A Triangular Theory of Love
A Triangular Theory of Love
This article presents a triangular theory of love. According to the theory, love has three components: (a) intimacy, which encompasses the feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness one experiences in loving relationships; (b) passion, which encompasses the drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, and sexual consummation; and (c) decision/commitment, which encompasses, in the short term, the decision that one loves another, and in the long term, the commitment to maintain that love. The amount of love one experiences depends on the absolute strength of these three components, and the kind of love one experiences depends on their strengths relative to each other. The three components interact with each other and with the actions that they produce and that produce them so as to form a number of different kinds of loving experiences. The triangular theory of love subsumes certain other theories and can account for a number of empirical findings in the research literature, as well as for a number of experiences with which many are familiar firsthand. It is proposed that the triangular theory provides a rather comprehensive basis for understanding many aspects of the love that underlies close relationships.
What does it mean "to love" someone? Does it always mean the same thing, and if not, in what ways do loves differ from each other? Why do certain loves seem to last, whereas others disappear almost as quickly as they are formed? This article seeks to answer these and other questions through a triangular theory of love. This tripartite theory deals both with the nature of love and with loves in various kinds of relationships. The presentation of the theory will be divided into three main parts. In the first part, the main tenets of the theory will be explained and discussed, and the theory will be compared with other theories of love. In the second part, the implications of the theory for close relationships and
This article presents a triangular theory of love. According to the theory, love has three components: (a) intimacy, which encompasses the feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness one experiences in loving relationships; (b) passion, which encompasses the drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, and sexual consummation; and (c) decision/commitment, which encompasses, in the short term, the decision that one loves another, and in the long term, the commitment to maintain that love. The amount of love one experiences depends on the absolute strength of these three components, and the kind of love one experiences depends on their strengths relative to each other. The three components interact with each other and with the actions that they produce and that produce them so as to form a number of different kinds of loving experiences. The triangular theory of love subsumes certain other theories and can account for a number of empirical findings in the research literature, as well as for a number of experiences with which many are familiar firsthand. It is proposed that the triangular theory provides a rather comprehensive basis for understanding many aspects of the love that underlies close relationships.
What does it mean "to love" someone? Does it always mean the same thing, and if not, in what ways do loves differ from each other? Why do certain loves seem to last, whereas others disappear almost as quickly as they are formed? This article seeks to answer these and other questions through a triangular theory of love. This tripartite theory deals both with the nature of love and with loves in various kinds of relationships. The presentation of the theory will be divided into three main parts. In the first part, the main tenets of the theory will be explained and discussed, and the theory will be compared with other theories of love. In the second part, the implications of the theory for close relationships and
References: Altaian, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New rk: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Barnes, M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Implicit theories of love. Manuscript in preparation. Bern, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62. Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110-168). New rk: Freeman. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New rk: Academic Press. Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate relationships. New rk: Random House. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New rk: Academic Press. Burgess, E. W., & Wallin, P. (1953). Engagement and marriage. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Davis, K. E. (1985, February). Near and dear: Friendship and love compared. Psychology Today, pp. 22-30. Davis, K. E., & Roberts, M. K. (1985). Relationships in the real world: The descriptive approach to personal relationships. In K. J. Gergen & K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person (pp. 145163). New York: Springer-Verlag. Duck, S. (1983). Friends for life. New York: St. Martin 's. Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510-517. Freud, S. (1922). Certain neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia, and homosexuality. In Collected Papers (Vol. 2). London: Hogarth. Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1981). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press. Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265-314). New rk: Freeman. Kerckhoff, A. C, & Davis, K. E. (1962). Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection. American Sociological Review, 27, 295303. Lasswell, M., & Lobsenz, N. M. (1980). Styles of loving. New York: Ballantine. Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173-182. Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. In H. H. Kelley et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 315-359). New York: Freeman. Levinger, G., Rands, M., & Talaber, R. (1977). The assessment of involvement and rewardingness in close and casual pair relationships TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE (National Science Foundation Tech. Rep. DK). Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Livingston, K. R. (1980). Love as a process of reducing uncertainty. In K. S. Pope (Ed.), On love and loving (pp. 133-151). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 3-23. Mandler, G. (1980). The generation of emotion: A psychological theory. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experience. Vol. 1: Theories of emotion (pp. 219-243). New York: Academic Press. Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Murstein, B. I. (1976). Who will marry whom? Theories and research in marital choice. New York: Springer. Ossorio, P. G. (1985). An overview of descriptive psychology. In K. J. Gergen & K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person (pp. 19-40). New York: Springer-Verlag. Peck, M. S. (1978). The road less traveled: A new psychology of love, traditional values and spiritual growth. New York: Simon & Schuster. Peele, S., & Brodsky, A. (1976). Love and addiction. New York: New American Library. Reik, T. (1944). A psychologist looks at love. New York: Farrar & Rinehart. Reiss, I. L. (1960). Premarital sexual standards in America. New York: Free Press. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273. Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Saegert, S. C, Swap, W., & Zajonc, R. (1973). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 234-242. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 135 Shweder, R. A., & Miller, J. G. (1985). The social construction of the person: How is it possible? In K. J. Gergen & K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person (pp. 41-69). New York: Springer-Verlag. Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. American Psychologist, 35, 691-712. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Construct validation of a triangular theory of love. Manuscript in preparation. Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. (1985). Real and ideal others in romantic relationships: Is four a crowd? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1586-1608. Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 312-329. Swensen, C. H. (1972). The behavior of love. In H. A. Otto (Ed.), Love today (pp. 86-101). New York: Association Press. Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence. New York: Stein & Day. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Thomson, G. H. (1939). The factorial analysis of human ability. London: University of London Press. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Walster, E., Aronson, V, Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508-516. Walster, E., Walster, G., Piliavin, J., & Schmidt, L. (1973). "Playing hardto-get": Understanding an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 113-121. Wright, R. A., & Contrada, R. J. (1983). Dating selectivity and interpersonal attractiveness: Support for a "common sense" analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, Austin. Received April 1, 1985 Revision received November 6, 1985