06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 115

6

MAKING A LOVE CONNECTION Styles of Love and Attachment

Gabriela and Brian have been dating for months. Although they care deeply for one another, some prob- lems have started to surface in their relationship. Brian wishes Gabriela would show him more affection. Every time they get really close, she seems to pull away. She also seems to put her career ahead of their relationship. Just last week, she cancelled their Saturday night date so she could spend extra time work- ing on an advertising campaign. Sometimes Brian wonders if he cares more for Gabriela than she cares for him. Perhaps she likes him but doesn’t love him. Gabriela, in contrast, wishes Brian would give her more space. She doesn’t understand why he needs her to say “I love you” all the time. Shouldn’t he under- stand how she feels without her having to tell him all the time? After all, she always makes sure to fit some quality time with Brian into her busy schedule, and they do all sorts of activities together, such as golfing, skiing, and watching old movies. Sometimes Gabriela wonders if she can devote enough time to the relationship to satisfy Brian. Maybe she’s just not ready for the level of commitment he wants.

ho do you relate to more—Gabriela or In this chapter, we examine different styles Brian? Gabriela is focused on her career. of love and attachment. Before doing so, we distin- W She expresses love by engaging in guish love from liking and discuss the situation of activity, and she values her autonomy. Brian, on the unrequited love. Next, we cover three major perspec- other hand, is more focused on the relationship. He tives on love: (1) Lee’s love styles, (2) Sternberg’s tri- expresses his feelings by saying “I love you” and angular theory of love, and (3) Marston and Hecht’s showing affection. Are Gabriela and Brian’s attitudes love ways. These three perspectives show that people toward love fairly common? What other attitudes do experience love in different ways. Finally, we dis- people have about love? How do they know if they cuss attachment theory. Attachment is an important are really in love? Finally, can two people such as part of various loving relationships, including rela- Gabriela and Brian—who have such different needs, tionships between family members, romantic part- priorities, and styles of communication—be happy ners, and close friends. together? The literature on love and attachment helps answer some of these questions.

115 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 116

116 • CHAPTER 6

LOVE,LIKING, AND UNREQUITED LOVE make one feel good when around that person. Enjoyable interactions promote interpersonal warmth, Feelings such as love and liking are the foundation of or a feeling of cozy closeness, which helps cement the close relationships. Sometimes these feelings surface bond between two people (Andersen & Guerrero, quickly; at other times they develop over time as peo- 1998a). Respect is based on admiring a person’s pos- ple get to know one another. In other cases, feelings itive personal characteristics, such as a good sense of of love or liking are not reciprocated. When love is humor, a sense of integrity, or an inner strength. shared, it is one of the most wonderful human experi- Loving, in contrast, is characterized by attachment, ences. When love is not returned, people feel rejected caring, and intimacy (Rubin, 1973). Attachment and miserable. Researchers have spent considerable occurs when people feel an emotional connection to energy investigating issues related to love, liking, and someone. When people are in need of comfort, they unrequited love. Some of this research has focused on rely on others with whom they have formed such an answering basic questions such as the following: attachment. Caring, in contrast, refers to giving When does liking turn to love? Is love a distinctly dif- (rather than receiving) support and comfort, as well as ferent experience from liking? And how do people to showing affection. Finally, intimacy involves a feel in situations involving unrequited love? sense of interdependence, whereby two people rely on each other to fulfill needs for attachment and caring. A series of studies by Davis and colleagues also Loving Versus Liking demonstrated that loving is qualitatively different Loving is a complex concept that can refer to a set from liking and, again, that loving is special because of feelings, a state of mind, or a type of relationship. it often includes more caring and passion than liking Love is communicated in a variety of ways, such as (Davis & Roberts, 1985; Davis & Todd, 1982, by making sacrifices, disclosing one’s innermost 1985). In these studies, friendship was defined by thoughts and feelings, showing nonverbal affection, characteristics such as enjoyment, acceptance, trust, or having sexual intercourse. Some researchers have and respect, as well as doing things for one another, tried to separate loving from liking. Rubin (1970, disclosing information, understanding each other, 1973, 1974) suggested that there are qualitative and feeling comfortable together. Love was defined rather than quantitative differences between loving by all these friendship characteristics plus caring and liking. In other words, liking someone a lot does and passion. Caring includes making supreme sacri- not always translate into love. Love is more than an fices for the loved one and defending her or him to abundance of liking, and loving and liking are others; passion includes being fascinated by the related but distinctly different concepts. People can, loved one, feeling that the relationship is unique and in some cases, love others without liking them very exclusive, and experiencing strong sexual desire. much. In general, however, individuals tend to like the people they love. For example, Rubin (1970, Unrequited Love 1973) found that people like their close friends and dating partners about equally but love their dating Sometimes the feelings of friendship, caring, or pas- partners more than their friends. Partners in roman- sion that characterize liking and loving are not reci- tic couples who were “in love” and planned to marry procated. Such is the case with unrequited love, also reported loving each other more than dating whereby one person, the would-be lover, wants to partners who did not have concrete plans for the initiate or intensify a romantic relationship, but the future. Thus, romance and commitment appear to be other person, the rejector, does not (Baumeister & important in many love relationships. Wotman, 1992; Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, Liking and loving can be distinguished from each 1993; Bratslavsky, Baumeister, & Sommer, 1998). other by certain feelings and relationship characteris- Unrequited love can characterize several types of tics. Rubin (1973) suggested that liking is character- situations. Sometimes the two people do not know ized by affection and respect. Affection is based on one another well even though one of them feels “in having enjoyable interactions with someone, which love” with the other; at other times, they may be 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 117

Making a Love Connection • 117

good friends, but one person wants to intensify the assign blame, accept the failure, and then go on with relationship further and the other person does not. their lives. (p. 379) Unrequited love may also occur in the initial stages of a relationship. For example, after going on a few The rejector, however, does not have a clearly dates, one person may fall in love, but the other defined cultural prescription for how to deal with the might want to stop dating altogether. Unrequited would-be lover. Movies and novels often portray love also occurs in established or de-escalating rela- rejectors as “aloof, casual, teasing, or sadistic heart- tionships when one partner ceases to love the other. breakers,” but most rejectors are actually quite con- When unrequited love is perceived, the would- cerned with helping the would-be lover save face be lover has two options: (1) to keep quiet about his (Baumeister et al., 1993, p. 391). Thus, many rejec- or her feelings or (2) to try to win the partner’s love tors initially resist making harsh declarations such as (Baumeister et al., 1993). Either way, there are con- “I’m not attracted to you” and instead rely on more siderable risks for the would-be lover. On the one polite or indirect communication strategies, such as hand, approaching the loved one could lead to rejec- saying that they value the friendship too much to ruin tion, humiliation, or, in the case of an established it by pursuing a romantic relationship or that they are friendship, the de-escalation or termination of the too busy to date anyone at this time. Folkes (1982) relationship. On the other hand, keeping quiet could found that rejectors try to let the other person down cost the person any opportunity to win the other per- easily and avoid hurting her or his feelings. son over. Of course, the problem with polite or indirect Situations of unrequited love are difficult for messages is that they can be misinterpreted (Cupach both people, but perhaps surprisingly, Baumeister & Metts, 1991). Would-be lovers may cling to the and his colleagues discovered that rejectors typi- hope that since the rejector did not dismiss them cally report experiencing more negative emotions directly, a love relationship is still possible. For exam- than do would-be lovers. According to their ple, would-be lovers who receive a message such as research, would-be lovers perceive the situation as “I’m not interested in dating anyone right now, but having either extremely positive or negative out- I want to stay friends” might hear this as “There comes, whereas most rejectors perceive only nega- might be a chance of a love relationship in the future tive outcomes. Although it is flattering to be the since I like you.” Eventually, the rejector may have to object of someone’s affection, the rejector typically resort to harsher and more direct messages if the feels guilty for being unable to return the would-be would-be lover persists (Metts, Sprecher, & Regan, lover’s sentiments. If the would-be lover is persis- 1998). When clear sexual advances are made, women tent, the rejector may feel frustrated and even vic- are likely to be verbally direct, and most men accept timized (Baumeister et al., 1993). The appropriate their refusals (Metts et al., 1998). way to communicate rejection is also unclear since it is difficult to reject the would-be lover’s advances TYPES OF LOVE without hurting her or his feelings. Would-be lovers, in contrast, have a much clearer script for how to Just as situations vary in the degree to which love is behave. As Baumeister et al. (1993) put it, reciprocated, so too do people differ in their styles of loving. Two styles of love—companionate love The would-be lover’s script is affirmed and reiterated and passionate love—appear to be the most com- from multiple sources; for example, one can probably mon in the United States as well as other cultures hear a song about unrequited love in almost any (Hatfield & Rapson, 1987; Jankowiak & Fischer, American house within an hour, simply by turning 1992). Companionate love is “the affection we feel on the radio. A seemingly endless stream of books and movies has portrayed aspiring lovers persisting for those with whom our lives are deeply inter- doggedly to win the hearts of their beloveds. Many twined” (Walster & Walster, 1978, p. 9). This kind techniques are portrayed as eventually effective. If of love is commonly experienced in family relation- one is rejected in the end, the familiar script calls for ships and friendships, as well as romantic relation- heartbroken lovers to express their grief, perhaps ships. Hatfield (1988) labeled companionate love as 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 118

118 • CHAPTER 6

the “warm” type of love because it tends to develop a combination of styles, with one or two styles expe- gradually into a consistent, secure source of warmth rienced most strongly. Box 6.1 gives a scale by that endures over time. Passionate love is based on which you can determine your own love style. arousal and intense emotion. When the beloved per- son returns our passionate love, we feel ecstasy; Physical Love (Eros). Erotic lovers are attracted to when this person rejects our love, we feel agony. people on the basis of physical attraction (Lee, Hatfield (1988) called passionate love the “hot” type 1988). They are eager to develop intense, passionate of love because it is typically sexual and character- relationships, and they often experience intense ized by emotional highs and lows rather than a more emotional highs and lows. They also feel substantial consistent feeling of interpersonal warmth. arousal and desire physical contact. Because they Although companionate and passionate love are possess strong feelings of attraction, erotic lovers the most common styles of loving, there are other develop a sense of intimacy and connectedness rel- types of love as well. For example, some people atively quickly. These individuals are “intense com- view love as practical, while others see it as more municators” who show high levels of self- disclosure, spiritual. Love is also communicated in a variety of are able to elicit similarly high levels of self-disclo- ways, including through self-disclosure, emotional sure from their partners, and display high levels of responses, and time spent together. In this section, touch and nonverbal affection (Taraban, Hendrick, we examine three perspectives on different styles of & Hendrick, 1998, p. 346). Erotic lovers want to be loving. As you proceed, keep in mind that compan- with each other, and they feel considerable distress ionate and passionate love are represented in each of when apart. these perspectives. Eros is a central part of many love relationships. This type of love is common in the initial stages of romantic relationships and often leads to a more Lee’s Love Styles friendship-based and secure style of love (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988). Some level of eros Lee’s (1973, 1977, 1988) work on love styles began also keeps relationships exciting and passionate. with the notion that there are three primary styles of loving, much as there are three primary colors. When mixing paint, the primary colors are red, blue, and yellow. By mixing these three colors, you can create any color in the rainbow. Lee conceptualized Pragma styles of loving in a similar manner. He proposed that the primary love styles are eros (physical love), storge (companionate love), and ludus (game-play- ing love). Just as the primary colors can be blended Agape to create a multitude of different hues, Lee theorized that elements of the three primary styles of love can combine to create a vast number of love styles. Of the many possible combinations, Lee suggested that Mania three are the most common: mania (possessive love), agape (unselfish love), and pragma (practi- cal love). Figure 6.1 depicts Lee’s love styles as a color wheel. As we shall see next, each style of love Figure 6.1 Lee’s Love Styles Represented as a is defined by both positive and negative characteris- tics. The more strongly and exclusively a person Color Wheel identifies with a single style, the more likely he or NOTE: The primary styles are shaded; the secondary she is to experience some of the negative character- styles are composed of the aspects of the two primary istics. Most people, however, report identifying with styles adjacent to them. 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 119

Making a Love Connection • 119

BOX 6.1 Put Yourself to the Test What Is Your Love Style? To determine your dominant love style, rate yourself on each of these statements according to the following scale: 1 = Strongly disagree . . . 5 = Strongly agree

Disagree Agree 1. My partner and I were attracted to each other immediately when 1 2 3 4 5 we first met. 2. My partner and I have the right physical chemistry. 1 2 3 4 5 3. The physical part of our relationship is intense and satisfying. 1 2 3 4 5 4. My partner and I were meant for each other. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My partner fits my ideal standards of physical attractiveness. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my commitment 1 2 3 4 5 to her/him. 7. I believe that what my partner doesn’t know about me won’t 1 2 3 4 5 hurt her/him. 8. I could get over my relationship with my partner pretty easily. 1 2 3 4 5 9. When my partner gets too dependent on me, I back off. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I enjoy playing the field. 1 2 3 4 5 11. It is hard for me to say exactly when our friendship turned into love. 1 2 3 4 5 12. To be genuine, our love first required caring. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a close friendship. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Our love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious or mystical 1 2 3 4 5 emotion. 15. Our love relationship is satisfying because it developed from a 1 2 3 4 5 good friendship. 16. I considered what my partner was going to become in life before 1 2 3 4 5 committing myself to her/him. 17. I tried to plan my life carefully before choosing a partner. 1 2 3 4 5 18. In choosing my partner, I believed it was best to find someone 1 2 3 4 5 with a similar background. 19. An important factor in choosing my partner was whether she/he 1 2 3 4 5 would be a good parent. 20. Before getting very involved with my partner, I tried to figure 1 2 3 4 5 out how compatible our goals were. 21. If my partner and I broke up, I don’t know how I would cope. 1 2 3 4 5 22. It drives me crazy when my partner doesn’t pay enough 1 2 3 4 5 attention to me. (Continued) 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 120

120 • CHAPTER 6

BOX 6.1 (Continued)

Disagree Agree

23. I’m so in love with my partner that I sometimes have trouble 12345 concentrating on anything else. 24. I cannot relax if I suspect that my partner is with someone else. 12345 25. I wish I could spend every minute of every day with my partner. 12345 26. I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer. 12345 27. I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner 12345 achieve her/his goals. 28. Whatever I own is my partner’s to use as she/he pleases. 12345 29. When my partner behaves badly, I still love her/him fully and 12345 unconditionally. 30. I would endure all things for the sake of my partner. 12345 Add up the following items to get your score on each love style: Eros: Items 1–5 ______Ludus: Items 6–10 ______Storge: Items 11–15 ______Pragma: Items 16–20 ______Mania: Items 21–25 ______Agape: Items 26–30 ______Higher scores mean that you possess more of a particular love style. The highest possible score for a given style is 25; the lowest possible score is 5.

SOURCE: This is a shortened, modified version of Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1990) Love Attitudes Scale.

However, too much eros can have negative effects. claim that passion and commitment are important in For example, if you are only interested in someone many love relationships. because of the person’s beauty, the attraction may fade quickly. Also, some erotic lovers have trouble Companionate Love (Storge). Storgic lovers have adjusting after the initial “hot” attraction begins to relationships based on friendship, shared values and cool or after they discover that the partner, who goals, and compatibility (Lee, 1988). Physical attrac- seemed perfect at first, cannot possibly live up to tion is not as important as security, companionship, their unrealistically high expectations. Still, research task sharing, and joint activity. Although these rela- suggests that maintaining some degree of eros is ben- tionships are not very exciting, they are dependable eficial in a relationship. Hendrick et al. (1988) found and stable. Love often is framed as a partnership or a that dating couples were more likely to stay together lifelong journey. Thus, it is important that the two if the partners were high in eros and low in the ludic, individuals want the same things—perhaps a home game-playing style of love. This finding supports the and family or perhaps independence and the ability 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 121

Making a Love Connection • 121

to travel together to exotic places. Storgic lovers feel In Margaret Mitchell’s classic Civil War novel extremely comfortable around each other, and emo- Gone With the Wind, the Scarlett O’Hara character tions tend to be positive but muted. Unlike some of provides a good example of an individual with a the other love styles, storgic lovers do not experience ludic love style. Scarlett is a notorious flirt. In an many intense emotional highs or lows. early scene, she is at a party surrounded by dozens of Companionate love characterizes most long- admirers; she is careful not to commit to any one term romantic relationships, as well as family rela- man. Later, Scarlett marries men she does not love to tionships and close friendships. This type of love fulfill personal goals. For example, she marries her tends to be enduring. Because storgic lovers trust sister’s boyfriend, Frank, to help pay the mortgage each other and do not require high levels of emo- on the family plantation. Her ludic nature is also evi- tional stimulation and arousal, they are able to with- dent in her relationship with Rhett Butler. Scarlett stand long separations. For example, military and Rhett constantly compete with each other couples may be better able to withstand their time through glib and sarcastic remarks, and Scarlett often apart if they are storgic lovers. Although they are hides her warm feelings for Rhett. By the time she likely to be sad when parted from each other, their realizes she loves Rhett, it is too late. He has grown trust and relational security keeps them from being tired of her games and delivers the famous line, highly distressed. Other types of lovers (e.g., erotic “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” or manic lovers) feel much higher levels of distress because their relationships are fueled by physical Possessive Love (Mania). Manic lovers are demand- attraction and the physical presence of the loved ing, dependent, and possessive (Lee, 1988). They one. Of course, it is important to keep in mind that, often feel a strong need to “be in control” and to although trust and security can provide a safety net know everything that the partner is doing. The clas- for a relationship, too much stability can lead to pre- sic song “Every Breath You Take” by the Police dictability and boredom. Thus, bringing excitement exemplifies the manic lover’s desire to monitor and emotion to the relationship is often the biggest “every breath you take, every move you make, every challenge for storgic lovers. smile you fake.” In extreme cases, manic lovers are obsessive individuals who are addicted to love, much Game-Playing Love (Ludus). Ludic lovers see rela- as a drug addict is dependent on heroin or cocaine tionships as fun, playful, and casual; they view rela- (see Chapter 12) The obsessed lover cannot get tionships as games to be played. They avoid enough; he or she wants to spend every minute with commitment and prefer to play the field rather than the partner, and any perceived lack of interest or settle down with one person (Lee, 1988). In fact, for enthusiasm by the partner, or any physical separa- the ludic lover, the challenge of pursuit usually is more tion, results in extreme emotional lows. In contrast, rewarding than the actual relationship itself. Some when the beloved person reciprocates affection, the ludic lovers are highly self-sufficient individuals who manic lover experiences an emotional high. Manic put their personal goals and activities ahead of their lovers also become jealous easily. Of course, many relationships—similar to Gabriela as described at the people experience a mild form of mania: They feel beginning of this chapter. They share relatively little jealous when their partners flirt with an ex-boyfriend personal information with their partners and are slow or ex-girlfriend; they find themselves constantly to develop intimate relationships (Hendrick & thinking about the partner; and their happiness seems Hendrick, 1987). Many students and recent college to depend, at least in part, on having a relationship graduates adopt the ludic style, especially if they feel with the person they love. When these thoughts and they are not ready for a highly committed romantic feelings become extreme, a more negative form of relationship. Instead, they may feel that school or mania emerges. career takes precedence over relational involvements. According to Lee (1973), the manic style is a When these individuals are ready and when they meet combination of eros and ludus. Manic lovers feel the right person, they are likely to move out of the high levels of physical attraction and passion for ludic style and into a more committed style of loving. their partners, which is consistent with the erotic 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 122

122 • CHAPTER 6

style (Hendrick et al., 1988). However, manic lovers unconditionally. Given all this, it might seem as if also play manipulative and controlling games with having an agapic lover would be an ideal situation. their partners, and they sometimes worry about There are, however, some drawbacks to this style. committing to a relationship because they fear being Agapic lovers sometimes seem to be “above” every- hurt. To the manic lover, relationships embody a one else. Their partners often have trouble matching source of extreme joy and extreme pain. Manic their high level of unconditional love, which can lovers can quickly become infatuated with someone lead to feelings of discomfort and guilt. In addition, even though they do not know the person very well. agapic lovers sometimes put their partners on too Manic lovers often are willing to break off an old high a pedestal, leading their partners to worry that relationship to pursue a new, seemingly more attrac- they cannot live up to such an idealized image. tive alternative before they really get to know the new love interest. If you have ever been hotly pur- Practical Love (Pragma). Pragmatic lovers search sued by someone who barely knew you, chances are for a person who fits a particular image in terms of that you were dealing with a manic lover. vital statistics, such as age, height, religion, and occupation, as well as preferred characteristics, such Unselfish Love (Agape). Agapic or compassionate as being a loyal partner or having the potential to be love is unselfish, altruistic, and unconditional. The a good parent. Lee (1988) used a computer dating agapic lover is more focused on giving than receiving service metaphor to help describe pragma. If you (Lee, 1988; Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). These lovers are went to a dating service, you might indicate that you motivated by an intense concern for their partner’s are looking for a petite brunette who is Jewish, likes well-being. They are willing to make sacrifices for sports, and has a stable job. Or you might request a their partner, even at the expense of their own needs college-educated male who is older than you, has a and desires. For example, an agapic husband might good sense of humor, and loves children. In either decide not to pursue having a large family (even case, you would have specified vital statistics that though he really wants one) if his wife had a difficult are most important to you. The pragmatic lover first pregnancy. Agapic love corresponds with the chooses these characteristics based on both personal biblical description of love as patient, kind, and slow preferences and compatibility issues. Overall, this to anger and jealousy. Agapic or compassionate love style of love is characterized by a “common-sense, is associated with prosocial behavior, love of human- problem-solving approach to life and love” (Taraban ity, and spirituality. Relationships between romantic et al., 1998, p. 346). partners, among family members (especially parents Pragma combines elements of both storge and toward children), and between friends all can be char- ludus. As Lee (1988) explained, storge comes into acterized by agape. play because pragmatic lovers are seeking a compat- The agapic style contains elements of both eros ible partner. Furthermore, for pragmatic lovers, phys- and storge (Lee, 1973). An agapic lover has a ical attraction usually is less important than shared deep, abiding, highly passionate love for his or her values and goals (although attractiveness is often on partner—although not only in a physical sense. An the pragmatic lover’s “laundry list” of vital character- agapic lover shows passion by giving gifts and mak- istics). Undertones of the ludus style also are evident ing sacrifices for the partner or sometimes by grant- in many pragmatic lovers, who typically avoid emo- ing the partner sexual favors even if such activity is tional risk taking and commit to a relationship only not personally arousing. Physical intimacy may also after careful thought and considerable time. Finally, be an important part of agapic love, with sexual con- pragmatic love is highly rational, based on empirical tact viewed as something sacred that occurs between knowledge. For example, when pragmatic lovers are two people who love each other deeply. The storge considering marriage, they might make a list of pros side of agapic love stresses the enduring and secure and cons before deciding whether to “take the nature of the relationship, which helps explain why plunge.” If love is based only on practical concerns, agapic individuals are able to love their partners however, it can be lifeless and dull. Some level of 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 123

Making a Love Connection • 123

intimacy and passion is required to put the spark into marriages, the parents and/or community often a relationship. For pragmatic lovers, intimacy and match their children based on perceived compatibil- passion sometimes develop after realistic concerns ity and an equitable exchange of resources. have laid the foundation for the relationship. Agapic love is also likely to differ across cul- tures. In the United States and other Western cultures, Differences Due to Sex and Culture. Lee’s original such as Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the work, as well as subsequent research, suggests that Netherlands, people are highly individualistic. In the tendency to identify with the various love styles these cultures, individuals are more likely to strive differs somewhat depending on sex and culture. for personal goals. As Lustig and Koester (2003) put Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) found women to it, individualism is characterized by the key words score higher in storge, mania, and pragma than men, “independence, privacy, self, and the all-important I” while men score higher in ludus. These findings for (p. 120). For people in individualistic cultures, agapic storge and pragma are in line with other research love may be seen as too all-consuming, smothering, showing women to be more rational lovers, who are and other-oriented. However, people in collectivist choosier about their partners. However, the finding cultures—such as parts of South America, including for mania is somewhat contradictory to the research Venezuela and Colombia, and most of Asia, including on jealousy, which has shown that men and women Hong Kong and Taiwan (Hofstede, 1982)—are likely tend to feel similar levels of jealousy. The finding to be more amenable to agapic love. Individuals in that men tend to identify more with ludus is consis- collectivist cultures value interpersonal contact and tent with research showing that men are generally togetherness. They prefer to engage in behavior that less committed to relationships than are women. Yet benefits the group or their partner rather than behav- studies have also found that men generally fall in ior that benefits only themselves. love faster than do women (Huston, Surra, Fitzgerald, & Cate, 1981; Kanin, Davidson, & Scheck, 1970) Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love and that they usually say “I love you” first in hetero- sexual romantic relationships (Owen, 1987; While Lee focuses primarily on stylistic differ- Tolhuizen, 1989). Together, these seemingly incon- ences in love, Robert Sternberg’s (1986, 1987, sistent findings suggest that although men may hes- 1988) triangular theory of love focuses on how three itate to make a strong commitment, when they do components of love—intimacy, passion, and com- fall in love, they do it more quickly and emotionally mitment—work together to create different types of than do women. love. Sternberg also made predictions about how As noted previously, some types of love tend to intimacy, passion, and commitment change as rela- be experienced similarly across different cultures. tionships develop, as well as the degree to which For example, Jankowiak and Fischer (1992) tested each component is under our control. Box 6.2 pro- the idea that romantic (or erotic) love is a product of vides a scale by which you can determine what your Western culture. Contrary to this idea, they found love triangle looks like. romantic love to exist in 147 of the 166 cultures sampled. Based on these data, Jankowiak and Intimacy: The “Warm” Component. Among the three Fischer suggested that romantic love is nearly uni- sides of Sternberg’s (1986) triangle, intimacy is seen versal. Companionate love also appears to cross cul- as most foundational to love. This does not mean that tural boundaries, with many different peoples intimacy is always a part of love, rather it is most embracing the warmth and security that friendship- often the central component within love relationships. based love offers. There are some cultural differ- Intimacy is based on feelings of emotional connec- ences in love styles, however. People from cultures tion and closeness and has therefore been called that endorse arranged marriages believe more the “warm” or “affectionate” component of love. The strongly in pragmatic love than do people in cultures close, connected feelings that people experience where people marry for love alone. In arranged when having intimate conversations or exchanging 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 124

124 • CHAPTER 6

BOX 6.2 Put Yourself to the Test What Does Your Love Triangle Look Like? To determine what your love triangle looks like, rate yourself on each of these statements according to the following scale: 1 = Not at all . . . 5 = Moderately . . . 9 = Extremely Not at All Extremely 1. I view my relationship with my partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 as permanent. 2. My relationship with my partner is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very romantic. 3. I have a relationship of mutual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 understanding with my partner. 4. I am certain of my love for my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. I receive considerable emotional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 support from my partner. 6. I adore my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7. I find myself thinking about my partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 frequently during the day. 8. I am committed to maintaining my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 relationship with my partner. 9. My partner is able to count on me in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 times of need. 10. Just seeing my partner is exciting for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11. I find my partner very physically attractive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12. I idealize my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13. I have confidence in the stability of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 relationship with my partner. 14. I feel emotionally close to my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15. There is something almost magical about my relationship with my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16. I expect my love for my partner to last 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 for the rest of my life. 17. I give considerable emotional support to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 my partner. 18. I can’t imagine ending my relationship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 with my partner. 19. I have decided that I love my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 To find the triangle for your relationship, add your responses to Items 3, 5, 9, 14, and 17, and divide by 5; this is your intimacy score. Next, add your responses to Items 2, 6, 7, 10–12, and 15, and divide by 7; this is your passion score. Finally, add your responses to Items 1, 4, 8, 13, 16, 18, and 19, and divide by 7; this is your commitment score. The closer each score is to 9, the higher the component.

SOURCE: This scale is adapted from Acker and Davis’s (1992) Triangular Theory of Love Scale. 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 125

Making a Love Connection • 125

hugs with loved ones exemplify this interpersonal person, you may decide to spend less time with her or warmth (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998a; Andersen, him so that you won’t develop further attachment. Of Guerrero, & Jones, 2006). course, it is hard to turn off one’s emotions, so you Sternberg theorized that intimacy is moderately might find yourself drawn to this person despite your stable over the course of a relationship. However, he intention to maintain an emotional distance. made an important distinction between latent and manifest intimacy. Latent intimacy refers to inter- Passion: The “Hot” Component. According to nal feelings of closeness and interpersonal warmth, Sternberg (1986, 1988), passion is the “hot” compo- which are not directly observable by others. This nent of love that consists of motivation and arousal. type of intimacy is what we feel inside. Manifest However, passion is not limited to sexual arousal. It intimacy refers to external behavioral manifesta- also includes motivational needs for affiliation, con- tions of affection and closeness, such as disclosing trol, and self-actualization. Thus, parents can feel a intimate feelings to a partner or spending extra time passionate love for their children that includes an together. This type of intimacy is what we show to intense desire for them to achieve success and happi- others. According to Sternberg (1986), latent inti- ness. In romantic relationships, however, passion macy is likely to increase but then reach a plateau as is usually experienced primarily as sexual attraction a relationship develops. Manifest intimacy, in con- and arousal. trast, is likely to grow during the initial stages of a Sternberg (1986) predicted that passion and relationship but then tends to decline over time. romance would be high during the initial stages of Research has shown some support for Sternberg’s relationships but would then decrease as the relation- predictions. Acker and Davis (1992) found that cou- ship became more predictable and less arousing. ples felt more intimacy and closeness as their rela- Passion requires energy and excitement and is drain- tionships became more serious; however, behavioral ing and perhaps even stressful to maintain through- (or manifest) intimacy decreased as the relationship out a long-term relationship. This is not to say that progressed. Guerrero and Andersen (1991) found a long-term romantic relationships are devoid of pas- similar pattern for touch in public settings. Their sion. As Sternberg suggested, highly committed cou- observations showed that couples in serious dating ples are likely to cycle back and forth in terms of relationships touched more than married couples, passion. A romantic weekend away or a candlelight yet spouses felt just as close to each other as did dinner followed by stargazing in a hot tub can pro- daters. Therefore, even though married couples used vide an important passionate spark to a long-term less touch to manifest intimacy, they still experi- relationship. Sternberg’s point is that these types of enced very high levels of latent intimacy. events occur less often in developed relationships According to the triangular theory of love, inti- because it is hard to sustain a high level of passion all macy is moderately controllable. This means that the time. Acker and Davis (1992) found that people people have some power to manage their intimate feel and desire less passion as they grow older, which feelings but not to a great extent. An example may suggests that passion may be more characteristic of help illustrate this point. Imagine that you have been young romances and the reproductive years than on two or three dates with a fun, attractive person to mature relationships. However, Acker and Davis also whom you feel an emotional connection. However, found that while women were more passionate in you discover that this person has very different values new relationships than in established relationships, than you do. Perhaps your date wants to move to New men showed fairly high levels of passion regardless York City to pursue a career on Wall Street, whereas of whether the relationship is new or old. In another you prefer the simple country life and hate the big study, Hatfield and Sprecher (1986a) found that col- city. Perhaps your date is not interested in starting a lege-aged couples reported an increase in passion family for a long time, whereas you want to settle during the early stages of relationships and then a down, get married, and raise a couple of children. leveling off, rather than a decline, as the relationship Although you feel an emotional connection to this stabilized. 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 126

126 • CHAPTER 6

As this discussion suggests, it can be very hard components of the triangular theory of love were to control the passionate aspect of love. Indeed, also important, although less central, with intimacy recent research shows that passionate, romantic love ranking 19th and sexual passion rating 40th. Fehr is accompanied by involuntary activation in parts also had college-aged students rate words and of the brain (Aron et al., 2005). Because this type of phrases describing the concept of commitment. love is based on arousal, and because arousal is a Loyalty, responsibility, living up to one’s word, faith- physiological response, passionate feelings are diffi- fulness, and trust were the top five descriptors of cult to control. You may have experienced times commitment, suggesting that commitment involves when you wished you could feel passion for some- being there for someone over the long haul. one but could not muster anything more than feelings Of the three components of the love triangle, of friendship. For example, one of our students once commitment is the most stable over time. In long- told us about a time when she and her male best term relationships, commitment typically builds up friend had sat together in her bed talking comfortably gradually and then stabilizes (Acker & Davis, all night. At one point they wondered out loud why 1992). Commitment also appears to play an impor- they had never gotten together romantically. After tant role in keeping a relationship satisfying and sta- all, they had a great relationship; they always had fun ble. In Acker and Davis’s (1992) study, intimacy, together, never fought, found each other attractive, passion, and commitment were all related positively and had been friends for a long time. In fact, their to satisfaction, but commitment, followed by inti- friendship had lasted longer than any of their roman- macy, was the strongest predictor of satisfaction. tic relationships. After some further discussion, they Hendrick et al. (1988) conducted a study to deter- decided that their relationship simply did not have a mine whether commitment, relational satisfaction, romantic spark. They felt more like sister and brother or investment of time and effort was the best pre- than lovers, and even though it would be great to dictor of relational stability. They found that com- have passion as well, it just wasn’t there. You may mitment was the best predictor of whether dating have also experienced the opposite phenomenon— couples would still be together 2 months later. Thus, wanting to feel less passionate about someone. You commitment is not only a stable factor within love might feel passion for someone who is happily mar- relationships but also a stabilizing force within these ried to another person, someone who has repeatedly relationships. rejected you, or someone who you know will be Commitment/decision is the most controllable “bad” for you in the long run, but you cannot turn off component of the triangle (Sternberg, 1986). When those passionate feelings. people commit to a relationship, they have made a cognitive choice to maintain their love and build an Commitment: The “Cool” Component. The third enduring bond. Highly committed individuals are component of Sternberg’s (1986, 1988) love triangle likely to devote much time and effort to their rela- is commitment/decision. This component refers to tionships, and these investments help keep the rela- the decision to love someone and the commitment to tionship going (Rusbult, 1983). If people decide that maintain that love. Because commitment is based on they are no longer committed to a relationship, these cognition and decision making, Sternberg referred to investments will stop. Thus, people have consider- it as the “cool” or “cold” component. Commitment is able conscious control over the commitment deci- undoubtedly an important part of love for many peo- sion as well as the decision whether to engage in ple. In a study by Fehr (1988), college-aged students behaviors that reinforce commitment. rated how closely various words or phrases, such as “affection” and “missing each other when apart” Different Types of Love. Sternberg (1986, 1988) relate to love. Of the 68 words and phrases theorized that the three components of the triangle Fehr listed, trust was rated as the most central to can be combined to create six different types of love. Commitment ranked 8th overall, suggesting love plus nonlove and liking. Box 6.3 shows how that it is also highly central to love. The other two the types of love differ in passion, commitment, and 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 127

Making a Love Connection • 127

intimacy, although of a number of research studies but have not yet fully committed themselves to the suggest they are inseparable. relationship. Two types of love contain passion but not Companionate love, like Lee’s storge love, is commitment and often occur in the early stages of based on high levels of intimacy and commitment romantic relationships (Sternberg, 1988). In some but low levels of passion. Love for family members ways, these two types of love are similar to Lee’s and friends fits this description, as does love between (1973) eros style. Infatuation is based on high levels romantic partners who have been together for a long of passion and low levels of both commitment time. Empty love, in contrast, characterizes relation- and intimacy. When people become infatuated with ships high in commitment and low in both passion someone, they usually are new acquaintances. and intimacy. Some long-term relationships may also Nonetheless, infatuated individuals idealize the fall here. For instance, if partners no longer feel objects of their affection and imagine that their lives attached to each other but stay together for religious would be wonderful if they could develop a relation- reasons or because of the children, their love might ship with that person. Because infatuation is based on be characterized as empty. In other cases, empty love the “hot” component of the love triangle, it is not sur- characterizes the beginning of a relationship. For prising that infatuated individuals often fall in and out example, spouses in arranged marriages or pragmatic of love quickly as their passion heats up and then lovers who chose one another based primarily on cools down. Romantic love, in contrast, is usually logical characteristics may begin their relationships somewhat more enduring. In this type of love, pas- with empty love. Intimacy and passion may, or may sion and intimacy are high, but commitment is low. not, emerge later. Romantic love often characterizes the initial stages of In the United States, fatuous love, which is dating relationships, when two people are sexually characterized by high levels of passion and commit- attracted to each other and feel an intimate connection ment but low levels of intimacy, is somewhat rare.

BOX 6.3 Highlights

Different Love Triangles According to Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, different types of love are based on the various com- binations of intimacy, passion, and commitment. Using your scores from the love triangle test (see Box 6.2), you can determine what type of love best characterizes your present or past romantic relationship. A low score is represented by a minus sign; a high score is represented by a plus sign. Of course, your score may fall somewhere in between two or more types.

Types of Love Intimacy Passion Commitment Nonlove −− − Liking +− − Infatuation −+ − Empty love −− + Romantic love ++ − Friendship love +− + Fatuous love −+ + Consummate love ++ + 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 128

128 • CHAPTER 6

Yet sometimes people meet, fall in love, and get mar- because true intimacy (which is manifest through ried before really getting to know each other. Some behaviors such as hugging, holding hands, and self- long-term affairs can also be characterized by fatu- disclosure) is only believed to be possible in same- ous love. The individuals involved in the affair may sex relationships. feel more emotional intimacy with their spouses than While most Americans do not desire fatuous with their lovers, yet sustain an exciting, passionate, love, they believe strongly in consummate love. committed relationship with each other. In Western This type of love, which includes all three compo- cultures these types of arrangements were more nents of the triangle—intimacy, passion, and com- acceptable in the past—especially for men. In fact, mitment—is held up as the ideal standard within research reported in the History Channel’s documen- American culture. Think about our fairy tales: Two tary The History of Sex shows that until the 20th cen- people meet, fall madly in love, and live happily tury, men often were expected to have extramarital ever after; their relationship has it all! Some rela- affairs. In Victorian England, for instance, women tionships can achieve this state, at least for a time, were taught that sex was something that good moth- but this type of love may be hard to sustain. Most ers and wives did not enjoy and that sex should only happy relationships are characterized by some be engaged in occasionally for purposes of procre- degree of intimacy, passion, and commitment ation with one’s spouse. Men, in contrast, were (Acker & Davis, 1992), but it is unrealistic to expect allowed to enjoy sex and taught to distinguish the these components to be high all the time. kind of relations they had with their wives from those with their mistresses. Different Perspectives on Triangles. Finally, to fully These types of arrangements, as well as open understand Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, it marriages in which both the wife and the husband is important to recognize that the love triangles can can have extramarital affairs, are still accepted in be viewed from different vantage points (Acker & some cultures today (Altman & Ginat, 1996). In fact, Davis, 1992; Sternberg, 1987). First, every individ- in some cultures, wives can easily disregard the ual has her or his actual triangle, or perception of the importance of their husband’s long-term mistresses type of love felt. Second, each person perceives that because they know that the mistresses do not have her or his partner sees their love in a particular way; the same intimate connection with their husbands this is the perceived partner triangle. Finally, both that they do. In cultures that allow multiple husbands partners in any relationship have a desired triangle or wives, fatuous love may also surface fairly often. that represents what an ideal partner would think For example, when husbands have more than one and feel. To illustrate, let’s take another look at wife, the wives often form very close, intimate rela- Gabriela and Brian’s relationship. Gabriela might tionships with one another rather than with the hus- feel consummate love toward Brian (her actual tri- band (Altman & Ginat, 1996), with fatuous love angle), yet Brian might think that Gabriela feels low characterizing the husband-wife relationships. In the levels of commitment and intimacy (his perceived PBS series The Human Sexes, the anthropologist partner triangle) because he wants her to express Desmond Morris reported that in some tribal cul- intimacy and commitment more openly (his desired tures, women with high social and economic status triangle). In this case, there is a discrepancy between act as the head of household, acquiring both hus- Brian’s desired triangle and his perceived partner bands and wives and giving their name to all the chil- triangle, as well as a discrepancy between how dren produced within their household. In this system, Gabriela and Brian would describe her triangle. the female head of household is committed to all Inconsistencies such as these are bound to occur, those in her domain, but she is likely to have stronger and small deviations are usually not a problem. If physical relationships with certain husbands and these discrepancies are large, however, the relation- stronger emotional relationships with certain wives ship is likely to be dissatisfying (Acker & Davis, than others. Morris reported that in other cultures, 1992; Sternberg, 1987). Thus, it is important for fatuous love is common in male-female relationships partners to have realistic expectations about love 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 129

Making a Love Connection • 129

and to understand that they might not always show that love is communicated and received in a perceive each other’s feelings correctly. variety of ways but that verbally telling our partners that we love them is a particularly important way of Marston and Hecht’s Love Ways expressing love. This may explain why Brian wishes that Gabriela would tell him she loves him more In addition to thinking about love differently, often. Gabriela and Brian appear to have different styles of Marston and his colleagues argued that love communicating love. Marston, Hecht, and colleagues consists of a set of interdependent thoughts, feel- developed a system for measuring different styles ings, attitudes, and behaviors and that the subjective of communicating and experiencing love (Hecht, experience of love can change in importance Marston, & Larkey, 1994; Marston et al., 1987; throughout the relationship. They also suggested Marston & Hecht, 1994; Marston, Hecht, Manke, that relational partners can have similar or comple- McDaniel, & Reeder, 1998). Specifically, they looked mentary styles and that the degree of similarity ver- at physiological and behavioral responses to love, sus complementarity often changes as partners adapt with behavior encompassing both verbal and nonver- to each other (Marston & Hecht, 1994). Therefore, bal communication. love experiences are unique at any given time and To identify different ways of loving, Marston for any given person or relationship. Nonetheless, et al. (1987) conducted interviews to determine the Marston et al. (1987) found that the physiological types of feelings and behaviors that occur when peo- and behavioral responses to love could be grouped ple experience love. First, they asked people to into seven categories or love ways, with these love describe the physiological changes that occur when ways representing the experiences of over 90% of they are in love. The most common response was lovers: that people feel more energetic and emotionally intense when in love. People also reported feeling 1. Collaborative love: Love is seen as a partnership (1) beautiful and healthy; (2) warm and safe; (3) ner- that involves mutual support and negotiation, vous, as manifested by butterflies or knots in the increases energy, and intensifies emotion. stomach; (4) stronger than normal; and (5) less hun- gry, with a marked loss of appetite. Next, the 2. Active love: Love is based on activity and doing researchers asked, “How do you communicate love things together. It also involves feelings of to your partner?” The top five responses were increased strength and self-confidence. (1) saying “I love you” to the partner; (2) doing spe- 3. Intuitive love: Love is a feeling that often is com- cial things for the partner; (3) being supportive, municated through nonverbal behavior such as understanding, and attentive; (4) touching the part- touch and gaze and experienced through physical ner; and (5) simply being together. Of these, saying “I reactions such as feeling warm all over, feeling love you” was the most common response, with 75% nervous, and losing one’s appetite. of the respondents mentioning it. The researchers 4. Committed love: Love is based on commitment also asked, “How does your partner communicate and involves experiencing strong feelings of con- love to you?” The top five responses were similar to nection, spending time together, and discussing those listed above. Saying “I love you” again the future. emerged as the most common answer, with 70% of the participants mentioning this strategy. The next 5. Secure love: Love is based on security and inti- most common responses were showing love through macy. It is experienced through feelings of safety touch and sexual contact, being supportive, doing and warmth and communicated through intimate favors or giving gifts, and engaging in behaviors that self-disclosure. show togetherness. Other less frequently mentioned 6. Expressive love: Love is shown through overt behaviors included communicating emotion, engaging behavior. It involves doing things for the partner in eye contact, and smiling. Together, these findings and saying “I love you” frequently. 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 130

130 • CHAPTER 6

7. Traditional romantic love: Love involves togeth- and Shaver (1987), love is best conceptualized as a erness and commitment. When people are in love process of attachment, which includes forming a they feel beautiful and healthy. bond and becoming close to someone. Attachment theory takes a social developmental approach, Understanding each other’s love style may help stressing how interactions with others affect peo- partners maintain a happy relationship. Marston and ple’s attachment style across the life span. Children Hecht (1994) provided specific advice for managing first learn to develop attachments through depen- love styles in ways that maximize relational satisfac- dence on their caregivers. As children grow, they tion. First, they suggested that people recognize that develop a sense of independence that is rooted in their partner’s love style might be different from their security. Finally, security in adulthood is based on own. For example, if Brian expresses love through being self-sufficient when necessary while also hav- public affection, he should not necessarily expect ing the ability to provide care and support for Gabriela to do the same. In fact, Gabriela might dis- another adult in a love relationship that functions as like showing affection in public and prefer to cuddle a partnership (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). in private or to show her love through shared activi- ties. Second, people should be careful not to overvalue particular elements of their love way. For example, Gabriela seems to have an active love style. Therefore, The Propensity for Forming Attachments she might worry if she and Brian start to develop dif- Originally, attachment theory was studied within the ferent sports interests or argue about which old movies context of child-caregiver relationships (Ainsworth, to watch. If this happens, Gabriela should recognize 1969; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; that other aspects of their relationship may still reflect Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969; Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). their love for one another. Finally, people should avoid Later, researchers extended the theory to include statements like “If you really loved me, you’d give me adult romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, more space” (as Gabriela might say) or “If you really 1987). Although parent-child and romantic relation- loved me, you’d tell me more often” (as Brian might ships have received the most attention, attachment say). Instead, Brian and Gabriela should focus on the theory is applicable to all types of close relationship, various other ways that they express love for one including friendships and sibling relationships. another. Remember that any two people bring differ- Because people usually want to be part of a social ent expectations about love to the relationship. The group and to be loved and cared for by others, attach- key may be to appreciate what each partner brings to ment theorists believe that people have a natural ten- the table rather than wishing that the table was set in a dency to try to develop close relational bonds with different way. others throughout the life span. In childhood, the need to develop attachments is an innate and necessary part of human devel- ATTACHMENT THEORY opment (Ainsworth, 1991). According to Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980), attachment is an essential com- So far, we have shown that scholars classify love in ponent within a larger system that functions to keep many different ways. Lee’s six styles of love are children in close proximity to caregivers. This prox- based largely on stylistic and perceptual differences. imity protects children from danger and provides Sternberg’s types of love are based on various com- them with a secure base from which to explore their binations of intimacy, passion, and commitment. world. For example, a toddler may feel free to try Marston and Hecht’s seven love ways are based on the slides and swings at the playground because he how people experience and express love through or she knows that a caregiver is close by to act as a verbal and nonverbal communication. Attachment secure base if he or she gets hurt or needs help. theorists take yet another approach in studying love. Exploration of the environment eventually leads to According to attachment theorists such as Hazan self-confidence and autonomy. Thus, one goal of the 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 131

Making a Love Connection • 131

attachment system is to give children a sense of toward intimacy. Individuals with negative working security and independence. Another goal is to help models of others see relationships as relatively unre- children develop a healthy capacity for intimacy. warding and tend to possess “avoidant” orientations In adulthood, attachment influences the type of toward intimacy. relationship a person desires. For example, some Depending on individuals’ configurations of people (like Gabriela) might want a relationship internal working models—that is, the “mix” of how that is emotionally reserved, while others (like positive or negative their models of self and other Brian) might desire a relationship that is emotion- are—they develop different “attachment styles.” An ally charged. Bowlby (1977) and Ainsworth (1989, attachment style is a social interaction style that is 1991), who pioneered research on child-caregiver consistent with the type and quality of relationship attachments, both believed that attachment typifies one wishes to share with others, based on working intimate adult relationships, with Bowlby (1977) models of self and others (Bartholomew, 1990). arguing that attachment is characteristic of all indi- Attachment styles include one’s own communica- viduals from the cradle to the grave. The type of tion style, the way one processes and interprets oth- attachment individuals form depends on their cogni- ers’ behavior, and the way one reacts to others’ tive conceptions of themselves and others. These behavior (Guerrero & Burgoon, 1996). Attachment cognitions, or internal working models, influence styles are also associated with “relatively coherent orientations toward love, intimacy, and interper- and stable patterns of emotion and behavior [that] sonal interaction in adult relationships. are exhibited in close relationships” (Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996, p. 25).

Internal Working Models and Attachment Styles Attachment Styles in Childhood According to attachment theorists, people develop Early interaction with primary caregivers shapes different styles of attachment depending on how they children’s internal models of themselves and others perceive themselves and others. These perceptions, and sets the stage for later attachments (Ainsworth et which are called internal working models, are cog- al., 1978; Bowlby, 1977). Although new interactions nitive representations of oneself and potential part- with significant others continue to modify the way ners that reflect an individual’s past experiences in people see themselves and relational partners, the close relationships and help him or her understand first 2 to 3 years of life (and especially the first year) the world (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton, 1988; Collins are critical in developing these internal models. & Read, 1994). Models of both self and others fall By the time a baby is about 6 weeks old, he or along a positive-negative continuum. A positive self- she already shows a preference for the primary model is “an internalized sense of self-worth that is caregiver—usually the mother. For example, if a not dependent on ongoing external validation” 2-month-old baby is crying, she might be best com- (Bartholomew, 1993, p. 40). Thus, individuals who forted by her mother. At around 14 to 20 months, hold positive self-models view themselves as self- toddlers are usually attached to their mothers and sufficient, secure, and lovable. Those holding nega- feel separation anxiety when they leave. At this time, tive self-models see themselves as dependent, babysitters may have trouble with their charges, who insecure, and unworthy of love and affection. often become fairly distressed when they realize Positive models of others reflect expectations con- their mother, who functions as their secure base, is cerning how supportive, receptive, and accepting not around. One of us had an experience like this people are, as well as how rewarding it is to partici- when babysitting a friend’s child. The little boy, who pate in an intimate relationship. Individuals with was about 1½ years old, was fine right after his par- positive models of others see relationships as worth- ents left. However, an hour later he began searching while and tend to possess “approach” orientations the house for his mother. When he could not find her, 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 132

132 • CHAPTER 6

he stood at the window calling, “Mommy, Mommy!” and looking for her. Eventually, he settled down and watched a cartoon on television, but he clearly had experienced a bout of separation anxiety. Most children emerge from the first 2 years of life with secure, healthy attachments to caregivers (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1969). If this is the case, they have developed positive models of both themselves and others. Not all children are so lucky. About 30% of children develop insecure attachment styles because they have negative models of them- selves or others. Bowlby’s original work showed that children who were raised in institutions and deprived of their mother’s care for extended periods of time were more likely to develop insecure attachments (Bowlby, 1969, 1973). Ainsworth and her colleagues later demonstrated that the type of care children receive at home influences their attachment style (Ainsworth, 1969, 1982, 1989; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Ainsworth & Eichberg, 1991; Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969). They delineated three types of infant attach- ment: secure, avoidant, and anxious ambivalent.

Secure Children. The majority of children fall into the secure category. Secure children tend to have responsive and warm parents, to receive moderate Photo 6.1 Affectionate play helps develop and levels of stimulation, and to engage in synchronized strengthen the attachment bond interaction with their caregivers. The “goodness of between young children and caregivers. fit” between the caregiver and the child is crucial. A caregiver may need to adjust her or his style of inter- action to accommodate the child. Thus, one child too hard to please. In addition, avoidant children are may need a lot of cuddling and reassurance, while often either over- or understimulated, which leads to another may prefer to be left alone. This helps physiological arousal and a flight response. When explain why children from the same family environ- overstimulated, they retreat from social interaction ment may develop different attachment styles. to avoid being overloaded. When understimulated, Children who develop secure attachments to a care- they learn how to cope without social interaction. giver are more likely to feel free to explore, Because their caregivers are not able to fulfill their approach others, and be positive toward strangers needs, they develop negative models of others. than are insecure types. Secure children are also These children stay within themselves, seldom likely to protest separation and to show happiness explore their environment, and are rarely positive when reunited with their caregivers. These children toward strangers. They tend not to protest separation tend to develop positive models of self and others. from caregivers and show little emotion when the caregiver returns. Avoidant Children. Some insecure children develop an avoidant attachment style (Ainsworth et al., Anxious-Ambivalent Children. Other insecure chil- 1978). Avoidant children tend to have caregivers dren develop anxious ambivalent attachment styles who are either insensitive to their signals or trying (Ainsworth et al., 1978). These children tend to be the 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 133

Making a Love Connection • 133

product of inconsistent behavior by caregivers; some- that are intertwined, avoidants would keep their times the caregiver is appropriately responsive, at webs relatively separate, and anxious ambivalents other times the caregiver is neglectful or overstimu- would build webs filled with heavy entanglements. lating. Anxious-ambivalent children often have care- A few years after Hazan and Shaver published givers who are preoccupied with problems of their their groundbreaking work, Bartholomew (1990) own, such as relational conflict, divorce, or substance proposed a four-category system of attachment. She abuse. Instead of blaming the caregiver (or the care- argued that the working models a person holds about giver’s situation) for this inconsistency, they blame self and others combine to produce four, rather than themselves and develop self-models of doubt, insecu- three, attachment styles: secure, preoccupied, dis- rity, and uncertainty. Anxious-ambivalent children missive, and fearful (see Figure 6.2). Research has often are tentative when exploring their environment confirmed that people with these four kinds of in the presence of their caregivers and fearful of attachment differ in important ways, including their exploration if alone. They protest separation from communication styles. caregivers vehemently, yet are both relieved and angry when the caregiver returns. This contradiction Secure: The Prosocial Style. Secure individuals have is reflected in their label—they are anxious when positive models of themselves and others (“I’m okay separated from the caregiver and ambivalent when and you’re okay”). The secures in Bartholomew’s the caregiver returns. Sometimes these children system are essentially the same as those described by develop positive models of others because they do Hazan and Shaver. They feel good about themselves receive some comfort and security from caregivers. and their relationships, and they display “high self- esteem and an absence of serious interpersonal prob- Attachment Styles in Adulthood lems” (Bartholomew, 1990, p. 163). These individuals have the capacity for close, fulfilling relationships. Attachment styles are also relevant in adult relation- They are likely to have realistic expectations, be sat- ships. Hazan and Shaver (1987) conceptualized love isfied with their relationships, and be comfortable as an attachment process that is “experienced some- depending on others and having others depend on what differently by different people because of vari- them. Although they value relationships, they are not ations in their attachment histories” (p. 511). Using afraid of being alone. Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) three attachment styles as a Secure individuals have a communication style guide, Hazan and Shaver (1987) proposed that adults that displays social skill and promotes healthy rela- can have secure, avoidant, or anxious-ambivalent tionships (Guerrero & Jones, 2005). They seek social attachments to their romantic partners. Secures are support when distressed and know how to provide comfortable getting close to and depending on effective care and comfort to their relational partners romantic partners and seldom worry about being (Kunce & Shaver, 1994; Weger & Polcar, 2002). In abandoned. They strive for a balance of autonomy general, their communication tends to be pleasant, and closeness in their relationships. Avoidants attentive, and expressive (Guerrero, 1996; Le Poire, are uncomfortable getting close to or depending on Shepard, & Duggan, 1999), and they smile at, laugh romantic partners. They value autonomy over rela- with, and touch their romantic partners more than do tional closeness. Finally, anxious ambivalents tend individuals with other attachment styles (Tucker & to be overinvolved, demanding, and dependent Anders, 1998). When secures experience distress, (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1991). they are usually able to express their negative feel- They value relational closeness over autonomy. As ings appropriately and seek support from others Hazan and Shaver (1987) noted, anxious ambiva- (Feeney, 1995; Simpson & Rholes, 1994). They cope lents “want to merge completely with another per- with feelings of anger, jealousy, and sadness by son, and this desire sometimes scares people away” behaving in ways that bolster their self-esteem and (p. 515). Thus, if interdependence is portrayed as a help maintain relationships (Guerrero, 1998; spider’s web, secures would create intimacy webs Guerrero, Farinelli, & McEwan, 2007; Sharpsteen & 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 134

134 • CHAPTER 6

Positive Model of Others

Secure Preoccupied (I’m okay, you’re okay) (I’m not okay, you’re okay)

• Is self-sufficient • Is overly involved and • Is comfortable with intimacy dependent • Wants interdependent • Wants excessive intimacy relationships • Clings to relationships

Dismissive Fearful-Avoidant (I’m okay, you’re not okay) (I’m not okay, you’re not okay) Positive Model of Self • Is counterdependent • Wants approval from others Negative Model of Self • Is uncomfortable with intimacy • Is fearful of intimacy • Sees relationships as • Sees relationships as painful nonessential

Negative Model of Others

Figure 6.2 Bartholomew’s Four Attachment Styles SOURCE: Adapted from Guerrero (1996).

Kirkpatrick, 1997). In conflict situations, secure self-identities; they need to have a relationship with individuals are more likely than individuals with someone to feel worthwhile. In fact, preoccupied other attachment styles to compromise and solve individuals report feeling lost and unable to cope problems (Bippus & Rollin, 2003; Pistole, 1989). without a close relationship. They also are likely to Secure individuals also engage in high levels of rela- cling to their relationships in times of trouble and to tional maintenance behavior, such as engaging in resist any attempts by a partner to de-escalate or ter- romantic activities, talking about commitment, and minate close relationships. sharing activities (Bippus & Rollin, 2003; Guerrero Preoccupied individuals exhibit mixed mes- & Bachman, 2006; Simon & Baxter, 1993). A study sages that reflect their high need for intimacy cou- of married couples also showed that secure individu- pled with their low self-confidence. In everyday als were most likely to express positive emotions, interactions, they often appear pleasant, attentive, such as love, pride, and happiness, to their spouses and expressive (Guerrero, 1996). However, when (Feeney, 1999). they become anxious, their communication some- times becomes unpleasant and self-focused. In one Preoccupied: The Emotional Style. Preoccupied indi- study, preoccupied individuals exhibited low levels viduals, who are fairly similar to anxious ambiva- of enjoyment when talking about relationship issues lents, have positive models of others but negative with their romantic partners (Tucker & Anders, models of themselves (“You’re okay but I’m not 1998). In another study, preoccupied individuals okay”). These individuals are overly dependent on were expressive but showed low levels of composure relationships. As Bartholomew (1990) put it, preoc- and altercentrism (with altercentrism representing a cupied individuals are characterized by “an insa- focus on the partner) when discussing a conflict issue tiable desire to gain others’ approval and a deep- (Guerrero & Jones, 2005). Preoccupied individuals seated feeling of unworthiness” (p. 163). Their rela- are also overly sensitive and have trouble controlling tional identities often are much stronger than their their emotions (Guerrero & Jones, 2003). In their 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 135

Making a Love Connection • 135

quest to develop intimacy, they sometimes disclose to the emotions of others (Guerrero & Jones, 2003). intimate information too quickly (Bartholomew & Fearful individuals are both anxious and avoidant, Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). and research has shown that people who possess Research has also shown that preoccupieds display these two characteristics report using less relational demanding behavior in an attempt to hang onto their maintenance behavior (such as showing affection relationship or change their partners (Bartholomew and being positive and cheerful) in their relation- & Horowitz, 1991; Guerrero & Langan, 1999). In ships (Guerrero & Bachman, 2006). Fearful individ- conflict situations, they tend to engage in controlling uals also have difficulty confronting conflict issues; behavior and to nag and whine (Creasey, Kershaw, & instead, they tend to withdraw or accommodate the Boston, 1999; O’Connell-Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, partner (Pistole, 1989). 2000). Similarly, they tend to express anger, using aggressive or passive-aggressive behaviors (Feeney, Dismissive: The Detached Style. Dismissive individ- 1995; Guerrero et al., 2007). uals have positive models of themselves but negative models of others (“I’m okay but you’re not okay”). Fearful: The Hesitant Style. Fearful individuals have Many of the avoidants in Hazan and Shaver’s system negative models of both themselves and others would fall here. Dismissives can best be character- (“I’m not okay and you’re not okay”). Some of the ized as counterdependent. In other words, they are so avoidants in Hazan and Shaver’s system fall in this self-sufficient that they shun close involvement with category, as do a few of the anxious ambivalents, others. Some researchers suggest that counterdepen- particularly when they have negative views of dence is a defensive strategy that allows people to both others and themselves. The key characteristic feel good about themselves without opening them- of fearful avoidants is that they are afraid of hurt and selves up to the criticisms and scrutiny of others. rejection, often because they have experienced Dismissives neither desire nor fear close attachments painful relationships in the past. Fearful individuals but rather lack the motivation to build and maintain usually want to depend on someone but find it diffi- intimate relationships (Bartholomew, 1990). They cult to open up to others. As Bartholomew (1990) place a much higher value on autonomy than on rela- put it, fearful individuals “desire social contact and tionships and tend to focus on less personal aspects intimacy, but experience pervasive interpersonal of their lives, such as careers, hobbies, and self- distrust and fear of rejection” (p. 164). improvement (Bartholomew, 1990). Fearful individuals tend to avoid social situa- Not surprisingly, dismissive individuals possess tions and potential relationships because they fear a highly avoidant attachment style. Yet unlike fearful rejection. Even when in relationships, they tend to individuals, dismissives are composed and self-confi- be hesitant to communicate emotions or to initiate dent (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Guerrero & Jones, escalation of the relationship. Bartholomew (1990) 2005). Dismissive individuals generally exhibit less noted the paradoxical nature of fearful individuals’ disclosure, conversational involvement, and affection actions and desires: By refusing to open themselves than do individuals with the secure or preoccupied up to others, they undermine their chances for build- style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Guerrero, ing the very type of trusting relationship they desire. 1996). They report relatively low levels of relational Their communication style reflects their fear and maintenance behaviors, such as being romantic and lack of trust. Guerrero (1996) found that fearful giving assurances that they are committed to the rela- individuals were less fluent and used larger prox- tionship (Guerrero & Bachman, 2006; Simon & emic distances than individuals with other attach- Baxter, 1993). Dismissives also are seen as fairly ment styles. Other studies suggest that fearful dominant. They tend to interrupt their partners more individuals possess less social skill than people with than do those with other attachment styles (Guerrero other attachment styles. They tend to lack assertive- & Langan, 1999), and they report low levels of ness (Anders & Tucker, 2000) and to appear uncom- accommodation and tend to withdraw during conflict posed (Guerrero & Jones, 2005). They also have (Feeney, Noller, & Roberts, 2000). When dismissives difficulty expressing their emotions and responding experience emotional distress, they often deny their 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 136

136 • CHAPTER 6

feelings and insist on handling their problems without to see themselves as fully autonomous and immune to help from others (Bartholomew, 1993). As Simpson negative events” (p. 184). For a summary of these and Rholes (1994) put it, dismissives “distance them- attachment-style differences in communication, see selves from others emotionally. Over time they come Box 6.4.

BOX 6.4 Highlights

Attachment-Style Differences in Communication

Secure Preoccupied Fearful Dismissive Conflict behavior Most compromising Demanding, Accommodating, Withdrawal, less and problem dominating passive responses accommodation, solving behavior; nagging; more interruptions whining Maintenance Highest level of High level of Relatively low Less maintenance behavior maintenance maintenance levels of overall, especially maintenance less romance and assurances Emotional Readily express Aggressive and Inhibit expression Experience and expression emotions in a passive-aggressive of negative express emotions direct, prosocial displays of emotion (negative and manner negative emotion positive) least Self-disclosure High levels of High levels of Low levels of Low levels of appropriate disclosure that disclosure, disclosure disclosure, able to are sometimes especially with elicit disclosure inappropriate or strangers or from others indiscriminate acquaintances Nonverbal Relatively high A mix of positive Relatively low Relatively low intimacy levels of facial and and negative levels of facial levels of facial vocal pleasantness, nonverbal cues, and vocal and vocal laughter, touch, depending on pleasantness, pleasantness, and smiling the situation expressiveness, expressiveness, and smiling and smiling Social skill Assertive, Overly sensitive, Trouble expressing Trouble expressing responsive to difficulty self and being themselves and others, able to controlling assertive, exhibit comforting others provide effective emotional anxiety cues such care and comfort expression as lack of fluency and long response latencies 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 137

Making a Love Connection • 137

Stability and Change in Attachment are possible but require time, effort, and the cooper- Styles Across the Life Span ation and patience of others. A second source of stability has been called By now, you may be able to guess what attachment the reinforcement effect (Bartholomew, 1993). styles Brian and Gabriela have. Brian appears to be According to this perspective, people communicate somewhat preoccupied. He worries that he might in cycles that reinforce their attachment style. For care more for Gabriela than she cares for him. He example, because secure individuals are self- also appears to desire high levels of overt affection confident and readily approach others, they are more in his relationships. Gabriela, on the other hand, likely to make friends and develop relationships, seems somewhat dismissive. She wonders if she can causing them to feel even better about themselves commit enough time and energy to her relationship, and others. Preoccupied individuals, in contrast, are and her priority seems to be her personal goals. If continually reaching for higher levels of intimacy. Gabriela and Brian stay together, are their attach- Perhaps you have had a partner like this—someone ment styles likely to change or stay the same during who wanted to meet your family right away, told you the course of their relationship? Have they had these how much she or he loved you on the third date, or attachment styles since childhood or could they wanted to move in with you after your first month have developed these styles recently? Finally, do together. A common reaction to these premature dec- they have the same attachment style with their larations of love and commitment is to try to de- friends and family as they have with each other? escalate the relationship, which only makes the pre- Research investigating how stable attachment styles occupied person engage in more excessive intimacy are across time suggests that the answer to all these and closeness. This process reinforces that individ- questions is “it depends.” Studies have shown that ual’s negative model of self (“My partner doesn’t around 25% to 30% of adults experience changes in love me as much as I love her”) and positive model their attachment style toward romantic partners of others (“Everything would be great if only I could (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997; Davila, Karney, get him to love me”). & Bradbury, 1999; Feeney & Noller, 1996). Fearful and dismissive individuals suffer from Similarly, in a study on adolescent friendships, 35% similarly paradoxical interaction patterns. More than of high school students reported a change in attach- anything else, fearful individuals need to build a ment style from one year to the next (Miller, Notaro, secure, happy relationship to help them feel better & Zimmerman, 2002). These studies suggest that about themselves and others. However, their fear of although attachment styles are fairly stable, they can pain and rejection keeps them from reaching out to be modified by new experiences. others and developing the kind of intimate relation- ship that would bring them out of their protective Explanations for Stability. At least two forces work shells. Dismissives display similarly negative self- to stabilize a person’s attachment style. First, inter- reinforcing patterns. If dismissives continually avoid actions with caregivers have an especially strong highly committed relationships and refuse to ask oth- effect on a person’s social development, including ers for help and support, they reinforce their view the attachment style a person develops. Bowlby that other people are unnecessary and they should (1969, 1973) believed that early interactions with rely only on themselves. They miss the opportunity caregivers provide a mental blueprint for thinking to discover ways in which committed relationships about oneself and others that carries into adulthood. can enrich, rather than impede, personal satisfaction. So an avoidant child has many obstacles to over- come if she or he hopes to develop into a secure Explanations for Change. There are four primary adult, including learning to trust others and being explanations for change in attachment styles comfortable with closeness. Similarly, an anxious- (Feeney et al., 2000). First, significant events such ambivalent child needs to become self-confident as divorce, marriage, reunion after a long separation, and self-sufficient to achieve security. Such changes the development of a new relationship, or the death 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 138

138 • CHAPTER 6

of a loved one may modify a person’s attachment relationship, another unique relational pattern style. For example, a fearful man may become more emerges. Partners should realize that what works in secure after reuniting with his ex-wife, and a secure one of their relationships might not necessarily work young woman may become somewhat dismissive in others and that it is difficult for two people to when she heads off to college away from those who fully meet each other’s expectations. love her. Second, a person’s attachment style may be The attitudes Gabriela and Brian have about affected by her or his partner’s style, as several stud- love and relationships are fairly common. From the ies have shown (e.g., Guerrero & Bachman, 2006; description at the beginning of this chapter, Gabriela Le Poire et al., 1999). In the case of Gabriela and appears to have an active way of loving and a dismis- Brian, their opposing needs could cause them to sive attachment style. Brian appears to have an become more dismissive and preoccupied, respec- expressive way of loving and a somewhat preoccu- tively. When Gabriela expresses a need for more pied attachment style. Of course, most people do not space, Brian might feel a lack of closeness and crave fall neatly into a love or attachment category. Take more intimacy. When Brian expresses a need for another look at Figure 6.2. Where would you fall on more affection, Gabriela might pull away and retreat the dimensions representing positive versus negative into her personal activities. models of self and others? You could fit squarely Third, people may have different attachment within a given category or you could fall in the bor- styles depending on the type of relationship (Baldwin der between categories. For instance, Gabriela might & Fehr, 1995; Cozzarelli, Hoekstra, & Bylsma, 2000; have an extremely positive model of self and only a Pierce & Lydon, 2001). For example, Gabriela might slightly negative model of others, and Brian might be have a dismissive attachment orientation toward on the border between preoccupation and security. Brian and her father but a secure attachment orienta- Moreover, the interaction between Brian and tion toward her mother and her friends. The movie Gabriela’s styles is likely to produce a unique set of Good Will Hunting provides a good example of how behaviors. Styles of love and attachment reflect some attachment orientations sometimes vary on the basis important differences in how people approach and of relationship type. Will exhibits classic fearful communicate in close relationships, but it is crucial behavior with romantic partners—he avoids commit- to see ourselves and others as complex individuals ment because he is afraid of being hurt and aban- who do not always fit a particular profile. doned as he was as a child in the foster care system. People with different relational needs and com- However, within his close-knit group of male friends, munication styles, like Brian and Gabriela, can often Will displays a secure attachment style. Finally, some work together to build happy relationships. One key researchers have suggested that stability (or instabil- to a successful relationship is for relational partners ity) of attachment style is a personality characteristic, to help each other grow as individuals. For example, with some people more susceptible to change than preoccupied individuals like Brian may need to others. So Gabriela’s attachment style is more likely make an effort to give their partners more space, to change based on life events (such as what’s hap- while dismissive individuals like Gabriela may need pening at work) than Brian’s. to work on showing more affection. At the same time, individuals in relationships with people who have insecure attachment styles should be patient SUMMARY AND APPLICATION and understanding rather than demanding more or less intimacy than their partners are comfortable People approach loving relationships in a variety of giving. Relational partners should also understand ways. Every person has a unique set of perceptions, and appreciate each other’s ways of loving. For expectations, and preferences that contribute to her example, Brian may feel more secure if he realizes or his styles of loving and attachment. When two that Gabriela is showing that she cares for him when people’s styles interact within the context of a close she plans activities for them to do together. 06-Gurrero-45243.qxd 2/17/2007 6:48 PM Page 139

Making a Love Connection • 139

In the scenario at the beginning of this chapter, DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Brian also wonders if Gabriela really loves him. This is a difficult question to answer. Liking and loving 1. How would you distinguish love from differ in both quantitative and qualitative ways. Love liking? Do you think the difference between loving is typically characterized by more attachment, car- and liking is more quantitative or qualitative? ing, intimacy, and commitment than liking, and love between romantic partners is also usually character- 2. Do you think people’s love styles change ized by feelings of passion. Yet it is hard to quantify throughout their lives? If so, what factors do you love, and there is no simple answer to the seemingly think account for this change? How might culture straightforward question, What is love? Love is a affect people’s love styles? complex, variable phenomenon that defies simple definition. Indeed, instead of simply asking what 3. According to attachment theory, parent-child love is, it may be more appropriate to ask, What interaction forms the basis for personality develop- is love to me and to my partner, and how does love ment, including the capacity to have close, intimate function in the unique relationship we share? adult relationships with others. To what extent do Thinking about these issues may be especially help- you agree or disagree that early interaction with par- ful to relational partners, such as Gabriela and Brian, ents shapes a person’s life? What other events and who have different styles of loving and attachment. interactions have shaped your attachment style?