ABSTRACT

ROMANTIC INFATUATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

This study aims to measure the relationship between a person’s level of romantic infatuation (RI) and his or her personality characteristics. Romantic infatuation encompasses the initial feelings and behaviors brought on by a romantic interest in another individual. The five-factor model of personality is widely accepted in psychology as a general measure of personality characteristics. The five dimensions (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability) assess aspects of personality that all people share, but vary in the extent of their expression of each trait. Three inter-related studies were designed to assess the construct of RI. Study 1 used the Act Frequency Approach to create an original measure of RI, consisting of 78 highly prototypical acts of infatuation (Buss & Craik, 1983). Study 2 employed a mood induction procedure to elicit a state of infatuation before the individuals’ RI Act Report ratings were correlated with measures of personality and social desirability (Goldberg, 1992; Paulhus, 1984). Study 3 employed a modified audio mood induction procedure. The RI Act Report items were factor analyzed resulting in five distinct factors of RI. Significant correlations were found between the total RI score, the Big Five personality dimensions, and the five factors of RI. These findings support the idea that there may be a relationship between the way a person experiences romantic attraction to another individual and his or her own personality characteristics.

Hope Anne Castro August 2017 ii ROMANTIC INFATUATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

by Hope Anne Castro

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology in the College of Science and Mathematics California State University, Fresno August 2017 APPROVED For the Department of Psychology:

We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.

Hope Anne Castro Thesis Author

Michael Botwin (Chair) Psychology

Ronald Yockey Psychology

Jennifer Isom-Schmidtke Psychology

For the University Graduate Committee:

Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS

X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.

Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.

Signature of thesis author: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Michael Botwin, for his encouragement, support, and friendship on this journey. His guidance has been pivotal to my success and I will be forever grateful. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Jennifer Isom- Schmidke and Dr. Ronald Yockey, for their additional advice and assistance. Their knowledge was incredibly helpful during critical phases of this process. A special thank you to James Verros for his work on the audio recording of the mood induction instructions, as well as the members of the Personality, Evolution, and Attraction Research Lab (PEARL) for their assistance with data collection. Their willingness to devote their own time to helping make this research happen was greatly appreciated. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support and love, and to my cohort, namely Judith and Keith, for commiserating with me and encouraging me throughout this program. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 3

Romantic Infatuation Defined ...... 3

The Five-Factor Model of Personality ...... 7

The Act Frequency Approach ...... 9

Mood Induction ...... 12

CHAPTER 3: STUDY 1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACT REPORT ...... 14

Introduction ...... 14

Method ...... 14

Results ...... 17

Discussion ...... 19

CHAPTER 4: STUDY 2 ...... 22

Introduction ...... 22

Method ...... 22

Results ...... 24

Discussion ...... 26

CHAPTER 5: STUDY 3 ...... 28

Introduction ...... 28

Method ...... 28

Results ...... 33

Discussion ...... 38

CHAPTER 6: GENERAL DISCUSSION ...... 40 vi vi Page

The Structure of RI and its Personality Correlates ...... 40

Limitations and Future Directions ...... 43

REFERENCES ...... 48

APPENDICES ...... 52

APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM ...... 53

APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 55

APPENDIX C: ACT NOMINATION SURVEY ...... 57

APPENDIX D: ROMANTIC INFATUATION ACT REPORT ...... 59

APPENDIX E: BIG FIVE PERSONALITY INVENTORY ...... 63

APPENDIX F: BALANCED INVENTORY OF DESIRABLE RESPONDING . 66

APPENDIX G: INFATUATION AND ATTACHMENT SCALES ...... 69

APPENDIX H: STUDY 2 CORRELATIONS ...... 71

APPENDIX I: STUDY 3 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS ...... 73

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Top 10 Rated Acts of Romantic Infatuation from Study 1 ...... 16 Table 2 Correlations for Males, Females, and Total RI Scores with the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Social Desirability ...... 18

Table 3 Number of Items and Alpha Reliabilities for the Eight Factors of RI ...... 24 Table 4 Varimax Rotated Principal Components Analysis, Displaying the 3 Highest Loading Items of the 78 Acts of RI for Each Factor ...... 25

Table 5 Sample Transformations and Correlation Comparisons ...... 34 Table 6 Varimax Rotated Principal Components Analysis, Displaying Eigenvalues for Items of the 78 Acts of RI for Each Factor...... 35 Table 7 Number of Items, Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha Reliabilities for the Five Factors of RI ...... 37

Table 8 Inter-correlations of the Five Factors of RI ...... 37

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The study of romantic infatuation (RI) grew initially out of a body of research on the subjective experience of love (Reynolds, 1983; Tennov, 1998). Feelings and behaviors associated with RI trigger intense physiological and psychological arousal (Berscheid & Walster, 1974). People experiencing these uncontrollable, and often unbearable, emotions and behaviors can become irrational, passionate, obsessive, and consumed. Past research on RI either focused on defining the construct, or on creating various psychometric instruments to measure individuals’ experiences of infatuation. Pioneering researchers in the study of RI were interested in the feelings that preceded love and attachment to a person of interest (Tennov, 1998). The vast majority of research on this topic has focused on defining and measuring the construct. There have not been any studies that have thoroughly examined the relationship between RI and the Big Five personality traits. The present study examines the relationship between an individual’s personality traits and his or her experience of RI. The present series of studies were designed to gain a better understanding of what it is like to be romantically infatuated with another person. A better understanding includes examining the feelings and behaviors associated with being infatuated, and examining whether people’s experiences of these feelings and behaviors are related to their personality makeup. This thesis is designed to seek a deeper understanding of RI by examining the relationships between infatuation and other important human characteristics. Different ideas about how RI should be defined are discussed. It also discusses the development of a taxonomy of behaviors that more completely circumscribe the domain of RI, using the Act Frequency Approach (Buss & Craik, 1983). 2 2

Participants also completed a measure of the Big Five personality traits and a measure of social desirability assessing self-deceptive enhancement and impression management (Goldberg, 1992; Goldberg et al., 2006). Further discussion focuses on an interpretation of the RI factors that have been found, and on the relationship of infatuation to models of love and their related personality traits.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Romantic Infatuation Defined Love and attachment have been popular topics for research in both psychology and sociology. Love involves a social connection with another person, and indicates a form of strong attachment to a person of interest (Lasswell & Lasswell, 1976). Infatuation is contrasted against love, because it does not involve this element of attachment. Infatuation is defined within the present study as the initial feelings brought on by a romantic interest in another individual. RI is the state that precedes a romantic connection, and is characterized by an intense longing to be in a romantic union with another person. Infatuation is characterized by persistent, intrusive, and ruminative thoughts in the form of fantasies or anxieties (Willmott & Bentley, 2015). People who are romantically infatuated tend to be obsessed with the thought of entering into a relationship with the individual their obsessions are focused toward. While infatuated, people tend to overlook the negative aspects of the individual and exaggerate the positive aspects. Prior research has suggested that infatuation is a universal human experience, and transcends both time and culture (Buss, 1994). However, a clear, concise, and agreed upon definition of RI is still missing in the research literature. Romantic infatuation is referred to by many different names in the existing literature: passionate love, puppy love, limerence, and obsessive love (Fehr & Broughton, 2001; Hatfield, Bensman, & Rapson, 2012; Tennov, 1998). Definitions vary across researchers, because the experience of RI can change from one moment to the next (Fehr & Russell, 1991). Feelings of elation can quickly turn into feelings of despair. Passionate love is defined as the set of emotions and behaviors associated with wanting to be with someone romantically 4 4

(Hatfield, Rapson, & Martel, 2007). The feelings are two-dimensional, in that people are either elated due to reciprocated interest, or are filled with anxiety and despair due to unreciprocated interest. The idea of reciprocated interest implies that RI can involve a level of physical contact between an infatuated person and the person of interest. Alternatively, companionate or compassionate styles of love involve feelings of attachment and security, while infatuation lacks both (Hatfield et al., 2007). The course and duration of RI differs across individuals (Hatfield et al., 2007; Obi-Nwosu, 2012; Tennov, 1998). Some individuals experience RI for long periods of time, even well into an actual romantic relationship. For others, RI is simply a set of fleeting physiological changes that disappear quickly. A range of different features and emotions accompanies RI. Intrusive thoughts, persistent thoughts of the person of interest, and distressing, anxious ruminations are three of the main experiences of infatuation (Tennov, 1998). People who are severely affected by the feelings associated with RI tend to switch between these anxious ruminations and their normal, everyday experiences. The feelings that are associated with RI can negatively impact a person’s life, and intrusive thoughts can be all encompassing (Schupak & Rosenthal, 2009). People experiencing these thoughts report wanting to be around the person of interest at all times, wondering where and what he or she is doing, wanting to be in physical contact with him or her, and changing plans to be closer to him or her (Charny, 1981). This passion and wanting precedes any actual physical contact with the person of interest. A strong component of RI is sexual desire. People often long for physical contact with the person at the center of their infatuations. Without an intense desire to be emotionally connected to another person, these feelings would simply be defined as a sexual attraction, which is fundamentally different than a desire to 5 5 be both emotionally and physically bonded with another person (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). Sexual attraction is a driving force for the feelings and behaviors associated with RI. While infatuated, people often fantasize about having sexual encounters with the individual they are interested in, but sexual attraction is not a necessary feature of RI. While sexual desire can be an influential component of some people’s experiences of RI, it is not sufficient to sustain an infatuation of a person of interest for an extended period of time. These sexual passions, as well as other non-sexual intense emotions, are not sustainable, and have a tendency to fade over time. Infatuation fades over time for a number of reasons, both physiological and psychological (Hazan & Diamond, 2000). Physiologically, the highly arousing feelings associated with RI cannot be maintained over an extended period of time. An alertness and awareness of the person of interest is all that is sustainable (Tennov, 1998). Heightened awareness allows the infatuated individual to focus on everything that is being communicated by the person of interest. The important factors that are communicated are displayed through body language. Because there is little, if any, physical interaction between an infatuated individual and the person he or she is infatuated with, it is advantageous for the infatuated individual to pick up on these subtle cues in body language. Body language cues that signal when romantic feelings are unreciprocated include a lack of eye contact, repetitive movements like rubbing the nose, clenching teeth, and pursing the lips together. An important factor for deciding to pursue a real relationship with a person of interest, or moving on to someone else, is to know whether he or she is interested or not. It is possible that RI is dependent upon the possibility of an actual relationship forming with a person of interest. One of the quintessential characteristics of RI is that the infatuated individual 6 6 longs to be in a relationship or romantic connection with the person of interest. Negative affect is a product of unreciprocated interest. A fear of rejection due to an abundance of mental and emotional effort toward a person of interest can cause an initial hesitation in the pursuit of a romantic connection. Both reciprocated and unrequited feelings can cause a switch between intense negative and positive psychological arousal (Hatfield et al., 2012). Negative and positive emotions associated with these factors include feelings of angst, despair, emptiness, bliss, pleasure, and fulfillment (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). Many of the emotions and behaviors characterizing RI are internalized due to a person’s fear of rejection. People who experience these emotions hesitate actively seeking out a real-life connection with a person of interest. Evolutionarily, natural selection tended to favor the animals that were able to form and maintain relationships with others of their kind (Leary, 2015). Such bonds made group living easier, which was more advantageous for survival and reproduction. Social rejection by a group had serious consequences for survival, and these effects have been carried into modern society through emotional reactions. Over time, behaviors and feelings driven by infatuations fade (Fisher, 1998). A person either loses interest in the individual he or she is infatuated with—because the feelings are unreciprocated—or an actual relationship begins to form (Kenny & La Voie, 1982). It is important to understand that infatuation is solely the initial feelings that precede a romantic relationship. One of the characteristic components of long-term relationships is attachment, which is what marks the difference between infatuation and love (Aloni & Bernieri, 2004; Langeslag, Muris, & Franken, 2013). Helen Fisher, a researcher and anthropologist who has studied romantic attraction and interpersonal relationships 7 7 for over 30 years, concluded that the element of attachment evolved in human mating systems as a way for people to be able to tolerate their partners long enough to carry out necessary parental duties. Evolutionarily, the feelings associated with being romantically infatuated with another individual are enticing enough to make humans want to seek out romantic relationships, which is important for successful reproduction. The attachment that accompanies a love relationship is what differentiates the chaotic feelings and behaviors of RI from a stable love relationship characterized by attachment.

The Five-Factor Model of Personality The Big Five personality traits were originally developed to provide researchers in psychology with a taxonomy of personality traits. This model allows researchers to best summarize an individual’s personality traits. One of the main criticisms of using the Big Five personality traits to assess personality differences is that the traits are not entirely independent of each other. Personality traits comingle, meaning that the combination of traits and their impact vary from person to person. An additional criticism is that personality cannot be entirely summed up by five different traits, and that there are other factors like humorousness or masculinity that contribute to variation in personality expression (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Regardless, the Big Five traits are widely accepted as a general measure of personality. The dimensions cover aspects of personality that all people share, but vary in the extent of their expression of each trait. This five-factor model of personality is relevant to answering the research question of whether there is a relationship between the dimensions of personality and RI. In the following subsections, each of the five dimensions will be explored in detail in order to provide a more focused description of the characteristics of each trait. 8 8 Extraversion This dimension is characterized by an individual’s amount of engagement in the external word. Individuals higher in extraversion show a marked increase in their need to interact with people. These individuals tend to be more talkative, assertive, sociable, more cheerful in their disposition, more optimistic, and tend to go along with a group (Goldberg, 1992). Introverts are those who are low in extraversion, and seek quietness and solitude in order to feel recharged. Introverts tend to be characterized by their quietness, independence, and deliberateness.

Agreeableness Agreeableness is characterized by an individual’s ability to get along well with others and is concerned with keeping harmony in social situations. Individuals who score high in agreeableness are characterized as being trustworthy, unselfish, polite, willing to make compromises, tend to be more optimistic, and are considerate of the needs of others. People who score lower in the agreeableness dimension are said to be cynical, uncooperative, and interested in placing their own needs before those of others.

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness is characterized by an individual’s ability to direct his or her impulses, display more self-discipline, and act in a compliant manner. Individuals who score high in conscientiousness tend to be more organized, hardworking, industrious, reliable, like to have a plan, and are more efficient. Individuals who score low on the conscientiousness dimension tend to be characterized as being careless, impulsive, impractical, and rash. 9 9 Emotional Stability Also called neuroticism, this dimension is characterized by instability of emotions. People who score low in this dimension are said to be emotionally stable. Neurotic individuals tend to be characterized by irritability, higher levels of anxiety, are more vulnerable to stress, and tend to be more temperamental and discontented. Individuals who are stable can be characterized as less emotionally reactive, more confident, stable, calm, and free of negative thoughts and feelings.

Openness to Experience Openness to experience is characterized by an individual’s sense of adventure, curiosity, and imagination. Individuals higher in openness to experience tend to be marked by higher levels of curiosity, a wider range of and ability to display emotions, a greater interest in exploring new things, and more creativity. Individuals who score lower in this dimension are said to be closed to experience. They are characterized by more cautious behaviors, do not like change, and prefer things that are familiar to them.

The Act Frequency Approach Past studies of RI focused on creating psychometric tools to measure the construct (Hatfield et al., 2012; Langeslag et al., 2013). Existing measures of RI have failed to separate the measurement of infatuation from other components of the love relationship. Scales measuring RI incorporate elements like attachment, which is a component that comes later in a love relationship (Langeslag et al., 2013). Love is a combination of the blissful feelings of passion and desire from infatuation and the level-headedness associated with being able to maintain a connection. 10 10

Scales that claim to measure infatuation more often measure a combination of constructs. For example, the Reiss Romantic Love Scale measures people’s beliefs about romantic love as well as sexual permissiveness (Reiss, 1964); the Passionate Love Scale measures infatuation as well as attachment (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986); the Hattis Love Scale measures feelings of closeness and intimacy (Hattis, 1965); and the Styles of Loving Scale measures eight different love styles (Lee, 1977). While all have been shown to be reliable and valid for the constructs they measure, the present research is interested in looking specifically at RI as defined as the initial feelings and emotions experienced that precede a love relationship. In an initial exploration of this topic, RI was measured by collecting a host of behaviors that circumscribe the domain of RI using the Act Frequency Approach developed by Buss and Craik (1983). The Act Frequency Approach is used to gather a list of behaviors that define a particular domain of behavior. The approach uses a three-step process for gathering, rating, and selecting the appropriate behaviors that are believed to be most relevant to the construct itself. In phase one, participants are given a set of instructions about how to nominate behaviors, along with a general overview of the construct that is being looked at. Participants are instructed to list behaviors that they believe an individual would perform under a specified construct. The nominated acts are then examined. Nominations that are not behaviors are removed from the pool of nominated acts. The final pool of acts is further refined by removing redundancies (similar acts nominated by more than one participant). Phase two of the Act Frequency Approach requires a separate set of participants to rate each of the acts for prototypicality. Participants rate each behavior using a 7-point Likert Scale for how prototypical they believe each act is 11 11 to the domain of behavior being assessed. Higher ratings indicate that the act is more central to the domain of behavior. Lower ratings indicate that the act is more peripheral to the domain of behavior. The most highly prototypical acts are selected for inclusion in the construction of an “Act Report,” a psychometric tool that can be used to measure a construct. In phase three of the Act Frequency Approach, participants complete an Act Report, and are assessed for their relative level of performance of each behavior. Each participant rates, on a 7-point scale ranging from “1” strongly disagree to “7” strongly agree, how often he or she personally performs each behavior. The ratings for each participant on the Act Report are then summed to produce a total score. A higher total score indicates that the person displays many of the behaviors associated with the specified domain of behavior. A lower total score indicates that the person does not display many of the behaviors associated with the specified domain of behavior. Those who have higher total scores are said to be more romantically infatuated, and those who have lower total scores are said to be less romantically infatuated. Study 1 of RI led to the development of an Act Report consisting of 78 acts that circumscribe the domain of RI (see Appendix D). While many other measures assessing RI contain some of the behaviors in this Act Report, these measures typically include other areas outside the domain of RI (Hatfield et al., 2012). This new RI Act Report uniquely assesses the primary components of RI by narrowing the construct to those specific to infatuation. In the present series of studies, participants completed the RI Act Report while under the influence of a mood induction procedure. This technique was used to obtain ratings that approximate how an individual would respond while infatuated with another person. 12 12 Mood Induction Mood induction procedures have been used in psychological research to place participants in a particular mindset (Westermann, Spies, Stahl, & Hesse, 1996). It is believed that an induced mindset, through specific procedures, will produce more representative end results. Many different techniques and procedures for inducing moods have been developed and used in psychological research (Westermann et al., 1996). The techniques that are used in the preliminary and present study were developed using multiple mood induction procedures. An original set of mood induction instructions was created that was believed would most effectively induce a mood of RI. Mood induction techniques have been found to effectively induce a variety of moods such as happiness, fear, sadness, and anger. (Mayer, Allen, & Beauregard, 1995). Mood induction procedures utilize a variety techniques such as music, vignettes, and imagination (McClanahan, Gold, Lenney, Ryckman, & Kulberg, 1990; Westermann et al., 1996). In a musical mood induction, participants are generally asked to listen to a musical piece that is chosen by a researcher to represent a particular mood (Pignatiello, Camp, & Rasar, 1986). Musical pieces are rated by a group of experts prior to the study, in order to assess the mood each piece elicits. Participants generally tend to report sadder feelings after they listen to a sad piece of music than before they listened to it (Pignatiello et al., 1986). Other mood induction procedures have utilized vignettes. Participants were shown some form of film or written material that had been designed to stimulate their imagination (Westermann et al., 1996). Participants were asked to involve themselves in whatever situation is presented. These situations are designed to elicit a mood of the researcher’s choosing. 13 13

In this research, it was believed that the feelings and behaviors associated with RI were too complex to fit with any of the already existing methods. The imagination technique was used, where participants were asked to read a set of instructions aimed at inducing a mood that was consistent with being romantically infatuated. The instructions were adapted from research conducted in the area of sexual jealousy (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992). Buss et al. examined sex differences in sexual jealousy. Participants were asked to imagine their current romantic partner (or a past partner if not currently in a relationship). They were then asked to imagine that this individual was forming an emotional connection with another person. In a second condition they were asked to imagine that this individual was having sexual encounters with another person. They then reported how upsetting each scenario made them feel. Results indicated that men tended to experience higher levels of emotions like anger after imagining a partner having sexual encounters with another individual, and women were more affected by imagining a partner making an emotional connection with another individual. This procedure was useful for the creation of the new set of RI mood induction instructions, because it showed an effective induction of jealousy using the imagination technique (Buss et al., 1992). Since participants’ moods were successfully affected by imagining past or fictional romantic experiences, it was hypothesized that inducing an infatuated state by imagining being romantically infatuated would be successful also.

CHAPTER 3: STUDY 1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACT REPORT

Introduction This is the first out of three studies making up this body of work. Study 1 was designed to assess RI as a construct by developing an original measure, as discussed below. In addition, the relationship between RI and the Big Five personality dimensions are examined.

Method

Participants Undergraduate students enrolled in Introductory Psychology courses (PSYCH 10) at California State University, Fresno were recruited, using an online system (SONA), to participate in this study. All participants received one class credit as compensation for their participation in this study. Data were collected from a sample of convenience consisting of 163 participants through the three phases of this study. Each participant was only permitted to participate in one of the three components of this study.

Design and Procedure

Phase 1: Act nominations. For the first study, 51 participants (18 males, 33 females) received a consent form, and a pencil and paper including a brief demographics questionnaire and an act nomination form (see Appendices A, B, & C). The act nomination form is designed to solicit “acts” that represent a domain of behavior, which in the case of this study is RI (Buss & Craik, 1983). In this study we asked the participants to nominate at least five acts or behaviors an individual who is romantically infatuated may perform. Duplicate behaviors, 15 15 nominations that were not behaviors, and nominations that were otherwise unsuitable were removed from the final Act Report. Participants nominated a total of 268 acts through phase one of the current study. Men nominated a total of 92 behaviors, and women nominated a total of 176 behaviors. The combined 268 acts were input into a spreadsheet, where they were individually sorted for similarity by category. The categories ranged from buying him/her gifts, to texting and calling him/her constantly. Once the acts were sorted for similarity, the duplicates were deleted to account for redundancy. The sorted list totaled 117 behaviors, and was presented to a new set of participants in Phase 2.

Phase 2: Prototypicality ratings. The second step of the act frequency approach was to identify the acts that are most central to the domain of behavior under investigation via prototypicality ratings (Buss & Craik, 1983). The goal of this part of the study was to collect ratings on the centrality of each of the nominated behaviors to the category of romantic infatuation. Forty-eight participants (12 males, 36 females) received a consent form, and a prototypicality ratings report. This portion of the study was conducted online, and each act was assessed using a 7-point Likert scale rating. A “7” indicated an act that was very central to the domain of RI, a “1” indicated that the act was very peripheral to the category of RI. After an examination of the mean prototypicality rating for each act, the most prototypical acts were used to construct the Romantic Infatuation Act Report. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess the mean scores for each of the 117 acts elicited in this phase. Means ranged from 1.88 to 5.88 on a 7-point Likert scale. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the top 10 rated acts of 16 16

RI. The collective descriptive data from this phase was then assessed for a clear break in means by looking to see if the act list, once ordered by descending means, showed a clear area where participants’ ratings went from prototypical to not prototypical. The gap between means of 3.67 and 3.63 was chosen as the cut-off point. Therefore, a total of 78 acts were retained in the final RI Act Report.

Table 1

Top 10 Rated Acts of Romantic Infatuation from Study 1 Acts Mean SD I find him/her very attractive 5.88 1.32 I get butterflies in my stomach when around him/her 5.73 1.38 I want to kiss him/her 5.63 1.42 I want to hug him/her 5.60 1.51 I am happy when I am around him/her 5.56 1.60 I get a cheesy smile on my face when I see him/her 5.48 1.47 I have a better day when I get to see him/her 5.42 1.25 I picture what my life would be like with him/her in the long run 5.40 1.58 I want to hold his/her hand 5.35 1.52 I get excited whenever he/she is around 5.29 1.64

Phase 3: Act performance. Sixty-four participants (13 males, 51 females) participants completed a consent form and demographics survey. Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess personality, social desirability and RI under a mood induction procedure. We hypothesized that openness to experience, emotional stability, and conscientiousness would be correlated with high scores of RI. We also hypothesized that extraversion and agreeableness would be correlated with low scores of RI. 17 17 Materials

Romantic Infatuation Act Report. This report consists of 78 items aimed at measuring a person’s level of RI. It was created in Study 1 using the Act Frequency Approach (Buss & Craik, 1983) (see Appendix D).

Big Five Personality Inventory. Goldberg (1992) IPIP Five-Factor markers scale was chosen to assess personality due to its availability and ease of scoring. This scale consists of 50 items aimed at assessing each of the five dimensions of personality (see Appendix E).

Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Paulhus (1984) developed a 40-item scale to assess the level of desirable reporting that commonly accompanies self-reports. This social desirability scale assesses two sub-scales of self-deceptive enhancement and impression management in self-report data, specifically in personality test responses (Barrick & Mount, 1996). Self-deception is an unconscious misrepresentation of the self that makes responses more positively biased (Paulhus, 1984). Impression management is a conscious misrepresentation of the self where someone intentionally tries to make him or herself look more desirable through his or her own reporting (see Appendix F).

Results

Act Performance with Mood Induction The 78 RI Act Report items were very reliable ( ). Pearson’s r correlations between RI total score and the Big Five personality dimensions, and RI and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding dimensions of impression management and self-deception were conducted and are reported in Table 2. 18 18 Table 2

Correlations for Males, Females, and Total RI Scores with the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Social Desirability Variable Total RI Male RI Female RI Extraversion .21** -.04** .27** Agreeableness .16** -.05** .23** Conscientiousness -.05** .19** -.09** Emotional Stability -.09** .38** -.20** Openness to Experience .27** .07** .29** BIDR.SDE -.37** .12** -.46** BIDR.IM -.42** .38** -.49**

Note. **p < .01, two-tailed. *p < .05, two-tailed, N = 64.

In these Phase 3 analyses, we found a strong, negative, correlation between self-deception and RI for females (r = -.46). We also found a strong, negative, correlation between impression management and RI for females (r = -.49). A moderate, negative, correlation was found between self-deception and RI for males and females combined (r = -.37). A strong, negative, correlation was found between impression management and RI for males and females combined (r = -.42). A positive, correlation was found between openness to experience and RI for males and females combined, (r = .27). There were no other significant correlations between Romantic Infatuation and the Big Five personality dimensions. However, due to a relatively low sample size, if trends continue, it is believed a larger sample size will yield significant results. 19 19 Discussion A positive correlation between openness to experience and RI was found. It was hypothesized that RI would be positively correlated with the personality dimensions of conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. Conversely, it was believed that RI would be negatively correlated with extraversion and agreeableness. The actual results were not significant, and reflected the opposite direction of the original hypotheses. It is believed that the lack of significance between RI and the Big Five personality dimensions of agreeableness and extraversion could be due to a relatively low sample size in the act performance phase of this study (N = 64). It is hypothesized that in future studies with a larger sample sizes, significant correlations may be found between RI and the personality dimensions of extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness. Additionally, sex differences were found between reports of RI and the dimensions of social desirability. Female participants were responding to the questions within this study in such a way that was making them seem more desirable through their reporting. As a result, the more desirable females were attempting to make themselves look, the less RI behaviors they reported displaying. This same result was not shown for males. The lack of significance between RI and desirable responding for males may be due to gender gap within this sample. Within the act performance phase, only 13 of the 64 participants were males. Study 1’s main focus was the development of the RI Act Report. Additionally, we wanted to determine if the preliminary correlations with the Big Five personality dimensions would change as a result of a more comprehensive mood induction procedure. It was believed that the results of Study 1 indicated 20 20 that the instructional mood induction set for the act performance phase of the study was not working as expected in Phase 3 of this study. These instructions were adapted from Larson and Buss’ 1992 study on jealousy. Perhaps the mood induction was not as effective for RI as it was for Buss’s study on sexual jealousy because negative emotions, such as anger and jealousy, tend to be perceived as much more salient to individuals than positive emotions. We believed putting people in a mentally infatuated state would yield stronger correlations between RI and the Big Five personality dimensions, based on previous research indicating that the closer a person is to their infatuated experiences, the more accurate their reports tend to be (Tennov, 1998). It was unclear if the participants were following the instructions when completing an online version of the act performance phase of this study. We believed continuing this method face-to-face in Study 2 would increase the effectiveness of this component. We expected to find positive correlations between RI and extraversion and agreeableness, and negative correlations between emotional stability in women, if trends were to continue. These hypotheses are consistent with theories from trait research, and research on interpersonal relationships. Some of the methodological issues faced during this study were in the initial act collection phase. These issues included participants nominating feelings, attitudes and states of mind, instead of behaviors, which is one of the criticisms of using the Act Frequency Approach. By more explicitly defining what a behavior is in Phase 1, it is possible that more substantial act nominations would have been obtained. Participants were only given a brief definition of RI before being asked to think of a time when they or someone they knew was infatuated with another individual. They were then asked to write down at least five behaviors they performed while romantically infatuated, or behaviors they believed to be 21 21 associated with the construct. Along with insufficient instructions on how to nominate behaviors, we believed the definition of RI was too broad for participants to be able to effectively nominate behaviors. In the continuation of this research, infatuation was more clearly defined within the context of a romantic relationship. Similarly, it is possible that the results from Phase 2 were hindered by the way in which the RI Act Report was presented to the participants. We were interested in whether sex differences were present for scores of RI, but the act lists were not separated by gender. The items were listed as follows, “I find him/her very attractive.” Splitting the items into gender specific lists could potentially help improve the connection the participant is able to make with each item, and could potentially yield more accurate nominations of acts males and females feel are prototypical of RI. These split lists should also be carried over into the act performance phase of future studies. Lastly, it was believed that by conducting all three phases in person, using pencil and paper surveys, a more realistic environment would be created. This would hopefully ensure that participants were accurately grasping the concepts being examined, which would likely produce more accurate assessments of RI.

CHAPTER 4: STUDY 2

Introduction Study 2 was an extension of the Act Performance phase of Study 1. The primary goal of Study 2 was to explore the underlying factor structure of RI using a modified mood induction technique. It was hypothesized that gathering a larger sample using a modified mood induction instructional set would produce significant correlations between the Big Five personality dimensions and the total RI score.

Method

Participants Undergraduate students in Introductory Psychology courses (PSYCH 10) at California State University, Fresno were gathered using an online pool (SONA) to participate in this study. All participants received one class credit as compensation in exchange for their participation. This sample of convenience was made up of a total 291 participants (88 males, 203 females) who completed this online study. Study 1 proposed that paper and pencil data collection would be ideal for future assessments, but online data collection was used due to a short amount of time allotted for access to the participant pool.

Materials

Mood induction instructions. The mood induction instructions were developed by blending a combination of mood induction techniques that have been found to be effective for inducing specific moods in a research setting. These instructions differ from those used in Study 1. The original instructional set was 23 23 presented to the participants in writing, and it was left up to the participants to immerse themselves in the feelings associated with past experiences of romantic infatuation. The transcript of these instructions was as follows: In this study we are exploring romantic infatuation. Please rate each behavior on the seven-point scale listed below. Please think of a time when you were seriously romantically infatuated with another individual. Imagine the feelings and emotions you had about that person. When you have these feelings and emotions in your mind, please begin to rate each of the following behaviors in the context of your feelings of romantic infatuation.

Romantic Infatuation Act Report. This report consists of 78 prototypical acts assessing an individual’s level of romantic infatuation as discussed in Study 1 (see Appendix D).

Design and Procedure Participants were directed to the online survey via an anonymous survey link. Once participants opened the survey, they were presented with a web adapted consent form, demographic questions, mood induction instructions, RI Act Report, Big Five personality inventory, and Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding scale. See Study 1 (p. 17) for a description of these materials. Based on the results of the Act Performance phase in Study 1, it was hypothesized that there would be positive correlations of openness to experience, agreeableness, and extraversion with the total RI score. Additionally, it was hypothesized that there would be negative correlations of neuroticism and conscientiousness with the total RI score. 24 24 Results Several principal components analyses, with varimax rotations, were conducted on the 78 RI acts. Based on a factor loading cutoff of .29, no items were excluded from the analyses. A scree plot of the initial factor solution indicated that there are between 4 and 10 factors that account for the majority of the variance within the 78 RI items. The solution yielding eight reliable and interpretable factors of RI was chosen over the other solutions, based on its greater interpretability (see Table 3). This solution accounted for approximately 56% of the cumulative variance. The eight factors have been labeled as (1) General Infatuation, (2) Self-sacrifice, (3) Monopolizing, (4) Insecurity, (5) Confidence, (6) Irrationality, (7) Obsession, and (8) Closeness (see Table 4).

Table 3

Number of Items and Alpha Reliabilities for the Eight Factors of RI Component Number of Items General Infatuation 24 .94 Self-sacrifice 17 .93 Monopolizing 11 .90 Insecurity 6 .83 Confidence 4 .82 Irrationality 6 .70 Obsession 5 .81 Closeness 5 .79

25 25 Table 4

Varimax Rotated Principal Components Analysis, Displaying the 3 Highest Loading Items of the 78 Acts of RI for Each Factor Factors Act 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I want to kiss him/her .82 I want to hug him/her .79 I want to hold his/her hand .76 I prioritize his/her time above my own .77 I put his/her needs before my own .69 I do anything he/she asks me to do .67 I talk to him/her for more than two hours .74 a day I have to talk to him/her every day .73 I have to spend countless hours with .72 him/her I get angry when he/she is interested in .64 someone other than me I get jealous when he/she spends time .60 with others I become insecure/worried that he/she will .59 cheat on/leave me I become more confident when I am .68 around him/her I act more spontaneous when I am around .66 him/her I act happy-go-lucky when I am around .60 him/her I get quiet and shy around him/her .72 My speech stutters when around him/her .72 I say stupid things when I am around .57 him/her because I get nervous I constantly talk about him/her with my .75 friends I constantly bring him/her up in .65 conversations I talk about him/her all the time .65 I add him/her on various social media .52 sites I look at his/her pictures on social media .50 sites I find reasons to talk to him/her .44 Note. The three highest loading items within each factor are displayed, N = 291. 26 26

The acts within each factor were summed to obtain a score for each of the eight RI factors. The eight RI factors were then correlated with the Big Five personality dimensions and a measure of social desirability. Significant correlations were found between total RI score and openness to experience (r = .18), agreeableness (r = .17), and emotional stability (r = -.17). See Appendix H for further significant correlations found between the Big Five personality dimensions and the eight factors of RI.

Discussion With RI being defined as the initial feelings and behaviors that precede a romantic relationship, different dimensions were found and defined within the current study. A factor analysis was conducted on the RI Act Report items, revealing eight reliable and interpretable factors of RI. These eight factors consisted of: General Infatuation, Self-sacrifice, Monopolizing, Insecurity, Confidence, Irrationality, Obsession, and Closeness. Significant correlations were found between the total RI score and openness to experience, agreeableness, and emotional stability. It was hypothesized, based on the results found in Study1, that the following significant correlations would be found: openness to experience would be positively correlated with the total RI score, emotional stability would be negatively correlated with the total RI score, and agreeableness would be positively correlated with the total RI score. As stated previously, openness to experience is characterized by creativity and inventiveness (Caspi, Roberts, & Shriner, 2005). This could potentially explain the positive relationship between total RI scores and openness to experience. Ruminative thoughts and fantasies may require higher levels of creativity and inventiveness. Additionally, total RI 27 27 scores were negatively correlated with emotional stability. This too makes sense, intuitively. The more stable people are emotionally, the less likely they may be to have the ruminative and intrusive thoughts and emotions associated with RI. Lastly, total RI scores were positively correlated with the agreeableness dimension. According to previous research, agreeableness is characterized by thoughtfulness and kindness (Caspi et al., 2005). Kinder people may be less willing to put themselves out there for a potential romantic partner, thus increasing their internalization of the feelings of RI.

CHAPTER 5: STUDY 3

Introduction This final phase of data collection differs from the previous study in its mood induction procedure, and delivery of the study materials. For Study 3, the mood induction procedure was modified and delivered as an audio recording. Additionally, the online surveys were completed in-person in a computer lab for the first half of the collection of data, and online for the second half of the collection of data. Additionally, the order in which the instruments were presented was rearranged to account for bleed over effects potentially caused by the mood induction procedure. Finally, the Infatuation and Attachment scales was added to the procedure in order to assess its similarity with the RI Act Report created in Study 1 (Langeslag et al., 2013). Further discussion of the methodological modifications follows.

Method

Participants Two hundred and thirty-one undergraduates (67 males, 163 females, 1 prefer not to state) at California State University, Fresno participated in this study. Participants were recruited using the online system SONA to make up this sample of convenience. Participants were primarily single (N = 140) and Hispanic (N = 105), ranging in age from 18-20 years old (N = 193). Each participant received one class credit as compensation in exchange for their participation. 29 29 Materials

Infatuation and Attachment Scales. Langeslag et al. (2013) developed these scales consisting of 20 items aimed at measuring attachment and infatuation separately. Ratings for each item were collected using a 5-point Likert scale, and total scores were calculated separately for items relating to infatuation and attachment (see Appendix G). Although these scales measure infatuation and attachment separately, we believed that the 10 items of infatuation were not sufficient for addressing the entire construct of RI. As a result, the RI Act Report was created. See page 17 for a description of the RI Act Report, Big Five personality inventory, and Balanced Inventory of Desirable Reporting.

Design and Procedure The mood induction instructions were modified from Study 2’s instructional set. The modified mood induction instructions presented to the participants was a voice recording. The revised, standardized instructional set was as follows: In this study, we are interested in the behaviors individuals experience when they are infatuated with someone romantically. Romantic infatuation directed towards another person can be defined by having intense emotions, including physical discomfort that at its height may even include irrational romantic feelings for another person. These intense feelings include being obsessed with the person, intense feelings of passion and an overwhelming attraction to the partner. For the purposes of this study, please think of a serious romantic relationship that you have had in the past, that you currently have, or that 30 30

you would like to have. Try to feel the passionate emotions you would have had if you were in an intense state of infatuation with this person [pause 3 seconds]. When you have these feelings in your mind, I would like you to close your eyes, and go into them deeper. Imagine yourself with this person. Imagine how you would feel [pause 3 seconds] what they would say [pause 3 seconds] what you would do [pause 3 seconds]. These feelings and images in your mind can be anywhere on the spectrum of emotions: joyful, uncomfortable, lustful, angry, etc. Please take a moment to really reflect on a time when you were infatuated with someone [pause 5 seconds]. When you feel as though you have been brought back to a place of being romantically infatuated, please begin to rate each of the following behaviors in the context of your feelings. Data were collected in two phases in Study 3. In the first phase, participants were directed to meet in a specified computer lab on their scheduled day and time. The computer lab used in this study accommodated up to 24 students per session. Once participants had read and signed the consent form, they were instructed via an overhead projector to turn on their computer monitors and begin completing the online surveys. Participants first completed the online demographics questionnaire, Big Five personality inventory, and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. They were then prompted by a break in the online survey to put on a pair of headphones and play the audio file containing the recorded online RI mood induction instructions, and complete a set of questions assessing the effectiveness of the procedure. Once the mood induction instructions had been heard, participants then completed the RI Act Report, and the Infatuation and Attachment Scales. 31 31

In the second phase, participants were directed to the online survey via an anonymous survey link. Individuals who participated in the in person phase of Study 3 were prevented from completing the online phase of this study. Participants first completed the online demographics questionnaire, Big Five personality inventory, and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. They were then prompted by a break in the online survey to play the audio file containing the recorded online RI mood induction instructions, and complete a set of questions assessing the effectiveness of the procedure. Once the mood induction instructions had been heard, participants then completed the RI Act Report, and the Infatuation and Attachment Scales. The change to online data collection was necessary due to the low rate of recruitment for in-laboratory studies within the Department of Psychology. Participants were asked a series of questions to ensure they were in fact remembering a time when they were infatuated with someone romantically. Eighty-six percent of the participants reported that they were currently remembering a time when they were infatuated with someone. The remaining 14% who reported not remembering a time when they were infatuated, were asked to take a few moments to think of a serious romantic relationship that they have had in the past, that they currently have, or that they would like to have. They were asked to try to feel the passionate emotions they would have had if they were in an intense state of infatuation with this person. When they felt as though they had been brought back to a place of being romantically infatuated, they were told to press “continue” and begin rating the remaining questions in the context of their feelings. All participants were then asked if their current feelings and emotions of RI as a result of the mood induction were the same as their memories of those feelings and emotions. Seventy-one percent reported that the feelings and 32 32 emotions were the same, and 29% reported that they were not the same. Lastly, 78% reported that the feelings and emotions were positive, and 21% reported that they were negative. There was no assessment on whether the 14% who did not remember a time when they were infatuated had ever experienced RI in the past. Additionally, there was no way for participants to opt out of these mood induction check questions if they failed to recall a time when they have been romantically infatuated in the past. Each participant completed a Big Five inventory, Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding, mood induction instructions, RI Act Report, and Infatuation and Attachment Scales in that order. The reason the mood induction instructions were administered after the Big Five inventory and Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding, and before the RI Act Report and Infatuation and Attachment Scales was to ensure that the questions pertaining to assessing level of RI were answered while the participants were in a romantically infatuated mood. Once the surveys had been completed, the participants received one credit as compensation for their participation in the study. It was hypothesized that based on the results found in Study 2, there would be a highly interpretable eight factor solution of the 78-item RI Act Report. It was hypothesized that we would find positive correlations between openness to experience and agreeableness, and the total RI score. It was hypothesized that we would find negative correlations between emotional stability and the total RI score. Lastly, it was hypothesized that we would find significant correlations between the eight factors of RI and the Big Five personality dimensions, matching in direction with the total RI score. 33 33 Results

Sample Comparison As described above, out of necessity due to low participation rates, the method of data collection switched from in person in a computer lab in phase one, to online survey data collection in phase two. To assess whether the in person and online samples were comparable, all of the possible combinations of bivariate correlations were tested for online versus in-person data collection. Results showed that there were no significant differences between the two samples, which justified combining the two samples for the remaining analyses (see Table 5). Additionally, the in-person and online samples were compared on total RI score. Results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups, t(227) = -.68, p = .50.

The Structure of Romantic Infatuation A principal components analysis was conducted to determine the structure of the RI items. A scree plot of the initial factor solution indicated that between three and eight factors accounted for the majority of the common and unique variance within the 78 RI items. After examining a variety of varimax rotated solutions, a five factor solution was selected. This solution accounted for approximately 56% of the cumulative variance. The five factor structure was determined to be the best fitting factor solution for the acts. Based on a factor loading cutoff of .35, no items were excluded from the analyses (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 2013). The five factor structure is presented in Table 6.

34 34 Table 5

Sample Transformations and Correlation Comparisons Comparison 1 2 3 4 5 6 Extraversion and Agreeableness .22 135 .04 95 1.37 .17 Extraversion and Conscientiousness .06 135 .06 95 -.04 .97 Extraversion and Neuroticism .03 135 .14 95 -.79 .43 Extraversion and Openness .22 135 .24 95 -.15 .88 Extraversion and RI total .11 134 .03 95 .59 .56 Extraversion and Infatuation -.06 134 -.13 95 .52 .60 Extraversion and IM -.16 135 -.13 95 -.29 .77 Extraversion and SDE .01 135 -.01 95 .14 .89 Agreeableness and Conscientiousness .06 135 .34 95 -2.14 .03 Agreeableness and Neuroticism .04 135 .08 95 -.31 .76 Agreeableness and Openness .26 135 .34 95 -.70 .48 Agreeableness and RI total .20 134 .04 95 1.23 .22 Agreeableness and Infatuation -.05 134 -.03 95 -.15 .88 Agreeableness and IM .17 135 .39 95 -2.08 .04 Agreeableness and SDE .08 135 .26 95 -1.35 .18 Conscientiousness and Neuroticism .22 135 .15 95 .56 .58 Conscientiousness and Openness .09 135 .22 95 -.95 .34 Conscientiousness and RI total -.27 134 -.08 95 -1.42 .16 Conscientiousness and Infatuation -.25 134 -.12 95 -.99 .32 Conscientiousness and IM .44 135 .37 95 .63 .53 Conscientiousness and SDE .44 135 .22 95 1.86 .06 Neuroticism and Openness .09 135 .14 95 -.48 .63 Neuroticism and RI total -.10 134 -.01 95 -.63 .53 Neuroticism and Infatuation -.15 134 -.09 95 -.49 .62 Neuroticism and IM .21 135 .22 95 -.02 .98 Neuroticism and SDE .45 135 .26 95 1.62 .11 Openness and RI total .12 134 .05 95 .54 .59 Openness and Infatuation -.01 134 -.05 95 .29 .77 Openness and IM .09 135 .18 95 -.64 .52 Openness and SDE .28 135 .32 95 -.30 .76 RI total and Infatuation .55 134 .34 95 1.93 .05 RI total and IM -.18 134 -.05 95 -.94 .35 RI total and SDE -.02 134 .04 95 -.46 .65 Infatuation and IM -.18 134 -.02 95 -1.25 .21 Infatuation and SDE -.14 134 -.23 95 .72 .47 IM and SDE .42 135 .50 95 -.77 .44 Note. Comparison labels are as follows: (1) In person r, (2) In person N, (3) Online r, (4) Online N, (5) z, and (6) p < .05, two-tailed. 35 35 Table 6

Varimax Rotated Principal Components Analysis, Displaying Eigenvalues for Items of the 78 Acts of RI for Each Factor. Factor Act 1 2 3 4 5 I am happy when I am around him/her. .85 I have a better day when I get to see him/her. .82 I get excited whenever he/she is around. .79 I want to hug him/her. .79 I want to kiss him/her. .78 .34 I find him/her very attractive. .76 I get a cheesy smile on my face when I see him/her. .75 I want to hold his/her hand. .74 When I see him/her I am more motivated throughout the day. .71 I get butterflies in my stomach when I am around him/her. .68 I constantly daydream about him/her. .65 I am extra kind to him/her. .65 I get butterflies in my stomach when around him/her. .64 I stare at him/her. .62 I giggle when I am around him/her. .61 I never get tired of being around him/her. .60 I want frequent physical contact. .59 .39 I act happy-go-lucky when I am around him/her. .58 I lust for him/her. .58 .35 I act more spontaneous when I am around him/her. .56 I become more confident when I am around him/her. .56 .42 I engage in activities that he/she enjoys. .54 .49 I find reasons to talk to him/her. .54 I listen to what he/she wants. .54 .53 I picture what my life would be like with him/her in the long run. .53 My cheeks blush when I'm around them. .48 I do my best to impress him/her. .48 .35 I make eye contact with him/her as much as possible. .48 .45 I travel long distances to be around him/her. .47 .42 I give him/her many compliments. .46 .43 I buy him/her gifts he/she will like. .75 I put his/her needs before my own. .72 I spend more money on him/her than I do on myself. .72 I prioritize his/her time above my own. .70 I spend money on him/her. .69 I go out of my way to do things for him/her. .68 I compromise my own wants and needs to accommodate his/hers. .67 I cook him/her dinner or clean his/her house because I like them. .62 I drop my plans to be with him/her. .62 I spend countless hours with him/her. .61 .46 I become protective of him/her. .38 .57 I try things that are out of my comfort zone, because I want to make him/her .55 happy. 36 36 Factor Act 1 2 3 4 5 I talk about my feelings with him/her. .49 .52 I keep him/her around at all times. .52 .42 I spill all of my thoughts out to him/her. .40 .50 .40 I do anything he/she asks me to do. .50 .41 Even when I get rejected, I will still message/call him/her. .46 I become overwhelmed when I do not see him/her. .39 .38 I constantly check my phone to see if he/she has texted me. .35 I say stupid things when I am around him/her because I get nervous. .72 I get nervous about asking him/her out on a date. .70 I become insecure/worried that he/she will not like me back. .63 .40 I change my appearance to make myself more desirable to him/her. .63 My speech stutters when around him/her. .61 I get quiet and shy around him/her -.37 .56 I act outgoing so I don't bore him/her. .55 I lose focus easily when I am around him/her. .55 I ignore aspects of my own life, because I am thinking about him/her. .48 .53 I lose focus when I am around him/her. .41 .48 I try more risky things when I am around him/her. .39 .46 I make irrational decisions that that affect my romantic life when I am .45 infatuated with someone. I go to school when I know he/she has class so that I can be around him/her. .44 I don't listen to my friends advice when it comes to the person I am .43 infatuated with. My hands sweat. .40 I talk about him/her all the time. .77 I constantly bring him/her up in conversations. .74 I constantly talk about him/her with my friends. .72 I post about him/her on social media sites. .38 .56 I talk to him/her for more than two hours a day. .41 .54 I have to talk to him/her every day. .37 .50 .53 I look at his/her pictures on social media sites. .39 .50 I add him/her on various social media sites. .37 .49 I become over-talkative on the phone. .39 .40 I stay close to him/her when others are around. .36 .39 I get angry when he/she is interested in someone other than me. .63 I get jealous when he/she spends time with others. .62 I become insecure/worried that he/she will cheat on/leave me. .37 .50 I feel unsatisfied when I am not able to be in a romantic relationship with .41 .45 him/her. Note. Factor loadings less than .35 are not shown, N = 231. 37 37

Composite scores were calculated for each of the five factors (see Table 7). These factors were labeled as follows: General Infatuation, Resources, Fumbling, Obsessive, and Negative Emotions. There were significant inter-correlations between the factors suggesting that they more than likely occur together when an individual is experiencing RI (see Table 8).

Table 7

Number of Items, Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha Reliabilities for the Five Factors of RI Component Number of Items Mean SD

General Infatuation 30 161.46 32.76 .97

Resources 19 82.69 24.63 .95

Fumbling 15 57.82 17.01 .87

Obsessive 10 45.14 14.04 .90

Negative Emotions 4 18.32 5.94 .78

Table 8

Inter-correlations of the Five Factors of RI

Factor Gen. Infatuation Resources Fumbling Obsession Resources .72** Fumbling .50** .49** Obsession .69** .78** .40** Neg. Emotions .51** .56** .58** .52**

Note. **p < .01, two-tailed, N = 231.

Partial correlations between the five factors of RI found and the Big Five personality traits were examined while controlling for social desirability. 38 38

Agreeableness (r = .17) and Conscientiousness (r = -.18) correlated significantly with the total RI score. Neuroticism negatively correlated with the factor of Negative Emotions (r = -.25). Additionally, the total RI score was significantly correlated with the existing measure of infatuation from the Infatuation and Attachment Scales (r = .48). See Appendix I for all correlations between the total RI score and tactics of RI with the Big Five personality dimensions.

Discussion A factor analysis was conducted on the 78-items of RI from the original Act Report created in Study 1 of this work. A five factor solution was found, with the five factors named as follows: General Infatuation, Resources, Fumbling, Obsessive, and Negative Emotions. The structure of the Act Report data showed that the five factors accounted for a majority of the cumulative variance within the RI Act Report. In direct contrast to what was hypothesized, there were no significant correlations between all of the Big Five personality dimensions and this new measure of RI (the RI Act Report). Instead, only two of the five dimensions significantly correlated with the total RI score in Study 3 (i.e., agreeableness and conscientiousness). Regression analyses were conducted, predicting the Big Five traits, total RI score, General Infatuation, Resources, Fumbling, Obsession, and Negative Emotions, with self-deceptive enhancement and impression management removed. Agreeableness and conscientiousness correlated significantly with the total RI score, General Infatuation, Resources, Fumbling, and Negative Emotions. Neuroticism negatively correlated with the factor of Negative Emotions. Although there were fewer correlations of the total RI score with the Big Five personality dimensions as was originally predicted, a new measure of RI was created within this program of research as well as a more direct definition of the 39 39 construct of RI. Additionally, a unique factor structure was found, indicating that RI is not a unidimensional construct, but is in fact multidimensional. Because correlations with all five personality dimensions were not found in the culmination of these three studies, continued exploration of this topic is advised. Study 3 further revealed that it is possible that personality plays a role in an individual’s experience of RI. The total RI score on the original RI Act Report created in Study 1 was significantly correlated with the existing measure of infatuation from the Infatuation and Attachment Scales. This, along with the reliability analyses conducted on the scale, leads us to conclude that RI was explored in greater detail than in previous studies of this construct.

CHAPTER 6: GENERAL DISCUSSION

The Structure of RI and its Personality Correlates The series of studies presented was the first step in a more comprehensive investigation of the domain of RI. The goal of this program of research was to further understand and clarify how individuals are romantically infatuated. These exploratory studies have resulted in the development of a taxonomy of RI tactics, which is a new method to assess this domain of behavior. The relationship between personality traits, as represented by the five-factor model of personality, and the domain of RI was also explored. Previous findings in the domain of romantic love have found systematic relationships between styles of romantic love and the five-factor model, that have not been found in the current research (White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). With the new instrument created in Study 1 more comprehensively defining the domain of RI, it was hypothesized that extraversion and agreeableness would be negatively correlated with RI. Conversely, it was hypothesized that openness to experience would be positively correlated with RI. While results from Study 2 and Study 3 showed that there were significant correlations between the total RI scores and the Big Five dimensions, in contrast to what was hypothesized, the results indicated that agreeableness was positively correlated with the total RI score, and neuroticism was negatively correlated with the total RI score. Openness to experience was positively correlated with the total RI score, and conscientiousness was negatively correlated with the total RI score. Extraversion was not correlated with the total RI score in Study 2 or Study 3, but extraversion was significantly correlated with the Irrational factor in Study 2. Further discussion of these findings is provided below. 41 41

Obsession often arises as a consequence of unreciprocated contact by a person of interest (Reynolds, 1983). As a result, it was reasonable to assume that the RI tactic of Obsession would be found in both Study 2 and Study 3’s factor solutions. The top three items of this tactic for both studies were, “I talk about him/her all the time,” “I constantly bring him/her up in conversations,” and I constantly talk about him/her with my friends.” Previous research has supported that the obsessive thoughts an infatuated person experiences can take over most hours of a person’s day (Reynolds, 1983). The thoughts are persistent, intrusive and often all-encompassing (Schupak & Rosenthal, 2009; Willmott & Bentley, 2015). People experiencing these obsessions can even go as far as changing their plans to be closer to the person of interest (Charny, 1981). It could be argued based on the results of this research, and the opinion of previous studies, that obsession caused by RI is the most important component of this construct (Reynolds, 1983). Within the current research, we found that the tactic of Obsession was positively correlated with agreeableness. Agreeableness is described as an individual’s ability to display politeness, cooperativeness, and flexibility (Goldberg, 1992). This sample showed that the more present these characteristics are, the more RI behaviors and emotions are displayed and experienced. Obsession was also found to be negatively correlated with emotional stability. Those who are emotionally unstable tend to be more insecure and discontented (Goldberg, 1992). This led us to conclude that the more emotionally unstable a person is, the more infatuated behaviors they may tend to express. Because the experience of RI can change from one moment to the next, feelings of despair can quickly turn into feelings of elation (Fehr & Russell, 1991). Previous research has defined passionate love as a set of behaviors and emotions that arise as a result of wanting 42 42 to be with someone romantically (Hatfield et al., 2007). Reciprocation often leads to elation, and un-reciprocation often leads to despair. Additionally, it was assumed that the tactic of General Infatuation would remain consistent from Study 2 to Study 3. Some of these shared General Infatuation items are “I get butterflies in my stomach when around him/her,” “I get excited whenever he/she is around,” “My cheeks blush when I am around them,” “I stare at him/her,” and “I get a cheesy smile on my face when I see him/her.” These items are consistent with the emotions and behaviors cited from previous research claiming to solely measure infatuation, without unrelated constructs like attachment (Langeslag et al., 2013). This tactic was negatively correlated with the personality dimension of conscientiousness in Study 3’s sample. High conscientiousness is marked by practicality and cautiousness, which supports the finding that highly conscientious individuals tend to perform fewer RI behaviors. Conversely, this tactic was positively correlated with openness to experience in Study 2 and agreeableness in Studies 2 and 3. People ranking high on the openness to experience dimension are said to be more imaginative, reflective, and creative (Goldberg, 1992). As a temporary relief from the negative emotional effects of unreciprocated interest, infatuated individuals often imagine reciprocated interest (Willmott & Bentley, 2015). Thus, individuals who are predisposed to be more imaginative than their less open counterparts, may tend to report more RI behaviors. Extraversion remained uncorrelated with the total RI score in all three studies conducted within this program of research. Previous findings on the relationship between extraversion and relationship variables have been mixed. Multiple studies have indicated positive, negative, and no relationships between this dimension and different styles of love (White et al., 2004). Research has 43 43 indicated mixed correlations between extraversion and positive relationship variables like intimacy and satisfaction (White et al., 2004). This current study did not find a relationship between extraversion and the total RI score, but a negative correlation was found between this dimension and the Irrational tactic in Study 2. This tactic included behaviors such as, “I get quiet and shy around him/her,” “My speech stutters when around him/her,” and “I say stupid things when I am around him/her because I get nervous.” This negative association supports our hypothesis that highly infatuated individuals tend to be more introverted than extraverted. The structure of the RI Act Report data revealed different interpretable solutions across Studies. In Study 2, the eight factor solution provided many more significant correlations between the five dimensions of personality, total RI score and RI tactics than did the five factor solution produced by Study 3. It was originally hypothesized that with a larger sample size, and a further standardized and modified mood induction procedure, better factor and total score correlations of RI would be found in Study 3. From Study 2 to Study 3, General Infatuation and Obsession were the only factors that remained constant. What was lost in Study 3 were the dimensions of Self-sacrifice, Monopolize, Insecurity, Irrationality, Confidence, and Closeness. These factors split between and added to the factors of Resources, Fumbling, and Negative Emotions. Although more factor correlations with the Big Five personality dimensions were found with the eight factor solution obtained in Study 2, the five factor solution obtained in Study 3 appears to be more stable.

Limitations and Future Directions In the current investigation, results were based on the responses collected from university students only. This sample was one of convenience and was 44 44 significantly limited in variation within major demographic characteristics. The majority of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 22, and were at the undergraduate level academically. This sample limits the generalizability of the findings of this research, particularly in the areas of age, socioeconomic status and culture. Future research might attempt to collect these results from a sample with more demographic variability. For example, “I get butterflies in my stomach when around him/her” was the second highest rated act in the prototypicality phase of Study 1. Although it may be a quintessential component of the experience of RI for respondents within this sample, it may not be part of the lived experience for older respondents. In future studies, it would be beneficial to do an age comparison between younger and older adults on prototypicality ratings of the 78 Acts of RI. It would also be beneficial to inquire about whether or not participants have been infatuated in the past. This was not assessed in this program of research, and it is possible that some individuals may not have experienced RI previously. An individual would not be able to effectively rate behaviors that he or she has never experienced. Due to the nature of the RI construct, it would be extremely difficult to obtain a sample consisting exclusively of participants who were currently infatuated with someone. For this reason, RI was examined retrospectively in this program of research. Since RI is a state that is fleeting, finding the best way to measure this construct was challenging. Having participants retrospectively think back on a time when they were infatuated with someone romantically, was determined to be the most feasible method. Additionally, people are often unaware of their own infatuations in the current moment, so gathering a sample of people who were currently infatuated was deemed too challenging for the current study. 45 45

Previous research has also reported that retrospective estimates of RI tend to underestimate the actual intensity of the experience, as opposed to reports from those who are currently or closer to the infatuated experiences (Tennov, 1998). In future research, it may be beneficial for researchers to assess infatuation scores strictly for those who are currently infatuated. Mood induction procedures were employed in an attempt to get respondents as close to being in an authentic state of infatuation as possible. The mood induction instructions were developed by expanding on Study 2’s instructional set, which blended a combination of mood induction techniques that have been found to be effective for inducing specific moods in a research setting. Study 2’s instructional set was presented to the participants in writing directly before they completed the RI Act Report. It was up to the participant to immerse himself or herself in the feelings associated with when he or she was ever romantically infatuated in the past. Study 3’s mood induction instructions were expanded upon, and were presented to the participants as a voice recording for standardization. The instructions were intended to induce a more romantically infatuated mood than was produced by Study 2’s instructional set. It was believed that having the participants listen to the instructions would ensure that the instructions were not skipped over, and enough time was allotted for the participants to immerse themselves in an infatuated mood. It is unknown whether the mood induction procedure sufficiently brought participants back to a state of romantic infatuation. Correlations with the Big Five personality dimensions could differ between currently infatuated people, and “artificially” infatuated people by way of mood induction. Additionally, the procedure used in this research is substantially lengthy for a research study. In total, there were 198 survey questions asked in Study 3. Due 46 46 to the nature of the research question, it was imperative to include all of the proper instruments to assess personality, social desirability, and RI. The length of this study combined with the convenience sample could have potentially negatively impacted the results. Responses were anonymous, which made falsely rating items, by clicking quickly through the survey, easy to do. Study 3 attempted to counteract this limitation by conducting the study in-person, but due to the slow rate of data collection, the remainder of the responses were collected online via an anonymous survey link. In future studies, the 78-item Act Report could potentially be reduced to a more manageable number that still adequately addresses the construct without losing its multidimensionality. It is also possible that Goldberg’s IPIP scale for assessing the Big Five personality dimensions is ineffective for assessing RI correlates with personality traits. The IPIP Five-Factor markers scale was chosen for use within this study due to its ease of distribution as well as its validity. It is possible that there is another measure of personality that would be better suited to finding correlations between the construct of RI and other topics relating to romantic connections. When considering the limitations of this study, based on the results, further exploration of this topic is warranted. This study failed to find a direct correlation between all of the Big Five personality dimensions and RI as it was defined and measured within this study. It is possible that the original RI Act Report that was created in Study 1 of this work was not sufficient in defining and circumscribing the entire domain of RI. For instance, previous definitions and measures of RI included the element of attachment that was taken out of the current definition and measure (Langsleg et al., 2012). This new definition and subsequent measure may have constrained the potential of their trait expression. 47 47

The results of these three studies support the notion that there is a relationship between personality traits and RI as it was defined within this body of work. The behaviors and emotions associated with RI tend to be experienced more intensely in people who are highly agreeable, less conscientious, and highly open to experience. Although RI is not correlated significantly with the dimensions of extraversion and emotional stability, the correlations that were found are important to note and further add to this topic. But it is possible that RI is not related to personality at all, and is just a part of human nature.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Aloni, M., & Bernieri, F. J. (2004). Is love blind? The effects of experience and infatuation on the perception of love. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 287-296.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). A little bit about love. Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction, 379, 355-381.

Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82, 238- 249.

Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105-126.

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shriner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review Psychology, 56, 453-484.

Charny, I. W. (1981). Review of Love and limerence: The experience of being in love. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 745-747.

Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245-264.

Fehr, B., & Broughton, R. (2001). Gender and personality differences in conceptions of love: An interpersonal theory analysis. Personal Relationships, 8, 115-136.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425-438.

Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9, 23-52. 50 50 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Hatfield, E., Bensman, L., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). A brief history of social scientists’ attempts to measure passionate love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 143-164.

Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Martel, L. D. (2007). Passionate love and sexual desire. Handbook of Cultural Psychology, 760-779.

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

Hattis, R. P. (1965). Love feeling in courtship couples: An analysis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 5, 22-53.

Hazan, C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). The place of attachment in human mating. Review of General Psychology, 4, 186-204.

Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1982). Reciprocity of interpersonal attraction: A confirmed hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 54-58.

Langeslag, S. J. E., Muris, P., & Franken, I. H. A. (2013). Measuring romantic love: Psychometric properties of the infatuation and attachment scales. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 739-747.

Lasswell, T. E., & Lasswell, M. E. (1976). I love you but I'm not in love with you. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2, 211-224.

Leary, M. R. (2015). Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 17, 435-441.

Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173-182.

Mayer, J. D., Allen, I. P., & Beauregard, K. (1995). Mood inductions for four specific moods: A procedure employing guided imagery. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19, 133-150. 51 51 McClanahan, K. K., Gold, J. A., Lenney, E., Ryckman, R. M., & Kulberg, G. E. (1990). Infatuation and attraction to a dissimilar other: Why is love blind? The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 433-445.

Obi-Nwosu, H. (2012). Pschobiology of love and its implication. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 163-170.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.

Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68(5), 821-835.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2013). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Pignatiello, M. F., Camp, C. J., & Rasar, L. A. (1986). Musical mood induction: An alternative to the Velten technique. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 295-297.

Reiss, I. L. (1964). Premarital sexual permissiveness among Negroes and Whites. American Sociological Review, 29, 688-698.

Reynolds, S. E. (1983). "Limerence": A new word and concept. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 20, 107-111.

Schupak, C., & Rosenthal, J. (2009). Excessive daydreaming: A case history and discussion of mind wandering and high fantasy proneness. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 290-292.

Tennov, D. (1998). Love and limerence: The experience of being in love. Lanham, MD: Scarborough House.

Westermann, R., Spies, K., Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. W. (1996). Relative effectiveness and validity of mood induction procedures: A meta‐analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 557-580.

White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519-1530.

Willmott, L., & Bentley, E. (2015). Exploring the lived-experience of limerence: A journey toward authenticity. The Qualitative Report, 20, 20-38.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM 54 54

Statement of Informed Consent You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Dr. Michael Botwin and Hope Castro at California State University, Fresno. In this research, we are interested in romantic infatuation and its correlation with traits in the five-factor model of personality. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of your decision to volunteer for the study.

If you decide to participate, we the researchers will direct you to an online survey including demographic questions, Big-Five Personality Inventory, Social Desirability Scale, audio mood induction instructions, Romantic Infatuation Questionnaire, and Infatuation and Attachment Scale. The surveys should take approximately 45 minutes to complete.

Due to participating in this study you may experience fatigue or mild boredom. We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this study, but everyone who helps with this work will be contributing directly to our knowledge of the psychology of romantic infatuation.

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. If you give us your permission by signing this document, we plan to disclose your information only to the appropriate authorities.

By participating in this study you may receive extra credit for a current class. There are no additional costs to you for participating in this study.

Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not prejudice your future relations with California State University, Fresno the Department of Psychology. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time without penalty. This research is for educational purposes only.

If you have any questions, please ask us. If you have additional questions at a later time, please contact the following sources: -Questions regarding the Nature of the Research: Dr. Michael Botwin (559) 278-5099 -Questions regarding the Rights of Research Subjects: The CSUF Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects (559) 278-2083. You may have a copy of this consent form to keep.

YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE, HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE.

______Date Signature Name (Please Print)

______Signature of Investigator

APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

56 56 Please complete the following items: 1.) Age______2.) Sex: Male______Female______Please circle the response that best represents you. 3.) What is the status of your current romantic relationship? (A) Single (B) Dating Cohabiting (C) Cohabiting / Living with a Partner (D) Engaged (E) Married (F) Divorced (G) Widowed 4.) What is your race? (A) African American (B) Asian (C) Hispanic (D) Native American (E) White (F) Other (G) Chose not to state 5.) Approximately, how often do you think of your current romantic partner? If you do not currently have a romantic partner how often do you think about your last romantic partner? If you have never had a romantic partner, how often do you think about a potential romantic partner? (A) never (B) one to ten times a month (C) one to five times a week (D) one to five times a day (E) more than five times a day 6.) Approximately, how many minutes on an “average” day do you spend thinking about a significant other, or potential partner? (A) none (B) one minute to one hour (C) one hour to two hours (D) two hours to three hours (E) three hours to four hours (F) five hours to six hours (G) six hours to seven hours (H) seven hours to eight hours (I) more than eight hours

APPENDIX C: ACT NOMINATION SURVEY

58 58 Individuals who are romantically infatuated are usually obsessed with the other individual. Romantic infatuation can be defined as having intense, even irrational, romantic feelings for another individual.

Think of a time when either you or someone you know has been romantically infatuated with another individual. Please write down at least five behaviors that you or someone you know performed while romantically infatuated, or behaviors you believe to be associated with the construct of romantic infatuation.

1.______. 2.______. 3.______. 4.______. 5.______

______. 6.______. 7.______

______. 8.______. 9.______. 10.______.

APPENDIX D: ROMANTIC INFATUATION ACT REPORT 60 60 In this study we are exploring romantic infatuation. Please rate each behavior on the seven-point scale listed below.

Please, think of a time when you were seriously romantically infatuated with another individual. Imagine the feelings and emotions you had about that person. When you have these feelings and emotions in your mind, please begin to rate each of the following behaviors in the context of your feelings of romantic infatuation.

1. I find him/her very attractive 2. I get butterflies in my stomach when around him/her 3. I want to kiss him/her 4. I want to hug him/her 5. I am happy when I am around him/her 6. I get a cheesy smile on my face when I see him/her 7. I have a better day when I get to see him/her 8. I picture what my life would be like with him/her in the long run 9. I get butterflies in my stomach when I am around her/him 10. I want to hold his/her hand 11. I get excited whenever he/she is around 12. When I see him/her I am more motivated throughout the day 13. I listen to what he/she wants 14. I give him/her many compliments 15. I am extra kind to him/her 16. I want frequent physical contact with him/her 17. I engage in activities that he/she enjoys 18. I buy him/her gifts he/she will like 19. I never get tired of being around him/her 20. I talk about my feelings with him/her 21. I giggle when I am around him/her 22. My cheeks blush when I'm around them 23. I become more confident when I am around her/him 24. I do my best to impress him/her 25. I constantly daydream about him/her 26. I spend money on him/her 27. I constantly check my phone to see if he/she has texted me 28. I get jealous when he/she spends time with others 29. I have to talk to her/him everyday 30. I lust for him/her 31. I find reasons to talk to him/her 32. I cook her/him dinner or clean his/her house because I like them 33. I add him/her on various social media sites 61 61 34. I go out of my way to do things for her/him 35. I stare at him/her 36. I make eye contact with him/her as much as possible 37. I get angry when he/she is interested in someone other than me 38. I talk to him/her for more than two hours a day 39. My speech stutters when around him/her 40. I feel unsatisfied when I am not able to be in a romantic relationship with him/her 41. I act happy-go-lucky when I am around her/him 42. I become protective of him/her 43. I spend more money on him/her than I do on myself 44. I travel long distances to be around him/her 45. I lose focus when I am around him/her 46. I talk about him/her all the time 47. I act more spontaneous when I am around him/her 48. I spend countless hours with him/her 49. I look at his/her pictures on social media sites 50. I try things that are out of my comfort zone, because I want to make him/her happy 51. I change my appearance to make myself more desirable to him/her 52. I become insecure/worried that he/she will not like me back 53. I spill all of my thoughts out to him/her 54. My hands sweat 55. I say stupid things when I'm around him/her because I get nervous 56. I constantly bring him/her up in conversations 57. I become insecure/worried that he/she will cheat on/leave me 58. I get quiet and shy around him/her 59. I stay close to him/her when others are around 60. I get nervous about asking him/her out on a date 61. I act outgoing so I don’t bore him/her 62. I drop my plans to be with him/her 63. I compromise my own wants and needs to accommodate his/hers 64. I try more risky things when I am around him/her 65. I go to school when I know he/she has class so that I can be around him/her 66. I constantly talk about him/her with my friends 67. I keep him/her around at all times 68. I prioritize his/her time above my own 69. I put his/her needs before my own 70. I don’t listen to my friends advice when it comes to the person I am infatuated with 71. I lose focus easily when I am around him/her 72. I become overwhelmed when I do not see him/her 62 62 73. I do anything he/she asks me to do 74. Even when I get rejected, I will still message/call him/her 75. I become over-talkative on the phone 76. I post about him/her on social media sites 77. I ignore aspects of my own life, because I am thinking about him/her 78. I make irrational decisions that affect my romantic life when I am infatuated with someone

APPENDIX E: BIG FIVE PERSONALITY INVENTORY 64 64

How Accurately Can You Describe Yourself?

Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner, your responses will be kept in absolute confidence.

Indicate for each statement whether it is 1. Very Inaccurate, 2. Moderately Inaccurate, 3. Neither Accurate nor Inaccurate, 4. Moderately Accurate, or 5. Very Accurate as a description of you.

1. I am the life of the party. О О О О О (1+) 2. Feel little concern for others. О О О О О (2-) 3. Am always prepared. О О О О О (3+) 4. Get stressed out easily. О О О О О (4-) 5. Have a rich vocabulary. О О О О О (5+) 6. Don't talk a lot. О О О О О (1-) 7. Am interested in people. О О О О О (2+) 8. Leave my belongings around. О О О О О (3-) 9. Am relaxed most of the time. О О О О О (4+) 10. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. О О О О О (5-) 11. Feel comfortable around people. О О О О О (1+) 12. Insult people. О О О О О (2-) 13. Pay attention to details. О О О О О (3+) 14. Worry about things. О О О О О (4-) 15. Have a vivid imagination. О О О О О (5+) 16. Keep in the background. О О О О О (1-) 17. Sympathize with others' feelings. О О О О О (2+) 18. Make a mess of things. О О О О О (3-) 19. Seldom feel blue. О О О О О (4+) 20. Am not interested in abstract ideas. О О О О О (5-) 21. Start conversations. О О О О О (1+) 22. Am not interested in other people's problems. О О О О О (2-) 23. Get chores done right away. О О О О О (3+) 24. Am easily disturbed. О О О О О (4-) 25. Have excellent ideas. О О О О О (5+) 26. Have little to say. О О О О О (1-) 27. Have a soft heart. О О О О О (2+)

65 65 28. Often forget to put things back in their proper place. О О О О О (3-) 29. Get upset easily. О О О О О (4-) 30. Do not have a good imagination. О О О О О (5-) 31. Talk to a lot of different people at parties. О О О О О (1+) 32. Am not really interested in others. О О О О О (2-) 33. Like order. О О О О О (3+) 34. Change my mood a lot. О О О О О (4-) 35. Am quick to understand things. О О О О О (5+) 36. Don't like to draw attention to myself. О О О О О (1-) 37. Take time out for others. О О О О О (2+) 38. Shirk my duties. О О О О О (3-) 39. Have frequent mood swings. О О О О О (4-) 40. Use difficult words. О О О О О (5+) 41. Don't mind being the center of attention. О О О О О (1+) 42. Feel others' emotions. О О О О О (2+) 43. Follow a schedule. О О О О О (3+) 44. Get irritated easily. О О О О О (4-) 45. Spend time reflecting on things. О О О О О (5+) 46. Am quiet around strangers. О О О О О (1-) 47. Make people feel at ease. О О О О О (2+) 48. Am exacting in my work. О О О О О (3+) 49. Often feel blue. О О О О О (4-) 50. Am full of ideas. О О О О О (5+)

APPENDIX F: BALANCED INVENTORY OF DESIRABLE RESPONDING 67 67 Using the scale provided, please indicate what number represents your level of agreement with each statement.

1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 Not true ….Somewhat true Very true

____ 1. My first impressions of people usually turn out to be right. ____ 2. It would be hard for me to break any of my bad habits. ____ 3. I don't care to know what other people really think of me. ____ 4. I have not always been honest with myself. ____ 5. I always know why I like things. ____ 6. When my emotions are aroused, it biases my thinking. ____ 7. Once I've made up my mind, other people can seldom change my opinion. ____ 8. I am not a safe driver when I exceed the speed limit. ____ 9. I am fully in control of my own fate. ____ 10. It's hard for me to shut off a disturbing thought. ____ 11. I never regret my decisions. ____ 12. I sometimes lose out on things because I can't make up my mind soon enough. ____ 13. The reason I vote is because my vote can make a difference. ____ 14. My parents were not always fair when they punished me. ____ 15. I am a completely rational person. ____ 16. I rarely appreciate criticism. ____ 17. I am very confident of my judgments ____ 18. I have sometimes doubted my ability as a lover. ____ 19. It's all right with me if some people happen to dislike me. ____ 20. I don't always know the reasons why I do the things I do. ____ 21. I sometimes tell lies if I have to. ____ 22. I never cover up my mistakes. ____ 23. There have been occasions when I have taken advantage of someone. ____ 24. I never swear. ____ 25. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. ____ 26. I always obey laws, even if I'm unlikely to get caught. ____ 27. I have said something bad about a friend behind his/her back. ____ 28. When I hear people talking privately, I avoid listening. ____ 29. I have received too much change from a salesperson without telling him or her. ____ 30. I always declare everything at customs. ____ 31. When I was young I sometimes stole things. ____ 32. I have never dropped litter on the street. ____ 33. I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit. ____ 34. I never read sexy books or magazines. 68 68

____ 35. I have done things that I don't tell other people about. ____ 36. I never take things that don't belong to me. ____ 37. I have taken sick-leave from work or school even though I wasn't really sick. ____ 38. I have never damaged a library book or store merchandise without reporting it. ____ 39. I have some pretty awful habits. ____ 40. I don't gossip about other people's business.

APPENDIX G: INFATUATION AND ATTACHMENT SCALES 70 70

Infatuation and Attachment Scales 1. I stare into the distance while I think of _____. 2. I feel that I can count on _____. 3. I get shaky knees when I am near _____. 4. I am prepared to share my possessions with _____. 5. I would feel lonely without _____. 6. My feelings for _____ reduce my appetite. 7. My thoughts about _____ make it difficult for me to concentrate on something else. 8. _____ is the one for me. 9. I am afraid that I will say something wrong when I talk to _____. 10. _____ knows everything about me. 11. I hope my feelings for _____ will never end. 12. I get clammy hands when I am near _____. 13. I feel emotionally connected to _____. 14. I become tense when I am close to _____. 15. _____ can reassure me when I am upset. 16. I have a hard time sleeping because I am thinking of _____. 17. I search for alternative meanings to _____’s words. 18. _____ is the person who can make me feel the happiest. 19. _____ is part of my plans for the future. 20. I am shy in the presence of _____.

APPENDIX H: STUDY 2 CORRELATIONS

Correlation Coefficients for Big Five, Social Desirability, and the Eight Factors of RI Variable RI Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Extraversion .004 .021 .030 .016 -.090 .069 -.223** .105 .049 Agreeableness .168** .315** .000 .072 .000 .244** .037 .182** .176** Conscientiousness -.053 .056 -.139* -.019 -.109 .030 -.054 -.073 -.080 Emotional Stability -.171** -.012 -.243** -.095 -.333** .065 -.184** -.174** -.124* Openness to Experience .183** .192** .162** .069 .122 .200** .047 .104 .175** BIDR.SDE -.237** -.075 -.314** -.050 -.358** .017 -.286** -.169** -.207** BIDR.IM -.207** -.108 -.238** -.081 -.271** -.021 -.176** -.136* -.236** Note. **p < .01, two-tailed. *p < .05, two-tailed. (1) General Infatuation, (2) Self-sacrifice, (3) Monopolizing, (4) Insecurity, (5) Confidence, (6) Irrationality, (7) Obsession, (8) Closeness, N = 291.

72

APPENDIX I: STUDY 3 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS

Partial Correlations Between the Big Five Personality Traits, and the Five Factors of RI, Controlling for Social Desirability Big Five RI.Total 1 2 3 4 5

Extraversion .062*** .076*** .075*** -.054*** .101*** .015*** Agreeableness .171*** .197*** .139*** .086*** .094*** .151*** Conscientiousness -.184*** -.154*** -.156*** -.219*** -.072*** -.172*** Emotional Stability -.064*** .008*** -.058*** -.042*** -.123*** -.252*** Openness to Experience .094*** .094*** .091*** .061*** .039*** .095*** Note. **p < .01, two-tailed. *p < .05, two-tailed. (1) General Infatuation, (2) Resources, (3) Fumbling, (4) Obsession, and (5) Negative Emotions. N = 231.

74