1. family and parenting

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDES TOWARD LOVE
____________
A Thesis
Presented
to the Faculty of
California State University, Chico
____________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Psychology
Option in Psychological Science
____________
by
Alan T. Cook
Summer 2012
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDES TOWARD LOVE
A Thesis
by
Alan T. Cook
Summer 2012
APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF
GRADUATE, INTERNATIONAL, AND INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES:
____________________________________
E.K. Park, Ph.D.
APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
_____________________________________
Lawrence G. Herringer, Ph.D.
_____________________________________
Margaret M. Bierly, Ph.D.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Lawrence Herringer for his invaluable
guidance as a mentor for this thesis and graduate school in general. I am also grateful to
Dr. Margaret Bierly (thesis committee) for her kindness and insight into the realm of
developmental psychology. I give thanks to Dr. Sandra Machida and Dr. Paul
Romanowich for their collegial attitudes and suggestions throughout the course of my
graduate career, my sister Laura Dixon for introducing me to Chico and supporting my
educational endeavors, my girlfriend Katy Sylvia for putting up with this process, and
last but not least, my fellow Psychological Science peers who have been with me through
the times, whether good or bad.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................
iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................
vi
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER
I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................
1
II. Literature Review ...........................................................................................................
9
Love as Destiny or Growth Belief .................................................................................
9
N Love
Rationale
and Hypotheses
Styles.....................................................................................................................
13
e Personality Traits and the Experience of Love ..............................................................
16
ur Attachment Orientation and Romantic Bonds ...............................................................
20
o Hypotheses .....................................................................................................................
24
a
III. dMethodology ..................................................................................................................
26
a
IV. pt
Findings and Results ......................................................................................................
30
at
io Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................
30
n Bivariate Correlations ....................................................................................................
31
aM Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analyses.................................................................
31
ne
m
V. dDiscussion
......................................................................................................................
34
T
or
yol ...................................................................................................................... 44
References
er
R
aet
nri
ce
e
N
v
eal
iv
ur
o
d
e
g
e
n
er
at
CHAPTER
PAGE
Appendices
A. Beliefs About Relationships Scale and Demographics………………………
v
53
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1. Means and Standard Deviations for each Research Variable………………..
vi
30
ABSTRACT
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDES TOWARD LOVE
by
Alan T. Cook
Master of Arts in Psychology: Psychological Science Option
California State University, Chico
Summer 2012
Are you destined to find your soul-mate? According to Knee, Patrick, &
Lonsbary (2003), those with a destiny belief place a high value on whether a relationship
is fated, while those with a growth belief believe that relationships develop gradually. I
examined whether attachment, love styles, and personality factors predicted belief in
destiny or growth. I hypothesized that individuals who scored higher on anxious
attachment and the Chance component of locus of control would score higher on belief in
destiny. Undergraduate psychology students (n = 117) completed measures of attachment
and love styles, belief in destiny versus growth, perceived control over falling in love,
and locus of control. Simultaneous multiple regression found that belief in destiny could
be significantly predicted from high Eros, Mania, Pragma, and Avoidance. A separate
analysis found high conscientiousness and high internal and high chance orientations of
locus of control also predicted belief in destiny. None of the variables significantly
predicted belief in growth.
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
“My soul spills into yours and is blended.
Because my soul has absorbed your fragrance,
I cherish it.
Every drop of blood I spill
Informs the earth,
‘I merge with my Beloved when I participate in love’”
Rumi - The Ruins of the Heart
Love has given humankind meaning and pleasure (as well as pain) for
millennia. The Sufi mystic Rumi seems to capture the essence of falling in love: its
beauty and its pain in his poem “the Ruins of the Heart.” It is interesting that such a
powerful force as love can be the vehicle for both incredible elation and equal misery.
What is it that causes some people to revel in joy for the majority of their lives because of
love, while others slip in and out of love, or attempt to shut it out? It has long been found
that social relationships help determine well-being, and furthermore that close and
supportive relationships are more important to well-being than basic social interactions
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The absence of a close companion often results in
loneliness and sadness. Human beings have taken different individual approaches to
finding companionate love throughout time. For some, it is a constant painful process
(although great songs are written because of this), while others see their lover as their
best friend and companion for life.
1
2
How much control does a person have when “falling in love?” Does love
“happen” and a person is helplessly swept up in it, or does love “grow” and develop as
people consciously choose to deepen their relationship? Do perceptions of the process of
falling in love depend on a person’s previous experiences with love and the thoughts that
an individual has formed over time concerning love? In a romantic relationship, do
peoples’ expectations about their partner remain stable, or change over time? Is love
fixed or evolving? Of course, the issue of personal control when falling in love is actually
one of perceived control, since actual control in human relationships is almost impossible
to establish. Psychologists have attempted to answer these very questions by classifying
and examining individual differences in perceptions and expressions of love, though
simple classification schemes are often inadequate to explain “love.” One major
psychological theory that can explain differences in the course of romantic relationships
is attachment theory.
Attachment theory, with its origins in the work of John Bowlby (1969), uses a
biological approach to the idea of falling in love and mating. During infancy, human
beings establish a behavioral system that regulates interactions between offspring and
parents and is activated in times of stress or anxiety. In addition, a cognitive schema, or
“internal working model” develops to represent the expected course of interactions
concerning attachment. The attachment system is highly evolutionarily adaptive in that it
helps ensure survival of offspring. Bowlby’s colleague Mary Ainsworth identified three
attachment orientations through empirical research that differentiate peoples’ responses
3
to their caregivers: secure, anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters,
& Wall, 1978).
A secure orientation is one in which the caregiver has been responsive to the
child’s needs and bids for attention. In these cases, after the attachment system has been
activated, it soon becomes deactivated by the parents’ attentions. Children with secure
orientations see their parents as both a safe haven in times of need and as a secure base
from which to explore the environment. It is thus associated with the best developmental
outcomes because children are free to develop through exploration and have no fear that
their caregivers will abandon them.
In contrast, an anxious attachment is characterized by a caregiver responding
inconsistently to a child’s bids for affection, so that the individual’s attachment system is
persistently hyper-activated. Someone with an anxious attachment may vacillate between
the need for attention and responses such as pushing the caregiver away. Individuals with
an anxious attachment are more likely to be governed by a fear of abandonment, and are
less likely to use their caregiver as a secure base from which to explore their
environment.
Finally, avoidant attachment is characterized by a caregiver neglecting or
ignoring the child’s bids, and leads to a persistent de-activation of the attachment system.
Avoidantly attached people attempt to maintain autonomy and independence from their
caregivers to avoid the negative feelings of neglect or abandonment. People characterized
by an avoidant attachment are less likely to be concerned with closeness and prefer to
maintain distance from caregivers and relationships. While anxious and avoidant
4
attachments may be seen as negative outcomes, they are also in fact adaptive survival
responses to a neglectful or inconsistent environment.
According to more recent attachment theorists, current romantic relationships
are a reflection of early attachment bonds to caregivers (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). People
will have similar ways of interacting with their romantic partners as with their early
caregivers, as their attachment orientations are for the most part very stable traits. In
romantic relationships, an anxiously attached partner may be characterized by
dependency and jealousy. Anxiously attached individuals may also be governed by a fear
of abandonment in relationships and will be more likely to exhibit “clinging” behaviors.
They may feel a mix of tumultuous emotions when in a relationship ranging from elation
to despair. An anxious person may disclose highly personal information inappropriately
at an early stage in a relationship, causing a potential partner to withdraw (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007).
An avoidantly attached partner may be characterized by emotional apathy and
unavailability in a relationship. People with an avoidant attachment orientation may
struggle the most on initial dates due to their lack of self-disclosure and their discomfort
with personal disclosures. People who exhibit high avoidant behaviors also feel
uncomfortable with intimacy in relationships and sometimes believe that true love is
something that only exists in stories and movies (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
A secure orientation is associated with the best outcomes romantically, as
securely attached individuals are more comfortable with intimacy and generally have
higher self-esteem. A secure person is comfortable with autonomy but also with
5
emotional intimacy, and does not consider these to be mutually exclusive. A securely
attached person’s relationships are more satisfactory because a securely attached person
is able to continue to develop as an individual while at the same time growing within the
relationship, and is responsive to his or her partner in times of need or stress.
Separate, yet closely related to attachment orientation in adult romantic
relationships are the so-called “love styles.” Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) identified six
“love-styles,” which describe individuals’ general beliefs and thought processes
concerning love. A Ludus love-style (game-playing and uncommitted behaviors in
relationships) is similar to avoidant attachment in that it is reflective of an avoidance of
intimacy and a tendency to view sex in a non-emotional, self-gratifying way. The Manic
love-style (obsessive, intense and uncontrollable feelings in relationships) may be
associated with anxious-attachment, as it is characterized by excessive and intrusive
thoughts about the partner that may become obsessive. In past research, Mania has been
positively associated with anxious-attachment while Ludus has been associated with
avoidant attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
An additional concept that may be relevant to the idea of perceived control
when falling in love may be the issue of whether people believe their relationships are
dependent upon fate or upon individual thought and effort. Knee, Patrick and Lonsbary
(2003) proposed that individuals fall along a continuum concerning both a belief in
destiny and a belief in growth regarding falling in love. They conceptualize these as two
independent dimensions: high belief in destiny is not necessarily associated with low
belief in growth. Those people strongly believing that love is destiny were shown to be
6
more judgmental and evaluative towards relationships. Those strongly believing that love
is growth were more patient and willing to work through challenges in relationships.
Also relevant to perceptions about love relationships is the theory of “locus of
control,” with its origins in the work of Julian Rotter (1966). This “generalized
expectancy” concerns whether people believe that they control outcomes in their lives or
whether external influences have more control. People who believe that external
influences (e.g., fate, luck or other people) control their life outcomes are said to have an
external locus of control, while people who believe that their efforts and abilities are
responsible for their life circumstances are said to have an internal locus of control.
Locus of control may in fact provide a more general explanation for showing differences
between belief in destiny (external) and belief in growth (internal). So, specific
differences in belief in destiny or growth may not be necessary to explain differences in
love relationships.
General personality traits may also explain more specific “love styles” or
other aspects of romantic relationships. The Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992)
is the most widely used and accepted theoretical model used to explain personality traits,
which includes extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and
neuroticism. It provides a parsimonious and comprehensive system of the major
dimensions of personality. Extraversion (sociability and outgoingness) may be related to
the frequency or “chances” of falling in love, as extraverts may put themselves in more
social situations than people with low extroversion. Since neuroticism is associated with
emotional instability, it may explain some dysfunctional relationship attitudes that an
7
individual may have, such as avoidant attachment and the Ludic love style. Thus,
individual differences in relationships may be predicted by personality traits more than
either love styles or attachment styles.
I would expect these various theories to be related to the idea of perceived
control when falling in love. Is perceived control when falling in love related to
attachment orientation, love-style, and destiny and growth belief? Or is it actually more a
function of general aspects of perceived control, for example locus of control or
personality traits? These are the questions that I attempted to answer in my study.
To examine these questions, a short 5-item survey (the Beliefs About
Relationships Scale) was constructed to measure perceived control when falling in love.
Standardized measures were used to assess relationship-specific attitudes and behaviors:
the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) to
examine attachment orientation, the Love Attitudes Scale: Short-Form (Hendrick,
Hendrick, & Dicke, 1998) to examine the six love-syles, and the Implicit Theories of
Relationships Scale (Knee, Patrick & Lonsbary, 2003) to measure belief in growth and
belief in destiny. To examine more general personality, the Big-Five-Inventory (BenetMartinez & John, 1998) was used to measure the Five Factor Model and the Internality,
Powerful Others, and Chance Scales (Levenson, 1981) were used to measure three
components of locus of control.
California State University, Chico undergraduate students completed these six
scales in random order and the results and bivariate correlations were examined between
perceived control when falling in love, attachment orientations, love styles, and belief in
8
growth and belief in destiny. Simultaneous multiple regression analysis was used to
determine whether perceived control when falling in love can be predicted from the lovestyles, attachment orientations, and belief in destiny and growth. Simultaneous multiple
regression analysis was also used to determine whether perceived control when falling in
love could be predicted simply by the Five Factor Model personality measures or locus of
control (including internality, powerful others, and chance).
In general, I expected that securely attached individuals (i.e., low avoidance
and low anxiety) would have stronger belief in growth and would report higher perceived
control when falling in love. Anxiously attached individuals would have stronger belief
in destiny and would report lower perceived control when falling in love. Finally, I
expected those with a generally external locus of control to have stronger belief in
destiny, and those with a generally internal locus of control to have stronger belief in
growth.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Love as Destiny or Growth Belief
The question of how an individual falls in love is one that human beings have
pondered since the dawn of time. Love is the subject of countless poems, rock ballads,
and heartbreak. Influential thinker Erich Fromm (1956) believed that Westerners had
negative conceptions of love such as a belief in falling in love spontaneously and with
little effort. He also distinguished between different types of love: love for children,
brotherly, self-love, romantic and erotic, perhaps setting the pace for future classifications
of love. Other philosophers and thinkers such as Carl Jung (1953) believed that love in its
purest form is a positive experience that leads to personal transcendence and integration
of the masculine and feminine aspects of self. It is interesting how human beings become
so attached to one special individual, and how even others with similar characteristics are
never as attractive or appealing. In fact, sometimes love is so overwhelming that it can
blind one to the potential of other people and even become a painful obsession.
Some psychologists believe that a new relationship offers the opportunity of
self-expansion and incorporating a partner’s beliefs and resources into oneself (Aron &
Aron, 1986). Of special importance in the experience of love is whether people believe
that they are destined to fall in love with one particular individual or if they have more of
a personal choice in the matter. In other words, is falling in love a matter of destiny, or a
9
10
matter of growing feelings of compatibility through time?
Knee (1998) first introduced the idea of viewing relationships as “destiny” or
a “growth” process. He elaborated on this distinction in later research, culminating in the
creation of a self-report measure (Knee, Patrick & Lonsbary, 2003). Knee et al. (2003)
defined destiny belief as the belief that potential romantic partners are either compatible
or they are not. Those with a predominant destiny belief place a high value on whether a
relationship is fated, or “meant to be.” In other words, a person believing primarily in
destiny has an internal thought process that explains relationship events as “fixed.” Such
a person tends to set an early emphasis on whether a romantic partner will be compatible,
and uses negative cues as explanations that a relationship will not be successful (Knee &
Canavello, 2006). Those placed high on the destiny belief spectrum also are more
judgmental and evaluative towards relationships.
In contrast, those believing strongly in growth assume that relationships
develop gradually over time, and that relationship challenges can be overcome. A person
endorsing a belief in growth sees conflict and setbacks as a learning experience, rather
than as a sign that a relationship will not work out. Furthermore, someone endorsing
belief in growth does not see a potential partner as incompatible forever just because they
are incompatible at the initial meeting (Knee & Canavello, 2006). Orientations towards
belief in destiny or belief in growth can be seen as “implicit theories” an individual has
regarding whether relationship events are fixed and stable, or flexible and amendable.
Knee et al. (2003) conceptualize belief in destiny and belief in growth as two
separate dimensions, reporting a non-significant negative correlation between the two.
11
While it may seem that people high on destiny belief are low on growth belief and viceversa, individuals might have a strong belief in destiny (such that they believe
relationship events to be fated) but also have a strong growth belief (which would enable
them to work through relationship problems). In theory, someone who has a low growth
belief and high destiny belief will experience the most troubles with relationships, while
someone with high growth belief and low destiny belief would be flexible in working
through problems and would not place blame on a relationship partner for problems.
Research on implicit theories of relationships may be similar to the theory of “approach
and avoidance” goals in that those with a destiny belief are more motivated by avoiding
negative events in relationships rather than seeking out positive experiences and growth
(Impett et al., 2010). Those focused primarily on avoiding negative events are less
satisfied with relationships because they are less responsive to working out conflicts and
less communicative in relationships.
Such implicit theories of relationships may also be important as factors that
lead to a happy or unhappy marriage. For example, if individuals have a destiny belief
that leads them to believe that they will never experience relationship difficulties with
their spouses, then they may be in for a rude surprise. In their study comparing young
adults and professional educators, Wright, Simmons and Campbell (2007) found that
married individuals believed that a successful marriage depended partly on whether love
was viewed as a deep friendship and whether problems were viewed as solvable.
Furthermore, they found that young adults endorsed more of a destiny belief, believing
that in healthy relationships, partners will not disagree on relational issues. In contrast,
12
educational professionals surveyed in the study were more likely to endorse a growth
belief, responding that healthy relationships are characterized by good communication,
effort and maintenance.
Interestingly, Finkel, Scissors and Burnette (2007) found that when
attachment anxiety was primed in an individual, those with strong destiny beliefs were
less forgiving towards their partner (whether their partner was real or hypothetical),
compared to those who were primed for attachment security. Considering that
forgiveness and communication seem to enhance relationship functioning, this is an
important finding. It will be important to find the extent that attachment security is
related to orientation towards growth or destiny, because attachment security could
moderate the effects that beliefs in growth or destiny have on an individual.
In a further study concerning implicit theories of relationships, Canevello and
Crocker (2011) found that in college freshmen, “compassionate goals” predicted an
increased belief in growth (perhaps because both partners’ needs were being met). This is
evidence that under certain circumstances, an orientation towards belief in growth or
belief in destiny is flexible and can change. It also encourages people to take steps
towards changing their own possibly negative approaches towards relationships. More
research needs to be completed to determine whether implicit theories of relationships
have both trait-based and state-based attributes. Researchers curious about individual
differences people take in the experience of love have examined love as destiny/growth
belief and how it relates to love-styles and attachment orientation.
13
Love Styles
It has been seen by both the general population and love researchers that
individuals take different attitudes and approaches to the subject of love. For example,
some people have been known to persistently pursue multiple partners, while others fall
intensely in love with only a single individual. What is it that drives these individual
differences and perceptions?
Robert Sternberg (1986, 1998) proposed a triangular theory of love composed
of three components: intimacy, passion and decision/commitment. Sternberg believes that
the intimacy and passion components are emotional aspects of the experience of love,
while the decision/commitment component is a cognitive factor. Intimacy involves
“desiring to promote the welfare of the loved one,” and counting on a loved one in times
of need. Passion involves the longing for a state of union with the desired love-object.
Finally, decision/commitment involves a short-term decision to love a partner and a longterm decision to commit to that relationship. Sternberg proposed that the three
components of the triangle could blend to create several forms of love, for example
“empty love” (passion without intimacy or commitment), “companionate love” (intimacy
and decision/commitment but no passion) and “consummate love” (the closest to “true
love,” including intimacy, passion and decision/commitment). Similar to Sternberg’s
taxonomy of loving are the “love-styles.”
Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) developed the Love Attitudes Scale based on
the sociologist John Alan Lee’s (1976) love taxonomy. Using the analogy of a color
wheel in which there are solids and mixtures, Lee conceptualized three primary love
14
styles: Eros, Ludus, and Storge. Based on the primary love styles, Lee believes that
compounds (two primary ingredients forming to create a completely new style) and
mixtures (a blend of two primary colors such that the result is a reflection of the primaries
“but in a diluted form”) exist. The compounds and mixtures comprise the secondary
styles. Secondary styles include Pragma, Mania, and Agape, out of which several
mixtures are possible. While Lee (1976) originally declared twelve love styles, he later
gave eight priority.
Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) devised the Love Attitudes Scale after revising
and performing factorial analysis on Lee’s original styles. Their results indicated six,
rather than eight love-styles. The love-styles may be considered general attitudes toward
love or thought-complexes towards love. Eros involves passionate/erotic love, while
Ludus depicts game-playing/uncommitted love. Storge is the name given for
companionate/friendship love, Pragma concerns practical love (analogous to having a
“shopping list” of qualities looked for in a mate), Agape is unselfish, altruistic love, and
Mania regards obsessional love. High Agape is rare in the general population. In addition,
cross-cultural evidence shows that Americans are more likely to endorse both Storgic and
Manic love attitudes and that passionate love was among the best indicators for
relationship satisfaction (Contreras, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1996). In 1998, a new 24-item
version of the Love Attitudes Scale was created, which demonstrated equal and
sometimes better reliability than the original scale (Hendrick, Hendrick & Dicke, 1998).
According to Hendrick (2006) love-styles can be subject to change due to life
circumstances and particularly the age of the individual.
15
Interestingly, destiny belief has been found to be correlated with Pragma,
while growth belief correlated positively with Storge, or the friendship based approach to
love (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982). Perhaps these findings reflect that a person endorsing
the Pragma love-style would require certain traits in a partner and would consider the
relationship to be doomed if these traits did not exist. Storge may correlate with growth
belief because rather than taking the extreme view of fate as the reason a relationship
succeeds or fails, a person endorsing Storgic attitudes sees love as a friendship in which
arguments and conflict may be overcome.
In regard to personality, destiny belief has been found to be associated with
less openness to experience, and higher extraversion and neuroticism. In contrast, growth
belief was associated with higher conscientiousness and agreeableness (Knee, 1998).
Relationships to attachment and personality. Research has found that anxious
attachment may be positively predictive of the love-styles Mania and Ludus (Heaven, Da
Silva, Cary, & Holen, 2004). Considering that Mania is associated with emotional
dependency and Ludus is associated with an unwillingness to depend on others, they may
both reflect different sides of the anxious-attachment orientation (ambivalence).
Regarding personality and the love-styles, neuroticism was found to be positively linked
to both Ludus and Mania. This shows that people with an emotionally unstable
personality trait may engage either in possessive, jealous attitudes or in game-playing,
non-committed behaviors. In their review of attachment and love-styles, Mikulincer and
Shaver (2007) report that secure attachment is related to Eros and Agape, which are both
love styles that promote intimacy and commitment. Avoidance was associated with low
16
Eros and high Ludus. Collins and Read (1990) found that secure orientations were
associated with high Eros and Agape and were less likely to be associated with Ludus
and Mania. In addition, they found that avoidant attachment was related to Pragma. Thus,
avoidant attachment favors both Ludic game-playing and practicality and inhibits lasting
romance.
Personality traits and
the experience of love
It is important not to discount the power of general personality variables when
examining falling in love. It may be important to consider common personality traits to
account for the fact that findings regarding falling in love may really be a reflection of a
global personality trait rather than a specific love-style or attachment orientation. The
most widely accepted personality trait framework today is the Five Factor Model which
comprises the personality traits of openness to experience, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, each on a continuum (Goldberg, 1993).
Extraversion may be an important trait to examine when researching falling in
love. For instance, people scoring higher on the sociability dimension of extraversion
report being in love more often than those who are shy (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998).
This is a reflection of the fact that people high in sociability are more likely to put
themselves in contact with other people and have more dating options. In Asendorpf and
Wilpers’ study, students low in shyness had fallen in love “twice as often as the shy
participants (pg 1541).” Interestingly, in the same study relationship changes had no
effect on personality, but personality had an effect on the incidence of peer interactions
17
and falling in love. Past research has shown that relationship satisfaction is important to
well-being. For example, increased relationship satisfaction can be predicted from
decreases in neuroticism and increases in extraversion longitudinally (Scollon & Diener,
2006).
Personality dimensions have been found to be related to attachment. For
example, Heaven et al. (2004) found extraversion and agreeableness to be positively
related to an intimacy and trust scale (aspects of the secure attachment orientation), while
neuroticism negatively predicted intimacy and trust. They also found that neuroticism
correlated with Ludus and Mania, and negatively with Eros. The fact that neuroticism
negatively predicted the intimacy and trust scale explains that it is related to avoidant
attachment, as avoidance is characterized by an inability to depend on or be close to
others. Using the Views of Love Scale, Fehr and Broughton (2001) found positive
correlations between neuroticism and “sexual, infatuation, and puppy-love” and a
negative correlation between neuroticism and “friendship love.” Although they did not
include love-styles, sexual and infatuation love are consistent with Ludus and Mania
conceptually and friendship-love is similar to Storge. Consistent with these findings,
White, Hendrick, and Hendrick (2004) found that neuroticism correlated with Ludus for
males, and with Mania for females. They further found that neuroticism was negatively
correlated with Eros for males.
The findings with extraversion and agreeableness are consistent with the idea
that securely attached individuals are able to have a healthy amount of dependency (for
example, trusting others) in relationships with others. By contrast, high neuroticism may
18
at times reflect an emotional instability that does not allow for feelings of security or
closeness with others. However, one study that considered personality traits as an
explanation for insecure attachment found that insecure orientations were not explained
by the Big Five or other personality measures such as depression and self-esteem (Noftle
& Shaver, 2006).
White et al. (2004) found that both extraversion and agreeableness were
positively related to relationship satisfaction and intimacy. In addition to the intimacy
variable, White et al. also included a love-styles scale, and found that neuroticism was a
significant predictor of Mania. Interestingly, they found that for women, Mania mediated
the relationship between neuroticism and relationship satisfaction. This may show that
possessive or dependent relationship attitudes indicate particularly strong neurotic
tendencies. They further found the unexpected result that agape was correlated with
neuroticism for women and speculated that while Agape in moderation may reflect a
healthy concern for a love-partner, excessive Agape may reflect an all-consuming
concern with the partner that is detrimental to the self.
In a study examining the relationship of “fundamental motives,” the fivefactor personality traits, and Sternberg’s (1986) tripartite model of intimacy, passion and
commitment, Engel, Olson, and Patrick (2002) found that for males conscientiousness
significantly predicted all three of Sternberg’s variables and was correlated with
relationship satisfaction. Conscientiousness involves a sense of self-control and duty;
therefore it could be related to intimacy because conscientious people may apply their
dutifulness to relationships. It is also related to achievement motivation, and this need for
19
achievement may be generalized to their love relationships. Commitment was predicted
by the “assertiveness” facet of extraversion, and was negatively predicted by the
“vulnerability” facet of neuroticism. For females, relationship satisfaction was correlated
with extraversion and conscientiousness. The deliberation facet of conscientiousness
predicted passion for females (deliberation reflects a tendency to think things through
before acting or to engage in cautious planning before acting). Interestingly, Nemechek
and Olson (1999) found that spouses who had a similar level of the conscientiousness
trait reported greater marital satisfaction.
Another relevant consideration regarding personality and falling in love is
locus of control. Locus of control refers to a person’s internal states and how someone
deals with circumstances. Locus of control may be an important variable regarding belief
in destiny when falling in love because an individual with an external locus of control
trait may be more likely to endorse a belief in destiny orientation, while an individual
with a high internal locus of control may be more likely to possess the belief in growth
orientation. Early research on locus of control by Julian Rotter (1966) focused on a
typology of internal states. For example, individuals were considered to have either an
internal or an external locus of control, believing that they had control over outcomes in
their life or conversely that life events were the cause of external influences.
Of note, people may differ individually on their desirability of control over
events in their lives (Burger & Cooper, 1979). For example, people high in the desire for
control would be characterized by taking leadership roles and would manipulate
situations to best match their most desired outcomes. People who are low in the desire for
20
control are passive and show a preference for being led by others. People both low and
high in desirability of control are more likely to be active when manipulation of a
situation is obviously advantageous and has a high pay-off. Furthermore, the strength of
individuals’ desire for control interacts with situational variables to determine their
perceptions of control over a given domain (be it concerning relationships, work, or an
academic setting).
More recent research has focused on separate components of locus of control
and specific areas in which individuals vary in locus of control (for example, marital,
work-related, and relationships). In 1981, Levenson created the Internality, Powerful
Others, and Chance subscales. These scales more accurately acknowledge that
individuals can believe in their own efficacy while at the same time believing that
powerful others and chance may have some control over their lives. Would these
components of locus of control be related to belief in destiny and belief in growth?
Attachment orientation and romantic bonds
The theoretical framework of attachment helps to explain bonds between an
infant and their caregivers. The work of John Bowlby (1969) suggests that all human
beings are born with an innate attachment system which regulates behavior in times of
stress and anxiety. Specifically, a child must see his/her caregiver as a “safe haven” in
times of need and a “secure base” from which to explore the environment in order to
develop optimally in terms of healthy relationships. Bowlby’s ideas were empirically
tested by Mary Ainsworth et al. (1978), who identified three attachment orientations that
21
differentiate children’s responses to their caregivers in times of stress and anxiety: secure,
anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant.
Individuals with secure orientations perceive their caregivers as responsive to
their needs and also regard them as a secure base. This means that they feel free to
explore their environments but also return to their caregivers as needed, or if they feel
unsafe. Those with secure orientations are confident that their caregivers will not
abandon them. Securely attached individuals are associated with the best relationship
outcomes, as they are free to develop individual initiative as they explore their
environment without the fear of abandonment.
The two other orientations are considered “insecure,” and they are a child’s
adaptive responses to perceived inadequate care. An anxious attachment is characterized
by the fear of abandonment and the belief that a parent or caregiver will not be responsive
to needs. Anxious attachment is caused by an inconsistent parenting style in which
sometimes the parent is responsive to the child, but at other times is not. This encourages
anxiously attached children to “hype up” attempts to elicit care from their parents, since
they have been successful in some scenarios. This can cause anxiously attached
individuals to appear “clingy,” or needy.
The other insecure attachment orientation, avoidant, is caused by neglectful
parenting in which a caregiver does not acknowledge the child’s bids for attention.
Avoidantly attached children adaptively respond by withdrawing into themselves, since
continuing to attempt to elicit attention would be ineffective. Children with an avoidant
22
attachment are characterized by an exaggerated independence and self-sufficiency that
often continues later into their lives.
Attachment orientations can also be described as enduring mental models, or
“representations” in the form of schemas based on early relationship experiences (Griffin
& Bartholomew, 1994). For example, a secure orientation is one in which a person has a
positive view of self and other. This tends to generalize to the individual’s romantic
relationships. An anxious orientation is one in which a person has a negative view of self
and a positive view of other, which explains why that person might exhibit “clingy”
behaviors in order to become closer to a partner, but is not confident that he or she will
receive the attention needed. Finally, an avoidant orientation is characterized by a
positive view of self and negative view of other, such that someone with an avoidant
orientation does not perceive “the need for relationships,” and is convinced that all
personal problems can be solved independently.
In 1987, Hazan and Shaver conceptualized that early attachment bonds and
styles may be predictive of future romantic bonds. The attachment styles include anxiousattachment, involving a hyper-activation of the attachment system (an innate behavioral
system regulating actions in times of stress), avoidant attachment (which involves
attachment-system deactivation), and secure attachment. Secure attachment is associated
with the best developmental outcomes out of the three styles, including better coping
strategies and emotional regulation. Early research involved placement in one of the three
attachment categories. More recent approaches view the three attachment styles as
continuous dimensions, and obtain a score on each. Further, although retrospective
23
reports of childhood experiences are still sometimes used, many measures emphasize
self-report of current attitudes and behaviors (Ravitz, Maunder, Hunter, Sthankiya,
Lancee, 2010).
Recent research shows that attachment style can change over time due to life
experiences rather than remaining static. For example, changes in relationship status such
as becoming newly single, divorce of parents, and traumatic experiences such as death
can temporarily shift attachment orientations. In general, the longer a person has been in
a relationship, the more likely that person is to shift from an insecure toward a secure
attachment style (Fraley & Brumbaugh, 2004). Hazan and Shaver (1988) believed that
love styles could actually be subsumed under attachment orientations: Eros under secure,
Mania under anxious/ambivalent, and Ludus under avoidant. Thus, love styles are more
specific, and limited, expressions of various aspects of attachment orientations.
Feeney and Noller (1990) tested the contentions of Hazan and Shaver (1987),
using attachment measures and love style measures. Replicating Hazan and Shaver,
Feeney and Noller found that securely attached people were more likely to endorse
positive early family bonds and anxiously attached people were more likely to endorse a
lack of parental support. Avoidantly-attached individuals avoided intimacy in
relationships, and endorsed more Ludic love style behaviors, which includes gameplaying aspects of love, and having multiple partners.
However, there is more to avoidant attachment than just game playing in love
(Ludus). Avoidant attachment comprises many behaviors including absorbing oneself in
professional or work-related activities at the expense of relationships at all (Collins,
24
Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2004). In addition, Ludus is associated with narcissism,
reflected in a need for power and lack of commitment in relationships (Campbell, Finkel,
& Foster, 2002). This is seen in narcissists’ self-focus and resulting unconcern for others,
and the tendency for narcissists to disconnect sex from intimacy.
Hypotheses
I am interested in the idea of perceived control when in falling in love and
what personality types and attachment styles would be more likely to report having
perceived control when falling in love. Belief in less control when falling in love seems
to be related to Knee’s “destiny belief.” Conversely, the belief of having control when
falling in love is most likely related to “growth belief.” These constructs furthermore are
likely to be related to locus of control, as destiny belief reflects extrinsic motivations
while growth belief reflects intrinsic motivations. Hypothesis 1 (H1): having perceived
control when falling in love is correlated positively to both growth belief and the secure
attachment style. In accordance with previous attachment research (Hazan & Shaver,
1987), H2: anxiously attached individuals will report less perceived control when falling
in love (more intense feelings). For the “control in falling in love” concept, I created a
short measure to assess this.
It is important to include a general locus of control measure in this research to
control for the fact that those reporting less perceived control when falling in love might
actually just have a stronger external locus of control in all areas of their lives. Using
Levenson’s Internality, Powerful Others and Chance Scales (1981), I hypothesize (H3)
that the participants who score higher on the chance component of locus of control will
25
also score higher on the belief in destiny variable. Furthermore, I hypothesize that those
who score higher on the internality component should also score higher on belief in
growth (H4). Regarding personality dimensions, I hypothesize (H5) that
conscientiousness will predict growth belief, given its focus on duty and attentiveness.
Finally, I hypothesize that avoidant-attachment will be correlated with the love style
Ludus (H6), as it has in past research.
I believe this study is important because much research has examined changes
in relationships that already exist or relationship beliefs, but have not examined ideas
about falling in love and specifically the idea of perceived control or destiny regarding
love. Furthermore, I believe that locus of control is important in this idea of having
perceived control. People who generally score higher on an intrinsic trait motivation may
be more likely to report feeling control concerning falling in love. Additionally, lovestyles may be important in examining whether practical loving styles or passionate styles
are related to both beliefs in perceived control and attachment style. This research is also
important in helping to understand which relationship attitudes and beliefs lead to better
developmental outcomes.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants were 117 CSU, Chico undergraduate psychology majors (96
female, 21 male) with a mean age of 22.77 who participated for course extra credit. Of
the participants, 46.2% identified themselves as in a relationship, 34.2% identified
themselves as single, 10.3% identified themselves as “dating,” 4.3% identified
themselves as married, 3.4% as engaged, and 1.7% as separated/divorced.
Materials
Attachment orientation was measured using the Experiences in Close
Relationships questionnaire (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). This comprises two 18item scales (anxiety and avoidance), using a 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly)
response format. Brennan et al. (1998) report the test-retest reliability for the anxiety
scale as .93 and the test-retest reliability for the avoidance subscale as .95. These two
scales, respectively, indicate greater or lesser anxious or avoidant attachment
characteristics. Secure attachment is represented by low scores on both of these scales.
Avoidant attachment is represented by high scores on avoidant and low scores on anxious
attachment, and anxious attachment is represented by high scores on the anxiety
dimension with low scores on the avoidance dimension.
26
27
Love-styles were measured using the Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form
(Hendrick, Hendrick & Dicke, 1998). Each of the items was scored from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). There were 24 items, with 4 items representing each lovestyle (Agape, Eros, Mania, Pragma, Storge and Ludus). Hendrick et al. (1998) report the
test-retest reliability as ranging from .75 for Mania to .88 for Agape, and .63 for Pragma
to .76 for Storge.
Orientation towards belief in destiny and belief in growth was measured using
the Implicit Theories of Relationships Scale (Knee, Patrick & Lonsbary, 2003). Each of
the items were scored from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). There were 22
items on the scale (11 representing belief in destiny and 11 representing belief in growth).
Separate, independent scores for destiny and growth are computed from these items.
Knee et al. report internal reliabilities of .82 for destiny and .74 for growth.
Personality traits were measured using the Big Five Personality Inventory
(Benet-Martinez & John, 1998). This 44-item inventory measures Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Openness, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism each on a 5-point scale
from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Benet-Martinez et al. (1998) report
internal reliabilities of .88 for Extraversion, .79 for Agreeableness, .82 for
Conscientiousness, .84 for Neuroticism, and .81 for Openness.
Locus of Control was measured using the Internality, Powerful Others, and
Chance Scales (Levenson, 1981). Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance (IPC) were
each measured using eight items on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). The 24-item IPC Scale reports internal reliabilities of .64 for Internality,
28
.77 for Powerful Others, and .78 for Chance based on a student sample of 152 (Levenson,
1981).
A short measure of perceived control when “falling in love” was constructed
for use in this study (Beliefs About Relationships; Appendix A). Five items were written
to reflect aspects of “falling in love” which would allow planning and intentional
decisions (3 items) versus being swept up in an uncontrollable, emotional process (2
items). Each of these statements were rated on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5
(agree strongly). Prior to their use in this study, these items were informally pilot tested
and revised to promote consistency. Results from the 117 participants of this study
indicated a poor internal consistency reliability for the five-item scale of α = .36.
Dropping items yielded only a modest improvement in reliability (.49 with two items).
Thus, the best version of this scale summed only two items: “There is one person I am
destined to fall in love with.” and “Being in a romantic relationship is more a matter of
personal choice, than of fate (reverse-scored).” Higher scores on this scale would
indicate less perceived control when falling in love. This new measure of perceived lack
of control when falling in love had a potential range of 2 to 10, and responses for it
ranged from 2 to 10 (M = 5.62, SD = 1.80).
Procedure
All participants read and signed a consent form upon their arrival to the
research room. The six surveys were given to the participants after explaining to them the
terms of the voluntary policy and that they had the right to discontinue participation. The
surveys were administered in a randomized order. The packets were collected at the end
29
of the sessions in a randomized order to ensure anonymity. Each participant received
sufficient amount of time to complete the surveys (approximately 30 minutes or longer).
The setting of the testing area was in a classroom at California State University, Chico. A
debriefing form was handed out to each participant after the completion of the surveys.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics for each of the research variables are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for each Research Variable
Research Variable
Eros
Storge
Mania
Ludus
Pragma
Agape
Destiny Belief
Growth Belief
Avoidance
Anxiety
Internality
Powerful Others
Chance
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness
Beliefs About
Relationships
Valid N (listwise)
N
117
117
117
115
116
115
117
116
116
115
117
117
117
116
116
116
116
116
117
Min.
6.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
21.00
34.00
18.00
18.00
29.00
8.00
8.00
10.00
18.00
21.00
12.00
19.00
2.00
111
30
Max.
20.00
20.00
19.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
67.00
77.00
121.00
111.00
50.00
41.00
41.00
40.00
45.00
45.00
38.00
49.00
10.00
Mean
15.91
13.10
11.28
8.32
11.21
13.46
43.99
58.46
46.94
66.34
40.56
24.11
24.69
28.25
36.41
34.97
24.43
36.01
5.62
Std.
Deviation
2.98
3.79
3.54
3.19
3.46
2.90
9.94
8.48
19.67
19.76
4.81
6.82
6.57
6.30
5.16
5.02
5.75
6.15
1.80
31
Bivariate correlations
Bivariate correlations were used to analyze the relationships among 11
measures: two attachment styles (anxiety, avoidance), belief in destiny, belief in growth,
six love-styles (Agape, Mania, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Eros), and the (2-item) Beliefs
About Relationships scale. Using a two-tailed test, a strict .05 alpha level, and a listwiseN for all correlations of 112, 16 out of the total of 55 correlations were significant.
Attachment avoidance was correlated with Eros (r = -.44, p < .001) and Ludus (r = .32, p
= .001), while attachment anxiety was correlated with Mania (r = .63, p < .001) and
Agape (r = .19, p = .046). Next, Destiny belief was correlated with Mania (r = .26, p =
.006), Pragma (r = .25, p = .007), and Lack of Control (r =.24, p = .01). Growth belief
was not significantly correlated with any of the variables. Of the love-styles, Eros was
correlated with Storge (r = .42, p <.001), Ludus (r = -.35, p <.001), Agape (r = .27, p
=.003), and Lack of Control (r = .24, p = .01). Storge was correlated with Pragma (r =
.22, p =.022) and Agape (r = .27, p = .004). Mania was correlated with Ludus (r = .22, p
= .02) and Agape (r = .25, p = .008). Finally, Pragma was correlated with Lack of Control
(r = .19, p = .044).
Simultaneous multiple regression analyses
Although the Beliefs About Relationships scale did correlate with belief in
destiny and three love styles, its poor reliability cast serious doubt on its usefulness as a
primary dependent variable for further analyses, as well as what, conceptually, it
measures. For those reasons, it was dropped from further analyses and belief in destiny
and belief in growth were used instead as the focal dependent variables.
32
Next, the combined effects of the predictors were examined using multiple
regression. Since there was no a priori reason to test predictors in a specific order,
simultaneous regression was chosen as the appropriate technique. However, with an N of
111, the N/K ratio would be inadequate if all 16 predictors were included. Stepwise
regression was rejected as a solution because of its atheoretical nature and emphasis on
prediction rather than variable testing. So, the predictors were divided into two sets of
eight predictors each: relationship-relevant predictors (six love styles and two attachment
dimensions) and general personality variables (five personality traits and three locus of
control dimensions). Separate simultaneous regressions were performed for each criterion
variable (destiny belief, growth belief), using each set of predictors (relationship-relevant,
general personality), resulting in four regression analyses.
A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was used to predict belief in
destiny from eight predictors: the six love-styles, attachment-anxiety and attachmentavoidance. A significant multiple correlation was found, R = .432, F (8, 111) = 2.958, p =
.005, accounting for 18.7 percent of the variance. Four predictors were significant in the
model: Eros (β = .238, p < .05), Mania (β = .268, p < .05), Pragma (β = .205, p < .05) and
Avoidance (β = .214, p < .05). An identical regression analysis using belief in growth as
the criterion failed to obtain significance, both in the model R and individual predictors.
A second simultaneous multiple regression predicted belief in destiny from
eight different predictors: Internality, Chance, Powerful Others, Extraversion, Openness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness. This model was significant, R =
.442, F (8, 115) = 3.255, p < .005, accounting for 19.5 percent of the variance. Internality
33
(β = .202, p < .05), Chance (β = .279, p < .05), and Conscientiousness (β = -.230, p < .05)
were significant predictors. A simultaneous regression model predicting growth belief
from these eight variables was not significant (R =.362; p = .053). Although two
predictors (Internality and Openness) were significant, interpreting these is problematic,
involving a suppression effect (Internality) and a counterintuitive relationship
(Openness).
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Beliefs About Relationships Measure
and Correlations (H1 and H2)
Due to the fact that the measure created for perceived control when falling in
love (Beliefs About Relationships scale) was not statistically reliable, orientation towards
growth or destiny became the criterion variables. The measure created only had five
items, one of which had been replaced after the pilot study was done. The measure would
have better reliability if it had more items that measured more accurately a belief in
control or not having control when falling in love. The scale included items that may
have measured a different construct, such as item 5, “Romantic love is something that
takes time and patience to grow with each individual.” The idea of perceived control
when falling in love may actually be too complex or layered of a concept to be examined
with the five items that I used. Furthermore, I underestimated the difficulty in
constructing an entirely new measure, a task that may have been beyond the scope of this
study and would have taken possibly multiple studies to refine items and finally
complete. Although belief in destiny and belief in growth are not synonymous with belief
in control, they were the closest variables I had to substitute as criterion variables.
Because the Beliefs About Relationships Scale was unreliable, H1 and H2 were not
testable.
34
35
In my bivariate correlation analysis, the strongest correlation was between
Mania and Anxiety (r = .63). This reflects the similarities between the anxious clinging
intense feelings of Mania and the insecurity of the anxious attachment variable. The
association between Mania and anxious attachment may reflect an emotional lack of
control but the Beliefs About Relationships scale failed to adequately measure this. There
was also a negative correlation between Eros and Ludus (r = -.35), which is expected
because in previous research Eros has been linked to positive relationship outcomes while
Ludus has been linked to negative outcomes (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006).
Attachment Orientation
and Destiny Belief
I found a significant correlation between avoidance-attachment and destiny
belief, but not a significant correlation between anxious-attachment and destiny belief
(H2), contrary to my expectations. This is interesting because in the past, growth belief
has been found to be “modestly correlated” to attachment security, but no other
associations with attachment orientation were found (Knee et al., 2003). This could be
because an avoidant person is more likely to evaluate a relationship instantly rather than
taking the time to carefully assess a relationship. It is consistent with the finding that
destiny belief is characterized by neglecting a relationship. An avoidant person also
would be more likely to see the first moments of conflict as a sign that the relationship
was not worth the time and effort (according to Knee et al., 2003, people who score
higher on the destiny-orientation scale are more evaluative towards relationships). This
36
reflects the fact that people with an insecure-avoidant attachment orientation come to
view new relationships with already existing negative expectancies.
An anxiously attached person, while still insecure, may not be judgmental of
relationships in the same way an avoidant person is (thus reflecting the higher belief in
destiny scores that avoidant people had). This is consistent with the findings of Orina et
al. (2011), who found that “weak-link” partners in a relationship have greater power over
the outcome of a relationship because they are less committed and emotionally invested
in the other person. The “self-protective” motives of avoidantly attached individuals are a
way of avoiding negative outcomes on interpersonal investments.
Personality and Locus of
Control Findings (H3, H4 and H5)
As expected, the Chance component of locus of control was significantly
related to belief in destiny (H3). However, the Internality component of locus of control
was significantly related to belief in destiny rather than belief in growth, therefore H4
was not supported. This is confusing at first glance since the two variables seem to
contradict one another. This finding may not be as contradictory as it seems, however,
due to the fact that it is possible for a person to have both a high score on orientation
towards growth and also orientation towards destiny (they are not mutually exclusive). It
could also be that the internality component of Levenson’s locus of control measure
(1981) does not tap adequately into the relationship constructs that I examined. A person
might score on the internal locus of control spectrum while still holding extrinsic beliefs
about love. Although H5 was not supported as conscientiousness did not predict belief in
37
growth, conscientiousness was found to negatively predict belief in destiny. The reason
for this could be that conscientiousness is related to having patience with other people
and working through problems, rather than immediately drawing conclusions as an
individual scoring low in conscientiousness might do.
Love Styles, Attachment Avoidance
and Belief in Destiny (H6)
Avoidant-attachment was found to be positively correlated with Ludus (r =
.32), therefore H6 was supported. Ludus is associated with non-committed behaviors in
love relationships and with a disconnection of sex with intimacy that is very similar to
avoidant-attachment. Avoidance was also correlated negatively to Eros (r = -.44), the
romantic passionate love-style. This is expected considering avoidant individuals’ lack of
intimacy and passion in relationships (as well as lack of marital satisfaction).
Other correlations revealed that Eros, Mania, and Pragma were significantly
positively correlated with belief in destiny. This is compatible with Hendrick and
Hendrick’s conception of Eros (2006) as being emotionally intense and having a “sense
of inevitability.” Mania relates to belief in destiny because of its association with having
intense feelings about a partner that often alternate between agony and ecstasy. People
who score high on Mania do not feel as if they are in control of their feelings. Because
both Eros and Mania are associated with intense emotions, they are more related to the
experience of “falling in love” than some of the less emotional styles (such as Storge or
Pragma). I speculate that Pragma is related to belief in destiny because individuals
scoring high in Pragma would look for certain attributes in their partners, and if these
38
attributes were missing, their relationships would be considered “not meant to be.” In
contrast, belief in growth would be related to working through differences rather than
looking at missing attributes or finding fault with one’s partner.
Limitations and Future Research
It is interesting that there were no significant findings in the simultaneous
regression analysis of belief in growth with the sixteen predictor variables. It could be
that in general, young college aged individuals are more oriented towards a belief in
destiny, partially due to their exposure to popular culture and myths. One potential
confound of this study is that because my sample was so young, it does not adequately
represent people who have had a lot of relationship experience. It is possible that people
who are older have more experience working through problems in relationships, and
might possibly be more naturally oriented towards growth. In other words, they may have
had more salient relationship experiences than younger people (Knee et al., 2003).
Also, I had few married individuals in my sample, and college students may
be going through relationships and experimenting romantically at a higher rate than older
individuals. Those who had recently ended a relationship may have scored higher than
they usually would on anxious attachment and possibly other variables (such as the Ludic
love style). Furthermore, these data represent primarily white females and cannot be
generalized to both males and females. The fact that my sample was primarily white
could also predict cultural differences in the results. It could be beneficial to run a
longitudinal study with the same participants to see how they change from one
relationship to another over time. The majority of the sample was also heterosexual, and
39
it would be interesting to find how a homosexual population might differ (or be similar)
to heterosexuals in terms of orientation towards belief in destiny and how that is related
to attachment style.
It may have been advantageous to include the length of relationship as a
variable. Susan Sprecher (1999) found that couples assessed over a 4 year period reported
an increase in positive feelings towards their partner over time. She also found that
participants who experienced a breakup during her study reported decreases in positive
feelings (satisfaction and commitment) prior to the breakup. For this reason, the state of
the relationship (length over time) may have given insight as to whether there was growth
or change within the relationship that affected responses. It would be erroneous to think
of participants’ scores as stable personality traits without considering situational factors
such as current relationship development and change.
According to Sternberg (1986), individuals have a high degree of control over
the decision/commitment aspect of love, but not over the motivational or arousal aspect.
It may be that individuals involved in shorter-term relationships would score higher on
passionate variables such as Eros or Mania (as reflected in the correlation between Eros
and lack of control), while those invested in a long-term relationship or marriage would
score higher in Storge. The passionate component of love has been found to decline over
time (Sternberg, 1986). It is also difficult to say whether the physiological arousal state of
passion is considered “falling in love” by most people or whether the longer-term
companionate commitment is considered love. It may be that this passionate aspect of
love is more difficult to control due to the chemical/hormonal changes in the body (for
40
example, the release of dopamine) during these moments (Fisher, 2004), but that after
some time passes in a relationship, intimacy and commitment become more important.
For this reason, it would also have been advantageous to include some free-response
items that would tap into participants’ thoughts in an unforced manner. It would be
interesting to see how participants’ romantic partners scored on traits, to examine how
much of a match between love-styles and attachment orientations there was. A future
study could take into account both partners’ perceptions of falling in love, and both
partners’ attachment styles.
Unfortunately, the secure attachment dimension was not tested in my
statistical analyses. A more complete study would take into consideration the level of
secure attachment in participants rather than only addressing the level of anxious and
avoidant attachment in participants. The secure dimension was difficult to include in my
analyses because of the way the scale (Experiences in Close Relationships) in my study
scored each dimension. However, only one of my hypotheses addressed secure
attachment (H1), while the other hypotheses addressed the insecure orientations,
personality or love styles.
A possible confound of this study is that there may be a certain type of
individual wishing to take part in studies on love. It could be that people who score
higher in romantic qualities and aspirations may be more likely to participate. This would
mean that my sample may lack a number of people who would score in the avoidant
spectrum. Also, it could be that one gender is more drawn to this type of research than
another (although the prevalence of females in my sample is more likely a matter of
41
student population demographics). One of the strengths of this study is the randomization
of the order of surveys given, eliminating possible order-effects.
One of the difficulties in doing research on love is defining love. For instance,
do Storge and Agape truly represent romantic love? Hazan and Shaver (1988) argue that
they do not, as Storge seems to represent a friendship based approach that has little to do
with passion, and Agape is more spiritual in origin. However, Storge and Agape may
coincide with Sternberg’s idea of “consummate love,” the mixture of passion, intimacy
and commitment (Sternberg, 1986). Love without passion seems to exist in some
relationships of those who have been together for many years into old age, and there does
seem to be an important friendship aspect to relationships that last.
In Aron and Westbay’s study of what people viewed as essential to love
(1996), people showed “reliable individual differences,” consistent with the way that
individuals endorse different love-styles. In their analysis of the prototype of love, they
found that at the core of most participants’ ratings of essential aspects of love were selfdisclosure and “interconnectedness of selves.” These are both features of the concept of
intimacy. Future research should determine how important the aspect of sexuality is in
regards to intimacy, as some researchers of love have emphasized its importance more
than others who emphasize the commitment aspects (Aron & Westbay, 1996). Another
concern regarding the love-styles approach is that perhaps Pragma and Ludus are not
truly aspects of love because they are not consistent with what lay-people identify as
parts of love (they do not have associations with intimacy). They may in fact be
indicators of dysfunctional relationship attitudes rather than love-styles. Furthermore,
42
cross-cultural studies of falling in love are important to see the differences in what is
considered loving behaviors and attitudes in different contexts.
Conclusions
Although a connection was found between avoidant-attachment and belief in
destiny, no causal relationship has been determined. It is important for future research to
consider ways in which to take preventative measures against individuals becoming
avoidantly-attached or having the negative “belief in destiny” orientation which may be
too rigid a way of approaching relationships. In addition, continued research into what
causes an individual to shift from an insecure attachment style to a secure one is
invaluable in promoting mental health. For instance, there is evidence that romantic
partners who are able to regulate their emotions well can serve as a protective buffer for
individuals with insecure attachment histories whom they are involved with (Simpson,
Collins & Salvatore, 2011). This may have to do with existing mental representations or
internal working models being revised due to new, more positive relationship
experiences.
Continued research into the determinants of healthy relationships is
invaluable, considering the impact loving relationships give to an individual’s sense of
well-being. There are documented relationships between insecure attachments (both the
anxious and avoidant attachment styles) and the experience of loneliness (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). Of note, avoidant individuals are even more likely than anxious
individuals to believe that they will be persistently lonely. Although anxiously attached
people tend to decline in anxiety over time, avoidantly attached individuals have
43
loneliness scores that remain steady consistently across time (Mickelson, Kessler, &
Shaver, 1997). This is likely a reflection of an avoidant person’s exaggerated need for
interpersonal space and independence in relationships. By having attachment needs met,
one greatly reduces the potential for the experience of loneliness. Furthermore, those with
secure orientations are more likely to see challenges in a positive light and resolve
conflicts more easily.
Falling in love may give people the chance to act out parts of themselves that
they have suppressed in other social situations and may be a positive period of selfdiscovery (Aron, Aron & Paris, 1995). Having an intimate partner may also lead to
increases in self-esteem (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1988). Finally, it would be interesting to
examine the mechanisms that lead securely attached individuals to be more resilient
against negative relationship outcomes, and to find ways to promote shifts towards secure
orientations.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S, Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Aron, A. & Aron, E. (1986). Love and the Expansion of Self. Washington, New York,
London: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Aron, A., Aron, E., & Paris, M. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of selfconcept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1102-1112.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1102
Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 535-551. doi: 10.1037/00223514.70.3.535
Asendorpf, J.B. & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531-1544. doi: 10.1037/00223514.74.6.1531
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497-529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Benet-Martinez, V. & John, O. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic
groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English.
45
46
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729-750. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L, & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp 46-76). New York: Guilford
Press.
Burger, J.M., & Cooper, H.M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and
Emotion, 3(4), 381-393. doi: 0146-7239/79/1200-0381$03.00/0
Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2011). Changing relationship growth belief: Intrapersonal
and interpersonal consequences of compassionate goals. Personal Relationships,
18, 370–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01296.x
Collins, N.L, Guichard, A.C., Ford, M.B., & Feeney, B.C. (2004). Working models of
attachment: New developments and emerging themes. In J.A. Simpson & W.S.
Rholes (Eds.) Adult Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Implications (pp
196-239). New York: Guilford Press.
Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644663. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644
Campbell, W., Finkel, E., & Foster, C. (2002). Does self-love lead to love for others? A
story of narcissistic game playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83(2), 340-354. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.340
47
Contreras, R., Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love and
satisfaction in Mexican American and Anglo-American couples. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 74, 408-415. doi: 10.1002/j.15566676.1996.tb01887.x
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO FiveFactor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Eidelson, R.J., & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognition and relationship maladjustment:
Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715-720. doi: 10.1037/0022006X.50.5.715
Engel, G., Olson, K., & Patrick, C. (2002). The personality of love: Fundamental motives
and traits related to components of love. Personality and Individual Differences,
32, 839-853. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00090-3
Feeney, J. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291. doi:
10.1037/0022- 3514.58.2.281
Fehr, B. & Broughton, R. (2001). Gender and personality differences in conceptions of
love: an interpersonal theory analysis. Personal Relationships, 8, 115-136. doi:
10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00031.x
48
Finkel, E.J, Scissors, L.E. & Burnette, J.L. (2007). Vengefully ever after: Destiny beliefs,
state attachment anxiety, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92(5), 871-886. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.871
Fisher, H. (2004). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New
York, New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Fraley, R. & Brumbaugh, C. (2004). A dynamical systems approach to conceptualizing
and studying stability and change in attachment security. In J.A Simpson & W.S.
Rholes (Eds.) Adult Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Implications (pp
86-132).
Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48(1), 26-34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the Self and Other: Fundamental
dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(3), 430-445. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.430
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-552. doi:
10.1037/00223514.52.3.511
Heaven, P.C., Da Silva, T., Carey, C., & Holen, J. (2003). Loving styles: Relationships
with personality and attachment styles. European Journal of Personality, 18, 103113. doi: 10.1002/per.498
49
Hendrick, C. (2006). Styles of Romantic Love. In R.J. Sternberg and K. Weis (Eds.) The
New Psychology of Love (pp. 149-170). New Haven: CT. Yale University Press.
Hendrick C. & Hendrick S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S.S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137-142. doi:
10.1177/0265407598152001
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love,
satisfaction, and staying together. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology,
54(6), 980-988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.980
Impett, E. A., Gordon, A. M., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., Gable, S. L., & Keltner, D. (2010).
Moving toward more perfect unions: Daily and long-term consequences of
approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships. Journal Of Personality
And Social Psychology, 99(6), 948-963. doi:10.1037/a0020271
Jung, C.G. (1953). Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. Bollingen Foundation: New
York, NY.
Knee, R.C. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of
romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 360-370. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.360
Knee, R.C., & Canevello, A. (2006). Implicit theories of relationships and coping in
romantic relationships. In K.D. Vohs & E.J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and Relationships
(pp 160-176). New York: Guilford Press.
50
Knee, R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships:
Orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 7(1), 41- 55. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3
Lee, J.A. (1976). The Colors of Love. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In
H.M. Lefcourt (Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct (Vol. 1, pp.
15-63). New York: Academic Press.
Mickelson, K., Kessler, R., & Shaver, P. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally
representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5),
1092-1106. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1092
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics and
Change. New York: The Guilford Press.
Nemechek, S., & Olson, K.R. (1999). Five-factor personality similarity and marital
adjustment. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 309-318. doi:
10.2224/sbp.1999.27.3.309
Noftle, E.E. & Shaver, P.R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the Big Five personality
traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40, 179-208. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003
Orina, M., Collins, W., Simpson, J., Salvatore, J., Haydon, K., & Kim, J. (2011).
Developmental and dyadic perspectives on commitment in adult romantic
relationships. Psychological Science, 22(7), 908-915. doi:
10.1177/0956797611410573
51
Ravitz, P., Maunder R., Hunter, J., Sthankiya, B., & Lancee, W. (2010). Adult attachment
measures: A 25-year review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69, 419-432.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.08.006
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80, 1–28. doi:
10.1037/h0092976
Scollon, C. & Diener, E. (2006). Love, work, and changes in extraversion and
neuroticism over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6),
1152-1165. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1152
Shaver, P.R. & Hazan, C.H. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501. doi: 10.1177/0265407588054005
Simpson, J., Collins, A., & Salvatore, J. (2011). The impact of early interpersonal
experience on adult romantic relationship functioning: Recent findings from the
Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(6), 355-359. doi: 10.1177/0963721411418468
Sprecher, S. (1999). “I love you more today than yesterday:” Romantic partners’
perceptions of changes in love and related affect over time. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76(1), 46-53. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.46
Sternberg, R.J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Cupid’s Arrow: The Course of Love through Time. London:
Cambridge University Press.
52
White, J.K., Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and
relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519-1530.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.019
Wright, D., Simmons, L., & Campbell, K. (2007). Does a marriage ideal exist? Using Qsort methodology to compare young adults’ and professional educators’ views on
healthy marriages. Contemporary Family Therapy, 29, 223-236. doi:
10.1007/s10591-007-9044-0
APPENDIX A
Beliefs about Relationships
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements. While answering the
questions, please think of the way that you approach relationships (regardless of whether you are
currently in a relationship or single).
Disagree strongly Disagree somewhat
1
Neither agree nor disagree
2
Agree somewhat
3
4
Agree strongly
5
1. _____ There is “one person” who I am/was destined to fall in love with.
2. _____ Successful romantic relationships begin with a careful consideration of the
person’s attributes and suitability as a romantic partner.
3. _____ Being in a romantic relationship is more a matter of personal choice, than of fate.
4. _____ Romantic love is an intense experience that I cannot control.
5. _____ Romantic love is something that takes time and patience to grow with each
individual.
Demographics
Age: ________
Your Gender (please circle): Male/Female
How would you identify your ethnicity? __________________________________________
College Grade Level:
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate
Current Semester Units: ______
Relationship Status: (married, single, in a relationship, engaged, dating, other – please specify)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Describe your sexual orientation:
Heterosexual
Other
54
Bisexual
Gay/Lesbian