What do you think?
Rate this book
El Triangulo del Amor: Intimidad, Pasion y Compromiso
A noted psychologist researches the make-up of love, citing three main ingredients--intimacy, passion, and commitment--that determine the success of a relationship and offers guidelines for enhancing personal relationships
261 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1988
13 people are currently reading
306 people want to read
About the author
Robert J. Sternberg
305 books187 followersRobert J. Sternberg's spectacular research career in psychology had a rather inauspicious beginning. In elementary school he performed poorly on IQ tests, and his teachers' actions conveyed their low expectations for his future progress. Everything changed when his fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Alexa, saw that he had potential and challenged him to do better. With her encouragement, he became a high-achieving student, eventually graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Yale University. In a gesture of gratitude, Dr. Sternberg dedicated his book, Successful Intelligence to Mrs. Alexa.
Dr. Sternberg's personal experiences with intelligence testing in elementary school lead him to create his own intelligence test for a 7 th grade science project. He happened to find the Stanford-Binet scales in the local library, and with unintentional impertinence, began administering the test to his classmates; his own test, the Sternberg Test of Mental Abilities (STOMA) appeared shortly thereafter. In subsequent years he distinguished himself in many domains of psychology, having published influential theories relating to intelligence, creativity, wisdom, thinking styles, love and hate.
Dr. Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of (Successful) Intelligence contends that intelligent behavior arises from a balance between analytical, creative and practical abilities, and that these abilities function collectively to allow individuals to achieve success within particular sociocultural contexts. Analytical abilities enable the individual to evaluate, analyze, compare and contrast information. Creative abilities generate invention, discovery, and other creative endeavors. Practical abilities tie everything together by allowing individuals to apply what they have learned in the appropriate setting. To be successful in life the individual must make the best use of his or her analytical, creative and practical strengths, while at the same time compensating for weaknesses in any of these areas. This might involve working on improving weak areas to become better adapted to the needs of a particular environment, or choosing to work in an environment that values the individual's particular strengths. For example, a person with highly developed analytical and practical abilities, but with less well-developed creative abilities, might choose to work in a field that values technical expertise but does not require a great deal of imaginative thinking. Conversely, if the chosen career does value creative abilities, the individual can use his or her analytical strengths to come up with strategies for improving this weakness. Thus, a central feature of the triarchic theory of successful intelligence is adaptability-both within the individual and within the individual's sociocultural context.
Dr. Sternberg's personal experiences with intelligence testing in elementary school lead him to create his own intelligence test for a 7 th grade science project. He happened to find the Stanford-Binet scales in the local library, and with unintentional impertinence, began administering the test to his classmates; his own test, the Sternberg Test of Mental Abilities (STOMA) appeared shortly thereafter. In subsequent years he distinguished himself in many domains of psychology, having published influential theories relating to intelligence, creativity, wisdom, thinking styles, love and hate.
Dr. Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of (Successful) Intelligence contends that intelligent behavior arises from a balance between analytical, creative and practical abilities, and that these abilities function collectively to allow individuals to achieve success within particular sociocultural contexts. Analytical abilities enable the individual to evaluate, analyze, compare and contrast information. Creative abilities generate invention, discovery, and other creative endeavors. Practical abilities tie everything together by allowing individuals to apply what they have learned in the appropriate setting. To be successful in life the individual must make the best use of his or her analytical, creative and practical strengths, while at the same time compensating for weaknesses in any of these areas. This might involve working on improving weak areas to become better adapted to the needs of a particular environment, or choosing to work in an environment that values the individual's particular strengths. For example, a person with highly developed analytical and practical abilities, but with less well-developed creative abilities, might choose to work in a field that values technical expertise but does not require a great deal of imaginative thinking. Conversely, if the chosen career does value creative abilities, the individual can use his or her analytical strengths to come up with strategies for improving this weakness. Thus, a central feature of the triarchic theory of successful intelligence is adaptability-both within the individual and within the individual's sociocultural context.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 12, 2018
Reviews at: Bright Copy Book Review
3.5
Over the years, I have taken a ridiculous amount of Psychology courses (it being my major) and have always been fascinated by different theories, but this one caught my attention almost immediately during one of my Social Psychology courses in undergraduate. We didn't even go through the theory in depth, my professor just mentioned it in passing talking about the Psychology of Love and the current research. I fell in love with the theory of love.
As Sternberg explains, many people (especially researchers) are against finding love scientific in any sense. How do you quantify love? How do you measure it?
Sternberg starts by discussing the past research and theories involving love and how they differ from the triangle theory. He explains the extensive history (which can be boring if you don't understand Psychological Research although the author does a great job of simplifying ideas) and shows how there are gaps in the little knowledge we do have about love and relationships.
The gist of the theory is that there are three main components of love that make up a triangle: passion, commitment, and intimacy. The theory explains how each are weighed in relationships, how each person's actual triangle and ideal triangles differ, and what that can mean for the person and the relationship.
As always with theories, there are parts I agree or disagree with, but I was really just looking forward to being more informed about the theory and how it can apply in a real relationship. The book did feel a bit long, and most of that was because of the extensive history of past research and theories. I don't feel like I gained much more knowledge than I previously had (because I had access to the original research publication), but either way it was an interesting read.
3.5
Over the years, I have taken a ridiculous amount of Psychology courses (it being my major) and have always been fascinated by different theories, but this one caught my attention almost immediately during one of my Social Psychology courses in undergraduate. We didn't even go through the theory in depth, my professor just mentioned it in passing talking about the Psychology of Love and the current research. I fell in love with the theory of love.
As Sternberg explains, many people (especially researchers) are against finding love scientific in any sense. How do you quantify love? How do you measure it?
Sternberg starts by discussing the past research and theories involving love and how they differ from the triangle theory. He explains the extensive history (which can be boring if you don't understand Psychological Research although the author does a great job of simplifying ideas) and shows how there are gaps in the little knowledge we do have about love and relationships.
The gist of the theory is that there are three main components of love that make up a triangle: passion, commitment, and intimacy. The theory explains how each are weighed in relationships, how each person's actual triangle and ideal triangles differ, and what that can mean for the person and the relationship.
As always with theories, there are parts I agree or disagree with, but I was really just looking forward to being more informed about the theory and how it can apply in a real relationship. The book did feel a bit long, and most of that was because of the extensive history of past research and theories. I don't feel like I gained much more knowledge than I previously had (because I had access to the original research publication), but either way it was an interesting read.
February 14, 2024
Summary:
The structural models of love
Based upon models of intelligence Sternberg initially proposed these three models:
- "Spearmanian" model - Love as a general unitary factor (nondecomposable).
- "Thomsonian" model - Love as overlapping bonds between feelings, thoughts, and desires (decomposable).
- "Thurstonian" model - Love as a set of primary factors: feeling, thoughts, desires (an integrated whole).
Testing the models of love
Study of 35 men and 50 women (heterosexual) in 1980. Age ranged from 18-78. They used a 7-point Likert scale, with the following dimensions: intensity, significance, similarity, and complementarity of partners, the satisfaction of needs, feelings of a participant because the relationship has ended, self-esteem during the relationship, and overall satisfaction. And serval scales of liking and loving - Liking and loving scales by Rubin and the Scale of interpersonal involvement by Leviner et.al.
Results
Man loved their lover the most, 2. best same-sex friend, 3. father, 4. mother, 5. siblings of similar age.
The woman loved equally their lovers and same-sex friends, 2. mother, 3. father, 4. siblings of similar age.
Men tend to have friendships through shared activities - women tend to be intimate with their friends (1-to-1 communication). They found a close relationship between liking and loving - thus assuming fundamental relatedness between them.
Prediction of satisfaction: The liking scale by results was a better predictor than the Loving scale for satisfaction. Using stepwise regression they found out that personality variables entered as well - depressed and anxious people tend to be less satisfied. People who rated themselves as complementary with their lover tended to be more satisfied - the main area was in respect of the needs. Men (not women) who rated themselves as physically attractive were happier in the relationship than men who rated themselves as unattractive. Greater involvement in the relationship of men led to satisfaction for women, but the reverse did lead to greater satisfaction for men - as women strive for greater intimacy in close relationships.
The ideal partner - satisfaction: Both absolute and comparison (past experience) levels of experienced love relative to the ideal level of experienced love were highly predictive of satisfaction in a relationship. So scores of 1. How you feel about others, 2. Ideal other to feel about you, 3. Difference between what you want vs. what you are getting. What matters is not what you want but the level of difference between want/getting - not real but perceived. So perception of the feelings of the partner and not real feelings matter for satisfaction. And what you believe the other feels about you matters as much as how you feel about others.
Structure of love
Using factor analysis they found clear general factors for all loving relationships - interpersonal communication, sharing, and support. Using cluster analysis the g factor was broken into 3 components - intimacy, passion, and commitment. Thus consistent with the "Thomsonian" model - the titular triangle of love. On close inspection, other aspects of love are manifestations of these 3 - for example intimacy: communication, caring/compassion.
- Intimacy - feelings that promote closeness, bondedness, and connectedness. Ten elements are:
1. Desiring to promote the welfare of the loved one.
2. Experiencing happiness with their loved one.
3. Holding the loved one in high regard.
4. Being able to count on the loved one in times of need.
5. Having a mutual understanding with the loved one.
6. Sharing oneself and one's possessions with a loved one.
7. Receiving emotional support from the loved one
8. Giving emotional support to the loved one
9. Communicating intimately with the loved one.
10. Valuing the loved one.
- Passion - largely expression of desires and needs: self-esteem, nurturance, affiliation, dominance, submission, and sexual fulfillment.
- Commitment/Decision - Short-term; to love certain others and long-term; commitment to maintain that love.
Properties of the components of love
Intimacy and commitment seem fairly stable, while passion fluctuates. There is some degree of conscious control over feelings of intimacy and a high degree of control over commitment, but little control over passion. In long-term relationships, passion plays a moderate role while the other 2 must be high. Passion seems to be limited to certain kinds of relationships, while commitment can be highly variable across different types of relationships. Passion is highly dependent on psychophysiological involvement, whereas commitment appears to involve little. And intimacy is somewhere in between.
Kinds of love
Kind - Intimacy; Passion; Commitment
Non-love - - -
Liking + - -
Infatuated love - + -
Empty love - - +
Romantic love + + -
Companionate love + - +
Fatuous love - + +
Consummate love + + +
The geometry of the triangle of love
The geometry of the triangle depends upon two factors: the amount and balance of the love.
- Amount of love - The difference in the amount of area represents the amount of experienced love representing 3 hypothetical constructs. For instance, relationships where people are differentially involved - different sizes of triangles - often fail because the less involved partner feels as if he /she cannot provide what the more involved partner wants.
- Balance of love - Balanced or unbalanced. So roughly matched components can be described as balanced, and in a relationship that emphasizes one or two components becomes unbalanced. If triangles have different shapes, the result can be devastating. If one partner is frustrated owing to lack of intimacy, and the other owing to lack of passion, it is unlikely there will be a meeting of the minds.
- Other types of triangles: Love involves many triangles; the main ones are - real vs. ideal, self-perceived vs. other-perceived, and feelings vs. action.
"Hard-to-get" theory
Hatfield found that people tend to be attracted not to those who are hard to get, in general, but to those who are hard for others to get but relatively easier to get for themselves - as supreme flattery for a man to hear from a woman that he is the one the woman was waiting for.
- Reactance theory: Tries to explain why some people have a problem getting what they want - effectively they react to perceived threats to their choice of freedom, so they rebel. After a certain point, these attempts can start to feed on themselves and persist, even in the absence of a realistic chance of attaining the goal.
- Mere exposure effect: Zajonc discovered that repeated exposure can foster liking in a person or an object.
Refining the theory of love
Sternebrg and colleagues used factor analysis on a list of 140 (1-9 rated) behaviors describing romantic love and came up with 4 dimensions. 1. Looked exactly like intimacy. 2. Seemed similar but it contained special aspects of it; having a partner who is good for you in particular. 4. Was having a partner and relationship that is truly special. - These 3 dimensions seem to refer to different levels of intimacy. 3. Was sexual passion.
For romantic love according to triangular theory, romantic life consists of passion and intimacy, but not necessarily commitment.
Liking vs. Loving
I. Quantitative view - Level of attraction
Limitations of the quantitative views: Usually these views don't address the relationship between liking and loving - but discuss other constructs directly and relations between primary and secondary constructs seem to get lost.
II. Qualitative view:
- A) Loving and Liking as distinct
- B) Liking and Loving as overlapping
- C) Liking as a kind of loving
Limitations of the qualitative-difference views: They have less to say about liking and more about loving. They also are more concerned with romantic love than companionate love. They are limited by weak or little evidence supporting these theories.
Limitations of the overlapping-attribute theories: Their strength is in empirical support and structural models of love. But they do not fully measure the passionate aspects of love and are weak on mechanism and especially development - they do not say anything about them.
Limitations of theories of liking as a kind of loving
No big datasets exist. Love and liking may be close, but not quite correct, and also are probably incomplete in the understanding of the phenomenon of love.
Clinical theories:
- Freud's theory of love
- Theodore Reik's dissatisfaction with self-theory
- Melanie Klein's satisfaction of one's needs through dependency theory
- Abraham Maslow's "D-love" & "B-love"
- Erich Fromm's art of loving
- Dorothy Tennov's concept of limerence
- Kenneth Livingston's uncertainty reduction theory
- Scott Peck's love as commitment
What is common among clinical theories is that they suppose something is missing in oneself and that person is searching for it in the other.
Theories:
A) Reinforcement theory
B) Social exchange theory
C) Equity theory - derived from Reinforcement theory
D) Cognitive-consistency theories:
- 1. Daryl Bem's self-perception theory
- 2. Fritz Heider's balance theory
- 3. Theodore Newcomb's symmetry theory
- 4. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance
E) Elliot Aronson's gain-loss theory of attraction
F) The two-component theory of passionate love
G) An "interruption" theory of emotion in love
H) The attachment theory of love (Shaver & Hazan) - romantic love styles correspond to attachment styles - ie seem to apply most to the form intimacy takes in a passionate adult relationship. Tennov's construct of limerence is viewed largely as a function of the style of attachment.
I) Evolutionary theory of love - provides answers to questions that most theories lack. For instance why love of children is unconditional which is not present in other kinds of love - as it evolutionary mechanism for propagating species (aka attachment). Buss and Sternberg's theory of love is compatible - but the Triangle of Love theory is more concerned with internal structure. Dimension of love from Buss's evolutionary perspective:
- 1. Resource display
- 2. Exclusivity: Fidelity and Mate guarding
- 3. Mutual support and protection
- 4. Commitment and marriage - children from whole families are more likely to thrive
- 5. Sexual intimacy - as a necessary condition for reproduction
- 6. Reproduction
- 7. Resource sharing
- 8. Parental investment
Theories of liking and loving as overlapping:
- Psychometric theory - Zick Rubin's Liking and Loving
- Theory of bonds - Sternberg-Grajek
Theories of liking as a kind of love:
- Colors of love - John Lee
- Cluster theory of liking and loving - Keith Davis
- Triangle of love - Robert J. Sternberg
Attraction
The best examples of interpersonal attraction are physical attractiveness, arousal, proximity of 2 people, reciprocity, similarity of one person to the other, and barriers.
Physical attractiveness: Elanie Hatfield's matching hypothesis - people look for partners whose level of interpersonal attractiveness matches their own. However, the study showed that almost everybody preferred the more physically attractive people. But the limit of this study may be that people in real situations play it safe and are unlikely to risk rejection so they choose a matching partner. Another study acknowledged this and showed that more attractive people preferred more physically attractive dates. Murstein study found that middle-aged married couples matched on physical attractiveness. Another study shows that female partners are rated individually for physical attractiveness while male attractiveness is affected by the wife's attractiveness. When evaluating potential mates men place high regard on women's physical attractiveness. However, over time, liking may affect the perception of physical attractiveness.
Arousal: Dutton & Aron's study showed that arousal can be connected to sexual drive - this is a famous bridge study in which a man walked on a bridge that extended over a deep gorge and one that was not stress-inducing. Using the thematic apperception test at the end - the man who walked on anxiety evoking bridge had more sexual imagery score. Another Dutton & Aron study was using stress of expected electrical shocks; one group said they would be really strong and painful while another group of men was told that they would get mild to weak shocks. Then men were asked to rate the physical attractiveness of the female assistant - men expecting painful shocks rated her more favorably than the group expecting mild shocks.
Proximity: The most important factor determining who you meet is proximity. Festinger studied the pattern of friendships among war veterans. The most basic finding was that people who lived closer to each other were more likely to become friends than those who lived farther apart. Other studies have shown this as well.
Reciprocity: We tend to like those who like us - but more precisely how much we think the others like us.
Similarity: on the whole more similar individuals are more likely to be attracted to each other or in other words birds of feathers flock together. The most basic variables are demographics: age, religion, education, physical health, ethnic and economic background, and self-esteem. Studies have suggested that having similar personalities is associated with marital satisfaction. The similarity of attitude is an excellent predictor of attraction.
Barriers: Driscol, Davis, and Lipetz's research found that parental interference tends to bring the partners closer together. It is useful to have an external enemy in a relationship.
Theories of the development of love
A) Robert Winch's theory of complementarity
B) Kerchkoff-Davis sequential filtering theory
C) Stimulus-value-role theory
D) Theory of dyadic formation
E) Levinger-Snoek stage theory:
- Stage 0: no contact
- Stage 1: awareness
- Stage 2: meeting of potential partner
- Stage 3: mutuality, has 3 aspects; involvement, commitment, and symmetry. And has 3 sub-stages;
1. Minor intersection
2. Moderate intersection
3. Major intersection
- Stage of maintenance or decay
F) Social-penetration theory
G) Attributional process
H) Robert Weiss's marital separation
Problems in loving relationships
1. I'm bored with my relationship.
2. We fight a lot.
3. My partner doesn't understand me.
4. My partner and I don't communicate well.
5. I find myself attracted to others. OR My partner seems to be attracted to others.
6. I just can't commit myself to this relationship.
7. We have nothing in common anymore.
8. My partner makes too many demands on me.
9. I don't like spending time with my partner.
10. My partner's values are distasteful or aversive to me.
11. We have different ideas of what love is.
12. My partner does not support me.
The structural models of love
Based upon models of intelligence Sternberg initially proposed these three models:
- "Spearmanian" model - Love as a general unitary factor (nondecomposable).
- "Thomsonian" model - Love as overlapping bonds between feelings, thoughts, and desires (decomposable).
- "Thurstonian" model - Love as a set of primary factors: feeling, thoughts, desires (an integrated whole).
Testing the models of love
Study of 35 men and 50 women (heterosexual) in 1980. Age ranged from 18-78. They used a 7-point Likert scale, with the following dimensions: intensity, significance, similarity, and complementarity of partners, the satisfaction of needs, feelings of a participant because the relationship has ended, self-esteem during the relationship, and overall satisfaction. And serval scales of liking and loving - Liking and loving scales by Rubin and the Scale of interpersonal involvement by Leviner et.al.
Results
Man loved their lover the most, 2. best same-sex friend, 3. father, 4. mother, 5. siblings of similar age.
The woman loved equally their lovers and same-sex friends, 2. mother, 3. father, 4. siblings of similar age.
Men tend to have friendships through shared activities - women tend to be intimate with their friends (1-to-1 communication). They found a close relationship between liking and loving - thus assuming fundamental relatedness between them.
Prediction of satisfaction: The liking scale by results was a better predictor than the Loving scale for satisfaction. Using stepwise regression they found out that personality variables entered as well - depressed and anxious people tend to be less satisfied. People who rated themselves as complementary with their lover tended to be more satisfied - the main area was in respect of the needs. Men (not women) who rated themselves as physically attractive were happier in the relationship than men who rated themselves as unattractive. Greater involvement in the relationship of men led to satisfaction for women, but the reverse did lead to greater satisfaction for men - as women strive for greater intimacy in close relationships.
The ideal partner - satisfaction: Both absolute and comparison (past experience) levels of experienced love relative to the ideal level of experienced love were highly predictive of satisfaction in a relationship. So scores of 1. How you feel about others, 2. Ideal other to feel about you, 3. Difference between what you want vs. what you are getting. What matters is not what you want but the level of difference between want/getting - not real but perceived. So perception of the feelings of the partner and not real feelings matter for satisfaction. And what you believe the other feels about you matters as much as how you feel about others.
Structure of love
Using factor analysis they found clear general factors for all loving relationships - interpersonal communication, sharing, and support. Using cluster analysis the g factor was broken into 3 components - intimacy, passion, and commitment. Thus consistent with the "Thomsonian" model - the titular triangle of love. On close inspection, other aspects of love are manifestations of these 3 - for example intimacy: communication, caring/compassion.
- Intimacy - feelings that promote closeness, bondedness, and connectedness. Ten elements are:
1. Desiring to promote the welfare of the loved one.
2. Experiencing happiness with their loved one.
3. Holding the loved one in high regard.
4. Being able to count on the loved one in times of need.
5. Having a mutual understanding with the loved one.
6. Sharing oneself and one's possessions with a loved one.
7. Receiving emotional support from the loved one
8. Giving emotional support to the loved one
9. Communicating intimately with the loved one.
10. Valuing the loved one.
- Passion - largely expression of desires and needs: self-esteem, nurturance, affiliation, dominance, submission, and sexual fulfillment.
- Commitment/Decision - Short-term; to love certain others and long-term; commitment to maintain that love.
Properties of the components of love
Intimacy and commitment seem fairly stable, while passion fluctuates. There is some degree of conscious control over feelings of intimacy and a high degree of control over commitment, but little control over passion. In long-term relationships, passion plays a moderate role while the other 2 must be high. Passion seems to be limited to certain kinds of relationships, while commitment can be highly variable across different types of relationships. Passion is highly dependent on psychophysiological involvement, whereas commitment appears to involve little. And intimacy is somewhere in between.
Kinds of love
Kind - Intimacy; Passion; Commitment
Non-love - - -
Liking + - -
Infatuated love - + -
Empty love - - +
Romantic love + + -
Companionate love + - +
Fatuous love - + +
Consummate love + + +
The geometry of the triangle of love
The geometry of the triangle depends upon two factors: the amount and balance of the love.
- Amount of love - The difference in the amount of area represents the amount of experienced love representing 3 hypothetical constructs. For instance, relationships where people are differentially involved - different sizes of triangles - often fail because the less involved partner feels as if he /she cannot provide what the more involved partner wants.
- Balance of love - Balanced or unbalanced. So roughly matched components can be described as balanced, and in a relationship that emphasizes one or two components becomes unbalanced. If triangles have different shapes, the result can be devastating. If one partner is frustrated owing to lack of intimacy, and the other owing to lack of passion, it is unlikely there will be a meeting of the minds.
- Other types of triangles: Love involves many triangles; the main ones are - real vs. ideal, self-perceived vs. other-perceived, and feelings vs. action.
"Hard-to-get" theory
Hatfield found that people tend to be attracted not to those who are hard to get, in general, but to those who are hard for others to get but relatively easier to get for themselves - as supreme flattery for a man to hear from a woman that he is the one the woman was waiting for.
- Reactance theory: Tries to explain why some people have a problem getting what they want - effectively they react to perceived threats to their choice of freedom, so they rebel. After a certain point, these attempts can start to feed on themselves and persist, even in the absence of a realistic chance of attaining the goal.
- Mere exposure effect: Zajonc discovered that repeated exposure can foster liking in a person or an object.
Refining the theory of love
Sternebrg and colleagues used factor analysis on a list of 140 (1-9 rated) behaviors describing romantic love and came up with 4 dimensions. 1. Looked exactly like intimacy. 2. Seemed similar but it contained special aspects of it; having a partner who is good for you in particular. 4. Was having a partner and relationship that is truly special. - These 3 dimensions seem to refer to different levels of intimacy. 3. Was sexual passion.
For romantic love according to triangular theory, romantic life consists of passion and intimacy, but not necessarily commitment.
Liking vs. Loving
I. Quantitative view - Level of attraction
Limitations of the quantitative views: Usually these views don't address the relationship between liking and loving - but discuss other constructs directly and relations between primary and secondary constructs seem to get lost.
II. Qualitative view:
- A) Loving and Liking as distinct
- B) Liking and Loving as overlapping
- C) Liking as a kind of loving
Limitations of the qualitative-difference views: They have less to say about liking and more about loving. They also are more concerned with romantic love than companionate love. They are limited by weak or little evidence supporting these theories.
Limitations of the overlapping-attribute theories: Their strength is in empirical support and structural models of love. But they do not fully measure the passionate aspects of love and are weak on mechanism and especially development - they do not say anything about them.
Limitations of theories of liking as a kind of loving
No big datasets exist. Love and liking may be close, but not quite correct, and also are probably incomplete in the understanding of the phenomenon of love.
Clinical theories:
- Freud's theory of love
- Theodore Reik's dissatisfaction with self-theory
- Melanie Klein's satisfaction of one's needs through dependency theory
- Abraham Maslow's "D-love" & "B-love"
- Erich Fromm's art of loving
- Dorothy Tennov's concept of limerence
- Kenneth Livingston's uncertainty reduction theory
- Scott Peck's love as commitment
What is common among clinical theories is that they suppose something is missing in oneself and that person is searching for it in the other.
Theories:
A) Reinforcement theory
B) Social exchange theory
C) Equity theory - derived from Reinforcement theory
D) Cognitive-consistency theories:
- 1. Daryl Bem's self-perception theory
- 2. Fritz Heider's balance theory
- 3. Theodore Newcomb's symmetry theory
- 4. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance
E) Elliot Aronson's gain-loss theory of attraction
F) The two-component theory of passionate love
G) An "interruption" theory of emotion in love
H) The attachment theory of love (Shaver & Hazan) - romantic love styles correspond to attachment styles - ie seem to apply most to the form intimacy takes in a passionate adult relationship. Tennov's construct of limerence is viewed largely as a function of the style of attachment.
I) Evolutionary theory of love - provides answers to questions that most theories lack. For instance why love of children is unconditional which is not present in other kinds of love - as it evolutionary mechanism for propagating species (aka attachment). Buss and Sternberg's theory of love is compatible - but the Triangle of Love theory is more concerned with internal structure. Dimension of love from Buss's evolutionary perspective:
- 1. Resource display
- 2. Exclusivity: Fidelity and Mate guarding
- 3. Mutual support and protection
- 4. Commitment and marriage - children from whole families are more likely to thrive
- 5. Sexual intimacy - as a necessary condition for reproduction
- 6. Reproduction
- 7. Resource sharing
- 8. Parental investment
Theories of liking and loving as overlapping:
- Psychometric theory - Zick Rubin's Liking and Loving
- Theory of bonds - Sternberg-Grajek
Theories of liking as a kind of love:
- Colors of love - John Lee
- Cluster theory of liking and loving - Keith Davis
- Triangle of love - Robert J. Sternberg
Attraction
The best examples of interpersonal attraction are physical attractiveness, arousal, proximity of 2 people, reciprocity, similarity of one person to the other, and barriers.
Physical attractiveness: Elanie Hatfield's matching hypothesis - people look for partners whose level of interpersonal attractiveness matches their own. However, the study showed that almost everybody preferred the more physically attractive people. But the limit of this study may be that people in real situations play it safe and are unlikely to risk rejection so they choose a matching partner. Another study acknowledged this and showed that more attractive people preferred more physically attractive dates. Murstein study found that middle-aged married couples matched on physical attractiveness. Another study shows that female partners are rated individually for physical attractiveness while male attractiveness is affected by the wife's attractiveness. When evaluating potential mates men place high regard on women's physical attractiveness. However, over time, liking may affect the perception of physical attractiveness.
Arousal: Dutton & Aron's study showed that arousal can be connected to sexual drive - this is a famous bridge study in which a man walked on a bridge that extended over a deep gorge and one that was not stress-inducing. Using the thematic apperception test at the end - the man who walked on anxiety evoking bridge had more sexual imagery score. Another Dutton & Aron study was using stress of expected electrical shocks; one group said they would be really strong and painful while another group of men was told that they would get mild to weak shocks. Then men were asked to rate the physical attractiveness of the female assistant - men expecting painful shocks rated her more favorably than the group expecting mild shocks.
Proximity: The most important factor determining who you meet is proximity. Festinger studied the pattern of friendships among war veterans. The most basic finding was that people who lived closer to each other were more likely to become friends than those who lived farther apart. Other studies have shown this as well.
Reciprocity: We tend to like those who like us - but more precisely how much we think the others like us.
Similarity: on the whole more similar individuals are more likely to be attracted to each other or in other words birds of feathers flock together. The most basic variables are demographics: age, religion, education, physical health, ethnic and economic background, and self-esteem. Studies have suggested that having similar personalities is associated with marital satisfaction. The similarity of attitude is an excellent predictor of attraction.
Barriers: Driscol, Davis, and Lipetz's research found that parental interference tends to bring the partners closer together. It is useful to have an external enemy in a relationship.
Theories of the development of love
A) Robert Winch's theory of complementarity
B) Kerchkoff-Davis sequential filtering theory
C) Stimulus-value-role theory
D) Theory of dyadic formation
E) Levinger-Snoek stage theory:
- Stage 0: no contact
- Stage 1: awareness
- Stage 2: meeting of potential partner
- Stage 3: mutuality, has 3 aspects; involvement, commitment, and symmetry. And has 3 sub-stages;
1. Minor intersection
2. Moderate intersection
3. Major intersection
- Stage of maintenance or decay
F) Social-penetration theory
G) Attributional process
H) Robert Weiss's marital separation
Problems in loving relationships
1. I'm bored with my relationship.
2. We fight a lot.
3. My partner doesn't understand me.
4. My partner and I don't communicate well.
5. I find myself attracted to others. OR My partner seems to be attracted to others.
6. I just can't commit myself to this relationship.
7. We have nothing in common anymore.
8. My partner makes too many demands on me.
9. I don't like spending time with my partner.
10. My partner's values are distasteful or aversive to me.
11. We have different ideas of what love is.
12. My partner does not support me.
October 29, 2007
how i wish for the consummate love... anyone? hehhe
August 7, 2015
for me..some valuable insights.
October 29, 2007
Yup, This is the bible of romantic relationship..hoho..
Want to read
April 3, 2019Because the lecturer suggested reading this
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews