You are on page 1of 9

c  

  

Neil. Powell `    .   1 Relational Dimensions and Love Styles Among College Students & Their Perceptions of a Parent͛s Love Style By: N. & H.

    ^Rough Draft) .

c     .

others may have a different approach to the matter. deal with love.͟ and if ͞students perception of one of their parent͛s love styles will differ from the student͛s own love style. ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person. love has an established meaning. tender ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person. tender. recognition of attractive qualities. The ways in which we describe or define love. such as that arising from kinship. I felt there had to be some explanation for why I behaved in these ways. In the article ͞Relational Dimensions and Love Styles Among College Students and Their Perceptions of a Parent͛s Love Style. I͛d never thought my actions would fit into an area that we had categorized as selfish. present and perceived future behaviors involving love and felt very embarrassed and confused.͟ Neil and Powell ^0 ) were trying to predict whether or not an ͞individuals relational dimensions will be associated with their love style. According to this dictionary definition. Although these feelings may hold true in many loving relationships. A static definition of such an ambiguous term would indicate that everyone͛s perception would fall under the same set of guidelines. inconsiderate. 0 1 ). feel about love. love is something that everyone feels differently about. February . I thought back to the week in which we discussed love styles.   0 Section 1: Reflexivity ͞A deep. a deep. In class I had reflected on my own past.͟ . and took love and relationships ͞as a game. or our acceptance of love ranges from person to person. However.͟ When I began contemplating the topic I wanted to do for this paper. and avoidant ^In Class. or a sense of underlying oneness ͞^Love).

c     .

This ridiculous pattern that I had developed continued through high school with several failed relationships. I am in a relationship that should be taken very seriously. I knew I loved him. and involved with other people again. so maybe my desired dimensions will relate to the love style I seem to have adopted. I love him. to try to better understand my relationship woes. yet I refuse to commit. that I casually dated for 8 months with constant pressure from him to be exclusive. after being completely single for about  years. My parents have been married multiple times. I chose to look at this particular article. Although neither of my parents play games. are divorced from each other now. Even though I would be in relationships that would last for months or even years. Neil and Powell ^0 ) looked at the connection between relational dimensions and love styles. I didn͛t view them as something that should.    My past relationships have always failed because I never took it as seriously as my partner. . However. They also looked at whether or not a student͛s perceptions of their parents love style would differ from their own style. the chase is over. he loves me. I also lost several potential relationships because I would make him wait for so long without ever giving any commitment. One instance was with a guy. After 14 months and many failed attempts. John. my game-playing attitude has come into effect once again. I avoid commitment. but I had too many other things going on and potential alternatives in the dating pool. or would ever be. John finally gave up on me. I have always had a strong feeling that I behave the way I do because of my parent͛s relationship past. and refuse to get serious with someone in fear of getting hurt. serious. and that he would be an amazing boyfriend. Now.

c     .

and their perceptions about the styles of communication that dominate the relationship ^Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick͛s ^1997) typology indicated eight relational dimensions. 1997. their relational dimensions and their perception of their parent͛s love styles. Ideology of Uncertaitny and Change indicates the level of ͞freedom of openness and individuality͟. the Sharing subscale endorses ͞open communication where the partners care about each other and express those feelings͟. To better understand these relational descriptions. 1). p. In Neil and Powell͛s ^0 ) study. 0 . and a potential lifelong partner.   4 or necessarily behave the way I do even with their failed relationships. 1977. For some. Neil and Powell ^0 ) hoped to ascertain an understanding of individual͛s love relationships through college students love styles. they felt it necessary to examine the association between love and the dimensions of a marital relationship. it is also time to find romance. 0 . p. 1). the Autonomy factor concerns space and private time. Section 0: Summary of Empirical Research Article Rationale Many college students are looking for much more than just an education and a good time while away at school. Ideology of Traditionalism measures the levels of conservativeness. By doing so. Undifferentiated Space regards the . 1998. as cited in Neil & Powell. as cited in Neil and Powell. Individuals in relationships have many different descriptions of how their relationships are. I would like to know if there is some type of correlation between my behaviors and theirs. Fitzpatrick ^1997) developed a typology to evaluate the central theoretical issue of these interrelationships ^Fitzpatrick.

c     .

jealous and emotional. 0 . p. 1988.   † ͞joint accessibility of physical space of home and property to be open to each other and others͟. friendship love that is stable and dependable͟. and the factor of Assertiveness looks at how one spouse is able to influence the other and the willingness to display conflict in public ^Fitzpatrick. Ludus refers to a game-playing style that sees relationships as fun and playful with lovers who have no problem dating more than one person at the same time and avoid talks about feelings and future. There are 6 love styles that are assessed in the Love Attitude Scale. p. 1988. Storge is a ͞companionate. which assess͛ the strengths of each style ^Hendrick & Hendrick. Conflict Avoidance tap into the ͞importance of sharing good feelings͟ and avoiding differing opinions and arguments. 0). passionate love where physical attractiveness is the primary magnetism draw to another͟. as cited in Neil & Powell. 0 . Eros is ͞romantic. 1988. p. 1-0). Mania is the possessive style that͛s obsessive.0). Lee ^197) developed a theory of love that has since been refined to create the Love Attitude Scale. Temporal Regularity measures the use of time and scheduling of events. Neil and Powell ^0 ) then looked at the idea that individuals are attracted to persons similar to themselves in terms of their love styles. 0 . and Agape is a selfless love. as cited in Neil & Powell. The love style of an individual is an attitudinal construct that describes how one perceives love ^Hendrick & Hendrick. Pragma is practical love where individuals search ͞for a particular partner who meets the qualities that are important and needful to the individual͟. individuals put their needs aside and . as cited in Neil & Powell.

c     .

. they may never be enacted without motivation ^Bandura. production. p. retention. ). 0 . Those that occur within family systems may either inhibit or disinhibit similar love styles to occur in the college students own relationships. and even though behaviors are learned. ). 0 0. as cited in Neil & Powell. 0 . Neil and Powell ^0 ) came up with the idea that a preference for love styles may be learned from observations of similar styles among family. p. Another possible explanation for why love styles are developed was suggested by Bryant and Conger ^0 0). p. as cited in Neil & Powell. the social learning theory consists of four parts: attention. Furthermore. and motivation. 1986. 1997. One possible perspective to explain how styles are adopted is the social learning theory. 4). An individual must pay attention in order to learn. persons must be able to ͞organize behavioral responses into response patterns that could be used given a particular situation͟. based on the behavior of others͟ through learning ^Bandura. one must remember the modeled behavior and consequences. p. Neil and Powell ^0 ) reviewed a study done by Bryant and Conger ^0 0) about how these styles are developed and what influences their development. In accommodation with the love styles. 1977. They argued that ͞characteristics within the family of origin likely impact children͛s skills and success in their early romantic relationships͟ ^Bryant & Conger. This theory explains ͞how individuals can acquire information and create behavioral rules that can guide their own future behavior.   6 others first with high concern for the partners well-being ^Hahn & Blass. as cited in Neil & Powell. †). 0 . as cited in Neil & Powell. 0 . To do such learning. 1986.

c     .

0 . 8). 8). pragma. †). No previous research had been done to make a connection of these variables. ludos. and what influences these love styles. ). p. Section : Summary of Empirical Research Article Results Section To test the association of each love style with the relational dimensions. p. a multiple linear regression analysis was done. storge and the mania love styles were not significantly different from their perception of their parents love style ^Neil & Powell.   7 To receive some answers to the questions of relational dimensions. First. a paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate whether the student͛s love style was different from the perception of one of their parent͛s love styles. with all eight becoming a single block. Neil and Powell ^0 ) came up with two hypotheses. 0 . However. . they predicted ͞an individual͛s relational dimensions will be associated with their love style͟ ^Neil & Powell. The love styles became the dependent variables. or what influences them. 0 . Their second hypotheses predicted that ͞student͛s perception of one of their parent͛s love styles will differ from the student͛s own love style͟ ^Neil and Powell. but analyzed individually in six separate regressions. p. p. Next. With so many possible reasons for why love styles develop the way they do. agape). The relational dimensions acted as the independent variables. Neil and Powell ^0 ) found that there is significant differences in the students love style and their perception of their parent͛s love style on four of the six love styles ^Eros. hypothesis two examines how much family really does matter. Results indicated significant predictive associations by relations were found in all six love styles ^Neil & Powell. 0 . love styles.

c     .

and autonomy indicated what I felt most important in relationships. I am confident with this idea and applying it to my style. This study reveals that my love style should be different from my perspective of my parents. I also reject many of them. The results of hypothesis one also gave me some insight to my relational situations. Both the positive and negative correlations make sense when applying it to my past behaviors. and temporal regularity were negatively correlated with my love style. I always felt that my actions and approaches to relationships were somehow related to my parents. makes my relationships more passionate. I would further this study by seeing if parents relational behaviors have affects on their children͛s relationship standards and behaviors. Although I will model some behaviors because of the social learning theory. do children of divorced parents have a higher fear of commitment? I would also like to know how the majority of college students see themselves in terms of love styles. romantic. as well as how I am currently treating my relationship. sharing. there are still some relational areas I wander about. I found some answers to the questions I had before I read the results.   8 Section 4: Evaluation and Conclusions After going through Neil and Powell͛s ^0 ) study on relational dimensions and love styles. playful and fun than my parent͛s styles that are more pragma and eros. Idealogy of Uncertainty and Change. My slightly ludos love style. . Each of these could be done by using the same information gained already. while traditionalism. Although Neil and Powell͛s ^0 ) study may have answered a couple questions and made me more aware of why I do the things I do. For instance.

c     .

   9 .