essay about expressing attraction love and commitment

Cookie Consent

• Therapist jobs

Why attraction, love, and commitment is important?

            Attraction, love, and commitment are all great components to a healthy relationship.  Why each of these looks different for every couple, they are all very important to maintain a healthy relationship.  These things combined help bring great value to a relationship to help it keep going.  The value that these bring are what will help a couple push through the valleys that relationships naturally go through.  Some of these components might struggle at certain times, but hopefully the other components can help pick up the slack.  For example, when attraction is struggling between a couple, the love and commitment could hopefully help them get through that struggle. 

            As these components grow and maintain, it can help build trust and security in the relationship, which is very important.  That development of security is what will help the relationship be worth it even when times get rough. Try to remember that attraction has an emotional and a physical component.  If you can remember that you can hopefully try to see to each of those for your partner and for yourself.  It can be really healthy to have discussions with your partner about how you personally develop emotional and physical attraction. 

            Love is a component that each of us show and receive differently.  It can be helpful to try and pinpoint how you receive love so that your partner can know what best to show you.  It can also be helpful to understand how you most naturally show love, but make sure to also keep in mind how your partner receives love.  For example, some of us are more likely to show love through words of affirmation whereas others might show love through acts of service.  Also, how we show and receive love change throughout the course of a relationship and so it is important to check in with yourself about that. With attraction and love hopefully being in a good place, the trust for the commitment should hopefully follow.  Try to make sure that you are transparent about what commitment looks like to you so that you and your partner can hopefully be on the same page. 

You will be logged out in seconds.

Essays About Commitment: Top 5 Examples and 7 Prompts

If you are writing essays about commitment, read our guide with helpful examples and writing prompts to help you get started. 

To be committed to something is to be devoted and willing to put time, energy, and effort into it. Commitment can be directed towards other people, organizations, goals, or beliefs. However, it is more than just a promise; it requires consistent dedication. 

Commitment is a broad term and can include committing to tasks, such as chores, or significant commitments in life, like marriage or priesthood. Commitment is an admirable trait that shows courage and determination, but it can also be challenging to commit to a task, lifestyle change, or moral decision. Such a broad topic makes for an exciting essay; keep reading to see our top examples and prompts to help you get started.

5 Top Essay Examples

1. the difference between love and commitment by howard soto, 2. a short essay on commitment by bleri lleshi, 3. honor, courage, commitment by ada robinson, 4. commitment for a better future. by sheel nidhi tripathi.

• 5. ​​Your Goals Are Nothing Without Commitment by Anthony J. Yeung

1. Why Is Commitment Important?

2. what are you committed to, 3. commitment in action, 4. when i failed at commitment, 5. commitment role models, 6. how to practice commitment, 7. values that align with commitment.

“Commitment is communicated primarily through shared experiences and moments. For example individuals might opt to have some specified moments they associate and share certain experiences and activities such as outdoor activities. This essentially calls for dedications. Love however is communicated by the parties involved being emotionally available for each other. It involves the doing of certain favors for each other without complain regardless of the situation.”

Soto explains how love and commitment are different, yet that commitment is an essential part of love. In summary, anyone can practice commitment, which is essential for creating a successful and loving relationship. Love takes commitment, as you must be willing to make sacrifices. 

“Commitment means giving a piece of ourselves in what we do. It sounds simple but it is not. It’s simple nor obvious. The obviousness got lost in the dominance of the ‘everyone for his/her own’ discourse. For those who can not give that piece of his or herself in his or her actions, it is difficult to understand why some of us do commit ourselves. Often we even cannot give an exact reason of why we are committed. Commitment must be experienced and not explained that is why my explanation here, can never match the experience of commitment.”

In his essay, Lleshi writes about why it is more important to be committed than ever. This is because many problems require our attention, such as the spread of individualism. To Lleshi, commitment means sacrificing a part of ourselves to achieve a profound goal. He wants everyone to be committed to a better future and united in our commitment to change global issues, such as stopping pollution and global warming. 

“Often we even cannot give a exact reason of why we are committed. Commitment must be experienced and not explained that is why my explanation here, can never match the experience of commitment. We must always abide by an uncompromising code of integrity, taking responsibility for our actions and keeping our word. We shall earn respect up and down the chain of command. Be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other, and with those outside the Navy.”

Robinson, a member of the U.S. Navy, describes the values they are taught, including commitment. The concepts of honor, bravery, courage, and commitment are instilled in every officer in the navy. They are taught to take responsibility for their mistakes, be devoted to protecting and serving the American nation, and be committed to upholding the country’s laws. 

“The unknown can be a scary feeling, adventure as an idea is thrilling but not everyone is cut out to live it.I have lost my sleep, and when I fall asleep I get these weird dreams, which shows me all the things that I am thinking subconsciously. Yet, from here on I am letting go all my fears and do all the things I dreamt to do as a kid.”

In her essay, Tripathi writes about how her life has been challenging and that she has always let the influences and rules of others dictate her actions. However, she is now committed to building a healthier lifestyle through fitness, working on her communication and listening skills, and taking an interest in her hobbies.

5. ​​ Your Goals Are Nothing Without Commitment by Anthony J. Yeung

“Find a reason for being that inspires you to be earnest with each day. That commitment, in and of itself, will enhance your life in countless ways. I’ve learned there’s no greater feeling than keeping the promises we make to ourselves. There’s an overwhelming feeling of pride, joy, love, and gratitude that goes beyond the goal itself and gives you the confidence you can achieve anything.”

Yeung discusses the importance of setting achievable goals so that we have a reason to be committed. He wants people to stay on course and stop making excuses for failing to achieve goals; he laments that life often distracts people from achieving goals. Instead, he encourages readers to take a deep look into themselves and set goals based on things they enjoy and are inspired by. That way, it will be so much easier to stay committed.

7 Prompts for Essays About Commitment

Commitment is essential to achieving goals and success, but how exactly? Write about why commitment is meaningful and valuable. Then, explore the importance of commitment in different situations. Research the benefits of being committed to a task or person, and describe these benefits within your essay. For help with this topic, read the essay examples above for inspiration. 

Everyone has committed to something or someone in their life. In your essay, list some of your goals, explaining why you have chosen to commit to them. If applicable, you can also give examples of people or organizations you are committed to, whether it be loved ones or your job. 

You will feel proud and relieved when you fulfill a commitment. Recall a time you showed commitment and were proud of it. Describe the commitment, and explain to your readers how you fulfilled (or continue to fulfill) your commitment. Explain your reasons for dedicating your time and energy to this commitment.

On the other hand, you may also feel it is more appropriate to write about a time you failed to show commitment. Reflect on this experience and explain what you would do if you were allowed to repeat it. 

We all have role models that we look up to for inspiration. Who is this to you? Write about who has shown commitment and inspires you to be committed to your goals or loved ones. It can be a loved one, a famous person, or even a fictional character. Make sure you explain how this individual is an excellent example of commitment. 

In your essay, discuss habits you can pick up to commit to someone or something. It can include habits such as waking up early, getting adequate sleep, or a consistent dedication to a particular person or task. Describe how to practice these habits and achieve your goals through commitment and hard work.

Commitment is associated with other important traits, such as bravery, honesty, and courage. For your essay, you can also discuss what values you need to practice commitment to the best of your ability, be sure to explain your choices adequately. 

If you’re stuck picking an essay topic, check out our guide on how to write essays about depression .

If you’d like to learn more, in this guide, our writer explains how to write an argumentative essay .

Stages of Love: Unraveling the Journey from Attraction to Commitment

We’ve all felt it, that dizzying sensation of falling head over heels for someone. But what exactly is happening in our brains when we tumble into the abyss of love? As an expert in human emotions and relationships, I’d like to delve into the stages of love , exploring each phase from a psychological perspective.

In its infancy, love is a whirlwind of attraction and infatuation. You’re consumed by thoughts of your beloved, with every detail about them seeming absolutely perfect. This honeymoon phase can be intoxicating but it’s also temporary – a fact many people find hard to accept.

Beyond this initial enchantment lies the second stage: deep attachment. Here, comfort and companionship overrule passion as you settle into the rhythm of life together. But don’t be fooled! This isn’t a downgrade from those earlier fireworks; it’s a deeper bond formed through shared experiences and understanding. It may not be as flashy as infatuation but it’s arguably more rewarding.

So why does this transition happen? And how can we navigate these stages effectively? Let’s dive in further, examining the science behind these shifts in emotion and offering some tips on sustaining long-term love.

Understanding the Stages of Love

Ever wonder why love feels like a roller coaster ride? It’s because it doesn’t stand still. It evolves, changes and grows through various stages. Let’s unravel this mystery together.

The first stage is the “Infatuation Stage”. We’ve all been there, haven’t we? When our heart skips a beat every time that special someone comes into view. Butterflies in the stomach become a daily phenomenon. Infatuation can feel exhilarating, but it’s often short-lived.

Next up is the “Honeymoon Phase”. This is when you can’t seem to get enough of each other. You’re both head over heels in love, spending every possible moment together. Studies show that this phase usually lasts from one to two years.

• Stage 1 : Infatuation
• Stage 2 : Honeymoon Phase

Once the honeymoon phase fades away, reality sets in and we enter the “Disillusionment Stage”. This is when couples start noticing each other’s flaws and arguments may become more frequent.

After weathering through disillusionment (if you make it), you’ll find yourself in the “Deep Attachment Stage”. By now, you’ve seen your partner at their best and worst yet choose to stick with them anyway. This stage signifies deep emotional attachment and stability.

Finally, we have what experts call “Mature Love” or lifelong partnership where companionship trumps passion. The bond forged over shared experiences becomes unbreakable here.

Here are these stages again:

• Stage 3 : Disillusionment
• Stage 4 : Deep Attachment
• Stage 5 : Mature Love

Understanding these stages can help navigate relationships better while also managing expectations realistically.

The First Stage: Attraction and Romance

I’m sure we’ve all felt it, that initial spark when you meet someone who piques your interest. It’s the first stage of love, often characterized by physical attraction and a sense of excitement. This is the time when our hearts race, our palms sweat, and we can’t stop thinking about that special someone .

What causes this overwhelming feeling of attraction? Science suggests it’s a cocktail of chemicals racing through our brains. There’s dopamine, responsible for feelings of happiness and desire; adrenaline which fuels those nervous butterflies; and serotonin that keeps us dreaming about our new love interest.

Let me paint a picture with some examples. Remember that high school crush? The one who made your heart flutter every time they passed by your locker? Or maybe it was a friend who slowly transformed into something more in your eyes. This phase is marked by idealization – seeing only the best in the other person – and intense emotions.

But remember folks, while these feelings might be intoxicating at first, they’re not designed to last forever. Psychologist Dorothy Tennov coined the term ‘limerence’ to describe this state. Limerence lasts on average between 18 months to 3 years before transitioning into deeper stages of love.

So let’s break it down:

• Physical attraction kicks things off.
• Brain chemicals like dopamine create happy, obsessive thoughts.
• These intense feelings don’t last forever but transition into deeper stages over time.

Although this stage can feel like a whirlwind, it sets up an important foundation for relationship building as we move forward through subsequent stages of love!

The Second Stage: Building a Deeper Connection

If you’ve ever been in love, you’ll know it’s not all rainbows and butterflies. It’s during the second stage of love that we really start to build those deeper connections. Let me tell you, it’s more than just sharing your favorite pizza toppings or TV shows.

During this phase, trust begins to solidify as the foundation of the relationship. You’re starting to reveal your authentic selves, not just the polished versions you presented during the initial attraction stage. Sharing vulnerable moments and stories is typical during this period. For example, you might discuss past relationships or personal insecurities – yes, we’ve all got them!

Now don’t get me wrong; this stage isn’t always easy. It can be uncomfortable getting so emotionally raw with another person. But studies have shown that vulnerability is key in building deep relationships! According to a study by Dr.Brene Brown at the University of Houston:

It’s also important to note that communication plays a vital role here too – and I’m not just talking about chatting over dinner! Real communication means expressing needs, desires, fears…the whole shebang.

Here are some pointers for effective communication in this stage:

• Be clear about what you need from your partner.
• Show empathy when they share their feelings.
• Respect boundaries set by each other.

At its core though, building a deeper connection boils down to one thing: understanding one another on an intimate level – physically and emotionally. That’s where real love starts taking root!

So there you have it – that’s the second stage of love for ya! While it may feel like an emotional rollercoaster ride at times (and believe me, it often does), remember that it’s paving way for a stronger bond between you and your partner. But hold on tight, we’re just getting started!

The Third Stage: Disillusionment or Understanding?

I’ve arrived at the third stage of love, and let’s be honest – it’s a bit of a crossroad. We all start off in relationships with hearts full of hope, but then reality sets in. This stage can either lead to disillusionment or understanding. It all depends on how we navigate the twists and turns.

Think back to your first love, when everything seemed perfect. Then suddenly you started noticing flaws in your partner that you’d never seen before. You may have even started questioning if you were right for each other at all. That’s disillusionment setting in, folks! But hold on – don’t hit the panic button just yet.

You see, this stage isn’t necessarily a death sentence for your relationship. In fact, it could be an opportunity for growth – a chance to build deeper understanding and acceptance. For example, instead of focusing on annoying habits like leaving dishes unwashed or forgetting birthdays (yes, we’ve all been there), try focusing on what initially drew you to them: their sense of humor? Their kindness? Their resilience?

Here are some stats to chew on:

Now I’m not saying it’ll be easy; but developing understanding is key for long-term happiness in relationships.

So where does one begin? With communication – that’s where! Talk about your feelings without blaming each other (easier said than done!). Be patient with yourself and your partner during this challenging time.

And remember: every couple goes through this third stage at some point. It’s NORMAL. So take heart – if others have navigated these choppy waters successfully, so can you!

• Understand that disillusionment is part of the journey
• Focus on your partner’s positive traits
• Communicate, communicate, communicate

So here’s to understanding and working through disillusionment – because that’s what love is all about.

A Closer Look at the Fourth Stage: Creating Lasting Bonds

Peeling back the layers of love, we find ourselves nestled in the fourth stage – creating lasting bonds. It’s a step that may seem daunting but is truly rewarding. This phase is all about building on the emotional intimacy you’ve established and solidifying it into a durable, long-term connection.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. In this stage, you’re no longer just dating or ‘seeing each other’. You’re committed to making this relationship work. The bond that forms during this period isn’t merely based on attraction or romance; it’s anchored in mutual respect, trust, and admiration.

These aren’t just hollow words. Studies back them up too! For instance, a study by Drs John and Julie Gottman found that couples who show mutual respect and admiration are more likely to have long-lasting relationships.

Here are some key aspects of bonding:

• Shared Experiences : Activities like traveling together or overcoming challenges as a team strengthen your bond.
• Mutual Goals : Sharing life goals aligns your path forward as a couple.
• Open Communication : Talking about feelings promotes understanding and closeness.

By now you might be wondering how exactly one goes about creating these lasting bonds? Well fear not! I’ll walk you through some practical steps:

• Practice active listening: Show genuine interest in what your partner says.
• Express appreciation regularly: Small acts of kindness go a long way.
• Keep promises: Trust is built when actions match words.

This stage of love is indeed an art – an art of nurturing, patience, understanding, compromise, and above all else… Love itself! So why don’t we roll up our sleeves and dive deeper into this beautiful journey?

The Fifth and Ultimate Stage of Love: Unconditional Acceptance

Reaching the fifth stage of love, unconditional acceptance, feels like a breath of fresh air. It’s the point where you’ve seen all sides of your partner – the good, bad, and everything in between – and still choose them every single day. You’ve moved past petty disagreements and superficial flaws to understand that no one is perfect.

This stage isn’t about grand gestures or intense passion – it’s about comfort, stability, and an unshakeable bond. Couples in this phase find joy in everyday moments shared together – a quiet dinner at home after a long day or a lazy Sunday morning spent reading newspapers while sipping coffee.

A study published by the Journal of Social Personal Relationships highlights some fascinating statistics regarding couples who reach this stage:

Now don’t mistake unconditional acceptance for complacency. In fact:

• It means recognizing that your partner isn’t perfect but choosing to love them regardless.
• It’s about understanding that people grow and change over time.
• And most importantly, it involves being a consistent source of support for each other without any conditions attached.

Unconditional acceptance doesn’t mean you accept harmful behaviors or disregard your own needs. Instead, it’s all about balance – acknowledging differences but not letting them overshadow the love you share.

Remember that reaching this stage is no small feat but those who do often enjoy relationships characterized by deep respect, mutual understanding, lasting affection…and yes – plenty of laughter too!

Common Challenges During Love’s Various Stages

Navigating the realm of love isn’t always a smooth cruise. Let’s delve into some of the common challenges that crop up during love’s various stages.

The initial stage, often referred to as the ‘honeymoon phase’, is no stranger to pitfalls. It’s characterized by intense attraction and infatuation, which can cloud judgement. We become so engrossed in our partner that we might overlook red flags or potential issues down the road. We’re also likely to idealize our partners during this phase, which can lead to disappointment when reality finally hits.

Moving on to the power struggle stage, couples often wrestle with differences and conflicts. This is where individuality and independence come into play – we start realizing that our partner isn’t perfect and may not align with every aspect of our life. The key challenge here lies in maintaining respect for each other while navigating these differences.

Next up is stability – a stage where many relationships face comfort zone issues. As mundane routines set in, passion may take a back seat leading to feelings of boredom or dissatisfaction. How you keep the spark alive becomes crucial at this point.

Then comes commitment – deciding whether you’re ready for long-term investment can be daunting. Fear of losing personal freedom or making wrong decisions are common challenges faced in this stage.

Lastly, co-creation involves building something together like starting a family or business venture. Balancing personal goals with joint dreams can be tricky here.

Here’s a quick rundown:

• Honeymoon Phase: Overlooking flaws due to infatuation
• Power Struggle Stage: Dealing with differences and conflicts
• Stability: Waning passion due to routine
• Commitment: Deciding on long-term investment
• Co-Creation: Balancing personal goals with joint ventures

So remember folks, love isn’t just about hearts and flowers; it comes bundled with its fair share of trials and tribulations. But hey, that’s what makes the journey worthwhile, doesn’t it?

Conclusion: Navigating the Journey of Love Successfully

We’ve traversed quite a journey, haven’t we? From the exhilarating first stages of infatuation to the profound depths of enduring love, each phase plays its unique role in our love journey. And just like any other expedition, navigating this path requires understanding, patience, and above all, commitment.

Remember that falling in love is easy; it’s staying in love where the real challenge lies. It’s not always about grand gestures or romantic escapades. Sometimes it’s about those quiet moments you share with your partner on a lazy Sunday afternoon or how you communicate during a disagreement.

Don’t be afraid of conflict either. I can’t stress this enough – conflicts are not necessarily bad for your relationship. On the contrary, they’re opportunities to learn more about each other and grow together as a couple.

• Understand your partner’s perspective
• Learn to compromise
• Communicate effectively

The keyword here is resilience. You need to withstand storms and navigate rough seas if you want to keep sailing together.

And let’s not forget the importance of maintaining your individuality while being part of a pair. It’s vital for both partners to have their own hobbies, friends and interests apart from each other because at the end of the day we’re all individuals sharing our lives with another individual.

Lastly but certainly most important – never stop expressing love for one another. Say ‘I love you’ often and mean it every time you say it.

So there we have it! These are my thoughts on successfully navigating through different stages of love:

• Patience and understanding
• Effective communication
• Maintaining individuality
• Never stop expressing love

Love isn’t always going to be perfect but remember – “A great relationship doesn’t happen because of the love you had in the beginning but how well you continue building love until the end.” Go out there and build your love story with courage and conviction.

Related Posts

The Male Mind in Love: Demystifying Men’s Love Journey

Loving You: To the Moon & Back – A Journey of Endless Love

• Mental Health
• Social Psychology
• Cognitive Science
• Psychopharmacology
• Neuroscience

The psychology of love: 10 groundbreaking insights into the science of relationships

(Photo credit: OpenAI's DALL·E)

In the quest to understand the complex dynamics of love and relationships, recent scientific inquiries have unveiled fascinating insights into how our connections with others shape our mental health, preferences, and overall happiness.

From the profound impact of romantic relationships on psychological well-being to the evolutionary roots of love, these studies offer a comprehensive look into the forces driving our closest bonds. This article delves into the latest research findings, shedding light on the science behind love, attraction, and the deep psychological interplay at the heart of human relationships.

The exploration into the psychology of love spans various disciplines, including social psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology, each contributing unique perspectives to our understanding of romantic connections.

These studies collectively reveal how aspects such as relationship quality, partner preferences, humor, and even our value systems play pivotal roles in the formation and maintenance of romantic relationships. Through a closer examination of these elements, we can begin to appreciate the intricate web of factors that not only draw us together but also sustain love over time.

1. The Link Between Romantic Relationships and Mental Health

In a study published in Current Opinion in Psychology , researchers Scott Braithwaite and Julianne Holt-Lunstad explored the intricate relationship between long-term romantic relationships and mental health. They delved into the question of causality—whether being in a marriage leads to better mental health or if individuals with better mental health are more likely to get married. Their review of both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies revealed that while married individuals generally exhibit better mental health than their non-married counterparts, the direction of causality leans more significantly from the quality and presence of romantic relationships towards improved mental health outcomes. This suggests that being in a committed relationship, such as marriage, tends to enhance one’s mental health more profoundly than less committed forms of cohabitation.

The study highlights the significance of relationship quality, noting that individuals in healthy and satisfying relationships experience better mental health. Moreover, improving the quality of a relationship was found to precede improvements in mental health, reinforcing the idea that positive relationship dynamics play a crucial role in fostering mental well-being. This insight underscores the greater impact that negative aspects of mental health, such as depression and depressive symptoms, have on romantic relationships compared to positive mental health constructs. The researchers emphasized the importance of focusing on preventing negative relationship patterns as a means of safeguarding mental health.

The implications of this research are profound, suggesting that interventions aimed at enhancing relationship quality could be as effective as those targeting individual mental health issues. The findings advocate for a shift in focus towards preventing dysfunctional relationships as a strategic approach to improving overall mental health. By establishing that healthy romantic relationships act as a protective factor against mental health problems, the study underscores the necessity of nurturing positive relationship dynamics. This reinforces the concept that investment in the health of personal relationships can lead to significant benefits for mental health, highlighting relationships as a cornerstone of human well-being.

2. Evolving Preferences in Partner Selection

In a fascinating study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , researchers led by Julie Driebe delved into how life events and personal growth influence people’s preferences in choosing a romantic partner over time. This research aimed to bridge gaps in understanding whether individuals’ ideal partner preferences evolve and if people are aware of these changes. Through a longitudinal approach, spanning 13 years from an initial speed dating experiment, the study revisited participants to reassess their partner preferences. The findings revealed a complex picture: while core preferences remained relatively stable, significant shifts did occur, notably with less emphasis on physical attractiveness and wealth and more on kindness, humor, and shared values as people aged. The influence of major life events, such as becoming a parent, was also highlighted as a factor contributing to these changes in preferences.

Driebe’s team’s methodology involved recontacting participants from the Berlin Speed Dating Study conducted in 2006, analyzing their responses to understand changes in eight key dimensions of partner preference. Despite the inherent stability in preferences over time, the study identified nuanced shifts, especially an increased value placed on status, resources, and family orientation as individuals aged. Interestingly, the study also discovered discrepancies between participants’ perceptions of their changing preferences and the actual changes observed, particularly regarding status, resources, and intelligence. This discrepancy points to the complexity of self-awareness in how personal growth and life experiences shape partner selection criteria.

The implications of these findings are profound, shedding light on the dynamic interplay between personal development, life experiences, and mate selection. The study underscores the importance of considering how individual experiences and the passage of time mold our desires in romantic partners, suggesting a fluidity in mate preferences that reflects broader personal evolution. Despite limitations, such as the reliance on a specific sample group and the unexplored influence of cultural factors, this research opens new avenues for understanding how and why our criteria for a romantic partner may change as we navigate through life’s milestones. It highlights the importance of acknowledging personal growth and life events in the study of mate selection, suggesting that as individuals evolve, so too do their preferences for a partner, with some changes more perceptible to the individual than others.

3. The Role of Humor in Romantic Attraction

A recent study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin has illuminated the significant role humor plays in romantic attraction, suggesting that a good sense of humor is not just a desirable trait but is perceived as an indicator of a partner’s creative problem-solving abilities. This research, spearheaded by Erika Langley, a PhD candidate in social psychology at Arizona State University, and her colleague Michelle Shiota, an associate professor, aimed to dissect the underlying reasons why humor is so universally valued in romantic partners. Through a series of six comprehensive studies involving various scenarios—from first-date impressions to long-term relationship dynamics—the researchers discovered that individuals with a keen sense of humor are more appealing as potential partners due to the association of humor with creativity, intelligence, and social competence.

The initial studies focused on participants’ reactions to hypothetical first-date scenarios, revealing that humor significantly influenced the perception of a partner’s creative ingenuity, irrespective of the participant’s gender. This suggests that both men and women value humor for similar reasons, associating it with a partner’s ability to navigate complex situations with inventive solutions. Interestingly, the effect of humor on the perception of creative problem-solving skills was consistent across different relationship contexts, whether the participants were considering a potential partner for a short-term fling or a long-term commitment. Furthermore, humor was valued not only for the immediate joy it brings to interactions but also for the implied cognitive abilities it suggests in a partner, especially in the context of overcoming life’s challenges together.

The latter studies extended these findings, exploring how humor portrayed in online dating profiles and video dating scenarios influences perceptions of potential partners. Profiles and responses infused with humor were not only seen as more creative but also more socially competent, enhancing the individual’s attractiveness for initiating romantic relationships. This comprehensive investigation into the role of humor in romantic attraction underscores its significance beyond mere entertainment, highlighting humor as a key indicator of desirable traits such as creativity and social adeptness.

4. Understanding Love Through the Brain’s Reward System

A study published in Behavioral Sciences by Adam Bode and Phillip S. Kavanagh has unveiled a compelling link between the brain’s reward system and the intensity of romantic love. By crafting a new scale, the Behavioral Activation System Sensitivity to a Loved One (BAS-SLO) Scale, researchers have illuminated how the Behavioral Activation System (BAS)—a mechanism in our brain that drives us towards rewards and motivates our actions—is intricately tied to the depth of romantic feelings we experience. This finding enriches our biological understanding of love, suggesting that the strength of romantic emotions is partially influenced by the same internal system that propels us towards goals and rewards.

The first part of the study involved developing and validating the BAS-SLO Scale with over 1,500 young adults who identified as being in love. This new tool, adapted from the existing Behavioral Activation System Scale, aimed to measure the BAS’s response specifically in romantic contexts. Participants answered questions about their reactions and feelings towards their partners, alongside completing the Passionate Love Scale—30, a measure assessing the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of romantic love. The results indicated that the new scale was reliable and valid for measuring the role of BAS in romantic love, showing that the brain’s reward responsiveness, drive, and fun-seeking behaviors in relation to a partner were closely linked to romantic love intensity.

In the second phase, with a subset of participants, the study further explored how the BAS-SLO scores correlated with the intensity of romantic love, finding that higher sensitivity in the Behavioral Activation System towards a romantic partner was significantly associated with stronger feelings of love. This correlation accounted for almost 9% of the variance in the intensity of romantic feelings, underscoring the substantial role of the BAS in shaping romantic love. Despite some limitations, such as the need for replication in different samples and controlling for the normal functioning of BAS, this research marks a significant step forward in understanding the biological underpinnings of romantic love, opening new avenues for exploring the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral mechanisms that fuel our love lives.

5. Positive Communication’s Impact on Romantic Outcomes

A new study published in Sexual and Relationship Therapy offers insightful findings on the dynamics of positive communication within romantic relationships and its impact on sexual and relationship satisfaction. Conducted by Christine E. Leistner and her team from the Department of Public Health and Health Services Administration at California State University, Chico, the research utilized data from 246 couples to explore how expressions of affection, compliments, and fondness contribute to the satisfaction and desire among partners. Utilizing both traditional statistical analysis and advanced machine learning techniques, the study revealed that positive communication, encompassing acts like showing affection and giving compliments, consistently leads to higher levels of satisfaction and desire in relationships for both individuals and their partners. Interestingly, the study also found nuanced differences in how various forms of positive communication, such as fondness and compliments, uniquely influence sexual satisfaction and desire.

The research highlighted that the impact of positive communication on relationship and sexual satisfaction is complex, with certain combinations of communication types producing different effects based on factors like age and the balance of compliments and affection. For example, while fondness and compliments were identified as strong predictors of sexual satisfaction, the interaction between high levels of compliments and affection showed a surprising nonlinear relationship with sexual satisfaction. In some cases, an abundance of both compliments and affection predicted an increase in sexual satisfaction, whereas, for others, it led to a decrease. Furthermore, the study uncovered age-related differences in how perceived affection from a partner influenced sexual desire, indicating that younger individuals might experience higher sexual desire with less perceived affection, in contrast to older individuals who showed an increase in desire with more affection.

These findings underscore the importance of positive communication in enhancing the quality of romantic relationships, while also pointing to the intricate ways in which such communication interacts with individual and relationship factors. The study’s use of machine learning to reveal nonlinear interactions offers a nuanced understanding of the relationship between communication practices and satisfaction outcomes, suggesting that the effects of positive communication are not universally linear or positive for all couples.

6. Romantic Love’s Evolutionary Roots

In a thought-provoking article published in Frontiers in Psychology , researcher Adam Bode introduces a new theory suggesting that the phenomenon of romantic love may have evolved from the neurobiological and endocrinological mechanisms initially developed for mother-infant bonding. This theory challenges the traditional view, proposed by Helen Fisher, that categorizes sex drive, romantic attraction, and attachment as three distinct emotional systems evolved independently. Bode’s theory posits that romantic love and mother-infant bonding share significant psychological, neurological, and hormonal similarities, indicating that romantic love might be an adaptation of the bonding process between mothers and their infants.

The evidence supporting this theory includes observed behaviors and emotional patterns common to both mother-infant bonding and romantic love, such as intense emotional connections, a desire for physical closeness, and exclusive attention to the loved one. Brain imaging studies have also shown overlapping activity in regions associated with love and bonding, including areas rich in oxytocin and vasopressin receptors, which are crucial for social and emotional behaviors. Furthermore, the presence of high levels of oxytocin in individuals in the early stages of romantic relationships mirrors the hormonal patterns observed in new mothers, reinforcing the idea that these types of love share common biological pathways.

Bode’s theory suggests a fundamental shift in how we understand romantic love, framing it as an evolutionarily repurposed mechanism that builds on the foundation of maternal-infant attachment. This perspective not only deepens our comprehension of human emotional and social bonds but also underscores the intricate ways in which evolutionary processes have shaped our experiences of love and attachment. As this theory continues to be explored and tested through future research, it holds the potential to offer new insights into the evolution of human relationships and the universal nature of love.

7. Goal Coordination and Life Satisfaction in Couples

A study published in the International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology explored the dynamics of how romantic couples in Hungary support each other in achieving personal goals and how this support influences their life satisfaction. The research, led by Orsolya Rosta-Filep and colleagues, focused on the concept of goal coordination, which involves partners aligning their efforts and resources to help each other reach their personal objectives. Through the analysis of 215 heterosexual couples, the study found that those who effectively coordinated on their personal goals not only made more progress in attaining these goals but also experienced higher levels of life satisfaction. This suggests that when couples work together towards their individual ambitions, they not only become better partners but also enjoy a more satisfying life together.

The methodology of the study involved participants evaluating their personal projects and the level of coordination with their partners at the beginning of the study and then assessing their progress and life satisfaction a year later. The findings indicated a clear link between successful goal attainment and increased life satisfaction, highlighting the importance of communication, cooperation, and emotional support in this process. However, the study also noted that goal coordination alone did not directly lead to life satisfaction; the key was the effectiveness of these coordinated efforts. If couples felt supported by their partners and saw tangible results from their joint efforts, this led to long-term life satisfaction, underscoring the value of not just supporting each other’s goals but doing so in a way that yields actual progress.

The research provides valuable evidence on the significance of couples supporting each other’s personal goals and the positive impact this can have on their relationship and overall happiness. The findings advocate for couples to not only coordinate their efforts around each other’s goals but also to ensure these efforts are effective, enhancing both individual and shared life satisfaction.

8. Sexual Activity, Health, and Longevity in Hypertensive Patients

A recent study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine has found that regular sexual activity may lead to improved health outcomes and longer life spans for middle-aged individuals diagnosed with hypertension (high blood pressure). This research, which analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States between 2005 and 2014, involved over 4,500 participants. It revealed that hypertensive patients engaging in more frequent sexual activities tend to have a significantly lower risk of dying from any cause compared to those with less sexual activity.

The significance of this study lies in its exploration of the link between sexual frequency and survival rates in people with hypertension, a condition known for its severe complications and absence of symptoms, making it a silent threat to public health. Researchers discovered that participants who reported having sexual intercourse 12-51 times a year, or more than 51 times a year, demonstrated a notably lower risk of all-cause mortality than those who had sexual activity less than 12 times a year. This association persisted even after adjusting for factors like age, gender, education level, body mass index, smoking status, and existing medical conditions, highlighting a potentially protective effect of sexual activity on overall health in hypertensive patients.

9. Humor’s Vital Role in Sustaining Romantic Connections

A study published in Psychological Science by Kenneth Tan and colleagues from Singapore Management University reveals the significant role of humor in strengthening and maintaining romantic relationships. This research, which involved 108 couples from a large university in Singapore, utilized a daily-diary method to collect 1,227 daily assessments over seven consecutive days. Participants reported their daily experiences of humor within their relationships, as well as their levels of relationship satisfaction, commitment, and perceived partner commitment. The findings suggest that humor acts as a powerful tool for signaling and maintaining interest in a romantic partner, with individuals reporting greater humor engagement on days when they felt more satisfied and committed to their relationships.

The study supports the “interest-indicator model” of humor, proposing that humor is not merely a trait that attracts individuals to each other during the early stages of a relationship but continues to play a crucial role in expressing and reinforcing commitment and satisfaction within established relationships. The researchers found that positive relationship quality was associated with increased humor production and perception, indicating that couples use humor to enhance their relationship quality and signal ongoing interest. Interestingly, the study did not find significant gender differences in the use of humor, challenging the stereotype that men use humor more frequently to attract mates.

These insights highlight the importance of humor in romantic relationships, suggesting that engaging in humorous interactions can contribute to a more satisfying and committed relationship. The research opens up new avenues for exploring the impact of humor in various relationship contexts, including work and parent-child relationships, and how humor might influence perceptions of a partner’s other positive traits, such as creativity, intelligence, and warmth.

10. The Influence of Self-Transcendence Values on Relationship Satisfaction

A study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by Reine C. van der Wal and colleagues delves into how personal values, specifically self-transcendence values such as equality, kindness, and compassion, influence the quality of romantic relationships. Through four studies involving over a thousand participants, the researchers explored the connection between these values and relationship satisfaction. They discovered that individuals who prioritize self-transcendence values tend to report higher relationship satisfaction. Interestingly, the presence of these values in one partner did not significantly affect the other partner’s sense of relationship quality, suggesting that these values enhance satisfaction mainly for the individuals who hold them.

This research builds on Schwartz’s Value Theory, which categorizes human values into dimensions like self-enhancement versus self-transcendence and openness to change versus conservation. The study specifically found that self-transcendence values, which focus on caring for and accepting others, are positively associated with the quality of romantic relationships. In contrast, values related to self-enhancement, such as seeking power or personal success, were linked to lower relationship quality. The findings underscore the importance of altruistic values in fostering a healthy and satisfying romantic partnership, highlighting how personal values play a crucial role in relationship dynamics.

Overall, the study provides valuable evidence that prioritizing self-transcendence values within romantic relationships can contribute to greater satisfaction and underscores the potential impact of personal values on the health and longevity of these relationships.

These studies, each shining a light on different facets of romantic relationships, collectively contribute to a deeper understanding of the psychology of love. By exploring the myriad factors that influence our connections with romantic partners, science offers valuable insights into the art of maintaining healthy, fulfilling relationships.

Symbiosexuality: New study validates attraction to established couples as a real phenomenon

New research sheds light on symbiosexuality, a phenomenon where individuals are attracted to the dynamics within the established relationships of others. This surprising and often overlooked form of attraction challenges traditional views on human desire.

Insecure attachment to fathers linked to increased mental health issues and alcohol use

Adolescents with insecure attachment to their fathers are more likely to develop internalizing and externalizing mental health symptoms, which can lead to increased alcohol use. Attachment to mothers did not show a similar association with these outcomes.

How a woman dresses affects how other women view her male friendships, study suggests

Women who prefer male friends are often seen by other women as less trustworthy and more promiscuous, but dressing in a masculine way can reduce these perceptions, making them appear less of a romantic threat.

Women experience men’s orgasm as a femininity achievement, new study suggests

New research reveals that women often view a male partner's orgasm as a validation of their femininity, while the absence of it can feel like a failure, especially for those sensitive to traditional gender roles

Neuroscience uncovers unique brain bond between romantic partners

How do our brains react differently in love versus friendship? New research explores the neural dynamics that might explain the deeper emotional connection between romantic partners, offering fresh insights into the science of relationships.

Fear of being single, romantic disillusionment, dating anxiety: Untangling the psychological connections

A study found that fear of being single is associated with higher dating anxiety, while those seeking romantic relationships through online dating reported lower romantic disillusionment.

Study reveals evolving sexual attitudes in China, influenced by age, urban-rural divide, and political status

New research shows that while Chinese attitudes toward premarital sex and homosexuality have liberalized over time, views on extramarital sex remain conservative, with age, urbanization, and political status influencing these attitudes.

Women fail to spot heightened infidelity risk in benevolently sexist men, study finds

A new study shows both hostile and benevolent sexism in men are significant predictors of infidelity, with women often underestimating the infidelity risk posed by benevolently sexist men, mistaking their attitudes for commitment and protectiveness.

STAY CONNECTED

Mothers adhering to healthy dietary patterns at lower risk of having children with autism, gut health tied to psychological resilience: new research reveals gut-brain stress connection, new research shows dogs can smell your stress — and it affects their behavior, “intersectional hallucinations”: the ai flaw that could lead to dangerous misinformation, new psychology research links parental well-being to feeling valued, study finds little evidence linking violent video games to increased aggression in adolescents, surprisingly strong link found between political party affiliation and sleep quality.

• Privacy policy
• Terms and Conditions

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Remember Me

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Add New Playlist

- Select Visibility - Public Private

• Cognitive Science Research
• Mental Health Research
• Social Psychology Research
• Drug Research
• Relationship Research
• About PsyPost
• Privacy Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Love: The Quadruple Theory

Scholars across an array of disciplines including social psychologists have been trying to explain the meaning of love for over a century but its polysemous nature has made it difficult to fully understand. In this paper, a quadruple framework of attraction, resonance or connection, trust, and respect are proposed to explain the meaning of love. The framework is used to explain how love grows and dies and to describe brand love, romantic love, and parental love. The synergistic relationship between the factors and how their variations modulate the intensity or levels of love are discussed.

Introduction

Scholars across an array of disciplines have tried to define the meaning and nature of love with some success but questions remain. Indeed, it has been described as a propensity to think, feel, and behave positively toward another ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ). However, the application of this approach has been unsuccessful in all forms of love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Some social psychologists have tried to define love using psychometric techniques. Robert Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love and Clyde and Susan Hendrick’s Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) are notable attempts to employ the psychometric approach ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ; Sternberg, 1986 ). However, data analysis from the administration of the LAS, Sternberg’s scale and the Passionate Love Scale by Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) found a poor association with all forms of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989 ). Other studies have found a poor correlation between these and other love scales with different types of love ( Whitley, 1993 ; Sternberg, 1997 ; Masuda, 2003 ; Graham and Christiansen, 2009 ).

In recent years, the neuropsychological approach to study the nature of love has gained prominence. Research has compared the brain activity of people who were deeply in love while viewing a picture of their partner and friends of the same age using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and concluded that there is a specialized network of the brain involved in love ( Bartels and Zeki, 2000 ). Indeed, several lines of investigation using fMRI have described a specialized area of the brain mediating maternal love ( Noriuchi et al., 2008 ; Noriuchi and Kikuchi, 2013 ) and, fMRI studies have implicated multiple brain systems particularly the reward system in romantic love ( Aron et al., 2005 ; Fisher et al., 2005 , 2010 ; Beauregard et al., 2009 ). Brain regions including ventral tegmental area, anterior insula, ventral striatum, and supplementary motor area have been demonstrated to mediate social and material reward anticipation ( Gu et al., 2019 ). Although brain imaging provides a unique insight into the nature of love, making sense of the psychological significance or inference of fMRI data is problematic ( Cacioppo et al., 2003 ).

Also, there has been growing interests in the neurobiology of love. Indeed, evidence suggests possible roles for oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, cortisol, morphinergic system, and nerve growth factor in love and attachment ( Esch and Stefano, 2005 ; De Boer et al., 2012 ; Seshadri, 2016 ; Feldman, 2017 ). However, in many cases, definite proof is still lacking and the few imaging studies on love are limited by selection bias on the duration of a love affair, gender and cultural differences ( De Boer et al., 2012 ).

So, while advances have been made in unraveling the meaning of love, questions remain and a framework that can be employed to understand love in all its forms remains to be developed or proposed. The objective of this article is to propose a novel framework that can be applied to all forms of love.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development (The AAC Model)

In the past few decades, the psychological literature has defined and described different forms of love and from these descriptions, the role of attraction, attachment-commitment, and caregiving (AAC), appears to be consistent in all forms of love.

Attraction theory is one of the first approaches to explain the phenomenon of love and several studies and scholarly works have described the importance of attraction in different forms of love ( Byrne and Griffitt, 1973 ; Berscheid and Hatfield, 1978 ; Fisher et al., 2006 ; Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Grant-Jacob, 2016 ). Attraction has been described as an evolutionary adaptation of humans for mating, reproduction, and parenting ( Fisher et al., 2002a , 2006 ).

The role of attachment in love has also been extensively investigated. Attachment bonds have been described as a critical feature of mammals including parent-infant, pair-bonds, conspecifics, and peers ( Feldman, 2017 ). Indeed, neural networks including the interaction of oxytocin and dopamine in the striatum have been implicated in attachment bonds ( Feldman, 2017 ). The key features of attachment include proximity maintenance, safety and security, and separation distress ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Multiple lines of research have proposed that humans possess an innate behavioral system of attachment that is essential in love ( Harlow, 1958 ; Bowlby, 1977 , 1988 , 1989 ; Ainsworth, 1985 ; Hazan and Shaver, 1987 ; Bretherton, 1992 ; Carter, 1998 ; Burkett and Young, 2012 ). Attachment is essential to commitment and satisfaction in a relationship ( Péloquin et al., 2013 ) and commitment leads to greater intimacy ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

Also, several lines of evidence have described the role of caregiving in love. It has been proposed that humans possess an inborn caregiving system that complements their attachment system ( Bowlby, 1973 ; Ainsworth, 1985 ). Indeed, several studies have used caregiving scale and compassionate love scale, to describe the role of caring, concern, tenderness, supporting, helping, and understanding the other(s), in love and relationships ( Kunce and Shaver, 1994 ; Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ). Mutual communally responsive relationships in which partners attend to one another’s needs and welfare with the expectation that the other will return the favor when their own needs arise ( Clark and Mills, 1979 ; Clark and Monin, 2006 ), have been described as key in all types of relationships including friendship, family, and romantic and compassionate love ( Berscheid, 2010 ).

Attachment and caregiving reinforce each other in relationships. Evidence suggests that sustained caregiving is frequently accompanied by the growth of familiarity between the caregiver and the receiver ( Bowlby, 1989 , p. 115) strengthening attachment ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Several studies have proposed that attachment has a positive influence on caregiving behavior in love and relationships ( Carnelley et al., 1996 ; Collins and Feeney, 2000 ; Feeney and Collins, 2001 ; Mikulincer, 2006 ; Canterberry and Gillath, 2012 ; Péloquin et al., 2013 ).

The AAC model can be seen across the literature on love. Robert Sternberg triangular theory of love which proposes that love has three components —intimacy, passion, and commitment ( Sternberg, 1986 ), essentially applies the AAC model. Passion, a key factor in his theory, is associated with attraction ( Berscheid and Hatfield, 1978 ), and many passionate behaviors including increased energy, focused attention, intrusive thinking, obsessive following, possessive mate guarding, goal-oriented behaviors and motivation to win and keep a preferred mating partner ( Fisher et al., 2002b , 2006 ; Fisher, 2005 ). Also, evidence indicates that attachment is central to intimacy, another pillar of the triangular theory ( Morris, 1982 ; Feeney and Noller, 1990 ; Oleson, 1996 ; Grabill and Kent, 2000 ). Commitment, the last pillar of the triangular theory, is based on interdependence and social exchange theories ( Stanley et al., 2010 ), which is connected to mutual caregiving and secure attachment.

Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) , Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) which measures six types of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986 ) is at its core based on the AAC model. Similarly, numerous works on love ( Rubin, 1970 ; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986 ; Fehr, 1994 ; Grote and Frieze, 1994 ), have applied one or all of the factors in the ACC model. Berscheid (2010) , proposed four candidates for a temporal model of love including companionate love, romantic love, and compassionate love and adult attachment love. As described, these different types of love (romantic, companionate, compassionate, and attachment) all apply at least one or all of the factors in the AAC model.

New Theory (The Quadruple Framework)

The AAC model can be fully captured by four fundamental factors; attraction, connection or resonance, trust, and respect, providing a novel framework that could explain love in all its forms. Table 1 shows the core factors of love, and the four factors derived from them.

Factors of love.

Evidence suggests that both attachment and attraction play a role in obsession or passion observed in love ( Fisher et al., 2005 ; Honari and Saremi, 2015 ). Attraction is influenced by the value or appeal perceived from a relationship and this affects commitment ( Rusbult, 1980 ).

Connection or Resonance

Connection is key to commitment, caregiving, and intimacy. It creates a sense of oneness in relationships and it is strengthened by proximity, familiarity, similarity, and positive shared experiences ( Sullivan et al., 2011 ; Beckes et al., 2013 ). Homogeneity or similarity has been observed to increase social capital and engagement among people ( Costa and Kahn, 2003a , b ), and it has been described as foundational to human relationships ( Tobore, 2018 , pp. 6–13). Research indicates that similarity plays a key role in attachment and companionship as people are more likely to form long-lasting and successful relationships with those who are more similar to themselves ( Burgess and Wallin, 1954 ; Byrne, 1971 ; Berscheid and Reis, 1998 ; Lutz-Zois et al., 2006 ). Proximity plays a key role in caregiving as people are more likely to show compassion to those they are familiar with or those closest to them ( Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ). Similarity and proximity contribute to feelings of familiarity ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Also, caregiving and empathy are positively related to emotional interdependence ( Hatfield et al., 1994 ).

Trust is crucial for love ( Esch and Stefano, 2005 ) and it plays an important role in relationship intimacy and caregiving ( Rempel and Holmes, 1985 ; Wilson et al., 1998 ; Salazar, 2015 ), as well as attachment ( Rodriguez et al., 2015 ; Bidmon, 2017 ). Familiarity is a sine qua non for trust ( Luhmann, 1979 ), and trust is key to relationship satisfaction ( Simpson, 2007 ; Fitzpatrick and Lafontaine, 2017 ).

Respect is cross-cultural and universal ( Frei and Shaver, 2002 ; Hendrick et al., 2010 ) and has been described as fundamental in love ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ). It plays a cardinal role in interpersonal relations at all levels ( Hendrick et al., 2010 ). Indeed, it is essential in relationship commitment and satisfaction ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006 ) and relationship intimacy and attachment ( Alper, 2004 ; Hendrick et al., 2011 ).

Synergetic Interactions of the Four Factors

Connection and attraction.

Similarity, proximity, and familiarity are all important in connection because they promote attachment and a sense of oneness in a relationship ( Sullivan et al., 2011 ; Beckes et al., 2013 ). Research indicates that proximity ( Batool and Malik, 2010 ) and familiarity positively influence attraction ( Norton et al., 2015 ) and several lines of evidence suggests that people are attracted to those similar to themselves ( Sykes et al., 1976 ; Wetzel and Insko, 1982 ; Montoya et al., 2008 ; Batool and Malik, 2010 ; Collisson and Howell, 2014 ). Also, attraction mediates similarity and familiarity ( Moreland and Zajonc, 1982 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Respect and Trust

Evidence suggests that respect promotes trust ( Ali et al., 2012 ).

Connection, Respect, Trust, and Attraction

Trust affects attraction ( Singh et al., 2015 ). Trust and respect can mediate attitude similarity and promote attraction ( Singh et al., 2016 ).

So, although these factors can operate independently, evidence suggests that the weakening of one factor could negatively affect the others and the status of love. Similarly, the strengthening of one factor positively modulates the others and the status of love.

Relationships are dynamic and change as events and conditions in the environment change ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Love is associated with causal conditions that respond to these changes favorably or negatively ( Berscheid, 2010 ). In other words, as conditions change, and these factors become present, love is achieved and if they die, it fades. Figure 1 below explains how love grows and dies. Point C in the figure explains the variations in the intensity or levels of love and this variation is influenced by the strength of each factor. The stronger the presence of all factors, the higher the intensity and the lower, the weaker the intensity of love. The concept of non-love is similar to the “non-love” described in Sternberg’s triangular theory of love in which all components of love are absent ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

Description: (A) Presence of love (all factors are present). (B) Absence of love (state of non-love or state where all factors are latent or dormant). (C) Different levels of love due to variations in the four factors. (D) Movement from non-love toward love (developmental stage: at least one but not all four factors are present). (E) Movement away from love toward non-love (decline stage: at least one or more of the four factors are absent).

Application of the Quadruple Framework on Romantic, Brand and Parental Love

Romantic, parental and brand love have been chosen to demonstrate the role of these factors and their interactions in love because there is significant existing literature on them. However, they can be applied to understand love in all its forms.

Romantic Love

Attraction and romantic love.

Attraction involves both physical and personality traits ( Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Karandashev and Fata, 2014 ). To this end, attraction could be subdivided into sexual or material and non-sexual or non-material attraction. Sexual or material attraction includes physical attributes such as beauty, aesthetics, appeal, wealth, etc. In contrast, non-sexual or non-material attraction includes characteristics such as personality, social status, power, humor, intelligence, character, confidence, temperament, honesty, good quality, kindness, integrity, etc. Both types of attraction are not mutually exclusive.

Romantic love has been described as a advanced form of human attraction system ( Fisher et al., 2005 ) and it fits with the passion component of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love which he described as the quickest to recruit ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Indeed, research indicates that physical attractiveness and sensual feelings are essential in romantic love and dating ( Brislin and Lewis, 1968 ; Regan and Berscheid, 1999 ; Luo and Zhang, 2009 ; Braxton-Davis, 2010 ; Ha et al., 2010 ; Guéguen and Lamy, 2012 ) and sexual attraction often provides the motivational spark that kickstarts a romantic relationship ( Gillath et al., 2008 ). Behavioral data suggest that love and sex drive follow complementary pathways in the brain ( Seshadri, 2016 ). Indeed, the neuroendocrine system for sexual attraction and attachment appears to work synergistically motivating individuals to both prefer a specific mating partner and to form an attachment to that partner ( Seshadri, 2016 ). Sex promotes the activity of hormones involved in love including arginine vasopressin in the ventral pallidum, oxytocin in the nucleus accumbens and stimulates dopamine release which consequently motivates preference for a partner and strengthens attachment or pair-bonding ( Seshadri, 2016 ).

Also, romantic love is associated with non-material attraction. Research indicates that many people are attracted to their romantic partner because of personality traits like generosity, kindness, warmth, humor, helpfulness, openness to new ideas ( Giles, 2015 , pp. 168–169). Findings from a research study on preferences in human mate selection indicate that personality traits such as kindness/considerate and understanding, exciting, and intelligent are strongly preferred in a potential mate ( Buss and Barnes, 1986 ). Indeed, character and physical attractiveness have been found to contribute jointly and significantly to romantic attraction ( McKelvie and Matthews, 1976 ).

Attraction is key to commitment in a romantic relationship ( Rusbult, 1980 ), indicating that without attraction a romantic relationship could lose its luster. Also, romantic attraction is weakened or declines as the reason for its presence declines or deteriorates. If attraction is sexual or due to material characteristics, then aging or any accident that compromises physical beauty would result in its decline ( Braxton-Davis, 2010 ). Loss of fortune or social status could also weaken attraction and increase tension in a relationship. Indeed, tensions about money increase marital conflicts ( Papp et al., 2009 ; Dew and Dakin, 2011 ) and predicted subsequent divorce ( Amato and Rogers, 1997 ).

Connection and Romantic Love

Connection or resonance fits with the intimacy, and commitment components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Connection in romantic love involves intimacy, friendship or companionship and caregiving and it is strengthened by novelty, proximity, communication, positive shared experiences, familiarity, and similarity. It is what creates a sense of oneness between romantic partners and it is expressed in the form of proximity seeking and maintenance, concern, and compassion ( Neto, 2012 ). Evidence suggests that deeper levels of emotional involvement or attachment increase commitment and cognitive interdependence or tendency to think about the relationship in a pluralistic manner, as reflected in the use of plural pronouns to describe oneself, romantic partner and relationship ( Agnew et al., 1998 ).

Research indicates that both sexual attraction and friendship are necessary for romantic love ( Meyers and Berscheid, 1997 ; Gillath et al., 2008 ; Berscheid, 2010 ), indicating that connection which is essential for companionship plays a key role in romantic love. A study on college students by Hendrick and Hendrick (1993) found that a significant number of the students described their romantic partner as their closest friend ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1993 ), reinforcing the importance of friendship or companionship in romantic love.

Similarity along the lines of values, goals, religion, nationality, career, culture, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language, etc. is essential in liking and friendship in romantic love ( Berscheid and Reis, 1998 ). Research indicates that a partner who shared similar values and interests were more likely to experience stronger love ( Jin et al., 2017 ). Indeed, the more satisfied individuals were with their friendships the more similar they perceived their friends to be to themselves ( Morry, 2005 ). Also, similarity influences perceptions of familiarity ( Moreland and Zajonc, 1982 ), and familiarity plays a role in the formation of attachment and connectedness because it signals safety and security ( Bowlby, 1977 ). Moreover, similarity and familiarity affect caregiving. Sprecher and Fehr (2005) , found compassion or caregiving were lower for strangers, and greatest for dating and marital relationships, indicating that similarity and familiarity enhance intimacy and positively influences caregiving ( Sprecher and Fehr, 2005 ).

Proximity through increased exposure is known to promote liking ( Saegert et al., 1973 ), familiarity and emotional connectedness ( Sternberg, 1986 ; Berscheid, 2010 ). Exposure through fun times and direct and frequent communication is essential to maintaining and strengthening attachment and connectedness ( Sternberg and Grajek, 1984 ). In Sternberg’s triangular theory, effective communication is described as essential and affects the intimacy component of a relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ). Indeed, intimacy grows from a combination of mutual self-disclosure and interactions mediated by positive partner responsiveness ( Laurenceau et al., 1998 , 2005 ; Manne et al., 2004 ), indicating that positive feedback and fun times together strengthens connection.

Also, sexual activity is an important component of the reward system that reinforces emotional attachment ( Seshadri, 2016 ), indicating that sexual activity may increase emotional connectedness and intimacy. Over time in most relationships, predictability grows, and sexual satisfaction becomes readily available. This weakens the erotic and emotional experience associated with romantic love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). Research shows that a reduction in novelty due to the monotony of being with the same person for a long period is the reason for this decline in sexual attraction ( Freud and Rieff, 1997 , p. 57; Sprecher et al., 2006 , p. 467). According to Sternberg (1986) , the worst enemy of the intimacy component of love is stagnation. He explained that too much predictability can erode the level of intimacy in a close relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ). So, novelty is essential to maintaining sexual attraction and strengthening connection in romantic love.

Jealousy and separation distress which are key features of romantic love ( Fisher et al., 2002b ), are actions to maintain and protect the emotional union and are expressions of a strong connection. Research has found a significant correlation between anxiety and love ( Hatfield et al., 1989 ) and a positive link between romantic love and jealousy in stable relationships ( Mathes and Severa, 1981 ; Aune and Comstock, 1991 ; Attridge, 2013 ; Gomillion et al., 2014 ). Indeed, individuals who feel strong romantic love tend to be more jealous or sensitive to threats to their relationship ( Orosz et al., 2015 ).

Connection in romantic love is weakened by distance, a dearth of communication, unsatisfactory sexual activity, divergences or dissimilarity of values and interests, monotony and too much predictability.

Trust and Romantic Love

Trust is the belief that a partner is, and will remain, reliable or dependable ( Cook, 2003 ). Trust in romantic love fits with the intimacy, and commitment components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love which includes being able to count on the loved one in times of need, mutual understanding with the loved one, sharing of one’s self and one’s possessions with the loved one and maintaining the relationship ( Sternberg, 1986 ).

It has been proposed that love activates specific regions in the reward system which results in a reduction in emotional judgment and fear ( Seshadri, 2016 ). This reduced fear or trust has been identified as one of the most important characteristics of a romantic relationship and essential to fidelity, commitment, monogamy, emotional vulnerability, and intimacy ( Laborde et al., 2014 ). Indeed, trust can deepen intimacy, increase commitment and increase mutual monogamy, and make a person lower their guards in the belief that they are safe from harm ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ; Bauman and Berman, 2005 ). People with high trust in romantic relationships tend to expect that their partner will act in their interest causing them to prioritize relationship dependence over making themselves invulnerable from harm or self-protection ( Luchies et al., 2013 ). In contrast, people with low trust in their partner tend to be unsure about whether their partner will act in their interests and prioritize insulating themselves from harm over relationship dependence ( Luchies et al., 2013 ).

Trust takes time to grow into a romantic relationship. Indeed, people in a relationship come to trust their partners when they see that their partner’s action and behavior moves the relationship forward or acts in the interest of the relationship and not themself ( Wieselquist et al., 1999 ). Research indicates that trust is associated with mutual self-disclosure ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ), and positive partner responsiveness which are both essential to the experience of friendship and intimacy in romantic relationships ( Larzelere and Huston, 1980 ; Reis and Shaver, 1988 ; Laurenceau et al., 1998 ).

Also, trust influences caregiving and compassion. Evidence suggests that compassion is positively related to trust ( Salazar, 2015 ). Mutual communal responsiveness or caregiving in relationships in which partners attend to one another’s needs and welfare is done because they are confident that the other will do the same when or if their own needs arise ( Clark and Monin, 2006 ). Repeated acts of communal responsiveness given with no expectation of payback provide a partner with a sense of security and trust and increase the likelihood that they will be communally responsive if or when the need arises ( Clark and Monin, 2006 ), and contributes to a sense of love in romantic relationships ( Berscheid, 2010 ).

Loss or weakening of trust could spell the end of romantic love. Indeed, mistrust corrupts intimacy and often indicates that a relationship has ended or near its end ( LaFollette and Graham, 1986 ) and it makes mutual monogamy, and commitment difficult to achieve in a romantic relationship ( Towner et al., 2015 ). A study on individuals who had fallen out of romantic love with their spouse found that loss of trust and intimacy was part of the reason for the dissolution of love ( Sailor, 2013 ).

Respect and Romantic Love

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that respect is expected in both friendships and romantic relationships ( Gaines, 1994 , 1996 ). In romantic love, it entails consideration, admiration, high regard, and value for the loved one as a part of one’s life ( Sternberg and Grajek, 1984 ; Hendrick et al., 2011 ).

Gottman (1999) , found that the basis for a stable and satisfactory marital relationship is friendship filled with fondness and admiration ( Gottman, 1999 ). Respect is considered one of the most important things married couples want from their partner ( Gottman, 1994 ). Grote and Frieze (1994) , found that respect correlates with companionate or friendship love ( Grote and Frieze, 1994 ), indicating that respect is essential to intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Also, respect is positively correlated with passion, altruism, self-disclosure, and relationship overall satisfaction ( Frei and Shaver, 2002 ; Hendrick and Hendrick, 2006 ). It is associated with the tendency to overlook a partner’s negative behavior or respond with pro-relationship actions or compassion to their shortcomings ( Rusbult et al., 1998 ; Gottman, 1999 ).

Absence or a lack of respect could spell the end of romantic love. Research indicates that there is an expectation of mutual respect in friendship and most relationships and people reacted negatively when this expectation is violated ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ), indicating that a lack of respect could negatively affect commitment and attraction. Indeed, denial of respect is an important negative behavior in friendships and most relationships ( Gaines, 1994 , 1996 ) and a lack of respect is a violation of what it means to love one ‘s partner in a close romantic relationship ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ). Gottman (1993 , 1994) identified contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling as four of the relationally destructive behavior and he labeled them as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

Romantic love summary

Romantic love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. All four must be present in love. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause romantic love to gradually decline and unless effort is made to replenish it, it will eventually fade or collapse. Romantic love is dynamic and requires significant investment from both partners to keep it alive.

Parental Love

Attraction and parental love.

Attraction plays an essential role in parental love and it could be material or non-material. Material attraction involves the child’s health, gender, accomplishments or success, and attractiveness. In contrast, non-material attraction includes traits such as intelligence, character, and other personality traits.

Evidence suggests that culture influences gender preference with attraction greater for sons in most cases ( Cronk, 1993 ). Indeed, mothers and fathers have been found to favor the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious child ( Lauricella, 2009 ). Also, parental perception that investment in a child will cost more than the benefits to be gained from taking care of the child might influence negative behavior toward the child. Indeed, multiple lines of evidence suggest that parental unemployment increases the rates of child maltreatment and abuse ( Steinberg et al., 1981 ; Lindo et al., 2013 ). Research indicates that teen mothers who have poor social support reported greater unhappiness, were at greater risk for child abuse and often employed the use of physical punishment toward their child ( Haskett et al., 1994 ; de Paúl and Domenech, 2000 ).

Also, several studies have suggested that parents tended to favor healthy children ( Mann, 1992 ; Barratt et al., 1996 ; Hagen, 1999 ). However, when resources are plentiful, parents tend to invest equally in less healthy or high-risk children ( Beaulieu and Bugental, 2008 ), because they have abundant resources to go around without compromising the reproductive value of healthy children ( Lauricella, 2009 ).

Connection and Parental Love

Connection creates a sense of oneness between parent and child and involves caregiving, intimacy, and attachment. It is influenced by proximity, positive and unique shared experiences, and similarity along virtually every dimension between parent and child.

Proximity, and similarity increases attachment and intimacy between parent and child. Research shows that parents are perceived as favoring genetically related children ( Salmon et al., 2012 ), and evidence suggests that paternal resemblance predicted paternal favoritism ( Lauricella, 2009 ). Parental proximity and similarity to a biological child are unique because it is based on genes and blood. In contrast, intimacy between a parent and an adopted child is based solely on shared experiences and proximity and takes time to grow and on many occasions may not develop ( Hooks, 1990 ; Hughes, 1999 ).

Dissimilarities or discrepancy in values, attitudes, etc., can create problems between children and parents and can have a profound effect on their relationship. Indeed, evidence suggests that the rebel child tended to be less close to the parents ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). Research has found that adolescents who are less religious than their parents tend to experience lower-quality relationships with their parents which results in higher rates of both internalizing and externalizing symptoms ( Kim-Spoon et al., 2012 ). When parents and family members were very religious, and a child comes out as an atheist, relationship quality could suffer in the form of rejection, anger, despair, or an inability to relate to one another ( Zimmerman et al., 2015 ). A study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youngsters, for patterns of disclosure of sexual orientation to families, found that those who had disclosed reported verbal and physical abuse by parents and family members ( D’Augelli et al., 1998 ). Honor killing of female children which have been reported in Pakistan and some parts of the Middle East because of deviation from traditional gender roles or crossing of social boundaries that are deemed as taboo in their culture ( Lindsey and Sarah, 2010 ), is another example of the negative effects of the discrepancy in values between parents and child.

Unique shared experiences between parent and child could increase connection. Bank (1988) observed that the development of favoritism seems to require that the “child’s conception or birth be unusual or stressful,” ( Bank, 1988 ). Evidence suggests that parents most favored child tended to be last-born child and this is linked to their unique position, vulnerability and neediness ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). Also, proximity, positive experiences and time spent together increases connection and intimacy. Research indicates that parents tend to give more love and support to the grown child they were historically closest to and got along with ( Siennick, 2013 ). A study of primiparous women found that mothers with greater contact with their infants were more reluctant to leave them with someone else, and engaged more intimately with their child ( Klaus et al., 1972 ).

Divorce could create distance between a parent and child, weakening connection and intimacy. Indeed, one of the outcomes of divorce is the lessening of contact between divorced non-custodial fathers and their children ( Appleby and Palkovitz, 2007 ), and this can reduce intimacy ( Guttmann and Rosenberg, 2003 ).

Also, parental separation distress, worry, and concern for their child’s welfare, academic performance, and future are expressions of connection and a lack thereof is a sign of poor connection. Indeed, the levels of concern and worry expressed between children and their parents influenced their perceptions of the relationship quality ( Hay et al., 2007 ).

Trust and Parental Love

Trust is essential to parental attachment, intimacy, and caregiving. When there is mistrust, attachment and intimacy between a parent and their child are disrupted or unable to blossom. In Africa and many parts of the world, there have been reports of children being condemned and abandoned by their parents simply because they are tagged as witches with mysterious evil powers ( Tedam, 2014 ; Bartholomew, 2015 ; Briggs and Whittaker, 2018 ). The tag of “witchcraft” stirs up fear and anger, causing the child to be perceived as a deadly threat which inevitably damages attachment, intimacy and eliminates the need for caregiving.

Research has found that firstborn children were most likely to be chosen as those to whom mothers would turn when facing personal problems or crises ( Suitor and Pillemer, 2007 ). This tendency may be linked to trust. Moreover, evidence suggests that the rebel child tended to be less close to the parents ( Rohde et al., 2003 ). In other words, the more obedient, and reliable child is likely to gain the confidence and intimacy of the parents. In contrast, the disobedient and unreliable child is excluded or kept at a distance. Also, trust and poor connection could influence inheritance and disinheritance decisions. Indeed, estrangement, alienation and disaffection of a parent toward a child could result in disinheritance ( Batts, 1990 ; Brashier, 1994 , 1996 ; Foster, 2001 ; Arroyo et al., 2016 ).

Respect and Parental Love

Respect in parental love entails treating the child with consideration and regard. This consideration and regard for the child are essential to intimacy, caregiving and attachment. Indeed, respect is foundational to a harmonious relationship between parent and child ( Dixon et al., 2008 ). Evidence suggests that humans possess an innate behavioral system that leads them to form an attachment to a familiar person who provides care, comfort, and protection ( Harlow, 1958 ; Bowlby, 1989 ). Repeated acts of caregiving contribute to a sense of love in all types of relationships ( Berscheid, 2010 ), reinforcing the role of parental caregiving in fostering intimacy and attachment with the child.

Taking care of an infant’s needs, and making sure they are safe and well, all fall under consideration and regard for the child. Child abuse and neglect ( Tedam, 2014 ; Bartholomew, 2015 ; Briggs and Whittaker, 2018 ), is a display of a lack of consideration for the child’s need.

Also, respect in parental love involves admiration. Research has found that fathers treated more ambitious/industrious sons with high regard, and both parents favored the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious daughters ( Lauricella, 2009 ) indicating that a child that engages in activities or behavior that is highly regarded by their parents may gain favor with their parents, strengthening intimacy and vice versa.

Parental love summary

Parental love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause parental love to gradually decline. In many cases, the behavior and actions of a child significantly influence parental love.

Brand love has been defined as the level of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied or happy consumer has for a brand and evidence suggests it is very similar to interpersonal love ( Russo et al., 2011 ).

Attraction and Brand Love

Attraction plays an essential role in brand love. Material attraction for a brand includes attributes like superior design, quality, and aesthetics, price, benefits, etc. Non-material attraction involves social status symbol, brand personality, uniqueness, distinctiveness, user experience, image, etc. evidence suggests that when talking about loved brands, people often talk passionately about the brand’s many attractive qualities such as its exceptional performance, good-looking design, value for money, and other positive attributes ( Fournier, 1998 ; Whang et al., 2004 ; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006 ; Batra et al., 2012 ). Research on brand love has found that brand attractive attributes such as prestige or uniqueness influence brand passion which affects relevant factors such as purchase intention ( Bauer et al., 2007 ).

Also, brand attraction influences brand loyalty, and commitment. Indeed, research indicates that brand benefits influences brand loyalty or commitment ( Huang et al., 2016 ). Brand personality (image, distinctiveness, and self-expressive value) is strongly associated with brand identification and loyalty ( Kim et al., 2001 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Connection and Brand Love

Connection is essential to brand love. It involves brand attachment, commitment, and intimacy and it is strengthened by brand identification, image, familiarity or awareness, proximity, length or frequency of usage and similarity or congruences along virtually every dimension including values, lifestyle, goals, etc. between brand and customer. Brand awareness which means brand familiarity has been described as essential for people to identify with a brand ( Pascual and Académico, 2015 ), and it indirectly affects current purchases ( Esch et al., 2006 ).

Also, brand identification promotes a sense of oneness between a brand and a customer strengthening commitment and it is driven by brand self-similarity, brand prestige and brand distinctiveness ( Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2008 ). Indeed, brand identification contributes to the development of brand love and brand loyalty ( Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016 ) and brand image and identification influence loyalty and positive word of mouth ( Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006 ; Batra et al., 2012 ; Anggraeni and Rachmanita, 2015 ). Brand identity, values and lifestyle similarities to those of the customer appear to have a strong and significant relationship with brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ; Rauschnabel and Ahuvia, 2014 ; Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ). Findings from research suggest that customer-to-customer similarity and sense of community drive consumer brand identification, loyalty, and engagement ( Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010 ; Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ).

Moreover, proximity and interaction play a role in brand love. Indeed, the duration of the relationship between a customer and a brand is essential in brand love ( Albert et al., 2007 ). Fournier (1998) , discussed interdependence which involved frequent brand interactions as necessary for a strong brand relationship ( Fournier, 1998 ). Similarly, Batra et al. (2012) found that having a long-term relationship, positive emotional connection and frequent interactions with a brand was an important aspect of brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ). Indeed, shared experiences and history between a person and a brand can increase their emotional attachment, make the brand to become an important part of the person’s identity narrative and increases their loyalty to the brand ( Thomson et al., 2005 ; Pedeliento et al., 2016 ).

Just like romantic love, concern and worry and proximity seeking, or maintenance are an expression of emotional connectedness to the brand. Indeed, anticipated separation distress has been described as a core element of brand love ( Batra et al., 2012 ), and consumers are likely to feel strong desires to maintain proximity with their loved objects, even feeling “separation distress” when they are distanced from them ( Thomson et al., 2005 ; Park et al., 2010 ).

Also, novelty through continued innovation is vital to maintaining and strengthening both attraction and connection. According to the Harvard business review, the relationship between brand and consumer go through “ruts” and to “keep the spark” alive, innovation and news are essential ( Halloran, 2014 ). Research indicates that innovation plays a role in brand equity and it impacts brand identification or resonance ( Sinha, 2017 ).

Lack of brand familiarity or awareness, poor or negative user experience, a dearth of innovation and increased dissimilarities in values and lifestyles between brand and consumer can all weaken brand connection.

Trust and Brand Love

Trust is essential to brand attachment, intimacy, and commitment. It involves confidence and reliability, or dependability of the brand and it is influenced by brand image, familiarity, values, user experience, and quality. Indeed, brand trust directly influences brand love ( Turgut and Gultekin, 2015 ; Meisenzahl, 2017 ) and a strong relationship exists between brand love and brand trust and identification ( Albert and Merunka, 2013 ). Evidence suggests that brand familiarity influences brand trust ( Ha and Perks, 2005 ) and brand trust and experience, positively influence brand attachment ( Erciş et al., 2012 ; Chinomona, 2013 ; Chinomona and Maziriri, 2017 ).

Also, brand trust affects brand purchase, loyalty, and commitment. Evidence suggests that a strong relationship exists between brand love and brand trust, brand commitment, positive word of mouth, and willingness to pay a higher price for the brand ( Albert and Merunka, 2013 ). Research indicates that brand trust positively affects brand loyalty ( Setyawan and Kussudiyarsana, 2015 ), directly influences brand purchase intentions ( Yasin and Shamim, 2013 ) and positively influences current and future purchases ( Erciş et al., 2012 ). Indeed, more than any other factor, brand trust has been identified as essential for future purchases of a brand ( Esch et al., 2006 ). It is essential in determining purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty and it plays a role in brand market share ( Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001 ). Brand trust affects both affective and continuance commitment and affective commitment influences repurchase intention and loyalty ( Erciş et al., 2012 ).

Brand quality is essential to brand trust and love. Indeed, Fournier (1998) , discussed the role of brand quality in brand love and highlighted the role of trust in relationship satisfaction and strength ( Fournier, 1998 ). Also, brand trust has been found to positively affect resistance to negative information and repurchase intention ( Turgut and Gultekin, 2015 ).

Brand trust is weakened by poor user experience, brand quality, brand image, and a lack of brand familiarity.

Respect and Brand Love

Brand respect is essential in brand love and plays an important role in brand attachment, intimacy, and commitment. It is influenced by brand identification, values, image, experience, and quality. Brand respect is displayed by the customer in the form of high regard, admiration for the brand, brand loyalty and consideration or tolerance of negative information. Indeed, brand familiarity positively affects brand respect ( Zhou, 2017 ), indicating that brand familiarity increases regard for a brand. Evidence suggests that brand image positively influences brand respect and love ( Cho, 2011 ), indicating that brand image modulates a customer’s regard and admiration for a brand.

Brand respect influences brand commitment and loyalty. Indeed, a strong relationship has been found between brand respect and brand loyalty ( Cho, 2011 ) and brand admiration results in greater brand loyalty, stronger brand advocacy, and higher brand equity ( Park et al., 2016 ). Brand respect affects the behavioral outcomes of brand love such as affective commitment, and willingness to pay a price premium ( Garg et al., 2016 ; Park et al., 2016 ).

Also, evidence suggests that customers’ admiration or high regard for a brand contributes to why they tend to ignore negative information about the brand ( Elbedweihy et al., 2016 ). Fournier (1998) , included respect as one of the components of brand partner quality. This means that respect is one of the factors that reflects the consumer’s evaluation of the brand’s performance ( Fournier, 1998 ).

A lack of respect could negatively influence the relationship between a brand and a customer. Indeed, people react negatively when the expectation of respect is violated ( Hendrick et al., 2011 ) and a violation of expectation between brand and customer has been found to contribute to brand hate ( Zarantonello et al., 2016 ).

Brand love summary

Brand love involves the interactions and synergistic interplay between respect, connection, trust, and attraction. Any event that results in the loss of any of these factors could cause brand love to gradually decline and unless effort is made to replenish it, it will eventually fade or collapse. Brand love is dynamic and requires significant investment from the brand to keep it alive.

Strengths and Advances Made by the Quadruple Theory

The quadruple theory builds on many of the strengths of previous theories of love and it applies a temporal approach that has been proposed as the best way to understand love ( Berscheid, 2010 ). It goes further than previous theories for several reasons. Firstly, it could potentially be applied to any form of love although, only brand, romantic and parental love were discussed in this paper due to the paucity of scholarly articles on other forms of love. One of the reasons current love scales and approaches have been unable to be applied in all forms of love ( Hendrick and Hendrick, 1989 ; Whitley, 1993 ; Sternberg, 1997 ; Masuda, 2003 ; Graham and Christiansen, 2009 ), is because they capture only a part of the ACC model, unlike the quadruple framework which fully captures it.

Unlike previous theories, the quadruple theory’s application of the complex factor of connection/resonance gives it an edge in furthering our understanding of love. Proximity, positive shared experience, familiarity, and similarity are vital to connection and connection has the most profound influence on all the other factors.

Also, the dynamism and variation of these factors provide a fresh way to understand love from its development to collapse. As Figure 1 shows, love tends to take time to mature in a relationship and can die as these factors rise and decline. Figure 1 shows that variations in the presence of these factors represent different levels of love. Love in any relationship is influenced by the events in the environment it is embedded, and it responds favorably or negatively to these changes. Indeed, people get sick, old, lose their finances, travel in search of greener pastures creating distance, develop new interests different from their partner’s and all these influences the presence and absence of love. One brand becomes more innovative, improves its product quality and users experience over another and people gradually love it more than the one they previously loved. In other words, love is very dynamic and may be divided into high, moderate and low. Another point highlighted in Figure 1 is that the absence of one factor represents the absence of love and only the presence of all factors represents the presence of love. Indeed, the decline of a factor can be replenished in response to changes in the environment causing the reestablishment of love. Trust could decline but attraction and respect remain and over time trust could be replenished.

This dynamic understanding of love implies that it can be nurtured and sustained. As an example, for a brand to be loved and to maintain that love, it must make products that are attractive (appealing). It must be able to connect to its target customers by reaching out through adverts to achieve familiarity and it must ensure that its values, goals, actions are consistently similar to those of its customer base. Also, it must ensure its services and products and actions promote and maintain trust with its customers. It must respect (value) its customer’s interests and ensure that its services and products continue to receive the admiration of its customers. Table 2 describes how brand love can be nurtured and preserved.

Brand love can be nurtured and maintained.

Using this framework, a love scale or algorithm could be developed to ascertain the presence or absence of love in any relationship. Such a scale must effectively capture these four factors and must consider the type of love being calculated in its approach. As an example, in trying to create a scale for romantic love, sexual attraction, and activity may be important for attraction and connection (depending on the age of the partners) but would be unnecessary in the calculation of brand or parental love.

Major Challenges for the Theory

One of the biggest challenges the theory faces is the lack of psychometric data to prove many of its claims. Most of its arguments are based on decades of psychological data, but its lack of psychometric data weakens the theory significantly. Also, the entire premise of the theory is based on the ACC model, which has not been validated as essential or foundational to understanding love. Perhaps, something else needs to be added to the model that the theory may have missed. The argument that the quadruple theory captures the ACC model better than previous theories on love is an argument that has not been validated, and it remains to be seen if this is true. Also, the argument that it can be applied to all forms of love apart from the three discussed remains to be tested and verified.

Gaps currently exist in our understanding of love and evidences from the existing literature show that a framework that can be applied to all forms of love is needed. The quadruple theory hopes to be that framework. It is likely to broaden our understanding of the complex nature of love. It could make love less complex by making it something that can be cultivated or nurtured, regulated and preserved. Future research should consider the modulatory roles of peptides, neurotransmitters, and hormones on these factors and their influence on love as well as the integrated parts of the brain that modulates all these factors and how they work synergistically in different stages of love.

It is important to note that love is universal and applies to people of all cultures, races, ethnicities, religion and sexual orientations. Indeed, romantic love as described by the quadruple theory applies equally to heterosexual relationships and to the relationships of people in the LGTBQ community.

In conclusion, culture has a monumental influence on what people feel, think, and how they behave toward other people and things in their environment ( Karandashev, 2015 ; Ching Hei and David, 2018 ). So, it can be considered a modulating factor on the factors discussed and on love.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• Agnew C. R., Van Lange P. A. M., Rusbult C. E., Langston C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 939–954. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainsworth M. D. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 61 792–812. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert N., Merunka D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 30 258–266. 10.1108/07363761311328928 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert N., Merunka D., Valette-Florence P. (2007). When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept and its dimensions. J. Bus. Res. 61 1062–1075. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali S. H. S., Mansur N., Abdullah Z. (2012). Analyzing the issue of respect and trust: determining the mediating role of religion. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 58 614–623. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2012.09.1039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alnawas I., Altarifi S. (2016). Exploring the role of brand identification and brand love in generating higher levels of brand loyalty. J. Vacat. Mark. 22 111–128. 10.1177/1356766715604663 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alper G. (2004). Voices from the unconscious. J. Loss Trauma 10 73–81. 10.1080/15325020490890660 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato P. R., Rogers S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. J. Marriage Fam. 59 612–624. 10.2307/353949 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anggraeni A., Rachmanita (2015). Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth; the case of local fashion brands among young consumers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 211 442–447. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2015.11.058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appleby D. W., Palkovitz R. (2007). Factors Influencing a Divorced Father’ s Involvement with His Children. Available online at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/ccfs_fac_pubs/7 (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Aron A., Fisher H., Mashek D. J., Strong G., Li H., Brown L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. J. Neurophysiol. 94 327–337. 10.1152/jn.00838.2004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arroyo E., Amayuelas I., Amorós E. F. (2016). Kinship bonds and emotional ties: lack of a family relationship as ground for disinheritance. Eur. Rev. Priv. Law 2 203–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Attridge M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness. SAGE Open 3 : 215824401347605 . 10.1177/2158244013476054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aune K. S., Comstock J. (1991). Experience and expression of jealousy: comparison between friends and romantics. Psychol. Rep. 69 315–319. 10.2466/pr0.1991.69.1.315 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bank S. P. (1988). Favoritism. J. Child. Contemp. Soc. 19 77–89. 10.1300/J274v19n03_05 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barratt M. S., Roach M. A., Leavitt L. A. (1996). The impact of low-risk prematurity on maternal behaviour and toddler outcomes. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 19 581–602. 10.1177/016502549601900308 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartels A., Zeki S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport 11 3829–3834. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartholomew L. (2015). Child abuse linked to beliefs in witchcraft. Trans. Soc. Rev. 5 193–198. 10.1080/21931674.2015.1028809 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batool S., Malik N. I. (2010). Role of attitude similarity and proximity in interpersonal attraction among friends. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 1 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Batra R., Ahuvia A., Bagozzi R. P. (2012). Brand love. J. Mark. 76 1–16. 10.1509/jm.09.0339 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batts D. A. (1990). I Didn’t ask to be born: the American law of disinheritance and a proposal for change to a sytem of protected inheritance recommended citation. Hastings L. J. 41 1197–1270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauer H. H., Heinrich D., Martin I. (2007). “ How to create high emotional consumer-brand relationships? The causalities of brand passion ,” in Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference 2007 , Dunedin, 2189–2198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauman L. J., Berman R. (2005). Adolescent relationships and condom use: trust, love and commitment. AIDS Behav. 9 211–222. 10.1007/s10461-005-3902-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaulieu D. A., Bugental D. (2008). Contingent parental investment: an evolutionary framework for understanding early interaction between mothers and children. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29 249–255. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauregard M., Courtemanche J., Paquette V., St-Pierre É. L. (2009). The neural basis of unconditional love. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimaging 172 93–98. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2008.11.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckes L., Coan J. A., Hasselmo K. (2013). Familiarity promotes the blurring of self and other in the neural representation of threat. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 8 670–677. 10.1093/scan/nss046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergkvist L., Bech-Larsen T. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love. J. Brand Manage. 17 504–518. 10.1057/bm.2010.6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61 1–25. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100318 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E., Hatfield E. (1978). Interpersonal Attraction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berscheid E. A., Reis H. T. (1998). “ Attraction and close relationships ,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology , 4th Edn, Vol. 2 eds Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T., Lindzey G. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; ), 193–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bidmon S. (2017). How does attachment style influence the brand attachment – brand trust and brand loyalty chain in adolescents? Int. J. Advert. 36 164–189. 10.1080/02650487.2016.1172404 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1973). “ Affectional bonds: their nature and origin ,” in Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation , ed. Weiss R. S. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; ), 38–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: aetiology and psychopathology in light of attachment theory. Br. J. Psychiatry 130 201–210. 10.1136/bmj.a3133 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1988). A SECURE BASE Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development A Member of the. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1989). The Making & Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brashier R. C. (1994). Disinheritance and the modern family. Case West. Reserve L. Rev. 83 : 121 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Brashier R. C. (1996). Protecting the child from disinheritance: Must Louisiana stand alone? Repository citation protecting the child from disinheritance: Must Louisiana Stand Alone? Louis. L. Rev. 57 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Braxton-Davis P. (2010). The social psychology of love and attraction. McNair Sch. J. 14 5–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretherton I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Dev. Psychol. 28 759–775. 10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Briggs S., Whittaker A. (2018). Protecting Children from Faith-Based Abuse through Accusations of Witchcraft and Spirit Possession: Understanding Contexts and Informing Practice. Br. J. Soc. Work 48 2157–2175. 10.1093/bjsw/bcx155 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brislin R. W., Lewis S. A. (1968). Dating and physical attractiveness: replication. Psychol. Rep. 22 976–976. 10.2466/pr0.1968.22.3.976 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burgess E. W., Wallin P. (1954). Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage , 1st Edn New York, NY: Lippincott. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burkett J. P., Young L. J. (2012). The behavioral, anatomical and pharmacological parallels between social attachment, love and addiction. Psychopharmacology 224 1–26. 10.1007/s00213-012-2794-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss D. M., Barnes M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 559–570. 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne D., Griffitt W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 24 317–336. 10.1146/annurev.ps.24.020173.001533 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacioppo J. T., Berntson G. G., Lorig T. S., Norris C. J., Rickett E., Nusbaum H. (2003). Just because you’re imaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using your head: a primer and set of first principles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 650–661. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.650 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canterberry M., Gillath O. (2012). Attachment and Caregiving Functions, Interactions, and Implications. Available online at: https://gillab.ku.edu/sites/gillab.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/canterberrygillathchp14.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnelley K. B., Pietromonaco P. R., Jaffe K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Pers. Relat. 3 257–278. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00116.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll B. A., Ahuvia A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark. Lett. 17 79–89. 10.2307/40216667 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23 779–818. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudhuri A., Holbrook M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65 81–93. 10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ching Hei K., David M. K. (2018). How love is perceived by malaysian malay children. Int. J. Linguist. Lit. Transl. 1 80–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinomona E., Maziriri E. (2017). The influence of brand trust, brand familiarity and brand experience on brand attachment: a case of consumers in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 9 69–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinomona R. (2013). The influence of brand experience on brand satisfaction, Trust And Attachment In South Africa. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 12 1303–1316. 10.19030/iber.v12i10.8138 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho E. (2011). Development of a Brand Image Scale and the Impact of Lovemarks on Brand Equity. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark M. S., Mills J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 12–24. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark M. S., Monin J. K. (2006). “ Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love ,” in The New Psychology of Love , eds Sternberg R. J., Weis K. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; ), 200–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins N. L., Feeney B. C. (2000). A safe haven: an attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78 1053–1073. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collisson B., Howell J. L. (2014). The liking-similarity effect: perceptions of similarity as a function of liking. J. Soc. Psychol. 154 384–400. 10.1080/00224545.2014.914882 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook K. S. (2003). Trust in Society. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa D. L., Kahn M. E. (2003a). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: an economist’s perspective. Perspect. Polit. 1 103–111. 10.1017/S1537592703000082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa D. L., Kahn M. E. (2003b). Understanding the American Decline in Social Capital, 1952-1998. Kyklos 56 17–46. 10.1111/1467-6435.00208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cronk L. (1993). Parental favoritism toward daughters. Am. Sci. 81 272–279. 10.2307/29774922 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Augelli A. R., Hershberger S. L., Pilkington N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 68 361–371. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Boer A., Van Buel E. M., Ter Horst G. J. (2012). Love is more than just a kiss: a neurobiological perspective on love and affection. Neuroscience 201 114–124. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.11.017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Paúl J., Domenech L. (2000). Childhood history of abuse and child abuse potential in adolescent mothers: a longitudinal study. Child Abuse Negl. 24 701–713. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dew J. P., Dakin J. (2011). Financial disagreements and marital conflict tactics. J. Financial Ther. 2 : 7 10.4148/jft.v2i1.1414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon S. V., Graber J. A., Brooks-Gunn J. (2008). The roles of respect for parental authority and parenting practices in parent-child conflict among African American, Latino, and European American families. J. Fam. Psychol. 22 1–10. 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbedweihy A. M., Jayawardhena C., Elsharnouby M. H., Elsharnouby T. H. (2016). Customer relationship building: the role of brand attractiveness and consumer–brand identification. J. Bus. Res. 69 2901–2910. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.059 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erciş A., Ünal S., Candan F. B., Yıldırım H. (2012). The effect of brand satisfaction, trust and brand commitment on loyalty and repurchase intentions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 58 1395–1404. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch F., Langner T., Schmitt B. H., Geus P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 15 98–105. 10.1108/10610420610658938 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch T., Stefano G. B. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Neuroendocrinol. Lett. 26 175–192. 10.2174/157340005774575037 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feeney B. C., Collins N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult Intimate relationships: an attachment theoretical perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80 972–994. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feeney J. A., Noller P. (1990). Attachment Style as a Predictor of Adult Romantic Relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58 281–291. 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.01.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fehr B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeople’s views of love. Pers. Relat. 1 309–331. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00068.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman R. (2017). The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21 80–99. 10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. (2005). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H., Aron A., Brown L. L. (2005). Romantic love: an fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. J. Comp. Neurol. 493 58–62. 10.1002/cne.20772 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Brown L. L. (2006). Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 361 2173–2186. 10.1098/rstb.2006.1938 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Mashek D., Li H., Strong G., Brown L. L. (2002a). The neural mechanisms of mate choice: a hypothesis. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 23 ( Suppl. 4 ), 92–97. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Aron A., Mashek D., Li H., Brown L. L. (2002b). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Arch. Sex. Behav. 31 413–419. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H. E., Brown L. L., Aron A., Strong G., Mashek D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. J. Neurophysiol. 104 51–60. 10.1152/jn.00784.2009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzpatrick J., Lafontaine M.-F. (2017). Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships: investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects. Pers. Relat. 24 640–662. 10.1111/pere.12203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster F. H. (2001). The family paradigm of inheritance law, 80 N.C. N. C. L. Rev. 80 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fournier S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 343–373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frei J. R., Shaver P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: prototype definition, self-report assessment, and initial correlates. Pers. Relat. 9 121–139. 10.1111/1475-6811.00008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S., Rieff P. (1997). Sexuality and the Psychology of Love. New York, NY: Collier Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaines S. O. (1994). Exchange of respect-denying behaviors among male-female friendships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 11 5–24. 10.1177/0265407594111001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaines S. O. (1996). Impact of interpersonal traits and gender-role compliance on interpersonal resource exchange among dating and engaged/married couples. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 13 241–261. 10.1177/0265407596132005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garg R., Mukherjee J., Biswas S., Kataria A. (2016). An investigation into the concept of brand love and its proximal and distal covariates. J. Relat. Mark. 15 135–153. 10.1080/15332667.2016.1209047 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giles J. (2015). Sexual attraction: the psychology of allure. Praeger 351 23–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillath O., Mikulincer M., Birnbaum G. E., Shaver P. R. (2008). When sex primes love: subliminal sexual priming motivates relationship goal pursuit. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 1057–1069. 10.1177/0146167208318141 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomillion S., Gabriel S., Murray S. L. (2014). A friend of yours is no friend of mine. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 5 636–643. 10.1177/1948550614524447 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. J. Fam. Psychol. 7 57–75. 10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. (1994). What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. M. (1999). The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically-Based Marital Therapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grabill C. M., Kent K. A. K. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Pers. Relat. 7 363–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham J. M., Christiansen K. (2009). The reliability of romantic love: a reliability generalization meta-analysis. Pers. Relat. 16 49–66. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01209.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant-Jacob J. A. (2016). Love at first sight. Front. Psychol. 7 : 1113 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grote N. K., Frieze I. H. (1994). The measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. Pers. Relat. 1 275–300. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00066.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gu R., Huang W., Camilleri J., Xu P., Wei P., Eickhoff S. B., et al. (2019). Love is analogous to money in human brain: COORDINATE-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses of social and monetary reward anticipation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 100 108–128. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.017 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guéguen N., Lamy L. (2012). Men’s social status and attractiveness. Swiss J. Psychol. 71 157–160. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000083 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttmann J., Rosenberg M. (2003). Emotional intimacy and children’s adjustment: a comparison between single-parent divorced and intact families. Educ. Psychol. 23 457–472. 10.1080/01443410303213 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha H.-Y., Perks H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. J. Consum. Behav. 4 438–452. 10.1002/cb.29 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha T., Overbeek G., Engels R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: an experimental study. Arch. Sex. Behav. 39 1063–1071. 10.1007/s10508-009-9561-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagen E. (1999). The functions of postpartum depression. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20 325–359. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halloran T. (2014). The Eight Phases of Brand Love. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2014/02/the-eight-phases-of-brand-love (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Harlow H. F. (1958). Classics in the History of Psychology. New York, NY: York University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haskett M. E., Johnson C. A., Miller J. W. (1994). Individual differences in risk of child abuse by adolescent mothers: assessment in the perinatal period. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 35 461–476. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Brinton C., Cornelius J. (1989). Passionate love and anxiety in young adolescents. Motiv. Emot. 13 271–289. 10.1007/BF00995539 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Cacioppo J. T., Rapson R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2 96–99. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatfield E., Sprecher S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. J. Adolesc. 9 383–410. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hay E. L., Fingerman K. L., Lefkowitz E. S. (2007). The experience of worry in parent–adult child relationships. Pers. Relat. 14 605–622. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00174.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazan C., Shaver P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52 511–524. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. (1986). A theory and method of love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 392–402. 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56 784–794. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick C., Hendrick S. S., Zacchilli T. L. (2011). Respect and love in romantic relationships. Actas Investig. Psicol. 1 316–329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C. (1993). Lovers as friends. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10 459–466. 10.1177/0265407593103011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 23 881–899. 10.1177/0265407506070471 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrick S. S., Hendrick C., Logue E. M. (2010). Respect and the family. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2 126–136. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00046.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Honari B., Saremi A. A. (2015). The study of relationship between attachment styles and obsessive love style. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 165 152–159. 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2014.12.617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooks P. J. (1990). The real mother-issues in adoption. Jefferson J. Psychiatry 8 : 8 10.29046/JJP.008.2.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang S.-M., Fang S.-R., Fang S.-C., Huang C.-C. (2016). The influences of brand benefits on brand loyalty: intermediate mechanisms. Aust. J. Manage. 41 141–160. 10.1177/0312896214553516 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes D. A. (1999). Adopting children with attachment problems. Child Welf. 78 541–560. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jin W., Xiang Y., Lei M. (2017). The deeper the love, the deeper the hate. Front. Psychol. 8 : 1940 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01940 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karandashev V. (2015). Unit 5 social psychology and culture subunit 4 interpersonal and intergroup relations article 2 6-1-2015 recommended citation Karandashev. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 5 10.9707/2307-0919.1135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karandashev V., Fata B. (2014). Change in physical attraction in early romantic relationships. Interpers. Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 8 257–267. 10.5964/ijpr.v8i2.167 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim C. K., Han D., Park S.-B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 43 195–206. 10.1111/1468-5884.00177 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim-Spoon J., Longo G. S., McCullough M. E. (2012). Adolescents who are less religious than their parents are at risk for externalizing and internalizing symptoms: the mediating role of parent-adolescent relationship quality. J. Fam. Psychol. 26 636–641. 10.1037/a0029176 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klaus M. H., Jerauld R., Kreger N. C., McAlpine W., Steffa M., Kennell J. H. (1972). Maternal attachment. N. Engl. J. Med. 286 460–463. 10.1056/NEJM197203022860904 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kunce L. J., Shaver P. R. (1994). “ An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships ,” in Advances in Personal Relationships, Attachment Processes in Adulthood , Vol. 5 eds Bartholomew, Perlman D. (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; ), 205–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laborde N. D., vanDommelen-Gonzalez E., Minnis A. M. (2014). Trust - that’s a big one: intimate partnership values among urban Latino youth. Cult. Health Sex. 16 1009–1022. 10.1080/13691058.2014.921837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LaFollette H., Graham G. (1986). Honesty and intimacy. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 3 3–18. 10.1177/0265407586031001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larzelere R. E., Huston T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 42 595–604. 10.2307/351903 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurenceau J.-P., Barrett L. F., Rovine M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: a daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. J. Fam. Psychol. 19 314–323. 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurenceau J.-P., Feldman Barrett L., Pietromonaco P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process& quot; the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 1238–1251. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lauricella A. M. (2009). Why do Mommy and Daddy Love You More? An Investigation of Parental Favoritism from an Evolutionary Perspective. Available online at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1250869200/inline (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindo J. M., Schaller J., Hansen B. (2013). Economic Downturns and Child Abuse. NBER Working Paper No. 18994 Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindsey D., Sarah B. (2010). Interpreting honor crimes: the institutional disregard towards female victims of family violence in the Middle East. Int. J. Criminol. Sociol. Theory 3 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Luchies L. B., Rusbult C. E., Kumashiro M., Eastwick P. W., Coolsen M. K., Finkel E. J. (2013). Trust and biased memory of transgressions in romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104 673–694. 10.1037/a0031054 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhmann N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo S., Zhang G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: similarity. Reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. J. Personal. 77 933–964. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lutz-Zois C. J., Bradley A. C., Mihalik J. L., Moorman-Eavers E. R. (2006). Perceived similarity and relationship success among dating couples: an idiographic approach. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 23 865–880. 10.1177/0265407506068267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann J. (1992). “ Nurturance or negligence: maternal psychology and behavioral preference among preterm twins ,” in The Adapted Mind , eds Barkow J., Cosmides L., Tooby J. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ), 367–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manne S., Ostroff J., Rini C., Fox K., Goldstein L., Grana G. (2004). The interpersonal process model of intimacy: the role of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and partner responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer patients and their partners. J. Fam. Psychol. 18 589–599. 10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.589 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masuda M. (2003). Meta-analyses of love scales: Do various love scales measure the same psychological constructs? Jpn. Psychol. Res. 45 25–37. 10.1111/1468-5884.00030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathes E. W., Severa N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychol. Rep. 49 23–31. 10.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKelvie S. J., Matthews S. J. (1976). Effects of physical attractiveness and favourableness of character on liking. Psychol. Rep. 38 1223–1230. 10.2466/pr0.1976.38.3c.1223 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meisenzahl J. (2017). Correlation of Brand Experience and Brand Love Using the Example of FlixBus. Master’s thesis, Seinajok University of Applied Sciences, Seinäjoki. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers S. A., Berscheid E. (1997). The language of love: the difference a preposition makes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23 347–362. 10.1177/0146167297234002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M. (2006). “ Attachment, caregiving, and sex within romantic relationships a behavioral systems perspective ,” in Dynamics of Romantic Love: Attachment, Caregiving, and Sex , eds Mikulincer M., Goodman G. S. (New York, NY: Guilford Publications; ), 23–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montoya R. M., Horton R. S., Kirchner J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 25 889–922. 10.1177/0265407508096700 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moreland R. L., Zajonc R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18 395–415. 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90062-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris D. (1982). “ Attachment and intimacy ,” in Intimacy , eds Fischer M., Stricter G. (Boston, MA: Springer; ), 305–323. 10.1007/978-1-4684-4160-4_19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morry M. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: a test of the attraction-similarity hypothesis. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22 561–584. 10.1177/0265407505054524 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neto F. (2012). Compassionate love for a romantic partner, love styles and subjective well-being. Interpers. Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 6 23–39. 10.5964/ijpr.v6i1.88 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noriuchi M., Kikuchi Y. (2013). [Neural basis of maternal behavior]. Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi 115 630–634. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noriuchi M., Kikuchi Y., Senoo A. (2008). The functional neuroanatomy of maternal love: mother’s response to infant’s attachment behaviors. Biol. Psychiatry 63 415–423. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.018 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norton M., Frost J., Ariely D., Reis H., Maniaci M., Caprariello P., et al. (2015). When does familiarity promote versus undermine interpersonal attraction? A proposed integrative model from erstwhile adversaries. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10 3–19. 10.1177/1745691614561682 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oleson M. D. (1996). Adolescents’ Recollection of Early Physical Contact: Implications for Attachment and Intimacy. Master’s thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orosz G., Szekeres Á., Kiss Z. G., Farkas P., Roland-Lévy C. (2015). Elevated romantic love and jealousy if relationship status is declared on Facebook. Front. Psychol. 6 : 214 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00214 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Papp L. M., Cummings E. M., Goeke-Morey M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer: money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Fam. Relat. 58 91–103. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. W., MacInnis D. J., Eisingerich A. B. (2016). Brand Admiration: Building a Business People Love , 1st Edn Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. W., Macinnis D. J., Priester J., Eisingerich A. B., Iacobucci D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 74 1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pascual C. O., Académico C. (2015). María del Rosario Zulaica López TRABAJO FIN DE GRADO Brand Awareness and Brand Love. Is the too-of-Mind the Most Loved On? An Application to Fashion Retailers. Available online at: https://biblioteca.unirioja.es/tfe_e/TFE001238.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedeliento G., Andreini D., Bergamaschi M., Salo J. (2016). Brand and product attachment in an industrial context: the effects on brand loyalty. Ind. Mark. Manage. 53 194–206. 10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2015.06.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Péloquin K., Brassard A., Delisle G., Bédard M.-M. (2013). Integrating the attachment, caregiving, and sexual systems into the understanding of sexual satisfaction. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 45 185–195. 10.1037/a0033514 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rauschnabel P. A., Ahuvia A. C. (2014). You’re so lovable: anthropomorphism and brand love. J. Brand Manage. 21 372–395. 10.1057/bm.2014.14 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regan P. C., Berscheid E. (1999). Lust: What we Know about Human Sexual Desire. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781452233727 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis H. T., Shaver P. (1988). “ Intimacy as an interpersonal process ,” in Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions , eds Duck S., Hay D. F., Hobfoll S. E., Ickes W., Montgomery B. M. (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; ), 367–389. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rempel J. K., Holmes J. G. (1985). Trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49 95–112. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez L. M., DiBello A. M., Øverup C. S., Neighbors C. (2015). The price of distrust: trust, anxious attachment, jealousy, and partner abuse. Partner Abuse 6 298–319. 10.1891/1946-6560.6.3.298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rohde P. A., Atzwanger K., Butovskaya M., Lampert A., Mysterud I., Sanchez-Andres A., et al. (2003). Perceived parental favoritism, closeness to kin, and the rebel of the family The effects of birth order and sex. Evol. Hum. Behav. 24 261–276. 10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00033-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16 265–273. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the investment model. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 16 172–186. 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C. E., Bissonnette V. L., Arriaga X. B., Cox C. L., Weiss R. L. (1998). “ Accommodation processes during the early years of marriage ,” in The Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction , ed. Bradbury T. N. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 74–113. 10.1017/CBO9780511527814.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russo B., Boess S., Hekkert P. (2011). ‘What’s love got to do with it?’ the experience of love in person-product relationships. Des. J. 14 8–27. 10.2752/175630610X12877385838687 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saegert S., Swap W., Zajonc R. B. (1973). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25 234–242. 10.1037/h0033965 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sailor J. L. (2013). A phenomenological study of falling out of romantic love. Qual. Rep. 18 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salazar L. R. (2015). Exploring the relationship between compassion, closeness, trust, and social support in same-sex friendships. J. Happiness Well Being 3 15–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmon C. A., Shackelford T. K., Michalski R. L. (2012). Birth order, sex of child, and perceptions of parental favoritism. 52 357–362. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.033 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seshadri K. G. (2016). The neuroendocrinology of love. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 20 558–563. 10.4103/2230-8210.183479 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Setyawan A. A., Kussudiyarsana I. (2015). Brand trust and brand loyalty, an empirical study in indonesia consumers. Br. J. Mark. Stud. 4 37–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siennick S. E. (2013). Still the Favorite? Parents’ differential treatment of siblings entering young adulthood. J. Marriage Fam. 75 981–994. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson J. A. (2007). Foundations of Interpersonal Trust: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh R., Goh A., Sankaran K., Bhullar N. (2016). Similarity and liking effects on interpersonal attraction: test of the two-dimensional trust-respect model. Psychologia 59 1–18. 10.2117/psysoc.2016.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh R., Wegener D. T., Sankaran K., Singh S., Lin P. K. F., Seow M. X., et al. (2015). On the importance of trust in interpersonal attraction from attitude similarity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 32 829–850. 10.1177/0265407515576993 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinha A. K. (2017). Impact of product innovation in building brand equity on consumer’s choice with a focus on brand resonance. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 8 482–487. 10.18178/ijimt.2017.8.6.775 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprecher S., Christopher F. S., Cate R. (2006). “ Sexuality in close relationships ,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , eds Vangelisti A. L., Perlman D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 463–482. 10.1017/CBO9780511606632.026 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprecher S., Fehr B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22 629–651. 10.1177/0265407505056439 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley S. M., Rhoades G. K., Whitton S. W. (2010). Commitment: functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2 243–257. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L. D., Catalano R., Dooley D. (1981). Economic antecedents of child abuse and neglect. Child Dev. 52 975–985. 10.2307/1129102 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 93 119–135. 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27 313–335. 10.1007/s10936-019-09661-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Grajek S. (1984). The nature of love. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47 312–329. 10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stokburger-Sauer N., Ratneshwar S., Sen S., Howard B. K., Chair W. B. (2008). Drivers of consumer-brand identification. Int. J. Res. Mark. 35 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Suitor J. J., Pillemer K. (2007). Mothers’ favoritism in later life. Res. Aging 29 32–55. 10.1177/0164027506291750 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan R., Perry R., Sloan A., Kleinhaus K., Burtchen N. (2011). Infant bonding and attachment to the caregiver: insights from basic and clinical science. Clin. Perinatol. 38 643–655. 10.1016/j.clp.2011.08.011 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sykes R. E., Larntz K., Fox J. C. (1976). Proximity and similarity effects on frequency of interaction in a class of naval recruits. Sociometry 39 263 10.2307/2786519 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tedam P. (2014). Witchcraft branding and the abuse of African children in the UK: causes, effects and professional intervention. Early Child Dev. Care 184 1403–1414. 10.1080/03004430.2014.901015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomson M., MacInnis D. J., Whan Park C. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 15 77–91. 10.1207/S15327663JCP1501_10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobore T. (2018). On the Principles of Social Gravity: How Human Systems Work, from the Family to the United Nations. Delaware, DE: Vernon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Towner S. L., Dolcini M. M., Harper G. W. (2015). Romantic relationship dynamics of urban african american adolescents: patterns of monogamy, commitment, and trust. Youth Soc. 47 343–373. 10.1177/0044118X12462591 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turgut M. U., Gultekin B. (2015). The critical role of brand love in clothing brands. J. Bus. Econ. Finance 4 : 126 10.17261/Pressacademia.201519963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wetzel C. G., Insko C. A. (1982). The similarity-attraction relationship: Is there an ideal one? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18 253–276. 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90053-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whang Y.-O., Allen J., Sahoury N., Zhang H. (2004). “ Falling in love with a product: the structure of a romantic consumer-product relationship ,” in Advances in Consumer Research , eds Kahn B. E., Luce M. F. (Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research; ), 320–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitley B. E. (1993). Reliability and aspects of the construct validity of sternberg’s triangular love scale. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10 475–480. 10.1177/0265407593103013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wieselquist J., Rusbult C. E., Foster C. A., Agnew C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77 942–966. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson S., Morse J. M., Penrod J. (1998). Developing reciprocal trust in the caregiving relationship. Qual. Health Res. 8 446–465. 10.1177/104973239800800402 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yasin M., Shamim A. (2013). Brand love: mediating role in purchase intentions and word-of-mouth. IOSR J. Bus. Manage. 7 101–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarantonello L., Romani S., Grappi S., Bagozzi R. P. (2016). Brand hate. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 25 11–25. 10.1108/JPBM-01-2015-0799 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou L. (2017). The Aquila Digital Community How Visual Communication Strategies, Brand Familiarity, And Personal Relevance Influence Instagram Users’ Responses To Brand Content. Graphic Communications Commons. Available online at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertationshttps://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1435 (accessed February 22, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman K. J., Smith J. M., Simonson K., Myers B. W. (2015). Familial relationship outcomes of coming out as an atheist. Secular. Nonrelig. 4 1–13. 10.5334/snr.aw [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The psychology of Love, Relationships, Attraction & Romance

Cara Crasto  |  December 19, 2020 September 25, 2020  |  Disclaimer: Links to some products earn us a commission

Home » Affect & Emotion » The psychology of Love, Relationships, Attraction & Romance

Relationships play a crucial role in our lives. Some could be rather short-term and insignificant, like interactions with a shop-keeper or a receptionist, while some could be long-lasting and impactful. ‘Birds of a feather flock together,’ it’s true! Your friends, romantic partners, and family contribute to the person you are. This article will explore the psychology of relationships, attractions, and love – the variety of relationships we develop, who we fall in love with, what we find attractive in partners, the types of love and affection, how relationships form, and, most importantly, how we maintain these relationships. 

1. Belongingness: Do you feel connected?

2. proximity: how close are you to someone, 3. observable characteristics: what do you see in others, 4. similarity: how alike are you, 5. reciprocity: is there a mutual give-and-take, sources of liking based on social interaction, how does personality affect relationships, a theory of romantic relationships and love, what do we seek in a relationship and what is attractive.

• Parent-child relationship
• Holistic familial relationships

Friendships and Wellbeing

How are relationships maintained, 5 foundations of love, friendship, and attraction.

Humans are social animals and they seek to have long-term, stable, and strong interpersonal connections. We strive to belong.  Research [1]  suggests that belongingness strongly affects a person’s emotional patterns and cognitive processes. On the other hand, a lack of such relationships results in ill effects on health, adjustment, and well-being. A recent  study [2]  showed that relocated individuals were less likely to feel homesick when the community accepted them. This creates a healthy opportunity for new relationships.

Do you think that if you didn’t live beside your neighbor for the past so many years, you still would’ve been friends? Or perhaps if your best friend weren’t seated next to you in class, you never would’ve met and begun a friendship? The more often people are exposed to a specific person, thing, or even idea, the more likely they are to develop favorable attitudes towards it/them. Familiarity creates liking, usually. Zajonc called this the  mere exposure [3]  effect. An  experiment [4]  highlighted this by having four women of similar appearance attend classes as students in a college without interacting with students. At the end of the term, students found the women to be similar and attractive. 

We’ve all heard the phrase ‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’; however, facial cues often guide your first impressions of a person. A person’s looks affect many important social outcomes like decisions about relationships – selecting romantic partners, hiring decisions, and even small-talk. The ‘what is beautiful is good’ effect ( the beauty stereotype ) has an evolutionary basis, where attractive people are assumed to have upward economic mobility, positive personality traits, and the ability to provide more relationship satisfaction.  Research [5]  shows that physically attractive people can positively influence hiring decisions and influence judgments in serious criminal allegations. 

Implicit egotism implies that humans have a subliminal preference for things they associate with themselves.  Studies [6]  show that people who share common opinions or have similar attitudes, especially political or religious  ideologies [7] , are more likely to have a satisfying relationship. But haven’t we always said that opposites attract?  Research [8]  suggests that people in satisfying interpersonal relationships view their partners as similar to them. Implicit egotism implies that humans have a subliminal preference for things they associate with themselves.

Reciprocity [9]  – a give and take attitude – is also closely related to interpersonal attractiveness. It is typically effective in most types of relationships. People desire reciprocal respect and love. But there is another angle to reciprocity. In a  study [10] , reciprocity in rating physical attractiveness depended on the other’s rating. So you might find someone more attractive simply because you know they like you. This reciprocity may seed a yet-to-form relationship just by knowing what a potential partner thinks about you. Go ahead and tell others you like them.

Some people have better social skills, which help them effectively communicate and socialize. Those skills usually get others to accept them more freely. Like that one extrovert friend who can talk to anyone, say the right things, and ends up being liked by everybody. Some valuable  social skills [11]  (with a political – social dynamics – approach) are:  

• Social Astuteness (social perception) – It is the ability of a person to perceive and understand others from their personality traits to their feelings and intentions. Socially astute people are good at forming strong, positive interpersonal relationships. 
• Interpersonal Influence – This refers to a person’s capacity to change another person’s beliefs or ideas through techniques like persuasion.
• Social Adaptability – As the term suggests, it refers to a person’s ability to adapt to various social situations and effectively interact with others. 
• Expressiveness – It is the ability to express emotion in a way that others can read easily.

A common first-date tactic is to get your partner confused/mixed-up between thrilling arousal and liking/sexual attraction . People do this by taking dates to gigs, horror movies, adventure sports, etc. Here, people may think the source of arousal is attraction when, in fact, it is an activity like watching a horror movie. This is called the misattribution of arousal [12] . Social interactions that involve non-sexual arousing emotions like fear, thrill, horror, adrenaline rush, and anxiety can facilitate a sense of liking or sexual arousal.

The OCEAN Model of Personality includes five personality traits of which extraversion (a tendency to be outgoing, energetic, and sociable) and agreeableness (a tendency to be trustworthy and altruistic) are related to high  relationship satisfaction and intimacy. [13]  Conscientiousness, the tendency to be organized and efficient, is related to greater intimacy. People with  narcissism [14] , the personality trait wherein people have an inflated view of themselves, reported less commitment to their relationships because of alternatives for dating partners. 

A study [15]  that examined  resilients  (can control motivation, impulses, and adjust to the environment),  undercontrollers  (low impulse & motivation control, poor adjustment), and  overcontrollers  (high impulse & motivation control, poor adjustment) saw that resilient adolescents had good quality friendships and romantic relationships. The core themes for interpersonal chemistry are reciprocal candor (honest openness), mutual enjoyment, attraction, similarities, personableness (positive impression, affable), love, instant connection, and indescribable factors. Similarities are, typically, more characteristic of friendships than romantic chemistry. 

Although a love triangle is a problem, in reality, it is a solution to understand love.

Sternberg’s Triangular Model of Love: Robert  Sternberg’s [16]  triangular theory of love says that love has three components – intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. Intimacy refers to the degree of closeness between two individuals and the bond formed. Passion is based on sexuality, physical attraction, and romance Commitment is the set of thought processes like deciding to be in a relationship with the person & pondering over the implications of a long-term relationship. Of the three, passion appears less stable and not guaranteed, while intimacy and commitment are somewhat necessary to form a close relationship. In this triangular theory, combinations of the three elements allow for seven different types of relationships. 

• Liking – Liking includes only one element of the three – intimacy that allows for a friendship without any passion or long-term commitment.
• Companionate Love – It includes a combination of intimacy and commitment. It is a close, long-term friendship that typifies a healthy marriage where the passion has faded.
• Empty Love – This includes only commitment, and as it says, it is empty, with no intimacy or passion.
• Fatuous Love – Commitment is formed based on passion without any intimacy, a somewhat shallow relationship.
• Infatuation – This is passionate and obsessive and resembles love at first sight and is pure passion.
• Romantic Love – Here, individuals are physically and emotionally attracted to each other but haven’t committed to the relationship. 
• Consummate Love – A combination of all three elements. It is the ideal perfect love that is difficult to attain and maintain. 

There is another perspective on love – it is a product of an ’emotion complex’, neurobiological abstraction of lust, and experience. You can check it out here .

We can’t exactly generalize our relationship needs, physical and psychological preferences, and tendencies under one paradigm, so let us explore what individual studies have found.

• Trustworthiness and cooperativeness are, expectedly, extremely important in  mate selection [18] . 
• Sexual economics theory [19]  says that heterosexual sex is a marketplace deal in which the woman is the seller, and the man is the buyer. The price is paid in nonsexual resources. Women compete on sex appeal and promise faithfulness. They intend to get a man who will provide resources. Men, on the other hand, compete to amass said resources to get a sexual partner. Agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness can also help a relationship initiate. 
• In a  study, [20]  women wanted increased emotional and companionate behaviors, instrumental support, and parental involvement in their partners, while men wanted greater increases in sex. 
• Even in casual  (friends with benefits) [21]  relationships, women viewed the relationship as more involved and emotional while men tended to see it as more casual with an emphasis on sexual benefits. 
• Women also prefer  taller [22]  partners, where women reported that they were most satisfied when their partner was approximately 21cms taller than them. Men were seen to be more satisfied when they were approximately 8cms taller than their partners. 
• From an  evolutionary [23]  perspective, a study saw that women prefer men who have good-gene indicators like their masculinity, sexiness, good investment indicators like their potential income, good parenting markers like a desire for home and children, and good partner indicators like being a loving, trustworthy partner.
• Large eyes, prominent cheekbones, a large chin, a big smile, and high-status clothing are considered  attractive [24]  in a man. 
• Evidence [25]  suggests that women’s physical attractiveness plays a strong role in men’s preferences for a partner than a man’s physical appearance in a women’s choice of partner. However, since the study is old, cultural shifts in preferences are very likely.
• A study [26]  on American women suggests that women can compromise on their partner’s physical attractiveness in favor of resources and other qualities they bring into a relationship.
• Research [27]  also suggests that those who see themselves as a future married homemaker look for a partner who can provide for the household. Anticipated roles can influence mate choices. 
• Based on a study on heterosexual women [28] , those who rate themselves as very attractive (even though others could disagree) may have a preference for men with more masculine facial features. The study supports the idea that a woman’s self-judgment of attractiveness plays a role in masculinity preferences.

The Psychological effects of Family Relationships

Familial relationships are the most important relationship one has. As we grow, our relationships with our family members change; however, it is still a constant foundation for our social being. 

Parent-child relationship 

Good parent-child interactions and overall parenting are vital to becoming socially well-adjusted. Bowlby established the concept of  attachment styles  that refer to how secure a person feels in interpersonal connections or relationships. The two basic attitudes that decide one’s attachment style are –  self-esteem , which is based on social cues of how valued or accepted they are, and  interpersonal trust  (social expectations and beliefs in each other), which is the perceived trustworthiness and reliance one can have on the caregiver. Based on the above two dimensions, we get four types of attachment styles – 

• Secure Attachment Style (high self-esteem and high trust) – Secure individuals have long-lasting, satisfying, and committed relationships and lead well-adjusted lives. Secure attachment style emerges from good parenting where parents aren’t insecure about their children, and the child isn’t wholly dependent on the parent for everything. 
• Fearful-Avoidant Attachment Style (low self-esteem and low trust) – These individuals tend to have unhappy relationships or may not form close ones. It is a result of distant or absent parenting. 
• Preoccupied Attachment Style (low self-esteem and high trust) – Such individuals crave closeness and readily form relationships, are seen as clingy too. Since they have low self-esteem, they expect to be rejected and consider themselves unworthy. 
• Dismissing Attachment Style (high self-esteem and low trust) – This style leads people to think that they deserve good relationships; however, they don’t trust others. 

Attachment styles are not set in stone and can be changed. 

Help me run this site with a donation :)

Holistic familial relationships 

Family relationships don’t occur singularly but in a holistic sense with members other than your parents like siblings and your grandparents.  Siblings [29]  aid the psychosocial and cognitive development of an individual. This is also seen in  high-conflict homes [30]  where individuals who had sibling support were more positively adjusted that those who had low-sibling support and only children. When  sibling commitment [31]  is consistent throughout their lifespan, their communication, as well as affectionate based emotional support, also remains constant.

Cohesive relationships with one’s grandparents have been seen to reduce depressive symptoms within a child, especially in single-parent families. For adults,  research [32]  has shown that caring for grandparents can reduce the dissatisfaction caused by loneliness ( Aloneliness ) and also improve their physical and mental health. 

All of us establish close relationships with peers and classmates right from when we’re kids. Some of them last for decades and some are momentary. These relationships emerged perhaps because you both were in the same school or the same neighborhood. Friendships reduce feelings of loneliness, which can be detrimental to one’s health. An  experiment [33]  used an online Friendship Enrichment Program to reduce loneliness and was effective in doing so. Loneliness and social disconnectedness among adults are also related to childhood friendship experiences, especially when other stress factors and barriers threaten wellbeing. For example, research  [34] suggests that immigrant adolescents who had same-generation friends had lesser negative health outcomes. It’s not just wellbeing, childhood relationships [35] can have an effect on cognitive functioning and status too.

Let us look at the Investment  Model [36]  of Romantic Associations by Caryl Rusbult.

This theory states that commitment to a person depends on the satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. The model states that people have more relationship satisfaction if they receive more rewards than costs. They are also more satisfied when there are no better alternatives, i.e., the alternative partner doesn’t provide more rewards than the current partner. The investment in the relationship includes both tangible and intangible resources.  Rusbult [37]  also identified maintenance mechanisms necessary to maintain a relationship – 

• Accommodation: [38]  using behaviors and actions that promote relationships without keeping a tally of costs and rewards. It is a willingness to act constructively. 
• Willingness to sacrifice [39]  – putting your partner’s interests before yours. 
• Forgiveness – the ability to forgive mistakes and shortcomings. 
• Positive illusions  [40] – seeing the positives about your partner. 
• Ridiculing alternatives – reducing potential options by seeing them in a negative sense or derogating them. 

Relationships are also affected by your thinking styles [41] . There are 2 ways in which people think about their partners. 

• Relationship-enhancing: In this attribution or thinking style, a person attributes positive situations to a partner’s personality or qualities and negative ones to an external cause or the partner’s temporary state. For example, if your partner surprised you with a necklace, it’s because he loves you and is thoughtful. On the other hand, if he is late for your movie night, it’s because he got stuck in traffic. 
• Distress-maintaining: This style is exactly the opposite where one attributes positive and negative situations to their partner’s negative aspects; like their personality traits or beliefs like they intended to cause hurt or show neglect ( which often leads to anger ). For example, he got you the necklace because he’s guilty about something or he is late for your movie night because he forgot about it or didn’t care enough. 

Was this useful?

Average rating 4.4 / 5. Vote count: 11

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Cara is a psychology student and a musician with interests ranging from memes to anything coffee! She has a keen interest in social and cognitive psychology.

Explore more

How drugs alter our brain: effects on brain chemistry, how to counter pseudoscience; it’s not about the evidence.

Email Address

Comments Cancel reply

Module 8: Early Adulthood

Attraction and love, learning outcomes.

• Describe some of the factors related to attraction in relationships
• Apply Sternberg’s theory of love to relationships
• Summarize attachment theory in adulthood

Why do some people hit it off immediately? Or decide that the friend of a friend was not likable? Using scientific methods, psychologists have investigated factors influencing attraction and have identified a number of variables, such as similarity, proximity (physical or functional), familiarity, and reciprocity, that influence with whom we develop relationships.

Figure 1 . Great and important relationships can develop by chance and physical proximity helps. For example, seeing someone regularly on your daily bus commute to work or school may be all that’s necessary to spark a genuine friendship. [Image: Cheri Lucas Rowlands, https://goo.gl/crCc0Q, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://goo.gl/rxiUsF]

Often we “stumble upon” friends or romantic partners; this happens partly due to how close in proximity we are to those people. Specifically, proximity or physical nearness has been found to be a significant factor in the development of relationships. For example, when college students go away to a new school, they will make friends consisting of classmates, roommates, and teammates (i.e., people close in proximity). Proximity allows people the opportunity to get to know one other and discover their similarities—all of which can result in a friendship or intimate relationship. Proximity is not just about geographic distance, but rather functional distance, or the frequency with which we cross paths with others. For example, college students are more likely to become closer and develop relationships with people on their dorm-room floors because they see them (i.e., cross paths) more often than they see people on a different floor. How does the notion of proximity apply in terms of online relationships? Deb Levine (2000) argues that in terms of developing online relationships and attraction, functional distance refers to being at the same place at the same time in a virtual world (i.e., a chat room or Internet forum)—crossing virtual paths.

Familiarity

One of the reasons why proximity matters to attraction is that it breeds familiarity ; people are more attracted to that which is familiar. Just being around someone or being repeatedly exposed to them increases the likelihood that we will be attracted to them. We also tend to feel safe with familiar people, as it is likely we know what to expect from them. Dr. Robert Zajonc (1968) labeled this phenomenon the mere-exposure effect. More specifically, he argued that the more often we are exposed to a stimulus (e.g., sound, person) the more likely we are to view that stimulus positively. Moreland and Beach (1992) demonstrated this by exposing a college class to four women (similar in appearance and age) who attended different numbers of classes, revealing that the more classes a woman attended, the more familiar, similar, and attractive she was considered by the other students.

There is a certain comfort in knowing what to expect from others; consequently, research suggests that we like what is familiar. While this is often on a subconscious level, research has found this to be one of the most basic principles of attraction (Zajonc, 1980). For example, a young man growing up with an overbearing mother may be attracted to other overbearing women not because he likes being dominated but rather because it is what he considers normal (i.e., familiar).

When you hear about celebrity couples such as Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, do you shake your head thinking “this won’t last”? It is probably because they seem so different. While many make the argument that opposites attract, research has found that is generally not true; s imilarity is key. Sure, there are times when couples can appear fairly different, but overall we like others who are like us. Ingram and Morris (2007) examined this phenomenon by inviting business executives to a cocktail mixer, 95% of whom reported that they wanted to meet new people. Using electronic name tag tracking, researchers revealed that the executives did not mingle or meet new people; instead, they only spoke with those they already knew well (i.e., people who were similar).

When it comes to marriage, research has found that couples tend to be very similar, particularly when it comes to age, social class, race, education, physical attractiveness, values, and attitudes (McCann Hamilton, 2007; Taylor, Fiore, Mendelsohn, & Cheshire, 2011). This phenomenon is known as the matching hypothesis (Feingold, 1988; Mckillip & Redel, 1983). We like others who validate our points of view and who are similar in thoughts, desires, and attitudes.

Reciprocity

Another key component in attraction is reciprocity ; this principle is based on the notion that we are more likely to like someone if they feel the same way toward us. In other words, it is hard to be friends with someone who is not friendly in return. Another way to think of it is that relationships are built on give and take; if one side is not reciprocating, then the relationship is doomed. Basically, we feel obliged to give what we get and to maintain equity in relationships. Researchers have found that this is true across cultures (Gouldner, 1960).

Figure 2. Romantic relationships are so central to psychological health that most people in the world are or will be in a romantic relationship in their lifetime. [Image: CC0 Public Domain, https://goo.gl/m25gce]

Is all love the same? Are there different types of love? Examining these questions more closely, Robert Sternberg’s (2004; 2007) work has focused on the notion that all types of love are comprised of three distinct areas: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy includes caring, closeness, and emotional support. The passion component of love is comprised of physiological and emotional arousal; these can include physical attraction, emotional responses that promote physiological changes, and sexual arousal. Lastly, commitment refers to the cognitive process and decision to commit to love another person and the willingness to work to keep that love over the course of your life. The elements involved in intimacy (caring, closeness, and emotional support) are generally found in all types of close relationships—for example, a mother’s love for a child or the love that friends share. Interestingly, this is not true for passion. Passion is unique to romantic love, differentiating friends from lovers. In sum, depending on the type of love and the stage of the relationship (i.e., newly in love), different combinations of these elements are present.

Taking this theory a step further, anthropologist Helen Fisher explained that she scanned the brains (using fMRI) of people who had just fallen in love and observed that their brain chemistry was “going crazy,” similar to the brain of an addict on a drug high (Cohen, 2007). Specifically, serotonin production increased by as much as 40% in newly-in-love individuals. Further, those newly in love tended to show obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Conversely, when a person experiences a breakup, the brain processes it in a similar way to quitting a heroin habit (Fisher, Brown, Aron, Strong, & Mashek, 2009). Thus, those who believe that breakups are physically painful are correct! Another interesting point is that long-term love and sexual desire activate different areas of the brain. More specifically, sexual needs activate the part of the brain that is particularly sensitive to innately pleasurable things such as food, sex, and drugs (i.e., the striatum—a rather simplistic reward system), whereas love requires conditioning—it is more like a habit. When sexual needs are rewarded consistently, then love can develop. In other words, love grows out of positive rewards, expectancies, and habit (Cacioppo, Bianchi-Demicheli, Hatfield & Rapson, 2012).

Link to Learning

Dive deeper into Helen Fisher’s research by watching her TED talk “The Brain in Love.”

Figure 2. The Triangular Theory of Love. Adapted from Wikipedia Creative Commons, 2013.

Attachment Theory in Adulthood

The need for intimacy, or close relationships with others, is universal and persistent across the lifespan. What our adult intimate relationships look like actually stems from infancy and our relationship with our primary caregiver (historically our mother)—a process of development described by attachment theory, which you learned about in the module on infancy. Recall that according to attachment theory, different styles of caregiving result in different relationship “attachments.”

For example, responsive mothers—mothers who soothe their crying infants—produce infants who have secure attachments (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1969). About 60% of all children are securely attached. As adults, secure individuals rely on their working models—concepts of how relationships operate—that were created in infancy, as a result of their interactions with their primary caregiver (mother), to foster happy and healthy adult intimate relationships. Securely attached adults feel comfortable being depended on and depending on others.

As you might imagine, inconsistent or dismissive parents also impact the attachment style of their infants (Ainsworth, 1973), but in a different direction. In early studies on attachment style, infants were observed interacting with their caregivers, followed by being separated from them, then finally reunited. About 20% of the observed children were “resistant,” meaning they were anxious even before, and especially during, the separation; and 20% were “avoidant,” meaning they actively avoided their caregiver after separation (i.e., ignoring the mother when they were reunited). These early attachment patterns can affect the way people relate to one another in adulthood. Anxious-resistant adults worry that others don’t love them, and they often become frustrated or angry when their needs go unmet. Anxious-avoidant adults will appear not to care much about their intimate relationships and are uncomfortable being depended on or depending on others themselves.

The good news is that our attachment can be changed. It isn’t easy, but it is possible for anyone to “recover” a secure attachment. The process often requires the help of a supportive and dependable other, and for the insecure person to achieve coherence—the realization that their upbringing is not a permanent reflection of character or a reflection of the world at large, nor does it bar them from being worthy of love or others of being trustworthy (Treboux, Crowell, & Waters, 2004).

You can watch this video “What is Your Attachment Style?” from The School of Life  to learn more.

Applications of Sternberg’s Theory

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Authored by : Margaret Clark-Plaskie for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Section on Love . Authored by : Debi Brannan and Cynthia D. Mohr . Provided by : Western Oregon University, Portland State University. Located at : https://nobaproject.com/modules/love-friendship-and-social-support . Project : The Noba Project. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• The Family; section on attachment. Authored by : Joel A. Muraco . Provided by : University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. Located at : https://nobaproject.com/modules/the-family . Project : The Noba Project. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Psyc 200 Lifespan Psychology. Authored by : Laura Overstreet . Located at : http://opencourselibrary.org/econ-201/ . License : CC BY: Attribution

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Do You Know What Love Really Is?

Is it just a second-hand emotion?

Verywell / Laura Porter

• How Do You Know You're Feeling Love for Someone?

Is Love Influenced By Biology or Culture?

How to show love to another person.

• Tips for Cultivating

Negative Emotions Associated With Love

Take the love quiz.

When it comes to love, some people would say it is one of the most important human emotions . Love is a set of emotions and behaviors characterized by intimacy, passion, and commitment. It involves care, closeness, protectiveness, attraction, affection, and trust.

Many say it's not an emotion in the way we typically understand them, but an essential physiological drive. 

Love is a physiological motivation such as hunger, thirst, sleep, and sex drive.

There are countless songs, books, poems, and other works of art about love (you probably have one in mind as we speak!). Yet despite being one of the most studied behaviors, it is still the least understood. For example, researchers debate whether love is a biological or cultural phenomenon.

How Do You Know You're Feeling Love for Someone?

What are some of the signs of love? Researchers have made distinctions between feelings of liking and loving another person.

Zick Rubin's Scales of Liking and Loving

According to psychologist Zick Rubin, romantic love is made up of three elements:

• Attachment : Needing to be with another person and desiring physical contact and approval
• Caring : Valuing the other person's happiness and needs as much as your own
• Intimacy : Sharing private thoughts, feelings, and desires with the other person

Based on this view of romantic love, Rubin developed two questionnaires to measure these variables, known as Rubin's Scales of Liking and Loving . While people tend to view people they like as pleasant, love is marked by being devoted, possessive, and confiding in one another. 

Are There Different Types of Love?

Yup—not all forms of love are the same, and psychologists have identified a number of different types of love that people may experience.

These types of love include:

• Friendship : This type of love involves liking someone and sharing a certain degree of intimacy.
• Infatuation : This form of love often involves intense feelings of attraction without a sense of commitment; it often takes place early in a relationship and may deepen into a more lasting love.
• Passionate love : This type of love is marked by intense feelings of longing and attraction; it often involves an idealization of the other person and a need to maintain constant physical closeness.
• Compassionate/companionate love : This form of love is marked by trust, affection, intimacy, and commitment.
• Unrequited love : This form of love happens when one person loves another who does not return those feelings.

Robert Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love

Specifically, psychologist Robert Sternberg developed his well-regarded triangular theory of love in the early 1980s. Much research has built upon his work and demonstrated its universality across cultures.

Sternberg broke love into three components—intimacy, passion, and commitment—that interact to produce seven types of love .

Love is most likely influenced by both biology and culture. Although hormones and biology are important, the way we express and experience love is also influenced by our own conceptions of love.

Some researchers suggest that love is a basic human emotion just like happiness or anger, while others believe that it is a cultural phenomenon that arises partly due to social pressures and expectations. 

Research has found that romantic love exists in all cultures, which suggests that love has a strong biological component. It is a part of human nature to seek out and find love. However, culture can significantly affect how individuals think about, experience, and display romantic love.

Is Love an Emotion?

Psychologists, sociologists, and researchers disagree somewhat on the characterization of love. Many say it's not an emotion in the way we typically understand them, but an essential physiological drive. On the other hand, the American Psychological Association defines it as "a complex emotion." Still, others draw a distinction between primary and secondary emotions and put love in the latter category, maintaining that it derives from a mix of primary emotions.

There is no single way to practice love. Every relationship is unique, and each person brings their own history and needs. Some things that you can do to show love to the people you care about include:

• Be willing to be vulnerable.
• Be willing to forgive.
• Do your best, and be willing to apologize when you make mistakes.
• Let them know that you care.
• Listen to what they have to say.
• Prioritize spending time with the other person.
• Reciprocate loving gestures and acts of kindness.
• Recognize and acknowledge their good qualities.
• Share things about yourself.
• Show affection.
• Make it unconditional.

How Love Impacts Your Mental Health

Love, attachment, and affection have an important impact on well-being and quality of life. Loving relationships have been linked to:

• Lower risk of heart disease
• Decreased risk of dying after a heart attack
• Better health habits
• Increased longevity
• Lower stress levels
• Less depression
• Lower risk of diabetes

Tips for Cultivating Love

Lasting relationships are marked by deep levels of trust, commitment, and intimacy. Some things that you can do to help cultivate loving relationships include:

• Try loving-kindness meditation. Loving-kindness meditation (LKM) is a technique often used to promote self-acceptance and reduce stress, but it has also been shown to promote a variety of positive emotions and improve interpersonal relationships. LKM involves meditating while thinking about a person you love or care about, concentrating on warm feelings and your desire for their well-being and happiness.
• Communicate. Everyone's needs are different. The best way to ensure that your needs and your loved one's needs are met is to talk about them. Helping another person feel loved involves communicating that love to them through words and deeds. Some ways to do this include showing that you care, making them feel special, telling them they are loved , and doing things for them.
• Tackle conflict in a healthy way . Never arguing is not necessarily a sign of a healthy relationship—more often than not, it means that people are avoiding an issue rather than discussing it. Rather than avoid conflict, focus on hashing out issues in ways that are healthy in order to move a relationship forward in a positive way. 

As Shakespeare said, the course of love never did run smooth. Love can vary in intensity and can change over time. It is associated with a range of positive emotions, including happiness, excitement, life satisfaction, and euphoria, but it can also result in negative emotions such as jealousy and stress.

No relationship is perfect, so there will always be problems, conflicts, misunderstandings, and disappointments that can lead to distress or heartbreak.

Some of the potential pitfalls of experiencing love include:

• Increased stress
• Obsessiveness
• Possessiveness

While people are bound to experience some negative emotions associated with love, it can become problematic if those negative feelings outweigh the positive or if they start to interfere with either person's ability to function normally. Relationship counseling can be helpful in situations where couples need help coping with miscommunication, stress, or emotional issues.

History of Love

Only fairly recently has love become the subject of science. In the past, the study of love was left to "the creative writer to depict for us the necessary conditions for loving," according to Sigmund Freud . "In consequence, it becomes inevitable that science should concern herself with the same materials whose treatment by artists has given enjoyment to mankind for thousands of years," he added.  

Research on love has grown tremendously since Freud's remarks. But early explorations into the nature and reasons for love drew considerable criticism. During the 1970s, U.S. Senator William Proxmire railed against researchers who were studying love and derided the work as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Despite early resistance, research has revealed the importance of love in both child development and adult health.  

Our fast and free love quiz can help you determine if what you've got is the real deal or simply a temporary fling or infatuation.

Burunat E. Love is not an emotion .  Psychology . 2016;07(14):1883. doi:10.4236/psych.2016.714173

Karandashev V. A Cultural Perspective on Romantic Love .  ORPC. 2015;5(4):1-21. doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1135

Rubin Z. Lovers and Other Strangers: The Development of Intimacy in Encounters and Relationships: Experimental studies of self-disclosure between strangers at bus stops and in airport departure lounges can provide clues about the development of intimate relationships . American Scientist. 1974;62(2):182-190.

Langeslag SJ, van Strien JW. Regulation of Romantic Love Feelings: Preconceptions, Strategies, and Feasibility .  PLoS One . 2016;11(8):e0161087. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161087

• Sorokowski P, Sorokowska A, Karwowski M, et al.  Universality of the triangular theory of love: adaptation and psychometric properties of the triangular love scale in 25 countries .  J Sex Res . 2021;58(1):106-115. doi:10.1080/00224499.2020.1787318

American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology .

Wong CW, Kwok CS, Narain A, et al. Marital status and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis .  Heart . 2018;104(23):1937‐1948. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2018-313005

Robards J, Evandrou M, Falkingham J, Vlachantoni A. Marital status, health and mortality .  Maturitas . 2012;73(4):295‐299. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.08.007

Teo AR, Choi H, Valenstein M. Social Relationships and Depression: Ten-Year Follow-Up from a Nationally Representative Study . PLoS One . 2013;8(4):e62396. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062396

Roberson PNE, Fincham F. Is relationship quality linked to diabetes risk and management?: It depends on what you look at . Fam Syst Health. 2018;36(3):315-326. doi:10.1037/fsh0000336

He X, Shi W, Han X, Wang N, Zhang N, Wang X. The interventional effects of loving-kindness meditation on positive emotions and interpersonal interactions .  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat . 2015;11:1273‐1277. doi:10.2147/NDT.S79607

Freud S. The Freud Reader . New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 1995.

Winston R, Chicot R. The importance of early bonding on the long-term mental health and resilience of children . London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 2016;8(1):12-14. doi:10.1080/17571472.2015.1133012

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Relationship Satisfaction: Emotional Commitment

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 11 October 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Patrícia Galandim Costa 2 &
• Isabel Mesquita 2  

19 Accesses

Affective commitment ; Couple satisfaction ; Relationship commitment ; Relationship investment ; Relationship happiness ; Relationship quality

Relationship satisfaction can be defined as the subjective assessment that the individual makes of their relationship (Miranda & Ávila, 2008 ), associated with the experience of positive affections with the partner (Coulter & Malouff, 2013 ; Raposo et al., 2020 ; Vasquez et al., 2023 ), and which changes over time (Fernández, 2018 ). This is a multidimensional construct (Narciso & Ribeiro, 2009 ; Trudel, 2011 ) and should be analyzed together with other factors that influence it (Andrade et al., 2009 ; Bradbury et al., 2000 ), namely, quality (Borges & Pasquali, 2011 ), well-being (Diener & Seligman, 2002 ; Gable & Poore, 2008 ), and happiness (Narciso, 1994 /1995).

Robert Sternberg ( 1988 ) suggested that romantic relationships characteristically have three main components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Emotional commitment, also known as...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Agnew, C. R., Arriaga, X. B., & Wilson, J. E. (2008). Committed to what? Using the bases of relational commitment model to understand continuity and changes in social relationships. In J. P. Forgas & J. Fitness (Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective and motivational processes (pp. 147–164). Psychology Press.

Google Scholar  

Alexander, A. L. (2008). Relationship resources for coping with unfulfilled standards in dating relationships: Commitment, satisfaction, and closeness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25 (5), 725–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508093783

Article   Google Scholar  

Andrade, A. L., Garcia, A., & Cano, D. S. (2009). Preditores da satisfação global em relacionamentos românticos. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 11 (3), 143–156. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/ptp/v11n3/v11n3a12.pdf

Aron, A., & Aron, E. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction . Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (9), 1190–1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279011

Aune, K. (2006). Relational uncertainty, emotional commitment, and emotion expression in romantic relationships. In Minutes of the 56th annual conference of the international communication association (pp. 1–24). International Communication Association.

Baker, L. R., McNulty, J. K., & VanderDrift, L. E. (2017). Expectations for future relationship satisfaction: Unique sources and critical implications for commitment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146 (5), 700–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000299

Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 (1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_3

Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2015). Satisfaction and commitment in long-term heterosexual relationships. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 912–917). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.35035-8

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being: A comparison. European Psychologist, 16 (4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068

Borges, V. C., & Pasquali, L. (2011). Características psicométricas da Relationship Assessment Scale. Psico-USF, 16 (3), 255–264. https://www.scielo.br/j/pusf/a/9ggmtHT94N4tZpH5Yd5J44k/?lang=pt

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (4), 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x

Brezsnyak, M., & Whisman, M. A. (2004). Sexual desire and relationship functioning: The effects of marital satisfaction and power. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 30 (3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230490262393

Broderick, J. E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1986). Contributions of affect, attitudes, and behavior to marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54 (4), 514–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.54.4.514

Bucher, A., Neubauer, A. B., Voss, A., & Oetzbach, C. (2019). Together is better: Higher committed relationships increase life satisfaction and reduce loneliness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20 (8), 2445–2469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0057-1

Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2 (3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x

Byers, E. S., & Heinlein, L. (1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 26 (2), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551507

Campbell, K., & Kaufman, J. (2017). Do you pursue your heart or your art? Creativity, personality, and love. Journal of Family Issues, 38 (3), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15570318

Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2007). Self-expansion as a mediator of relationship improvements in a mindfulness intervention. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33 (4), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00035.x

Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2006). The affective structure of marriage. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 131–155). Cambridge University Press.

Chapman, B., & Guven, C. (2016). Revisiting the relationship between marriage and wellbeing: Does marriage quality matter? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17 (2), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9607-3

Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59 (8), 676–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676

Collins, T. J., & Horn, T. L. (2018). “I’ll call you…” Communication frequency as a regulator of satisfaction and commitment across committed and casual sexual relationship types. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36 (4), 1123–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518755554

Coombs, R. H. (1991). Marital status and personal well-being: A literature review. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 40 (1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/585665

Coulter, K., & Malouff, J. M. (2013). Effects of an intervention designed to enhance romantic relationship excitement: A randomized-control trial. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2 (1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031719

Davies, S., Katz, J., & Jackson, J. L. (1999). Sexual desire discrepancies: Effects on sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28 (6), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018721417683

DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Deckman, T., & Rouby, D. A. (2011). Forbidden fruit: Inattention to attractive alternatives provokes implicit relationship reactance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (4), 621–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021749

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13 (1), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/2F1467-9280.00415

Duffy, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12 (2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v12n02_01

Dush, C. M. K., Taylor, M. G., & Kroeger, R. A. (2008). Marital happiness and psychological well-being across the life course. Family Relations, 57 (2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00495.x

Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (8), 1004–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212442971

Fernández, Á. C. (2018). La satisfacción marital: Su relación con la diferenciación del self y la posición en la fratía . [Doctoral thesis, Universidad Pontificia Comillas]. https://repositorio.comillas.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11531/31694/TFM00103%202.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010a). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (3), 630–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00722.x

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010b). Of memes and marriage: Towards a positive relationship science. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2 (1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x

Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Transformative processes in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69 (2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00362.x

Fowers, B. J. (2000). Beyond the myth of marital happiness . Jossey-Bass.

Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1993). ENRICH marital satisfaction scale: A brief research and clinical tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7 (2), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.7.2.176

Frost, D. M., McClelland, S. I., & Dettmann, M. (2017). Sexual closeness discrepancies: What they are and why they matter for sexual well-being in romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46 , 2353–2364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0960-2

Gable, S. L., & Poore, J. (2008). Which Thoughts Count? Algorithms for Evaluating Satisfaction in Relationships. Psychological Science, 19 (10), 1030–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02195.x

Gaertner, L., & Foshee, V. (1999). Commitment and the perpetration of relationship violence. Personal Relationships, 6 , 227–239. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/L_Baker_Expectations_2017.pdf

Gordon, C. L., & Baucom, D. H. (2009). Examining the individual within marriage: Personal strengths and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 16 (3), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01231.x

Gordon, C. L., & Luo, S. (2011). The personal expansion questionnaire: Measuring one’s tendency to expand through novelty and augmentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (2), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.015

Graham, J. M. (2008). Self-expansion and flow in couples’ momentary experiences: An experience sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (3), 679–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.679

Grahamn, J. M., & Harf, M. R. (2015). Self-expansion and flow: The roles of challenge skill, affect, and activation. Personal Relationships, 22 (1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12062

Harasymchuk, C., & Fehr, B. (2012). Development of a prototype-based measure of relational boredom. Personal Relationships, 19 (1), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01346.x

Harasymchuk, C., & Fehr, B. (2016). Relational boredom: An appetitive challenge in relationships . Manuscript submitted for publication.

Harasymchuk, C., Muise, A., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2020a). Broadening your horizon one day at a time: Relationship goals and exciting activities as daily antecedents of relational self-expansion. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37 (6), 1910–1926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520911202

Harasymchuk, C., Peetz, J., Fehr, B., & Chowdhury, S. (2020b). Worn-out relationship? The role of expectations in judgments of relational boredom. Personal Relationships, 28 (2), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12354

Harasymchuk, C., Walker, D. L., Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2021). Planning date nights that promote closeness: The roles of relationship goals and self-expansion. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38 (5), 1692–1709. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211000436

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), Article e1000316 . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

Hughes, E. K., Slottler, E. B., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2019). Expanding who I am: Validating the self-expansion preference scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102 (6), 792–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1641109

Hye-Jin, J. (2020). The mechanism of empathy and relationship commitment through emojis: Path to perspective taking, inner imitation, emotional empathy, and relationship commitment. Sage Open, 10 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020969675

Ji, H. M. (2009). Effects of empathy and achievement goal on the service of airline flight attendant . Hanyang University.

Kelley, H., Holmes, J., Kerr, N., Reis, H., Rusbult, C., & Van Lange, P. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations . Cambridge University Press.

Kemp, A. H., Arias, J. A., & Fisher, Z. (2017). Social ties, health and wellbeing: A literature review and model. In A. Ibáñez, L. Sedeño, & A. M. García (Eds.), Neuroscience and social science (pp. 397–427) . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_17

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (4), 472–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.472

King, K. B., & Reis, H. T. (2012). Marriage and long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting. Health Psychology, 31 (1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025061

Knee, C. R., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., & Patrick, H. (2005). Self-determination and conflict in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 997–1009. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2005_KneeLonsbaryCanevello Patrick.pdf

Konu, H., Murphy, J., Komppula, R., & Mikkonen, T. (2020). Investigating emotional commitment towards a region and a hotel brand. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, Article e102467 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102467

Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting non-marital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17 (3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x

LeBel, E. P., & Campbell, L. (2009). Implicit partner affect, relationship satisfaction, and the prediction of romantic breakup. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (6), 1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.003

Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Something’s missing: Need fulfillment and self-expansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146 (4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.4.389-403

Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Aron, A. (2002, February). The Self-Expansion Scale: Construction and validation . In Paper presented at the Third Annual Meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology .

Liu, J., Ilmarinen, V.-J., & Lehane, C. (2022). Seeing you in me: Moderating role of relationship satisfaction and commitment on assumed similarity in honesty-humility and openness to experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 97 , 104209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104209

Mattila, A. S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (6), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010880401426009

Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., Knee, C. R., & Loving, T. J. (2019). Implicit theories of relationships and self-expansion: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36 (6), 1579–1599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518768079

McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32 (7), 857–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514553334

Meskó, N., Őry, F., Happ, Z., & Zsidó, A. N. (2022). Sex differences in predictors of relationship satisfaction: The effects of dyadic coping, love, sexual motivation and having children. Interpersona, 16 (2), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.7217

Miranda, P., & Ávila, R. (2008). Estimación de la magnitud de la satisfacción marital en función de los años de matrimonio. Revista Intercontinental de Psicología y Educación, 10 (2), 57–77. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/802/80212387004.pdf

Morris, D. (1977). Manwatching: Field guide to human behavior . Triad Panther.

Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116 (2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000148

Muise, A., Stanton, S. C., Kim, J. J., & Impett, E. A. (2016). Not in the mood? Men under-(not over-) perceive their partner’s sexual desire in established intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110 (5), 725–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000046

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Aloni, M., Pinkus, R. T., Derrick, J. L., & Leder, S. (2009). Commitment insurance: Compensating for the autonomy costs of interdependence in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (2), 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014562

Narciso, I. (1994/1995). Metamorfoses do amor e da satisfação conjugal. Cadernos de Consulta Psicológica, 10 (11), 129–139.

Narciso, I., & Ribeiro, M. (2009). Olhares sobre a conjugalidade . Coisas de Ler.

Ogolsky, B. G., Monk, J. K., Rice, T. M., Theisen, J. C., & Maniotes, C. R. (2017). Relationship maintenance: A review of research on romantic relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9 (3), 275–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12205

Parish, S. J., & Hahn, S. R. (2016). The epidemiology and diagnosis of hypoactive sexual desire disorder and causes of HSDD: Situational, depression, drugs, chronic illnesses, and hormonal depletion. In L. Lipshultz, A. Pastuszak, A. Goldstein, A. Giraldi, & M. Perelman (Eds.), Management of sexual dysfunction in men and women (pp. 223–232). Springer.

Park, Y., Impett, E. A., MacDonald, G., & Lemay, E. P. (2019). Saying “thank you”: Partners’ expressions of gratitude protect relationship satisfaction and commitment from the harmful effects of attachment insecurity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117 (4), 773–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000178

Raposo, S., Rosen, N. O., & Muise, A. (2020). Self-expansion is associates with greater relationship and sexual well-being for couples coping with low sexual desire. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37 (2), 602–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519875217

Regan, P. C. (2000). The role of sexual desire and sexual activity in dating relationships. Social Behavior and Personality, 28 (1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2000.28.1.51

Risch, G. S., Riley, L. A., & Lawler, M. G. (2003). Problematic issues in the early years of marriage: Content for premarital education. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31 (3), 253–269. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-08596-010

Roberson, P. N. E., Norona, J. C., Lenger, K. A., & Olmstead, S. B. (2018). How do relationship stability and quality affect wellbeing?: Romantic relationship trajectories, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction across 30 years. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 (7), 2171–2184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1052-1

Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (1), 140–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16 (2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 , 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101

Rusbult, C. E., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54 , 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059

Sanderson, B., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Race and gender as moderator variables in predicting relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment in a sample of dating heterosexual couples. Family Relations, 42 (3), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/585555

Sarin, S., Amsel, R., & Binik, Y. M. (2016). A streetcar named “Derousal”? A psychophysiological examination of the desire–arousal distinction in sexually functional and dysfunctional women. The Journal of Sex Research, 53 (6), 711–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1052360

Segal, N., & Fraley, R. C. (2016). Broadening the investment model: An intensive longitudinal study on attachment and perceived partner responsiveness in commitment dynamics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33 (5), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515584493

Shafer, K., Jensen, T. M., & Larson, J. H. (2014). Relationship effort, satisfaction, and stability: Differences across union type. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40 (2), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12007

Sheets, V. L. (2014). Passion for life: Self-expansion and passionate love across the life span. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31 (7), 958–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513515618

Slatcher, R. B., & Selcuk, E. (2017). A social psychological perspective on the links between close relationships and health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26 (1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416667444

Smith, A., Lyons, A., Ferris, J., Richters, J., Pitts, M., Shelley, J., & Simpson, J. M. (2011). Sexual and relationship satisfaction among heterosexual men and women: The importance of desired frequency of sex. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37 (2), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011.560531

Stanton, S. C. E., Spence, K., Kähkönen, J. E., & Dobson, K. (2020). Individual and dyadic associations among relational self-expansion potential, affect, and perceived health. Personal Relationships, 27 (3), 550–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12331

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triangle of love . Basic Books.

Stoeber, J. (2012). Dyadic perfectionism in romantic relationships: Predicting relationship satisfaction and long-term commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 53 (3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.002

Strong, G., & Aron, A. (2006). The effect of shared participation in novel and challenging activities on experienced relationship quality: Is it mediated by high positive affect? In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 342–359). Guilford Press.

Tanford, S. (2016). Antecedents and outcomes of hospitality loyalty: A meta-analysis. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57 (2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965516640121

Tomlinson, J. M., & Aron, A. (2013). The path to closeness: A mediational model for overcoming the risks of increasing closeness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30 (6), 805–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512469137

Trudel, G. (2011). Sexuality and marital life: Results of a survey. Journal of sex & Marital therapy, 28 (3), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262302760328271

Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now predicts less satisfaction 9 years later. Psychological Science, 20 (5), 543–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02332.x

Tsapelas, I., Beckes, L., & Aron, A. (2020). Manipulation of self-expansion alters responses to attractive alternative partners. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article e938 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00938

Turkewitz, H., & O'Leary, K. D. (1981). A comparative outcome study of behavioral marital therapy and communication therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7 (2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01366.x

VanderDrift, L. E., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). Reduced self-expansion in current romance and interest in relationship alternatives. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28 (3), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510382321

Vannier, S. A., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016). Passion, connection, and destiny: How romantic expectations help predict satisfaction and commitment in young adults dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34 (2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516631156

Vasquez, T. S., Moss, C., Harris, V., & Visconti, B. (2023). Are you satisfied? Examining positive interaction and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Issues. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231172286

Walsh, C. M., Neff, L. A., & Gleason, M. E. (2017). The role of emotional capital during the early years of marriage: Why everyday moments matter. Journal of Family Psychology, 31 (4), 513–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000277

Webster, G. D., Laurenceau, J.-P., Smith, C. V., Mahaffey, A. L., Bryan, A. D., & Brunell, A. B. (2015). An investment model of sociosexuality, relationship satisfaction, and commitment: Evidence from dating, engaged, and newlywed couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 55 , 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.02.004

Welwood, J. (1990). Journey of the heart: Intimate relationship and the path of love . HarperCollins.

Xu, X., Lewandowski, G., Jr., & Aron, A. (2019). The self-expansion model and relationship maintenance. In B. G. Ogolsky & J. K. Monk (Eds.), Theories of relationship maintenance: Theory, process, and context (pp. 86–105). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108304320.006

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade de Évora, Évora, Portugal

Patrícia Galandim Costa & Isabel Mesquita

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrícia Galandim Costa .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, ROCHESTER, MN, USA

Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Gavin Vance

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester Hills, MI, USA

Madeleine K. Meehan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Costa, P.G., Mesquita, I. (2023). Relationship Satisfaction: Emotional Commitment. In: Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_2001-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_2001-1

Received : 03 August 2023

Accepted : 16 August 2023

Published : 11 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-08956-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-08956-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Relationships

Varieties of Love Relationships Through the Adolescent Age

Parents need to take adolescent love seriously in a variety of common forms..

Posted January 7, 2019

• Why Relationships Matter
• Take our Relationship Satisfaction Test
• Find a therapist to strengthen relationships

It was a hard question to answer: “How does love between adolescents change over the growing-up years, and what lessons might a young person learn from each kind of experience?” What follows are a few thoughts in response.

I think for most adolescents, to experience love is to give your heartfelt caring to someone you ultimately value and by whom you dearly want to be so valued in return.

The foundational love experience for most young people is usually with parents and the constancy of their love. For the child, this is sufficient love, but as the adolescent grows older there is the desire to socialize significant caring outside of the family. Now progressive stages of possible love can begin to unfold.

I say “possible” because some adolescents experience none of the four kinds of love to be discussed, more experience one or two, and a very few experience them all. Observations about these four kinds adolescent love relationships follow, suggesting formative lessons that each relationship might have to teach.

Best Friendship Love, BFF (“Best Friends Forever”), can feel like a merged relationship because of how similarity rules. “We are totally alike. We know each other’s emotions without being told.” This creates an immature intimacy of great power. The intimacy is immature because it is based on shared commonality, with not much room for individual differences and variation. So there can be little attention paid to, and room created for diversity. What usually ends these relationships is when one party feels the need for more adolescent differentiation, and now this need starts growing them apart. “I need more freedom to be myself and to make other friends.”

Love lessons learned from a BFF relationship can be intimacy based on shared similarity, compatibility, emotional sensitivity to another, and loyalty to a primary social relationship.

Crush Love , can feel very emotionally compelling because the projection of personal ideals on a peer creates the desire to be like the person so admired. “She’s everything I want to be, and I want to be with her all the time!” One person attributes their ideals to another and then is enamored with what they have imagined. There is some risk of having one’s smitten feelings exploited, following another’s example or giving in despite the cost. Crushes don’t last long because they are more about the lover than the loved. This is a brief intimacy since it is based more on fantasy than attachment , and as ideals change or as reality proves the worshipped other less than one imagined, the crush wears off. “He’s not as great as I wanted to believe.” “She’s not the perfect person I thought she was!"

Love lessons learned from a crush relationship can be the admiration of a loved one, valuing in another person what one wants for oneself, learning from another person a different way to be.

In-Love is the awakening of a romantic attraction , which can be exciting, idealized, euphoric, obsessive, and urgent, very emotionally intense on all counts. “Being together is all I can think of!” The desire for physical intimacy to affirm the attachment becomes more compelling. And now the desire for a perfectly happy union can make separations, misunderstandings, disagreements, and jealousies hard to bear. “I hate it when we don’t get along!” The wearing off of infatuation is what brings most of these relationships to a close.

Love lessons learned from an in-love relationship can be experiencing romantic attraction, daring to risk more emotional vulnerability, being willing to do more intimate sharing, and facing how the person one loves the most can often hurt one the worst.

True Love is the commitment to grow a loving intimacy into the foreseeable future. Beyond loving each other is their liking of each other, valuing that company better than with anyone else. Exclusively, they enjoy being a social couple. “We belong together!” Now lastingness of the relationship depends on a willingness to work at keeping the sense of commitment made. Although a few young people marry their high school sweethearts, most do not because life changes of one kind or another (like going a different direction after graduation) tend to grow the couple apart. “We still care for each other but just decided to go our separate ways.”

Love lessons learned from a true love relationship can be managing a mature intimacy that encompasses and values both human similarities and differences, learning how to create a mutuality in which each treats the other well, and coming to weather normal ups and downs in a relationship without impulsively seeking to end it.

Important for parents to remember is that just because most of these love relationships don’t last doesn’t mean they are not of lasting value. They are.

• Best friendship can teach the power of compatibility
• Crush relationships can teach the power of admiration
• In-love can teach the power of romantic attraction
• True love can teach the power of mutuality

These lessons are educational and can be formative. Classroom education can only teach so much about life. When it comes to learning about love, relationships are the best instructors. One aspect of these transitory relationships is the reality of loss that commonly occurs. I believe parents must keep a caring watch when:

• Best friendship ends
• A crush wears off
• In-love breaks up
• True love is let go

Parents need to provide empathy and support to help the bereft adolescent appreciate the value of what was given, mourn the loss of what has been taken away, and assess important lessons about love that can be beneficially carried forward.

And of course, if their adolescent is in the rejected role, parents must attend particularly closely to see that hurt feelings do not lead to unhappy outcomes—acting depressively and becoming despondent, acting aggressively and deciding to retaliate, or acting depressively/aggressively and harming them self.

It’s important that parents not to dismiss this unhappiness as only a loss of youthful or “puppy” love. Take it seriously. At whatever age, love is love.

Next week's entry: Parenting Adolescents in Today's Computer World

Carl Pickhardt Ph.D. is a psychologist in private counseling and public lecturing practice in Austin, Texas. His latest book is Holding On While Letting Go: Parenting Your Child Through the Four Freedoms of Adolescence.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Five Ways to Express Love

There are many ways of expressing love, and most people have one or two ways that they most commonly demonstrate affection. These are also usually the same ways that they best identify and understand love when it’s offered to them. It’s important to understand how you and your partner feel and show appreciation, so that you can recognize when they are showing love, and adjust your own way of offering love to them so that they can truly feel it. Below are the most common five ways to express love.

Some people express and feel love through gift-giving. Giving flowers, clothes, a favorite treat, or a handmade item is one way people demonstrate that they are thinking about you.

Another way to express love is to do something kind or helpful for another person. By doing a chore or making a meal for your loved one, you can show them that they are important to you.

Spending quality time together is also an expression of love. When a person gives you their undivided attention, or makes time to take a walk or do another activity together, they are expressing that you are a priority in their life.

Love can be expressed through physical affection. Holding hands, giving a back rub, embracing, or kissing are often used to express love and attachment.

Some people feel and demonstrate love through words. Giving compliments and encouragement, saying “I love you,” and leaving notes of affection and appreciation are all ways of letting people know how much they mean to you.

If you and your partner have different ways of expressing and feeling love, it can lead to misunderstanding and frustration in your relationship—but it doesn’t have to. Most couples do love each other and want their partner to feel that love. Understanding how the other person shows and feels affection, and being willing to express your feelings in the way they best receive them, can help both of you to feel loved and fulfilled in your relationship.

Share this post

See more posts in this category

Check out our past newsletters

Related posts

3 Easy Ways to Develop an Appreciation for Differences

Ways to Avoid COVID Anger Displacement

Ways to Cope with Bereavement during COVID-19