See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232469022

Love relationships.

Article · October 2012

CITATIONS READS
3 833

1 author:

Pamela C. Regan
California State University, Los Angeles
105 PUBLICATIONS 3,588 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pamela C. Regan on 30 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CITATION:
Regan, P. C. (2000). Love relationships. In L. T. Szuchman & F. Muscarella (Eds.),
Psychological perspectives on human sexuality (pp. 232-282). New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Love Relationships
Pamela C. Regan
Introduction
The love relationships that we form over our lifetimes have important individual,
interpersonal, and societal consequences. For example, such relationships provide us with the
opportunity to engage in socially-sanctioned sexual activities, to reproduce and pairbond, to
establish social support networks, and to experience a host of positive affective experiences,
including warmth, trust, and intimacy. Indeed, surveys reveal that most individuals regard
satisfying love relationships as essential for their personal happiness (for a review, see Berscheid
& Reis, 1998).
Love clearly is linked with a variety of consequential events, including the formal
establishment of a sexual/romantic pairbond through cohabitation and marriage. Research
indicates that people typically express their feelings of love for each other prior to marriage
discussions (King & Christensen, 1983). In addition, the assumption that marriage must be
predicated upon love has become increasingly accepted in Western societies. Over 30 years ago,
Kephart (1967) asked a sample of young men and women whether they would marry someone
with whom they were not in love if that person possessed all the other qualities they desired in a
spouse. Approximately one-third (35%) of the men, and three-fourths (76%) of the women, said
yes. However, by the mid-1980s, these numbers had changed and love was seen as an essential
prerequisite for marriage by both sexes: Simpson, Campbell, and Berscheid (1986) asked the
same question of their participants, and reported that 86% of the men and 80% of the women
now considered love as the primary basis for marriage (that is, they would not marry someone
they did not love even if that person was "perfect" in every other respect). Moreover,
longitudinal studies indicate that the amount of love the members of a couple actually feel for
each other predicts such important future relational events as marriage and relationship
endurance. Hill and Peplau (1998) followed a sample of couples over a 15-year period and
reported that those who experienced greater love at the beginning of their study were more likely
to actually get married and to stay married than those who were less in love.
Thus, love -- and the relationships it produces and fosters -- plays a significant role in
human lives, and a solid understanding of love becomes important to social and behavioral
scientists, particularly those who wish to effectively treat couples embroiled in distressed love
relationships. The first goal of this chapter is to present some of the more commonly utilized
typologies of love and their associated measurement instruments. Second, I will consider the
type of love most closely associated with sexuality; namely, passionate love. Third, I will
explore the nature of love relationships, including the attributes that people seek in potential love
partners, and the theoretical frameworks that can be used to predict and explain these
preferences. Finally, I will examine the darker side of love relationships, including unrequited
love, obsession, mismatched love styles, and loss of desire and passion, as well as various ways
to alleviate or minimize these potentially problematic occurrences.
Contemporary Typologies of Love
The study of love is not new. Throughout history, thinkers from a number of disciplines
have speculated on the nature of love. For example, religious theoretician C. S. Lewis
(1960/1988) outlined four types or varieties of love, based upon earlier distinctions made by
Greek philosophers. Affection, called Storge by the Greeks, is described by Lewis as "the
humblest and most widely diffused of loves" (p. 31). Affectionate love resembles the strong
attachment seen between parents and offspring, is often experienced for and by a diversity of
love objects (e.g., family members, pets, acquaintances, lovers) and consists of feelings of
warmth, interpersonal comfort, and satisfaction in being together. This love type is based upon
familiarity and repeated contact. The second variety of love depicted by Lewis is Friendship, or
Philias. Common interests, insights, or tastes, coupled with cooperation, mutual respect, and
understanding, form the core of this love type. More than mere companionship, Lewis argues
that "Friendship must be about something, even if it were only an enthusiasm for dominoes or
white mice" (p. 66). Eros, or "that state which we call 'being in love' " (p. 91) is the third variety
of love. Unlike the other love types, Eros contains a carnal sexual element that Lewis refers to as
Venus. In addition to this sexual desire component, erotic love is characterized by idealization
of the beloved, preoccupation with thoughts of him or her, and a short-life span. The final love
type is Charity, also referred to as "Christian" love. This selfless love has no expectation of
reward, desires only what is "simply best for the beloved" (p. 128), and allows us to love those
who are not lovable (a state Lewis reminds us is experienced by everyone at some time).
Numerous other taxonomies that specify types or varieties of love have been proposed
(for reviews, see S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992; Sternberg & Barnes, 1988). Two of the more
common contemporary typologies are those developed by Sternberg (e.g., 1986, 1988a,b) and
Lee (e.g., 1973, 1988).
The Triangular Theory of Love
Sternberg (e.g., 1986, 1988a,b) conceptualizes love in terms of three basic components
that form the vertices of a triangle: Intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. The intimacy
component is primarily emotional or affective in nature and involves feelings of warmth,
closeness, connection, and bondedness in the love relationship. The passion component is
motivational and consists of the drives that are involved in romantic and physical attraction,
sexual consummation, and related phenomena. The decision/commitment component is largely
cognitive and represents both the short-term decision that one individual loves another and the
longer-term commitment to maintain that love.
According to Sternberg, these components combine to produce eight different love
experiences or types. Specifically:
1. Nonlove (no intimacy, passion, or decision/commitment): Casual interactions
characterized by the absence of intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. Nonlove describes
the majority of our transient, casual relationships.
2. Liking (intimacy alone): Friendship that contains intimacy and emotional closeness
but no passion or decision/commitment. That is, one cares for the friend but does not feel
passion for that individual or the desire to love that individual for the rest of one's life.
3. Infatuation (passion alone): An infatuated, "love at first sight" experience that is
characterized by high degrees of attraction and psychophysiological arousal in the absence of
any real emotional intimacy and decision/commitment.
4. Empty love (decision/commitment alone): Often seen at the end of long-term
relationships (or at the beginning of arranged marriages) in which the couple is committed to
each other but lacks emotional involvement and passionate attraction.
5. Romantic love (intimacy + passion): This is liking (emotional intimacy) coupled with
physical attraction and its concomitants.
 6. Companionate love (intimacy + decision/commitment): This is essentially a long-
term, stable, and committed friendship that is characterized by high amounts of emotional
intimacy, the decision to love the partner, and the commitment to remain in the relationship.
This type of love is often seen in long-term marriages in which sexual attraction has faded.
7. Fatuous love (passion + decision/commitment): Couples who love fatuously base their
commitment to each other on passion in the absence of deep emotional intimacy. These
"whirlwind" relationships are typically unstable and at risk for termination.
8. Consummate love (intimacy + passion + decision/commitment): Consummate or
"complete" love results from the combination of all three components. According to Sternberg,
this is the type of love many individuals strive to attain, particularly those in romantic
relationships.
Sternberg also argues that people's relationships -- their love triangles -- differ with
respect to total amount (area) and balance (shape). For example, some individuals feel a high
amount of love for the partner and roughly equal amounts of the different components. The love
triangle characterizing their relationship thus has a large physical area and a balanced
(equilateral) shape. A smaller, isosceles triangle can be used to represent a relationship in which
the individual feels less total love and significantly more intimacy than passion and
decision/commitment.
Although conceptually interesting, this theory has not received strong empirical support.
For example, Sternberg (1988a) created a 45-item scale based on his previous theoretical work.
Sample items include "I communicate well with _____" (from the Intimacy subscale), "Just
seeing _____ excites me" (from the Passion subscale), and "I view my relationship with _____ as
permanent" (from the Commitment subscale). C. Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) administered
this scale to a group of 391 unmarried men and women. Their results indicated not only that all
three subscales were highly intercorrelated (with an average correlation of .75), but that the
instrument formed a unifactorial scale. In other words, the Triangular Theory of Love Scale
appears to measure one global construct or relationship dimension rather than three distinct
elements or components of love. Nonetheless, the theory remains conceptually interesting and
appears to capture the love experiences of many individuals.
The Colors of Love (Love Styles)
Another contemporary theory of love, and one that has produced a widely used
measurement instrument and spawned a myriad of research efforts, is the typology developed by
Lee (e.g., 1973, 1977, 1988). In this novel approach, each variety of love (or love style) is
likened to a primary or secondary color (hence the title of Lee's [1973] book, Colours of Love).
According to Lee, there are three primary colors or styles of loving. The first, eros, is an
intensely emotional experience that is similar to passionate love. In fact, the most typical
symptom of eros is an immediate and powerful attraction to the beloved individual. The erotic
lover is "turned on" by a particular physical type, is prone to fall instantly and completely in love
with a stranger (i.e., experiences "love at first sight"), rapidly becomes preoccupied with pleasant
thoughts about that individual, feels an intense need for daily contact with the beloved, and
wishes the relationship to remain exclusive. Erotic love also has a strong sexual component; for
example, not only does the erotic style of loving always begin with a strong physical attraction,
but the erotic lover usually seeks some form of sexual involvement early in the relationship.
The second primary color of love is ludus, or game-playing love. The ludic lover views
love as a game, to be played with skill and often with several partners simultaneously.
Commitment is antithetical to ludus. Ludic lovers prefer a variety of physical types, avoid
seeing the partner too often, believe that lies and deception are justified, expect the partner to
remain in control of his or her emotions, and view sexual activity as an opportunity for pleasure
rather than for intense emotional bonding.
Storge (pronounced "stor-gay") is the third primary love color. Described by Lee as
"love without fever or folly" (1973, p. 77), storge resembles Lewis's concept of Affection in that
it is stable and based upon a solid foundation of trust, respect, and friendship. Indeed, the typical
storgic lover views and treats the partner as an "old friend," does not experience the intense
emotions or physical attraction to the partner associated with erotic love, prefers to talk about
and engage in shared interests with the partner rather than to express direct feelings, is shy about
sex, and tends to demonstrate his or her affection in nonsexual ways. Essentially, storge is
highly similar to deep friendship.
Like the primary colors, the primary love styles can be combined to form secondary
colors or styles of love. The three secondary styles identified by Lee contain features of the
primaries, but also possess their own unique characteristics. Pragma, a combination of storge
and ludus, is "the love that goes shopping for a suitable mate" (1973, p. 124). The pragmatic
lover has a practical outlook to love and seeks a compatible lover. He or she creates a shopping
list of features or attributes desired in the partner, and will select a mate based on how well that
individual fulfills the requirements. Pragmatic love is essentially a faster-acting version of storge
that has been quickened by the addition of ludus.
Mania, the combination of eros and ludus, is another secondary love style. Manic lovers
lack the self-confidence associated with eros and the emotional self-control associated with
ludus; rather, this obsessive, jealous love style is characterized by self-defeating emotions,
desperate attempts to force affection from the beloved, and the inability to trust in and to enjoy
any mutuality of feeling the beloved does display. The manic lover is eager, even anxious, to fall
in love. He or she begins immediately to imagine a future with the partner, wants to see the
partner daily, tries to force the partner to show love and commitment, distrusts the partner's
sincerity, and is extremely possessive. Noting that the manic lover "will abase and abuse himself
[herself] in the hope of winning the partner's love" (1973, p. 27), Lee concluded that mania
produces distress in both partners (the manic lover and the beloved) and rarely ends happily.
The last secondary color of love is agape, a combination of eros and storge. Agape is
similar to Lewis's concept of Charity, and represents an all-giving, selfless love style that implies
an obligation to love and care for others without any expectation of reciprocity or reward. This
love style is universalistic in the sense that the typical agapic lover feels that everyone is worthy
of love and that loving others is a duty of the mature person. With respect to personal love
relationships, agapic lovers will unselfishly devote themselves to the partner, even stepping aside
in favor of a rival who seems more likely to meet the partner's needs. Interestingly, although Lee
felt that many lovers respected the agapic ideal, he also believed that it did not exist in practice.
That is, the give-and-take that characterizes most adult romantic relationships, along with the
tendency of lovers to consistently place the beloved before other individuals, precludes the
occurrence of purely altruistic love. Near agapic experiences do, however, characterize some
relationships, and were labeled by Lee as storgic eros.
This classification scheme inspired the development of a 50-item true-false instrument
designed to measure each of the six love styles (Hatkoff & Lasswell, 1977; Lasswell & Lasswell,
1976). This original scale subsequently was revised substantially by Hendrick, Hendrick, and
colleagues (C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; C. Hendrick, Hendrick, Foote, & Slapion-Foote,
1984), who created new items and incorporated a Likert-type response format. The resulting 42-
item Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) appears to reliably measure the six love styles (i.e., six distinct,
nonoverlapping dimensions emerge from factor analysis, the items in each subscale are highly
correlated, and the subscales have low intercorrelations with each other). A second major
revision was undertaken several years later, when C. Hendrick and Hendrick (1990) recrafted the
LAS so that all of the items refer to a specific love relationship (as opposed to more general
attitudes about love). In addition, they created a shorter, 28-item version of the scale (C.
Hendrick, Hendrick, & Dicke, 1998). The complete scale, along with its shorter version, is
reproduced in Box 1.
-- Insert Box 1 about here --
The LAS has been used in numerous empirical investigations. In general, the results of
these studies reveal that there are robust group differences in love experience. For example,
research indicates that women tend to be relatively more storgic and pragmatic (and, in some
studies, more manic) than men, whereas men tend to be more ludic than women (e.g., C.
Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1988; S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987, 1995; C. Hendrick et al.,
1984, 1998). Sex role also appears to be associated with love style. Specifically, individuals
with an androgynous sex role seem to adopt an erotic and pragmatic approach to love, those with
a masculine sex role endorse a ludic love style, and those with a feminine sex role score highest
on mania (e.g., Bailey, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1987).
Demographic and personality variables also are related to love style. For example, highly
religious men and women tend to endorse a storgic, pragmatic, and agapic approach to love (e.g.,
S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987). They adopt a sensible, practical, altruistic style of loving others
that may be particularly suited to their religious or moral beliefs. In addition, self-esteem
appears to be positively correlated with an erotic love style, and negatively correlated with a
manic love style (e.g., C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). These results make sense insofar as eros,
which involves intense emotional experiences and some degree of risk-taking, clearly requires a
high amount of self-esteem and ego strength. Similarly, mania is almost by definition an esteem-
draining experience, insofar as it is characterized by uncertainty, self-doubt, and mistrust of the
relationship and the partner.
Finally, there are robust multicultural and cross-cultural differences in love experiences.
Within the United States, Asian American adults score lower on eros and higher on pragma than
Caucasian, Latino, and African American adults (e.g., C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Latino
groups, on the other hand, often score higher on ludus than Caucasian groups (e.g., Contreras,
Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1996). Cross-cultural comparisons reveal, for example, that Americans
tend to be endorse a more storgic and manic approach to love than do the French, who, in turn,
tend to demonstrate higher levels of agape (e.g., Murstein, Merighi, & Vyse, 1991).
These group differences notwithstanding, it is important to keep in mind that not all
individuals possess one approach or style of loving. Some men and women may adopt numerous
love styles. Similarly, a person's love style may change over his or her lifetime or during the
course of a given relationship. For example, manic feelings and responses may be more
common at the beginning stages of a romantic relationship, when one or both partners are
uncertain as to their feelings and the future of the relationship. Over time, however, these
feelings may be replaced by more erotic, storgic, or agapic feelings.
The Prototype Approach to Love
Some researchers, rather than following the "top-down" or theoretical approach to love
taken by Lewis, Sternberg, Lee, and others, instead have adopted "bottom-up" or empirically-
driven techniques to delineate the nature of love. One such technique, the prototype approach,
involves collecting data directly from men and women about their knowledge and beliefs -- their
mental representations -- of the concept of love. Researchers who utilize the prototype approach
are interested in exploring what people think of when they are asked about love, how they
differentiate love from related concepts (e.g., liking), how they form their conceptualizations of
love, and how these conceptualizations or mental representations influence their behavior with
relational partners.
According to Rosch (e.g., 1973, 1975, 1978), an early pioneer in the use of prototype
analysis, natural language concepts can be viewed as having both a vertical and horizontal
dimension. The former concerns the hierarchical organization of concepts, or relations among
different levels of concepts. Concepts at one level may be included within or subsumed by those
at another, higher level. For example, the set of concepts mammal, dog, and collie illustrate an
abstract-to-concrete hierarchy with superordinate, basic, and subordinate levels. Using the
methods originally developed by Rosch, some researchers have investigated the hierarchical
structure of the concept of love. Shaver and colleagues (1987) provide evidence that love is a
basic level concept contained within the superordinate category of emotion and subsuming a
variety of subordinate concepts that reflect types or varieties of love (e.g., passion, infatuation,
liking).
Concepts also may be examined along a horizontal dimension. This dimension concerns
the differentiation of concepts at the same level of inclusiveness (e.g., the dimension on which
such subordinate level concepts as collie, German shepherd, and golden retriever vary).
According to Rosch, many natural language concepts or categories have an internal structure
whereby individual members of that category are ordered in terms of the degree to which they
resemble the prototypic member of the category. A prototype is the best, clearest example of the
concept (the "doggiest" dog; e.g., golden retriever). When utilizing prototypes, individuals
decide whether a new item belongs within a particular concept by comparing the item with the
concept's prototype.
The prototype approach has been used to explore the horizontal structure of a variety of
interpersonal concepts, including love. Fehr and Russell (1991), for example, asked men and
women to generate as many types of love as they could in a specified time, and then asked
another sample of individuals to rate these love varieties in terms of prototypicality or
"goodness-of-example." Of the 93 subtypes generated, maternal love was rated as the best or
most prototypical example of love, followed by parental love, friendship, sisterly love, romantic
love, brotherly love, and familial love. Infatuation, along with sexual love and puppy love, was
considered one of the least prototypical examples of love.
Other researchers have focused upon identifying the prototypic features (as opposed to
types) of love. For example, in an early demonstration, Fehr (1988) asked one group of
participants to list the characteristics of the concept "love" (Study 1, p. 560), and a second group
to rate how central each feature was to the concept of love (Study 2). Her results revealed that
love is believed to contain such central features as trust, caring, honesty, friendship, respect, and
loyalty. Features considered peripheral or unimportant to the concept of love include see only
the other's good qualities, butterflies in stomach, uncertainty, dependency, and scary. Similar
results have been reported by Luby and Aron (1990) and Shaver et al. (1987). More recently,
Aron and Westbay (1996) extended Fehr's work by exploring the underlying structure of the
prototype of love. These researchers found evidence that the 68 prototypic love features
identified by participants in Fehr's (1988) study could be reduced reliably to three latent
dimensions (i.e., passion, intimacy, and commitment) that resemble those included in Sternberg's
Triangular Theory of Love typology.
Passionate Love: The "Sexiest" Kind of Love
Of all the varieties of love that have been identified by theorists and researchers,
passionate love (also called erotic or romantic love) has received the lion's share of attention.
This particular type of love has assumed special importance in interpersonal relationships
research and in theoretical discourse on love for a number of reasons: Passionate love is
generally sought after by individuals and exalted in Western culture; passionate love has become
the sine qua non of the marriage contract; and the absence of passionate love may be a factor in
relationship dissolution (e.g., Berscheid, 1985; Burgess & Wallin, 1953; Goode, 1959; Kazak &
Reppucci, 1980; Kephart, 1967; Simpson et al, 1986; Spaulding, 1971). In addition, not only is
passionate love intricately associated with these and other significant individual and interper-
sonal events, but current social psychological discourse suggests that passionate love is the type
of love most closely associated with sexuality. This section of the chapter will explore how
passionate love is defined, the ways in which it is measured or assessed, and recent empirical
evidence examining the relation between passionate love and different aspects of human sexual
response.
Defining Passionate Love: What Does It Mean to "Be In Love"?
Passionate love, or the state of "being in love", consists of a number of basic features.
First and foremost, this type of love is an intensely emotional experience. Berscheid and Walster
[Hatfield] (1974), two of the first social scientists to speculate upon the nature of "being in love",
suggest that people experience passionate love when a minimum of two conditions are met: (1)
They are extremely aroused physiologically (an essential ingredient for any strong emotion), and
(2) they believe that this arousal is caused by the partner and therefore appropriately is labeled
"passionate love." In addition, passionate love is assumed to be fueled by, and associated with,
both positive and negative emotions, and the passionate lover is presumed to alternate between
states of joy, fulfillment, and ecstasy when the relationship is going well and bouts of emptiness,
anxiety, and despair when it is not. For example, Berscheid and Walster (1974) discuss the
"hodgepodge of conflicting emotions" (p. 359) associated with passionate love, and, more
recently, Hatfield and Rapson (1990) describe the "continuous interplay between elation and
despair, thrills and terror" (p. 128) they believe to be integral to the experience of being in love.
Interestingly, however, research on beliefs about passionate love (e.g., Regan, Kocan, &
Whitlock, 1998) and on correlates of passionate love in dating couples (e.g., Sprecher & Regan,
1998) suggests that passionate love is more strongly associated with positive emotions than it is
with negative emotions, with one important exception: Jealousy is clearly related to feelings of
passionate love (that is, not only do men and women associate jealousy with the state of being in
love, but those who love passionately also tend to report feeling jealous).
Second, in contrast to more durable types of love (e.g, companionate, conjugal, storgic,
or friendship-based love), passionate love is viewed by most theorists as an inherently unstable,
short-lived phenomenon. For example, Berscheid (1983) concludes that passionate love and
other intense emotional experiences have a "swift onset" but are "distressingly fragile."
Sternberg (1988b) states that the rapid development of intense passion inevitably leads to
habituation; over time, the partner is no longer as "stimulating" as he or she once was and can no
longer produce the intense arousal previously felt by the lover. Some research supports these
theoretical contentions. With a sample of 197 couples, Sprecher and Regan (1998) examined
whether the number of months that each couple had been dating was related to the amount of
passionate love they reportedly felt for each other. These researchers found evidence that
passionate love indeed is related to relationship duration; specifically, the longer a couple had
been together, the lower their passionate love scores (although scores were high in all couples).
Third, passionate love contains a strong sexual component. In fact, current social
psychological discourse suggests that sexuality is one of the dimensions that differentiates
passionate love from other varieties or types of love experience (Aron & Aron, 1991; S.
Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992; Regan & Berscheid, 1999). As discussed earlier, Lee (e.g., 1973,
1977, 1988) concluded that passionate (or what he terms erotic) love always begins with a strong
physical attraction, and he noted that the erotic lover seeks early sexual involvement with the
partner and is "eager to get to know the beloved quickly, intensely -- and undressed" (1988, p.
50). Tennov (1979), and, more recently, Berscheid (e.g., 1985, 1988) and Regan (1998a,b),
argue that sexual desire or attraction is a necessary feature of the passionate love experience.
Other theorists include such additional sexual phenomena as arousal, excitement, gratification,
and activity in their conceptualizations of passionate love (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1974;
Hatfield & Rapson, 1987, 1993; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). This is not to say that other types
of love are sexless; certainly it is possible to feel desire for someone we love companionately,
and to engage in sexual activities with that person. However, sexuality appears to play the
strongest role in the passionate love experience.
Assessing Passionate Love: How Do We Measure "Being In Love"?
There are two basic ways to assess passionate love: Single-item self-report measures and
multi-item scales. Single-item measures typically focus upon the quantity or the intensity of
passionate love experienced by an individual. Examples include:
1. How much passionate love do you feel for _____?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
None A great deal

2. Rate the intensity of your feelings of passionate love for your current partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very little Extremely intense
feeling feeling

3. How strongly are you in love with _____?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at all Extremely
strongly strongly

4. How strong are your feelings of passionate love for your partner?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very weak Very strong

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at all Extremely
strong strong
5. How often do you experience feelings of passionate love for your partner?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Never Extremely often

_____ times a day

_____ times a week
_____ times a month

6. How often did you experience passionate love in your relationship during the last month?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Never Sometimes Extremely often

Although these global, single-item measures are easy to use and appear to be relatively
reliable (see, for example, Sprecher & Regan, 1998), many researchers choose to use larger,
multi-item scales that have been developed specifically to measure the various theoretically-
important elements of passionate love. Several different passionate love scales have been
constructed over the years, including measures by Swensen and colleagues (1961; Swensen &
Gilner, 1963), Pam, Plutchik, and Conte (1975), Critelli, Myers, and Loos (1986), C. Hendrick
and Hendrick (1986), and Hatfield and Sprecher (1986). Of these, two are particularly worthy of
note; namely, the Erotic subscale of the Love Attitudes Scale developed by C. Hendrick and
Hendrick (1986) and discussed above, and the Passionate Love Scale developed by Hatfield and
Sprecher (1986).
The Passionate Love Scale represents perhaps the best measure of passionate love
currently available. Drawing upon past theoretical conceptualizations, previously developed
measures, and in-depth personal interviews, Hatfield and Sprecher crafted a series of items
designed to assess the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of the passionate love
experience. Subsequent administration and revision of this original set of items resulted in a 30-
item scale that reliably discriminates between feelings of passionate love versus other types of
love (e.g., companionate love). Of particular interest is the fact that the scale contains a number
of items that directly or indirectly refer to sexuality, including the following:
Sometimes my body trembles with excitement at the sight of ___
I take delight in studying the movements and angles of ____'s body.
I want ____ -- physically, emotionally, mentally.
I melt when looking deeply into ____'s eyes.
I sense my body responding when ____ touches me.
The complete scale is represented in Box 2.
-- Insert Box 2 about here --
Research on the Sexual Component of Passionate Love
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the only way I'd have sex with someone
was if we were deeply in love. If two people are in love, then sex seems like a natural
way to express those feelings. [19-year-old woman interviewed by the author]

I've had sexual intercourse with a number of different partners -- some I didn't know at
all and who I never saw again after the sex, and some I had lasting relationships with. I
have to say that the best, most comfortable, most satisfying sex I've ever had is with my
 current girlfriend (who I hope will be my wife). I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the other
sexual relationships I've had, but sex with someone you love is definitely better. We (my
girlfriend and I) feel totally comfortable with each other. I know that I can trust her, and
I feel free to communicate openly with her about sex and all other aspects of our
relationship. There's much more freedom and openness and satisfaction to the sex if
you're in a committed relationship with someone you love. [31-year-old man interviewed
by the author]

I love everything about him -- I want him all the time and I think about him all the time. I
am so in love with him that I get weak even writing down these words. I can’t
concentrate, I can’t sleep, I don’t want to eat. I get so excited when I know that I’m
going to see him, and then when I do see him, I can’t breathe I’m so full of want. When
we’re together I can’t wait for him to touch me, to kiss me, to hold me. And then I want
more! This is how I know that I’m really in love -- these feelings just keep growing
stronger and stronger. This is it! [24-year-old woman interviewed by the author]

As these quotations illustrate, love and sexuality appear to be intricately connected in the
eyes of many individuals. Indeed, as noted above, contemporary theorists and researchers who
have speculated on the nature of passionate love have linked it with a variety of sexual
phenomena. Many of the existing conceptualizations and measures of passionate love contain an
interesting mixture of sexual elements, including physical or sexual attraction/desire (e.g.,
Berscheid, 1988; Critelli et al., 1986; Hatfield, 1988; Hatfield & Walster, 1978; C. Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1986; Lee, 1973; Pam et al., 1975; Regan, 1998a,b; Shaver & Hazan, 1988; Sternberg,
1988a,b; Tennov, 1979), sexual excitement (e.g., Critelli et al., 1986; Hatfield & Walster, 1978),
physiological and/or sexual arousal (e.g., Critelli et al., 1986; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986;
Hatfield & Walster, 1978; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988), sexual deprivation (e.g., Hatfield
& Walster, 1978), sexual satisfaction and/or sexual gratification (e.g., Berscheid & Walster,
1974; C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Shaver et al., 1988; Walster & Berscheid, 1971), sexual
involvement (e.g., C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Lee, 1973, 1978), and sexual activity (e.g.,
Buss, 1988a; Swensen, 1961; Swensen & Gilner, 1963; Shaver & Hazan, 1988). Although these
phenomena do not represent the same, or in some instances even similar, concepts, it is clear that
passionate love is considered by many researchers to be a sexualized experience. Indeed, a
growing body of empirical evidence now links this type of love with three particular elements of
sexuality -- sexual activity, sexual excitement, and, most importantly, sexual desire.
Passionate love and sexual activity. Sexual activity plays a very definite role in
passionate love and the kinds of emotionally committed relationships with which it is associated.
Not only may sexual or physical contact be an important component of this type of love (Knox,
1975), but sexual activity between two individuals may serve to express, promote, or enhance
feelings of passionate love (see, for example, Neubeck, 1972). In an early work, noted theorist
and sex researcher Havelock Ellis (1922) explained:
Apart from any sexual craving, the complete spiritual contact of two persons who love
each other can only be attained through some act of rare intimacy. No act can be quite so
intimate as the sexual embrace. (p. 68)
Some empirical evidence reveals that sexual activity is, in fact, one way that a couple
expresses and communicates feelings of passionate love. For example, Buss (1988a) asked a
sample of 100 men and women to think of people who "have been or are currently in love" and
to list acts or behaviors these individuals have performed that reflect their feelings. Several
behaviors involving sexual intimacy were viewed as integral to the passionate love experience,
including such acts as "he gave her a prolonged hug," "she nuzzled him," "he made love to her,"
and "she spent the night with him." Similar results were reported by Marston, Hecht, Manke,
McDaniel, and Reeder (1998). These researchers interviewed a sample of in-love couples about
the ways in which they communicated their feelings of passion to each other. The most common
method of expressing passion was through sexual activities, including "making love."
In addition, not only may sexual activity allow individuals to demonstrate their feelings
of passionate love, but feelings of passionate love, in turn, may serve to justify sexual activity.
Numerous studies indicate that most men and women view sexual intercourse as more
appropriate, and as more likely to occur, in committed, love-based relationships than in casual or
less "serious" relationships (e.g., Carroll, Volk, & Hyde, 1985; Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, &
Kolata, 1994; Roche, 1986; Sherwin & Corbett, 1985; Sprecher & Hatfield, 1996). In an early
study, for example, Reiss (1964) reported that men and women from a national probability
sample of the United States population as well as students from five high schools and colleges
were increasingly more accepting of premarital sexual intercourse between two people as their
relationship became characterized by correspondingly greater amounts of affection and
commitment (e.g., as the relationship progressed from relatively little affection to strong
affection, and then to love and engagement). Similar results were found two decades later by
Sprecher, McKinney, Walsh, and Anderson (1988). Increasing numbers of participants in that
study viewed sexual intercourse between two people as acceptable as their relationship stage
progressed from casually dating (41%), to seriously dating (72%), to pre-engaged (77%), and,
finally, to engaged (82%). More recently, Sprecher and Hatfield (1996) asked a sample of 1043
men and women to indicate how acceptable sexual intercourse was at different relationship
stages. Their results indicated that with each increase in relationship commitment (i.e., as a
couple moved from first date to casually dating to seriously dating to pre-engaged to engaged),
there was a corresponding increase in the number of men and women who expressed acceptance
of sexual intercourse.
In much the same way that sexual activity is considered appropriate between partners
who are involved in a committed, love-based relationship, the absence of love or emotional
intimacy seems to be sufficient reason to abstain from sexual activity. Sprecher and Regan
(1996) surveyed a sample of 97 virgin men and 192 virgin women about the reasons for their
sexual status. The single most important reason endorsed by both sexes for their virginity was "I
have not been in a relationship long enough or been in love enough." The least important reason
for both sexes was "I lack desire for sex." In other words, these young adults felt sexual desire
and wanted to engage in sexual intercourse, but had not yet experienced sufficient amounts of
passionate love to justify that activity.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the perceived association between sexual activity and love is
usually stronger among women than men (although this is changing as women are becoming
more accepting of premarital and casual sexual activity; Oliver & Hyde, 1993). For example,
Robinson, Balkwell, and Ward (1980) asked male and female college students to write down
their first five responses to various sexual concepts and terms. When exposed to the stimulus
words "sex" and "intercourse," women responded with words indicative of love (e.g., love,
loving, being in love, loved, loving each other) and marriage or commitment (e.g., being
engaged, husband, wife, serious relationship) more often than did men. Additional support for
the notion that women associate sex with love to a greater extent than do men is indirectly
provided by a study conducted by Hatfield, Sprecher, Pillemer, Greenberger, and Wexler (1988).
These researchers found that, although both the dating and married men and women in their
sample expressed roughly equal satisfaction with their current sexual relationship, women
wanted to receive love and intimacy from the sexual encounter above all else and wished that
their dating or marriage partner would talk more "lovingly" and be more "warm and involved"
during a sexual encounter. Men, on the other hand, were less concerned with the emotional
aspects of the sexual encounter and more concerned that their partner be initiative of and
experimental in sexual encounters.
Research on the reasons men and women choose to engage in and abstain from sexual
intercourse reveals a similar sex difference. For example, Carroll and colleagues (1985)
discovered that men and women cite different motives for participating in sexual activity.
Although the majority of both men and women in this study felt that the most important reason
for engaging in intercourse was feeling loved or needed, more women (45%) than men (8%) felt
that emotional involvement was "always" a prerequisite for sex. Similar results were reported by
Christopher and Cate (1985). These researchers asked college age, virgin men and women to
indicate how important several factors would be in their decision to have sexual intercourse with
an ideal partner for the first time. They found that women were more likely than men to rate
relationship factors (e.g., love for partner) as a salient issue (but recall that Sprecher and Regan
[1996] found no sex difference with respect to relationship reasons for abstinence among adult
virgins).
In sum, there is strong evidence that sexual activity is associated with the experience of
passionate love; many men and women consider sexual activity an appropriate way of
communicating their feelings of love and passion to the partner, and many view passionate love
as sufficient justification for engaging in sexual activity (and, similarly, feel that the absence of
love is reason enough to abstain from intercourse).
Passionate love and sexual excitement. Research also suggests that physiological (i.e.,
sexual excitement, sexual arousal) aspects of sexuality are associated with feelings of passionate
love. For example, in the process of validating the Passionate Love Scale, Hatfield and Sprecher
(1986) found that people who are more passionately in love experience higher levels of sexual
excitement when thinking about the partner than those who are less passionately in love. Similar
results have been reported by Sprecher and Regan (1998). These researchers were interested in
exploring whether two types of love -- passionate love and companionate love (a stable,
affectionate love based on trust and friendship) -- are associated differentially with a variety of
interpersonal events and phenomena. They asked a sample of 197 heterosexual couples to
complete the Companionate Love Scale (adapted from Rubin's [1970] love scale) and a
shortened version of Hatfield and Sprecher's (1986) Passionate Love Scale, as well as global,
single-item measures of each love type. Couples also indicated how often they had experienced
"sexual excitement" for the partner in the past month, and completed a 6-item sexual intimacy
scale that assessed, for example, sexual satisfaction, ability to express sexual interest to the
partner, and the partner's perceived interest in sex. The results revealed that both passionate and
companionate love were positively correlated with these two sexuality variables. However, for
both men and women, the experience of sexual excitement was more strongly correlated with
passionate love scores than with companionate love scores, whereas feelings of sexual intimacy
were more strongly related to companionate love scores than to passionate love scores. These
results indicate that different aspects of sexuality are more (or less) associated with particular
types or varieties of love. Specifically, intense, physiological components of sexuality (e.g.,
sexual excitement) appear to be important features of the passionate love experience, whereas
low-key, subjective sexual feelings related to closeness, warmth, satisfaction, and compatibility
(i.e., sexual intimacy) are an important part of the companionate love experience.
Passionate love and sexual desire. Many passionate lovers do not engage in sexual
activity with their beloved, and many people who are not passionately in love with their partners
nonetheless engage in satisfying sexual relations with those individuals. In addition, it is
possible to become sexually aroused or excited by individuals with whom one is not in love.
Consequently, although sexual activity and sexual excitement may be associated with passionate
love, these sexual phenomena are not essential features of the passionate love experience.
Another aspect of sexuality -- sexual desire (also called sexual attraction) -- does, however,
appear to be a necessary condition for passionate love. Indeed, the notion that sexual desire is a
distinguishing feature of passionate love is a common theme running through love discourse in
such diverse disciplines as sexual pathology and medicine (e.g., H. Ellis, 1897-1928/1901-1928,
1933/1963; Krafft-Ebing, 1886/1945), psychiatry and psychoanalysis (e.g., A. Ellis, 1954; Freud,
1908/1963, 1912/1963; Reik, 1945), existential philosophy (e.g., Fromm, 1956), and religious
theology (e.g., Lewis, 1960). In addition, contemporary social psychological discourse on love
suggests that the experience of passionate love is strongly associated with sexual desire (see, for
example, Regan & Berscheid, 1999).
A growing body of empirical evidence now supports these theoretical statements.
Berscheid and colleagues, for example, argue that the experience of "love" is fundamentally
different from the experience of "being in love," and they present evidence that passionate love
(the state of "being in love") is characterized by a greater amount of sexual attraction than "love."
For example, Ridge and Berscheid (1989) asked a sample of undergraduate men and women
whether they believed that there was a difference between the experience of being in love with
and that of loving another person: Fully 87% emphatically claimed that there was a difference
between the two experiences. In addition, when asked to specify the nature of that difference in
an open-ended response format, participants were more likely to cite sexual attraction (i.e.,
sexual desire) as descriptive of the "in love" experience.
More recently, using what they term a "social categorical method," Berscheid and Meyers
(1996) asked a large sample of undergraduate men and women to list the initials of all the people
they currently loved, the initials of all those with whom they were currently in love, and the
initials of all those toward whom they currently felt sexual attraction/desire. For each individual
respondent, the authors calculated the probability that persons named in the "sexually desire"
category were also named in the "in love" and "love" categories. These sets of probabilities then
were averaged across respondents. The results indicated that 85% of the persons listed in the "in
love" category were also listed in the "sexually desire" category, whereas only 2% of those listed
in the "love" category (and not cross-listed in the "in love" category) were listed in the "sexually
desire" category. Thus, the objects of respondents' feelings of passionate love (but not their
feelings of love) also tended to be the objects of their desire.
Research conducted by Regan and her colleagues also provides evidence that passionate
love is a qualitatively different experience from such other varieties of interpersonal attraction as
loving and liking, and that sexual desire in particular is one of its essential components. For
example, Regan, Kocan, and Whitlock (1998) conducted a prototype study to investigate how
people conceptualize the state of being in love. As discussed earlier, the prototype approach
(e.g., Rosch, 1975, 1978) is a standard social cognition paradigm used to investigate how people
organize or represent a concept -- like passionate love -- in their cognitive systems, and it allows
researchers to determine the central (highly distinguishing or essential) and peripheral (less
distinguishing or essential) features of a concept. These researchers asked 120 undergraduate
men and women to list in a free response format all of the features that they considered to be
characteristic or prototypical of the state of passionate love ("being in love"). Out of 119
features spontaneously generated by the participants, sexual desire received the second highest
frequency rating (65.8%). In other words, when thinking of passionate love, two-thirds of the
participants automatically thought of sexual desire. In addition, this feature was viewed as more
important to the passionate love concept than kissing (cited by only 10% of participants),
touching/holding (cited by 17.5%), and sexual activity (cited by 25%). These results certainly
support the notion that sexual desire is more essential to the passionate love experience than
behavioral sexual events, at least in the minds of young adults.
Two recent person perception experiments provide additional support for these prototype
results. Person perception experiments are commonly used in social psychological research and
essentially involve manipulating people's perceptions of a relationship and then measuring the
impact of that manipulation on their subsequent evaluations and beliefs. In the first experiment,
Regan (1998b) provided a sample of 60 undergraduate men and women with two self-report
questionnaires ostensibly completed by "Rob" and "Nancy," a student couple enrolled at the
same university. The members of this couple reported experiencing no sexual desire for each
other or a high amount of sexual desire for each other, and were currently engaging in sexual
activity with each other or were not sexually active. Participants then estimated the likelihood
that the partners experience passionate love as well as a variety of other relationship events. The
results indicated that both men and women believed that dating partners who experience sexual
desire for each other are more likely to be passionately in love with each other (as well as more
likely to experience a variety of other relationship events) than dating partners who do not desire
each other sexually, regardless of their current level of sexual activity.
A second experiment, a conceptual replication of the first, confirmed these results. Here,
48 men and women received information about the members of a heterosexual, dating "student
couple" who ostensibly reported that they were currently passionately in love with each other,
that they loved each other, or that they liked each other. Participants then estimated the
likelihood that the members of the couple experience sexual desire for each other and the amount
of desire that they feel for each other. Analyses revealed that participants perceived couples who
are passionately in love as more likely to experience sexual desire than couples who love each
other or who like each other. Similarly, couples who are passionately in love were believed to
experience a greater amount of sexual desire for each other than couples who love each other or
who like each other. Interestingly, sexual desire was believed to be no more likely in a "loving"
relationship than in a "liking" relationship, and greater amounts of sexual desire were not
believed to occur in loving relationships than liking relationships. Again, it seems that sexual
desire is viewed, at least by young men and women, as an important feature or component of
passionate love relationships -- and not of relationships characterized by feelings of loving (i.e.,
companionate love) and/or liking (i.e., friendship).
Research with actual dating couples, although sparse, also suggests that sexual desire and
passionate love share a unique connection. For example, Regan (1998c) found that the self-
reported amount of sexual desire experienced by men and women for their dating partners was
significantly positively correlated with the level of passionate love they felt for those individuals.
Their feelings of desire were unrelated, however, to the amount of companionate love and liking
they experienced for their partners.
In sum, passionate love is a sexualized experience that is strongly associated with
feelings of sexual desire or attraction for the partner, that tends to result in the occurrence of
sexual activity, and that appears to be linked with sexual arousal and excitement.
Love Relationships
The emotional responses that we have toward another individual, whether passionate or
companionate, can propel us into initiating, entering, and maintaining a relationship with that
person. The following section examines general theoretical approaches to love relationships, as
well as current empirical research on partner selection (i.e., what characteristics do men and
women seek in their potential partners?), partner attraction and retention (i.e., how do people
gain and keep the attention of a partner?), and partner choice (i.e., what types of partner do men
and women actually obtain?).
Theoretical Approaches to Love Relationships
There are a number of theoretical frameworks that have been developed to explain the
dynamics of love relationships. The first broad class of approaches, subsumed under the rubric
social context frameworks, focuses upon proximal mechanisms -- that is, forces located in the
contemporary social, cultural, and historical milieu -- that may influence partner preferences,
attraction strategies, choices, and relationship outcomes. Social exchange or equity models of
relationship development and maintenance represent one such framework (e.g., Blau, 1964;
Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985; Murstein, 1970, 1976; Walster, Walster, &
Berscheid, 1978; for a recent review of social exchange models relevant to sexuality and
relationships, see Sprecher, 1998). According to these models, the process of partner selection
and relationship formation resembles a "stock market" (Cameron, Oskamp, & Sparks, 1977) in
which men and women players attempt to maximize their rewards and make social interaction as
profitable as possible by exchanging their own assets -- beauty, health, intelligence, a sense of
humor, kindness, wealth, status, and so on -- for desirable attributes in a partner. Essentially, an
individual's own value as a potential partner represents his or her bargaining power and thus is
presumed to influence the extent to which he or she is able to purchase a high value partner.
Assuming that we all seek the best possible value in a potential mate, high value individuals
(those with high amounts of desired characteristics and thus a great deal of purchasing power)
will pair with others of equally high value, and lower value or "poorer" persons inevitably will
form liaisons with lower value, or less expensive, others. In other words, this process is
presumed to result in the pairing of individuals of roughly equal value (i.e., those with similar
"weighted pool[s] of stimulus attractions" [Murstein, 1970]). Mistakes are costly. For example,
in his (1970) discussion of the early stages of marital choice, Murstein notes that although an
individual may run less risk of rejection if he or she seeks a less desirable partner (low cost), the
rewards of such a conquest are correspondingly low (low profit); at the same time, the increased
likelihood of rejection (high cost) associated with seeking a partner who is substantially more
desirable than oneself (high profit) renders this enterprise equally risky. Consequently, an
accurate perception of one's own qualities and what one has to contribute or offer to a
relationship is extremely important.
Other social context theories focus on sex differences in (heterosexual) love relationships.
For example, social role theorists (e.g., Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 1991) posit that people
develop expectations for their own and others' behavior based on their beliefs about sex-
appropriate behavior and attributes. Such beliefs and expectations are assumed to arise from the
distribution of men and women into different social roles in natural settings; specifically, the
sexes are believed to possess attributes suited for the roles each typically occupies (for men,
these roles continue to be primarily occupational and economic; for women, these roles are
traditionally domestic). Consequently, sex differences in interpersonal, romantic and/or sexual
behavior are caused in part by the tendency of people to behave in a manner consistent with their
sex roles. To the extent that people prefer others to behave in accordance with existing sex role
stereotypes, traditionally "male" characteristics and attributes (e.g., have a high paying job,
display assertiveness and aggression) may be valued more by women than by men when
considering and selecting a potential partner, and traditionally "female" characteristics and
attributes (e.g., be nurturant and emotionally expressive) may be valued more by men than by
women.
Other social forces undoubtedly also act to shape men's and women's interpersonal
behavior. Recall that women tend to associate sexual activity with love more than do men (i.e.,
women are less permissive with respect to uncommitted sexual activity, generally require love as
a prerequisite for sexual activity, and often abstain from sexual activity in the absence of a
committed, loving relationship). This robust sex difference may originate from sex-specific
social and cultural scripts and differential learning histories and patterns of reinforcement and
punishment. Oliver and Hyde (1993), for example, discuss Mischel's (1966) application of
social learning theory to sex differences in sexual and romantic behavior. According to this
perspective, men generally receive more positive reinforcement than women for seeking out and
engaging in sexual activity, while women generally receive more reinforcement for confining
their sexual activity to committed, love-based relationships (also see Hogben & Byrne, 1998).
Similarly, script theorists point to sociocultural norms and expectations that teach that sexual
experience is an important aspect of masculinity but not femininity, and that men should seek
short-term sexual liaisons whereas women should limit their sexual activities to socially
sanctioned, long-term relationships (e.g., Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Reiss, 1967, 1981, 1986a,b;
Simon, 1974; Simon & Gagnon, 1986). The different patterns of reinforcement and punishment
that men and women receive for their sexual and romantic behavior, coupled with the existence
of normative beliefs about male and female sexuality, may encourage men to have relatively
more permissive standards with respect to sexual activity in romantic relationships. Those same
social forces encourage women to adopt less permissive standards and to seek partners who will
demonstrate commitment and a desire for a long-term union.
A second broad class of theoretical approaches to love relationships focuses on distal
rather than on contemporary mechanisms. Evolutionary models are based upon the principles of
natural selection originally articulated by Darwin (1859, 1871). These models consider the ways
in which sexual and romantic behavior might be affected by evolved psychological heuristics
that were selected because they overcame obstacles to reproduction located in the human
ancestral past and therefore maximized gene replication and reproductive success. Several
factors are posited to affect partner preferences, choices, and relationship outcomes, including
the potential partner's physical or genetic fitness; his or her emotional fitness or willingness to
invest in the reproductive partner, the reproductive relationship, and resulting offspring; and
paternity certainty or the estimated likelihood that offspring produced with a particular partner
are indeed one's own (e.g., Buss & Kenrick, 1998; Cunningham, Druen, & Barbee, 1997;
Gangestad & Simpson, 1990; Kenrick, 1994; Trivers, 1972).
Parental investment-based evolutionary models, like the majority of social context
frameworks, posit sex differences in romantic and sexual behavior. For example, Kenrick and
colleagues' (1990, 1993) qualified parental investment theory suggests that women, who invest
more direct physiological resources in their offspring than men (e.g., contributing body nutrients
during pregnancy and lactation), will be more sensitive to resource limitations and thus
particularly attentive to a potential partner's social status, which is presumably related to his
ability to provide resources in the form of food, material possessions, and physical protection.
Men, on the other hand, are assumed to be constrained by access to women who can produce
viable offspring and thus should be relatively more sensitive than women to characteristics that
reflect reproductive capacity (e.g., health and its presumed observable index, physical
attractiveness, and youth).
Other evolutionary perspectives, most notably attachment-based models, recognize that
our biological design, which is rooted in our hunter-gatherer roots, favors the formation of
enduring relationships and few sex differences in interpersonal behavior. For example, the life-
span strategies theory proposed by Cunningham and colleagues (e.g., Cunningham et al., 1997;
Rowatt et al., 1997) relies upon principles of attachment (Bowlby, 1973) to explain partner
preferences and behavior in love relationships. Noting that human offspring are characterized by
a period of dependency that extends well beyond infancy, this perspective argues that successful
pairbonding and childrearing depend for both sexes on the ability to select an ideal attachment
figure -- a mate who can and will provide sustained social and emotional support. Consequently,
both men and women are presumed to be particularly desirous of partners who possess prosocial
personality characteristics and interpersonal attributes. [For additional discussion of the pair-
bond maintenance function of the attachment system, see Kirkpatrick (1998), Miller and Fishkin
(1997), and Zeifman and Hazan (1997)].
The preferences, choices, and behaviors that men and women demonstrate as they enter,
maintain, and terminate love relationships undoubtedly are influenced by both contemporary and
distal mechanisms. As will become evident from the following discussion, each of the
aforementioned theories and perspectives sheds some light on human love relationships.
Partner Preferences: What Do Men and Women Seek in Their Potential Partners?
Scholars from a variety of disciplines have become interested in examining the traits men
and women desire in romantic partners, in part because such preferences have implications for
people's behavior and their interpersonal relationships. For example, men and women may
actively attempt to initiate relationships with those individuals who possess certain desirable
attributes or characteristics, and avoid or terminate relationships with individuals who do not
meet or who no longer meet these selection criteria.
Researchers in this area generally explore the perceived desirability of various
personality traits or other individual attributes in a potential partner. Some researchers use a
ranking procedure in which participants order features in terms of their importance or desirability
(e.g., Buss & Barnes, 1986; Regan & Berscheid, 1997; Sprecher, Regan, McKinney, Maxwell, &
Wazienski, 1997). Others utilize a rating procedure in which participants evaluate the
importance or desirability of features with Likert-type scales (e.g., Wiederman & Allgeier,
1992), or a percentile ranking procedure in which participants indicate how much of a particular
characteristic they would like a potential partner to possess relative to other same-sex peers (e.g.,
"I would like my potential dating partner to score above 75% of all other same-age men/women
on intelligence;" Kenrick et al., 1990, 1993; Regan, 1998d,e). Still other researchers employ
content analyses of personal ads in an attempt to delineate the dynamics of partner preference
and mate selection (e.g., Cameron et al., 1977; Davis, 1990; Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Kenrick,
Keefe, Bryan, Barr, & Brown, 1995; Smith, Waldorf, & Trembath, 1990).
Numerous studies reveal a robust preference pattern such that men and women
overwhelmingly prefer intelligent, honest, and emotionally stable partners who are attractive and
who possess a "good" or "exciting" personality (e.g., Buss & Barnes, 1986; Howard, Blumstein,
& Schwartz, 1987; Regan & Berscheid, 1997; Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994; Sprecher et
al., 1997). For example, in one early study, Hill (1945) asked a sample of college students to
rank order a list of 18 characteristics in terms of their importance in a dating partner. The most
important attributes, according to his participants, were "dependable character," "emotional
stability," "pleasing disposition," and "mutual attraction." Other researchers have since
replicated these results using the same list of features (e.g., Hudson & Henze, 1969; McGinnis,
1959). More recently, Regan, Levin, Sprecher, Cate, and Christopher (1998) asked 561
undergraduates to rate the importance of a series of characteristics in choosing a potential long-
term, romantic partner. Their results revealed that, for both sexes, the most important
constellation of features centered around the potential partner's personality. Specifically, men
and women preferred a potential partner to possess high amounts of expressiveness, openness,
humor, friendliness, and sociability. In addition, participants sought a partner who was sexually
desirable (i.e., who was physically attractive, sexy, and athletic) and who demonstrated socially
appealing traits (e.g., warmth, kindness, intelligence, ambition).
In addition to exploring what people seek in potential partners, some researchers have
begun to examine the attributes that people seek to avoid when selecting a date or mate. For
example, Cunningham, Barbee, and Druen (1996; also see Rowatt et al., 1997) argue that the
extended time commitment involved in human reproduction requires that individuals evaluate
their partners not only in terms of the positive qualities they offer but also in terms of whether
their negative qualities can be endured. Research on these undesirable partner attributes, deemed
"social allergens" by Cunningham and his colleagues, indicates that men and women are
repulsed by individuals who consistently violate social norms (e.g., overconsume alcohol,
gamble often, smoke, lie to and gossip about others, arrive late, are often angry). In addition,
they seek to avoid partners who display bad habits (e.g., have poor table manners, a gullible or
cynical personality, a loud speaking voice, and a shrill laugh, and who violate personal space
rules) or who appear to be highly oversexed (e.g., look longingly at members of the opposite sex,
brag about sexual prowess, talk often about past relational partners, have had many previous
romantic partners).
In general, men and women have highly similar preferences with respect to their long-
term, romantic partners. As noted above, these preferences tend to center around such internal,
prosocial characteristics as a honesty, intelligence, a dependable character, and an emotionally
stable personality. In addition, these preferences are remarkably stable over time, with some
exceptions that can be explained by the changing social roles of the sexes. For example, chastity
or sexual inexperience has declined in importance, perhaps due to increased sexual freedom for
both sexes (e.g., Sprecher et al., 1997). There are only two attribute categories on which men
and women demonstrate consistent differences; namely, physical appearance attributes and
social status characteristics. Specifically, when considering a potential date or marriage partner,
men tend to emphasize physical attractiveness more than women, and women tend to emphasize
social or economic position more than men (e.g., Buss & Barnes, 1986; Goodwin, 1990;
Greenlees & McGrew, 1994; Harrison & Saeed, 1977; Howard et al., 1987; Regan & Berscheid,
1997; Sprecher et al., 1994; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1992; for reviews, see Feingold, 1990,
1992). For example, Sprecher and her colleagues (1994) asked a large national sample of men
and women to indicate how willing they would be to marry someone who possessed a variety of
characteristics. They found that men were significantly less willing than women to marry
someone who was "not good looking," whereas women were significantly less willing than men
to marry a partner who was "not likely to hold a steady job" and who "would earn less than you."
It also should be noted, however, that neither sex was highly willing to marry individuals with
these attributes. Thus, these results should not be interpreted as indicating that attractiveness is
unimportant to women, or that social status does not matter to men, when considering a potential
partner. To the contrary, women as well as men prefer physically attractive partners, and men as
well as women tend to prefer mates who are at least equal to their own current or estimated
social status (Regan, 1998d,e). In sum, appearance and status are important, albeit differentially
so, to both sexes.
Other variables appear to be more strongly associated than is sex or gender with partner
preferences. A team of researchers led by Buss (1989) surveyed over 10,000 men and women
representing 32 countries about their preferences in a marital partner. Their results revealed
robust cross-cultural differences. For example, the characteristic "chastity" was highly valued in
Asian cultures, including Taiwan, China, Indonesia, and India, and more so than in any other
cultures. In Western European cultures (e.g., France, Sweden, Norway, West Germany), chastity
was considered irrelevant (indeed, a few respondents even jotted down in the margins of their
questionnaires that it was undesirable in a romantic partner). The second largest cultural
difference was found on items related to domestic skills and domesticity; that is, "good
housekeeper" and "desire for home and children." These particular attributes were most highly
desired in African and South American samples. Samples of individuals who placed low value
on these characteristics included North America (i.e., United States and Canada), and the
majority of Western European countries. In addition to these cross-cultural differences, some
researchers using multicultural samples (i.e., ethnically diverse samples drawn from within one
country) find that preferences differ as a function of ethnicity. Sprecher et al.'s (1994) study
revealed that Caucasian women report significantly less willingness than African American
women to marry a man who lacks a steady job, whereas African American women are less
willing to marry a man who is not good-looking (also see Sparrow, 1991).
Other individual difference variables also are related to partner preferences. For
example, Hester and Rudolph (1994) report that individuals with an extraverted personality type
(i.e., E types) place more importance on a potential partner's "exciting personality" than do
introverted (I) types. In addition, although the preference patterns of homosexual men and
women generally resemble those of their heterosexual counterparts (e.g., Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei,
& Gladue, 1994; Kenrick et al., 1995; Laner, 1977; Lee, 1976), Howard et al. (1987) found that
male homosexuals and lesbians preferred more than heterosexuals a romantic partner who was
expressive (i.e., affectionate, compassionate, expresses feelings, romantic).
Current research directions. This examination of partner preferences would be
incomplete without mentioning several new research directions. First, many researchers now
recognize that mating relationships may range from the extremely short-term and explicitly
sexual (e.g., one-night stands, flings) to the long-term and romantically committed (e.g., steady
dating, cohabiting, marriage), and that preferences for each type of relationship may be
fundamentally different (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Kenrick et al., 1990, 1993; Regan &
Berscheid, 1997). For example, a growing body of research suggests that casual sex partners are
primarily selected on the basis of external, physical attributes (e.g., Regan & Berscheid, 1995,
1997; Regan & Dreyer, 1999), whereas long-term romantic partners are evaluated mostly in
terms of their ability to provide emotional warmth and to create and sustain positive social
interaction (e.g., Regan, 1998e; Regan, Levin, Sprecher, Cate, & Christopher, 1998).
Second, there is increasing recognition that people do not rigidly adhere to their ideal
preferences, but instead commonly take into account the constraints placed upon their desired
choices by such variables as their own characteristics and attributes, their relative freedom to
pursue a partner, and the quality and quantity of available partners in the surrounding field, and
consequently alter or compromise their ideal preferences. A creative field study conducted by
Pennebaker and colleagues (1979) provides evidence that partner preferences are, in fact,
somewhat malleable. At three preselected times -- 9:00 pm, 10:30 pm, and midnight (half an
hour before closing) -- these researchers entered various drinking establishments near a college
campus and asked randomly selected men and women to evaluate the attractiveness of the
opposite- and same-sex individuals present at that time. Their results indicated that, as closing
time neared and the period remaining to select, approach, and secure a partner decreased, the
perceived attractiveness of opposite-sex (but not same-sex) bar patrons increased significantly.
Assuming that those individuals actually did not alter their appearance over the course of the
evening, this study certainly suggests that the criteria that men and women employ when
choosing a partner are not set in stone and that people can and do modify their standards as a
function of various selection pressures (e.g., decision time).
Indeed, a growing body of empirical work indicates that individuals may distinguish
between the quality and/or quantity of characteristics that they ideally desire and those with
which they would be satisfied in a potential partner. Some researchers have explored minimum
selection standards, or the lowest amount of various attributes that people find acceptable in
potential partners. For example, Kenrick et al. (1993) and, more recently, Regan (1998d) asked
young adults to report their lowest levels of acceptability (in the form of percentile scores) for a
variety of partner characteristics at different levels of relationship involvement. The results of
both studies revealed that men and women generally expressed higher minimum standards as the
relationship context shifted from short-term (casual sex) to long-term (romantic). In addition,
women were more selective than men, particularly when considering a partner for casual sexual
relations.
Other researchers have examined compromise in the form of the relative importance that
individuals place upon particular partner attributes. Cunningham and colleagues (e.g., 1990,
1997) have conducted several studies exploring the "trade-offs" that men and women make when
faced with a choice between partners who possess different constellations of positive
characteristics. They reported, for example, that both men and women selected individuals who
combined physical attractiveness with a pleasing personality over those who possessed the mix
of physical attractiveness and wealth or the combination of a pleasing personality and wealth.
Similarly, a recent series of studies by Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, and West (1995) revealed
that the impact of dominant (proactive, agentic) behavior on a man's perceived dating desirability
was moderated by his level of agreeableness. Specifically, women participants preferred
dominant men, but only if they also demonstrated high levels of agreeable, prosocial behavior.
In sum, men and women distinguish between different types of partner, and they also
appear willing to modify their ideal preferences by establishing minimum standards for various
attributes and by selectively choosing one characteristic or combination of characteristics over
others.
Partner Attraction and Retention: How Do Men and Women Attract and Keep Their
Partners?
In addition to exploring the characteristics that individuals prefer in their potential
partners, a number of researchers have investigated the behaviors and events that people enact to
attract and retain a long-term partner (e.g., Buss, 1988b; Buss & Dedden, 1990; Cashdan, 1993;
Hirsch & Paul, 1996; Schmitt & Buss, 1996; Walters & Crawford, 1994). One of the first
studies to investigate this topic was published by Buss in 1988b. He provided 107 newlywed
couples with a list of 101 acts or behaviors, and asked them to indicate how often they had
engaged in each one when they first met their spouse and while they were dating their spouse.
Both sexes tended to flirt, "act nice," demonstrate a sense of humor, touch the other person, and
maintain good grooming when trying to attract a partner. In addition, men more than women
displayed and boasted about their resources (e.g., "drove an expensive car," "flashed a lot of
money," "bragged about his accomplishments," "bought an expensive stereo") and athleticism
(e.g., "lifted weights," "talked about how good he was at sports," "flexed his muscles," "acted
like he was interested in sports"). Women more than men emphasized their appearance,
engaging in such tactics as wearing makeup, jewelry, perfume, and fashionable clothing, dieting,
tanning, and styling their hair. Buss then gave a list of these same behaviors to a sample of
undergraduates and asked them to rate how effective they would be at attracting long-term
partners for men and for women. In accord with the earlier sex differences, he found that acts
involving resource display were viewed as more effective for men than for women in attracting a
mate. Similarly, acts involving enhancing physical appearance were viewed as more effective
for women than for men. However, Buss concluded that, despite these clear sex differences,
there were even greater sex similarities in the mate attraction acts performed by men and women.
For example, the acts performed most frequently and considered most effective for both sexes
involved displaying sympathy, kindness, good manners, helpfulness, and humor.
More recently, and using a procedure similar to that employed by Buss (1988b), Walters
and Crawford (1994) asked a sample of men and women to nominate acts or behaviors that they
had used to compete with other members of the same sex when attempting to attract a partner. A
second set of participants then indicated how frequently they themselves had engaged in the
nominated actions. The results revealed that men demonstrated athletic ability (e.g., "I arm-
wrestled other guys"), used risk in athletics (e.g., "I played sports that are fairly dangerous, such
as hockey, football, or lacrosse"), demonstrated status (e.g., "I physically fought with another
guy"), and displayed resources (e.g, "I spent money entertaining women") more frequently than
did women. Conversely, women altered their appearance (e.g., "I dressed to make my breasts
appear larger") and attracted attention to their appearance (e.g., "I wore make-up to something at
which it is not usually worn, e.g., the beach, in order to look better than other women") more
often than did men. As in the earlier Buss study, however, the sex similarities far outweighed the
sex differences. Not only were there no sex differences on 18 out of 26 tactics, but the most
frequently reported male and female tactics involved demonstrating domestic ability (e.g.,
cleaning house), acquiring athletic ability (working out), and emphasizing and displaying an
attractive appearance.
Interestingly, the activities used by men and women to attract a partner and to compete
with potential rivals for a partner's affections are highly similar to the behaviors performed by
men and women when attempting to retain a current mate. In another study, Buss (1988c) asked
undergraduate students to list and evaluate "the things that people do when they want to prevent
their partner from getting involved with someone else" (p. 296). The most frequently performed
acts by men involved complimenting the partner on her appearance; sitting next to her and
touching or embracing her when other men are around; going out of the way to be kind, nice, and
caring; being helpful and extremely affectionate; looking "nice" and dressing nicely to maintain
her interest; acceding to her sexual requests; and purchasing gifts for her. Similarly, women
reported most often complimenting the partner on his appearance; being nice, kind, affectionate,
helpful, and caring; dressing nicely and using makeup to appear attractive; sitting next to the
partner and holding his hand or touching him when other women are around; and buying him
small gifts. Violent acts and derogation behaviors (e.g., harming the potential rival, spreading
rumors about the potential rival's reputation, hitting or slapping the partner) were rarely
performed. As before, men more than women displayed resources (e.g., bought gifts, flowers,
expensive dinners) and women more than men enhanced their appearance (e.g., used makeup,
wore the latest fashions). In addition, men were more likely than women to report using tactics
of partner concealment (e.g., refusing to introduce the partner to same-sex friends, removing the
partner from gatherings where other men were present), submission (e.g, giving in to the
partner's "every wish," changing in order to please the partner), violence against the rival (e.g.,
hitting, fighting with, slapping, or vandalizing the property of a man who made a pass at the
partner), and threats against the rival (yelling at, staring coldly at, confronting, and threatening to
hit a man who looked at the partner). Despite these differences, Buss notes that men and women
generally utilize highly similar tactics and acts to retain their partners.
Partner Choice: With Whom Do People Typically Pair?
In addition to studying people's preferences in long-term partners and the behaviors they
use to attract and retain their mates, researchers also have examined actual mating choices.
Much of this research focuses upon identifying and comparing the mating systems (i.e., the
norms that govern partner selection) that exist across cultures. A number of mating systems have
been identified, including endogamy (i.e., inbreeding or the pairing of genetically related
individuals); exogamy (i.e., outbreeding or the pairing of genetically unrelated relatives);
polygyny (i.e., a mating system in which men pair with multiple women); polyandry (i.e., a
system in which women pair with multiple men); and monogamy (i.e., a system in which two
individuals pairbond). Despite the panoply of systems that may govern individuals' partner
choices, some universals in human pairbonding appear to exist. For example, all known human
societies practice marriage or some other form of socially-sanctioned, long-term pairing between
men and women (Daly & Wilson, 1983). Similarly, there is strong cross-cultural evidence for
the universality of the experience of romantic or passionate love (Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992).
In addition, some mating systems are more prevalent than others. Daly and Wilson (1983)
examined pairbonding phenomena in 849 human societies. Their results indicated, for example,
that polygyny is far more common than polyandry. Specifically, 708 cultures practiced the
former, only 4 followed the latter, and the remaining 137 were monogamous.
The majority of Western cultures, like our own, practice monogamy, or the bonding of
two individuals in a committed relationship. The most typical form of monogamous pairing that
occurs is homogamy. Also called assortative mating or assortment, homogamy is defined as the
pairing of similar individuals; that is, persons who resemble one another on one or more
characteristics. With the exception of biological sex, such that men tend to prefer to mate with
women and vice versa, individuals seem to assort along a large variety of dimensions. For
example, reviews of the literature on assortment generally reveal positive correlations between
marital partners on such characteristics as age, race, ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic
status, religion, and physical attractiveness, as well as on a host of personality traits and
cognitive abilities (e.g., Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Buss, 1985; Murstein, 1980). In other words,
regardless of our preferences, we seem to ultimately pair with similar others.
Love Gone Bad: Problematic Aspects of Love Relationships
Human interaction and personal relationships have the potential to provide us with
extremely positive outcomes, including attachment and pairbonding, social support, love,
happiness, satisfaction, and well-being. However, there is another side to close relationships as
well, a destructive and dysfunctional side that only recently has come to receive systematic
attention from relationship theorists and researchers (for discussion, see Spitzberg & Cupach,
1998). This next section examines the "darker" aspects of love relationships.
Unrequited Love
For many individuals, passionate love is an overwhelmingly positive experience,
characterized by trust, commitment, sharing, honesty, joy, and acceptance. However, passionate
love -- particularly when it is unrequited -- has the potential to be just as strongly associated with
negative affective states, including jealousy, depression, and anxiety. In one of the first studies
to attempt to explore the dynamics of unrequited love, Baumeister, Wotman, and Stillwell (1993;
also see Baumeister & Wotman, 1992) asked 71 unrequited lovers to write autobiographical
accounts of their experiences as would-be suitors and rejectors. Their results indicate that
unrequited love is a negative experience for both the rejector and the rejected lover. Specifically,
although roughly one-fourth of the rejectors reported feeling flattered by the attentions of their
potential lovers, the majority also viewed these unwanted advances as annoying, felt
uncomfortable and guilty about delivering a rejection message, and experienced a range of
negative emotions, including anger and resentment. Would-be lovers, on the other hand,
reported feelings of longing for and preoccupation with the love object, fears of rejection, and
lowered self-esteem.
Unrequited love thus can be, and frequently is, a highly negative experience for both the
rejector and the would-be suitor, and, unfortunately, there is no easy panacea for recovering from
romantic rejection. Individuals who find their passionate overtures rebuffed by the ones they
love may need to restore and bolster their self-esteem by focusing on their good qualities and/or
other positive relationships they currently have or that they have had past. Those who reject the
romantic advances of another may need to engage in self-justification as a way of coming to
terms with their feelings of guilt about causing pain to another individual.
Obsession

At first I thought it was sort of cute and romantic that he wanted to be with me all the
time. He would ask me to give him a detailed account of my day, all the places I went,
the people I talked with, the things I did. When I would go to a friend's house or to visit
my mom, he would call several times just to see if I was there. I felt flattered that I had a
boyfriend who loved me so much. But then it got out of hand. I mean, he wouldn't even
let me drive to the store by myself! Sometimes he would even stand really close to me
and listen when I was on the phone. After we broke up, he began calling me at home,
usually several times a night. He also started calling me at work, which made things
difficult for me with my boss. So I stopped taking his calls at work and I changed to an
unlisted number at home. I think what really made me realize that I needed to take some
action and tell people what was going on was when he started spying on me. One
morning, I was standing by the window looking outside and I noticed his car. He was
just sitting there, watching me. I have no idea how long he had been there, but it really
scared me. I felt trapped and violated. [32-year-old woman interviewed by the author]

I met a woman I thought I liked. She was attractive, bright, seemed to have a good sense
of humor and to be stable and well-grounded. We went out on a couple of dates and it
turned out that we didn't have that much in common, so I didn't pursue the relationship.
No big breakup or anything, we just weren't suited to each other. That should have been
the end of it, but it wasn't. She lived about 10 miles from me, and she would drive over to
 my neighborhood, park in front of my house, and then go jogging around the block for
what seemed like hours. I would see her as she passed my house again and again, every
single day. She began to eat in the local restaurants I frequented. She called my house
and left messages about getting together to "work things out." She was everywhere I
went and she did her best to invade every single moment of my day. My friends laughed
about it and made jokes about what a lucky guy I was to have this woman chasing after
me, but believe me it wasn't funny. Fortunately, I relocated due to my job and I've
haven't seen her since. [46-year-old man interviewed by the author]

Many individuals experience unreciprocated passionate or romantic attachment.

Although these unrequited love occurrences are for the most part unpleasant (see discussion
above), the majority of people manage to successfully negotiate them. In some cases, however,
these experiences produce or are associated with obsessive thinking, psychopathology, and even
violent behavior (Meloy, 1989; Mintz, 1980). We turn now to the phenomenon of obsessive
relational intrusion.
Obsessive relational intrusion or ORI is defined as "repeated and unwanted pursuit and
invasion of one's sense of physical or symbolic privacy by another person, either stranger or
acquaintance, who desires and/or presumes an intimate relationship" (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1998,
pp. 234-35). Stalking may be viewed as an extreme form of ORI in which prior acquaintance
between the victim and the pursuer is not necessary. Specifically, ORI is motivated by a desire
on the part of the pursuer to form a relationship with the love object, whereas stalking may be
motivated by a desire for intimacy (in which case it is appropriately viewed as a manifestation of
ORI), a desire to punish the target for a presumed transgression, or the fact that the target meets
some previously established criteria for assault. Whatever the motivation behind these behavior
patterns, survey data reveal that stalking and ORI are far more common than traditionally has
been supposed. For example, a large national survey of 16,000 adults indicated that 8% of
women and 2% of men have been stalked at some time in their lives (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1997).
In addition, surveys using college student samples find that sizeable numbers have experienced
some form of obsessive relational intrusion (e.g., Coleman, 1997; Fremouw, Westrup, &
Pennybaker, 1997; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1996). Although most stalking victims are female and
most stalkers are male (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1997), men and women appear to be equally at risk
for ORI victimization (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1996).
In sum, relatively high percentages of men and women receive unwanted attention from
other individuals. This unwanted attention takes a variety of forms. For example, approximately
22% of the individuals who rejected the advances of others in Baumeister et al.'s (1993)
unrequited love study reported that their would-be suitors engaged in such unscrupulous
behaviors as lying about the nature of the relationship to other people and promising to go out as
platonic friends but subsequently using the occasion for romantic overtures. Other individuals
report receiving unwanted letters, notes, phone calls, visits, or gifts, or being followed or
watched by a pursuer (e.g., Herold, Mantle, & Zemitis, 1979; Jason, Reichler, Easton, Neal, &
Wilson, 1984; Roscoe, Strouse, & Goodwin, 1994). To date, the most exhaustive list of ORI
behaviors was developed by Cupach and Spitzberg (1997; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1996). These
researchers argue that ORI behaviors run the gamut from mildly intrusive, invasive, and
threatening (e.g., receiving unwanted gifts, notes, or messages, being repeatedly asked for a date)
to moderately intrusive, invasive, and threatening (e.g., reputational sabotage, watching or
spying) to extremely intrusive, invasive, and threatening (e.g., home invasion, verbal threats,
physical and/or sexual assault, property damage). Not surprisingly, the milder forms of ORI
behavior are the most frequently experienced. For example, the majority of participants in their
studies reported that their pursuer repeatedly called and argued with them (73%), asked them if
they were seeing someone romantically (72%), called and hung up without speaking (70%),
begged them for another chance (64%), watched or stared at them from a distance (62%), refused
to take hints that he/she was not welcome (61%), made exaggerated claims about his or her
affection (61%), gossiped or bragged about the relationship with others (61%), checked up on
them via mutual acquaintances (58%), and constantly apologized for past transgressions or
wrongs (57%). Less common but significantly more invasive and threatening behaviors included
threatening physical harm (30%), following the target from place to place (27%), damaging the
target's property or possessions (26%), exposing himself or herself to the target (26%), forcing
the target to engage in sexual behavior (16%), taking photos without the target's knowledge or
consent (11%), sending a multitude of email messages (11%), recording conversations without
the target's consent (8%), breaking into the target's home or apartment (8%), and sending
offensive photographs (5%).
Obsessive relational intrusion can have a variety of consequences for the targeted
individual. As illustrated by the work of Spitzberg, Cupach, and others (e.g., Meloy, 1996,
Mullen & Pathé, 1994), violent behavior can occur and have a range of deleterious physical
effects. In addition, victims of ORI often experience a panoply of psychological and emotional
reactions, including fear, anxiety, hopelessness, paranoia, depression, self-blame, and aggression
or hostility (e.g., Cupach & Spitzberg, 1997; Hall, 1996; Herold et al., 1979; Mullen & Pathé,
1994; Spitzberg, Nicastro, & Cousins, 1998; Wallace & Silverman, 1996). Interpersonally, ORI
targets may lose the ability to trust other people, and they may avoid and/or otherwise curtail
their social and work-related activities.
One fundamental question for researchers in the areas of ORI and stalking concerns
coping responses to victimization. What responses, for example, are most effective at
minimizing or eliminating stalking or intrusive behavior? What strategies can victims use to
reduce their risk of negative outcomes in these situations? Unfortunately, there is little
systematic empirical work in this area. Some researchers have attempted to identify the
constellation of responses typically made by individuals who have been harassed, stalked, or
pursued by obsessive relational intruders. The results of these pioneering studies suggest that
many targets simply ignore the situation or make no response at all. For example, based upon
their data, Baumeister et al. (1993) concluded that most people lack a clear script for responding
to unwanted romantic attention. This "scriptlessness" produces feelings of confusion and self-
blame on the part of the target and contributes to a passive avoidance of the would-be lover or
the situation. In addition, they reported that those targets who actively rejected the lover often
did so in ways that failed to effectively convey the rejection message (also see Burgoon et al.,
1989 and Jason et al., 1984). More recently, Spitzberg and Cupach (1996, 1998; also see
Spitzberg et al., 1998) surveyed a group of young adults and identified five general coping
categories: (1) direct interaction (e.g., have a serious talk with the person, yell at the person); (2)
protection or formal coping (e.g., obtain a restraining order, call the police); (3) avoidance (e.g.,
ignore the pursuer, avoid eye contact with the person); (4) retaliation (e.g., hit the pursuer,
ridicule the person); and (5) informal coping (e.g., obtain caller ID on the telephone, ask others
for advice). Although the effectiveness of these types of responses is unknown to date, some
professionals believe that statements and actions that directly and unequivocally convey rejection
and/or disinterest (e.g., "I am not interested in dating you, my feelings about you will not change,
and I know that you will respect my decision and direct your attention elsewhere") are most
effective at managing unwanted attention (e.g., De Becker, 1998). Additional research clearly is
needed to inform victims, clinicians, and law enforcement workers about the efficacy of various
forms of intervention in cases of stalking and ORI.
Mismatched Love Styles

What happens if you consider that your attraction to another person is typical of
the love I call eros, but the partner's approach to love is not eros but some other
kind such as ludus or storge? (Lee, 1973, p. 41)

When a lover whose preferred type of loving is storge becomes involved with a
partner whose understanding of true love is some other type, difficulties naturally
occur. (Lee, 1973, p. 80)

Unrequited passion and obsession are not the only potentially problematic outcomes or
occurrences associated with loving another individual. There are several other ways in which
love relationships can go awry. In particular, it is possible that an individual's style of loving
may influence the quality and even the quantity (i.e., duration or length) of his or her romantic
relationships. Certainly each type of love style is associated with a degree of personal and
interpersonal risk. For example, after interviewing a large sample of men and women, Lee
(1973) concluded that some erotic lovers are prone to jealousy and possessiveness; that some
ludic lovers may experience guilt at violating social and relational norms about love (e.g.,
romantic relationships should be monogamous, committed, and long-term); and that some storgic
lovers may be perceived as unexciting and passionless by partners who do not share their
friendship-based approach to love. Perhaps the most potentially destructive love style, however,
is mania -- the combination of eros and ludus. Called "demonic love" by Lee, mania is
characterized by extreme jealousy, helpless obsession, and unhappiness. Although manic
attachments may develop into a more mature and lasting love, this is unusual. It is no wonder,
then, that men and women who adopt this approach to love often demonstrate lowered levels of
self-esteem (C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). The aftermath of manic love may enable people to
realize the amount of emotion they are capable of experiencing for another individual, and thus
may contribute to their personal growth. In general, however, manic love is unhealthy love.
In addition, as illustrated by the quotations cited above, the pattern of a couple's love
style (i.e., whether they endorse the same stye of loving or not) may influence relationship
outcomes. Interestingly, only a few researchers have examined the role of love styles in ongoing
romantic relationships. In general, and in accord with the research on assortative mating
reviewed earlier, there is a tendency for individuals to pair with others who share the same love
style (e.g., Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; S. Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988). In addition,
some love styles are related to relationship satisfaction and longevity. For example, S. Hendrick
and colleagues (1988) surveyed 57 dating couples on a variety of interpersonal measures. Their
results indicated that an erotic love style predicted overall dyadic adjustment; that is, the more
passionately that men and women loved, the greater the level of satisfaction they felt in their
relationships. Additional analyses revealed that women's scores on eros, agape, and ludus were
related to their partners' self-reported satisfaction. Specifically, women who loved passionately
or selflessly tended to have highly satisfied partners, whereas women who adopted a game-
playing approach to love had less satisfied partners. Finally, the researchers recontacted a
subsample of couples two months after the time of their initial participation and asked them
about the status of their relationship. They found that couples who had terminated their
relationship originally scored higher on ludus and lower on eros than couples who were still
together. Game-playing and lack of passionate involvement are not conducive to relationship
longevity.
In sum, manic and ludic approaches to love may increase the likelihood of negative
interpersonal outcomes. Future research on the impact of mismatched love styles (e.g., a manic
lover paired with an erotic lover, a storgic lover paired with a ludic lover) on relationship
adjustment is recommended.
Passionless Passionate Love

It's not that I don't desire him anymore, it's simply that I don't desire him as much. In a
way, our relationship is stronger now, built more solidly on other, less sexual feelings.
But there are times when I have to admit I become a bit nostalgic for the passion that
we've lost. It used to be that I would glimpse him making a certain gesture, or hear his
voice on the phone, or catch the scent of his cologne, and I would literally be infused with
this feeling of desire, of need, of sheer want. And it was almost indescribable, a mingling
of the physical and the emotional. But we've been together for a long time, and
somehow, somewhere that feeling just faded. I love him deeply, maybe more than I ever
did before, and I know that we'll grow old together, but it's not the same. [35-year-old
homosexual man interviewed by the author]

As illustrated in the above quotation, passion frequently fades over time in love
relationships. Research suggests that the longer a couple has been involved in their relationship,
the less passionate love they will feel for each other (e.g., Sprecher & Regan, 1998). To some
extent, we owe this occurrence to our biological design; our bodies simply are not equipped to
sustain the intense emotional and physiological arousal associated with passion and desire.
Although many couples do experience a decline in the intensity of their feelings, they
also may find that passion gradually merges with or is replaced by other, less intense but equally
positive feelings (e.g., companionate love). Why, then, do so many couples interpret a decrease
in passion as a serious relationship issue? This section examines whether loss of passion -- more
specifically, of sexual passion -- represents a significant problem for love relationships.
Consider the following scenarios:

Scenario 1. Sonja and John engage in sexual intercourse seven or eight times a
week. Each feels a high amount of sexual desire in general and for the partner,
has sexual thoughts and daydreams several times during each day, and enjoys
acting out sexual fantasies and trying new sexual techniques. Their sexual
encounters typically result in mutual orgasm, and they both report feeling quite
satisfied with the sexual aspects of their relationship.

Scenario 2. Chris and Cynthia have sex approximately once a month. Although
they indicate feeling attracted to each other, they do not consider sex to be an
essential or important aspect of their relationship. They are relatively
uncomfortable with sexual displays of affection and prefer to express their
feelings through shared activities and nonsexual forms of intimacy.
 Scenario 3. Judy and Greg engage in sexual intercourse once a week. Judy
experiences high amounts of sexual desire for Greg, openly expresses her
feelings, and is typically the initiator of sexual contact. Greg is less interested in
sexual intercourse, but generally accepts Judy's sexual invitations and enjoys the
subsequent sexual interactions.

These couples differ in their levels of sexual desire, the frequency with which they
engage in sexual activity, the openness of their communications about sex, and the amount of
enjoyment they draw from their sexual encounters. Are any of these couples, by definition, in a
"troubled" relationship? Prior to answering this question, there a number of factors that must be
considered.
Consideration #1: Sexual variables are strongly associated with relationship adjustment
and quality. Of all the aspects of sexuality that have received attention from theorists and
researchers, sexual desire appears to be the most strongly associated with relational variables.
For example, people often interpret a loss or absence of sexual desire as a sign that a couple has
fallen "out of love" with each other and that their relationship is dysfunctional, abnormal, or in
need of some form of professional intervention (e.g, Regan, 1998b). Indeed, as a growing
number of couples enter therapy with the aim of increasing one partner's (or both partners')
diminished sexual desire, it has become clear that the experience of sexual desire is intricately
connected to the quality of the relationship. For example, "emotional conflict with partner" was
cited as the most common cause of inhibited sexual desire among married men and women in a
survey of 400 physicians (Pietropinto, 1986), and many clinicians now focus on the dynamics of
the couple's relationship in seeking to understand and treat sexual desire disorders (e.g., Fish,
Fish, & Sprenkle, 1984; Kaplan, 1979; Regas & Sprenkle, 1984; Talmadge & Talmadge, 1986;
Trudel, 1991).
In addition, at least two studies provide empirical support for the hypothesis that sexual
desire disorders signal the existence of other problems in a couple's relationship. Stuart,
Hammond, and Pett (1987) administered a dyadic adjustment scale to 59 married women who
were diagnosed with inhibited sexual desire (ISD) and to 31 married women who reported
normal sexual desire. The women in the ISD group scored significantly lower in marital
adjustment than did women in the non-ISD group, and the spouses of women in the ISD group
also reported significantly lower overall satisfactory adjustment in their marriage and lower
levels of affection than the spouses of non-ISD women. Stuart and colleagues also asked
respondents to rate their subjective feelings about the quality of their relationship with their
spouse. ISD women were significantly less satisfied with the way in which interpersonal conflict
was resolved and with their own and their spouses' listening ability, and they reported
experiencing significantly lower levels of emotional closeness, romantic feelings, and love
toward their spouses.
A longitudinal study conducted by Hallstrom and Samuelsson (1990) also suggests that
relationship properties may affect the experience of sexual desire. The authors interviewed 497
women who were married or cohabiting with a male partner, on two occasions six years apart.
Women were asked about the present degree of their sexual desire (i.e., whether they perceived it
as strong, moderate, weak, or absent), and to report whether they received insufficient emotional
support from their spouse (yes/no) and lacked a confiding relationship with him (yes/no).
Although causality cannot be determined from this correlational design, a decrease in self-
reported sexual desire over time was predicted by a perceived lack of a confiding relationship
with and insufficient support from the spouse at the first interview.
Other sexual variables also appear to be linked with the quality of a couple's relationship.
Several researchers have documented the association between relationship satisfaction and
sexual satisfaction in a wide variety of couple types, including married and cohabiting
heterosexual partners, and cohabiting homosexual male (gay) and female (lesbian) couples (e.g.,
Greeley, 1991; Hatfield, Greenberger, Traupman, & Lambert, 1982; Hunt, 1974; Kurdek, 1991;
Schenk, Pfrang, & Rausche, 1983). A similar correlation has been found between relationship
satisfaction and the frequency with which a couple has sexual intercourse (e.g., Donnelly, 1993).
For example, people who feel that their marriages are fair and equitable are more satisfied with
their sex lives and report having sex more often than those who feel that their relationships are
inequitable (Hatfield et al., 1982). Couples who enjoy spending time together and who share
social activities and hobbies also have sex with greater frequency than couples who share few
outside activities (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). Conversely, relationships filled with
conflict and those in which one or both partners have threatened to leave are characterized by
low frequencies of sexual intercourse (e.g., Donnelly, 1993; Edwards & Booth, 1976).
Insofar as sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of intercourse are associated
with satisfaction, closeness, and other significant relational events, it is important to recognize
that a sudden or prolonged absence or change in the experience of these sexual variables may
signal the existence of some degree of interpersonal difficulty. In sum, a couple's relationship in
the bedroom often is related to their relationship outside of the bedroom.
Consideration #2: Sexual desire, activity, and satisfaction are associated with numerous
nonrelational variables. It is equally important to recognize, however, that a variety of factors
may influence the experience of sexual desire, the occurrence of sexual intercourse, and the level
of sexual satisfaction, many of them having little to do with the partner or the relationship. For
example, some women experience regular fluctuations in sexual desire that correspond to the
hormonal phases of the menstrual cycle (for review, see Regan, 1996). Other factors that
reliably are associated with decreased or absent sexual desire include poor physical health, older
age, drug use, depressed mood, and negative emotional states (e.g., anger, hostility, anxiety,
stress; for a review of this literature, see Regan & Berscheid, 1999). Similarly, the intensity and
frequency of sexual desire will fluctuate over an individual's lifespan and during the course of a
given relationship (e.g., Kaplan, 1979; Levine, 1984, 1987; Regan & Berscheid, 1999). For
example, the level of sexual desire experienced by adults may fluctuate along a spectrum of
values ranging from "driven" to "avoidant" (Levine, 1984), and people also differ in the chronic
amount of sexual desire they experience (Kaplan, 1979).
Like sexual desire, the frequency with which couples engage in sex is affected by a
variety of nonrelational factors, including age, physical disability, and illness (e.g., Blumstein &
Schwartz, 1983). There are also certain times over the life span when sexual frequency may
decline due to lack of time and opportunity (for additional discussion, see Regan & Sprecher,
1995). For instance, involvement in other roles (e.g., demanding jobs and parenthood) is
associated with decreased sexual activity (Greenblat, 1983). In addition, different types of
partners have sex more or less frequently than others. In general, gay male couples and
heterosexual, cohabiting couples tend to have intercourse more frequently than married couples
(e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Call, Sprecher, & Schwartz, 1992; Michael et al., 1994).
Lesbian couples, on the other hand, have sex less frequently than all other couple types, although
they engage in more nongenital physical contact (e.g., cuddling, hugging).
 Thus, changes in sexual desire, frequency, and satisfaction commonly occur over the
course of any given relationship, are associated with many nonrelational events, and do not
necessarily reflect a change in overall relationship function or quality.
Consideration #3: The decline of passion may signal the rise of other, equally positive
feelings. Third, a general loss of passion (or of desire) may not indicate a problem in the
relationship or an irrevocable loss of love for the partner, but rather may signal the development
of a second, more durable type of love; namely, companionate love (e.g., Coleman, 1977;
Safilios-Rothschild, 1977; Sternberg, 1988b). This love, similar to Lee's concept of Storge, is
built upon a solid foundation of warmth, friendship, respect, and interpersonal trust, and
frequently is seen in long-term married or cohabiting couples (e.g., Hatfield & Rapson, 1993).
Conclusions. Declines in the more passionate aspects of a love relationship do not
necessarily spell tragedy for a couple or foreshadow the end of their union. There is no "right"
amount of desire and activity that characterizes love relationships; rather, couples must judge for
themselves what is "normal" with respect to sexuality and passion. Thus, each of the three
couples in the scenarios depicted above would be considered functional -- if the members are
satisfied with the role sexuality plays in their relationship. It is only when one or both partners
disagree about or are troubled by some aspect of their sexual life (e.g., mismatched levels of
sexual desire, poor sexual communication, lack of sexual enjoyment) that professional
intervention may be helpful.
Conclusions
The love relationships that men and women form over the course of their lifetimes with
romantic partners have significant individual, interpersonal, and societal consequences.
Understanding the types of love that exist, the ways to assess these various love types, the
association between love and sexuality, and the dynamics of mate selection and partner choice
can enable clinicians, researchers, and laypersons to effectively alleviate the problems and
difficulties that often arise in these important relationships.
 References
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1991). Love and sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.),
Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 25-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551.
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual
orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081-1093.
Bailey, W., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1987). Relation of sex and gender role to love,
sexual attitudes, and self-esteem. Sex Roles, 16, 637-648.
Baumeister, R. F., & Wotman, S. R. (1992). Breaking hearts: The two sides of unrequited love.
New York: Guilford.
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak,
anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 377-394.
Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, G.
Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp.
110-168). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 413-484). New York: Random
House.
Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love's anatomy: Or, whatever happened to old-
fashioned lust? In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp.
359-374). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Berscheid, E., & Meyers, S. A. (1996). A social categorical approach to a question about love.
Personal Relationships, 3, 19-43.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 193-281).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). A little bit about love. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations
of interpersonal attraction (pp. 355-381). New York: Academic Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow.
Bowlby, J. C. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety & anger. London:
Hogarth Press.
Burgess, E. W., & Wallin, P. (1953). Engagement and marriage. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Burgoon, J. K., Parrott, R., LePoire, B. A., Kelley, D. L., Walther, J. B., & Parry, D. (1989).
Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 131-158.
Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.
Buss, D. M. (1988a). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L.
Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 100-118). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Buss, D. M. (1988b). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate
attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628.
Buss, D. M. (1988c). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American
 undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291-317.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses
tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 7, 395-422.
Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982-
1026). New York: McGraw Hill.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on
human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Call, V. R. A., Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1992). The frequency of sexual intercourse in
American couples: A national sample. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Council on Family Relations, Orlando, FL.
Cameron, C., Oskamp, S., & Sparks, W. (1977). Courtship American style: Newspaper ads.
Family Coordinator, 26, 27-30.
Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and females in
motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131-139.
Cashdan, E. (1993). Attracting mates: Effects of paternal investment on mate attraction
strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 1-24.
Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. M. (1985). Anticipated influences on sexual decision-making.
Family Relations, 34, 265-270.
Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 12, 420-432.
Coleman, S. (1977). A developmental stage hypothesis for nonmarital dyadic relationships.
Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 3, 71-76.
Contreras, R., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love and
satisfaction in Mexican American and Anglo couples. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 74, 408-415.
Critelli, J. W., Myers, E. J., & Loos, V. E. (1986). The components of love: Romantic
attraction and sex role orientation. Journal of Personality, 54, 354-370.
Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric
assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61-72.
Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Druen, P. B. (1996). Social allergens and the reactions
that they produce: Escalation of annoyance and disgust in love and work. In R. M.
Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 189-214). New York: Plenum.
Cunningham, M. R., Druen, P. B., & Barbee, A. P. (1997). Angels, mentors, and friends:
Trade-offs among evolutionary, social, and individual variables in physical appearance.
In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 109-140).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1998). Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. In B. H.
Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 233-263).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1997, February). The incidence and perceived severity of
 obsessive relational intrusion behaviors. Paper presented at the Western States
Communication Association convention, Monterey, CA.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection, or, preservation
of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: J. Murray.
Davis, K. E., & Latty-Mann, H. (1987). Love styles and relationship quality: A contribution to
validation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 409-428.
Davis, S. (1990). Men as success objects and women as sex objects: A study of personal
advertisements. Sex Roles, 23, 43-50.
De Becker, G. (1998). The gift of fear: Survival signals that protect us from violence. New
York: Dell Publishing Company.
Deaux, K., & Hanna, R. (1984). Courtship in the personals column: The influence of gender
and sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 11, 363-375.
Donnelly, D. A. (1993). Sexually inactive marriages. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 171-
179.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685-710.
Edwards, J., & Booth, A. (1976). Sexual behavior in and out of marriage: An assessment of
correlates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 73-81.
Ellis, A. (1954). The American sexual tragedy. New York, NY: Twayne Publishers.
Ellis, H. (1901-1928). Studies in the psychology of sex (Vols. 1-7). Philadelphia, PA: F. A.
Davis. (Original work published 1897-1928)
Ellis, H. (1922). Little essays of love and virtue. New York: George H. Doran Company.
Ellis, H. (1963). Psychology of sex. New York, NY: The New American Library of World
Literature, Inc. (Original work published 1933)
Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557-579.
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425-438.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic
attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 981-93.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental
investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-39.
Fish, L. S., Fish, R. C., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1984). Treating inhibited sexual desire: A marital
therapy approach. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 12, 3-12.
Fremouw, W. J., Westrup, D., & Pennypacker, J. (1997). Stalking on campus: The prevalence
and strategies for coping with stalking. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 664-667.
Freud, S. (1963). "Civilized" sexual morality and modern nervousness. In P. Rieff (Ed.),
Sexuality and the psychology of love (pp. 20-40). New York: Collier Books. (Original
work published 1908)
Freud, S. (1963). The most prevalent form of degradation in erotic life. In P. Rieff (Ed.),
 Sexuality and the psychology of love (pp. 58-70). New York: Collier Books. (Original
work published 1912)
Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female
sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69-96.
Goode, W. J. (1959). The theoretical importance of love. American Sociological Review, 24,
38-47.
Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very
similar? Sex Roles, 23, 501-513.
Greeley, A. M. (1991). Faithful attraction: Discovering intimacy, love, and fidelity in
American marriage. New York: Doherty.
Greenblat, C. S. (1983). The salience of sexuality in the early years of marriage. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 45, 289-299.
Greenlees, I. A., & McGrew, W. C. (1994). Sex and age differences in preferences and tactics
of mate attraction: Analysis of published advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15,
59-72.
Hall, D. (1996, March). Outside looking in: Stalkers and their victims. Paper presented to the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Hallstrom, T., & Samuelsson, S. (1990). Changes in women's sexual desire in middle life: The
longitudinal study of women in Gothenburg. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 259-268.
Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. (1977). Let's make a deal: An analysis of revelations and
stipulations in lonely hearts' advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35, 257-264.
Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and companionate love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes
(Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 191-217). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hatfield, E., Greenberger, R., Traupman, P., & Lambert, M. (1982). Equity and sexual
satisfaction in recently married couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 18, 18-32.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1987). Passionate love/sexual desire: Can the same paradigm
explain both? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 259-278.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1990). Passionate love in intimate relationships. In B. S. Moore
& A. Isen (Eds.), Affect and social behavior (pp. 126-152). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Love, sex, and intimacy: Their psychology, biology, and
history. New York: HarperCollins.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships.
Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383-410.
Hatfield, E., Sprecher, S., Pillemer, J. T., Greenberger, D., & Wexler, P. (1988). Gender
differences in what is desired in the sexual relationship. Journal of Psychology & Human
Sexuality, 1, 39-52.
Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, J. (1985). Equity and intimate
relationships: Recent research. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible
relationships (pp. 91-117). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Hatkoff, T. S., & Lasswell, T. E. (1977). Male-female similarities and differences in
conceptualizing love. In M. Cook & G. Wilson (Eds.), Love and attraction: An
international conference (pp. 221-227). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 784-794.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1990). A relationship-specific version of the Love Attitudes
Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 239-254.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1988). Lovers wear rose colored glasses. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 5, 161-183.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The love attitudes scale: Short form.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 147-159.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., Foote, F. H., & Slapion-Foote, M. J. (1984). Do men and women
love differently? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 177-195.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987). Love and sex attitudes and religious beliefs. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 391-398.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). Liking, loving, & relating (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1995). Gender differences and similarities in sex and love.
Personal Relationships, 2, 55-65.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love,
satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980-
988.
Herold, E. S., Mantle, D., & Zemitis, O. (1979). A study of sexual offenses against females.
Adolescence, 14, 65-72.
Hester, C., & Rudolph, K. (1994). The effects of personality, gender, and age on ranked
characteristics of the ideal romantic partner. Journal of Psychological Type, 29, 14-23.
Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (1998). Premarital predictors of relationship outcomes: A 15-year
follow-up of the Boston Couples Study. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental
course of marital dysfunction (pp. 237-278). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate-selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554-
558.
Hirsch, L. R., & Paul, L. (1996). Human mate mating strategies: I. Courtship tactics of the
"quality" and "quantity" alternatives. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 55-70.
Hogben, M., & Byrne, D. (1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences
in human sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 58-71.
Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or evolutionary theories? Some
observations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 194-200.
Hudson, J. W., & Henze, L. F. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 31, 772-775.
Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press.
Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love.
Ethnology, 31, 149-155.
Jason, L. A., Reichler, A., Easton, J., Neal, A., & Wilson, M. (1984). Female harassment after
 ending a relationship: A preliminary study. Alternative Lifestyles, 6, 259-269.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation,
and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 427-440.
Kaplan, H. S. (1979). Disorders of sexual desire and other new concepts and techniques in sex
therapy. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kazak, A. E., & Reppucci, N. D. (1980). Romantic love as a social institution. In K. S. Pope
(Ed.), On love and loving (pp. 209-227). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.,
Publishers.
Kenrick, D. T. (1994). Evolutionary social psychology: From sexual selection to social
cognition. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 75-121.
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and
social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and
involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 951-969.
Kenrick, D. T., Keefe, R. C., Bryan, A., Barr, A., & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and
mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for modular psychological
mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1166-1172.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the
stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of
Personality, 58, 97-116.
Kephart, W. M. (1967). Some correlates of romantic love. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
29, 470-474.
King, C. E., & Christensen, A. (1983). The Relationship Events Scale: A Guttman scaling of
progress in courtship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 671-678.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1998). Evolution, pair-bonding, and reproductive strategies: A
reconceptualization of adult attachment. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.).,
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 353-393). New York: Guilford.
Knox, D. (1975). Marriage: Who? When? Why?. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Krafft-Ebing, R. von (1945). Psychopathia sexualis (12th ed.). New York, NY: Pioneer
Publications, Inc. (Original work published 1886)
Kurdek, L. A. (1991). Sexuality in homosexual and heterosexual couples. In K. McKinney and
S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 177-191). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Laner, M. R. (1977). Permanent partner priorities: Gay and straight. Journal of
Homosexuality, 3, 21-39.
Lasswell, T. E., & Lasswell, M. E. (1976). I love you but I'm not in love with you. Journal of
Marriage and Family Counseling, 38, 211-224.
Lee, J. A. (1973). Colours of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Toronto, Canada:
New Press.
Lee, J. A. (1976). Forbidden colors of love: Patterns of gay love and gay liberation. Journal of
Homosexuality, 1, 401-418.
Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
3, 173-182.
Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of
love (pp. 38-67). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Levine, S. B. (1984). An essay on the nature of sexual desire. Journal of Sex & Marital
Therapy, 10, 83-96.
Levine, S. B. (1987). More on the nature of sexual desire. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,
13, 35-44.
Lewis, C. S. (1988). The four loves. New York: Harcourt Brace. (Original work published
1960)
Luby, V., & Aron, A. (1990, July). A prototype structuring of love, like, and being in-love.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Personal Relationships, Oxford,
England.
Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., Manke, M. L., McDaniel, S., & Reeder, H. (1998). The subjective
experience of intimacy, passion, and commitment in heterosexual love relationships.
Personal Relationships, 5, 15-30.
McGinnis, R. (1959). Campus values in mate selection: A repeat study. Social Forces, 36, 368-
373.
Meloy, J. R. (1996). Stalking (obsessional following): A review of some preliminary studies.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 147-162.
Meloy, J. R. (1989). Unrequited love and the wish to kill: Diagnosis and treatment of borderline
erotomania. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 53, 477-492.
Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A
definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Miller, L. C., & Fishkin, S. A. (1997). On the dynamics of human bonding and reproductive
success: Seeking windows on the adapted-for-human-environmental interface. In J. A.
Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 197-235).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mintz, E. E. (1980). Obsession with the rejecting beloved. The Psychoanalytic Review, 67,
479-492.
Mischel, W. (1966). A social-learning view of sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby
(Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 56-81). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Mullen, P. E., & Pathé, M. (1994). Stalking and the pathologies of love. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 469-477.
Murstein, B. I. (1970). Stimulus-value-role: A theory of marital choice. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 32, 465-481.
Murstein, B. I. (1976). Who will marry whom? Theories and research in marital choice. New
York: Springer.
Murstein, B. I. (1980). Mate selection in the 1970s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42,
777-792.
Murstein, B. I., Merighi, J. R., & Vyse, S. A. (1991). Love styles in the United States and
France: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 37-
46.
Neubeck, G. (1972). The myriad motives for sex. Sexual Behavior, 2, 51-56.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.
Pam, A., Plutchik, R., & Conte, H. R. (1975). Love: A psychometric approach. Psychological
Reports, 37, 83-88.
Pennebaker, J. W., Dyer, M. A., Caulkins, R. S., Litowitz, D. L., Ackreman, P. L., Anderson, D.
 B., & McGraw, K. M. (1979). Don't the girls get prettier at closing time: A country and
western application to psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 122-
125.
Pietropinto, A. (1986). Inhibited sexual desire. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 20, 46-
49.
Regan, P. C. (1996). Rhythms of desire: The association between menstrual cycle phases and
female sexual desire. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 5, 145-156.
Regan, P. (1998a). Romantic love and sexual desire. In V. C. de Munck (Ed.), Romantic love
and sexual behavior: Perspectives from the social sciences (pp. 91-112). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Regan, P. C. (1998b). Of lust and love: Beliefs about the role of sexual desire in romantic
relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 139-157.
Regan, P. C. (1998c). The role of sexual desire and sexual activity in dating relationships.
Manuscript under review.
Regan, P. C. (1998d). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value,
relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53-
73.
Regan, P. C. (1998e). What if you can't get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal
mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1995). Gender differences in beliefs about the causes of male
and female sexual desire. Personal Relationships, 2, 345-358.
Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a
potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9,
25-37.
Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1999). Lust: What we know about human sexual desire.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Regan, P. C., & Dreyer, C. S. (1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults' motives for engaging
in casual sex. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11.
Regan, P. C., Kocan, E. R., & Whitlock, T. (1998). Ain't love grand! A prototype analysis of
romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 411-420.
Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Cate, R., & Christopher, S. (1998). Partner preferences:
What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term
romantic partners?. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Regan, P. C., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Marital sex. In D. Levinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
marriage and the family (pp. 456-461). New York: Macmillan.
Regas, S. J., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1984). Functional family therapy and the treatment of inhibited
sexual desire. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10, 63-72.
Reik, T. (1945). Psychology of sex relations. New York, NY: Grove Press, Inc.
Reiss, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 26, 188-198.
Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Reiss, I. L. (1981). Some observations on ideology and sexuality in America. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 43, 271-283.
Reiss, I. L. (1986a). A sociological journey into sexuality. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
 48, 233-242.
Reiss, I. L. (1986b). Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Ridge, R. D., & Berscheid, E. (May, 1989). On loving and being in love: A necessary
distinction. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Midwestern Psychological
Association, Chicago, IL.
Robinson, I. E., Balkwell, J. W., & Ward, D. M. (1980). Meaning and behavior: An empirical
study in sociolinguistics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 253-258.
Roche, J. P. (1986). Premarital sex: Attitudes and behavior by dating state. Adolescence, 21,
107-121.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E.
Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 104, 192-233.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition
and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roscoe, B., Strouse, J. S., & Goodwin, M. P. (1994). Sexual harassment: Early adolescent self-
reports of experiences and acceptance. Adolescence, 29, 515-523.
Rowatt, T. J., Cunningham, M. R., Rowatt, W. C., Miles, S. S., Ault-Gauthier, L. K.,
Georgianna, J., & Shamblin, S. (July, 1997). Men and women are from Earth: Life-span
strategy dynamics in mate choices. Paper presented at the meeting of the International
Network on Personal Relationships, Oxford, OH.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 265-273.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1977). Love, sex, and sex roles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schenk, J., Pfrang, H., & Rausche, A. (1983). Personality traits versus the quality of the marital
relationship as the determinant of marital sexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 31-
42.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex
and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185-1204.
Shaver, P., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: The integration of three
behavioral systems. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love
(pp. 68-99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further
exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
1061-1086.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501.
Sherwin, R., & Corbett, S. (1985). Campus sexual norms and dating relationships: A trend
analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 21, 258-274.
Simon, W. (1974). The social, the erotic, and the sensual: The complexities of sexual scripts.
In J. K. Cole & R. Deinstbier (Eds.), The Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1973 (pp.
61-82). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 15, 97-120.
Simpson, J. A., Campbell, B., & Berscheid, E. (1986). The association between romantic love
and marriage: Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 12, 363-372.
Smith, J. E., Waldorf, V. A., & Trembath, D. L. (1990). "Single white male looking for thin,
very attractive..." Sex Roles, 23, 675-685.
Sparrow, K. H. (1991). Factors in mate selection for single black professional women. Free
Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 19, 103-109.
Spaulding, C. B. (1971). The romantic love complex in American culture. Sociology and
Social Research, 55, 82-100.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1996, July). Obsessive relational intrusion: Victimization
and coping. Paper presented at the International Society for the Study of Personal
Relationships conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (Eds.) (1998). The dark side of close relationships. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spitzberg, B. H., Nicastro, A. M., & Cousins, A. V. (1998). Exploring the interactional
phenomenon of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion. Communication Reports, 11,
33-47.
Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35,
32-43.
Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among U.S. college students:
Comparison with Russian and Japanese students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261-
288.
Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., Walsh, R., & Anderson, C. (1988). A revision of the Reiss
Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 821-
828.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young
married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68, 163-185.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1996). College virgins: How men and women perceive their
sexual status. The Journal of Sex Research, 33, 3-15.
Sprecher, S., Regan, P. C., McKinney, K., Maxwell, K., & Wazienski, R. (1997). Preferred
level of sexual experience in a date or mate: The merger of two methodologies. The
Journal of Sex Research, 34, 327-337.
Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender
differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66, 1074-1080.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988a). The triangle of love: Intimacy, passion, commitment. New York:
Basic Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988b). Triangulating love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The
psychology of love (pp. 119-138). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. L. (Eds.) (1988). The psychology of love. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Stuart, F. M., Hammond, D. C., & Pett, M. A. (1987). Inhibited sexual desire in women.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 91-106.
Swensen, C. H. (1961). Love: A self-report analysis with college students. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 17, 167-171.
Swensen, C. H., & Gilner, F. (1963). Factor analysis of self-report statements of love
relationships. Journal of Individual Psychology, 19, 186-188.
Talmadge, L. D., & Talmadge, W. C. (1986). Relational sexuality: An understanding of low
sexual desire. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 12, 3-21.
Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence. New York: Stein and Day.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1997). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women survey. Report to the National Institute of Justice and Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual
selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Trudel, G. (1991). Review of psychological factors in low sexual desire. Sexual and Marital
Therapy, 6, 261-272.
Wallace, H., & Silverman, J. (1996). Stalking and post traumatic stress syndrome. Police
Journal, 69, 203-206.
Walster, E., & Berscheid, E. (1971). Adrenaline makes the heart grow fonder. Psychology
Today, 5, 47-62.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Walters, S., & Crawford, C. B. (1994). The importance of mate attraction for intrasexual
competition in men and women. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 5-30.
Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria:
Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115-124.
Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). A process model of adult attachment formation. In S. Duck
& W. Ickes (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 179-195).
Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons.
Box 1. The Love Attitudes Scale
______________________________________________________________________________

Instructions

Please answer the following items as honestly and accurately as possible. Whenever possible,
answer the questions with your current partner in mind. If you are not currently dating anyone,
answer the questions with your most recent partner in mind. Otherwise, answer in terms of what
you think your responses would most likely be.

Response scale

1 = strongly agree
2 = moderately agree
3 = neutral
4 = moderately disagree
5 = strongly disagree

Items

Eros
1. My partner and I were attracted to each other immediately after we first met.
* 2. My partner and I have the right physical "chemistry" between us.
3. Our lovemaking is very intense and satisfying.
* 4. I feel that my partner and I were meant for each other.
5. My partner and I became emotionally involved rather quickly.
* 6. My partner and I really understand each other.
* 7. My partner fits my ideal standards of physical beauty/handsomeness.

Ludus
8. I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my commitment to him/her.
* 9. I believe that what my partner doesn't know about me won't hurt him/her.
*10. I have sometimes had to keep my partner from finding out about other lovers.
11. I could get over my love affair with my partner pretty easily and quickly.
*12. My partner would get upset if he/she knew of some of the things I've done with
other people.
13. When my partner gets too dependent on me, I want to back off a little.
*14. I enjoy playing the "game of love" with my partner and a number of other partners.

Storge
15. It is hard for me to say exactly when our friendship turned into love.
16. To be genuine, our love first required caring for a while.
17. I expect to always be friends with my partner.
*18. Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship.
*19. Our friendship merged gradually into love over time.
*20. Our love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion.
 *21. Our love relationship is the most satisfying because it developed from a good
friendship.

Pragma
22. I considered what my partner was going to become in life before I committed
myself to him/her.
23. I tried to plan my life carefully before choosing a partner.
24. In choosing my partner, I believed it was best to love someone with a similar
background.
*25. A main consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my
family.
*26. An important factor in choosing my partner was whether or not he/she would be a
good parent.
*27. One consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my
career.
*28. Before getting very involved with my partner, I tried to figure out how compatible
his/her hereditary background would be with mine in case we ever had children.

Mania
29. When things aren't right with my partner and me, my stomach gets upset.
30. If my partner and I break up, I would get so depressed that I would even think of
suicide.
31. Sometimes I get so excited about being in love with my partner that I can't sleep.
*32. When my partner doesn't pay attention to me, I feel sick all over.
*33. Since I've been in love with my partner I've had trouble concentrating on anything
else.
*34. I cannot relax if I suspect that my partner is with someone else.
*35. If my partner ignores me for awhile, I sometimes do stupid things to try to get
his/her attention back.

Agape
36. I try to always help my partner through difficult times.
*37. I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer.
*38. I cannot be happy unless I place my partner's happiness before my own.
*39. I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner achieve his/hers.
40. Whatever I own is my partner's to use as he/she chooses.
41. When my partner gets angry with me, I still love him/her fully and unconditionally.
*42. I would endure all things for the sake of my partner.
______________________________________________________________________________
Adapted from: Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1990). A relationship-specific version of the
Love Attitudes Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 239-254.
Starred items are included in the short-form of the scale. From Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., &
Dicke, A. (1998). The love attitudes scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15.
Box 2. The Passionate Love Scale
______________________________________________________________________________

Instructions

We would like to know how you feel when you are passionately in love. Some common terms
for passionate love are romantic love, infatuation, love sickness, or obsessive love. Please think
of the person whom you love most passionately right now. If you are not in love right now,
please think of the last person you loved. If you have never been in love, think of the person you
came closest to caring for in that way. Try to tell us how you felt at the time when your feelings
were the most intense.

Response scale

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderately Definitely
all true true true

Items

1. Since I've been involved with _____, my emotions have been on a roller coaster.
2. I would feel deep despair if _____ left me.
3. Sometimes my body trembles with excitement at the sight of _____.
4. I take delight in studying the movements and angles of _____'s body.
5. Sometimes I can't control my thoughts; they are obsessively on _____.
6. I feel happy when I am doing something to make _____ happy.
7. I would rather be with _____ than with anyone else.
8. I'd get jealous if I thought _____ were falling in love with someone else.
9. No one else could love _____ like I do.
10. I yearn to know all about _____.
11. I want _____ -- physically, emotionally, mentally.
12. I will love _____ forever.
13. I melt when looking deeply into _____'s eyes.
14. I have an endless appetite for affection from _____.
15. For me, _____ is the perfect romantic partner.
16. _____ is the person who can make me feel the happiest.
17. I sense my body responding when _____ touches me.
18. I feel tender toward _____.
19. _____ always seems to be on my mind.
20. If I were separated from _____ for a long time, I would feel intensely lonely.
21. I sometimes find it difficult to concentrate on work because thoughts of _____ occupy my
mind.
22. I want _____ to know me -- my thoughts, my fears, and my hopes.
23. Knowing that _____ cares about me makes me feel complete.
24. I eagerly look for signs indicating _____'s desire for me.
25. If _____ were going through a difficult time, I would put away my own concerns to help
 him/her out.
26. _____ can make me feel effervescent and bubbly.
27. In the presence of _____, I yearn to touch and be touched.
28. An existence without _____ would be dark and dismal.
29. I possess a powerful attraction for _____.
30. I get extremely depressed when things don't go right in my relationship with _____.
______________________________________________________________________________

Adapted from: Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate
relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383-410.

View publication stats