in Table 2. Three of the love
attitudes were significant predictors of relationship satisfaction. It was
218 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

TABLE 1
Means and F Ratios for Gender Effects for the Five Love Attitudes

MALES FEMALES
VARIABLES F RATIO (N =
166) (N =
182)

Passion 7.92* 2.14 1.96

Closeness 23.27* 2.32 2.02

Attachment .04 2.37 2.39

Manic Love 1.00 2.92 3.02

Practicality 8.13* 2.65 2.47

Note. Means could vary from 1 0 to 5.0. The lower the mean, the greater the agreement with a
given
measure.

p < .01

hypothesized that Passion and Closeness would both be significant pre


dictors, and that was indeed the case. In addition, Manic Love was a

small but significant predictor of satisfaction. The three significant pre


dictors accounted for 65% of the variance in relationship satisfaction.

CURRENT LOVE AND SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP STATUS

The questions from the Love and


Relationship Biography were grouped
into three themes: current love and sexual relationship status (items 17,
18, 21, 22, 23), difficulties in relationships (items 16, 19, 24, 29), and
extent of past relationship experience (items 14, 15, 26, 27).

The questions for current love and sexual relationship status included
whether a subject was in love at the present time (item 17); if so, how
deeply in love (item 18); whether a subject was currently in a relationship
(item 21); whether the relationship was sexual (item 22); and whether
the subject loved his or her current partner (item 23). Separate MANOVAs
were
performed for each question, with the five love attitudes serving
as dependent variables for each
analysis. The MANOVA F was significant
in each analysis. The MANOVA Fs are shown in Table 3, as well as the
univariate Fs, means, and R2 for an effect for the five love attitudes.
The results for Passion and Closeness were uniformly in line with

predictions. Subjects in love for more than 1 year (item 17) were most
passionate, differing significantly from subjects in love less than 1 year
or subjects not in love (who also differed from each other). Both in-love

groups endorsed Closeness significantly more than did the group not
in love.
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 219

How deeply someone was in love (item 18) was related to Passion,
Closeness, and Attachment. Subjects in love most deeply endorsed Pas
sion, Closeness, and Attachment most strongly, differing in all cases
from those moderately in love or not in love (who differed from each
other on Passion).
Whether a
person was currently in a relationship (item 21) showed
significant results for Passion, Closeness, and Manic Love. Subjects in
a
relationship longest the passionate and close, differing
were most

significantly from the other two groups (who also differed from each
other). Subjects relationship the longest were least endorsing of
in a

Manic Love (as predicted), differing significantly from subjects not in a


relationship. Subjects in a relationship less than 1 year fell in between
the other two groups.
In exploring the question about relationship (item
being in a sexual
22), it is
interesting to note that of the 226
largely 19-year-old subjects
in relationships, 152 reported that the relationship was sexual, consistent
with what some view as the "norm" of premarital sex (e.g., Murstein,
1988). This question showed significant results for Passion, Closeness,
Manic Love, and Practicality. Subjects in a sexual relationship were more

passionate, differing from the other two groups (who also differed from
each other). Both relationship groups endorsed Closeness more than
did subjects not in a relationship. For Manic Love, subjects in a sexual
relationship were least endorsing (as predicted), differing significantly
from subjects not in a relationship. Subjects in a nonsexual relationship
fell in between the other two groups. Those in a sexual relationship were
least practical, differing from both other groups (who did not differ from

TABLE 2
of Love Attitudes onto Relationship Satisfaction
Multiple Regression

RAS

CLUSTER VARIABLE UNSTANDARDIZED B STANDARDIZED B

Passion .50 .35"

Closeness .72 .50**

Attachment -.02 -.02

Manic Love .10 .11*

-.05 -.03
Practicality
R2 .65

Overall F 125.46*

^jote jy =
345. RAS =
Relationship Assessment Scale.

*
< .01 "p< 001.
p
O CM O CO O O
LO LO vD
^
CM M (N II rj ri (N ..II

<tj ra ra OO CN
o so so o o
'

(Js Q\ CD

u, (X, u. c<

m co cn co
d in n ii CN CN CN

tL. a;

U1
-G
o
in CN
CN
o CO CO CO 00
CN CN CN CN CN ~
II
II
u 0!h

* *
2
O. as CN T-H
o m
nj ^
CO IN.
u
CO MD
ro .0
IN.
(J
CN
55 ^
CO ON K
tN CO ii SO
C/j II CN i l II CN* rH
,_ , (N
II II
CN

tin ^
Uh
PU
H *

< *
* CN
00
s ii

sD

gH a>

II II
u. ^H

a-s in "* tN CO 00
S CO 00 CN CO 00 CN

u
J
CO ~ H O.
OJ
< ,S V A aj "T
2 U ^

2 .. -a
oj 5
aj it; -jz:
2 >- >
2
o Q b
u

2
g
H
t/j
U.
D
a

220
m nj "* "tf ,0 , ra m t-i (TJ ra
CO IN. m o O Os 00 t>. o oo SO OO
so m m CO SO ^ SO in
so T-H

CN
sD O
CO
II
II
^

vi? O ^
-^ CN CN in cn co
"
CN CN II

U, ^

o^ Lff
in
OSCN
'
O CN

U. D<

-5 <-*

01 01
>-.
a, Oh
1
J.
r
2
c a:
V A o
J3
_g c
S S
C
O
o
o J3
-2 "ra o J3
"oj 3
2 2 2 X 2 ra
2.2

IT)

s, cf, ,_J
| O
2 c os

221
222 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

each other). This result was not


specifically predicted, but it is consistent
with the evolutionary hypothesis.
The final question in this section asked whether an individual was

in love with his her partner (item 23). There were significant results
or

for Passion, Closeness, Attachment, and Manic Love. Subjects in a re

lationship and in love with their partners were most passionate and
closest, differing in both cases from those not in relationships or those
in relationships partners. The latter two groups
who did not love their
did not differ from each other. Subjects who loved their partners were
most attached, differing significantly from subjects who did not love
their partners. Subjects not in a relationship fell in between. Although
the overall F ratio for Manic Love was significant, group means did not
differ from each other.
The set of results for Passion and Closeness strongly confirmed
predictions. Results for Attachment and Manic Love were weaker, although
in line with predictions. No predictions were made for Practicality, and
only one effect was
significant.

DIFFICULTIES IN RELATIONSHIPS

The four questions that composed this section were concerned with
whether subject had ever loved more than one person at a time (item
a

16), was
currently in love with someone in addition to or instead of the
relationship partner (item 24), had fallen out of love within the past few
months (item 19), and had experienced a relationship breakup within
the past year (item 29). Separate M ANOVAs were performed for each
question, with the five love attitudes serving as dependent variables for
each analysis. The MANOVA F was significant in each analysis. Results
are shown in Table 4.
Whether subjects had ever loved more than one person at a time
showed significant effects on Closeness. Subjects who had loved more
than one person at a time were less close than subjects who had not.
Whether subjects were currently in love with someone other than
the relationship partner produced significant results for Passion, Closeness,
and Manic Love. Subjects currently in a relationship and not in love
with anyone other than their partners were significantly more passionate
and closer, differing from subjects not in a relationship or in love with
someone instead of or in addition to the partners. (Those two groups
did not differ from each other.) The F ratio for Manic Love was
significant,
but group means did not differ from each other.
Subjects who had fallen out of love within the past few months
were less
passionate and close and more manic than subjects who had
not fallen out of love.
H

<
u oo o m
in -^ ._; in in o m m
H II CN cn II CN CN
U II
^
II
r-i
n

Uh X Uh X U, X

>
O
as o CN CN
ra nj
CN O so as co o cn in
u 00 1J OO

CO CN
2
Uh X Uh <
w
Q

H
3

'

co m cn ^. 5 -

oi <-J
>
O Uh X
CN CN i| H
U,
J1 ||
H,
Jl

w
2 -HH
cJT O ^ CO
^ cjn m cjn .
CO
o ^
m
- ^ CN CN
H
_ra
"oj H
j
-* a u Uh OS Uh
w c
kJ -

CO cn
2
f<| 3
O ^ o ,-h m
tN
^
sD
CO
t-h
' -^ cn ON ""> O in CN
(J CjD

II J c

D Uh X Uh

L-

fV .
2
T3

CN *JD
CO ^H
CN --H

Oh
3
UJ cn
JS Oh
'aj
CQ 01
1 QJ
12 3 (J

< o OJ <h c <L)


c C EX
2 s o
OJ
>
O *H O
O QJ o o cn
OJ
c Ol p
> 2 2 _o 6 2 J3 >
QJ
2 2 rH

o
ra
J3 c O QJ ^
[T.
>
Q 2 S "o
o

cn >-<

?, .5 OJ V

o
H
C/j
w
D
a 2 c o-

223
224 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

Subjects who had experienced a recent breakup (item 29) were less
passionate and close and more manic than subjects who had not had a
breakup.
The results for this set of questions provide some support for the

predictions. In
general, partner, love for someone else,
lack of love for a

falling out of love, or


breaking up should all reduce bondedness to a

partner. One result should be reduced Passion and Closeness, as was


obtained. The means for Attachment were in the expected direction, but
none of the F ratios was
significant. The difficulties in relationships were
also associated with a stronger Manic love attitude, as predicted. No
predictions were made for Practicality, and none of the F ratios were

significant.

PAST RELATIONSHIP EXPERIENCE

There were few effects for this set of items. The MANOVA F was not

significant for age at first falling in love (item 14), how many times in
love (item 15), or number of previous romantic relationships (item 26).
The MANOVA was
significant for number of previous sexual relationships
(item 27). The univariate F ratios for this item were significant for Closeness,
F (4, 343) 3.02, p < .05, and Practicality, F (4, 343)
=
5.40, p < .05.=

Subjects reporting no previous sexual relationships rated Closeness most


strongly, differing from subjects reporting three or four or more sexual
relationships. Subjects reporting one or two previous sexual relationships
fell between these two extremes. Subjects reporting no previous sexual
relationships were also more practical, differing from all other groups
except for the group reporting only one previous sexual relationship.
Two-way MANOVAs were performed, crossing gender with each
of the items from the Love and Relationship Biography, using the five
love attitudes as dependent variables. Because the number of interaction
effects was less than chance, only results from the one-way MANOVAs
were considered in the preceding sections.

DISCUSSION

Our previous work (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989) suggested that the
current theories of love yield five different concepts or types of love, as
suggested by factor analysis of the full set of scales. Our present work
interprets those concepts as five types of love attitudes. We further
suggest that these attitudes are consistent with an
interpretation of love
as serving an
adaptive evolutionary function. Gender differences in these
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 225

attitudes, their prediction of relationship satisfaction, and their association


with several relationship biographical questions were nearly all consistent
with evolutionary hypothesis. There were still other data for gender
an

differences supportive of an
evolutionary interpretation. We noted that
a differential
parental investment model suggests somewhat different
reproductive strategies for males and females. Females must necessarily
devote their attention to
relatively small number of offspring, but males
a

can
perpetuate their genes by impregnatinga
large number of females.
Before more or less permanent
mating, different courtship strategies
should occur for males and females. If
falling in love is a preliminary
"bonding glue," young males should fall in love more often than young
females. Such results occurred. 19% of the females had been in
Only
love three or more times, but 30% of the males
were in this
category
(X" =
6.3, p .05). More directly, although the majority of both genders
<

were
sexually experienced (79% of the females, 91% of the males), 18%
of the males but only 9% of the females indicated four or more previous
sexual relationships (x2 34.1, p < .05). Thus, young males move toward
=

sexual experience and a greater variety of it more


strongly than do young
females, as the differential investment model implies.

EVOLUTIONARY FUNCTION OF THE LOVE ATTITUDES

We assumed that the five love attitudes represent different aspects of


love. If so, each attitude should have some functional significance from
an
evolutionary perspective. How might the different love attitudes be
significant? The answer must necessarily be somewhat speculative at
this point, but it is a fascinating issue.
Passion and closeness easily seen as pair-bonding
(or intimacy)
are

attitudes. For the formation of sexual relationships, they guide the un


derlying needs that propel a pair into a relationship. Further, satisfaction
of the needs represented by these attitudes should promote relationship
satisfaction, a result demonstrated by the regression analysis. Consum
mation of passion requires physical proximity, and the existence of physical

proximity implies the possibility of consummation of passion. Thus, the


two attitudes of passion and closeness should covary. They are separate
constructs (as the factor analysis demonstrated), but empirically the two
should be substantially correlated, as indeed they were in this data set.
Manic love is both pleasurable and painful. Some researchers (e.g.,
Hatfield & Rapson, 1987) believe that passionate love cannot exist without
pain. However, manic love emerged as a small but independent construct
in the present study. Also, it is not clear what evolutionary function

painful love might have. We suggest that mania serves as a searching


226 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

and instigating device to find and secure


relationships. It seems reasonable
to assume that most
people are more or less "driven" into relationships
that ultimately permit reproduction. Before a relationship is secure, there
is uncertainty about it. Also, relationships shift and change, especially
before permanent mating, and are thus subject to loss. Mania serves
the function of instigating full relationship development from the un

certainty of preliminary initiation, and it drives maintenance behavior


when there is imminent threat of loss. Thus, mania is an "in-between"
kind of love attitude. It provides the motive power to firm up a relationship
once the relationship is initiated and to maintain it once developed.
During phases of relationship security, mania should essentially be non
existent.
Processes of attachment may undergird all types of relationship
formation (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Results for attachment were

relatively weak in the present study. One possible reason is conceptual.


Students in the sample were in the process of forming serious commit
ments. It may be that a strong sense of attachment, as a love attitude,
does not develop until the pair-bonding process is
fully relatively complete.
A methodological reason for weak results for attachment may be that
the attachment scale was based on relatively few items, possibly being
less reliable than desirable.
Practical love was not very important in the present research and
was not expected to be because the initial processes of mating are not
logical, practical matters. However, once a relationship is well secured,
practical aspects of love should become more important, especially with
regard to securing the welfare of offspring. More generally, the profile
of the five love attitudes should change over the course of a heterosexual
relationship. Initial formation is driven by passion and closeness, with
mania as a "fringe" player. When the relationship is formed, the pair
must become deeply attached to weather the tribulations of childbearing.
After reproduction, practicality in attitude helps keep the relationship
committed so that the offspring may be raised successfully. Strong passion
can be
disruptive of ongoing social relations. Therefore, a well-matured
relationship should have a somewhat reduced level of passion in order
to accomplish the other joint relationship tasks. But passion is a bonding

mechanism; thus, optimal relationship maintenance suggests that it should


endure at a moderate level. Closeness, however, should not decrease.

In fact, the attitude of closeness may be of primary importance in re


lationship maintenance. If anything, closeness should increase as a function
of the length of a successful relationship.
In reprise, initial relationship formation should be motivated primarily

by passion and closeness. At later stages, passion may be reduced some


what, and closeness, attachment processes, and practicality should all
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 227

increase. This change process appears to be similar to the contrast of


passionate and companionate love proposed by Walster and Walster
(1978).

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The current research has several limitations,


primarily concerned with
issues of sampling. We assessed individuals rather than
couples, and
although our focus was on the individual's love and relationship history,
it would certainly the research to consider how
move a
step forward
partners' joint love andrelationship biographies might mutually influence
current love attitudes and
relationship satisfaction.
We also assessed college
undergraduates rather than adults in ongoing
relationships. Some researchers believe that the only relationship truly
worthy of extensive content and process analysis is the marital relationship.
And study of mature relationships is surely needed. However, if we

really desire to understand relationship development, young adulthood


is crucial, especially so if viewed from an evolutionary perspective. In
addition, a potential advantage of undergraduate college samples is that
subjects are more likely to be "randomly" drawn than are adult subjects
who volunteer, are paid for participation, or are drawn from clinic or
other selected populations.
Concerns might be raised in regard to the homogeneity of the sample.
The subjects were indeed mostly white, middle-class, reasonably affluent,
and endorsing of religion. However, such a description (perhaps without
the endorsement of religion) fits many of today's college students. The
subjects were drawn from a fairly wide geographic region (though certainly
not nationally), as is true for most state universities. Thus, we believe
that results from this study can be generalized to a substantial proportion
of contemporary college students.
The approach used for scale derivation has both advantages and
disadvantages. It is a distinct methodological advantage to covary the
best set of scales currently available to extract the minimum set of in

dependent love constructs. As we have demonstrated (Hendrick & Hen


drick 1989), some of the individual instruments are clearly better than
others. Also, the derived scales differed widely on the number of subscales,
and of course on the number of individual items. Passion and Closeness
were each based many subscales, each having good internal reliability.
on

However, Attachment, Manic Love, and Practicality were based on rel


atively fewer subscales and items. Thus, issues of scale stability and
reliability might be of some concern, especially for Attachment. The
relative paucity of results for these three love attitudes might to some
228 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

degree be due to scale properties. Future research, such as the love


profile differences expected for relationships of different length, will be
required to sort out scaling problems from substantive issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Some readers will undoubtedly disapprove of our using sociobiological


explanations of our results. Certainly, sociobiology does not offer the
only explanatory mechanisms for gender differences in love and sexual
attitudes; however, it does offer a compelling perspective. Viewed cross-
historically and cross-culturally (e.g., Guttentag & Secord, 1983), as well
as across
species (e.g., Daly & Wilson, 1983; Hrdy, 1981), males for the
most part disperse their sexual investments, whereas females concentrate
theirs. But both genders seek to maximize such investments by joining
forces to nurture offspring. Although contemporary single-parent families
and out-of-wedlock pregnancies would seem dysfunctional for long-
term evolutionary goals, few segments of society endorse these approaches
to propagation of the species. Nobody advocates more single-parent families
or illegitimate births (although the latter may contribute to reproductive

success for
specific groups). Rather, the larger society appears to realize
that long-term human welfare demands more stable patterns of producing
and rearing offspring. In any case, as Daly and Wilson (1983) have noted,
"The individual acts of individual organisms are often maladaptive what
ever the
species; we do not expect positive fitness consequences as a
result of every unique behavioral event, but rather as an average result
of the behavioral output of evolved ('psychological') mechanisms of be
havioral control operating within the species' natural environment" (p.
310). The current findings are in large measure consistent with a socio
biological interpretation. Because the present study deals with cognitive
processes, such as attitudes, it fits within the framework of Buss's (1989b)
call for a discipline of evolutionary psychology, a discipline whose task it
will be to discover the psychological mechanisms forged by natural se
lection.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C, Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:
A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M. (1988). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L.
Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 100-117). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 229

Buss, D. M. (1989a). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses


tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14.
Buss, D. M. (1989b). Toward an
evolutionary psychology of human mating. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 12, 39-46.
Crawford, C. B., & Anderson, J L. (1989). Sociobiology: An environmentalist discipline?
American Psychologist, 44, 1449-1459.
Cunningham, J. D., & Antill, J. K (1981). Love in developing romantic relationships. In
S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships: 2. Developing personal relationships
(pp. 27-51). New York: Academic Press.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Davis, K. E., & Latty-Mann, H. (1987). Love styles and relationship quality: A contribution
to validation. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 409-428.
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and
relationship description. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal
relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17-38). London: Sage.
Erickson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Filsinger, E. E. (1988). Biology reexamined: The quest for answers. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.),
Biosoaal perspectives on the
family (pp. 9-38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1987). Passionate love: New directions in research. In
W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in
personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 109-
139). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hatfield, E & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relations. Journal
,

of Adolescence, 9, 383-410.
Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hendrick, C, & Hendnck, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.
Hendrick, C, & Hendrick, S. S. (1988). Lovers wear rose colored glasses. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 5, 161-183.
Hendrick, C, & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 784-794.
Hendnck, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 50, 93-98.
Hendnck, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987). Love and sex attitudes and religious beliefs. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 391-398.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C, & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, sat
isfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980-
988.
Hinde, R. A. (1984). Why do the sexes behave differently in close
relationships? Journal
Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 471-501.
of
B. (1981). The that evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Hrdy, S. woman never
University
Press.
Kenrick, D. T. (1987). Gender, genes, and the social environment: A biosocial interactionist
In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender (pp. 14-43). Newbury
perspective.
Park, CA: Sage.
Kenrick, D. T. (1989). Bridging social psychology and sociobiology: The case of sexual
attraction. In R. W. 3ell & N. J. Bell (Eds.), Sociobiology and the social sciences
(pp. 5-
23). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.
Kenrick, D. T, & Trost, M. R. (1989). A reproductive exchange model of heterosexual
230 HENDRICK AND HENDRICK

relationships: Putting proximate economics in ultimate perspective. In C. Hendrick


(Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 92-118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Knoth, R., Boyd, K., & Singer, B. (1988). Empirical tests of sexual selection theory: Predictions
of sex differences in onset, intensity, and time course of sexual arousal. The Journal
of Sex Research, 24, 73-89.
Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario:
New Press.

Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their
relations to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 5, 439-471.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds ),
Handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2. Special fields and applications (3rd ed.) (pp. 233-
346). New York: Random House.
Mellen, S. L. W. (1981). The evolution of love. San Francisco: Freeman.
Murstein, B. I. (1988). A taxonomy of love. In R. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The
psychology of love (pp. 13-37). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501.
Sherman, S. J., & Fazio, R. H. (1983). Parallels between attitudes and traits as predictors
of behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, 308-345.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality
of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.
Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals. The
Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232-248.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories. Psychological
Bulletin, 102, 331-345.
Symons, D. (1979). Evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual
selection and the descent of man
(pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

You might also like