Sociobiological: Dimensions of Love: A Interpretation
Sociobiological: Dimensions of Love: A Interpretation
Sociobiological: Dimensions of Love: A Interpretation
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
206
LOVE AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 207
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
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
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
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
EVOLUTION OF LOVE
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
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
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
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
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
MEASURES
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 =
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,
E =
not at all). Sample items include: Passion (Just seeing excites
on a Likert basis (A =
true, E
definitely not at all true).
=
basis (A =
RESULTS
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
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).
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
GENDER EFFECTS
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
more erotic. Also, Hatfield and Rapson (1987) noted that females are
The means and F ratios for gender effects for the five love attitudes
are shown in Table 1.
RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION
TABLE 1
Means and F Ratios for Gender Effects for the Five Love Attitudes
MALES FEMALES
VARIABLES F RATIO (N =
166) (N =
182)
Note. Means could vary from 1 0 to 5.0. The lower the mean, the greater the agreement with a
given
measure.
p < .01
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
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
-.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
in love with his her partner (item 23). There were significant results
or
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
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
significant.
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.=
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
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
=
CONCLUSIONS
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
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
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.