The psycology of Love - Research Paper Example

? The Psychology of Love Introduction There are countless attempts to define love. In effect, the word love can refer to a diversity of feelings ranging from general pleasures, for example ‘loving a game’, to extreme personal attraction, for example ‘loving one’s own wife’. The enormous assortments of meanings as well as the intricacy of feelings involved make the sensation of love enormously difficult to define with any consistency, even when compared to other forms of emotions. As an abstract concept, love refers to overwhelming gentle, compassionate feelings for another person. Nonetheless, even this basic concept takes in an extensive spectrum ranging from passion, intimate romantic love to the platonic love or the close, emotional non-sexual familial love that one may feel for a friend (Reddy, 2011). Something about love that has been a subject of recurrent debate is its nature, although by determining what love is not, one can clarify various aspects. Frequently, love is contrasted with hate, the latter being the most extreme. All the same, when focusing on the contrast between an emotionally intimate and a sexual form of romantic attachment, the difference in consideration is between love and lust (Reddy, 2011). Various Western authorities classify love into two main categories namely the narcissistic and the altruistic. In his work, exploring the definitions of love and evil through applied psychology, Peck (1978), who , defines love as a combination of simple narcissism and ‘the will to extend one's self with the aim of nurturing another's or one's own spiritual growth’ represents this view. He adds that by combining these, love is perceived to be an activity rather than a feeling. Different theories of love, according to researchers and psychologists exist. These theories explain love, emotional attachment and liking. Triangular Theory of Love Robert J. Sternberg developed the Triangular Theory of Love. He was a Tufts University’s psychologist and according to his theory, passion, commitment and intimacy are the three elements that encompass any instance of an interpersonal association (Brittany, 2010). Passion refers to conditions of physiological and emotional arousal. It includes physical attraction and sexual arousal in addition to other types of strong emotional experiences. Passion is the most common love form and is evident in both infatuation as well as romantic love. Infatuation results when passion alone rules – it is an almost wanton physical desire. Commitment on the other hand involves a resolution to commit to love the other and endeavoring to uphold that love over time. It is based on the prospect that the relationship is permanent. Intimacy is defined as two people sharing their personal lives’ details and confidences, generally illustrated within romantic love affairs and friendships it involves emotional support closeness and caring. In all love forms, changing levels of all three of these components are supposedly evident (Reddy, 2011 and Cohen, 2011). Different types of love result from different combinations of passion, commitment and intimacy. For instance, a combination of intimacy and passion brings about passionate love whereas a combination of commitment and intimacy brings about compassionate love (Cherry, 2005). Cherry (2005) adds that according to Sternberg, in contrast to relationships based upon only one component, relationships built on two or more elements are more lasting. To describe a blend of commitment, passion, and intimacy, Sternberg (1986) uses the phrase consummate love. He suggests that this type of love is the most enduring and the strongest. However, it is not common. According to Sternberg (1986), ‘consummate love’ is an equal relationship with all the three elements. Generally, people strive after this ideal. All the other six love forms bring out one or two of the points predominating on the triangle. These can be categorized into complex or simple permutations – one element reigns sovereign above the other two in the simple category, whereas two elements crowd out the weaker third in the complex category. When intimacy without commitment or passion exists, the outcome is amity, mere ‘liking’ as opposed to ‘loving’. When only commitment that is devoid of underlying emotional or physical desire exists, for example in a marriage without love, ‘empty love’ is usually the outcome. When passion and intimacy become the dominant forces, ‘romantic love’ is what results. Although this kind of love feels emotionally and physically potent, it is as well fleeting. ‘Companionate’ love results when commitment and intimacy overshadow passion. A good example is that of an old married couple living together happily but do not feel sexual desire for each other any longer. Finally yet importantly, ‘fatuous’ love results when there is commitment and passion but devoid of intimacy. Brittany (2010) gives the example of a couple who meets once, shares a night of wild passion, and then weds without ever getting to know each other. Despite the fact that consummate love acts as an ideal, this does not mean that other love forms are of no value. For example, in itself, friendship is valuable and indeed, between two siblings rather than the consummate form of love, companionate affection is more acceptable. It is important to note that Sternberg’s triangle is dynamic – with new circumstances, it may eventually change. Even following the attainment of consummate love, reinforcing it continually by dedication and positive actions is vital – people should not take it for granted. Sternberg (1986) further explains that sexual attraction drives passion. He also explains that commitment is a deliberate effort of sustaining a relationship and that emotional intimacy involves a high trust level between two people. As the name triangular theory of love suggests, Sternberg (1986) pictures each of the three aspects as a point on a triangle. Assuming each of the three aspects pulls away from the others, constantly trying to alter the perfectly formed equal-sided triangle. The equilibrium will hold if all three points are similarly strong but the triangle will be stretched if there is a disparity in strength. He viewed love in this way. He classified seven different likelihoods based on the point(s) that predominated. An eighth possibility actually exists: if of the three elements none is present whatsoever, then there cannot be love (envisage the triangle crumpling in on itself). The eight different kinds of love, according to Sternberg, include liking, which is high on intimacy only; non-love, which is low on all three elements; empty love (commitment only); fatuous love (passion and commitment); infatuated love (passion only), romantic love (passion and intimacy); consummate love (all three together); and companionate love (commitment and intimacy) (Sternberg, 1986). Liking versus Loving Psychologist Rubin (1973) makes use of psychometrics to define love and his research states the three components of romantic love as caring, attachment and intimacy. Intimacy has to do with the sharing of feelings, desires, and thoughts with the other individual. Caring has to do with valuing the other individual's needs as well as happiness with a regard that is as high as that of oneself. Attachment on the other hand is the need to obtain care, approval along with physical contact with the other person. Rubin (1973), founded on this definition/perception, created a questionnaire based on this, which he used in evaluating attitudes about others and based on the scales of loving and liking, he discovered that his findings gave support to his conception of love. Compassionate versus Passionate Love Hatfield and Rapson (1993) point out that there are two basic kinds of love: passionate and compassionate love. They explain that passionate love is characteristic of sexual attraction, strong emotions, affection, and anxiety. Individuals feel fulfilled and elated when the other person reciprocates these intense emotions. Conversely, when they fail to reciprocate them, individuals experience feelings of despair and despondence. Passionate love, according to Hatfield and Rapson (1993), is transitory. More often than not, it lasts between 6-30 months. They add that this kind of love takes place when cultural expectations endorse falling in love, when the individual in question meets his or her defined anticipations of a perfect lover, and when one feels sharp physiological arousal when the other person is present. Compassionate love on the other hand is characteristic of trust attachment, mutual respect, and affection. In most cases, it develops out of feelings of shared respect and mutual understanding for one another. They further point out the fact that unlike passionate love, which is only temporary, this kind of love (compassionate love) is far more lasting. Hatfield and Rapson (1993) also argue that ideally, passionate love leads to compassionate love. Further, they suggest that although a great number of individuals greatly desire the combination of the intensity of passionate love with the security and stability present in compassionate love, most of them rarely achieve it (p5). It is however important to note that a long time, psychologists and theorists have had acrimonious disagreements regarding what passionate love in actual sense is and whether it is an intensely painful experience or an intensely pleasurable one. Some are of the opinion that similar reinforcement principles that generally clarify interpersonal attraction explain passionate love. They agree that very negative experiences dampen passionate love while very positive experiences stimulate it. Others like Aron & Aron (1986)who hold a different opinion hold the argument that a longing for challenge, excitement, and mystery; admiration for a social ideal; a desire to extend one’s horizons; and even hostility and anger (at times) can fuel passion. In all probability, most social psychologists would come to the agreement that pain and pleasure can equally stimulate passion, supporting the old saying that ‘the opposite of love is indifference, not hate’ (Elaine & Rapson, 2000). Elaine & Rapson (2000) further explain that there are physiological grounds as to why love might be connected to both pain and pleasure. According to them, physiologically, pain, love and delight share one thing – they are strongly arousing. In the nervous system, hate, envy, and anger as well as excitement, passion, and Joy all create a sympathetic reaction as such symptoms as dizziness, trembling hands, a flushed face, weak knees, sweaty palms, a pounding heart, accelerated breathing, among others associated with all these emotions demonstrate. Consequently, theorists mention that pain or delight (or the two combined) should have the possibility of stimulating a passionate experience. Evidence therefore implies that adrenalin makes the heart grow fonder – definitely, delight is the commonest stimulant of passionate love. Nevertheless, fear and anxiety can at times play a role. The Color Wheel Love Model In his book entitled ‘The Colors of Love’, Lee (1976) uses an analogy of the color wheel and gives a comparison of styles of love and the color wheel. He suggests that just as there are three primary colors, three primary styles of love exist. These include storge (love as amity); eros (loving an ideal person) and ludos (love as a game). He then proposes that just like the case of primary colors, which can be blended to form complementary colors, a combination of the above three primary styles of love leads to the creation of different secondary kinds of loves thus: Obsessive or mania love results from the combination of ludus and eros. Additionally, realistic and practical love/Pragma results from the combination of storge and ludus; while dutiful and selfless/Agape love results from the combination of storge and eros (Lee, 1976). Conclusion Love is a strong force that energizes and connects people. It should be taken as an activity, not a passive affect. This topic of love is a well-known, intricate and at times problematic element of close personal relationships that is evidently subject to a variety of interpretations by different psychologists, as well as other theorists and researchers. However, from this paper, it is clear that psychology portrays love as both a social and cognitive phenomenon. Indubitably, the psychology of love proves that all forms of love are considered as varying combinations of three components, namely passion, intimacy and commitment. As Sternberg (1986) notes, most relationships stress only one or two of these components. Additionally, while some components can turn out to be stronger to transform the love or relationship type others can turn out to be weaker. It is important to note that love and intimacy are somewhat uncharted topics and will be exciting and for future psychologists, there are good areas of exploration. References Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere Publishing. Brittany, (2010). Psychology of Love: Sternberg’s Triangle. Retrieved from http://helpingpsychology.com/love-theory-sternbergs-triangular Cherry, K. (2005). Theories of Love. Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/a/theoriesoflove.htm Cohen, L. J. (2011). The Psychology of Love: Can psychological research tell us anything about love? Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-psychology-answers/201102/the-psychology-love Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Love, sex, and intimacy: Their psychology, biology, and history. New York: HarperCollins. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2000). Love: The concise Corsini encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 898-901. Lee, J. A., (1976).The colors of love. United States: Prentice-Hall. Peck, S., (1978). The Road Less Traveled. New York: Simon & Schuster. Reddy, N. (2011). Psychology of Love. Retrieved from http://psychfutures.ning.com/page/psychology-of-love Rubin, Z., (1973). Liking and Loving: An Invitation to Social Psychology. United States: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A Triangular Theory of Love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135. Read More