Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1970, Vol. 16, No.

2, 265-273

ZICK RUBIN' J>i:/iarl.iui'iU uf Social Relations, Harvard Vni-versily This study reports Ihc initial results of an attempt to introduce and validate a social-psychological construct oi" romantic love. Starting with the assumption that love is an interpersonal attitude, an internally consistent papcr-and-pencil love scale was developed. The conception of romantic love included three components: affiliative and dependent need, a predisposition to help, and an orientation of exclusiveness and absorption. Love-scale scores were only moderately correlated with scores on a parallel scale of "liking," which reflected a more traditional conception of interpersonal attraction. The validity of the love scale was assessed in a questionnaire study and a laboratory experiment. On the basis of the emerging conception of love, it was predicted that college dating couples who loved each other a great deal (as categorized by their love-scale scores) would spend more time gazing into one another's eyes than would couples who loved each other to a lesser degree. The prediction was confirmed.

Love is generally regarded to be the deepest and most meaningful of sentiments. It has occupied a preeminent position in the art and literature of every age, and it is presumably experienced, at least occasionally, by the vast majority of people. In Western culture, moreover, the association between love and marriage gives it a unique status as a link between the individual and the structure of society. In view of these considerations, it is surprising to discover that social psychologists have devoted virtually no attention to love. Although interpersonal attraction has been a major focus of social-psychological theory and research, workers in this area have not attempted to conceptualize love as an independent entity. For Heider (1958), for example, "loving" is merely intense liking— there is no discussion of possible qualitative
1 This report is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Michigan. The research was supported by a prccloctoral fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health and by a grant-in-aid from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. The author is grateful to Theodore M. Ncwcomb, chairman of the dissertation committee, for his invaluable guidance and support. Mitchell Baris, Cheryl Eisenman, Linda Muller, Judy Newman, Marlyn Rame, Stuart Katz, Edward Krupat, and Phillip Shaver served as observers in the experiment, and Mr. Shaver also helped design and assemble the equipment. 2 Requests for reprints should be sent to the author, Department of Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.

differences between the two. Newcomb (1960) does not include love on his list of the "varieties of interpersonal attraction." Even in experiments directed specifically at "romantic" attraction (e.g., Walster, 1965), the dependent measure is simply a verbal report of "liking." The present research was predicated on the assumption that love may be independently conceptualized and measured. In keeping with a strategy of construct validation (cf. Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), the attempts to define love, to measure it, and to assess its relationships to other variables are all seen as parts of a single endeavor. An initial assumption in this enterprise is that love is an attitude held by a person toward a particular other person, involving predispositions to think, feel, and behave in certain ways toward that other person. This assumption places love in the mainstream of social-psychological approaches to interpersonal attraction, alongside such other varieties of attraction as liking, admiration, and respect (cf. Newcomb, 1960). The view of love as a multifaceted attitude implies a broader perspective than that held by those theorists who view love as an "emotion," a "need," or a set of behaviors. On the other hand, its linkage to a particular target implies a more restricted view than that held by those who regard love as an aspect of the individual's personality or experience which transcends particular persons and situations (e.g., Fromm, 1956). As Orlinsky (1970) has


Fromm. and the relative unimportance of universalistic norms in the relationship. Third. The goal was to develop internally consistent scales of love and of liking which would be conceptually distinct from one another and which would. however. it was constructed in conjunction with a parallel scale of liking. They included references to the desire to affiliate with the target in various settings. The items loading highest on this general factor. The items forming the love and liking scales are listed in Table 1. Freud. In each case. love of God). Ch. Second. The scales of love and of liking which were employed in the subsequent phases of the research were arrived at through factor analyses of these responses.266 ZICK RUBIN items were suggested by the existing theoretical and empirical literature on interpersonal attraction (or liking. feelings of exclusiveness and absorption.g. Two separate factor analyses were performed—one for responses with reference to boyfriends and girlfriends (or "lovers") and one for responses with reference to platonic friends. These items referred to physical attraction. which may be denned simply as love between unmarried opposite-sex peers. 1956. The research had three major phases. The other half of the . a predisposition to help. were almost exclusively those which had previously been categorized as love items. the love scale was employed in a questionnaire study of student dating couples.. 2. the salience of norms of responsibility and equity. of the sort which could possibly lead to marriage. DEVELOPING A LOVE SCALE The development of a love scale was guided by several considerations: 1. 1960) of the love scale. Lindzey & Byrne. a revised set of 70 items was administered to 198 introductory psychology students during their regular class sessions. The focus of the present research. feelings of respect and trust. 2). de Rougemont. 1959. cf. Half of these items were suggested by a wide range of speculations about the nature of love (e. The items forming the liking scale were based on those which loaded highly on the second factor with respect to platonic friends. In order to establish the discriminant validity (cf. These high-loading items defined the more circumscribed conception of love adopted. two successive panels of student and faculty judges sorted the items into love and liking categories. the predictive validity of the love scale was assessed in a laboratory experiment. if they are tapping a single underlying attitude. must be highly intercorrelated. there may well be important common elements among different varieties of "love" (e. Goode. the content of the love scale points to three major components of romantic love: suggested. Campbell. Slater. filial love. the desire to share emotions and experiences. The first step in this procedure was the assembling of a large pool of questionnaire items referring to a respondent's attitude toward a particular other person (the "target person"). particularly for lovers. evaluation of the target on several dimensions. 1963). 1955. felt affiliative and dependent needs.. Although it was constructed in such a way as to be factorially unitary. be only moderately intercorrelated. 3. relying simply on their personal understanding of the connotations of the two labels. 1940.g. Details of the scale development procedure arc reported in Rubin (1969. idealization. First. its items must be grounded in existing theoretical and popular conceptions of love. marital love. To provide some degree of consensual validation for this initial categorization of items. in practice. 1968). and also with reference to a nonromantically viewed "platonic friend" of the opposite sex. there was a general factor accounting for a large proportion of the total variance. Following this screening procedure. Each respondent completed the items with reference to his girlfriend or boyfriend (if he had one). a paper-and-pencil love scale was developed. the holding of ambivalent feelings. and the perception that the target is similar to oneself. Inasmuch as the content of the scale would constitute the initial conceptual definition of romantic love. Responses to these items. was restricted to romantic love.

83 7.422 .S'fl r Love Like 1.67 1. 6.04 6.299 .724 .057 .90 2.48 7.318 .72 2.77 6.274 . 3.307 .546 .185 .71 6.61 7.12 7.77 5.218 . 5.552 .27 SD yll Love Like X SD r' Love 3 Like 1.l responsible for 's well-heinc.559 .562 .633 .65 2. STANDARD DEVIATIONS.67 5.05 1.548 .64 . I find it easy to ignore .137 .438 .270 . » Correlatjon between Item and love scale total minus that Hem.271 . T would greatly enjoy being rounded in by It would be hard for me to get along without 7.47 2.609 .33 2. 8. 0 10 It 12.346 . 2.167 . 10.69 1.184 .98 1.555 .99 5. Scores on individual items can rantfe from 1 Lo 0. I feel that 1 can confide in . with 9 always indicating the positive end of the continuum.71 .33 4. When I am with .422 .30 6. I think that is one of those people who quickly wins respect.155 . If 2.36 2. is an exceptionally mature person.438 .59 6.55 2.182 .94 6.51 6.432 . 4. 9.54 .381 . "It would be hard for me to get along without " 2.381 . were feeling badly.87 6.588 .699 . I would feel miserable.53 1.59 2.163 .176 .292 . AND CORRELATIONS WITH TOTAL SCALE SCOKES or LOVE-SCALE AND LlKING-SCALE ITEMS Women 267 Men Love-scale items x1. my first duly would be to cheer him (her) up.345 .408 .204 . I would do almost anything for I feel very possessive toward If 1 could never be with .340 . One of my primary concerns is "s welfare.MEASUREMENT OF ROMANTIC LOVE TABLE 1 MEANS.52 7.03 2.00 1.393 . 12.481 .26 1.72 1.56 7.24 2.83 2.193 .80 5. Most people would react very favorably lo after a brief acquaintance.237 .04 7.630 .19 1.287 .425 .35 6. 11.62 2.79 1.98 2.32 5.610 . X T would vnffi for in a rlnss or group election.190 .11 8.254 7. my first thought would he to seek oul. "If I could never be with .276 .370 .402 .56 2.235 .415 . 7.—Based on responses of 158 couples.77 1.35 6.54 1.428 .199 .29 7.606 .28 7.410 . is the sort of person whom I mvsclf would like to be.582 .00 1.498 .253 .50 1.67 1. f have great confidence in 's good judgment.87 .42 1.669 .26 6.248 .77 1. T ffip.88 2.75 7. I would feel miserable".68 7.25 2.58 7. .18 1.'s faults.8H 6. is one of the most likable people T know. Affiliative and dependent need—for example.16 .676 . I feel that is an extremely intelligent person. T wnnlri forgive for practically anything.202 . 7.341 -. When I am with .13 1. 1.42 8.370 .73 2.93 1.372 . 13. my first duty would be to cheer him (her) up".514 .00 2.36 1.94 7.281 .683 . ^ Correlation between item and liking scale total minus thai Hem.551 .SO r Love !•<• Like X .03 2.093 . 3.294 . 5.40 6.73 1.366 .452 .15 6.00 1.491 .72 7.292 . about virtually everything.328 . Predisposition to help—for example.377 . "If .663 M en .14 2.36 7.304 .417 .07 1.178 . I would highly recommend for a responsible job. were feeling badly.80 1. I think that and I are quite similar to each other.297 . 13.524 . 5.43 1. 6.24 6.08 6.538 .436 . I spend a good deal of time just looking at him (her).310 . If I were lonely.342 .407 .513 .417 .36 1.28 6. 4.26 1.35 5.464 Wo iieii Liking-scale items X 1 .005 .519 Note.71 7.54 6.335 .90 7.290 .14 2.383 .530 . I think that is unusually well-adjusted. In my opinion.37 7.47 6. It seems to me that it is very easy for to gain admiration.528 5.339 .63 2. "I would do almost anything for " . wo are almost always in the same mood.394 .50 6.90 6.

07 Note.95. The affiliative and dependent need component evokes both Freud's (19SS) view of love as sublimated sexuality and Harlow's (1958) equation of love with attachment behavior.86 for men) 3 and. 1963). agree completely" (scored as 9).84 16. good judgment. includes components of favorable evaluation and respect for the target person. QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY The 13-item love and liking scales. Bantu & Hetherington. The modal couple consisted of a junior man and a sophomore or junior woman who had been dating for about 1 year. Absorption in a single other person is the aspect of love which is pointed to most directly by Slater's (1963) analysis of the social-structural implications of dyadic intimacy." The emerging conception of romantic love. however.08 18. It provides at least suggestive support for the notion that women discriminate more sharply between the two sentiments than men do (cf. The conception of liking. as desired. 1968). together with the correlations between individual items and total scale scores. responsibility. has an eclectic flavor. The love scale had high internal consistency (coefficient alpha was . recruited by means of posters and newspaper ads. and leadership potential. To the extent that these items accurately represent the construct of liking.47 15. "I feel that I can confide in about virtually everything.65 55. p < .16 13. respect.10 15. 3. disagree completely" (scored as 1) to "Definitely true. however (t ~ 2. Each partner completed the quesTABLK 2 LOVK AND [ . as denned by the content of the scale. however. The predisposition to help is congruent with Fromm's (19S6) analysis of the components of love.48. Inspection of the item means in Table 1 indicates that this sex difference may be attributed to the higher ratings given by women to their boyfriends on such "task-related" dimensions as intelligence.39 for women and . These inappropriate patterns suggest specific revisions for future versions of the scales. On the whole.83 for men.--Based on responses of 158 couples.81 for women and . dj — 157. Exclusiveiiess and absorption—for example.60 for men). and total scale scores were computed by summing scores on individual items. completed first with respect to one's dating partner and later with respect to a close. the pattern of correlations was appropriate. men may indeed tend to be more "likable" (but not more "lovable") than women.268 ZICK RUBIN tionnaire individually and was paid $J for taking part. were included in a questionnaire administered in October 1968 (o 158 dating (but nonengaged) couples at the University of Michigan. Table 2 reveals that the love scores of men (for their girlfriends) and women (for their boyfriends) were almost identical. the questionnaire contained several personality scales and requests for background information about the dating relationship. p < . Each item on the love and liking scales was responded to on a continuum ranging from "Not at all true.47 89. that there was no such sex 3 Coefficient alpha of the liking scale was . Table 2 also reveals. I K I N G L'OR DATING I ' A R T N K K S AND SAME-SKX KRTKNDK Women X SD Men X SD Love for partner Liking for partner Love for friend Liking for friend 89. same-sex friend. such as a love item correlating more highly with the total liking score than with the total love score (minus that item).40 17. Lindzey & Byrne.27 80. Table 1 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for the items. which he identifies as care. Women liked their boyfriends somewhat more than they were liked in return. It is in reasonably close accord with measures of "attraction" employed in previous research (cf.46 88.02) was unexpected. with their component items interspersed. "1 feel very possessive toward ". In several cases an inappropriate pattern of correlations was obtained.81 16. The finding that love and liking were more highly correlated among men than among women (z= 2. was only moderately correlated with the liking scale (r = .54 13.37 84.01). as well as the perception that the target is similar to oneself. In addition to the love and liking scales. as defined by the liking-scale items.48 65. . and knowledge.07 79.84 for women and .

33. it remained to be determined whether love-scale . "What is your best estimate of Unlikelihood that yon and _ will marry one another?" Scale ranges from 0 (0%-10% probability) to 0 ('H%-10()% probability).35 -. 3. Thus. and only slightly related among women. The corresponding intracouple correlation with respect to liking was somewhat lower (r = .01 for both women and men). love for one's dating partner was only slightly correlated with love for one's same-sex friend (r = .52 . are in love?".iVI K A S U K K M K N T OK ROM A N T I C 209 rlifference with respect to the respondents' liking for their same-sex friends.68).18 for women. the means presented in Table 2 show that whereas both women and men liked their dating partners only slightly more than they liked their same-sex friends. the respondents' perceptions of their closeness to marriage were significantly correlated with length of dating among both men and women. The mean liking-for-friend scores for the two sexes were virtually identical. It is more socially acceptable for female than for male friends to speak of themselves as "loving" one another. the data do not support the conclusion that men are generally more likable than women. 4.38 Note. The construct validity of the love scale was further attested to by the findings that TABLE 3 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG INDEXES OF ATTRACTION Index Women 1. "dating length" was arbitrarily equated with tile woman's estimates. "Yes" = 2). but only that they are liked more in the context of the dating relationship. the length of time that the couple had been dating was unrelated to love scores among men.03 .S.59 .967. Dating length" .01).-— Hased on responses of 158 couples. dj . 2. 5.21 is significant at the .S . p < . Liking scores were only moderately correlated with these indexes.314.1ft is significant al the . a correlation of . Finally. With respect to the partners' estimates of the probability of marriage. the love scores of the two partners tended to be moderately symmetrical. •l Responses to question. and r = .28 . the intracouple correlation was considerably higher (r = .65 .62 . progress toward marriage typically occurs only over a longer period of time. they loved their dating partners much more than their friends. and it has been reported that women tend to confide in same-sex friends more than men do (Jourard & Lasakow. Finally. With an A of l.28). rather than more general interpersonal orientations or response tendencies. This result is in accord with cultural stereotypes concerning male and female friendships.59 .04 . "Would yon say that you and . Table 2 also indicates that women tended to love their same-sex friends more than men did (t = 5. These findings are consistent with the assumption that the love scale was tapping an attitude toward a specific other person. Marriage probability15 5. on the other hand.01 .39 . These results are in keeping with the common observations that although love may develop rather quickly. Although love scores were highly related to perceived marriage probability. 1 5 for men) and was uncorrelated with scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (r = .27 Love for partner Liking for partner "In love"" 4.22 r . The correlation across couples between the woman's and the man's love was .0. "Uncertain" ~ h 1. 19S8). love scores were highly correlated both with respondents' reports of whether or not they were "in love" and with their estimates of the likelihood that they would marry their current dating partners. As Table 3 indicates. these variables may be distinguished from one another on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Further insight into the conceptual distinction between love and liking may be derived from the correlational results presented in Table 3. Love for partner Liking for partner "In love"" Marriage probability' 1 Dating length" . scored on a 3-pointscale ("No" -. 0 The correlation across couples between the two partners' reports of the length of time they had been dating (in months) was .32 . As expected.42.16 . Responses to Question.35 . In this table. LABORATORY EXPERIMENT: LOVK AND GAZING Although the questionnaire results provided evidence for the construct validity of the emerging conception of romantic love.01 level (two-tailed values).59 .60 . Tn contrast.1)5 level and a correlation of .

scores could be used to predict behavior outside the realm of questionnaire responses. Couples in which one partner scored above and the other below the median were not included in the experiment. In addition. Those couples in which both partners scored above the median on the love scale (92 or higher) were designated strong-love couples. they were seated across a 52-inch table from one another in an observation room. which was connected to a cumulative clock. and 1 to the strong apart group. interspersed among the experimental sessions. no difference in the amount of eye contact engaged in by the strong-apart and weak-apart groups was expected. Tn contrast to the prediction for the together groups. Subjects in the apart groups were requested to appear at the experimental session individually. Each observer pressed a button. Ch. No changes in the preassignment of subjects to groups were requested or permitted. 5). whenever the subject he was watching was looking across the table at his partner's face. Each subject was paid $1. where they would be paired with other people's boyfriends or girlfriends.8. In this way. The test of the prediction involved a comparison between "strong-love" and "weaklove" couples. four experimental groups were created: strong together (19 pairs). and those in which both partners scored below the median were designated weak-love couples. explained that the experiment was part of a study of communication among dating and unacquainted couples. Pairings in the apart conditions were made on the basis of scheduling convenience. The results for this period. dating partners who loved each other a great deal would gaze into one another's eyes more than would partners who loved each other to a lesser degree. The readings on these clocks provided measures of individual gazing. Within each of the two pools. They were told that they would subsequently discuss the case. The notion that romantic love includes a component of exclusiveness and absorption led to the prediction that in an unstructured laboratory situation. The subjects were then asked to read a paragraph about "a couple contemplating marriage" (one of the "choice situations" developed by Wallach & Kogan. They were sometimes able to infer whether the pair was in the together or the apart condition. One subgroup in each pool was randomly designated as a together group. there was a tendency for strong-together couples to engage in more mutual gazing (or "eye con4 Visual behavior was also observed during a subsequent 3-minute discussion period. and that their discussion would be tape recorded. which differed from those for the prediscussion waiting period. The reading on this clock provided a measure of mutual gazing. are reported in Rubin (1969. with the additional guideline that women should not be paired with men who were younger than themselves. and weak apart (20 pairs). was 92. He then left the room. The love scores of subjects in these "apart" groups were equated with those of the subjects who were paired with their own dating partners (the "together" groups). As desired. The experimenter told the pair that it would take a few minutes for him to set up the tape recorder. METHOD Subjects Two pools of subjects were established from among the couples who completed the questionnaire. Only 5 of the couples contacted (not included in the Sessions When both members of a scheduled pair had arrived at the laboratory. Each observer's assignment alternated between watching the woman and watching the man in successive sessions. and that meanwhile they could talk about anything except the case to be discussed. their visual behavior was observed for a 3-minute period. a male graduate student.25 for his participation. none of the pairs of subjects created in the apart groups were previously acquainted. After 1 minute had elapsed (to allow the subjects to adapt themselves to the situation). as categorized by their scores on the love scale. however. The experimenter. RESULTS Table 4 reveals that as predicted. the couples were divided into two subgroups with approximately equal love scores. the other as an apart group. The mean percentage of agreement between pairs of observers in 12 reliability trials. Subjects in the together group were invited to take part in the experiment together with their boyfriends or girlfriends.270 ZICK RUBIN above cell sizes) refused to participate—2 who had been preassigned to the strong together group. weak together (19 pairs). additional groups were included in which subjects were paired with opposite-sex strangers. strong apart (21 pairs).4 Measurement The subjects' visual behavior was recorded by two observers stationed behind a one-way mirror. . 1959). one facing each subject. 2 to the weak together group. To control for the possibility that "strong" and "weak" lovers differ from one another in their more general interpersonal orientations. The observers never knew whether a pair of subjects was in a strong-love or weak-love group. a third clock was activated whenever the two observers were pressing their buttons simultaneously.

Although there was also a tendency for strong-apart couples to make more eye contact than weak-apart couples. This measure.4 39. of gazing. Slater (1963) has TABLE 6 INDIVIDUAL GAZING (IN SECONDS) Women Men SD Group H X n X 83.5 96. that neither member of a particular pair gazed very much at his partner.92).3 32. This finding suggests that the obtained difference in mutual gazing between these two groups must be attributed to differences in the simultaneousness. Another approach toward assessing the couples' visual behavior is to consider the percentage of "total gazing" time (i. Within certain limits.14. p < .72).4 94.8 14. the mutual-gazing measure was uol obtained foi one couple in tile weak-together group. but that when they did gaze. differs from mutual gazing in that it specifically takes into account the individual gazing tendencies of the two partners.1 TABLE 5 MUTUAL Focus SD 17.0 Strong together Weak together Strong apart Weak apart 19 9. p < . they did so simultaneously. With respect to the measure of individual gazing. DISCUSSION The main prediction of the experiment was confirmed. df ~ 1/150.7 35.0 14.. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the clearest difference between the strong-together and weak-together groups emerged on the percentage measure of mutual focus. It is possible.2 •14.0 64. The only significant finding was that in all groups. Mote. as categorized by their scores on the love scale. for example.7 75.6 9.7 46. Using this measure (see Table 5).7 27.---Mutual focus = 100 X -— —?— — .31.07. The difference between the strong-apart and weak-apart groups was clearly not significant (t — . p < .02. to be referred to as mutual focus.0 SI) Strong together Weak together Strong apart Weak apart 19 19 21 20 98. the difference between the strong-together and the weaktogether groups was more striking than it was in the case of mutual gazing (t = 2. Such a pair would have a low mutual gazing score.7 87. rather than in the sheer quantity.6 17.52.4 18 21 20 :t Because of an equipment failure. the individual gazing scores of subjects in the four experimental groups are presented in Table 6. woman siionmutualgaxinu -I. the more completely they suffice for each other ['s nonmuuial jja/inK + mutual gazing tact") than weak-together couples (t — 1. it was not a reliable one (t = .2 30. one-tailed).3 25. Although there was a tendency for strong-together subjects of both sexes to look at their partners more than weak-together subjects.7 77. spent more time gazing into one another's eyes than did couples who were only weakly in love.5 SD Strong together Weak together Strong apart Weak apart 19 18» 21 20 56.2 . the amount of time during which at least one of the partners was looking at the other) which was occupied by mutual gazing.38. Couples who were strongly in love. however. but a high mutual focus score. the tendency for strong-together subjects to devote more time than the weak-together subjects to looking at their partners was not substantial for either women or men.-—.MEASUREMENT OF ROMANTIC LOVE TABLE 4 MUTUAL GAZING (IN SECONDS) Group n X 27.8 23. the converse of this situation is also possible.0 . Finally.8 19 19 21 20 20. This pattern of results is in accord with the assumption that gazing is a manifestation of the exclusive and absorptive component of romantic love.1 25. the women spent much more time looking at the men than the men spent looking at the women (P = 15.7 40.e.2 33.5 Group n X 44.0 29. 140].01). Freud (1955) maintained that "The more [two people] are in love." More recently. one-tailed). these comparisons did not approach significance.~/:-n.1 39.

who are 'all wrapped up in each other. and the little we write about it has been written better by poets and novelists [p. Strodtbeck & Mann.their social obligations [p. . in fact. to be reported elsewhere. this difference virtually disappeared. 349J. It should be noted that no predictions were made concerning the comparisons between strong-together and strong-apart couples or between weak-together and weak-apart." 1955). 1963) and in an interview situation. In light of the culturally prescribed association between love and marriage (but not necessarily between liking and marriage)." One way in which (his oblivious absorption may be manifested is through eye contact. As the popular song has it. with the strong-together subjects outgazing the other three groups. it fell far short of significance. Other findings of the questionnaire study. 1956). point to the value of a measurable construct of romantic love as a link between the individual and social-structural levels of analysis of social behavior. when the percentage measure of mutual focus was employed (sec Table 6). Maslow's discussion of "Deficiency Love" and "Being Love. The results indicate. Although the present investigation was aimed at developing a unitary conception of romantic love." Harlow wrote in 1958. It was found. CONCLUSION "So far as love or affection is concerned. 1965). Gray. for example. regardless of whether or not those others are the people they are in love with." Another possible explanation for the findings is that people who are in love (or who complete attitude scales in such a way as to indicate that they are in love) are also the sort of people who are most predisposed to make eye contact with others. a promising direction for future research is the attempt to distinguish among patterns of romantic love relationships. 1969). Although there was a slight tendency for strong-aparl couples to engage in more eye contact than weak-apart couples (sec Table 5). this pattern of correlations seems appropriate. in addition. that subjects in the apart groups typically engaged in as much eye contact as those in the weak-together group. The finding that in all experimental groups.. and its reasonableness was attested to by the results of the questionnaire study." The research reported in this paper represents an attempt to improve this situation by introducing and validating a preliminary social-psychological conception of romantic love. It seemed plausible that unacquainted couples might make use of a relatively large amount of eye contact as a means of getting acquainted. Gazing may serve as a vehicle of emotional expression for women and. couples. 673 |.ZICK RUBIN linked Freud's theory ot love to the popular concept of "the oblivious lovers. A distinction was drawn between love and liking. may allow women to obtain cues from their male partners concerning the appropriateness of their behavior.' and somewhat careless of . women spent more time looking at men than vice versa may reflect the frequently reported tendency of women to specialize in the "social-emotional" aspects of interaction (e. helping. The attitudes and behaviors of romantic love may differ. One theoretical basis for such distinctions is the nature of the interpersonal rewards exchanged between partners (cf.g. and self-disclosure. that respondents' estimates of the likelihood that they would marry their partners were more highly related to their love than to their liking for their partners. but they all disappear from view— 'cause I only have eyes for you. Future studies which systematically vary the extent to which partners are acquainted would be useful in specifying the acquaintanceseeking functions of eye contact. however. Some of the behavioral variables which might be focused on in the attempt to distinguish among such patterns are in the areas of sexual behavior. The little we know about love does not transcend simple observation. regardless of the sex of the interviewer (TCxline. "psychologists have failed in their mission. The inclusion of the apart groups helped to rule out this possibility. Moreover. "Millions of people go by. depending on whether the most salient rewards exchanged are those of security or those of stimulation (cf. for example. The present result is in accord with earlier findings that women tend to make more eye contact than men in same-sex groups (Exline. & Schucttr. Wright.

CRONBACIL. Love relationships in the life cycle: A developmental interpersonal perspective. Love in the western world. WRIGHT. P. V. 3-11. J. American Psychologist. J. 56. 91-98. 1970. Handbook of social psychology. 38-47. G. T. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Psychological Bulletin. & MANN. H. I S . 546-553. 281-302. OULINSKY.). T. F. GOODE. Journal of Personality.. 70-4179.) Evanston: Row. E. '/j. Relations between needs of friends and fiancees.. HARLOW. and need for affiliation. The varieties of interpersonal attraction. MASLOW. Sex role differentiation in jury deliberations. The effect of self-esteem on romantic liking. 1960. 24. RUBHST. The social psychology oj romantic love. 28. American Sociological Review. 1963.: University Microfilms. GRAY. 295-309. 1969) .. Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. 1965. & KOCAN. W.: Addison-Wesley. H. 1969. The theoretical importance of love.. Mass. 1958. Lindxcy & E. R. 339-364. SLATER. & SCIIUETTE. 1-20. Vol. A model and a technique for studies of friendship. 52. The psychology of interpersonal relations.. KXLINE.). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct. Some factors in selfdisclosure. The nature of love. & LASAKOW. Vol. sex. In D. Explorations in the process of person perception: Visual interaction in relation to competition. & BYRNE.STER. In G. 1055. 2. Sociometry. FROMM. D. H. P.. Mich. WAI. J. L. 1940. 1963. Construct validity in psychological tests. New York: Harcourt. Ann Arbor.. CAMPBELL. (2nd cd. M. Measurement of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness. i)E ROUOEMONT. 1969. Brace. P. trait. E. 2. NKWCOMB. S. D. No. 19. Sex differences and judgment processes. 1959. D. R. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. R. P. The art oj loving. 555-564. /Ey. Aronson (Eds. D. Group dynamics. 1958. 184-197. L. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1963. 31. 13. & HETHKEINGTON. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 201-209. 19S5. & MEEIIL. JOURARD. T. D. M. On social regression. S. A. E. STKODTBECK. Deficiency motivation and growth motivation. 66. S. Unpublished manuscript. Journal of Personality. FREUD. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.) Reading. Peterson. London: Hogarth. 1968. 1965.OF ROMANTIC LOVI-: REFERENCES BANTA. 1. American Sociological Review. D. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. New York: Harper. and discriminant validity. D. Zander (Eds. HEIDER. KXLINE. American Psychologist. M.. A. (2nd ed. 1959. Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. E. 1. E. N. New York: Wiley. 1956. 1950. (Received September 30.. WALLACII. 1958. F. In. University of Chicago. 1955. 673-685. M. 401-404. The standard edition of the complete psychological works oj Sigmund Freud. 27. I960. Cartwrighl & A. IS. F.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful